1998-11-263911REPS72501998-11-26Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills725r652725Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.72509:31:00725Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to remove the uncertainty surrounding junior rates of pay by exempting junior rates, on a permanent basis, from the age discrimination provisions of those acts. The bill will also amend the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act to include within its scope the protection of young people's competitive position in the labour market, the promotion of youth employment and the reduction of youth unemployment, and these will also be objects to which the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must have regard in making and varying awards. In particular, the bill will require the commission to support youth employment by ensuring that, where appropriate, awards that apply to work that is or may be performed by young people include junior rates of pay.Members of this parliament—particularly the Labor Party—who are concerned about the welfare of the young employed and of the young unemployed should match that concern with bipartisan support for this bill. Junior rates have been a feature of the wages system in Australia since early this century. Age based junior rates of pay are set as a percentage of the adult rate and usually increase annually until adult rates are payable. Over half of employees aged under 21 are covered by junior rates, with almost a third of these in retail trade, the single most important industry as far as youth employment is concerned.Under current arrangements junior rates will not be able to continue after 22 June 2000. At present, junior rates are exempted from the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act designed to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in awards and agreements. The exemption expires on 22 June 2000—although, under the present legislation, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission can extend the exemption on a case-by-case basis in accordance with full bench principles. This means that, after 22 June 2000, if a suitable replacement for junior rates has not been found, young employees who are currently paid at junior rates will have to be paid at adult rates unless each and every award and agreement that contains junior rates is given a special exemption. One does not have to be an economist to reach the conclusion that such a move would price young people out of jobs.Members should note that the current situation is an improvement on arrangements that prevailed prior to the coalition being elected in March 1996. Under the former Keating-Beazley Labor government, junior rates of pay would have ceased to be lawful on 22 June 1997, under legislation introduced by the Labor Party in 1993 and 1994. Without the coalition government's deferral of this law, thousands of young people would already have lost their jobs to Labor Party ideology.This government's preferred position has always been that junior rates should be allowed to continue indefinitely—a position reflected in the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 as originally introduced into this parliament. However, following discussions with the Australian Democrats when the bill was before the Senate, the government agreed as a temporary measure to limit the exemption to a further three years and to put in place a mechanism for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to review the feasibility of abolishing junior rates of pay. This reflected a compromise position only agreed to by the government as a way of avoiding the legislated removal of junior wages. The coalition agreed to the review on the clear understanding that our policy would continue to be for the retention of junior rates and that we would seek a mandate for this legislation at the next election. We are now seeking to implement that mandate.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is not right, as a matter of fact.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is not right, and I have discussed it with them. You were not there. It is also the government's view that in order to provide support for youth employment junior rates should be more widely available. The government's support for the retention and extension of junior rates was articulated in a ministerial discussion paper which I issued in June this year entitled `Protecting Job Opportunities for Young People'. More importantly, it was a policy specified in black and white in the coalition's pre-election workplace relations policy, More Jobs Better Pay, and publicly debated during the recent election campaign. That policy has now been endorsed by the Australian electorate. This bill gives effect to that policy.The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives, pursuant to section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act. The government has made a submission to that inquiry, together with the governments of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT. In that submission we demonstrate the critical role played by junior rates in maintaining the competitiveness of youth in the labour market and encouraging youth employment. We show that junior wages help young people by giving them a foot in the door into employment.We also demonstrate that any move to abolish junior rates would lead to an increase in youth wages and would in turn have a detrimental effect on youth employment. This would be a highly irresponsible move, particularly given the delicate labour market situation that confronts young people. Quite frankly, this parliament should be dealing with policy issues designed to put more unemployed young people in jobs—such as the coalition's unfair dismissal reforms—rather than spend its time, as we now have to, completing the reversal of Labor legislation which would have wrecked existing jobs of young people.The anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act are concerned with equality of opportunity just as much as with equality of treatment. In this context, junior wages are a special measure that operates beneficially to meet the particular needs of young people in the labour market who are generally recognised as needing special assistance. Lower wage costs relative to adults assist young people to gain employment by compensating for the disadvantage that young people experience due to their relatively lower skills, experience and maturity compared with adults.In the government's view, any theoretical objections to junior rates are greatly outweighed by the inequities that would flow from their abolition. This point was made simply but eloquently recently in a letter to the Adelaide Advertiser from Paul Madden, Executive Director, Baptist Community Service, South Australia, when he stated:It seems to me that a fundamental question must be asked: "Is it better for a young person to have a lower wage and the opportunity to develop valuable skills or to have an adult rate and no job at all?"The uncertainty surrounding the current interim arrangements does not create a stable environment for the employment of young people. Young people and employers are entitled to know that their jobs and employing rights are secure. This bill will create that certainty.The importance of this legislation was stressed in a recent media release from the Australian Retailers Association, which stated:"The failure of the Commonwealth Parliament to pass such amendments will have a massive impact on youth unemployment in Australia" said ARA Chief Executive Officer, Phil Naylor. A press release issued on 2 November 1998 stated:"Our membership survey response which included the employers of about 80% of young people in the retail industry, indicates that about 200,000 jobs would be lost in the retail industry alone."I turn now to the terms of the bill itself. The bill amends provisions in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that relate to the principal object, awards and agreements, and provisions in the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 that relate to award simplification.The bill will amend the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act. The principal object of the act is to provide a framework for cooperative workplace relations which promotes the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia in a number of ways. The bill will include protecting the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promoting youth employment and reducing youth unemployment as ways in which the workplace relations framework can contribute to economic prosperity and welfare.The bill will insert an additional object and requirements in the commission under Part VI—Dispute Prevention and Settlement—of the Workplace Relations Act. These will require that the commission's powers and functions in relation to making and varying awards be performed and exercised in a way that protects the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promotes youth employment and assists in reducing youth unemployment.The commission will also be required to ensure that, where appropriate, awards provide support for youth employment through appropriate junior rates of pay. For example, where awards apply to work that is or may be performed by young people it is appropriate that they contain junior rates. By protecting existing junior rates, and making junior rates more widely available, these provisions will contribute towards enhanced job opportunities for young people and complement the changes to the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act. They recognise the links between junior wages and youth employment and unemployment. It is an important policy objective of the coalition that Australia's workplace relations system has as much to do with addressing the interests of the unemployed as the system claims to do for the interests of the employed.An existing requirement to which the commission must have regard in performing its functions in relation to dispute prevention and settlement is the need to prevent and eliminate discrimination on a number of grounds, including age. A new provision will make it clear that junior wage provisions are not to be treated as constituting discrimination by reason of age.The bill provides a permanent exemption for junior rates from provisions designed to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in certified agreements.The bill amends items 51 and 54 of schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, which deal with award simplification. In reviewing awards under item 51, the commission will be required to ensure that, if awards apply to work that is or may be performed by young people, they support youth employment by including junior rates of pay where appropriate. The bill amends item 54 by providing a permanent exemption for junior rates from award simplification provisions designed to prevent and eliminate age discrimination in awards. The government will also proceed to make consequential amendments to the workplace relations regulations to ensure the protection of junior rates in Australian workplace agreements.This is very important legislation for the future job prospects of hundreds of thousands of young people. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills727r651727Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time. 72809:43:00728Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to make a number of amendments to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 to allow the introduction of the Farm Business Improvement Program, known as FarmBis. In the context of the 1997-98 budget, the government announced its intention to wind up the Rural Adjustment Scheme, following the findings of the McColl report. The government decided to replace the Rural Adjustment Scheme with a new program that would provide a positive framework for helping farmers improve the productivity, profitability and sustainability of their businesses by improving their management skills.This new program, the Farm Business Improvement Program, FarmBis, was announced in September 1997 as part of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. It will assist all those involved in the management of the farm business to build on their skills and improve the performance of the farm business.Assistance under FarmBis will be provided by way of direct financial contribution towards the cost of training activities. Activities supported will include, but not be limited to, skill development, farm business and financial planning and advice, farm performance benchmarking, quality assurance, risk management, marketing and natural resource management.Consultations undertaken with farmer and training organisations in the development of the program highlighted training delivery barriers unique to farm businesses. FarmBis will promote continuous learning by making training more accessible to those managing farm businesses. By making the funds available largely for farmers' participation in activities of their choosing, there will be a strong incentive for training providers—whether they are from state agencies or private industry—to meet the needs of those farmers.The focus of the program is on partnerships. State agencies, industry, local farmer and community groups will contribute to meeting the training needs of farmers. In addition, local coordinators will take primary responsibility for the further skill development of farmers in their area wanting to undertake activities under the FarmBis framework.Program funds will be allocated between a state component and a national component. The state component will provide for training priorities within a state as determined by state planning groups. The Commonwealth and the state will provide funding for the state component on a fifty-fifty basis.The national component will cover cross-border projects and national industry initiatives. The recently announced national pig industry initiative and the chicken meat benchmarking study are examples. This component will also operate through partnership arrangements between the Commonwealth and others—for instance, industry or community groups.States and territories have agreed to participate as partners in FarmBis. Agreement was reached on the program framework at the February 1998 meeting of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, or ARMCANZ. The Commonwealth has negotiated agreements with Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory for the funding, administration and operation of the state component of FarmBis in each jurisdiction. It is anticipated Tasmania and New South Wales will sign agreements late in 1998, with Queensland signing their agreement early in 1999. FarmBis will operate for three years from the 1998-99 financial year. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills728r646728Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time.72909:48:00729Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I am pleased to be reintroducing this bill, which will provide legislative support to the outcomes being achieved under the Regional Forest Agreement process. This same bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 15 July 1998, but the subsequent proroguing of parliament means that the bill must now be reintroduced for consideration by this parliament.As honourable members know, the government is working cooperatively with the states to accelerate implementation of the National Forest Policy statement—the framework for a long-term and lasting resolution of forest industry, conservation and community interests, and expectations concerning our nation's forest. The statement requires joint Commonwealth-state comprehensive regional assessments of the environmental, heritage, economic and social values of Australia's forests. These assessments, involving a high degree of input from interest groups, form the basis of negotiated regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states.Regional Forest Agreements, otherwise referred to as RFAs, provide both a blueprint for the future management of our forests and the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry. RFAs will provide for a world-class, national, comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and will clearly identify those forest resources available for multiple use, including resources available for sustainable timber harvesting.RFAs, and the comprehensive and transparent processes that lead to them, provide industry, environmental interests and the community with unprecedented certainty. However, it is clear that industry and environmental groups alike are concerned that future governments may simply walk away from such agreements. These concerns are understandable—this is exactly what previous governments have done when it suited them. Therefore, key provisions in certain RFAs already in place are expressed to be legally binding on the parties. However, not all existing RFAs are so expressed and neither are all the provisions that are contained in those agreements.The Commonwealth now proposes that all existing and future RFAs be strengthened by providing that termination by mutual consent of the parties can only occur 12 months after an intention to terminate the agreement is notified; thus allowing a full review of the operation of the RFA to be carried out. In the interests of enhancing industry confidence in RFAs, the Commonwealth also proposes that all RFAs will include positive obligations on the states to initiate compensation action on behalf of industry where a Commonwealth breach of an RFA results in a case for compensation.We are working with the Victorian and Tasmanian governments to include these provisions in existing RFAs in the near future. I would also emphasise, in the light of previous debate in this place, that this process does not amount to opening renegotiation of existing RFAs. In conjunction with these proposed changes, this bill provides RFAs with the legislative backing to ensure that all Australians have confidence in the long-term future of Australia's forest estate.This confidence will be further sustained through, firstly, the enactment of state legislation, where necessary, to authorise wood supply arrangements and to declare and protect agreed forest reserves and, secondly, the provision of ongoing wood supply agreements and contractual arrangements between individual states and companies where state owned forests are involved.In summary, the RFAs themselves remain the focus of the government's policy approach. We firmly believe that community and investor confidence in forest industries will be best secured by strong RFAs which provide for ecologically sustainable management of our forests. This bill, together with complementary state legislation and strong wood supply contractual arrangements be tween industry and state governments, will provide that confidence.As I have already stated, this bill provides a broad legislative context for all RFAs, with each RFA including provisions appropriate to the region concerned. Consequently, the bill is concise and has been drafted to ensure it can accommodate the necessary flexibility within, and between, individual RFAs.One of the bill's main objectives is to provide legislative rigour for RFA termination and compensation provisions. The bill will ensure the termination of an RFA will have no effect unless it is done in accordance with the RFA's termination provisions. It will also ensure that the Commonwealth is liable for any breach of an RFA it makes which occurs while it is in force, even if the agreement is subsequently terminated or expires.The bill's provisions will mean the Commonwealth will not be able to agree to `water down' such termination or compensation provisions in the future without legislative amendment. The bill also provides that the termination and compensation provisions in the RFA at the time of the commencement of the bill, or the provisions which apply at the commencement of the RFA itself, whichever is later, will continue to apply.I reiterate the government's view that we expect to include in all RFAs the same termination and compensation provisions contained in the Tasmanian and Central Highlands RFAs at the time the act commences, subject of course to any minor changes to reflect differing state processes.The other main objective of the bill is to remove certain Commonwealth controls and restrictions which, in the past, have been used as an indirect means to attempt to control timber harvesting. This is in stark contrast to the RFA process, which is based on comprehensive, scientific assessment of the environmental, heritage, economic and social values of forests in a region.Such comprehensive assessments, which form the basis of negotiated RFAs, conclude the Commonwealth's environment and heritage obligations in relation to forestry operations in the region. Consequently, the bill ensures that the effects of RFA forestry operations will be disregarded for the purposes of specified `trigger' sections of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and its related administrative procedures, and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.The bill will also prohibit the application of export controls imposed under the Export Control Act 1982 for processed and unprocessed wood sourced from a region where an RFA is in force. This exemption will extend to plantation sourced wood from the region, unless the relevant state code of practice is not approved under the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations.The exemption will further apply to any other Commonwealth law which prohibits or restricts exports to another country, or which has the effect of so doing, unless that law expressly refers to wood sourced from an RFA. While we understand that it is not possible to bind a future Commonwealth parliament from legislating within its constitutional responsibilities, reintroduction of this bill provides this parliament with an opportunity to express its clear intention that such controls not be placed on wood from a region where an RFA is in place.I would like to respond to a concern raised by the opposition when this bill was last before this House. The member for Perth suggested that the bill somehow asked the parliament to blindfold itself and `give to the nine RFA agreements that have not yet been signed, sight unseen, the same benefits it seeks to accord to three signed RFAs'. The bill already deals with this concern. I would emphasise that, for any agreement to gain the benefits of this bill, the comprehensive and stringent definition of a Regional Forest Agreement contained in clause 3 of the bill must be met—and met in full.Such an agreement must have had regard to assessments made of environmental, endangered species, national estate, world heritage, indigenous heritage economic and social values. It must provide for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. It must provide for the ecologically sustainable management of the region's forested areas. And the agreement must also make it clear that it is a Regional Forest Agreement for the purpose of providing long-term stability of forests and forest industries. This comprehensive definition ensures that the parliament can be satisfied about the consistent nature and quality of Regional Forest Agreements—now and into the future.This bill therefore provides solid legislative backing for the outcomes being achieved by Regional Forest Agreements and the detailed processes that lead to them. It is yet another significant step in ensuring that we all—governments, environmental and heritage interests, forest industries, and the communities and families across regional Australia that depend on them—can have confidence in the future of Australia's forests. This bill is part of a series of government initiatives in this important sector.In conjunction with the RFA process, the government has also committed over $100 million to the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program, FISAP, to assist native forest industry businesses and workers affected by the introduction of such agreements. In addition, in line with our strong commitment to industry development, the Commonwealth has allocated over $31 million to the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy to promote growth and investment in forest industries, including greater downstream processing and value enhancement, plantation development and farm forestry.Under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia, a further $36.5 million over four years has been provided to the Farm Forestry Program. In relation to plantation development, the government is a key partner in `Plantations for Australia: the 2020 Vision', along with state and territory governments and the plantation growing and processing industries. The Commonwealth has allocated $1.9 million from the Prime Minister's Greenhouse Package to meet its obligations under the Plantations 2020 Vision.These initiatives effectively refute claims that this government is not committed to industry development, downstream processing and value adding in forest industries. I can assure the House that the government will continue to encourage sustainable, regionally based and internationally competitive Australian forest products industries. In particular, we will take a whole of government approach in encouraging industry to address the current trade imbalance in forest products through ongoing import replacement and export development.This bill represents an important element in underpinning our industry development commitment. Strong, comprehensive and long-term Regional Forest Agreements mean the policy stability that is essential for investor and community confidence in the future of our forest industries. At the same time, they also ensure the protection of the unique environmental and heritage values of our forest estate. I commend the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills731r654731Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.73110:00:00731Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill delivers on the government's ongoing commitment to ensure that superannuation fund members have access to an effective dispute resolution mechanism for superannuation complaints. Superannuation is a vital component of the retirement savings plans of most Australians. A key element of our existing superannuation system is the availability of a simple and efficient dispute resolution mechanism for superannuation fund members.The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal was set up to provide superannuation fund members with access to such a dispute resolution mechanism, as a low-cost alternative to the courts. However, in February this year the Federal Court decisions of Wilkinson v. Clerical Administrative and Related Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd and Brekler v. Leshem held that the exercise by the tribunal of some of its powers is an invalid exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. As a result, the ability of the tribunal to operate as an effective dispute resolution mechanism has been significantly impaired.This has resulted in a growing backlog of complaints awaiting resolution. As members would understand, each unresolved complaint represents at least one person, if not a whole family, who is living with uncertainty and anxiety. As at 23 November, nearly 300 disputes were unresolved by the tribunal. Of this backlog of disputes, the largest proportion—over 60 per cent—are disputes in relation to total and permanent disability claims. The superannuation fund members involved in these claims are invariably people who are no longer able to work, who have few resources and whose main concern is finding enough money to live on. Typically, pursuing a claim through the court system is not an option for these people because of the expense involved.The backlog of disputes also contains a large proportion—over 25 per cent—of claims concerning the payment of death benefits to the dependants of superannuation fund members. It is essential that an effective dispute resolution mechanism is provided for these superannuation fund members and their dependants.To overcome the inoperability of the tribunal, the government is currently appealing the Federal Court decisions to the High Court. However, a final decision is not expected for at least several months. The government is also examining long-term options for addressing the complaints review gap left by the Federal Court decisions. In the meantime and as an interim measure, the government intends to implement the July 1998 recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation by allowing the tribunal to arbitrate disputes.This bill will allow the tribunal to arbitrate complaints with the consent of the parties. Where a complaint is made to the tribunal and conciliation has been unsuccessful in resolving the complaint, the tribunal will be required to notify the parties of their ability to resolve the complaint by arbitration. The parties will also be given a form of an arbitration agreement approved by the tribunal. If the parties to a complaint enter into an arbitration agreement, the tribunal will be able to arbitrate the complaint.This bill will require an arbitration to be conducted as the tribunal thinks fit and in accordance with the law relating to commercial arbitration of the state or territory as nominated in the arbitration agreement. That law will in most cases probably be the law of the jurisdiction in which the fund member resides. The tribunal will be required to prepare a memorandum explaining how it proposes to arbitrate complaints and make the memorandum available to superannuation fund members.The tribunal will be able to arbitrate complaints made before or after the commencement of this bill. This will allow the tribunal to use the option of arbitration to address the current backlog of complaints which has developed since the Federal Court decisions. The government will continue to work, in consultation with industry bodies—and taking account of the outcome of the appeal to the High Court—on developing a longer term process for ensuring that there is a low-cost alternative to the court system for superannuation fund members and their families.I want to stress that the government has responded quickly to the implications of the decisions of the full Federal Court and it has done so in a consultative manner. The full Federal Court decisions were handed down in February of this year. Subsequently, on 7 April this year the Senate referred the issue of options for dispute resolution taking account of those decisions for inquiry and report by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation. That committee's inquiry included a consultative round table with industry representatives and other interested groups to discuss possible responses to the decisions.The committee's report was tabled on 12 July 1998, recommending in part that the government investigate the feasibility of putting an interim solution in place. The government speedily responded on 16 July 1998 with the announcement by the Assistant Treasurer that the tribunal would be given arbitration powers. Draft legislation was subsequently prepared for introduction in the spring sittings. The introduction of this bill has been delayed by the intervening election.Let me conclude by recording the government's appreciation of the cooperation of all parties in agreeing to facilitate consideration and early passage of this bill. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7330733Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.73310:08:00733Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill contains a number of electoral reforms to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. These reforms arise out of the recommendations contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the conduct of the 1996 federal election, which was tabled on 16 June 1997. Many of the recommendations of the report of the electoral matters committee have been dealt with in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997, which received royal assent on 14 July 1998. The items of that bill were largely technical in nature and were not considered contentious.The amendments in the bill which I introduce today relate to the more substantive reform issues considered by the electoral matters committee, including that matter of electoral fraud. Many of you would be aware that this bill was introduced into the Senate during the 1998 winter sittings. The bill was then referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which tabled its report on the bill in the Senate on 23 June 1998. The majority committee recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. However, the bill was not debated before the parliament was dissolved for the 1998 federal election.There is increasing disquiet in sections of the community about the potential for electoral fraud and continuing scepticism regarding the integrity of the electoral roll as the current enrolment process is open to abuse. The government agrees with the electoral matters committee when it states:. . . that it is unacceptable that the most fundamental transaction between a citizen and the government—[that is] the act of choosing the government at a democratic election—is subject to a far lower level of security than such lesser transactions as opening a bank account, applying for a passport, applying for a driver's licence or registering for social security benefits, to name but a few.Under the act in its present form, it is remarkably easy to place on the roll a dead person's name, a false name, a non-citizen, or a person who is not yet 18. In addition, the enrolment could have a fake or false address.Maintaining the confidence of all Australians in the integrity of our electoral system is essential. Accordingly, this bill introduces some of the recommendations of the electoral matters committee report with respect to addressing the potential for electoral fraud. The amendments relating to enrolment issues will provide for an upgraded witnessing requirement, whereby the witness must be an elector and be in a prescribed class of persons. Regulations will be made to provide for an extensive list of categories of people who will be able to witness a claim for enrolment. It will specify provisions for those electors who are unable to find a witness in the prescribed list.A person who is enrolling for the first time must have his or her identity verified before he or she is enrolled. A person who claims in an enrolment application to be an Australian citizen because of a grant of Australian citizenship under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 must have his or her citizenship verified before he or she may be enrolled. The methods of verification are to be prescribed by regulation. An elector must notify a change of address within one month of taking up residence at his or her new address.The regulations specifying the method of verification of identity for first-time enrollees will require the applicant to produce, at the time of application, at least one original form of proof of identity documentation. The form of documentation will depend on the circumstances of the applicant but may include an Australian birth certificate, passport or photographic driver's licence. It is possible that some applicants will not be in a position to produce an original form of identity document. In such cases, the regulations will provide for, say, a written reference to be produced.Original documentation will be able to be posted to a divisional returning officer, DRO, or to an Australian electoral officer, AEO, with the enrolment application. The documents will be checked and then returned by mail to the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant may present the original documents at an office of a DRO or AEO with the application. The documents will then be checked at that time and handed back to the applicant. To provide, however, a wider facility for lodgement of original documents and enrolment applications by hand so that many applicants need not part with original documents, especially those presenting a drivers licence, a new provision will allow prescribed persons to receive enrolment applications and, where necessary, sight and verify the lodgement of original identity documents, enabling the documents to be handed back to the applicant.The lodgement of enrolment applications with a prescribed person will only be by hand; the applications will not be able to be posted to a prescribed person. Prescribed persons will be selected on the basis of their accessibility to the public, and, subject to negotiation, may include government or semi-government organisations, such as post offices. Prescribed persons will not verify or determine entitlement to enrolment. However, they would be required to note on applications the time of their receipt and forward them to the Australian Electoral Commission, AEC, as directed. In the case of first-time enrolment applicants, the prescribed person would also be required to verify the lodgement of an original form of identity document and note on the application that the document was lodged. That person would then hand back the original to the applicant.In addition to the increased requirements with respect to the enrolment processes, the government proposes, in line with the recommendation of the electoral matters committee, to close the electoral roll on the day that the writ is issued for new electors while still allowing three working days following the issue of writs for existing electors to change their enrolment details. As the electoral matters committee reported:. . . at the election some 428,000 transactions (new and updated enrolments) were processed from the day the writs were issued. The AEC freely admits that detailed checking, before the election, of these late enrolments—particularly the new enrolments—is virtually impossible. Consequently, the seven-day period is often called into question by those concerned about the integrity of the rolls.New enrolments should cease on the day the writ is issued, while electors already on the roll should be given three days in which to notify changes of address. Suggestions that such measures would lead to less accurate rolls are unfounded—the AEC should extensively advertise the new requirements, and should move as quickly as possible to a continuous roll review based on effective data-matching and flexible habitation reviews.New provisions will also ensure that an enrolment application lodged with a prescribed person before the close of the rolls for an election will satisfy the requirement for the receipt of the application by a DRO or AEO before the close of the rolls—that is, the application can be processed and, if accepted by the AEC, the applicant can be added to the roll for the election.Regulations for verification of citizenship will take the form of the enrolment applicant being required to provide either his or her citizenship number or the date of conferral of citizenship on the application and for the AEC to verify with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that the applicant is in fact an Australian citizen. It is possible that some applicants in this category will not be able to produce either a citizenship number or date of conferral, in which case the AEC will be required to make whatever inquiries of the applicant and the department are necessary to verify citizenship.Amendments to improve the integrity of the election process include allowing only the presiding officer of a polling place to mark, fold and deposit the ballot paper of those voters who require assistance with voting. Scrutineers will also be permitted to witness the assistance being provided, and the voter may also nominate a person to witness the process. Other important amendments will:. repeal the entitlement of prisoners to be enrolled or to vote. The government agrees with the electoral matters committee that those who disregard the laws to a degree sufficient to warrant imprisonment should not expect to retain the franchise;. allow for the provision of date of birth and salutation details of electors to members, senators and registered political parties and also enable the use of the elector details by these people and organisations for electoral research purposes. The AEC will commence collecting salutation details on enrolment forms when the amendments are enacted;. increase the penalty for the unauthorised disclosure of elector data or for its commercial use to 100 penalty units—that is, $11,000;. allow for the preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes to commence on the Monday before polling day. However, no declaration envelopes will be opened before the close of polling, and any envelopes rejected at the preliminary scrutiny will not be rechecked until after the close of the poll;. require donors to political parties to provide a return to the AEC if the sum of donations to a party in a financial year by the donor is $10,000 or more. This is an increase from $1,500;. require political parties to furnish a return identifying donors to the party where the sum of the donations from the donor in a financial year is $5,000 or more. This is an increase from $1,500; and. require only those donations which are $1,500 or more to be counted in the sum of donations from a donor to a political party. This is an increase from $500.The government is concerned to ensure that all Australians have the utmost confidence in the integrity and accuracy of the electoral roll. The measures proposed in this bill will improve enrolment procedures without unduly inhibiting the opportunity for all adult Australian citizens to participate in the electoral process. I commend the bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills735r604735Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.73510:21:00735Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 to streamline the council's procedures so that it can more effectively maintain its role as a national leader in the field of medical and public health research and advice.Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill before you today seeks to facilitate processes and administration to ensure that council continues to carry out its statutory functions in an effective and efficient manner. These amendments introduce a streamlined single-stage public consultation process that council will follow when seeking to issue guidelines. This process consists of advertisements notifying of council's intention, a summary or outline of the guideline and information on where interested parties can obtain a copy of the full draft guideline.The bill makes it clear that council must take into account all submissions received for finalising and issuing a guideline. The bill also makes it possible for council to endorse and issue guidelines developed by other bodies. However, the bill ensures that council can demand of other bodies the very public consultation that it itself would have engaged in.In addition, the amendments make some minor changes to a principal committee. The Medical Research Committee will be renamed the Research Committee, which will be concerned with some of the council's committee operations. Provisions have been added which enable principal committees to appoint a deputy chairperson and extend the council's power to appoint and delegate to a working committee and delegate to the chairpersons of council.The amendments proposed in this bill will ensure that council retains its position as the leader in medical research and public health research and advice, and will assist the smooth running of council business. I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills736r603736Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Downer:That the bill be now read a second time.10:23:00736Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I will not detain the House long, as most of the salient points have been made. There have been many excellent speeches on both sides. I personally wanted to be associated with this important legislation, as it is an issue I have felt strongly about for many years and have campaigned for. Indeed, when we on this side were in government I campaigned for the banning of mines. It is entirely appropriate that there be bipartisan support and that members have refrained from attempting to point score on this issue because, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will appreciate, it is far too important a topic.All of us who are privileged to serve in this place over our political life make many speeches on and contribute to many pieces of legislation. Much of the legislation is mundane. There is some that is exciting and occasionally interesting, but for me the legislation which we are now debating is amongst that which has given me the greatest personal pleasure, that is, the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998. This will give effect to Australia's obligation as a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, which is known as the Ottawa Convention, and will provide a legislative basis for the convention's national implementation.We have lived through a particular nasty and vicious century, a century dominated by tremendous progress but also by tremendous brutality, a century that has seen wars both large and small as a major component. The most vicious aspect of all has been the growth and development of anti-personnel mines. Dreadful as war is, it usually separates the soldier from the civilian, but mines know no barrier and the main casualties have been civilians, all too often children.There are estimated to be more than 119 million active mines scattered in more than 70 countries. Countries like Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, Mozambique and Somalia are literally crippled by mine infestation of their territory. It has been estimated that more than 800 are killed by mines every day and 1,200 are maimed.I recall some years ago I visited Mozambique and had a glimpse into the human tragedy that the antipersonnel mines bring. Not only were limbless people very visible but we visited a hospital where victims of mines were being fitted with artificial limbs. In Mozambique, as in so many other countries, it is the young that are so often the victims—the innocent victims—of these evil and destructive weapons. Also agriculture, like in many other countries, was devastated, with crippling economic consequences for this very poor country, at that time emerging from years of eternal war.Mines have been a major contribution to death and injury in this last century. We hear much about epidemics and natural disasters and express concerns about their implications. Yet for far too long much of the world, especially the most powerful nations, have been silent or have spoken with very muted voices on the question of mines. Is it, I wonder, because many of the major powers, especially the European powers, profited for so long from this pernicious trade in usury, death and destruction?The international community has for many years worked for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. It has taken the non-government groups, humanitarian groups, groups such as the International Red Cross and some churches, and many dedicated individuals to create a public awareness and campaign for the elimination of antipersonnel mines. Who, for example, could ever forget the photographs of the late Princess of Wales with her visits to victims of antipersonnel mines and also to the sites in Angola? She did much to highlight the human tragedy and indeed to embarrass the governments of the world into accepting their responsibilities in regard to antipersonnel mines.Of course, this legislation coming into law will not eliminate the thousands and thousands of mines already in existence. Much must be done to clear the mines. Australia has for many years been working in the region through Community Aid Abroad and other non-governmental organisations in countries such as Mozambique. The dreadful problems of mines will be with the world for a long time. The vast majority of these mines laid throughout the world have no use-by date. This is a point that many of the other speakers have made. They will sit and wait for years and, indeed, decades until either they are painstakingly cleared or, as is more often the case, they are accidentally detonated. Long after the guns have fallen silent they remain primed and ready, indiscriminate killers which do not differentiate between soldiers and civilians or recognise peace or the cessation of hostilities.Each year, 100,000 mines are cleared while another two million are laid. In Cambodia, a country where more than 10 million mines have been laid and vast areas of the countryside rendered unsafe, the warring factions are again laying many new minefields. At the present rate of clearance the Red Cross estimates that we will take over 1,000 years to clear the entire world of mines and then only if not one single new mine is laid. This is a staggering statistic that might put some of our disagreements into perspective.Signing the Ottawa Convention is a public commitment by Australia to the complete elimination of landmines. We disagree on so many issues in this House, but sometimes we can stand for humanity's sake and we can rest about petty or political issues, for the good of all people. There can be absolutely no justification for these mines. The world should be rid of them; and it will be a better place for it. I support this legislation, as I know all members do; it is legislation long overdue.10:30:00737Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—The Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 gives effect to Australia's obligations as a signatory to the Ottawa Convention. Having observed the victims of landmines, especially the children with missing limbs—during a trip I made to Cambodia in 1996 when I served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I had responsibility for Australia's aid program—I was very moved and indeed shocked by what I saw. But at the same time I was also privileged and impressed to visit a site where some of Australia's military personnel were carrying out de-mining activities. The difficulty of the task and the danger involved was something that I will never forget.I was also intrigued to learn—much as the honourable member for Cowan pointed out yesterday in his speech—that landmines come in many different forms and that there are many manufacturers of them in different countries. Therein perhaps lies a lot of the diplomatic work ahead for countries which are signatories to the convention now to convince those nations which have corporations manufacturing mines, or elements of them, to sign up to the convention and to join the effort.That said, I very ardently support the notion of banning these terrible weapons. We are elected to this place both to debate legislation that is in the parliament from time to time and to look a bit beyond the events surrounding individual acts of parliament and so forth, and perhaps to distil from those events hints as to the future and, in doing so, to better prepare our country and our fellow citizens to survive and prosper in the future, to defend ourselves and to help others. In examining the events that surrounded the creation of the Ottawa Convention, what I found most noteworthy was the role played by the NGO movement in bringing the convention to fruition.First of all I should say that perhaps the most noteworthy aspect was that a lady called Jody Williams, the convenor of the international campaign to ban landmines, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. This was an extraordinary thing and it is really evidence of the effort that many of the NGOs involved made to bring about the convention. In delivering the Nobel lecture at the time she received the prize in 1997, she used very descriptive passages in describing what landmines really mean, and I would like to have in Hansard her description of what the problem really boils down to. She said:Landmines distinguish themselves because, once they have been sown, once the soldier walks away from the weapon, the landmine cannot tell the difference between a soldier or a civilian—a woman, a child, or a grandmother going out to collect firewood to make the family meal. The crux of the problem is that, while the use of the weapon might be militarily justifiable during the day of the battle or even the two weeks of the battle or maybe even the two months of the battle, once peace is declared the landmine does not recognise that peace. The landmine is eternally prepared to take victims. And in common parlance it is the perfect soldier, the eternal sentry. The war ends, but the landmine goes on killing.That is a very pithy description of the problem that the Ottawa Convention is designed to address. It really began with a handful of NGOs getting together in 1992, I believe, in an organised effort to ban landmines, and they issued what they called formally a `Joint Call to Ban Antipersonnel Landmines'. This group of NGOs became the steering committee of the international campaign. As time passed, in only a matter of about 12 months this group had swelled to about 1,000 organisations in 60 different countries.In observing the role of NGOs in this particular instance, you get down first to the basic question of what exactly an NGO is. A lot of people outside the political arena may not quite realise; they see it as just one of those acronyms that the newspapers or politicians bandy about. But it really boils down to what we used to describe as a pressure group—generally a non-profit organisation made up of citizens or associations of citizens, with its activities perhaps determined by the collective will of its members.In examining the rise in the power and influence of NGOs, I was much impressed, in a recent issue of the magazine Foreign Policy, to read an article by a Mr P.J. Simmons, who is a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment. He pointed out that NGOs are not new. In modern history, you can go back to the antislavery societies of the early 1800s—who did so much to campaign against the practice of slavery—and to one rather quaintly titled NGO, the `Anglo-Oriental Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade'. This NGO campaigned in the early years of this century and achieved its purpose in the 1912 Hague Opium Convention. This kind of activity is not new.But, as Simmons points out, the power and influence of the NGOs is growing as fast as information technology is growing. Whereas in the old days many NGOs took to more physical forms of activity—marches, protests, demonstrations, the waving of flags, and so forth—nowadays they resort to very sophisticated news and entertainment media strategies. Of course, they use the Internet World Wide Web as their chief method of exchanging information, email, faxes and even comics, such as Batman and Superman, were employed to push the case in this instance for the ban on antipersonnel landmines.In some ways Simmons takes a rather dim view of NGO activity. He says that, while they have the potential to do a lot of good, they also have the potential to do a lot of harm—that is, if they behave in a rather old-fashioned, interest group political style, they have the potential to cause global gridlock. This has been the case in some of the international environmental agreement situations where you had groups that were protecting the environment come what may versus those groups—and they are just as validly described as NGOs—that were protecting commercial, industrial or agricultural interests. Simmons points out that, where they come together in these debates, you can very often have a kind of gridlock.I do not personally share such a grim view of it. But I look beyond these instances and I ask myself: what can a government of a nation-state like ours do to incorporate NGOs into the international system with perhaps a little more formality? If you ask yourself how NGOs affect governments, Simmons points out that there are four chief ways. The first is that they do have a role in setting agendas. For example, when these NGOs came together to talk about pushing for a ban on antipersonnel landmines, they put that on the international agenda using the news media.They also can help in negotiating outcomes; there is no doubt about that. In some international fora where the representatives of nation-states become deadlocked and there seems no hope of compromise, NGOs can provide a useful back channel to float positions of compromise which might otherwise cause a bit of loss of face among the nations and would not otherwise be put. I suspect that this has been the case certainly in the Oslo negotiations regarding difficulties in the Middle East, and perhaps even more recently in Northern Ireland where formal political groups find themselves deadlocked and it is really only those NGO type organisations or individuals who can provide some kind of other way.They also confer legitimacy on causes or individual actors. For example, you might have the representative of an insurrectional movement from within some nation-state travelling within the developed world. The NGO movement will often take that representative, give them access to the media, perhaps even tutor them in the way they should articulate their cause and then there is, if you like, some legitimacy conferred on that insurrectional movement. Whether that is good or bad is hard to tell unless you examine each particular instance.Lastly, and perhaps most cheerfully, NGOs have a definite role in implementing solutions. I saw it particularly when I was administering the aid program. There are cases where a government would prefer the neatness and tidiness of using a commercial contractor to deliver development aid or even humanitarian aid but, in many instances, it is the NGOs—especially the large ones such as Care International, Oxfam, or Community Aid Abroad as it is known here, Save the Children, Red Cross and other such organisations—who can rapidly deliver volunteers to a hot spot where there is great trouble such as flood, fire, famine or civil disturbance and deliver medical services and so forth. So there is definitely a role for them in implementing solutions.There are, in some cases, some dangers from the rise in the power and influence of NGOs. I observed it chiefly where NGOs competed perhaps too fiercely or too stridently for public attention. They have financial needs, like anyone else. In many cases, I think they are driven by the need to fundraise; in some cases unfortunately they are driven to stridency or hyperbole in order to attract attention. This is something that really is a matter of judgment among NGOs. Some will be seen as perhaps a bit more hysterical and less sensible than others.I remember a very unfortunate instance when there had been a diminution in the amount of Australian aid flowing to certain African countries as a result of changes Mr Downer and I made in the 1997 budget. Some NGOs within Australia took to the airwaves and accused the minister and me of pandering to Pauline Hanson by cutting aid to African countries, and that was really only in order to attract some momentary attention. That was, of course, not the case. The minister and I were personally very wounded by that because we both have a personal interest in making sure that Australia's reputation is not sullied by any such notion or element of racism in any of our policies. We took those NGOs to task ferociously thereafter. In effect, they sort of apologised for their lapse into such stridency, but it is that sort of competition that NGOs have to be aware of.How should governments deal with NGOs in situations either of aid programs or of negotiations on treaties or agreements? It can be very difficult because NGOs come in all sorts of forms, sizes and flavours. As a minister or parliamentary secretary, if you put the time aside and grant someone an appointment and allow them to put their case, then how do you do it? Do you say that, just because they are of a certain size and they raise a certain amount of money, they can have the aid? Or do you look to their record as to what they have done in the past and whether they are really competent to speak and put to you ideas on what they want? Do you look perhaps at whether they are a more sensible, down to earth, get the job done type of NGO or are they really a front for a political outfit pushing abstract political causes? It can be very difficult. But at its basis the nature of diplomacy is changing. What is noteworthy about the Ottawa Convention is what the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, had to say about NGOs. He said that they cannot be limited to a mere advisory or advocacy role and that they really must be a part of the decision making process.I am glad it worked in his case, and I hope it works in future cases, but I can foresee some great difficulty where you get a very contentious issue—whether it is to do with the environment or with human rights or with something really basic like landmines, which affect people's physical welfare—and you have enormous numbers of NGOs wanting to participate in the process. How do you decide who to let in and let out? You cannot have perfect democracy. You need some sort of formality, but you also need some flexibility.I refer those interested in the reality of NGOs and their increased role to an article in the January 1997 edition of the magazine Foreign Affairs by a lady named Jessica Mathews, who is a scholar with the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. She points out, `The end of the Cold War has caused a novel redistribution of power among states, markets, and civil society,' which in many ways represents what NGOs are all about. I would also add the news media to that. I think their share of power or sovereignty, if you like, has grown enormously. Those are my notions, not hers.So you see an age of fragmentation emerging from what was an age of aggregation. In the past you had big armies, big nations, big superpowers, big causes, if you like, whereas these days you have smaller blocs of power influence on the political horizon. The horizon of threats that a nation faces is likewise somewhat more fragmented—things like terrorism, drug trafficking, degradation of the environment and organised crime. These are the sorts of things that nowadays governments have to deal with—less so the larger problems of the past.If any conclusion can be drawn from the experience of the Ottawa Convention and the role of NGOs, it is that we ought to prepare ourselves as a government, as a department of foreign affairs, to deal with the NGO community in a more positive and active way. The day may be passing when we marshal our diplomatic forces to attack a problem or to try to open a market abroad. Instead we need to show a bit more attention to the potential of achieving our aims by mobilising many Australian NGOs or friendly NGOs in other parts of the world. Mathews says, `Nation-states may no longer be the natural problem-solving unit.' That is a big statement, but I think the experience with the gestation and the birth of the Ottawa Convention does indicate that perhaps there is a grain of truth in that.10:47:00740Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Initially, I want to repeat some statistics that have been given by other contributors in the course of this debate. I will do this for the benefit of my constituents, because this is a matter that has attracted wider interest in the Australian and international electorate than many other issues.In Afghanistan, 20 per cent of deaths in the conflict at least two years ago resulted from landmines. Obviously that statistic has probably been reduced because of horrific activities by the Taliban, such as the wholesale murder of large numbers of the Hazaria minority in the city of Mazar-I-Sharif. So in actual fact the figure of the proportion of the total population killed from landmines has probably gone down, but that is a telling indicator. In Angola, one in 400 people is a surviving amputee as a result of landmines. There are 110 million internationally. In Somalia, greater than half the people suffering from the outcome of landmines are under the age of 15 years. In Cambodia, there are between 35,000 and 36,000 amputees. There are four million mines in that country with only eight million people. It is reported that there are around 25,000 to 26,000 deaths a year from landmines internationally.For every 5,000 mines deactivated, one person is killed and two are maimed or injured in the process. These are essentially telling statistics as to the international impact of the weapons that we now seek to act against. Many other speakers have also cited that the cost to purchase landmines is between $3 to $30 and, in contrast, the cost to neutralise them is $30,000. Similarly, it has been reported by the UN Secretary-General that, if we immediately stop the further proliferation of landmines, it would still take 1,100 years to overcome the problem using current practices of deactivation, et cetera, at a cost of $33 billion. As I say, I quote these statistics because international activity on this issue by NGOs and individuals has been crucial.I was at the RSL National Conference this year when Sister Patricia Pak Poy received the main yearly award of that organisation. It is a very telling public image of the group to give someone this award for her activities in regard to campaigning in this country before parliamentary committees and the general public to try to accomplish changes to landmine practices. Sister Pak Poy is the coordinator of the Australian branch of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and is within the Australian Landmines Network. At the conference, I made the point that this was a very telling indication of the power of the general population to overcome politicians, bureaucrats and those who would seek to monopolise views on this matter.Digressing for a moment, a very interesting example over the last year has been international opposition to the multilateral agreement investment, which started on the Internet in Canada and spread to New Zealand and, finally, to Australia and other countries. Whilst that was eventually stymied in the short term because of the United States problems with the treaty—that was fundamental, despite the US corporation's total support and enthusiasm—there was an upsurge of international activity by individuals lobbying politicians, writing letters and basically taking a deep interest in the matter.One of the problems with these landlines is that they have tended, for obvious reasons, to be concentrated in nations that have a large variety of other problems. In an August 1995 briefing by the foreign affairs department and the defence department, we were provided with statistics showing that Afghanistan had between nine and 10 million of these landmines; Angola, nine million; Iraq, five to 10 million; Croatia and Bosnia, about one million each.The economies of countries such as Cambodia, Angola and Mozambique that have been hit by internal conflict for decades—usually at the instigation of the superpowers during the Cold War period, and basically armed by those superpowers—already suffer enough problems without having large portions of their populations maimed and taken out of the work force and from their education by this equipment. They are countries that are subject to massive problems in regard to their debt—a burden which the Western world, the developed world, refuses to renegotiate or, what would be even more welcome, as we have seen recently in Honduras and Guatemala and basically as France has suggested, to forget about. These countries have enough problems already without adding on to them the impact of landmines; it is certainly a major problem for their further growth and improved status.This is an important gesture, an important activity. I would put on the record my appreciation of the current federal government's activities in this matter. It has, once again, restored to a degree Australia's image in international fora as a major force in disarmament and, as is often said, essentially punching above its weight.With many other speakers, I join in expressing concern at the failure of China, Iraq. Israel, Iran, Pakistan, the United States and Russia to come on board. It is interesting that in section 7(3) there is a bit of an out for Australia in regard to its involvement with allies who utilise landmines. Subsection (3) states:Subsection (1) does not apply to anything done by way of the mere participation in operations, exercises or other military activities conducted in combination with an armed force that:(a) is an armed force of a country that is not a party to the Convention; and(b) engages in an activity prohibited under the Convention.In other words, if we are involved with an ally who still has refused to ratify, to sign, et cetera, Australia then essentially is allowed to be an onlooker, a passive participant, et cetera. That indicates moral problems for Australia—these countries failing to basically come on board.I join with the member for Moreton in his earlier comment that Australia has to be active in ensuring that countries particularly in our region essentially join the international community in this—and we have this problem on a wide variety of international treaties. One that I have raised many times is the question of Australia's adherence to international conventions, treaties, and so on, and migrations matters. Basically, we are Robinson Crusoe out in this region, because a large number of other countries have not joined those conventions. So it is important that Australia does use its influence in ensuring that we push those countries towards that activity.I do not, however, agree with the member for Moreton's summary of the government's response to the analysis of this particular area by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. He seemed to be saying that the government essentially agreed to that joint committee's unanimous suggestions. In actual fact, if one bothers to read the government's response, we note that, of the six recommendations, three were rejected and one was `ignored'. The summary of the government's response states:Recommendation 3The response ignores the recommendation to destroy Australia's stockpile . . . Recommendation 4 was rejected by the government, which indicated that Australia might `transfer all responsibility for humanitarian mine clearing to the Department of Defence. There was a rejection of recommendation 5 that `the Department of Defence assist in the development of mine clearance equipment'. With recommendation 1, there was a rejection which dealt with the committee's analysis of perceived weaknesses in protocol IV. So, whilst congratulating very strongly the minister's and the department's activities in these matters, I think we should be a little more honest in saying that there was a fair degree of negative response on the government's part to the unanimous suggestions of that committee.One of the more sinister developments around this area has been the diversification of companies that traditionally manufactured these landmines. Amongst countries that traditionally have been in the forefront of manufacturing landmines have been the United States, the former USSR, France, Czechoslovakia, China, Italy, United Kingdom and Singapore.In an article by Paul Donovan in the New Internationalist of September 1997, the psychology of the minds of the people who actually make these landmines was first talked about. He said:It was difficult to picture what type of human being sat designing antipersonnel mines in bright colours and weird shapes that attracted children toto pick them up. Though the companies deny such an intention behind their designs, the blinded and mutilated children in countries like Afghanistan and Cambodia tell a different story.Author Erik Prokosch describes the phenomenon of the weapons designer in his book The Technology of Killing . `A weapons designer is not, first and foremost, a killer: he is a statistician, a metallurgist, an engineer,' says Prokosch. But when this individual is put into the area of munitions he is transformed and thinks only in terms of `lethal area estimates', `kill probabilities' and `effective casualty radius'. He then probably returns to his home in the suburbs to play with his own children without making the connection between his day's work and the devastation caused on the other side of the world. But life for those who employer the designers is even less complicated: it is all about the bottom line—profit.In that article in the New Internationalist , the writer traced the way in which the companies that essentially produced, marketed and promoted these landmines are now going into the area of actually recovering them. One particularly telling example I quote again from that article—and I am not sure of the latest events with regard to public ownership of munitions companies in South Africa, so the names of the companies, and so on, could be dated over that year or so. But he says:From South Africa comes another proponent of the `cradle to grave' services offered by some transnational arms manufacturers. Mechem is the research and development wing of Denel, the government-owned arms-manufacturing company. Mechem has won multi-million-dollar contracts for the clearing of mines in Mozambique and Angola. Vernon Joynt of Mechem, who has helped design landmines for the South African Defence Force in the past, has seized the opportunity and is now a keen advocate of a ban on landmines. For 26 years Joynt researched and developed landmines and other equipment, much of which was deployed by South Africa's client groups in Mozambique and Angola. He has proudly boasted that `there are some mines in Angola which no-one will be able to find without our help'. Mr Joynt is also one of the UN's most trusted advisers and well placed to push future technological solutions to the crisis caused by his and other antipersonnel landmines.In other words, he has put himself on the market to identify the site of some of these landmines that he put there in the fist place. He is selling his services.Similarly, I note the activities of the British company Ferranti, a leading producer of such technology. As Mr Donovan noted in his article:In 1998 a company called CMS started developing mines for the US military but after the Gulf War it moved into the `aftermath (clearance) business'. Today CMS is the largest ordinance-clearing company in the US and makes $160 million profits annually. Fred Dibella, CMS Vice-President, insists that in Kuwait `we have not cleaned up bombs or mines that were of our own manufacture'.That is a little reassuring. But we have this worrying development whereby, as these companies see that the market is closing down and they see the international activity and international criticism of what they have done in the past, they are moving to make a few bucks out of the treaties outcomes.As well as congratulating Australia, the activities of NGOs and the activities of individuals, it is worth appreciating some of the other countries that were very early on the bandwagon—for example, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland and Italy, which as I have said was, interestingly enough, a major manufacturer in the past. Those countries were very forthright and active in moving this issue forward.I join with other members in again congratulating the government for its activities in international fora in pushing the matter forward. I note the interest of people in my electorate, including individuals who have written to me, and the broad bipartisan thrust of this debate in essentially congratulating the government on its efforts. At the same time I am concerned that Australia did not move on this even earlier.23:02:00743Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Before my media and research officer, Greg Doolan, came to work for me, he wrote a series of articles for the Catholic Leader newspaper about the national campaign in Australia to ban the production, sale and use of antipersonnel landmines. It was a well coordinated and very successful campaign, and I believe it was central in driving federal government policy on the issue of antipersonnel landmines to the position that we see here today. I am proud of the fact that one of the very first decisions of the Howard government was to formally declare its support for an international ban on landmines. I congratulate the hard work of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in taking Australia to the point where we are today.We have come a long way as a nation since the beginning of this decade in the way in which we address questions such as that of landmines. The campaign to ban landmines was very much in full swing when my staffer Greg Doolan was writing for the Leader. The then Labor government's policy position on the issue was different from the one that we see here today. I sincerely acknowledge the work of the former senator and now member of the House of Representatives Gareth Evans in progressing the policy debate towards what we are achieving today.But history records the fact that past governments have had to travel some hard yards to get to this position. Hansard records, for example, that there were members of the former Keating government who were not happy with government policy on antipersonnel landmines. One of those members was the former Labor member for Lowe, Mrs Easson. In this chamber in August 1995, just one month after Mr Doolan wrote his series of articles, she said:While the Australian government has provided assistance for mine clearance operations, it only supports a ban on landmines that do not have a self-destruct or self-neutralisation capacity.That was the government's policy position at that time. Their argument for this policy position was that a total international ban on the production, sale and use of landmines would have been impossible to achieve. I do not bring up these comments in a malicious manner. Rather, I want to record the hard work that has gone on over recent years by all political parties, particularly non-government organisations, such as churches and the Red Cross, to shift policy to what we are celebrating here at this time.Australia is a world leader in the stance that it has taken as a nation against the development of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments have a lot to be proud of in that regard. However, a similar stance against landmines, which are just as indiscriminate and just as deadly as chemical weapons, has taken much longer to come about. There is no dispute that landmines have been grossly misused by many nations over many decades, leading to the horrific problems that we as an international community face today and the problems that many of the previous speakers have so graphically outlined. Landmines are cheap to produce, easy to deploy and lie silent and dormant for many years waiting to be triggered by the footfall of an unsuspecting person, perhaps a child.The indiscriminate use of landmines has rendered large areas of fertile land unusable, crippling the economies of developing nations. As crippling as those economic costs are, the human toll is much higher. There are millions of landmines lying in wait through out the world. I think previous speakers have already indicated that each month between 2,000 and 3,000 people are injured, maimed or killed by landmines. Back in 1995 there was a conference in Cambodia about the international landmine problem. Every half hour throughout the duration of the conference the recorded sound of an exploding landmine would ring out in recognition of the fact that every 20 to 30 minutes someone somewhere throughout the world would step on and trigger a landmine.In the past, governments both in Australia and overseas have argued that antipersonnel landmines used under the strict and normal conventions of war were legitimate defensive weapons. Having regular contact with the Australian Defence Force and, in particular, the Australian Army, I can understand such arguments. But, while they were designed as a weapon of war, antipersonnel landmines do not have the capacity to discern between soldier and civilian, adult or child, friend or foe. Indeed, the tragic and overwhelming number of landmine victims—perhaps 90 per cent or more—are civilians. The majority of civilian victims are children.Antipersonnel landmines can be triggered by the weight of a small child or a farm animal just as easily as by an armed soldier. Some particularly insidious mines have in the past been designed to take the appearance of brightly coloured toys, specifically apparently to entice curious young minds. The previous speaker in fact referred to this particular insidious situation. This was particularly the case in war-torn Afghanistan where such mines came to be known by local children as green parrots. The members for Aston and Cowan alluded to other such examples of the terrible nature of landmines earlier in this debate, and I want to thank them for their very fine and personal contributions.The explosive power of such mines were small but more than sufficient to maim or kill a small child. The pathetic rationale for this design was that a child who lost a hand or an arm to such a device could not grow up to hold and fire a rifle. In whatever way we may have justified or defended the use of landmines in the past, it should never have been good enough to simply write off the victims of landmine blasts as casualties of war.As we have all recognised, most victims fall prey to landmines long after the fighting is over. Landmines scattered indiscriminately during a conflict can often lie dormant for months, years and even decades after the conflict has ceased. In some parts of Egypt they are still digging up and clearing antipersonnel landmines planted so many years ago in World War II. It has been estimated that, for every hour spent laying landmines, 100 hours is spent locating and removing them. While a landmine can cost as little as $3, the cost of finding and destroying a set of landmines has been estimated at being somewhere in the vicinity of perhaps $1,000 per mine.Some of the de-mining efforts Australia has been a part of in places like Cambodia have been nothing short of tremendous. But it is painstaking and dangerous. In some parts of Cambodia it has been estimated that a plot of about 18 hectares of land can take up to nine months to clear of these insidious things.The honourable member for Cunningham quoted the example of a small area of land in Afghanistan that has been successfully cleared of mines over a nine-year period. For each country we have mentioned as an example in this debate, there are probably a dozen other countries we have not cited as being similar tragic examples.These are not new facts; these facts have been public knowledge for a long time now, hence the frustration felt by many at the time it has taken for Australia to reach the position of actually signing up to an international convention that seeks to ban antipersonnel landmines. Landmines are weapons of mass destruction, not in the same way as chemical or nuclear weapons but, as the member for Kingsford-Smith said back in 1996, they are weapons of mass destruction in slow motion.There are few issues that attract bipartisan political support in this parliament. This is clearly one of them. I welcome that fact and I support this legislation.11:11:00745Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—in reply—I begin to conclude this debate on the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 by thanking the contributors to it. Quite a number of members spoke and I have had the opportunity to go through the remarks they made, and they made many very positive and constructive comments.From the opposition we had both the best speech and the worst speech in this debate. The best speech was from the member for Cowan. As a new member he has a particular contribution to make to this debate, and I will respond in a moment to some of the issues that he raised.The worst speech was from the member for Fowler, who seems to have come into the parliament as a new member with an utter determination to turn her back on any constructive analysis of any issue to make party political points. To suggest that this bill is a private member's bill introduced by the Labor Party, that this whole debate has been led by the member for Kingsford-Smith and that the government is hesitant about it is preposterously wrong, as I think every other member of the House knows. So the member for Fowler has got off to a very poor start. Maybe she will improve in the years ahead.The member for Charlton also questioned the government's commitment to the ratification, as she put it, of the Ottawa Convention. This legislation is about the ratification of the Ottawa legislation. It is necessary in order for us to ratify that convention. She referred to a statement on landmines—it was actually a joint statement that Ian McLachlan as the then Minister for Defence and I made in 1996—and said that it demonstrated an equivocal position by the Australian government towards the Ottawa Convention. But, of course, that statement was issued before the Ottawa Convention was even established—indeed, it was before the whole process got any momentum at all.One of the extraordinary things about the Ottawa Convention is how quickly it came about, the momentum that it built up. The initiative got enormous support, the credit for which, above all, should go to my friend and colleague Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of Canada. The speed at which that convention came about was not just because of activists in the NGO community around the world but because of the broad community support all around the world, obviously particularly in democratic countries.There are many wonderful people in the NGO community who have contributed to this whole process—Jody Williams in the United States, and here in our own country Sister Pak Poy, from my own state of South Australia, has been a great campaigner for the Ottawa Convention and for the whole cause of eliminating the scourge of landmines from the earth. She was duly rewarded earlier this year with the RSL Peace Prize, I think it is called, recognising the work that she has done.I have identified two themes that have come through the debate. Firstly, members on both sides have argued that they want to see a truly global solution to this problem of landmines. Secondly, there has been quite a lot of interest in the government's initiatives on de-mining, and some questions have been asked about how we are taking forward our own de-mining programs. So let me deal with both of those issues to start with.First of all, there is no doubt that the limit to the Ottawa process is the fact that a number of key countries have said they will not sign it. They include Russia, India, Pakistan, Korea and, importantly, the United States. It is a matter of great disappointment to me that, in the end, the United States was unable to sign this convention. I have not got time to go into the history of how it happened, but it was a pity that agreement could not be reached to bring the United States on board.I know that President Clinton very much did want to sign the convention and hoped that it could be structured in a way that would address the United States problems on the Korean Peninsula, where they have a particular issue that the United States military felt had to be addressed. In the end, President Clinton did not feel that he could go ahead and sign the convention, but it was a very near run thing.In some countries like China, Russia, Vietnam, India, Pakistan and Korea itself, there is much less excuse; they have simply made it clear they do not want to sign it. That is a matter of real regret. We initially had some reservations about the Ottawa processes as distinct from the Conference on Disarmament process, because we hoped that, through a Conference on Disarmament convention, it would be possible for it to be comprehensive and that we would get everybody in it. It was clear in the end that that was not going to happen, for all sorts of reasons, so the Ottawa path was the only path that could be followed. But there is still a lot more work to be done, as members have said. We now have to try to engage those countries that have not signed the Ottawa Convention and get them either to sign the Ottawa Convention, which would be the best possible outcome, or, secondly, to persuade them—perhaps through the Conference on Disarmament—to reach agreement on a ban on transfers of landmines.Even if we could get a ban on transfers signed by countries like China, the United States, Russia, India, Pakistan and so on, that would a very good step forward. That would not be as good as getting them to sign the Ottawa Convention, but it would be a very good step forward. Our ambassador at the United Nations in Geneva, John Campbell, has been the special coordinator on landmines for quite some time and has done a very good job. I hope that he will continue in that position as the special coordinator this next year and that it may be possible for him to get this issue of a ban on transfers pushed through into the debating forum of the Conference on Disarmament.I have no illusions about it. It will not be easy to do that, particularly with the competition in that forum coming from the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which is an important initiative as well that we are pursuing. But, in any case, honourable members are right in that we do have to work on this whole question of the universalisation of the ban on landmines.The second issue that I will run through very quickly was particularly alluded to by the member for Cowan, but others, and that was the whole question of our de-mining programs. If I do my best to answer some of the questions raised by the member for Cow an, that should cover pretty much the concerns or questions that other members had. The first question the member for Cowan asked was in relation to the $100 million pledge that I made when I signed the Ottawa treaty back in December of last year, and he wanted a breakdown of the expenditure to be provided. Frankly, during this debate where I have 20 minutes to speak, I am not going to be able to give the honourable member the breakdown. What we will do is make sure that he is provided with written material.More than that, if the member for Cowan and, for that matter, other members wish to have a more comprehensive briefing from AusAID, I can only say to them: just contact my office and we will make sure that that happens, because you are absolutely entitled to it. The money is spent by me but on behalf of taxpayers—they paid it all. You are perfectly entitled to have a look at precisely how it is spent. We will make sure—particularly in the case of the member for Cowan—that he gets a comprehensive briefing pretty soon.He also asked what we propose to spend the rest of the pledge on. We anticipate that future expenditure will continue to support all mine action, including de-mining operations, the continued development of indigenous capacity, victim assistance and community education programs. Obviously, decisions on particular projects to be supported will be taken on a year-by-year basis.He asked what will be budgeted for de-mining in the future—I assume by that meaning after our pledge is completed. That is some years away yet. We will have spent $100 million by the year 2005. I may not even be the Minister for Foreign Affairs beyond 2005. I suppose that is an unlikely proposition, but I may not be. By then, the government of the day will make those judgments about what more needs to be done. My own view is that when the $100 million pledge is completed there will still be a great deal more to be done. As members have said, there is an enormous task ahead of the world to deal with de-mining. You are dealing with de-mining when there are still people sowing mines, so it is an absolutely massive task. The member for Cowan asked who decides how funds are to be spent on de-mining and what are the criteria. Obviously, as the minister responsible for the aid program, the ultimate decision rests with me. But the criteria are similar to those employed to make decisions on funding allocations to all overseas aid activities. They ultimately relate to the clear objective we now have for our aid program, namely, to advance Australia's national interests by assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. De-mining and related activities should contribute to the achievement of this objective by, firstly, clearing mines on land for productive use; secondly, building indigenous capacity to carry out de-mining; thirdly, treating the victims of de-mining so they can become productive members of their communities; and, fourthly, raising awareness of the dangers of landmines to minimise death and injury. The member for Cowan asked what is provided as resources to address landmine problems and what is provided as financial support. The funds are provided through a variety of channels for particular activities. For instance, funds may be provided to Australian NGOs to support the manufacture and fitting of artificial limbs or to a UN trust fund to support the de-mining activities of a national de-mining authority: for example, the Cambodian Mine Action Centre. These funds may then be used to employ Australian expertise.The member for Cowan asked that I appoint an NGO advisory group to provide advice on how resources available for de-mining and related activities can best be used. We do have a very active ongoing dialogue with NGOs on the land mining issue. I do not know that we need to set up any new institutional machinery, but we do have a very active dialogue with them, and our doors are always open to the NGOs on this issue.During his forthcoming visit to Australia in about 10 days, Lloyd Axworthy—the Canadian foreign minister whom I referred to earlier—and I will be inviting NGOs with an interest in this field to meet with us both in Adelaide to exchange views and ideas. The impression I get is that the NGOs, generally speaking, are reasonably happy with the way the program is working. If they have any concerns, obviously I am happy to address those.The member for Cowan finally asked: should we not be doing more through our own Australian efforts rather than relying on the UN? This is an issue that is often discussed in the context of the aid program as a whole. We provide our aid in this area through a variety of channels, as the honourable member knows, including Australian NGOs, the International Committee of the Red Cross and UN agencies. A decision is taken on a case by case basis on the most appropriate channel to use, so I cannot really explain it more than that. When the honourable member gets a much fuller briefing on the particular ways that the money is spent, I think he will be able to make some judgments about whether he is happy with the balance between spending through the UN and through multilateral agencies and, on the other side, Australian specific efforts. If he has any particular views about that, I am happy to listen to them.I did recently announce an innovative scheme called Destroy a Minefield, which will enable the Australian community to contribute more to the global de-mining effort. Under this scheme, the government will make $1 available for every $2 raised by community organisations to destroy an identified minefield in a mine infested country. This program will use money from the sales of the Elton John CD, which was a tribute to Princess Diana. I think honourable members will remember the history of that.The next issue, which a number of members raised, is a very important issue. This is the question of clause 7(3). I want to make a statement about that which should provide guidance in the future for how this clause and subclause should be interpreted. So I should like to clarify for the benefit of the House the intent and purpose of clause 7(3) of the bill in regard to joint military operations and the relevant section of the explanatory memorandum. Clause 7(3) is not intended to be construed as a blanket decriminalisation of the activities listed in clause 7(1). There may be circumstances in which there are military operations carried out jointly with the armed forces of a country which is not a party to the convention. In the course of those operations, the armed forces of that country might engage in an activity which would be prohibited under the convention. Clause 7(3) provides that a person to whom the act applies will not be guilty of an offence merely by reason of participation in such combined exercises. However, that subclause does not provide a defence in circumstances where such a person actually carries out one of the prohibited acts in the course of those combined operations.In the event of a charge being laid, the prosecution would be required to prove that the actions alleged constituted an offence prohibited under clause 7(1). If the accused wished to rely on the exception of clause 7(3), he or she would need to produce evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the exception applies. If the accused is able to do this, it is for the prosecution to prove otherwise if the person is to be convicted.I would like to add for the information of the House that the Australian Defence Force doctrinal and operation manuals will be amended to comply with the prohibitions contained in the bill, including the interpretation of clause 7(1) and (3), which I have just laid before the House. The mandatory instructions contained in these publications will have the force of law under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 as general orders. Australia's compliance with the provisions of the convention will also be subject to the transparency measures in article 7 of the convention. Annual reports will be submitted to the United Nations Secretary-General as depositary, and these will be circulated to other state parties.So it is perfectly obvious that the reason this subclause (3) is inserted is of the need for Australia to have the capacity to operate with a country that might not be a signatory to the convention. Obviously, the best example imaginable is the United States, but that does not mean that Australian Defence Force personnel, in participating with the United States forces, can contravene subclause (1). I think that is something that honourable members would hope was the case, and that is certainly my intention. Otherwise it would obviously diminish the impact of the legislation, and we would not want to see that happen.The last point I want to make relates to an issue raised by the member for Maribyrnong who raised a related, but not quite the same, issue; that is, the issue of small arms. The government is giving consideration now to this whole question of international action to deal with the illicit trade in small arms and the destabilising accumulation of these arms, so that is a matter that is in its very early tentative stages. As I said, it is something that we regard as an important issue to address and we will be making, before too long I hope, a significant policy statement on that. I am not going to do it today. I just wanted to make the House aware that it is an issue that is very much in my in-tray. My department is certainly working on a draft of this statement. Eventually we will make it public and put it on the Internet.In conclusion, I would like to thank all honourable members for the very useful contributions that they have made to the debate. The almost totally bipartisan nature of the debate—not quite bipartisan—simply illustrates the truth that this is an issue of real concern to all Australians. I think our constituents, wherever they may live in Australia, expect us as their members of parliament to do something about this issue. We can say, as members of the House of Representatives—and I am sure our colleagues in another place will follow suit—that we have done something about it.Of all the things I have done as foreign minister, I guess one of the things I am the proudest of has been the signing of the Ottawa Convention. As there was with the previous government when it looked at this issue of landmines, there was some productive discussion within the agencies of government about this issue. It is not true to say that every agency had exactly the same view on how we should take this issue forward. Nevertheless, justice triumphed and we signed up to the Ottawa Convention. We have been very active in this issue before and ever since. We will do everything we can to continue to build on the achievements of the Ottawa Convention. It is not enough. More needs to be done. More will be done by the Australian government, as it will be done in the area of de-mining as well.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.749Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Downer) read a third time.Bills749r632749Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.11:31:00749McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The changing of the guard is an opportunity for me to congratulate both deputy speakers on their election this year. They add considerable expertise and experience to the role. The position of the Labor Party on the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 is to support the second reading but to move an amendment to the bill in the consideration in detail stage. I will outline those briefly during this contribution and in greater detail during the consideration in detail stage.The bill arises from a decision of the Federal Court of Australia by Justice Spender in the case of Foster v. Attorney-General. That decision was handed down on 12 October of this year, so it cannot be said that the government has not acted with appropriate alacrity in responding. I understand the government is appealing that decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The government has also acted swiftly, it must be said, to introduce this bill.The decision in Foster's case does have potentially serious ramifications for the administrative process of the government of the day. The decision struck down extradition procedures commenced against Peter Foster, who was the applicant in the proceedings. Sections 22 and 23 of the Extradition Act specifically require the Attorney-General to make a determination of certain matters before the procedures are followed to extradite a person accused of a crime. However, the Attorney-General had previously delegated his role in that respect to the then Minister for Justice by way of correspondence and there was publicity of that delegation in a press release.Justice Spender in the Federal Court held that that delegation was invalid and that the government was unable to rely on section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act, which essentially provides that, where an act of parliament refers to a minister, it can be read as referring to a minister to whom, for the time being, powers have been delegated. So the court held that section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act was not itself an empowering piece of legislation. The power of the executive to issue these extradition orders under the Extradition Act was the empowering section and that specifically provided that the determination had to be made by the Attorney-General, who, as I have indicated, was named in the act.The Foster decision not only applies to extradition matters but also has broader repercussions in other areas where responsibility may have been delegated to the Minister for Justice and in particular in circumstances where legislation specifically refers to the Attorney-General having a function or duty under an act. That applies, for instance, to a minister for justice exercising the role as the minister for customs and, indeed, the minister for consumer affairs assisting the Attorney-General.Analysis has been done of other areas where this issue could arise. For the benefit of the House, I will list those to indicate the significance of the issue and why it was appropriate for the government to act with such alacrity. The areas which are potentially affected include: the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975; some 21 acts, including the Therapeutic Goods Act, in the area of the Department of Health and Aged Care; the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, which enables Australia to assist other nations and vice versa in the exchange of information regarding criminals, as the title of the act suggests; and also the Crimes Act 1914 where it relates to parole, early release of prisoners and revocation of parole. We agree that it is appropriate for these matters to be clarified.We do not advance any criticism of the Attorney-General in respect of his delegation. He was acting in accordance with the Prime Minister's code of ministerial conduct, which was published in April 1996. It essentially said that, subject to consultation to obtain the general views of the Prime Minister, a portfolio minister determines the matters that will be the responsibility of any other minister in the portfolio. The Attorney-General acted in accordance with that ministerial code of conduct, but during my contribution I will suggest that that criterion is far too broad to apply as a universal principle.Indeed, that statement in the code is quite inconsistent with past practice, whereby essentially the demarcation of functions between ministers is determined in administrative arrangement orders. Such orders are literally a schedule listing the specific areas that ministers will take charge of or oversee in their responsibility of administering government departments. The administrative orders are signed by the Governor-General in his function as the head of the executive arm of government of Australia. The most recent administrative orders which have been so signed by the Governor-General, as one would expect, were after the election in October this year. So it essentially lists the job sharing arrangements or the demarcation of functions between ministers and, I understand in some cases, parliamentary secretaries. So that is the formal procedure.In addition to that formal procedure, what has happened in the past—and Justice Spender refers to the custom and practice—is that in circumstances of the temporary absence or temporary incapacity of a minister, or in other circumstances of urgency, there has been a need to delegate the functions of a portfolio minister to another minister to stand in his or her shoes to carry out the functions of the executive. As I will mention, Justice Spender found that that custom and practice, which had been considered in a number of cases, was appropriate.There may be examples—it is impossible to rule them out—where any government may say that other looser or more casual delegation arrangements have not occurred. But we, in crafting legislation, should have in mind what we think is the desirable practice as opposed to simply rolling with the flow, as it were. So there are two issues that we need to address in this debate. They involve what is needed to rectify the past and then, having done that, having a calm look at the appropriate method for the future.Whereas the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct allowed for a loose arrangement, the legislation handbook which is relied upon by governments in crafting legislation generally advises that an act of parliament should not specify a named minister or should not identify which particular minister is to undertake a function of the executive because, obviously, from time to time departmental arrangements change and different demarcations between ministers arise. Such specificity would be likely to cause problems as time moves on. However, the legislation handbook says specifically in respect of the Attorney-General that there will be exceptions to this rule, for example, to preserve the responsibility of the Attorney-General in legal processes. So even the legislation handbook recognises that there would be appropriate circumstances where parliament legislates to name a particular minister because of the important or special skills required in undertaking a particular function or duty.I have indicated the potentially serious repercussions for the administration of the executive if the issues raised in the Foster case are not addressed. As I have said, the bill intends to address them by way of a retrospective tidying up. I will have something to say on that aspect. More importantly, however, it is about what we do in the future.The amendment that we will be moving in the consideration in detail stage is designed to strike a more appropriate balance between the necessary administrative flexibility for proper and orderly government against the need, in some circumstances in particular, for a precise and definite system of delegation of executive authority. As all members know, executive decisions can impact quite significantly on individual rights, civil rights, community rights and so forth. A regulated, orderly and identifiable method of delegation is, from our point of view, essential for good government.We are concerned that the bill as framed is really a boot and braces job. The drafter of the bill has been given a brief, one surmises, to tidy up the situation, and that person has done that. He or she has said, `What are the possible ramifications? Let's close every loophole.' Our concern is that, in so doing, the drafter has infringed upon the precision and order which is required in the delegation of administrative responsibility. For instance, the bill purports to validate even past oral delegations between ministers. That is a concern. It may well be that, in the period of this government or indeed previous governments, there have been these more casual, oral delegations that have occurred between ministers at various times. The government can, if it likes, bring forward evidence of any of those situations where it foreshadows that there really is a potential problem.Leaving that aside, we are very concerned about, and oppose, the validation of oral delegations. The oral delegations between ministers would obviously prevent any proper auditing of the administrative decisions and how those decisions have been arrived at and implemented. Significantly, from the point of view of individual rights, having oral delegations would make it extremely difficult for a private citizen who has been aggrieved by administrative action to seek redress in administrative review proceedings. Anyone who has practised in the area of administrative law will note that it is important to identify the decision maker in seeking redress.We are concerned that the practice of oral delegations between ministers is far too lax. It lacks the necessary record and the necessary publicity that would enable an applicant in administrative review proceedings to take action to protect their rights. While we are happy to support the unusual course, it has to be said, of retrospective legislation to tidy up past invalid or potentially invalid delegations, we do have considerable reservations and, indeed, we oppose the validation of, or the attempt to validate, past oral delegations.As I have indicated, we are concerned—looking as we are at the present time at what we think is the desirable system of administration for the future—and we say that the ministerial code of conduct is far too lax. It effectively allows ministers to job-share between themselves at their will, even in circumstances where parliament has taken the course of action of prescribing in legislation an identifiable minister—in the case in question, the Attorney-General—to act as the decision maker or the determiner of particular issues. So we will be addressing that in our amendment. In our view, the loose arrangement, particularly the permissibility of oral arrangements for the future, is totally inappropriate and would result in unsatisfactory government in the future. Hence our amendment is designed to address that aspect.We are prepared to support legislation which will confirm and put beyond doubt the long-established practice. That long-established practice was actually referred to by Justice Spender in the Foster case. With respect to section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which was considered in that case, he said that the intention of that section was to:. . . provide a mechanism by which illness or absence from Australia or leave or other emergency could be met so as to permit the continued orderly administration of the enactments of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.So we say that it is appropriate for delegation to occur in that situation. Justice Spender went on to say:Consistent with the notion of responsible government is the requirement that Ministers of State, appointed by the Governor-General, administer Departments of State, and the cases reflect a "longstanding practice " that the Prime Minister might appoint a Minister to act, for the time being, for or on behalf of another Minister.Again, we are content to support legislation which will confirm, entrench or specifically authorise that acknowledged practice.However, the analysis of the Foster case in the minister's explanatory memorandum is perhaps a little too simplistic. Justice Spender acknowledged authorities which have upheld that custom and practice of the Prime Minister or cabinet delegating responsibility. However, he doubted whether that in itself was sufficient, and expressed the view that it may well require the imprimatur of the Governor-General to formalise the delegation of administrative responsibilities. This analysis is based on our notion of the separation of functions under the Westminster system. Justice Spender said:There is much to be said . . . that it is for the Governor-General on advice to appoint officers to administer such departments of State as are established, and . . . it is not even for the Prime Minister to determine who should be appointed to administer such departments.So he expressed doubt that anything other than the specific authorisation or imprimatur of the Governor-General was sufficient to delegate responsibility. His analysis may well be right in principle. Our constitution is based on the separation of functions between the parliament, the executive and the judiciary, and that separation was discussed in our constitution debates in 1891 and 1897 and is reflected in our constitution. So Justice Spender may well be right in his analysis.We warn the government that, in so far as there are important decisions to be made, they should exercise caution before departing from what is specifically stated or required in legislation such as the Extradition Act. We have argued, for instance, that the government should be contemplating commencing fresh extradition proceedings against Christopher Skase, based on charges that were laid last year. If the government acts on that recommendation, it would be prudent, we suggest, for the Attorney-General himself to implement those provisions of the Extradition Act, and that is something the government might consider.So, in summary, clearly an administrative error has been revealed in the decision of Justice Spender. Clearly it needs remedy but, having looked at what is necessary to remedy for the past, let us take stock for the future. Our amendment is designed to implement that balance between appropriate flexibility in the administration of the executive and the regulation of a more orderly, precise and obvious record for the purpose of auditing and administrative review proceedings. I will not dwell on that amendment at this stage, but I will focus on it when it comes to the consideration in detail stage of the bill.11:52:00753Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I rise in support of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998, which makes amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Those amendments seek to address the implications of a recent decision of the Federal Court in Foster v. Attorney-General. The decision in that case sought to invalidate the general authorisation of the Minister for Justice to exercise statutory powers conferred upon the Attorney-General for and on behalf of the Attorney-General. If this decision were to stand, it would impact significantly upon a broad range of government activities and would place severe constraints upon effective and efficient government administration.The bill in its current framework may at first blush seem to be dealing with rather technical aspects governing the appointment, powers and responsibilities of ministers and members of the federal Executive Council. But when one considers the implications of the recent decision, particularly in relation to the proper management of a portfolio by a minister, the bill deals with significant policy issues in matters of public administration and has the potential to affect a very wide range of government activities. So this bill is necessary and urgent, first to dispel the doubts arising from the Federal Court decision as to the powers of ministers to delegate to other ministers or members of the federal Executive Council. Secondly, the bill seeks to validate the past practices and procedures of this government and previous governments in respect of authorisations made by ministers. Thirdly, the bill seeks to clarify the formal procedures for redistributing executive power between ministers and members of the Executive Council.The immediate implications of the Federal Court decision are that section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 cannot be used by a minister to authorise junior portfolio ministers or another minister to exercise statutory powers vested in the holder of a specific ministerial office. The decision also means that section 19 cannot be used to authorise parliamentary secretaries to exercise statutory ministerial powers.The opposition, I suggest, is well aware of the practical ramifications which would result from that decision should that decision stand. If, indeed, the minister is not able to so authorise another minister or parliamentary secretary, the workload of that minister becomes overwhelming. The member for Barton recalls how governments are run. He knows that it is absolutely impractical for a minister to have to perform all relevant powers and functions without the ability to authorise other ministers or parliamentary secretaries to act.The bill, and I mention the foreshadowed supplementary amendments of the government, not only validates past authorisations but enhances the procedure for authorisations from a portfolio minister to another minister in the portfolio or indeed to a parliamentary secretary. The member for Barton can be assured that the foreshadowed supplementary amendments provide that authorisations must be in writing. So this addresses the concern about unwritten authorisations.The opposition has a foreshadowed amendment and a copy has been circulated. I have been through it in some detail and it seems that the opposition is attempting to ensure that public administration grinds to a halt. The proposed amendment is that `The Prime Minister or Cabinet may authorise a non-portfolio minister or member of the Executive Council, who is not a minister, to act on his or her behalf'. There are some drafting problems in that document, so I will not go into it in any detail. I am sure that the member for Barton will consider that as it gets to the consideration in detail stage. Obviously the subject matter of this bill is not about delegation by the Prime Minister or cabinet of their statutory functions; it is about a minister authorising another minister or parliamentary secretary to act on that minister's behalf.The same foreshadowed amendment of the opposition states `The Prime Minister or Cabinet may, during the temporary absence or incapacity of a minister'. What is determined to be a `temporary absence' in terms of days or weeks? What is `incapacity'? How is that defined? For how long, for what time period, will it be determined? The opposition's foreshadowed amendment also refers to a proposed provision, 18C(3)(b), whereby the time period would include `a time referred to in the authorisation afterwards to continue to have effect until another person is appointed'. So there seem to be some internal inconsistencies here between an expectation that this will only occur during relatively short periods of absence or incapacity and then an extremely open-ended arrangement which is anticipated between the time of authorisation and the appointment of another person to that office.As to the proposal that it be only the Prime Minister or cabinet who may authorise a non-portfolio minister or a member of the Executive Council to act, surely even the opposition can see that the administration process would grind to a halt. If the Prime Minister happens to be too busy to write authorisations and if one can assume that the Prime Minister's time ought be directed to a higher order of decision making, the authorisations are to be sent to cabinet. Is it intended that every member of cabinet prepare and sign a written authorisation? Surely not. So it must mean that cabinet, through a recorded decision of cabinet, makes the written authority in each and every instance. How is it anticipated that the cabinet will make decisions on these authorisations, bearing in mind that the opposition is talking about authorisations for temporary periods, temporary absences or periods of incapacity of the minister? So there will be a backlog of authorisations.In extradition proceedings, time is often of the essence. The opposition will not have a portfolio minister delegating so we have to track down the Prime Minister, or track down all of cabinet, get cabinet together, and add more items to the agenda to make a decision about an authorisation. What has been done efficiently and effectively in the past by both the coalition and Labor—when in government—is that the minister authorises a junior minister, or another minister, or a parliamentary secretary to exercise statutory powers for or on his or her behalf.The absurdity of limiting the authorisation process to the Prime Minister and/or cabinet, in whatever guise, is apparent when one considers—as both members opposite will know—the Attorney-General has powers to delegate to departmental officers. Yet the opposition says, `No, the Attorney-General cannot delegate to a junior minister or a parliamentary secretary, only the Prime Minister and/or cabinet can.' Under the Law Officers Act 1964, strictly speaking, the Attorney-General would be able to delegate to a base grade officer his power to determine whether an eligible person should be surrendered for extradition. Yet the opposition will not authorise him to delegate that same power to a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary.As for the validation amendment, I have already indicated that there is a supplementary amendment foreshadowed by the Attorney-General in relation to future authorisations. But, as for validations, the proposed amendment ensures that, however and in whatever manner previous authorisations have been made by ministers, they are validated. This gives certainty to previous authorisations and, more importantly, to the validity of subsequent actions taken in reliance on those authorisations. One cannot unscramble the eggs. So the foreshadowed amendment restores the law to the position recently thought to exist prior to the Federal Court decision to which I have referred.The bill certainly raises the bar in terms of the procedures to be adopted for authorisations; it is not just enshrining the practice of the past but sets out a specific procedure for authorisations that they be in writing, which of course overcomes any procedural difficulty which might otherwise have arisen at a later date in ascertaining which minister might have exercised the relevant power.I will not go into further detail on the opposition's amendment. Suffice it to say that the foreshadowed supplementary amendments deal with one of the concerns raised about the procedure of future authorisations, and it is anticipated that they be in writing. I support this legislation with the foreshadowed supplementary amendments of the government.NaN:00:00755Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—It is a fact of life that good administrative procedures require the capacity for delegation. Those delegations have not infrequently occurred in the past. The decision of Mr Justice Spender in the Foster case, I think, threw doubt on to an area where perhaps there had been somewhat too great complacency regarding the way in which those delegations could be exercised. It is easy to take partisan points but it is plain that—whatever may have been the intention of the drafting of the Acts Interpretation Act—by the time the current government came to office there was a widely held view that the act of delegation could be done in a relatively informal way.The way in which the delegations were made in the instance that was challenged by Mr Foster, in his extradition proceedings, were simply by a letter from the senior portfolio minister to the other minister administering in his portfolio area setting out those areas for which the other minister would have some responsibility. Mr Justice Spender has held at first instance that that is an insufficiently precise method of identifying responsibilities and has contrasted that with methods which he held would have been authorised—that is, either an instruction from the Prime Minister or a decision of the Executive Council. That is an endorsement by the Governor-General of a determination by the cabinet.The bill, however, also goes on to authorise manners of delegation which are far less formal than even the letter that the Attorney wrote to Senator Vanstone. It might, I think, be thought that that method was at least a method which was recorded—albeit not necessarily publicly known in relation to its detail becoming part of any formal publica tion of government information, but I guess it was not a secret as the matter was declared by a press release and was widely known. But I am not certain that the idea that informal delegations could simply occur between a portfolio minister and another minister on a casual, ad hoc basis, by a telephone call or a conversation in the House, was the intention of those who drafted section 19.Of course, that is what the opposition is seeking to ensure that we do by way of the amendment that the member for Barton will be moving. We have no interest in allowing there to be administrative chaos. If an administrative error is revealed in the course of this government's administration, we would behave as we would have hoped the then opposition would have behaved had such an error been revealed in the course of our administration. In other words, we would not wish there to be a general breakdown in the good administration of government by reason of an error, revealed by a judicial decision to have been an administrative error, which the parliament could properly remedy.We would have expected, had we been in government in like circumstances, the same degree of cooperation as the opposition is currently extending in relation to this matter. We would have also expected a coalition opposition to take exactly the same position as we are proposing to take with respect to prospective acts—that is, once it is revealed that the process of delegation has become so informal, so lacking in precision, so capable of challenge as to obviously be intended to be picked up in this legislation.I do not know what delegations were made that are being referred to in this legislation. Perhaps the Attorney might illuminate the House as to the degree in which informal, oral, non-recorded delegations have been made and exercised, or purported to be exercised, in the course of the present government. To the extent that we need to remedy whatever defects have occurred in the past, we stand ready to do so. We do not think it is a matter of good public policy to authorise the continued operation of such practices. That is why the member for Barton will be moving the amendments standing in his name.The other important point is that there ought be a publicly identifiable record of decision to protect the interests of good public administration. If minister A is exercising a power, that minister ought be able to point to a lawful chain of authority which identifies the source of that exercise of power. It is hardly much to ask that that be so. That seems to be a fundamental rule that goes along with the whole idea of accountability of government. It goes with the principle of responsible government. The opposition, in proposing the amendments it will be proposing, is doing no more than it would have confidently expected a coalition opposition to have done in like circumstances.I turn now to the specifics of the Foster case. We have a wonderful piece of irony here. The parliament is debating this remedial legislation on the very day that the Attorney's delegates are in court appealing Mr Justice Spender's determination in relation to the Foster extradition. So there is a delicious irony that this matter is being canvassed in two forums. Before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia the Attorney's legal representatives will no doubt be arguing that the very amending legislation that is now before the House is totally unnecessary and completely redundant. The Attorney nods, smilingly so. `We do not need to have this amending legislation which we are rushing before the House,' he asserts in court, but the Attorney in the House will come and say, `Well, we'd better be very careful. We'll wear the belt and braces and make certain that, if the Full Court finds against us in the Foster case, we have this legislation in place.'It is a legitimate point to raise as to the impact of this legislation on Peter Foster. The legislation purports to have a retrospective effect, yet it is the case that the High Court of Australia has taken the view that, where somebody has, in a sense, a substantial detriment that would flow from the implementation of a retrospective determination of this nature—once their rights have been declared, as they have in the Spender judgment—such legislation ought not hold them out from the consequence of that challenge at least in that instance.I am not certain how this matter will play through. It may well be that the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court will be before us before this bill passes this House, goes to the Senate and then subject to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee of the Senate. Because it does involve retrospective application, it will be subject to some debate. The Senate will have a closer look at it and will obviously be persuaded by the merits of the proposals that will be moved by the member for Barton. I expect there will be some amendments to the legislation, which, despite powerful advocacy of the member for Barton and the member for Denison, I suspect will pass this House in the form proposed by the government. It may face sterner advocates in the Senate. I am sure Senator Cooney will speak his usual mind about the importance of justice being maintained and the evils of retrospective legislation.I would appreciate the Attorney's comments either now or on the third reading preferably in response to how he sees this possibly impacting in relation to the rights that have crystallised in respect of Mr Peter Foster. I do not know whether Mr Peter Foster is a villain or not. He is certainly a man who has attracted a fair degree of press publicity in his career. He has had a prominent and well publicised life-love. He is a man who has attracted a lot of attention.Equally, I have been the subject of phone calls from his very worried mother. I should not diminish this. Every person whose freedom is in jeopardy is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Mr Foster's mother and solicitors say that he is being sought for extradition on matters which are of relatively little moment and that he has pursued his legal rights in Australia. He has been successful, at first instance, in relation to what they say was an administrative error by the government in the manner in which the authorisations for his extradition were carried through. Mr Justice Spender's decision, if not the subject of a successful appeal, will stand. That will mean that Mr Foster, in the ordinary course, would not be subject to extradition.What will be the impact on Mr Foster if this legislation then passes and the full court upholds Mr Justice Spender's determination at first instance? I think it is an important matter. I have not had the opportunity to research it, but I think there was an immigration case which had a similar background. I think the then minister for immigration, Gerry Hand, was challenged. Legislation to remedy the defect of whatever nature it was in the procedural processes was brought through the parliament, but the conduct of the minister in relation to the matter where the defect had been solved was held to mean that the particular individual was not subject to deportation. I cannot remember the exact details. The member for Barton is nodding. He should because he told me of this. I also recall that matter, although I do not remember the details of it.Whilst everyone would agree on whatever course we should take in this place in relation to the general principle, there is also the particular matter of the instance of the individual who has taken this litigation and whose rights before a court have apparently been vindicated on the arguments that he has contended. That individual's rights should not go without comment in relation to this debate. I look forward to the response of the Attorney-General. I am certain that is a matter that the Senate will also take into account when they deliberate on this proposal. I believe that we, as an opposition, are doing no more or less than what would have been the response of a coalition opposition to a circumstance that might have arisen had we been in government in like circumstances.12:17:00757Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the members who have spoken in this debate. It is one of the more dignified debates that have been held in this House on a fairly, for a layman, arcane subject. I specifically thank the member for Barton for indicating at least general support of the opposition for the bill.There are a number of things that can be said about this. One thing that should be said at the outset is that the government does not believe the decision of Justice Spender is right, either in principle, on practice or in relation to precedent. As the member for Denison mentioned, an appeal has been brought. It is actually being argued in the full Federal Court in Adelaide today. It is not my delegate who is appearing for the Commonwealth; it is the Solicitor-General who is standing in his own right.On the subject of Mr Foster himself, Mr Foster took a number of grounds of objection to the extradition proceedings. He lost on all of them, except the one technical point on which he did succeed. The member for Denison specifically asked what Mr Foster's rights are. If the appeal is not upheld and if there is no appeal to the High Court or an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court, then Mr Foster will be in a position of having set aside the extradition proceedings, but there would be nothing to stop a fresh process being commenced. I do not want to foreshadow any decision that might be taken. It might be I who might be obliged to take it, but one possibility is that simply a fresh process is commenced, following the procedures prescribed by the judgment of Justice Spender.Like the member for Denison, I have no idea whether Mr Foster is a villain or not. Under the law to which he has sought to be subject to a criminal process, he is entitled to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. We are not concerned with his particular case in this bill; we are concerned only with the government procedure of delegation of authority by ministers. The bill provides that all ministerial authorisations that may have been affected by the decision in the Foster case are validated.Because of the implications of the decision, it is appropriate that urgent legislative action be taken to clarify the position of ministerial authorisations. I do not see that as a belt and braces exercise, as both the member for Barton and the member for Denison have referred to it. I think the significance of the decision was, in fact, highlighted by the member for Barton in his reference to the legislation under which potential authorisations of ministers or parliamentary secretaries to act for other ministers could be taken.The amendments in the bill will ensure that there is no uncertainty about the legal status of decisions made under any of the sorts of authorisations in question. The bill also clarifies the legal basis for senior portfolio ministers to authorise junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries to exercise statutory powers on their behalf. As members are aware, the speedy passage of this bill will restore certainty to government administration.Can I comment on the reference in legislation to specific ministers. It can be suggested, and has been, that a reference to a specific minister indicates that parliament's intention is that only that minister perform the relevant function. As was argued before Justice Spender in the proceedings at first instance, that is not correct.Following ministerial rearrangements in 1987, it was considered appropriate that all ministers appointed to administer the same department should have the same legal powers and responsibilities. Accordingly, section 19A of the Acts Interpretation Act was amended to provide that general references in an act to the minister include all ministers appointed to administer the act. In some cases, references to a specific minister merely indicate that a minister in another portfolio has responsibility for the function. For example, in relation to financial matters or legal matters, a reference might be made to the Treasurer or to the Attorney-General.It is misconceived, in my respectful view and that of Justice Spender's submission, to read into such provisions the idea that parliament intended that the named minister and only the named minister exercised the relevant power. In the Attorney-General's portfolio, we have a specific piece of legislation dealing with issues such as these. The Law Offices Act allows for the Attorney-General to delegate his powers and functions to the Solicitor-General, the secretary of the department or any office holder in the department. Similar broad powers of delegation are common in other portfolios. In fact, the Cultona principle, named after the case of that name, holds that as a general common law principle.It seems wrong to support the view that a reference to a specific minister indicates that parliament meant only that minister can perform the relevant task when that minister could delegate the task to a relatively junior departmental officer. There is no good reason why a statutory reference to a specific minister should not be read as including all ministers responsible for the relevant portfolio.It follows that the proposed amendments are consistent with the policy of this government and of former governments, and are consistent with constitutional responsibility of ministers under section 64 of the constitution. All ministers are appointed under that section to administer entire departments of state.The government has taken note of concerns raised about the proposed provision which would have allowed for oral authorisations to be given to a minister. Some concerns have been expressed that, if unwritten authorisations given to ministers become common, the paper trail of government decisions may be difficult to follow, and may create practical and procedural difficulties for anyone seeking to review or challenge an administrative decision.I question the weight of those concerns but can understand why they are made. In the light of the concerns, it is proposed to amend the bill to provide that authorisations given to both ministers and parliamentary secretaries must be in writing, notwithstanding that this will reduce the flexibility of ministerial authorisations.On the question of validation of past oral authorisations, I am advised that there have been such delegations in the past by both the current government and previous governments, and that these should be validated. Future authorisations, however, as I have just foreshadowed and the member for Curtin foreshadowed, will be required to be in writing.The member for Barton in his speech suggested that divisions of responsibility between ministers should be dealt with by the administrative arrangement order. In fact, that is not the way it works. The administrative arrangements orders do not, and have not in the past, set out the specific areas of responsibility as between portfolio ministers and other ministers, or as between ministers and parliamentary secretaries. That, I think, is not the appropriate place for the fixing of anything but the general portfolio responsibility.I note that the member for Barton opposes the validation of oral delegations, but the reasons he raised—that they prevent audit and prevent redress—I suggest are open to some question. I cannot see why judicial review, for example, cannot be taken, no matter who took a decision; and, if the process of suing the wrong minister or suing a minister in lieu of a parliamentary secretary occurs, it seems to me that legally the portfolio minister may well still be responsible for the decision of the delegate in legal terms, and the processes of litigation would effectively enable discovery or whatever else is required in order to identify the reasons.The suggestion that there are loose arrangements allowing job sharing among ministers or ministers and parliamentary secretaries I think is inappropriate. But we do accept that the wholesale use of oral arrangements would be inappropriate—and it is not suggested that that has occurred, and it is certainly not suggested that it should occur in the future.The member for Barton's reference to the Foster case I think highlighted the actual narrowness of the ground upon which the judge thought it appropriate that there be authorisations by ministers for others to act. It is not only in the case of illness or absence or leave or other emergencies that authorisations are required. The sharing of the considerable burdens of ministerial responsibility require that there be some system of authorisation. To limit it to simply the Prime Minister or cabinet would, in our view, be insufficiently flexible, and it is certainly not consistent with past practice.As foreshadowed, it is proposed to move government amendments. I will move them when we move to the consideration in detail stage.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.759Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:31:00759McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (line 5) to page 4 (line 32), omit the items, substitute:1 After section 18BInsert:18C The Prime Minister or Cabinet may authorise a non-portfolio Minister or a member of the Executive Council who is not a Minister to act on his or her behalf in the performance of statutory functions or the exercise of statutory powers(1) The Prime Minister or Cabinet may during the temporary absence or incapacity of a Minister (the portfolio Minister ) who administers (whether alone or jointly with one or more other Ministers) an Act or a provision of an Act authorise: (a) a Minister who does not administer the Act or provision; or (b) a member of the Executive Council who is not a Minister; to act on behalf of the portfolio Minister in the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the portfolio Minister may perform or exercise under the Act or provision.(2) An authorisation under subsection (1) in relation to an Act or a provision of an Act extends to the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the portfolio Minister may perform or exercise under an instrument (including a regulation, rule or Proclamation) having effect under or for the purposes of the Act or provision.(3) Subject to subsection (4), an authorisation under subsection (1) may be expressed: (a) to have effect only during a period or periods, or during the existence of a circumstance or circumstances, referred to in the authorisation; or (b) to take effect immediately, or at a time referred to in the authorisation, and afterwards to continue to have effect until another person is appointed to the office held by the authorising Minister.(4) Despite subsection (3), an authorisation under subsection (1) may be revoked at any time by the Prime Minister or Cabinet.(5) An authorisation under subsection (1) given to a Minister or member of the Executive Council, and the revocation of such an authorisation, must be in writing.(6) This section does not affect the giving, under a power existing apart from this section, of an authorisation to a Minister or other member of the Executive Council to act on behalf of another Minister. (7) Either the portfolio Minister or the Minister or member of the Executive Council who acted on behalf of the portfolio Minister may be named as respondent in any proceeding to review the decision.(8) In this section: Cabinet refers to the group of Ministers who are designated as Cabinet Ministers in details of the Ministry issued by the Prime Minister; and function includes duty.2 Validation of past authorisations(1) Any authorisation that a Minister (the authorising Minister ) purported to give before the commencement of item 1 to another Minister or member of the Executive Council to act on behalf of the authorising Minister in the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the authorising Minister was empowered to perform or exercise under an Act or a provision of an Act is taken to have been, at all times before that commencement when the authorisation purported to be in force, as valid as it would have been if that authorisation had been made by the Prime Minister or Cabinet in accordance with item 1 and the section inserted by that item had been in force when the purported authorisation was given.(2) If an authorisation that a Minister (the authorising Minister ) purported to give before the commencement of item 1 to another Minister or member of the Executive Council to act on behalf of the authorising Minister in the performance of functions, or the exercise of powers, that the authorising Minister was empowered to perform or exercise under an Act or a provision of an Act purported to be in force immediately before that commencement, the purported authorisation has the effect after that commencement that it would have if that authorisation had been made by the Prime Minister or Cabinet in accordance with item 1 and the section inserted by that item had been in force when the purported authorisation was given.Part 1 of our amendment seeks to specifically provide that the delegation has to be at the direction of the Prime Minister or cabinet. Our concern is not merely technical. We are of the view that, if parliament specifically prescribes that a given minister is empowered to undertake a particular act or to make a determination—particularly in respect of the Attorney-General's portfolio, where he or she invariably has special expertise and experience in matters of justice—it would be quite inappropriate for that authority to be delegated to another minister who may lack those skills.I am not singling anyone out, but it may be that a decision would be delegated to the primary industries minister or the health minister or the minister for transport who does not have the experience which parliament originally intended in enacting that the Attorney-General should make decisions which, as the member for Denison indicated, may jeopardise individual liberties. Our concern is not trivial or technical; it is for that rational and important reason. That is why we have proposed the amendment to item 1. Effectively, we do not think ministers should be able to arrange private or informal job sharing arrangements which override the clear desire of the parliament.It would be a different circumstance if the delegation were going to be to another portfolio minister who was sharing responsibility in that portfolio. We concede that is a different circumstance. Indeed, the Minister for Justice and Customs would have the appropriate qualifications necessary to make those sorts of determinations in this Foster case. However, the bill goes much further than that. Item 1 proposes an amendment to section 18C of the Acts Interpretation Act to refer delegation to a minister `who does not administer the act or the provision'. That would enable delegation beyond the portfolio minister, and that causes us concern. In respect of the past, we proposed an amendment to item 2, which we believe is very broad, which enables the past to be rectified without watering down the future provisions that I have described in item 1. That is on the table for the House to consider.Finally, because of the problems in identifying the particular decision maker, we have proposed a new subsection, subsection 7, to section 18C of the Acts Interpretation Act which provides that either the portfolio minister or a member of the Executive Council to whom authority has been delegated is the appropriate respondent in any administrative review proceedings. Rather than an applicant having to undertake the procedures of discovery and so forth that the Attorney-General alluded to, we say that it is appropriate to specifically provide for an applicant to have that remedy—in other words, the applicant should not be burdened with the task of tracking down the origins of the source of the stream.They are the three essential points we make in moving this amendment. As the member for Denison indicated, we expect that the numbers in the House will be against us. But I also understand that a general review of the Acts Interpretation Act is being undertaken by the Attorney through his department. We would like our views taken on board in the course of that process. Indeed, we anticipate that our Senate colleagues will also take up the ball in pursuing our arguments. In summary, they are the three reasons why we have proposed our amendment.12:35:00761Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—While accepting the spirit in which the opposition moved its amendment, the government does not accept it. The first part of the amendment provides that only the Prime Minister and cabinet may authorise a non-portfolio minister or parliamentary secretary to act on behalf of another minister during the temporary absence or incapacity of a portfolio minister. The reasons given by the member for Barton in support of that do not require that limited arrangement. There is no suggestion of the Prime Minister or the cabinet being the appropriate body to ensure that there is special expertise exercised by a minister acting for another minister or by a parliamentary secretary acting for a minister. In practice, the provision is unworkable.I think it would generally be accepted by those who have operated within the system that the resources and time of the Prime Minister and the resources and time of cabinet should be focused on high level government decision making, not on making authorisations temporary or otherwise in relation to the exercise of a responsibility within a portfolio. It would not be efficient and it would not be cost effective. I also note that, if this is an amendment designed to improve government administration, the opposition when in government might have been expected to have introduced it itself.The amendment also does not recognise the role of parliamentary secretaries in the administration of a portfolio as it effectively prohibits a portfolio minister from giving a standing authorisation to a parliamentary secretary. This would put parliamentary secretaries in a worse position than a junior departmental officer, who may be able to exercise a ministerial power under a relevant delegation. This also supports the argument that the first part of the opposition's amendment is unworkable.The second part of the amendment provides for the validation of all types of past ministerial authorisations, including those made by portfolio ministers and those made orally. The inclusion of this provision suggests that the opposition is affirming that it supported and used all possible types of ministerial authorisation while it was in government.In his reference to subsection (7) of the opposition's proposed section 18C, the member for Barton suggested that this would overcome a need to identify the person making the decision. When I referred to the processes of proceedings for judicial review being available, I was talking about the identification of reasons—there are, of course, other bases for obtaining reasons in a proceeding under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. I was not referring to the identification of the appropriate respondent because I would have thought—and this is without reference to authority—that the portfolio minister, a minister within the portfolio or a parliamentary secretary within a portfolio who was known to have made a decision would, in any event, be an appropriate respondent to a proceeding. They are the reasons for not supporting the opposition's amendment.12:39:00761Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I am very happy to second the amendment moved by the member for Barton. The opposition never purports to claim that its amendments are technically perfect. We have developed this in a very short time frame, as indeed has the government in relation to the legislation. There is an opportunity to improve both the legislation and the proposed amendment, so let neither of us be advocates of our own perfection in relation to this particular task.There is a very legitimate public policy point that the member for Barton has raised in relation to these issues. Those are matters that will have scrutiny before the Senate. One further point that merits some attention is that too casual an application of delegation is not in the interests of responsible government. When you come to the dispatch box to ask a question of a particular minister, in the normal course you would expect that that minister would have carriage of the matters which are publicly known. The best way of doing that is having that matter normally being the subject of a delegation that is known either through express decision of cabinet endorsed by the Executive Council or by correspondence from the Prime Minister which is then made known as a matter of public record.It would be a very bad thing, in terms of the accountability of this political process, were such a casual use of delegations to become the norm so that when one addressed a question to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs one found the Minister for Transport and Regional Services or the like rising in his place. I do not think, in practice, the government really intends that either.None of us in this debate would wish to unduly hamper the good administration of government or to place too great a fetter on it. Nonetheless, I think the spirit of the amendment that has been moved by the member for Barton captures certain public policy demands that ought to be respected. I believe that with both the legislation and the amendments there still is an opportunity of review by the Attorney-General as the legislation proceeds, and I believe it could be improved to the benefit of good administration.I echo the remarks of the Attorney-General. This has been a debate conducted in good spirit both by him and by my colleague the member for Barton. These are not issues which should be trivialised because good administration depends on their wise resolution.Amendment negatived.12:43:00762Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsections (5) and (6), substitute:(5) An authorisation under subsection (1), and the revocation of such an authorisation, must be in writing.(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 14 to 32), omit the item, substitute:2 Validation of past authorisationsIf a Minister (the authorising Minister ) purported, before the commencement of this item, to give to another Minister or member of the Executive Council an authorisation to act on behalf of the authorising Minister in the performance of functions or duties, or the exercise of powers, that the authorising Minister was empowered to perform or exercise under an Act or a provision of an Act or under an instrument (including a regulation, rule or Proclamation) having effect under or for the purposes of such an Act or provision:(a) the authorisation is taken to have been validly given; and(b) if the authorisation continues in force after that commencement, the authorising Minister may at any time, by writing, revoke the authorisation.(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 14), after "function", insert "or duty".(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 28), omit "5", substitute "6".(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 2), omit "5", substitute "6".The first amendment is in respect of the concerns raised about the proposed provision which would have allowed oral authorisations to be given to a minister of which the government has taken note. This amendment will ensure that authorisations given to both ministers and parliamentary secretaries under this provision must be in writing. All parliamentary secretaries are members of the Executive Council. It will also overcome concerns raised that, if oral authorisations were permitted under the proposed provision, it could create practical and procedural difficulties for anyone seeking to review or challenge an administrative decision as there would not be a paper trail in relation to the minister who exercised the relevant power.The second amendment deals with the validation of past authorisations. It will ensure that any purported past authorisation given by a minister, whether in writing or orally, is to be taken to have been validly given. This will validate past authorisations made by previous governments, including Labor governments, and ensure that decisions made in reliance on those authorisations are not the subject of further legal challenge. Although this provision validates past authorisations, it also provides that these authorisations may be revoked in writing by the authorising minister at any time.The third amendment amends the validation provision dealing with past acts done on behalf of another portfolio minister by another minister in the portfolio. It amends the provision to include acts done in the performance of a duty as well as acts done in the performance of a function. This will ensure that all relevant acts are validated.The fourth and fifth amendments correct a drafting order. I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum in respect of government amendments Nos 1 to 5, and I commend the amendments to the House.12:45:00763McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—If I may very briefly, we are pleased that the government has removed, for the future, the ability for oral delegation. We appreciate there is a view that it is necessary to tidy up what has happened in the past and, in that context, will not be opposing this series of amendments in the House. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.763Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills763r602763Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time. 12:47:00763Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The perpetual task and duty of a Treasurer is to safeguard the taxation system. Nothing is more important than stamping out tax avoidance. Tax avoidance has always been with us, and it will always be with us. The duty of any Treasurer is to ensure that the law is as effective as it can be; that is, that loopholes are closed as soon as they are identified. To the extent that Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 achieves that aim, Labor is supporting it. Secondly, the Treasurer has a duty to ensure that the revenue authorities are properly resourced to be able to do their job to collect the revenue properly collectable. That means ensuring that the authorities have enough resources to recruit and retain competent staff so as not to get too far behind the tax avoidance industry.What is the record of the government on this issue of properly resourcing the Taxation Office? It is poor. What does this year's budget do to the resourcing of the Taxation Office? It has almost a five per cent cut this financial year, a further cut of over five per cent in the following year and basically flat resources for the two further years beyond that. So, rather than beefing up the resources which would easily pay for themselves if directed into compliance activities, this Treasurer continues to cut the budget for the Taxation Office.Little wonder then that the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Carmody, recently had occasion to remark on the growing culture of aggressive tax planning. Little wonder that the commissioner noted the huge growth in a range of tax effective investments in such things as research, films and primary production. Clearly, it is not just a coincidence that the commissioner has remarked, `The evidence available to us, however, is that the incidence of this is back on the increase.' The Treasurer is very influential, as we all know, in determining expenditure priorities for the government. If he wanted to, he could reorder priorities to increase the resources available to combat tax avoidance. He could clamp down heavily on rorters, especially those who profit from the marketing of the so-called tax effective products. Instead, the Treasurer has been focusing on that obsession of his, the GST. Rather than following the successful Labor formula of increasing the fairness of the direct tax system, he has chosen to propose a huge, new, unfair tax and, in the meantime, has allowed tax avoidance to flourish. It is important for people to realise that the arrangements that the tax commissioner is concerned about are not dealt with in the government's tax package. The brave new world that the Treasurer pretends is around the corner will still allow for the new generation of schemes that the commissioner is concerned about. I now wish to move a second reading amendment which will identify some of the matters that Mr Carmody has highlighted. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes the recent comments of the Commissioner of Taxation to the Chartered Accountants in Business Congress 98 that: (a) there is a growing culture of aggressive tax planning in Australia; (b) there has been a huge growth in a range of tax effective investments in such things as research, films and primary production; (c) these investments were blossoming in the 1996-97 year and are continuing to increase; (d) circular financing is used to leverage up the deductions claimed to be available to investors; (e) another tax avoidance arrangement which has grown strongly recently involves employee benefit arrangements designed to circumvent the reasonable benefit limits and involve several hundred million dollars to New Zealand superannuation funds alone; and (f) the most aggressive new tax avoidance products are structured financial products, including structured option arrangements which generate artificial capital losses, and that other products are emerging which offer tax deferral; and(2) condemns the Government for allowing this aggressive new tax avoidance culture to thrive and calls on the Government to act to stamp out these practices, thereby improving the fairness of the taxation scheme and providing adequate revenue to finance the delivery of a decent level of public services".These are very serious issues which have been brought into the public domain. Why has the commissioner had to do this? Clearly because he is frustrated at the lack of assistance the government and the Treasurer have provided. I commend the commissioner for establishing the new intelligence unit within the tax office as part of his real-time approach to avoidance which was flagged earlier in the year. I trust this unit will be effective in attempting to identify these schemes and techniques as they emerge so as to enable the tax office to protect the revenue in a timely manner, either by audit, by ruling or, where necessary, by advice to the Treasurer eventually becoming legislation.One important area of litigation recently has concerned access to the clients to whom avoidance schemes have been provided by professional advisers such as accountants. The tax office has generally been successful in court on these issues. I welcome this ruling. It is not fair that tax avoidance should be protected through secrecy, and it is reassuring that our courts have not ruled that way.What is very disturbing are the reports that firms have been moving documents offshore in response to these decisions. That is, to frustrate access, some less than scrupulous advisers may have moved their records outside Australia and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the tax commissioner and the Australian courts. The commissioner has publicly expressed the view that such action would be unprofessional, to say the least.Apart from the new mass marketing of retail tax avoidance products, which have exploded under the gaze of the current government, there is of course the large problem of the very wealthy few who have huge capacity to pay tax but often mysteriously end up paying very little, if any, income tax. Tax commissioner Michael Carmody's speech expressed the very strong view that as a society we should reject the culture of aggressive tax planning, that it was very socially destructive.That is the view I share. I, therefore, cannot allow this debate to pass without registering my concern that people in positions of great power and influence in this country, rather than accepting a social and moral obligation to pay tax, have been part of the culture of aggressive tax planning. The best known example—though by no means the only one—concerns Kerry Packer's Consolidated Press Holdings. During the past two years, Consolidated Press Holdings made more than $600 million in profit but managed to avoid paying any tax. This kind of behaviour can only be destructive of our social contract. Men and women agree to live in a society and abide by its laws and conditions because they understand that the laws apply equally to us all and work for the good of us all. We cannot expect ordinary citizens to willingly declare and pay their taxes unless those who are in positions of power and leadership are prepared to do the same.I will now move on to make some observations about the goods and services tax. In our view, there is no need for a GST. Labor has said all along that the real issue in tax reform is improving the equity of the direct tax base. The real goal ought to be to increase the tax contribution of those who do not make a proper contribution, not to increase the contribution of those who cannot afford it. This is not an issue which can ever be permanently fixed. It is a constant task of repair and maintenance to the tax base, with an occasional piece of renovation.Unlike the coalition, Labor is happy to pass legislation which improves the equity of the tax system. We are supporting this bill, which will raise or protect hundreds of millions of dollars each year into the future. It is the right thing to do. Labor is a responsible opposition on taxation matters. We support good proposals without equivocation, but we vehemently oppose bad taxation policy such as the GST.We do not act for special interests; we act for the general public interest. We also act for the majority of the Australian people who supported Labor with almost 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote at the last election, with the coalition only managing a little over 48 per cent. If the last election was a referendum on the GST, it is clear that this government lost it. Amongst the reasons we oppose the GST is that it represents a transfer of wealth away from those who have less towards those who already have more. It is most distressing to see that it forms part of that age-old Liberal Party agenda of taking away from those who have less and giving to those who are already well off.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Is the amendment seconded?N36EVANSMr Martyn Evans—I second the amendment.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Address in Reply765765 Debate resumed from 24 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.765Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for Groom, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.13:00:00765Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP11—It is a great honour for me to address the House today as the representative for the seat of Groom. Groom is located in the south-east corner of Queensland and is one of Australia's smallest regional electorates, covering an area of 6,417 square kilometres. Groom is not my birthplace nor where I grew up but, having lived there for almost a decade, it is where my family and I are proud to belong. It is a region of great diversity, beauty and bountiful natural resources, and its industries, medical services and education facilities are world-class.I feel extremely fortunate to be able to represent the people of Groom, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who assisted me in my election to this House. In particular, I would like to thank my campaign organisers, Neville Stewart, David Watts, John Harbison and Nicole Eden. This quartet was more than ably assisted by a group of dedicated Liberal Party members, supporters and friends who worked to ensure that Groom remained a blue-ribbon Liberal seat.I also congratulate state president, Bob Carroll, state director, Greg Goebel, and national director, Lynton Crosby, and their staff in Brisbane and Canberra for their part in the Groom campaign and thank them for their support and confidence in me. As well, I am grateful to Victoria's Premier Jeff Kennett for his campaigning on my behalf in Groom, as did my Senate colleagues Warwick Parer and Ian Macdonald. I would especially like to thank the honourable member for Ryan and Minister for Defence for his unfailing encouragement, faith and support since I took my first steps towards representing Groom 12 months ago.I would also like to thank my parents, parents-in-law, my sister Louise and her family, and my brothers for their support during the trying and challenging period leading up to the election. Most importantly though, I would like to thank my wife, Karen, and my daughters, Kate and Laura, for their support and understanding during the past six months. Their undying faith in my pursuit of a political career and their understanding of my ambition to play a leading role in Australia's future made the unbearable bearable and the near impossible easy.I come to this chamber as a new member but as no stranger to this parliament. In my previous life as an agripolitician, I regularly visited this House to see both members of government and opposition and to enlist their support for issues of great importance to my rural and regional constituents. In the main, that support was forthcoming and the solutions were generally found in a bipartisan and cooperative atmosphere. My seven years leadership of the agripolitical farm lobby group, the Queensland Grain Growers Association, required me to put aside my personal political sentiments and work with the government of the day both at a state and federal level in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for Queensland farmers. While I now relish being part of the Liberal Party, I have to admit that I did enjoy working in that bipartisan atmosphere—that is, working without fear or favour or political allegiance with both Labor and coalition members to achieve positive outcomes not only for rural producers but for Australians as a whole.Across this chamber at question time, I see people like the member for Griffith who, in concert with the state Premier, worked tirelessly with me to bring assistance to the state's drought stricken farmers; in front of him sits the member for Hotham who, in his role as federal minister for primary industries, provided the early part of that assistance; and to his right sits the member for Dickson who, in 1990 along with Senator Bill O'Chee, stood with me in 45 degree heat on a steel-decked semitrailer in Emerald, Central Queensland, calling for greater recognition of the enormous challenges facing rural and regional Australia. As the newest member of any political party here today, I reflect fondly on those times and consider this type of bipartisan approach to be a hallmark of a successful, mature political system. However, after sitting in this chamber for two weeks, I am wondering where this bipartisanship is or if it really ever existed in Australian politics outside war years.As a novice of the political gamesmanship which now dominates Australian politics, I can do little but lament at my lost innocence and ponder if the wonderful and enormous resource that sits in this House will ever be fully harnessed to the complete and absolute benefit of the people we represent and the nation as a whole. For my part, I will continue to do what I can to foster a good relationship not only with the members of this parliament but also with the likes of the Peter Beattie government and his ministers, such as Henry Paluszczuk, as well as my local National Party MLAs and local government representatives in the seat of Groom.I believe that one of the fundamental roles of government and politicians is to lead—to lead both the communities they have been elected to represent and the nation as a whole. This role as a leader involves government as a facilitator and a catalyst to develop business and industry growth as well as community spirit and a sense of wellbeing. Government has to be active and a public participant but only in a constructive way. In turn, I believe it is the role of those communities in the private sector, more particularly, to both accept and expect this role of government—that is, facilitation, assistance and leadership.In our modern and at times highly materialistic society, all too often people expect government to fix everything and, when we don't, they complain bitterly about the failure of governments and politicians to deliver. This has bred the culture of complaint—an environment where people's expectations that a government can solve all their problems all the time can never be met.Australia and its people have a very proud history of achievement and innovation, unreliant on long-term political involvement. Now as one of this nation's leaders, I am committed to fostering the further realisation of this great heritage—of fostering a relationship between good government and good business to achieve great outcomes in an environment where governments govern and the business sector runs business.Another critical role for government is to bring about reform. The Howard government has already established a proud record on reform and will continue to pursue a range of reforms for the betterment of all Australians and future Australians. Reform, particularly with regard to the role of government—whether procedural or absolute—will always be viewed with a measure of fear and caution by the electorate. But reform is merely a bureaucratic term for change, and change, as we know, is part of everyday life. If managed properly, change represents an opportunity for a better future for all involved. Change is about keeping what is good, removing what is bad and adding what is necessary. Change is something we deal with every day of our lives, yet it is something that people resist almost blindly. Those who adapt best to change and take advantage of change are our most successful. Bringing about successful change in turn requires courage and determination to see it through. It is not about populism or politics; it is about true leadership, the sort of leadership we see by the bucketful every day from the Howard government.I am no stranger to hard physical work, long hours and getting dirt under my fingernails, but I am also no stranger to the cut and thrust of business and industry and the intensity of lobbying, and I have grown to understand now the complexities of urban life. In the end, though, I am a regional person with my roots firmly dug in regional Australia. Wherever I have lived and worked, the importance of our regions as the lifeblood of our nation has always been obvious.With Toowoomba as its hub and a cluster of small towns servicing primary and secondary industry in our region, Groom provides an excellent example of regional Australia's significance and potential. Regions like Groom are a homogenous mix of city and country, urban and rural, and make an enormous contribution to Australia's standard of living and our nation's export earnings. Given the right level of encouragement and investment, Australia's regions have the potential to bring even greater wealth to our nation.That potential that lies in regions like Groom can, however, only be realised when people work together. There is no room for division or sectarianism. For those who wish to divide this nation—be it along cultural, ethnic, professional or political lines—they are not only doing us a great disservice but deliberately overlooking the relationship between all of Australia's sectors of business and social community.People are people wherever you go and linking the city to the bush and our business hearts to our natural resources is the way of the future. As every political leader knows, unity is strength and division is death. I can therefore only hope that those parties and politicians who seek to gain political power by promising specific groups special treatment are seen for what they are—political opportunists of the worst order. These are the people who promote the politics of division and envy instead of the politics of a cohesive, honest government.Rural and regional people have different needs from people who live in urban areas, but we are not, as some would like to believe, special. Our needs can best be met not by sectionalising regional Australia but by including us in the overall plan for the nation.The Howard government has a bold plan for regional development, which I am sure members of this House will applaud. The Liberal Party is, of course, well placed to pursue its agenda of revitalising regional Australia. We hold more seats in regional Australia than any other party, and, as we have seen again in the 3 October election, when given the opportunity and the choice, regional and rural Australians support Liberal candidates in preference to the simplistic or historic alternatives.This level of regional support provides a tremendous opportunity for the Howard-led coalition to accelerate regional development as we approach the next millennium. In Groom alone, four projects totalling $2 billion must be brought to fruition. Firstly, the antiquated, treacherous and slow road descent from Toowoomba to Brisbane must be upgraded. A new range crossing is on the drawing board, but its completion date must be brought forward to 2005 if our region is going to be given a fair chance to develop.As if Toowoomba and western Queensland are not disadvantaged enough by a poor-cousin highway, this situation is exaggerated by an outdated rail crossing, in which locomotives crawl up and down the range at a snail's pace, traversing in two hours what a motorist can travel in 10 minutes. This rail corridor must also be upgraded to a highspeed, standard gauge, electric link if Groom is to play its key role in inland Australia's development.If the decline in inland Australia is to be seriously addressed though, the solution not only lies in high-speed road and rail arteries to our seaboard. For two centuries, regional Australia's development has been hindered by an ineffective, if not non-existent, rail system. If we are to overcome the pre-Federation legacies of three different rail gauges, which fail to link the eastern seaboard in a north-south direction, the construction of the Melbourne to Darwin rail line is imperative.If we are to give truth to the rhetoric that successive governments espouse regarding the importance of regional development and the great tragedy of the decline of our communities west of the Great Divide, then we as a parliament should show the courage and commitment to build this line.For those who scoff or who are deterred by the enormity of this project or its cost, may I simply echo the words of one of its great advocates, Everald Crompton, and simply ask: what has been done in the past 50 years to promote development in regional Australia, and what project is there that could make regional development in Australia a reality?A standard gauge line linking all mainland states will allow industry to move off the coast and for regional Australia to prosper and thrive like never before. Regardless of whether an industry were to operate at Charlton, Goulburn or Longreach, it would be as competitive in the domestic and export markets as those industries in Melbourne, Sydney or Pittsburg.These three new transport links are also the basis of a proposed thousand hectare industrial estate to be located at Charlton on the western fringe of Toowoomba. This site has the potential to develop into one of Australia's great industrial areas and bring true meaning to the word `decentralisation'.Another of our great disadvantages to the people in rural and regional Australia is the lack of a reasonably priced telecommunications infrastructure. If our regions are to realise their full potential, we must provide an efficient telecommunications system for all Australia, not just for those fortunate enough to live within 150 kilometres of the coast. Untimed local calls are the right of every Australian; access to a mobile phone system that works is the right of every Australian.Groom abounds in natural resources and rich farmland, but we are in short supply of one commodity: water. Toowoomba sits on the Great Divide, and it is the watershed of the eastern and western river systems in southern Queensland. While rain on my roof takes the short journey to the coast and Brisbane, rain on my neighbour's roof ultimately finds its way through three other states and to Bass Strait. In fact, most of Groom feeds Australia's greatest river system, the Murray-Darling.The Murray-Darling is a great resource, yet farmers and communities who rely on it know it is a river system that is no longer able to provide sufficient water for those who live along it. My region is no exception. The search for alternative water supplies, spearheaded by a local group, Vision 2000, has identified the waste water of Brisbane not only as a solution for our water shortage but also as a possible replenishment of the Murray-Darling system. Instead of polluting the environment and the beautiful waters of Moreton Bay, treated effluent could be pumped through the rich Lockyer Valley and over the range to the Darling Downs.Initially, 130 billion litres of water would be available, to the value of the people of Groom, and to Australia as a nation. This proposal has tremendous opportunity, and the Darling Downs region has been shown to be one of the most efficient water users in the world—in fact, second only to Israel. Current figures indicate that 130 billion litres per annum would earn our region in the vicinity of $120 million per annum. When the multiplication factor is considered, such earnings would be worth in excess of half a billion dollars per annum to Australia.But all is not rosy in Groom. Primary industry in the region, as it is everywhere, faces its own challenges. Not only have unseasonal weather conditions recently provided devastation to our farmers' winter crops, but industries such as pork and peanuts are also facing challenges. In Groom there are also the urban related problems of youth unemployment, youth crime, drugs, the never-ending squeeze on small business and retailers by the large shopping centre complexes, and the domination of our retail sector in Australia by the very large but very few players.In conclusion, we all face different and difficult challenges as we move into the next millennium. While I personally have enjoyed my success as an agropolitician, I realise the enormity of the challenges now presented to me by my move into mainstream politics. I am looking forward to learning the ropes and thus being best able to serve the Howard government and those who have elected me.Ultimately, it is my ambition to ensure that the many challenges that will confront Australia in the next millennium are turned into opportunities and that the future will be made special not only for the people of Groom but for all Australians.769Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for Stirling, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.13:19:00769McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP01—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on being elevated to your important position and look forward to seeing you and the other Speakers continue the democratic traditions of impartiality and fairness in this place.I would like to acknowledge and pay respect to the Ngunnawal people, on whose land I stand, and would like to say sorry to indigenous people and Torres Strait Islanders for the injustices done and still being done to them. I look to the members in this place working in a bipartisan and consultative manner to formulate changes that will ensure that their aspirations about self-determination, access to their land and economic viability are met.I thank the electors of Stirling for giving me the opportunity to represent them in the Australian parliament. I will endeavour to use my skills, knowledge and energy to raise awareness of a need for Australia to return to a social justice path so that the people of Stirling and all other Australians get the laws, policies, rights and protections that will give them equitable access to education, health services, community services and other infrastructures necessary.I came to this place so that I could contribute to good government for all Australians. Good government means acting in a fair and equitable manner to ensure laws and programs that provide access and equity—hence social justice—for all Australians. I have come on a wave of public opinion that started in the suburbs and has now broken in the parliament. I am part of a new order put here by people who want to rid Australia of economic rationalism, get jobs and job security, and get back government services. These people have had a gutful of change.I believe we have a collective responsibility to reject the concept of economic rationalism and all its manifestations in society, because they are destructive. Economic rationalism can be defined as a way of making decisions about the allocations of resources based on the criteria of profit. If resources when used for A make less profit than when used for B then the rational decision is to move resources from A to B. The beneficiaries of this opportunistic behaviour, profit, are the owners of the capital or resources. The pervasiveness of this concept is seen daily in the media. The market, the economy, is everything. When did we cease to be a society and become an economy?Government represents the people who own the assets and resources in the public domain. This government has forgotten that they represent the people. They are mistaken and think they should represent the owners of private capital. They should not. Their responsibility is to the people and their wellbeing if Australia lays claim to being a civilised society.My early experiences have taken me along a path which has now led me to service in this place. As a tribute to my mother, I am going to describe the realities of poverty and disadvantage endured by my family. These experiences have shaped me. I was born into a caring family in the 1940s. However, at the end of World War II my father, a returned serviceman, left my mother with three children under the age of four years.The government of the day provided little in the way of income support, public housing or support services to my mother and us children—or for my father, who I understand would have benefited from counselling and support services. Many returned servicemen have never fully recovered from their wartime experiences. My family was one of many who suffered this experience.I understand from my mother and her friends that the government and community attitudes of the day were about individualism, self-help and charity, based on assumptions that if people worked hard they would succeed. These values did not take into account that the structures and systems in place were a barrier to many people having a reasonable life.My mother worked to support us children and relied on neighbours to provide child care. Having left school at the end of primary school, she lacked education and skills and was competing for jobs. She found shiftwork as a cook. With split shifts, low wages, lack of child maintenance and child-care arrangement difficulties, she had to seek assistance from charity groups and ultimately place us children in a orphanage. My mother loved us and cared for us. It grieved her to put us in orphanages. It caused her great fear and stress when the orphanages would offer to foster or adopt us out, and she would take us out and try again to juggle a job, child care and low wages.In the early 1950s my mother married a World War II returned soldier and our new family moved to a rural area—a common experience. In the 1950s and 1960s our family did not experience the comfortable era of John Howard's backward vision. We were not relaxed and comfortable, and many people I met when campaigning for the electorate of Stirling were not relaxed and comfortable either.Our family struggled with domestic violence, alcoholism and poverty. Dad was a bush carpenter and work, hence income, was sporadic due to cycles of drought, flood, bushfires and plagues. My mother took what seasonal jobs she could find as a cook, cleaner and barmaid to supplement the family income. My parents worked hard but their income was low. This situation was and still is common to families in rural areas. Where were the services my family needed—counselling, family support, employment services and income support? If they existed, they were in the city and had long waiting lists. They cost money to obtain, money my family did not have.And we were not the only family suffering and experiencing these difficulties. Australian society was not comfortable; it was extremely inequitable. We were not the worst off. Aboriginal people lived outside the town on a reserve with little in the way of services, education and citizenship rights. Women had other difficulties, including lack of jobs, lower wages than men, having to leave a job when marrying, accessing social security if they left their husband and domestic violence that was endemic and hidden.These experiences politicised me. I knew that you could work hard but, if the system was against you, you did not succeed and become relaxed and comfortable. A lot of what determines whether you have a good life or a poverty stricken life is luck—luck of birth, of health, of disability, of geography, of systems in your society and of not having a major accident or trauma.In my work, family, party, community and volunteer activities I have operated from a philosophy that, in working for and with people, in providing a service or program or changing criteria, I have a responsibility to ensure the means must justify the ends.Since the Court coalition government took office in Western Australia in 1993 and the Howard coalition government took office in 1996, my observation has been that a number of concepts informed their philosophy including: economic rationalism rules; market forces are more important than people; and the means can be justified if the ends of profit and privatisation are achieved.For the past six years I have worked in a community legal centre and welfare rights service in Perth. I have met daily people experiencing the negative effects of rationalist economic policy. People came to my agency seeking assistance with a problem or issue. They experienced problems with Centrelink, social security, Austudy, employment services, family law, the court system and child support. As well, they were suffering burnout from the constant and rapid changes to laws which have restructured society, that have led to massive cuts in basic services and income support programs. I have seen the devastation that ill-conceived rationalist policies bring to the lives of ordinary people.Over the years many people have told me of their disenchantment and cynicism with governments, politicians and government organisations. When I was on the campaign trail and listening to people and their concerns, I heard this disenchantment and cynicism expressed by a variety of people and community groups. People told me that they wanted genuine solutions to economic and social problems and believed that the Labor values and traditions could achieve this, so they would vote for me.The values and traditions of the Labor government are to build up the community service and government infrastructure in Australia. Coalition governments have dismantled and reduced these services and the infrastructure. Ironically, the coalition government and many state government privatisation deals in respect of the sale of infrastructure assets have not been rational. Deals with the private sector are frequently referred to as `no brain deals'—you don't need to think; just sign up. This has been and continues to be a betrayal by governments of the people who elected them.Many things happened that took me along the path to this place. When I was campaigning for the seat of Stirling I spoke to many people who expressed disenchantment with an alienation from our society. People told me they were worried about the direction we were taking as people and as a nation. They told me they were unhappy with economic rationalism.There were other events that shaped my life, and I want to tell you of some of the significant ones. Firstly, becoming a member of the Womens Electoral Lobby and becoming involved with lobbying governments to achieve law reform in relation to divorce; child care; access to finance and credit; industrial relations, especially inequitable award wages and conditions; prostitution; and domestic violence. They were just some of the issues.Secondly, there was the election of the Whitlam government in 1972 which followed 21 years of coalition government and took Australia onto the social justice path. Thirdly, leaving my job as a secretary to take up a job as a community worker, and discovering that you could make a difference to the structure of society and the services provided. Fourthly, there was the coming of the Family Law Act and the ability to get a divorce and marry again. Colin has been a wonderful husband, support and friend for the past 23 years. Fifthly, I entered university as a result of the Whitlam Labor government abolishing tertiary entry fees and allowing entry to working class and mature age people like me so that we could get further education. Kim should be very proud of his Dad, as a minister of education and the role he played in that restructure.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE—These and other events put me firmly on the social justice path. I was aware that my mother and family were not to blame for the poverty, oppression and violence in my childhood. The government, legal and social infrastructures were prime factors. Changing these laws and infrastructures would improve access and equity and give more people the opportunity to lead reasonable lives.I want to talk about the electorate of Stirling. Stirling is an inner-metropolitan seat and extends from the West Coast—the beautiful beaches where I swim at Scarborough, Trigg, Sorrento and Hillarys—to Mirrabooka and Dianella in the east. It covers about 20 suburbs and is a leafy garden area. The people there consider themselves to be middle Australia.The seat was created in 1955 and was named after Sir James Stirling, the first Western Australian Governor. He had his own problems, including overseeing one of the worst massacres of Aboriginals in Australian history. When he left the colony, despondency was widespread. But despondency in the colony was caused by poor planning and policy decisions, particularly by Governor Stirling. So the electorate has a history of conservative governments, going back to its creation.I can see the parallels today and how coalition government decisions are affecting the people and services in the seat of Stirling. While on the campaign trail people spoke to me about issues that concern them, particularly health, health, health; jobs and job security; cuts to local services; and feelings of insecurity and anger at government failure to hear their concerns and act on them. This speech is too short to cover their feelings about the GST.The people who live in Stirling are diverse, vibrant and resilient. The statistics about Stirling show the figures but do not show the stress and pain of people's lives and do not show you which people are comfortable and relaxed. With jobs and job security, the people of Stirling are unhappy about the 9.3 per cent unemployment figure. I understand from young people—and I have two in my family—that their unemployment rates are higher, around 30 per cent. These people told me they wanted to work and were unhappy when perceived as welfare dependants or dole bludgers.With health, health, health, the people of Stirling are unhappy about the fact that Osborne Park Hospital had 15 beds closed and does not have an accident and emergency section. They are unhappy about having to go out of the area for emergency treatment. People are also unhappy about the lengthy wait for an operation or treatment.With income support, people told me they are unhappy about the many and constant changes to income support. Just a few examples: many families in Stirling found themselves cut off from child disability allowance or common youth allowance. The loss of the benefits were impacting negatively on their families and finances. Many mature aged people were upset to find they had to draw on their superannuation fund instead of getting a social security benefit. Many people, including a lot of women, were unhappy about employment services, especially if they found they were not an eligible job seeker and could not get assistance.With child care and the close of 11 children's services in Stirling, in all, 33 closed in Western Australia, so out of the 14 electorates Stirling had the most negative impact of the child-care closures. Many families told me of their unhappiness at losing their service. In some cases a parent had to stop working because they could not afford the child-care fees or find a suitable arrangement with a neighbour. It reminded me of the stress my mother must have faced when she had the same situation.With award protection, many people told me about the negative impact award protection had had on their lives because they had signed a voluntary workplace agreement and found themselves on lower wages or relegated to casual or contract work, or they were feeling angry at having to compulsorily sign the agreement or they did not get a start. People told me they are unhappy about a great range of issues from the closure of the Medicare offices at Mirrabooka and Innaloo to cuts to multicultural services. At every level people were not feeling relaxed and comfortable because of the many changes that had occurred and are continuing to occur.Many people are appalled at the government's role in dismantling award wage protections and of the lockout of the Maritime Union of Australia workers from the wharves—and we had Fremantle. People are aware that Industrial Relations Minister Reith and Prime Minister Howard were in bed with Chris Corrigan and approved the plan to train ex-defence personnel as stevedores in Dubai as part of the government strategy to break the Maritime Union of Australia. As a worker for a welfare rights service, I and many colleagues were appalled that the Minister for Social Security and the government blocked the payment of social security benefits to the families of Maritime Union workers, who were clearly eligible for benefits.These families in the electorate of Stirling who were affected by this action were devastated and expressed enormous disenchantment with government and the failure of democracy in our nation. For the past six years as a worker for a community legal centre and welfare rights service, I have seen the slashing of income support and services for families and individuals. The devastating impact of these cuts has kept me on the social justice path.I am fortunate as a union member in being able to work with my comrades to address these issues, particularly for the people who were too scared or disempowered to bring these inequities to the attention of both state and federal governments.Finally, I would like to thank the people and groups who gave generously of their time, money, ideas and energy, especially my family. Happy birthday, David, I will be home to give you a hug tomorrow. Heather, I miss you and all the wonderful support you have given me. My children are wonderful.I would also like to thank my campaign team, the Labor Party—both the Western Australian branch and national office—Stirling electorate council and ALP branches, my supporting political colleagues, my union comrades, particularly the Miscellaneous Workers Union, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Australian Services Union and all the rest because I cannot name you all. I thank also the women of Emily's List, my friends, colleagues and the local people who had never met me but worked on my campaign because they supported Labor values and they wanted Labor tradition and values put back into services. The philosophy of Emily's List—`When women support women, women win'—proved to be true for many other new members as well as for me. Their support, mentoring and assistance with money were a crucial help in my winning Stirling.In coming to this place I will work to represent the concerns of the people of Stirling and to make amends for losses in services and income support that this community has suffered. I am now elevating the work I did at the Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service and for the past 25 years in community work to a higher level. I will work for genuine solutions to our economic and social problems.773Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for McPherson, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.13:37:00774May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP11—There are no words to adequately describe the feeling of standing in the chamber as a representative of the community you have lived in for many years. To say it is an honour or a privilege, as others before me have, is simply an understatement.As I reflect on the path that led me to this place, and as I have listened to others of this class of 1998 and read many maiden speeches of those previously elected, I am struck by what a wonderful system of democracy we have in this country. It is something of which all Australians can be justifiably proud, because—unlike most nations around the world—wealth, class and privilege really play no part in determining election to this place.I am particularly proud of the fact that, on this side of the House at least, we are truly representative. While some members opposite like to play class warfare and perpetuate long outdated myths about the Liberal Party, the fact is we are a proudly diverse and largely working-class bunch. Made up not solely of doctors, lawyers, academics or trade unionists, we are nurses, teachers, milkmen, small business operators, defence personnel, farmers, secretaries—even crocodile hunters.In the Liberal Party there is no set or predetermined path to coming here. And that is truly a unique and very Australian thing. It is an honest reflection of our egalitarian society. Despite what some social commentators have said in recent times about Australia, I believe we remain the most racially tolerant, accepting and, thankfully, classless society in the world.Another significant feature of the make-up of this 39th Parliament, especially in comparison to the early parliaments, is the number of women. I do not intend to reflect too long on or to labour this point because I do not see myself as a women's representative but, rather, as a people's representative, representing the men, women and children of McPherson equally.But I think it is fitting that as we enter the new millennium women are playing a key role in political life, just as they are in business and the broader community. And I am proud to be a member of a party which encourages participation at all levels by women and which endorses a system of individuals, whatever their gender, being preselected on merit, not as a result of some quota or prearranged factional deal.That is just one example of how, in my view, the Liberal Party remains in touch with the ideals and aspirations of mainstream Australia. And it is through that practice of keeping faith with the Australian people that the Howard coalition government was re-elected just two short months ago. I know that that is a difficult concept for those opposite to accept, and it seems that, despite their research driven protestations about eating humble pie, they still have a `born to rule' mentality, born of the arrogance they displayed in office.Labor now considers itself a government in waiting, not even aspiring to be a truly effective opposition. Its approach has been to frustrate the aims of the elected government, to block sensible legislation at every turn, to tell the Australian people, `You may have voted for the coalition but, don't worry, we will save you from yourselves and make sure they can't do what they promised you they would. After all, we know what is best for you.' There is not time today to go into the reason why Labor's 13-year track record proves it does not always know what is best, but I have to say that I am excited and extremely optimistic about being part of the second Howard government.Many of us on this side of the House remember all too vividly the 1993 election. The coalition presented an up-front, detailed plan to fix the tax system. It was applauded as bringing a new honesty to politics but, as history attests, it was defeated by a new dishonesty in politics, a massive, untrue scare campaign. I remember late nights in the electorate office answering calls and explaining that Labor's claims were simply untrue. After Labor won that election, of course, it increased its own hidden taxes by over $10 billion—but again I will not go into that. Time limits do not permit me to repeat its litany of broken promises.After 1993, many political commentators lamented that we would never again see a political party go to an election being honest enough to outline fully its plans, especially if they included necessary reforms that could be considered electorally unpopular. The commentators surmised that there would not be anyone with the determination or political guts to risk that honest, up-front approach again. But they did not count on the political tenacity of the Prime Minister, a man with a much deserved reputation for honesty and integrity throughout his many years in public office.It is a testament to the Australian people that, despite another massive, untrue scare campaign, they chose to re-elect the Howard government and defy the political pundits who said that, although tax reform was necessary, no-one could win an election with such a platform. So it is with great personal pride, especially as a foot soldier of that 1993 campaign, that I stand here today as part of the class of `98 and a member of the Howard government.Most of the recent maiden speeches have talked about tax reform, as have maiden speeches in parliaments past. It is a perennial subject, mainly because we all know that Australia's tax system is a mess. It is broken and must be fixed. But those opposite continue to either run away from the problem or offer bandaid solutions that never address the fundamental problems.In preparing for this speech, I read a number of maiden speeches of members from both sides of the House. One that certainly caught my eye was that of the member for Hotham, the shadow Treasurer, the man who would be in charge of Australia's economy under a Labor government. The first time Simon Crean actually spoke in this House was, ironically, on the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1990. As minister he presented this bill, just one of Labor's many to increase sales tax rates, this time on motor vehicles—including, might I add, four-wheel drives. It was a tinkering at the edges, extracting more rev enue, making the system even more complex—a Labor speciality.But in all fairness to the member for Hotham, while he made his speech on the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill as the first time he spoke, that was not his maiden speech in this House. In fact, he was at pains to point that out in his maiden speech. He said:. . . I trust that neither history nor the people of Hotham will confuse . . . my first speech in the House with my maiden speech.I would not like anyone to think that my views and visions—the matters that are traditionally canvassed in a maiden speech—were solely concerned with the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill . . . We on this side of the House do not blame the member for Hotham for wanting to distance himself from the sales tax system. He must have known back in 1990 that the sales tax system was a complete mess. What disappoints me, and so many of us on this side of the House, is that the Labor Party cannot put aside its petty political position and, for the good of our nation, support the government's sensible new tax system, a system that is recognised as a major step forward and a crucial factor in Australia's future economic wellbeing.We each come to this place on the trust of our constituents, and I would not pass up the opportunity to thank the people of McPherson for their support and encouragement, especially over the past few months. Queensland's Gold Coast has long been a holiday mecca for people from all over Australia, a subtropical paradise that offers something for everyone, from singles and families to the elderly. The Gold Coast is now the sixth largest city in the nation, and in my view very much still the tourism capital of Australia. We host such events as the Gold Coast Indy, the Asia Pacific Masters Games and many other sporting events that put us on the world tourism map.Perhaps I am very biased but I think the Gold Coast, and particularly the southern Gold Coast, is a wonderful place to live, whether you are raising a family or enjoying a well-deserved retirement. Having lived in Currumbin for 14 years and raised my family there, I know it is a daily luxury to be just five minutes from the glorious sandy beaches and 15 minutes from the pristine natural wilderness of the hinterland, including Springbrook National Park.The green behind the gold, as we know the hinterland, has become a crucial feature of the Gold Coast's tourism appeal, and I strongly support continued efforts to develop ecotourism based projects that will help attract more visitors, thereby providing more jobs for local residents. The hinterland boasts 29 national parks and nature reserves. It has Australia's largest area of subtropical rainforest and 300 kilometres of walking trails. May I point out that our Gold Coast hinterland has benefited enormously from a number of projects under the government's $1 billion Natural Heritage Trust, another sensible community based plan which Labor opposed for political reasons.As we look to the new millennium, the Gold Coast is looking to expand its industry base. While tourism will undoubtedly remain our lifeblood, we have enormous potential to develop other export industries. We have already had great success with education services at Bond University. Building on that success is our growing information technology industry. Our vision for the next millennium is to be a crucial centre in our region for information technology.I look forward to continuing to work with local business people to see our dream of a convention centre at the southern Gold Coast become a reality, a centre that will provide not only a convention facility but also a range of film technology developments and services. It is an exciting project that I will strive to see come to fruition.The people of McPherson have benefited from the Howard government's first term. The upgrading of the Pacific Highway is providing safer roads and the Tugun bypass, after years of promises, is finally happening. Our veterans who served in the last World War now have greater access to a gold card to provide improved health services. Our young unemployed people have reaped enormous rewards from various local Work for the Dole programs. Again I thank the Prime Minister for his political strength and tenacity in introducing this scheme, which many Australians had been calling for—and which, again, was opposed by Labor and its union mates. I will work to expand Work for the Dole in McPherson so that our community can benefit from the drive and enthusiasm of our young people, who under Labor were simply left to languish on the unemployment queues.Our local retirees now enjoy the same tax benefits as pensioners on comparable incomes and, significantly, this year most will now have access to the same health care benefits. Local families—and there are thousands of young families in McPherson, particularly in the new suburban developments at Andrews and Stephens—have had the benefit of the $1 billion family tax cut, delivered in full and on time as was promised in the 1996 election. And both families and the elderly particularly look forward to the 30 per cent tax rebate for private health insurance.During the campaign I received enormous positive feedback from local residents about this initiative, which is why I am totally stunned and outraged that Labor and the Democrats now look like blocking this measure as well. Their opposition to this sensible plan to help improve the health system again speaks volumes about why they failed to gain the trust of the Australian people on 3 October.I could spend all day talking about the people of McPherson and what a tremendous electorate it is to represent. It is quite simply a beautiful part of Australia, and I will work long and hard to ensure that I listen to the people of McPherson and then take action to fully represent their views and to make our local area an even better place to live. Of course, to do that I will continue to draw strength from the support I receive from local residents, party members and my much loved family and friends. This support network is any parliamentarian's lifeline—they keep us sane, focused and advised, and are just invaluable.I am pleased to have the opportunity to publicly thank my local branch members and my branch chairman who contributed so much to the campaign and worked long and hard on election day. To Bill Kelvin, my campaign manager, and Sandy Davey, my FEC chairman, my very special thanks to you both for your hard work and support. To our crew of willing and energetic volunteers and helpers behind the scenes: Jim MacAnally, Christine Vincent, Liz Scott, Ruth Neville, Mike and Donna Milosevic, Haydyn Bold, Helen Morrow, Richard and Jann Stuckey, Walli Davey, Alison Bren and Rob Martin—I thank you all for your extra effort and welcome your continuing assistance and advice.Of course, our local campaign was supported and directed with great professionalism by the Liberal team at both state and federal levels. I want to thank our Federal Director, Lynton Crosby, and those who worked hard at campaign headquarters, as well as our State Director, Greg Goebel, and his team in Brisbane, especially Graham Quirk, Steven Ciobo and Ann Reid. Our Queensland State President, Bob Carroll, also deserves special thanks for the hands-on role he played in ensuring we retained and won so many seats in Queensland.There is another special team I want to thank—the member for Forde, Kay Elson, and her husband, David—for their encouragement, advice and support from preselection through to today. I could not find a better role model for how to be an effective, hardworking and respected local member, and I look forward to being able to continue to work with Kay in this place. My thanks also to my cheer squad in Forde: Megan, Jo, Aidan and Maureen—thank you. To my own office team: Karen, Carol, Kim and Ros—you have been fantastic and I know we all share the same commitment to serve the people of McPherson.And to two very special people who are in the gallery today, two people who have shared with me the many ups and downs of politics over the last 10 years—to Selma and Andrew Schuller, this is for you both: you have shared my dreams, the ups and downs; you have encouraged and supported me and always been there; your friendship, love and assistance will be remembered always.Last, but certainly not least, I come to my family. I was fortunate to be raised by a very strong, hardworking, unique and loving individual—my mum. She raised us on her own after my wonderful dad passed away when I was just 14. Mum encouraged my two sisters and me to believe in ourselves and made countless sacrifices for our education and upbringing. Mum was also the absolute stalwart of the campaign—first on the job and last to leave. I do not know where we would have been without her. For these and countless other reasons, I thank my mum, Rae Kerr, and also my sisters, Heather and Anne.My mum was also ably assisted by my mother-in-law, Pauline Rashleigh. Next time you visit the Gold Coast for a holiday we will make sure you have just that—a holiday and not a federal campaign to work on. Thank you, Pauline.My three children—Dimity, who lives in Melbourne, Dayne, who lives on the coast, and Kristin, who lives here in Canberra and who I think is in the gallery today—have all been incredibly supportive of my involvement in politics through the years. I am immensely proud of what these three young people have achieved, and for their constant love and support I thank them, as well as my daughter-in-law, Nadine, and my son-in-law to be, Raymond.Finally, my literal `other half', David. Marriage is always about partnership and sacrifice, but even more so when one partner is involved in politics. I have been thrilled to share the joys of the past six months with David, for they are his victories as well. I could not have wished for a more supportive, involved, enthusiastic or understanding person to join me on our journey to this place and to help me with the challenges that lie ahead. David, I cannot begin to thank you enough. There just are not appropriate words to express my gratitude and love.I will finish by once again thanking the people of McPherson. We each come to this place on the goodwill and trust of the people. I am a firm believer that our primary goal is to repay that trust with hard work, honesty and openness. I believe the true measure of a good member is their ability and willingness to deal with people one on one, to realise that an individual's difficulties are often as significant as a community's. Our challenge is to have one eye on the big picture always, while we extend our hand to assist our individual constituents in need. That is the sort of local member I believe the people of McPherson deserve. And I look forward to working with my colleagues, under the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, to deliver on our commitments, which were supported and endorsed by the Australian people at the election.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the honourable member for Wentworth, I do encourage his colleagues to pay him the courtesy of not walking between him and the chair. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.13:56:00778Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. I thought that, as I sit so close to the honourable member for McPherson, there might be a few who would infringe that standing order in offering congratulations. May I, from the position where I am speaking, offer my congratulations, too. Your electorate is one which I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of times when I served as minister for tourism. There is a great deal of Australia's entrepreneurial spirit there in south-east Queensland and I think it has a wonderful future, especially with part of it being represented now by someone as diligent as you.I would like to take this opportunity in making just a few remarks in the address-in-reply to take us up to 2 o'clock—and I will not seek leave to continue these remarks—to say a couple of things about an Australian whom I think this country owes a lot to, and that is Rod McGeoch. The events of the last few days are, it is no exaggeration to say, a great tragedy, not simply for Rod as an individual but also, I think, for the cause of sport in Australia.It is a great privilege to host the Olympic Games, and a great responsibility comes with that privilege. But it does require individuals of a special calibre to bear those responsibilities and to discharge them in a fashion not just satisfactory to the citizens of the host country—that is us—but to the rest of the world, whose scrutiny will be upon us when the games take place in Sydney in September and October in the year 2000.Rod McGeoch has no malice in him. He is a naturally enthusiastic, friendly and very decent human being. When I served as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games, Rod and I had a number of conversations in which he brought to me much of the history of the bid and he explained to me in the most delightful, enthusiastic terms what he thought the games ought to mean for Australia and what they ought to be as they took place in Sydney.Although he did not serve after the bid as president of the organising committee, SOCOG, or as its chief executive, his enthusiasm for those tasks notwithstanding, he was appointed to the board, twice I think. But it is very sad to say that the nature of the organising board of the games, SOCOG, appears to have changed since its establishment. It must be said these days that you very rarely hear any of the deliberations of SOCOG refer to any sport. You hear it refer occasionally to some roads or stadia or things like that. But in fact the cause of sport, which is what the Olympic Games must be about, is now sadly very rarely heard in its deliberations.It seems that the Olympic movement, from some perspectives, has taken on the nature of a quasi-political movement, rather than one—as it was originally—devoted to the promotion of sport in its purest form. I believe that Rod McGeoch's unfortunate leaving of the SOCOG board, under pressure from some elements within the board that were determined to destroy him or his possible candidacy in the future as a president of that board, really goes to show very clearly that a lot of work now has to be done to restore the cause of sport in the Olympics and within SOCOG.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Questions Without Notice778778778Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it correct that $1.5 billion a year would be enough to treat 275,000 extra patients in our public hospitals, reinstate the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and buy private health insurance for the 500,000 extra people you claim will benefit from your subsidy? How can you justify spending $1.5 billion on your rebate for 33 per cent of the population when the same money could produce far better health results for the whole community?779Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will tell the Leader of the Opposition what is true. What is true is that we won the last election with a policy of giving a 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance. What is true is that you campaigned against that rebate in the last election and you lost. What is true is that there are 12 more coalition members in this parliament than there are opposition members.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, and it goes to relevance. I was asking a series of questions about the people who would benefit if you spent the $1.5 billion sensibly, and all we get back is the usual supercilious arrogance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point. The Prime Minister has not as yet spent as much time answering the question as was spent asking it, so I was quite prepared to allow the Prime Minister to continue at this stage. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—What is true is that the coalition supports private health insurance; Labor opposes it. What is true is that in the electorate of Bass there are 24,692 people with private health insurance. What is true is that in the electorate of Dickson there are 30,275 people with private health insurance. What is true is that in the electorate of Stirling there are 58,555 people with private health insurance. What is true is that we intend to give effect to the verdict of the Australian people. And what is true is that you are deaf to the wishes of the Australian people, and that is why you are in opposition.779779Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of recent comments about the level of public hospital funding in Australia? Are there any precedents for such comments? What is the government's position in regard to public hospitals?779Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. There has been a lot of comments on public hospital funding, some more accurate than others. Most coming from the opposition of course are completely inaccurate. I was made aware last night of a comment on public hospital funding from back in 1992. Back in 1992 hospital funding was still an issue of great and immense interest. We were then coming up to the 1993 health care agreement and the Minister for Health in Western Australia was Keith Wilson.On 13 November 1992, Mr Wilson resigned as the Minister for Health. In his press release on his resignation as the Minister for Health he cited the continuing failure of the federal government to recognise the role of private health insurance as an important source of funding for public hospitals. He said, `The consequence of this failure is that public hospital services are unable to meet the needs of ordinary Western Australians, particularly pensioners and others on low incomes.' He went on to say:I wrote in my letter of resignation to the Premier that I have always considered I am primarily answerable to the Western Australian public for appropriately funded hospital services. Someone has to be answerable ultimately for these continuing failures and no-one in Canberra is prepared to be it.The Premier that he was sending his resignation to was the member for Fremantle, a former health minister herself, and the government in Canberra he was talking about when he said no-one was prepared to be responsible was the then Labor government.A health care agreement was signed after that and health funding from the Commonwealth went up and health funding from the states went down. This was a point that the then Minister for Human Services and Health, the member for Fremantle, and the then Minister for Finance, now the Leader of the Opposition, made on television in the 10 days before the 1996 election. They complained that the problem was that the Commonwealth had put extra money into public hospitals and the states had taken that money out.The problem with that is that, while it is true, the 1993 health care agreement for public hospital funding that the Labor Party signed had a sleight of hand. The extra money that was going into the public hospitals was paid for by a reduction in financial assistance grants to the states, the so-called Medicare guarantee. It was specifically linked. The Medicare guarantee, the reduction in FAGs, was used to pay for the increase in hospital funding. So it is true that public hospitals were in difficulty because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the Commonwealth money went up and the state money went down. But he did not say that the state money went down as a result of a deliberate action of the then Labor government.In contrast, the health care agreement that was signed in August this year for the next five years has an unprecedented 10 per cent increase in funding overnight to the state public hospitals—all new money, none coming from a reduction in financial assistance grants—and with growth built in over the next five years so that in five years time the increase in Commonwealth money going to state public hospitals will be 19.2 per cent real—not nominal; real. That sort of growth in funding is completely unprecedented.The other problem is that private hospital insurance provides a revenue stream to public hospital funding. Thirty per cent of Australians, if you ask them, will say their preferred method of treatment is to be a private patient in a public hospital. Those people with their private insurance provide revenue to the states.The simple problem with taking Labor's position of doing nothing is that the level of people with private health insurance will continue to decline. The increase in the number is, in one sense, just an estimate. It is very difficult, because of so many factors, to be certain about how big an increase it will be. But we can be certain of one thing: what the decrease will be if we do nothing. So at the end of five years—I picked that time because it is the period of the current health care agreement for public hospital funding—we will be down to 20 per cent in private health insurance. The state public hospitals will lose their revenue stream and Australia will have a very different health care system—the sort of system that I do not believe the Australian public wants.MG4LEEMr Lee—His blood pressure's up. There goes the blood pressure.10000Mr SPEAKER—Mine is not falling either.780780Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Do you recall saying yesterday that the finance department modelling of the private health insurance rebate was based on the current level of premiums? Are you aware that last Sunday the Minister for Health and Aged Care conceded that he could do nothing to stop another substantial increase due in March 1999? Why did the government's modelling not include future price rises, given that in the last two years premiums have been increasing at three times the inflation rate?780Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I will take up in my response just where the Minister for Health and Aged Care left off. A failure to do anything in respect of health would lead to an enormous payout by the Australian people estimated to be an additional $2.5 billion at the conclusion of the current Commonwealth-state agreement. It would also lead to a complete breakdown of the public hospital system. That would lead to the need for the states to provide an additional 1.3 million bed days per year as a result of the membership decline that Labor presided over, encouraged and continues to do so in this current debate.Let me just indicate to the House the basis of costings on the government's proposal, which is the subject of legislation. These costings were, during the election campaign, given to Finance, unlike the proposals of Labor. They were not prepared under the charter of budget honesty to submit their proposals for costings. Ours were. The costings are based on the assumption that there will be an increase of about 2½ percent age points in membership. We saw that; it was given to the House yesterday by the Prime Minister. That would mean that there would be an increase in coverage to about 33 per cent of the population.They are based on the fact that there is an annual population growth of about one per cent. They are based on the fact that there will be an annual premium increase of about four per cent. Those premium rises are projected to be significantly lower than we have seen in recent years. They reflect an improvement in the risk profile—MG4LEEMr Lee—You didn't say this yesterday.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Dobell.HQ5Mr FAHEY—resulting from new memberships and the impact of other structural reforms to be put in place, as was announced during the election campaign. This $1.5 billion that Labor wishes to peddle around is not correct. Like most of the figures it throws around, it gilds the lily. The net cost is about $1.2 billion in 2000-01.781781Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister outline to the House the benefits of private health insurance to those people living in rural and regional Australia who may otherwise be disadvantaged in the provision of health services?781Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Rural and remote Australians understandably want to be first-class citizens when it comes to the provision of high quality health care that works for people with often very difficult and demanding lifestyles and particular needs. The government is committed to making private health more affordable and accessible. It is hard to understand why anybody would oppose that, but those opposite are obviously dedicated to just that outcome.Many specialised treatments, by necessity, for rural people are only available in major centres. This leads us to a heightening, if anything, of the two major benefits that flow from private health for rural people. It gives them access to doctors of their choice and reasonable security in relation to treatment on time. They are both very important to people in rural Australia. To illustrate that very simply, it is a bit hard to knock off in the middle of shearing or harvesting when a bed suddenly becomes available. You really want to have some say over your doctor of choice and your place of treatment.I heard somebody interject that they need doctors for a start. No-one has done more than the current Minister for Health and Aged Care to get doctors into rural and remote areas. Not only has the flow of blood been stemmed; we have stabilised the flow of doctors out of rural and remote areas. It has started to increase. It is about five per cent in the case of rural doctors and eight per cent in the case of remote doctors.Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I thank my opposite number for her question by interjection and ask: can we have more of them? Rural and remote Australians want the right to choose their own doctor and when and where they will have elective treatment just as much as those who live closer to these services want those sorts of access possibilities as well. Private health insurance gives them access to high quality and highly technical health care in the location of their choice.Our generous 30 per cent rebate proposal will make private health more affordable. You cannot argue with that. It will make it very much more affordable. It will curb the decline in participation rates, which will give the industry breathing space to allow it to participate in other reforms currently being developed in the private health insurance arena. It will take the pressure off our public health system. What is absolutely obvious out of all of this is that no-one opposite is out there cruising around rural Australia. If they were, they would be beating our door down to agree with us on private health insurance.781781Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Prime Minister, does your 1996 promise to personally approve all health fund premium increases still hold?782Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The methodology that was adopted in relation to the approval of premium increases in the last term of government will come under review, as you would normally expect.DT4CREANMr Crean—Ha, ha!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I thought you would react that way.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why?ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reason you react that way is that when you were in government there were just so many premium increases that you stopped. That is the reason. When you were in government, you did not stop one increase. Of course, those sorts of arrangements will continue to be kept under review. Quite frankly, that sort of question is totally irrelevant to the issue which now faces the Australian people, and that is: do the Australian people want private health insurance to survive or don't they? Overwhelmingly the Australian people do want the private health insurance system of this country to survive. For example, I say to the re-elected member for Paterson—I thought he would catch my eye—that if I look at my little list I see there are 41,764 insured people in the electorate of Paterson.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. I asked a simple question which is part of our process of trying to tease out why they are spending $6 billion to save $2.5 billion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order on relevance. If the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, I will respond to the point of order. The point of order on relevance has been a constant problem for Speakers for as long as I have been in this parliament. The Leader of the Opposition and other members are frequently indignant that the answer they are getting is not the answer they are anticipating. I have witnessed that for 15 years. The Speaker cannot, and never has been able to, instruct anyone to answer a question in a particular way. The requirement is only that the answer be relevant to the question asked, and the Prime Minister is relevant.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: we are getting the answer we expected, but the question is: what is relevant here? Speakers have also constantly, Mr Speaker, sought a vague relationship between the two, and I think the vague relationship between the two just about disappeared wholly in the last half minute of the Prime Minister's answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition the sort of tolerance that is allowed of leaders of the opposition.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition, I was responding to you. My ruling stands. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I was just saying that there are 41,764 privately health insured people in the electorate of Paterson. May I say to the House that, on a scale of one to 10, the greatest level of betrayal at around eight or nine of any representative in this place is that of the representatives of Western Australian electorates in this House, because the level of private health insurance in Western Australia is much higher than it is in any other part of Australia. So every single Western Australian member who comes in here sells out the interests of the people of Western Australia who believe that they are entitled to get some return. You are talking here about hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Australian battlers who scrimp and save in order to take out private health insurance. You are not talking about millionaires; you are talking about people on $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year. They are the people who scrimp and save to have private health insurance. They are the people you are kicking in the teeth by opposing this measure, and they are the people who will remember long and remember hard if you continue to vote against this measure.782782Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the very capable Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House what the latest release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on capital expenditure reveals about the strength of the Australian economy?783Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable and extremely capable member for Hume for picking out such a question and for showing such shrewdness in asking me. I can inform the House that today's capex figure for the September quarter of 1998 shows that private new capital expenditure for the quarter rose 8.4 per cent. The market expectation was, in median terms, about 2.5 per cent. The capex figures indicate much stronger investment than the market had been expecting.Although the building estimates in capex do not map closely into those of the national accounts, these strong capital expenditure figures point to the fact that in the national accounts, which are to be released next week, there should be a solid contribution to GDP growth from business investment. Non-residential construction continues to expand, growing a further 5.4 per cent in the September quarter after a rise of over 16 per cent in the June quarter. Expected investment is slightly higher than business expectation in investment at this time last year, and this points to continuing strong business investment over the year. This is another indicator that the Australian economy continues to perform well against a backdrop of the international financial difficulties.Fundamentals for business investment remain favourable. Interest rates are low. Inflation is low. Corporate profitability is sound. In fact, indicator interest rates on variable rates, small and business loans, are the lowest since the 1970s. Since July of 1996, when the coalition was elected, the overall cost of variable small business loans has fallen 3.6 per cent. That is a fall 1.1 per cent greater than the reductions in official interest rates, and indicator overdraft rates, as recorded by the Reserve Bank, are now the lowest they have been.You do not get results like that without doing hard economic work, and it was this government's decision to put the Australian budget back into surplus, to lock in low inflation, to run a debt retirement program to pay back the Labor-Keating-Beazley debt of the 1990s that did that. But it is important that we not rest there. It is important that Australia continue to engage in economic reform, the kind of reform that the government proposes in relation to tax, to make this a strong economy in a very volatile environment.783783Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if you needed to take personal control of premium increases to make sure health fund members got full value of a $500 million rebate, why is it totally irrelevant to take control of premium increases in order to protect a $1.5 billion rebate? Does that indicate that you already know it will fail?783Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already answered the first part of the question. The second part of the question I would further answer by reminding the House that what is involved in this debate is the simple proposition of whether you are for or against private health insurance. What is further involved in this debate is what the real alternatives are. The real alternatives are not between an insured level of the population of 30 per cent or 33 per cent but between what would modestly occur if our measure came into force and what would occur if Labor had its way. If Labor had its way, there would continue to be a catastrophic decline in private health insurance and on the long-term Labor trend it would be down to 20 per cent in five years time, which would require the Commonwealth to pay an extra $2.5 billion to the states under the compensation arrangements that form part of the agreement.The chasm between the two sides of politics on this issue is obvious. I welcome the fact that the Labor Party has been so up-front about its opposition to private health insurance. The Labor Party imagines that in some way this is a brilliant masterstroke of political and economic strategy: you drive the level of private health insurance down to about 20 per cent of the population and then miraculously you have taken the load off the back of the public health system. You have done no such thing.I say again: we on this side of the House, the Liberal and National parties, stand proudly behind private health insurance. We believe that middle Australia is entitled to have private health insurance. We believe that middle Australia is entitled to have a tax deduction for private health insurance. We believe that 81 per cent of Australians under our system of taxation reform, if our health reforms are implemented, will have full tax deductibility. I say to the opposition that that is what middle Australia wants, that is what a balanced health system in this country requires and if you started to listen to middle Australia, instead of arrogantly assuming you know better, we would have a great improvement in public policy debate.784784Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the also very capable Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.10000Mr SPEAKER—The member will come to her question.0L6Mrs DRAPER—Would the minister inform the House whether the Productivity Commission has undertaken any work in relation to the benefit to the community of junior wage rates? What were the outcomes of this work?784Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for her complimentary question. The Productivity Commission has, at a staff level, been looking at the question of junior wage rates and, in particular, at what happens if you put up the rates of pay for young people and what that would mean to the job prospects of those young people. That is a pretty important issue because there are 420,000 young people today in Australia who have got jobs—jobs where they are paid according to the age based junior wage rate system.The Productivity Commission looked at the issue and came up with this very interesting conclusion. They said that increasing youth wages by one per cent would lead to a decrease in youth employment of between two and five per cent in industries employing a relatively high proportion of youth. That is a quite stunning figure. It is the jargon of economists, so let me put it in simple layman's terms. They say that if you increase young people's wages over and above what they are now then a lot of young people will lose their jobs. It is as simple as that.Today in the parliament I had a briefing from a Professor Daniel Hammermesh, who is an internationally recognised authority on the issue of the labour market and wages—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—In America?WI4Mr REITH—In America, but he has also had professorships in the US, Europe, Australia and Asia. He will shortly be—in the year 2001—President of the Society of Labour Economists.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Do they have junior wage rates in America?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They don't.PE4Mr REITH—There are. As I had the benefit of a briefing from him and as I was holding a press conference on this very issue, I invited him to come along and provide some informed comments on this issue. It was very interesting. One of the so-called intellectual arguments run by the Labor Party—I know it is hard to believe—is that the academic evidence in the US supports a massive increase in youth wages and the proposition that no-one would lose their jobs. In fact, the good professor was asked this question about Card and Krueger, and he had a very interesting response. He said in regard to Card and Krueger, who are constantly quoted by the Labor Party to justify their position, that the two of them are personal friends of his. He said he has looked at their work, it has been the subject of a lot of debate, and not even they would agree with the proposition that if you put up people's wages as much as they would go under Labor's scheme not one of them would lose a job.I know that it would be a rare occasion for the Labor Party to actually examine the crux of the argument they are putting, but it is a significant point made by a respected international expert on this whole area and it confirms the thrust of what the government is saying. It is a matter of commonsense, but let me repeat it: if you significantly increase the pay of young people today, which is Labor's proposition, a lot of them are going to lose their jobs. It would be an absolute outrage, a blight against the Labor Party, if they prevent ed the passage of legislation which would preserve the jobs of these young people.785785O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Isn't it a fact that a farmer's business purchases are WST exempt, and isn't it a fact that these business purchases carry no tax burden for the farmer, and therefore involve significantly less cash outlay than if tax were payable? Isn't it a fact that your GST, which will start at 10 per cent, will have to be paid by farmers on all business purchases and that the cost is then carried by farmers for up to three months prior to a GST rebate being available? Given your pledge to this House that `we are not going to implement any measures that will be detrimental to the farming community', what are you going to do about it?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members on my right allow the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to be heard, I will call him.785Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I suppose that, in short, to the first part of the question—there are a number of parts—the answer is no, because everybody knows that there is an impacting effect all the way down the line.Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—The Labor Party says, `Oh yeah, oh yeah!' but it is an absolute fact, and the first people that recognise that and acknowledge that are the farming community themselves, because they know exactly where all the benefits are going to flow to their constituency. They know exactly where the benefits are going to flow to. The farming community right across Australia support the government's tax reform package. In fact, I happen to have with me a transcript of when I spoke to the NFF yesterday. In his thankyou, the Vice-President of the NFF said: `On tax reform we urge you to keep up the good fight and make sure that the comprehensive package is introduced. The NFF has supported and continues to support the package.' The farming community knows that from this total package the average farm—be it either a wool or a beef farm—in Australia will have a benefit of about $5,400 because of fewer overheads flowing from this tax package.They know that their exporters—and they are part of the exporting community in Australia—will have $4.5 billion worth of burden lifted off their shoulders. They also know that the Australian Labor Party wants to keep all these burdens on their operations and wants to keep all these burdens on their exports, and they are supporting the government's tax package wholeheartedly. They are opposed to the position that the Labor Party is taking.I urged the NFF, when I spoke to them this week, that we need public support. We have taken this tax package to the people of Australia. We have been re-elected to government. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister presented the tax package to the Premiers of New South Wales and the rest of Australia, and they have supported it. So we have the broad support of the people of Australia to introduce this tax package, and it is now incumbent upon the Senate to pass it. The farming community across Australia are also going to be making that call over the next six months as the debate continues, because they know of the long-term benefits that are going to be there for the farming community of Australia.785785May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Has the minister seen reports concerning the performance of Tasrail since it was sold by the coalition government last year? Minister, what is the government's response to these reports?785Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I can inform the honourable member for McPherson and, in fact, all members of the House that I have seen some reports in relation to the sale by the government of Tasrail. In fact, some Tasmanian newspapers carry such banner headlines as `Profit for Tasrail first in 127 years' and `Tasrail beats forecast'. Tasrail is one of the businesses of Australian National that was sold by the government last year. The objec tive behind the government sale of those businesses, which of course was announced by the government in advance in 1996, was to stop the haemorrhaging.What we had seen in Australian National in the previous 13 years when the Labor government was managing these businesses had been job losses of some 7,000 employees. We had seen a call and a drain on taxpayers of several hundred million dollars cumulatively over that period. We also had an objective to see if we could grow rail in Australia by putting the private sector in there, creating the appropriate competition. At the time, what was the response of Labor? The honourable member for Melbourne, who was their spokesperson at that time in respect of transport, indicated very clearly with his dire predictions that the decision to sell the rail businesses would lead to job losses.YU5Mr Tanner—A fire sale.HQ5Mr FAHEY—He said it would lead to line closures.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What happened in South Australia? How many jobs have been lost in South Australia?HQ5Mr FAHEY—He said it would lead to a decline in services.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—How many jobs have been lost in South Australia?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is defying the chair.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Hundreds of job losses.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is now ignoring the chair, and I warn him.786Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am pleased to inform the House that the government's objectives have been met. Those headline banners clearly indicate that. The government's objectives have been met, and exactly the opposite of what the honourable member for Melbourne was predicting has in fact occurred. Since taking over ownership of Tasrail, the consortium that purchased it, Australian Transport Network, has in fact increased the number of employees by some 12 per cent: there are 197 employees now in Tasrail in Tasmania. Since taking over ownership, the consortium has recorded an operating profit in its first seven months—the first in 127 years. Not only has it recorded an operating profit but it has shared that operating profit with bonuses to its employees.Whilst it was contractually obliged to invest some $20 million over four years in capital expenditure, it has already spent some $7 million in capital expenditure: it has undertaken the purchase of locomotives and wagons to haul freight across Tasmania, it has undertaken and upgraded bridges and tracks, it has undertaken and upgraded railway crossing signals and telecommunications systems; and it now plans not to spend $20 million in capital expenditure in its first four years but to spend $40 million in its first four years.So the next time the Australian public listens to Labor or when Labor states, as it usually does, this one-liner it has when it comes to asset sales that all government businesses must be owned by the government I would simply ask the Australian public to look at the Tasrail experience. When we unshackled Tasrail from public ownership, we saw an outstanding result. This is in stark contrast to the sick, sorry and sad history of business management under Labor and its attitude on asset sales.786786Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Did the minister release a communique on Friday, 20 November 1998 claiming that it represented the unanimous view of the state and territory sports ministers with respect to child boxing? Is it true that not all of the state ministers were consulted about the communique before its release and, when state ministers asked whether changes could be made, they were informed by your office that it was `too late, it's gone'? Minister, did the South Australian minister subsequently tear up his copy of the communique in protest at your high-handed attitude?786Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—It is true that I chaired a meeting of the sports and recreational ministers on 20 November. It is true that all ministers at that meeting were appalled at the thought of people profiteering from young children hitting each other around the ring. It was agreed at that meeting that we would go away and consider a national approach and set up a working party to look at the problem. New South Wales has come up with a bandaid approach to a problem that is of great concern to all Australians. Victoria put forward their legislation, which looks at banning professional boxing for under 18—not 14, not 16, but under 18.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is obviously well briefed on the facts of other states' legislation, but the question was actually about the communique—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, there is no point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—With respect, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—With respect, Mr Speaker, if I might conclude my point of order before you answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser may conclude his point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Thank you. The question did not go to what actions states have taken; it went to the circumstances in which a communique was released and whether others disagreed with it. This is not relevant to that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I fail to see how that can possibly be a point of order. The minister was asked a question.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—She was asked about the communique.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Did they all agree?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—She was asked about the processes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have no reason to do anything other than to say that I fail to see that that is a point of order, but I add that the minister is responding on the way in which the states responded, and I would have thought that was entirely relevant to the communique and the question she was asked. The minister is entirely in order.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—At that meeting the New South Wales sports minister introduced a motion that no-one at that meeting had read. We suddenly got a motion. She had not even bothered to get her Labor colleagues from Tasmania and Queensland to attend the meeting to second that motion. It was not even seconded. It was not even discussed before she raced out of the meeting to hold a press conference on the bandaid measure that New South Wales had come to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. The member for Hunter has the call, but if this is a point of order on relevance I will sit him straight down.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, did the minister's South Australian colleague tear up the communique in disgust?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will resume his seat and consider himself warned.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—The rest of the ministers at that meeting continued in mature and considered discussion of the issue. We came to a unanimous decision, backed up by the New South Wales minister and the South Australian minister, that we would form a working party to look at the Victorian legislation to come up with a national approach to the problem and that I would go away and discuss with the national sporting organisation a resolution to this issue. It was unanimous agreement at that meeting.787787Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Can the minister advise the House what the impact will be on regional communities and employment if the intransigent New South Wales state government continues to emasculate the Regional Forest Agreement process? How will a viable, sustainable forest industry survive if Premier Carr and his eco-vandals destroy the RFA process? As the New South Wales government has jumped ship from the proper RFA process as agreed under the national forest policy statement, what action can the minister take to encourage New South Wales to engage in rational negotiations on RFAs? QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the clauses in standing order 144, especially those pertaining to the fact that questions shall not contain arguments, inferences and imputations. This question contained all three of those and is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the Speaker ruled out all questions that contained arguments, inferences and imputations, few would survive.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, are you prepared to explain to this House how you will implement standing order 144 in relation to these very important points?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have ruled this question in order.788Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The New South Wales government and the Commonwealth government signed a scoping agreement to undertake the RFA process back in January 1996, and that process commenced with an interim forest assessment process, which was concluded and announced in September 1996. That was a preliminary assessment of the New South Wales forest situation. Immediately upon that announcement, the New South Wales state government reduced the level of timber quotas in that state by 35 to 40 per cent and declared extensive new national parks and wilderness areas. New South Wales also committed to future extensive areas of reserves in the RFA process.The government at that time criticised these actions as pre-empting the RFA process, as they did, but we continued to seek agreement. The reduction that was implemented unilaterally at that stage has had a severe effect on the economics particularly in the area of Eden. The member for Eden-Monaro has drawn to my attention, amongst other things, there have been about 30 closures of small businesses that were in no way connected with any financial assistance, the problem being that when you take a trucking operator or a timber contractor out of business you might compensate that person but you do not compensate the people who were selling them tyres, fuel and feeding their families. So that first unilateral decision has had a severe economic effect.However, recognising the problems concerned, immediately upon my appointment, I contacted Mr Craig Knowles, one of the ministers responsible in New South Wales, and said, `Please, let us get this program of the Regional Forest Agreement back on track,' and he agreed we could have a meeting on 13 November. The next day the New South Wales government unilaterally announced their processes for Eden with increased reserves of 46 per cent of forested land and reduced timber quotas by another 10 per cent. As a consequence, Harris Daishowa have just advised five contractors with significant numbers of employees that they have to participate in a ballot. They have to draw a marble to keep their business. They have to draw a marble to keep their people in a job.Anyway, knowing that, I said to the minister, `Look, we won't fight with each other over this. Let's get together and try to do some good.' What happened? On 12 November, the New South Wales government announced its policies for the upper north-east and the lower north-east regions and declared that in both cases legislation would pass the New South Wales parliament prior to its proroguing, which could be today.No RFA processes have even commenced in the north-east regions. A significant part of that RFA process as laid down in these agreements is that there is a process of public consultation. In Western Australia where that process is progressing, some 30,000 individuals chose to make such submissions—and on issues across the board. Everybody in north-east New South Wales has been denied that opportunity. What has been the alternative? The reality of what has been done is that a selected group of people have got together in a back room to come to some agreement.In December 1995, the Commonwealth and New South Wales signed a memorandum of understanding with each committing $60 million to the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package, better known as FISAP. Following concerns regarding the administration and effectiveness of this program, and two independent reports outlining the program's coverage and guidelines, the Commonwealth sought to negotiate new guidelines with New South Wales which would avoid perceptions of conflict of interest. There are grave concerns that one of your colleagues has been picking out mates to get the money, but again New South Wales did nothing about it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is now clearly a ministerial statement, and it should be made as such.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not see this as a ministerial statement. I did, however, think that the minister's unkind reference, untied reference, in the latter part of his last sentence was inappropriate. I ask him to wind up.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—As a result of all these unilateral actions, I have been obliged to write to Minister Yeadon in the New South Wales government and suspend all Commonwealth financial contributions to this process until it returns to the RFA arrangements. And I do not believe that is going to be particularly easy, simply because many of the areas identified for forestry, on good advice, will be unable to meet the sustainability management aspects of the RFA. New South Wales has put its own people in an intolerable position.789789Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I direct my question to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. Does the minister agree with the Treasurer's statement about the GST's impact on SOCOG that:Where they have entered into contracts before the implementation of the tax . . . the tax doesn't apply.If so, how does she explain the fact that page 99 of the tax package states:The GST applies to all goods delivered and all services performed after the implementation date.Minister, what advice did you give to SOCOG or IOC with regard to this matter? Did you tell them what the Treasurer said, or what the tax package said?789Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the honourable member for her question, and I agree with the Treasurer.789789Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, what is the government's response to the reported remarks of Sir Gerard Brennan that the government should scrap its plans to withdraw more of the courts' jurisdiction on immigration matters or risk an unacceptable incursion on the rule of law and the overburdening of the High Court?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Here we go again.789Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question on this matter.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will excuse himself from the House, under the provisions of 304A. He has been repeatedly warned and has ignored those warnings.The honourable member for Melbourne thereupon withdrew from the chamber.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Can I say on the issue of judicial review in relation to immigration matters that it has been long a vexed question, and that is because there are quite different objectives between the courts, who have a role in reviewing individual matters, and the policy questions that are involved in the admission of people to Australia under an immigration program. Decisions that can be taken by courts, often in isolation from the broad policy questions, can have a very significant impact on the way in which the immigration program ultimately unfolds. It is important to understand that because the Labor Party in office understood that question very well.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Change the law.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—When it was in office it understood that very well. Section 6A(1)(e) of the Immigration Act provided that people could obtain entry to Australia if there were strong and compelling and compassionate circumstances. The interpretation that was developed over time by the court led to a situation where, in the last year that those provisions remained in place, 20,000 people were seeking to access Australia under those provisions and, under the way in which the law had developed and been interpreted, they could not be excluded.RH4KERRMr Kerr—We never took their rights away.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—That was the impact of individual decisions, taken in individual cases, developed over time. It led to a situation where those provisions—the fundamental principle which has guided this government and previous governments in office that the government of the day should be able to determine the size of the immigration program and who should enter Australia for permanent settlement—were essentially unwound.RH4KERRMr Kerr—But you don't take their rights away.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is ignoring the chair. He will sit there in silence.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—This government is of the view that the size and the provisions under which people enter Australia should be determined by the government of the day. The bill that we are intent on reintroducing to this House and to the Senate to deal with issues of jurisdiction and the way in which matters will operate will contain a privative clause.The impact of a privative clause does not lead to a situation in which the High Court would end up being the only court of review. A privative clause would operate in relation to both the High Court of Australia as much as it would operate in relation to the Federal Court of Australia. It would provide that access to both the Federal Court and the High Court would remain but that the grounds for review before the courts would be restricted. That is exactly the same sort of provision that operated when the former Labor government implemented part 8 of the Migration Act which was designed to restrict the basis upon which review could be undertaken. So it is very important to understand that.Can I conclude my remarks by saying that one other case where it has been clear that the courts have had an impact is a matter I mentioned the other day and, in answer to this question, I would like to ideal with the im pression that some people gained that the 1993 Federal Court decision of Fuduche directly related to the question of homesickness. What the decision in Fuduche did was to broaden the definition of other serious circumstances affecting the sponsor or family member or family unit in Australia by saying that the special need does not have to be medically based and that the heart of the provision should be given a broad and generous construction. The broadening provided a legal precedent which enabled tribunals to then include conditions such as homesickness as grounds for establishing special need.790790Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. Minister, given your previous reply, where you stated that you agreed with the Treasurer that pre-existing contracts do not attract the GST, is that what you told the SOCOG or OIC boards?790Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—My role as Minister for Sport and Tourism is to find positions and points of view from the industry and to reflect them relevantly to the minister responsible. For every decision that affects one industry, there are several flow-on decisions to other industries. The Treasurer is the most important person or the key person in determining all of those issues. I have made representations to the Treasurer in an accurate manner of the decisions, and you should defer to the Treasurer on all tax issues.790790Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the illustrious Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the progress of the implementation of the Youth Ambassadors for Development Program? How should young Australians in my electorate of Parramatta or in the 148 seats represented here express interest in participating in the Youth Ambassadors for Development Program?790Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It is worth remind ing the House on this matter of the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development Program that the member for Parramatta has been promoting a scheme of this kind and has been one of the key influences leading to the establishment of the scheme. That is, policy development on this side and ruckus on that side. That is about it.The program was launched on 27 August. It is a program to send 500 young Australians to the countries of the Asia-Pacific, linking communities in Australia with communities in our region. The program is developing extremely well. We have had 680 young Australians apply for the first intake, and I am advised that those 680 applicants are of the very highest standard. Eighty young Australians have been selected for assignments overseas in February 1999, and they will be notified very shortly of their successful applications.The Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development Program is a very important component of building our engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. It is a way in which we will get young Australians to understand the region, to develop contacts in the region and to project the fine qualities of young Australians to the region and help the region understand our country. We have large numbers of young Australians showing interest in the program. Over the next two years something like 500 young Australians will participate in it. Frankly, I hope not only that the program will extend beyond the next two years—I am sure it will—but also that we will be able to build that program up beyond the current scale we have in mind.In answer to the last part of the honourable member's question about what young Australians should do to express an interest in participating in the program, they can get in touch with AusAID. It is through AusAID that applications can be made. I am happy to pass on later to the honourable member the appropriate telephone number and details and the web site. Of course, on this side of the House we are interested in the web site. On your side I should think only the member up the back would know about that.791791Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you stand by your statement on radio station 2BL when asked about the impact of the GST on SOCOG that pre-existing contracts will not attract the GST?791Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Yes.791791Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, small business is the prime source of jobs in my electorate of Blair. Could you inform the House of the action the government is taking to assist small business to prosper? What are the employment consequences of that action?791Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Blair for his question. The fact is that prosperous small businesses mean jobs. When this government is in power and implementing our policy, that means jobs in the future. How do you create jobs? Good economic management is one of the first things you have to do. It is one of the things that this government has been providing. What else do you have to do? You have to get interest rates down. That is what this government has been doing and will continue to do. You have to get inflation down. That is what this government has been doing, and that means jobs.Then you have to get into the difficult issues, the major reform issues. This government has been active in franchising—a huge area in which we want to see small business prosper and create jobs. We introduced capital gains tax rollover relief. We have said to small business, `If you do well, we want you to keep more of what you earn.' We have introduced reforms in unfair dismissal. We want to go further. We have introduced general reforms to the Workplace Relations Act, all of which are aimed at producing jobs.We have introduced historic reforms, like reforms to the Trade Practices Act to protect small business, as recommended by the Reid committee in the last parliament. Not only have we done that; we are powering on with our agenda—tax reform, more IR reform, more workplace relations reform, reform for small business so they can give young people jobs and keep young people in jobs. We also need to cut back on the red tape for small business. We have started that task. It is a long, hard task, but we have a plan—as we have in all these areas—to prosper small business and to create more jobs. That will see this economy do better in the future.I conclude by saying that we have a plan, because we know what to do. The other side basically has no plan, although in fairness to the new shadow minister, the member for Hunter, he said in his maiden speech—he said it; who wrote it would be another question, whether it was his wife or another member of his family:Competent management of the Australian economy is the most basic prerequisite for jobs growth in Australia.That is exactly right. I say to the member for Hunter that he ought to come down here and give a few of these ex-ACTU presidents a few simple messages about running the Australian economy.792792McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in light of the documents tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly this morning concerning the improper conduct of Liberal Party pollster Mark Textor, can you guarantee that none of the taxpayer funded focus group research conducted prior to the last federal election was used by the Liberal Party for election purposes?792Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not seen any of the documents tabled in the Northern Territory parliament. I certainly do know Mr Textor, and I think you know him as well. Mr Textor has been a very competent and a very effective pollster for the Liberal Party of Australia. He is also, like any other person in that area, entitled to do other work.Any casual thumbing through the research records of the Hawke and Keating governments would find with stunning rapidity the company called ANOP, which of course was a very competent polling organisation owned and run by Mr Rod Cameron, for whose polling expertise I had a considerable personal regard. It also had a large amount of government work in those days.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was deliberately seeking a guarantee from the Prime Minister and he has not referred to the question nor to the guarantee which I sought.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invite the Prime Minister to come back to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Having sort of prepared the ground, I say to those who sit opposite that I am advised that total propriety has been observed by this government in relation to those matters.792792Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The minister would be aware that, as we approach the next millennium, new technologies are providing opportunities to improve the delivery of educational services for the people of the Dunkley electorate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dunkley will come to his question.1K6Mr BILLSON—What is the government and its visionary minister doing to promote the use of technology in the provision of educational programs, particularly in the area of literacy?792Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question, and I am looking forward very much to going down to Dunkley and to Frankston in particular to launch the national literacy standard online as part of Online Australia Day. Frankston is a particularly appropriate place in which to make this launch. It is a place with historic importance in many ways, particularly for the Labor Party.As we remember, Frankston was the place where the member for Werriwa as the then shadow minister for education was first handed the Labor Party education policy in the course of the election campaign. He had the opportunity, as he said, to read the policy for the first time on the way back from the policy launch. Indeed, he discovered at that time that there were a dozen spelling mistakes in the policy. That was very quickly and easily dealt with because it was handed to the Victorian branch and Kim Carr to correct those literacy arbiters. If you are relying on the Victorian branch to set literacy standards, you have sunk a very long way indeed.Tomorrow I will be launching the year 3 and year 5 literacy benchmarks on the Internet as part of Online Australia Day. This is going to coincide with the launch last year of the Education Network Australia.This government has a great commitment to literacy and numeracy. When we came into office, we found that 30 per cent of young people in this country after 13 years of Labor could not read and write at an adequate standard. Since then, we have established Australia's first national literacy standard. This year almost every child in Australia in years 3 and 5 is being assessed against that standard. We will be able to determine exactly the scale of the issue which needs to be addressed, and we will address it because those literacy and numeracy skills were one of the main reasons why after 13 years of Labor youth unemployment was at such unacceptable levels.In the Pezzullo and Angley education policy issued by the Labor Party, literacy got five lines. That was the Labor Party's commitment to literacy and numeracy. There was no commitment to the national literacy standards. Literacy was to be handed back to the Australian Education Union so that, once again, they could take charge of what happened in the classroom, make sure that there was no proper accountability and continue to sacrifice young Australians. We have an absolute commitment to raising these standards in this country, and this launch tomorrow will confirm that commitment.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, on that erudite note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker793793793Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, you would be aware of the convention in this place that portraits of former prime ministers are com missioned on behalf of the parliament and appropriately placed in public areas of this building. I understand that the portrait of former Prime Minister Keating is in this building. Would you ascertain when it is proposed to be placed in the public areas?793Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will find an answer to the member for Cunningham's question and convey it to him and the parliament at an appropriate time.793793Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I seek your advice, Mr Speaker. On Tuesday of this week I asked the Minister for Defence a question, to which he responded:I am not aware of the details and will find out.He has not communicated with me, and I am not sure he has communicated with the House. Could you ask if he has found out yet, please.793Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the member for the Northern Territory will be aware, had that question been on notice I would have an obligation if it were over 60 days to have sought an answer. It is a question without notice, and I will take it up with the minister's office.793793Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Would you, Mr Speaker, consider providing a reference to the Procedure Committee to examine the practical operation of standing order 145 and to develop guidelines to assist both you and future Speakers in interpreting this standing order and in providing guidelines to present and future ministers in framing their answers to questions?793Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Standing order 145 has been a matter of frustration to Speakers, even before the member for Cunningham was a very able and recognised Speaker of the House. There is nothing stopping any member of this parliament making such a proposition and taking it to the chair of the Procedure Committee—when that committee has been appointed and the chair has been elected. I think that is the appropriate course of action to pursue. I do not think that anything dramatic is going to happen to reform standing order 145, given the frustration that it has provided probably over almost 100 years.Documents794794Reith, 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--Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act—Administrative Review Council—Report for 1997-98—Erratum.Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 1997-98—Corrigendum.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 1997-98.Health Insurance Act—Medical Training Review Panel—2nd report, for 1997-98.High Court of Australia Act—High Court of Australia—Report for 1997-98.Workplace Relations Act—Industrial Relations Court of Australia—Report for 1997-98.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Health Insurance Act—Medical Training Review Panel—2nd report, for 1997-98.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 1997-98.Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 1997-98—Corrigendum.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance79479410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The continuing failure of the government to fully disclose the economic modelling for its private health insurance rebate including the basis for the claimed benefits for Australia's public hospital system.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—MG4LEEMr Lee—Where is the health minister?15:18:00794Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Where is the health minister? The government has treated the public of Australia with contempt over the largest single new health expenditure proposal offered at the recent election, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care does not even bother to come into the chamber to defend it. He will not give out any information to the public or to the parliament before it is finally debated, and he will not even come into this parliament and defend his own policy. The government have run a deceptive election campaign, promising a bounty for people with private health insurance but refusing to give any details whatsoever. They have now introduced legislation into the parliament, pushed it through this House and gagged the debate without providing any information at all. The minister's second reading speech lacked any substance or detail. He completely failed to argue his case. What did he rely on? He relied on an opinion poll. He relied on an opinion poll and the exaggerated claims of industry lobby groups without any substantiation. Since then, we have had universal condemnation of the rebate plan from all the health and economic commentators around the country. We actually found out yesterday how much the government was going to spend via a radio interview where the minister said it was going to cost $1½ billion. Interestingly enough, we still do not know the full cost of the first rebate offered by this government; only that it is well under budget—around $300 million. We also know that it is well under performance and that it totally failed to achieve the government's target of 40 per cent participation in private health insurance, let alone any benefits for public hospitals. The details about what has happened to private health insurance are now becoming clear. Not only did the level of private health insurance not go up to 40 per cent but the level of private health insurance has continued to fall. It is now down to 30.3 per cent. And what happened to the price? Not only did we not see an increase in the level of private health insurance but the price of health insurance went up by seven per cent in each of the two years. The claims made for this rebate during the election campaign are now quite clear to all of us—claims that have become known to be false. What the government said was that everyone with health insurance would get a 30 per cent reduction in their premiums. What we now know is that this applies only to those families who have incomes over $70,000 a year. If you are one of the 1.2 million people already receiving a rebate under the current private health insurance incentive scheme, you may not get an increase in the rebate of anything. Maybe you will get $50, or if you are lucky because you have a very expensive health plan you might get $250. But who is going to get the biggest benefit out of this massive subsidy to private health insurance? Higher income people with blue-ribbon cover. They can expect to get up to around $1,000 off the cost of their health insurance. The government also said that there would be a significant reduction in the pressure on our public hospitals. This has never been quantified and, even though we have had the debate here in the parliament, it still remains unquantified—just like everything else. There has been no detail provided whatsoever about how this will occur.We are now gradually getting a little bit of information—only after the debate has been held in this House. The Minister for Finance and Administration finally conceded that yes, the finance department has conducted detailed modelling on this rebate proposal but, of course, he is yet to release it publicly. We got a little bit more out of him today. One can only draw the conclusion that the modelling replicates the conclusions of the Productivity Commission which, in the major report it conducted on private health insurance last February, scathingly criticised the government's last rebate.Yesterday, the Prime Minister revealed what would have to be called the dismally low target that the government has set itself: that the intent of this $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money is only to keep the participation rate in private health insurance at 33 per cent—a rise of just 2.7 per cent. But then we had the finance minister tell us today in question time that it actually was not 2.7 per cent, it was 2.5 per cent. One or other of them eventually, I assume, will come out and tell us the truth.MG4LEEMr Lee—You misled the House yesterday, John.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—We will get to that in a minute. It also came out in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning—this is the way the House has to get information—that this new target of 33 per cent—HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—It is 32.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Or maybe it is a little bit less, according to the minister for finance, may be reached in 18 months time. But in launching the Liberal Party's health policy, the Prime Minister boasted that the rebate would achieve a substantial increase in 12 months time. So that is, of course, what he took to the election. Not surprisingly, the minister for health has refused to attach himself to this target. He has consistently avoided, in every media interview, any statement whatsoever about what might happen. When I have directly challenged him to say whether he believed that this rebate would get one extra person to take out private health insurance, he has refused.Today, the minister for finance—who is at the table—finally revealed the assumptions about future price rises. He told us today that the government's costings are based on increases of around four per cent. We might well ask how the government intends to control these price rises in return for this massive injection of taxpayers' funds. In the last two years when—who was in government?—the Howard government was in control of health policy, private health insurance fees went up by seven per cent each year. The Prime Minister told us today that he thought it was totally irrelevant for him to have to approve private health insurance rises. So $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money will be spent without any approval or control of prices by this Prime Minister.There are a few other things that we now know. As we say, we know that the total cost will be $1.5 billion—an increase of $1.2 billion. This represents a cost of almost $3,000 for every extra person the government hopes will take out private health insurance. We also know—from the results of the Productivity Commission inquiry last year—that, for every person transferred from a public hospital to a private hospital, would lead to a saving of $252. But what does this government want to do? It wants to give the equivalent of $3,000 per person to the 500,000 extra people it hopes will take out private health insurance. That is this government's economics: spend $3,000 to get them into private health insurance and save $252 off the public hospitals. That is the sort of economics that we are dealing with with this government.Opposition members interjecting—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Not real rational. The government is proposing to spend an enormous amount of taxpayers' dollars. To put it again in the way the Productivity Commission put it, the government wants to spend $1½ billion to get a saving in the public hospitals of $210 million. So, once again: $1.5 billion and you save $210 million from public hospitals. That is what this government's health policy amounts to: spend a huge amount of taxpayers' money for next to no benefit whatsoever for the health system.We also know that the Medicare agreements, that the minister was so proud of in question time today, provide for the states to receive an additional $82 million for every one per cent change in private health insurance coverage. So if the government achieves its target of an increase of 2.7 or 2.5 per cent—whoever you believe—apparently there would be a saving of $221 million. This is a remarkably close figure to those from the Productivity Commission. Again, it is only one-seventh of the amount that the government proposes to spend.We have seen another figure come forth from the government today in question time. The government said that it will have to spend $2.5 billion if nothing happens. This is a ridiculous exaggeration. The only situation in which this government would have to spend $2.5 billion is if the proportion of people with private health insurance fell by 30 per cent. Not even the health minister is suggesting that private health insurance is going to fall by 30 per cent, so that gives the lie to that forecast that we heard today in question time. There will not be a total collapse of private health insurance, and the government should stop hawking fear and crisis and get down to the real job of ensuring that private health insurance is returned to an affordable level by dealing with the real problems of gaps in the system.If the level of health insurance was to fall to 20 per cent, as suggested by the health minister in question time today, as he well knows, the Medicare agreements specify that the states would receive an additional $82 million for each one per cent fall in the level of private health insurance. How much does that add up to? By my reckoning, that adds up to $820 million—not the $2.5 billion that we heard so much about in question time. Those figures come from the Medicare agreements that this minister has signed.The House has debated this issue now for three days. Bit by bit, like pulling teeth, the opposition has slowly been able to get critical information out of the Minister for Finance and Administration, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care. It is time that the government came clean and tabled in the parliament the full documents from the Department of Finance and Administration that were prepared in modelling this rebate.There are two problems with private health insurance in Australia: firstly, this government has no plan whatsoever for dealing with the problem; and, secondly, the industry lacks a complete commitment to reform and cost control. If we were talking about the car industry, which we have talked quite a lot about in this House in the last parliament, or some other rescue package, no doubt there would be a significant amount of intense scrutiny if the parliament were required to spend $1½ billion. Any assistance package would be dependant upon a commitment from the industry. So if it were the car industry, the car industry would have to give significant commitments about how it was going to swiftly fix its own problems.The government has not bothered with any of that. It has completely argued its case on political grounds. We have heard that day after day. It has not tried to defend its argument from the point of view of improving the health system, whether public or private; it has been entirely on political grounds. The government knows that it has turned its back on economic realities.As we all know on this side of the House, the number one health priority in Australia is to fix up the crisis in our public hospitals. That is where the funds should go. Providing subsidies to high income earners is just going to tip the money into a very large black hole. There will be no benefit to public hospitals, no benefit to the people on very long waiting lists and in the end no benefit to the people with private health insurance, who will just see their costs continually spiral.15:33:00797Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Australia's health care system has evolved from very powerful egalitarian principles, the vehicle for which has been a strong health insurance ethic. Coupled with a deep mistrust of socialism, which dominated the political landscape domestically from the early 1930s till the end of the Vietnam War, it prevented the nationalisation of Australia's health care system.When Medicare was introduced in 1983, 65.8 per cent of Australians held private health insurance. At the end of the September quarter this year, it had declined to 30.3 per cent. On average, 315 people left each day till the end of the September quarter, but during the 13 years of Labor governments—the Hawke and Keating governments—the loss was between 800 and 1,000 a day. As a result of the private health insurance incentives scheme implemented by the Howard government after the 1996 election there are between 250,000 and 300,000 Australians who have private health insurance today who would not have if it were not for the initiatives undertaken by the government.There are two reasons why there has been a decline. The first was that, after 1983 till 1996, the Labor government withdrew all financial and all political support for private health insurance. In 1986, they withdrew the private hospital bed day subsidy, worth in 1996 dollars $235 million. In 1987, the following year, they forced the private funds to cover 25 per cent of the Medicare benefit schedule fee when a privately insured patient went into a private hospital. That added another $215 million to the cost of private insurance.From the time the Labor government was elected in 1983 through to 1987 it systematically withdrew its contribution to the reinsurance pool, which covers the risk of insuring people over the age of 65. One of the inflationary pressures on the private funds has been the changing risk profile of those who have it. Clearly, older people who believe they are more likely to need private health insurance have held it, whilst younger people who are fitter and healthier have dropped it. That measure added another $220 million to the cost. Then in the late 1980s insurers were forced to put protheses and other devices on basic tables.We just heard the member for Jagajaga talking about privately insured people leaving public hospitals and this allegedly saving some $250 a day. The previous Labor government forced privately insured patients out of public hospitals. In 1991, nine per cent of public hospital budgets were raised by treating privately insured patients. Today it is less than three per cent.The Medicare agreements that were signed in haste by the health minister Brian Howe late in 1992 actually factored in a disincentive for public hospitals treating privately insured patients. So two things happened. The income derived by public hospitals for treating privately insured patients—people who had already paid their taxes, already paid their Medicare levy and then paid private health insurance—was systematically reduced. At the same time, the costs imposed on insurers were quite significantly increased as those privately insured patients went into private hospitals.The total cost, according to Access Economics, of the withdrawal of financial assistance by Labor governments between 1983 and 1996 was $1.2 billion—in other words, the same dollar value as we are budgeting to put into a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate to those Australians who choose to look after themselves and their families, having made a commitment to public hospital provision through the Medicare levy and general revenue.The second reason we have got to this position today is, as I said, the withdrawal of political support. Brian Howe was the health minister in the Hawke government. In April 1992, Mr Howe, the then Deputy Prime Minister and health minister, said:Private health insurance makes an insignificant contribution to health care financing.This is despite the fact that at the time it was raising $3 billion for health whereas the Medicare levy was raising $2.5 billion. This year, the Medicare levy will raise $3.6 billion. The privately insured include 700,000 people earning less than $20,000 per year—God knows how they do it—and two million people who earn less than $30,000, and 800,000 people over the age of 65. Those people are continuing to pay private health insurance despite the fact that they were more or less told by Mr Howe, as the then Labor health minister, that they should not be having it—their money in fact was making a greater contribution than the Medicare levy.On 13 October 1992, Mr Howe, as the health representative of the Labor government, told me when I suggested to him that measures ought to be undertaken to support private health insurance, `Brendan, if you want to change anything that this government is doing, you'll have to change the government.' In other words, he was saying, `We aren't listening. The shutters have gone up. We're not the least bit interested in doing anything to support private health insurance.'If you read the papers over the Christmas period in 1995, you would have found that four Labor luminaries of the Hawke, Keating, Wran and Whitlam genre were booked into one of the most prestigious private hospitals in Australia. I congratulate and admire them for doing it. However, what really gets in my craw is when those same people then go out and say to the rest of the country, `You don't need private insurance and we're not going to do a damned thing to help you buy it.' In the 1993 election in the second week of March, Paul Keating, the then Prime Minister, from the Royal Adelaide Hospital said to Australians, `You don't need private insurance. People are wasting their money. Medicare can cater for all your needs.' Yet at the time he was reported to be worth something like $5 million. I am still trying to work out how you make that sort of money here.Graham Richardson, who is honest about quite a lot of things, said that the problem the Labor Party has involves ideology. That means that you are doing something which is irrational and insane because you have an ideological bent. On 20 November this year, on 2GB radio in Sydney, Richardson said:I think part of the problem is that ideology gets in the road, and it does on issues that have anything to do with Medicare. The Labor Party sometimes doesn't act too sensibly. There is an ideological bent there.That reminded me of the member for Jagajaga, who is the current health spokesperson for the Australian Labor Party in the federal parliament. She has derided what we are trying to do to support private health insurance. She was quoted in the book authored by Mr Bob Browning, Exploiting Health , in these terms:A self-declared socialist, Macklin's career included having been coordinator of the socialist Left dominated government subsidised think tank, the Victorian Labour Resource Centre.He went on to say that Macklin was one of a collective of 10 that in 1984 organised meetings to establish a new broad Left coalition committed to helping develop effective strategies for socialists in Australia. As a speaker at the 1983 Marx centenary conference, Macklin declared:What does the dismantling of capitalism and the building of socialism involve? It is all too clear that spontaneous uprising is not around the corner. Planned insurrection is only a dream in some people's heads. We are talking about transformation, and the essence of this is that it is a strategy for a war of position, where we can gradually make incisive interventions into the sovereignty of capital.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Who said that?RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—This is the shadow minister for health, today the member for Jagajaga, in 1983 speaking at the Marx centenary conference.In 1985, Macklin left the Labour Resource Centre to become ministerial adviser to the then Victorian state minister for health, Mr David White. The Labour Resource Centre congratulated her on her new appointment, saying:Over the last four years, Jenny has been instrumental in establishing the LRC's program, which involved attempting to make socialist ideas and principles work on the ground.That is what Graham Richardson is referring to when he talks about ideology.Private hospitals will continue to flourish whether private health insurance survives or not. The ones in regional and rural areas will certainly collapse. The large ones that have a much better casemix in large cities will not only survive but flourish. But the people who will be using them will not be 70-year-old pensioners who, through no choice of their own, spent 40 years living in a public housing flat. They will be people who can afford to pay cash to go in there and those people with wealth who can continue to maintain private health insurance coverage.As private hospital operators are only too aware, we are sitting on the edge of a $US250 billion per year health economy in East Asia estimated to increase by 70 per cent over the next three years. If private health insurance coverage in Australia collapses, there is a ready market very close to our doorstep.I also have to wonder about the motives of some of the people who are voting against this in the Australian Labor Party. I would not like to be the member for Kingston. He has a margin of 382 votes, yet 38,580 people in his electorate are privately insured. He will have to go back to them and say, `I voted against you getting 30 per cent of your private health insurance premium back.' I would not like to be the member for Bruce, who has never worried anybody and I do not think ever will. His margin is just over 5,000, yet he has 34,733 people in his electorate who are privately insured.In terms of the costings, the member for Jagajaga—a confirmed socialist, we understand—believes that an estimate of 33 per cent of people with private health insurance, if the rebate is introduced, would be a terrible thing. When she was chairing the national health strategy, she argued, amongst other things, for a single national insurer. In other words, there would be no role for any insurer in Australia other than a government monopoly one. The target for private health insurance of the ALP is zero.I worked as a medical practitioner servicing the second poorest socioeconomic area in the country for nine years, where there is 13 per cent employment and three generations of welfare dependency. Many of those people, who are Labor voters, desperately struggle to hang on to their private health insurance. They do so not because they want to get their hip replacement done when they think it is convenient or to get their veins done over Christmas. They do so because when they have a stroke, get acute back pain or get serious problems—at least in their terms—with limited social support, they can get a hospital bed when they need it. They are not going to spend 10 hours down at the public teaching hospital, which is already on bypass for ambulances because it is overloaded, knowing that they will be sent home seven or eight hours later.That is why they buy their private health insurance. That is why, on the day Mr Keating said that you did not need private health insurance because Medicare could look after all your needs, a woman who was a part-time cleaner in the office of a then Labor minister said to me, `I go without food to pay for it. It is so important to me to have private health insurance that I go without food to pay for it.' The secretary of the Tasmanian Pensioners Union confirmed with me at the time that it was not an isolated case.The costings of the rebate are $1.2 billion. Personally, I hope it will cost more because, if it does, it would mean that considerably more people have taken out private health insurance. If we allow private health insurance to drop to 20 per cent coverage, which means a further 1.9 million people dropping out, it would cost us $2½ billion extra over the life of the next Medicare agreement. That means that the minister who is sitting down in 2002 to negotiate the hospital financing agreements for 2003 through to 2005 is going to have to add a minimum of $5 billion to the base before they even start negotiating with the states. The costings are based on a one per cent population growth and an annual premium increase of around four per cent—which is considerably less, I might add, than what occurred under those Labor years when, as I said, everything was done to actively discourage people from having private insurance.But this is not the only thing that we are doing. We put a Medicare surcharge on high income people that do not take out private insurance. If you do not take out private insurance and you earn a decent income, you can kick the Medicare tin a bit harder. That is a good thing. We have facilitated the negotiation and development of contracts between doctors and hospitals. We are now piloting 20 programs across the country of no gaps and simplified billing. We are now allowing the funds to offer loyalty bonuses.In the end, I think the Labor Party needs to understand that Medicare is in no way threatened by reducing the length of the queues. Medicare would be threatened if we allowed people not to make a contribution to Medicare. The Labor Party, like an arsonist returning to the scene of the crime, is here to sabotage the fireman's hose in the form of a 30 per cent relief on premiums for many, many low income battling Australians. (Time expired)15:48:00800Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Yesterday we saw a piece of legislation rammed through this place with a debate on that piece of legislation gagged by those opposite—after, I might add, a 1996 election promise to get private health insurance coverage up to 40 per cent and their dismal failure to achieve that through their private medical insurance actions of the time. They then came in here this week with a piece of legislation again aiming to do nothing more than to stem the flow of people leaving private health insurance. `A $1.5 billion finger in the dike' is what I call it, and that is how I see it.The Australian community and this parliament have a very distinct choice to make in this debate. Members here have a choice between improving Australia's public hospitals for all Australians—let us face it, all Australians unfortunately at some time in their lives may need to use those public hospitals—or a continual subsidisation of private health insurance which, unfortunately, will affect only a few. Australians want something done about the public hospital system. They want something done about the waiting lists. They want something done about people queueing up in corridors of public hospitals on trolleys waiting for attention. Within the ACT, my Canberra residents want something done about the 20 per cent increase in waiting lists at the Canberra Hospital since April this year. That is after, I might add, what is boasted to be one of the most financially beneficial Medicare funding arrangements in the country. So, if you can achieve that and then see a 20 per cent increase in waiting lists at the local hospital, I frankly despair. Canberrans want more money directed to public hospitals, not a blank cheque for private health insurance companies.Labor actually believes in maintaining the Medicare system. We believe it is in fact the best way to improve the nation's health system overall. We remain committed to universal access to publicly funded health services through the Medicare system, and the Australian community believes in that too. You read any poll, you read any survey done—the Australian community actually votes for Medicare every time they have the opportunity. We believe that health resources should be allocated fairly on the basis of medical need and not on the basis of an ability to pay.Labor introduced Medicare because we believe in a universal health system of hospitals, doctors and medicines for all Australians. As I have said, we are proud of that, and we believe the Australian community is proud of it and believes in it too. However—and the member for Bradfield is wrong on this—we also recognise that private health insurance plays an important role in Australia's health system as well. We gave a commitment at the last election to continue the Medicare surcharge and the private health insurance incentive scheme.Labor believes that making private health insurance better value, and hence more attractive to the consumer, depends upon cooperation between government, health funds, hospitals, doctors and the medical fraternity. If these groups continue their conflict, insurance premiums will continue to rise, patients will continue to face massive out-of-pocket expenses, and that all-important horrendous gap will continue to haunt all of us.Governments must continue to work at all levels with all groups to make private health insurance better value—it is as simple as that. The goal of public policy in this area must surely be to make private health insurance better value for the consumer. Nobody in this place except those on this side seems to be asking what is wrong with the product these private insurance companies are selling—that is the question. What is wrong with it? The simple answer is that it is inequitable and it is not worth the money. Addressing the gap—the difference between what you get from Medicare and your health fund and the total fee—is, I believe, the crucial issue.Given some of the contributions from the other side about who is voting for what in this place, it is interesting to note the voting record of the Liberal and National members in this place on this issue. Yesterday they voted to oppose redrafting their flawed legislation to include measures to make health insurance more attractive by providing patients with a single hospital bill and insurance to cover the cost of hospital and medical services so that patients do not face large out-of-pocket costs. They also voted to oppose increased funding for the public hospital system. I could mention the possibilities for those 38 coalition members clinging to their marginal seats, but I will not. They might, but I will not, because we are actually here to consider the benefit for all Australians, not just for those in marginal seats.For most low and middle income Australians private health insurance simply does not provide that value. The combination of premiums rising at a rate above inflation and the erosion in the quality of the insurance product has led to consumers voting with their feet and moving out. In the eight years from April 1989 to July 1997 the consumer price index increased by almost 30 per cent. In the same period private health insurance premiums increased by a whopping 100 per cent. Since the government's last attempt to fix the drop-out problem with that subsidy, three rounds of increases have pushed premiums up by more than 20 per cent. As a result, health fund membership is at its lowest level ever—30.3 per cent, well below the government's target of 35 per cent, and that all elusive 40 per cent from 1996.However, instead of admitting the inadequacies of that first scheme, the government is throwing good money after bad with this 30 per cent rebate, a rebate that is not means tested and is only expected to increase fund membership by a paltry 2.7 per cent, or I understand now by only 2.5 per cent. It is a very expensive plug.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What will it be next week?5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—Heaven knows what it will be next week. It is still a full 2.5 per cent below the government's expectations of the original scheme. Does the government seriously have another plan for when the private health insurance companies raise their premiums to swallow up this rebate? I have not heard anything about that. The government talks about directing this $1.5 billion to Australian families, but it confuses the legal and the economic instance of the subsidy. Any first year economics student will be able to tell you that health insurance suppliers and doctors will in the long run end up with this money. It happened last time; it will happen again. As Ross Gittins pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald column yesterday:The system is so highly subsidised and thus easily exploited by doctors intent on raising their incomes. In the meantime, an ever growing number of people have decided that private health insurance no longer offers value for money. I would say to Mr Gittins that by the same token it is not just doctors; it is the whole of the health profession when we are talking about these costs. I do not believe that governments should be addressing the decline in the number of Australians using private health insurance by rewarding the blatant `rent seeking' behaviour of the health insurance companies. They should not just write another cheque. There is no guarantee that the health funds will lift their game by controlling costs and resolving the problem of out-of-pocket costs to patients. Funds, doctors, hospitals, government—all stake players—must negotiate to reduce the cost of insurance, particularly those gaps.I would like to refer to the ancillary charges as well. As I have said in this place before—and I will say it again today—probably what makes me the angriest is the amount of money that is going out of this $1.5 billion to prop up the costs of ancillary medical insurance. The best example to use is the dental program. The general extension of the rebate to the ancillary services area means that privately insured people will get a rebate of 30 per cent on their dental premium. It means that nearly $200 million will go to subsidising the dental treatment of those who can probably already afford dental care. This comes two years after this government scrapped the $100 million Commonwealth dental scheme that gave pensioners and those in need in our community access to dental treatment. If we are going to talk ideology, let's talk ideology. That is a great example.The minister claims that the Commonwealth has no place in providing such a scheme. He is happy to sit back and let those in real need suffer while handing out $200 million in subsidies to higher income earners. The thing that upsets me the most about this whole debate is the absolute unfairness of it—$1.5 billion, no guarantees for gap cover, no guarantees to increase the number of people in health insurance premiums, no guarantees that public lists will decline, no guarantees of anything that the community is demanding. It is a wasteful piece of legislation and the government should be ashamed.15:58:00802St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—It has been interesting to have been here for only a couple of sessions of this current parliament and not to have heard anything positive out of the other side. It is fascinating to come here and listen to those who are certainly well versed in the art of speaking in forums such as this. It is amazing that we have the other side trying to deny so many people a 30 per cent rebate in health insurance. In my electorate of New England, which I am certainly very proud to represent, some 33,000 people are privately insured. During the process that I used in talking to the electorate during the election campaign and, more than that, in listening to what those in the electorate said, people said that they would stay in the health system of insurance if they could get the rebate. One of the great pleasures of the campaign was to be able to sell the fact to people that, should this legislation pass, they will be able to afford to stay in that ever vital area of private health insurance.The process of a campaign is always interesting because you get out and about a bit more often than you do when you are actually a member of this House. I was amazed to find that so many on low incomes were looking to stay with their private health insurance.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—They deserve our help.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—As my colleague says, they really do deserve our help. I would like to discuss later the idea of actually doing something to address these problems as opposed to that side of the House simply pontificating and not doing anything.A constituent phoned my office not long ago—an elderly, frightened person from the lovely town of Inverell in our west—concerned that should this 30 per cent rebate not be forthcoming she, in her latter years, may have to withdraw from private health cover, having been through it and in it all her life. It was of great concern to her. I said to her that I would bring it to the House and that, should the opportunity arise, I would raise it here and mention it to people. Elderly people will receive the support of this side of the House. It worries me that the other side is not doing the same.Again, we go back to this campaign which, in my case, lasted some considerable time. I listened to some young people who are struggling to survive in Tamworth, that wonderful country music capital of my electorate. They also were people who had struggled to get into the private health system and they also would like to stay in that system. They cannot afford to stay in the system if they do not get the rebate. It is as simple as that. Their question to us was: will the coalition show the determination to help struggling, young low income people? I believe that that is what we will do.We now get to that all-important group of people that I am part of, which is the working men and women of this country—those who work in abattoirs or saw mills, those who drive trucks and those who work in industry and on our farms. Many of those people fear that they will be unable to continue to stay in the system. It is no wonder people are leaving the private health insurance business. They are not getting the support they need.It is interesting to note that when the coalition first gets into power in this 39th Parliament it introduces legislation that is going to help those working men and women that the other side—the Labor Party—do not want to support. It is amazing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you, and I can assure the House, that I will have a great deal of pleasure when I return to my electorate to explain to those people the opposition's stance against them receiving this 30 per cent reduction or rebate.We have heard some great academic points of view. I was impressed, I must admit, when my colleague the member for Bradfield read out the member for Jagajaga's history, to see such a great educated person being able to deliver a health policy for the opposite side. However, it did not say anything about working people, and it is working people who need the support of this government. Working people are not being supported by the other side. We need to help those people who help themselves. For too long in this nation we have supported those that have not; it is time that we took the lead and supported those people who help themselves.It was interesting listening to the member for Jagajaga's comments and I would like to pick up a couple of the points that she raised. The member said that a 30 per cent decline in private health insurance coverage would never happen and that there would be no collapse. The fact is that the long-term trend pattern is a decline of two per cent of the population every year. A two per cent decline a year over five years is 10 per cent of the population leaving private health insurance. Mr Deputy Speaker, 10 per cent in my electorate amounts to over 3,000 people. They need our support. It would take the coverage from 30 per cent, as it is now, down to 20 per cent in five years. That is not acceptable. This is a one-third cut in private health insurance membership.The other interesting claim is that under the HCAs the compensation to the states, if private health insurance membership did fall to 20 per cent of the population, would only be $820 million. That is 10 times $82 million, which is the amount the Commonwealth gives as extra funding for each one per cent in the decline of private health insurance. They are huge figures. The fact is—and this is important—that the figure is $83 million and not $82 million. The compensation is provided not just once but each year. It becomes part of the base for funding of the states, and we know how important that is.With two per cent dropping out of private health insurance every year, you would have to pay $166 million in the first year, $332 million in the second year, $500 in the next and so on until $830 million was paid in the fifth year. That is a staggering amount of money. We need to keep people in the system. The starting point for the 2000-2003 to 2008 HCAs would be an extra $5,000 million in real terms, just to cover the extra demand flowing from the decline to private health insurance coverage. That is before you make any adjustments for population growth, utilisation technology or any of those other cost drivers.We do not hear enough in this debate over the question of the 30 per cent rebate that it is not there simply trying to buy new members for the private health insurance funds; rather the approach involves a comprehensive and wide-ranging strategy to restore the balance in the Australian health care system and to keep those who are insured continually insured and to help them. The rebate will not only increase membership but also provide much needed assistance to people who would otherwise have dropped out of their insurance. I urge everybody to support the 30 per cent rebate. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Address in Reply804804Debate resumed.804Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for Hume, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, in this place. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.16:09:00804Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP11—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election to high office in this magnificent chamber of the House of Representatives in the nation's parliament. I stand in awe of this huge chamber as the newly elected member for the federal seat of Hume and reflect back on the decade I served as an elected member of the Legislative Assembly of the New South Wales parliament. I am conscious of my obligation to continue the people-first community based style of politics which voters within the Hume electorate overwhelmingly endorsed on Saturday, 3 October 1998.It is important that, in this my first speech, mention is made of the rural seat of Hume, named after that great explorer, Hamilton Hume, who in 1818 accompanied by James Meehan discovered Lake Bathurst and the Goulburn Plains. Three years later, accompanied by his brother-in-law, he discovered the Yass Plains and established a sheep station in the Gunning district. Today, the rural division of Hume extends from Cowra in the north to Tumut in the south, from the city of Goulburn in the east to Temora in the west and also includes towns such as Adelong, Barmedman, Boorowa, Cootamundra, Cowra, Crookwell, Grenfell, Gundagai, Yass and Young. Thanks to the pioneering spirit of Hamilton Hume, it is one of the most diverse rural electorates in this great country of ours.The Hume electorate contributes significantly to the economy through its agricultural, viticultural and horticultural industries, including wool, fat lambs, pigs, cattle, wheat, cherries, apples, stone fruits, timber and wine. The ability to efficiently produce this wide variety of rural commodities using the most productive farming practices in the world has, over the past decade, been overshadowed by falling commodity prices, high interest rates, high inflation and increased farm input costs which have made it difficult for rural producers to survive.Some industries such as wool are additionally burdened with clumsy and inefficient bodies feeding off the various levies on growers who rely on government legislation for compulsory collection of these levies. A combination of these factors has resulted in an increase in the demand for rural counselling services. In the electorate of Hume, many wool growers affected by these adverse contingencies sold wool in the October sales where the cash return they received was less than 50 per cent of last year's return. Obviously these low returns are going to place extreme financial pressure on these property owners for the next 12 months and will be reflected in their communities.Further pressure on producers has occurred as a result of an unusually rare temperature drop of minus five degrees Celsius on Wednesday, 28 October 1998, the worst frost in over 50 years. The drop in temperature had a devastating effect on orchards at Batlow and Tumut and on wheat crops at Cootamundra, Jugiong and Wallendbeen to the extent that this unseasonable severe frost damage will see up to 80 per cent of crops destroyed.In short, rural producers, despite their best efforts to maintain their well-earned reputations as the most productive farmers in the world, are reeling from one setback to another, much of it outside their control. These setbacks are having a serious social and economic effect on rural communities who are so dependent on the millions of dollars injected into the many small businesses which in turn generate employment within rural towns, thereby contributing significantly to social and economic stability. No doubt the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who has already indicated that the government is taking the issue of exceptional circumstances for frost affected crops very seriously, will give due consideration to assisting those rural producers facing severe financial difficulties.The issue of the problems confronting people on the land is complementary to the general frustration of rural communities. They are angry at what they perceive to be the economic rationalism driving successive governments of all political persuasions and which has seen the demise of government infrastructure culminating in the very real loss of jobs and services in rural towns. After 13 years of Labor, mainstream Australia is aware of the Labor Party's record of pandering to minority groups and sectional interests and the impact this has on the nation's ability to continue to support Labor's socialist welfare state mentality.The people of Australia are willing to bear some discomfort and pain, knowing hard decisions need to be made to overturn this massive financial burden created by past Labor policies. The constituency of the Hume electorate, like many other rural electorates, while prepared to accept that the government needs to promote certainty and security as part of its commitment to rebuild the rural sector's economic foundations, is concerned that in doing so government is relying too much on advice from bureaucrats—bureaucrats who do not know and care little about the impact their cost saving measures are creating within the social fabric of the targeted communities.It is simply not good enough, as an example, for Telstra to seek to justify its staff reduction exercise in rural Australia by saying metropolitan and rural areas have equally shared the burden of their staff reductions. They argue that, in the period from December 1996 until August 1998, 13,431 staff reduc tions occurred. In fact, 10,906, or 81.3 per cent, occurred in metropolitan areas and 2,525, or 18.7 per cent, from rural areas.Telstra has conveniently forgotten to inform us that in 1996, of the total 69,483 Telstra staff employed, only 15,800 Telstra staff serviced rural Australia or 80 per cent of Australia's landmass. Obviously, reductions in this work force have an impact on the quality of service to rural Australia. You cannot reduce the number of service personnel and expect them to cover the same geographical area and offer the same level of service. You certainly cannot expect Telstra customers in the Hume electorate to be adequately serviced from remote bases such as Canberra or Wollongong. The same applies to other government service infrastructure, such as Australia Post.It now begs the question as to why ministers of the Crown, and indeed governments of the day, have not made it mandatory for a social and economic impact study to be carried out before any decision is taken to reduce the numbers of employees or to move any service infrastructure from rural towns already struggling to stop the haemorrhaging of our young people to the eastern seaboard. We must do all we can to attract families into rural Australia and not drive families away from the way of life many Australians hunger for. Australians domiciled in our cities should support rural communities' rights to equal quality of service in health, education, communications and transport, which are available to metropolitan dwellers, regardless of the cost of delivery. It has always been governments, not the people, who have been fearful of those costs and who have identified other priorities for their spending.Whilst I am passionate about my concerns for country people, it would be irresponsible of me not to acknowledge the magnificent contribution Prime Minister John Howard's government has made to this wonderful nation of ours in the 2½ years since it was elected in 1996. In contrast to Labor, which has never been serious about stopping fraud and non-compliance in social security, the Howard government, through its very capable minister for social security, has saved taxpayers $48 million a week by shutting down the loopholes Labor left in the system and reducing benefits to 570,000 people who were receiving in excess of their legitimate entitlements. A further tightening of the social security system has continued to restrict people's ability to rort the system and has seen the establishment of a special rural task force to address social security issues affecting country people.The Howard government has also recognised the need to encourage Australians like me to remain in private health insurance. Legislation which will assist in attracting back into private health care those people driven out of the private health system by the escalating cost has been introduced into this parliament, as promised during the election campaign. Since the introduction of Medicare, the number of Australians contributing to private health insurance has fallen from 65.8 per cent to just over 30 per cent at the end of September this year.The Labor Party, in the 13 years it was in government, was instrumental in forcing 800 people a day out of the private health insurance system when it withdrew all political and financial assistance from the industry. For every one per cent reduction in private health insurance an additional $83 million was added to the cost of delivering publicly funded hospital services at state level. The Labor Party's ideological, socialistic and incompetent mismanagement of the health service during its 13 years in office effectively forced the cost of hospital insurance up by 20 per cent and came precariously close to destroying the private health insurance industry as we know it.Thankfully the Howard government, through the bill currently before this House, is providing a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate to those people willing to pay to look after their families when they require health care. The government is offering some hope to our health system. Its initiatives will certainly take pressure off the state public health systems, which are critically in need of relief. It is my belief that the rural health system, in particular, will benefit from this responsible approach.The most courageous issue ever undertaken by any prime minister in the nation in my lifetime was the decision by Prime Minister John Howard to radically change our tax system. It is the first time a Prime Minister of this country has put his political career on the line for something he believed was in the best interests of the people of Australia. The tax system as we know it has not kept up with the rush into technology. It has been continually patched and filled with increasing rates of sales tax. This has seen the standard sales tax rate of 2.5 per cent first introduced in the 1930s blow out to an average of 22 per cent standard rate in 1998.Sales tax and personal income tax is seen by most Australians as outdated, too complex and unfair to those who unselfishly work hard to assist those who pay no tax at all. Australians demonstrated their support for a change to the taxation system by returning the coalition government on 3 October. Hopefully, the Australian public, who expect the democratic process they voted for at the ballot box to be honoured, will not be arrogantly ignored and abused when the government sends its tax package to the Senate.As a founding member of Parliamentarians Against Drug Abuse, I am concerned about the availability of illicit and dangerous drugs in our community. There is no more important social issue confronting our community than the use of illegal drugs. This government is committed to using every strategy that it can to stop drugs ruining the lives of Australians. Under the National Illicit Drug Strategy, this government has committed over $200 million to a balanced approach to the drug problem. The government is spending more than any other federal government in anti-drug measures.In November 1997, the government provided an additional $20 million over three years to the Australian Federal Police for mobile strike teams, witness protection and the National Heroin Signature Program. In March, it provided an additional $23 million over four years for additional mobile strike teams, the AFP's overseas liaison officer network and cooperation programs in the Asia-Pacific region. In the election campaign the govern ment made a commitment to provide an additional $23 million over four years for another four mobile strike teams, which have proved to be remarkably effective in intercepting drug importations.This government has also provided additional resources to Customs. More than $34 million has been allocated to Customs under the Tough on Drugs strategy over four years for improvements to coastal surveillance and detection capacity in the Torres Strait, improving the ability of Customs to identify suspect cargo consignments and to examine containerised cargo. In the election campaign, the government made a commitment to provide an additional $31.65 million over four years for X-ray equipment, ship and aircraft search teams and an extra marine crew for the Torres Strait.The additional funding provided to the Australian Federal Police and Customs is helping those bodies to catch drug criminals. Recent successes, including Australia's largest ever heroin seizure resulting from a joint effort between the AFP, the New South Wales police and the Australian Customs Service working within the AFP's International Liaison Network with Hong Kong police, are helping to combat drug importation into Australia.South of Port Macquarie, Sydney based strike teams have seized in excess of 400 kilograms of heroin with a street value of over $300 million; 18 people were arrested in relation to the importation of this heroin. This month 23,000 ecstasy tablets were seized in Adelaide in another coordinated operation between the AFP and the Australian Customs Service. Obviously, if the resources are available, mobile strike teams, which are intelligence driven, have the capacity to attack all aspects of a drug syndicated operation, including financing, transportation, distribution networks and money laundering. I commend the Howard government for what is a positive contribution to this government's tough drugs strategy.Time restrictions do not allow me to address a number of other issues important to me personally, and certainly of interest to the people of the Hume electorate. So I believe that I should talk about who I am, why I am here and what this parliament can expect from me during my time in this House of the Australian people.I am the son of a wool store labourer from a low income working-class background. My grandfather on my mother's side was a personal friend of John Curtin. An uncle recently told me that my grandfather would turn in his grave, knowing I was a Liberal member of parliament—and he is absolutely right.Having established my family's Labor Party bona fides, I can assure members on the opposite side of the House that I was converted to conservative politics at a very young age because extremely well paid union officials, similar to those members opposite, had me out on strike more times than I worked. As a young slaughterman in the meat processing industry, I learnt rapidly that the only people lining their pockets at the expense of the working class were not the employers but the union officials on executive levels of pay driving company cars.In 1988, as a candidate for the Liberal Party—following encouragement from my wife, Gloria, and the then member for Hume, Wal Fife—I successfully contested the New South Wales state seat of Burrinjuck, which had been held by the ALP for 47 years. That 1988 election was similar to my election into this parliament on 3 October this year in that it was a three-cornered contest between the ALP, the National Party and the Liberal Party. I must say that in both of those elections my natural political opponents, the ALP, were honourable protagonists, unlike my other political opponents. Whilst I am opposed to the ALP's socialistic ideologies, I am always aware of where they are coming from.As a member of the Liberal Party, which is the largest rural based political party in Australia, I can assure the House that my politics differ to some degree in that I am not in the business of compromising my constituency expectations by concentrating my energies on self-interest politics. I am closely aligned to grassroots politics and, whilst that may at times create some discomfort to a number of my parliamentary colleagues, it is in line with what the bulk of Australians expect from their local elected representatives. There are many politicians within this place who do not understand this grassroots commitment because, unfortunately, they have become too engrossed in their own comfort zones—and the mainstream community at large, in recognising that weakness, is increasingly demanding accountability from politicians.It is also true to say that the public is becoming increasingly concerned about the politically correct divisive nonsense driven by a desire to placate the noisy minority groups as a means to political expediency. A former colleague of mine, the Hon. Marlene Goldsmith MLC, summed up public concern on this issue in her book Political Incorrectness—Defying the Thought Police when she wrote as part of the introduction to that novel:The politician, with even a modest number of watts in the light bulb, soon learns that the secret of success in this business is to avoid doing most of the things that need doing, because many of the real challenging and controversial issues, the ones that need more careful analysis and debate are off limits. The boundaries of acceptable discourse are policed by several watchdogs: on the left, the guardians of political correctness and fashionable orthodoxy, on the right the fascist fringe, and all over the place every special interest group whose disproportionate power needs querying . . . How right she was! So what does all this mean in the context of what this parliament can expect from me? I am simply saying that I do not subscribe to political correctness. I intend to defend the mainstream family values which have been pushed aside for political expediency; and I will never compromise my principles, honesty and integrity, no matter the cost. I seek no favours and I ask only that my rural constituency be given a `fair go'. Should there be any occasions during my time in this place when my constituents are penalised because of any action undertaken by me on their behalf, then I will vigorously respond on their behalf accordingly.Mr Deputy Speaker, I now take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all of those individuals who assisted me during the recent election campaign. Whilst it is difficult to name each and every individual, I must express my sincere appreciation to my cam paign manager, John Crawford, and his wife, Ondi, who offered valuable advice and worked so hard to ensure that I stayed on track with our campaign strategy. To Lynn, my secretary, who not only ran my campaign office single-handedly but also worked extremely long hours over the five-week period ensuring that the momentum of our campaign was maintained: thank you.To all of the loyal Liberal Party branch members and supporters who donated money and organised and manned campaign rooms and polling booths: thank you. I am grateful to the people of the Hume electorate who judged and accepted me for what I am: thank you for your massive support at the ballot box.To my lovely wife, Gloria: thank you for your love, your quiet inner strength, your comfort and support, and for just being beside me; `the team', as we are known within the region, has been a close successful combination in everything we have done together all our married life. To my two sons, Grant and Dean: your strong support, understanding and assistance to both your mother and me in the time consuming political process of campaigns over the past 11 years when quality family time has been limited is so much appreciated. To Debbie and Bernadette, who are an important part of your lives and a welcome distraction from the demanding life of politics: thank you for being part of our close-knit family.Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the House for its patience and indulgence in allowing me the privilege to participate in this the Governor-General's address-in-reply.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills808r602808Debate resumed.16:30:00808Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I congratulate the member for Hume on his first speech and look forward to the opportunity of debating some of the issues he raised on a future occasion. Prior to the adjournment of this debate, I was indicating my great concern that what is intended by the GST is yet another redistribution of wealth away from those who have less towards those who have more. What we can see in the GST package is a massive sleight of hand. There is a raid on the budget surplus of the order of $5 billion to $7 billion over the next three years to fund income tax cuts whereby the top 20 per cent of income earners get $6.6 billion.I would like to take honourable members back to the arrival of this government a couple of years ago when they discovered what they described as a $10 billion black hole. When they did that, where did they take that money from? They took $500 million off nursing homes, they dismantled the Commonwealth dental health care program and they jacked up HECS charges. In all sorts of ways they increased charges and they reduced services for ordinary Australians. The impact of their budget cuts was on ordinary Australians.Now we find a projected budget surplus of the order of $5 billion to $7 billion over the next three years. Where is that going? It is not going back to providing those services for ordinary people which they said we could not afford. It is not going back to renewing the dental health program, to providing decent nursing home accommodation or to providing tertiary education opportunities. No, it is going into providing $6.6 billion for the top 20 per cent of income earners. Stripped of the middleman, of the GST, what this government is engaging in is what it has always engaged in: a redistribution of wealth towards the rich.It is increasingly clear that groups which failed to raise issues during the election campaign, to their cost I think, are now raising many concerns about the impact of the GST. For example, let me quote from the St Vincent de Paul Society. On 8 November John Moore, the National President of the St Vincent de Paul Society, asked:Where is the compassion and concern for the welfare of low income earners in this country?He went on to say:Not only has the promised six month consultation period on the impact of a GST been replaced by a 17 day examination of existing papers but the committee has a limited agenda.He further said:But it is simply unjust and un-Australian if a new regime is introduced which leads to a deterioration in the wellbeing of the 30% of Australians who are on low incomes.Mr Moore went on to say:The Society's view is that it is not simply a matter of excluding food from the GST to make it just and equitable. Exclusions, or some form of compensation, are needed, for the low income group on other essential items such as clothing, educational and health services.He also said:The haste to introduce legislation and to implement a system which is easy to administer must not override the examination of the interests of all citizens—the poor as well as the rich.The St Vincent de Paul Society has expressed concern directly to members of parliament about the impact of the GST on low income people and the impact of the GST on this society which threatens its ability to continue to deliver services to the poor and to the needy.That was one charitable organisation expressing concerns, but it is certainly not the only one. Within my own electorate of Wills I have received correspondence from the Helping Hand Association for the Intellectually Disabled of Coburg. They pointed out in correspondence to Prime Minister Howard that they believe fundraising events like raffles need to be GST free. They said:. . . if a GST is imposed there is likely to be resistance from our raffle ticket buyers. The resistance will not only manifest itself in a reluctance to support us but also in anger against a Government that thinks it appropriate to put a tax on public philanthropy.As they point out, proceeds from their raffles are used to provide residential and respite accommodation for people in their care. Having met with some of them, they are indeed some of the most disadvantaged people in this community. They also point out that capping the FBT exemption for charities will severely disadvantage the sector.Similar concerns have been expressed by the Hope Street Refuge in Brunswick West. Their chairperson, Mr Clive Pattison, has said that unless the Howard government compensates local charities the increase in administration costs could lead to a scaling down of crisis support services to young homeless people in Moreland. He said that they have budgeted approximately $10,000 in the current financial year to meet their business administration costs, but in order to meet the obligations of the new system they need at least another $6,000 per annum and, at worst, another $10,000 for a mixture of paid employment as well as training for their volunteer treasurer. That means that the Hope Street Refuge will not be able to assist dozens of young homeless people and their families. Mr Pattison said that they may be forced to limit services such as those where they reconcile young homeless people with their families and that they will be affected by lower service levels per annum.The GST will have an impact not just on charities but also on education. We received correspondence from the Australian Council of State School Organisations. They point to the concerns of the committee chair, Mr David Vos, who said:. . . it would be ludicrous to contemplate that I can put an ad in the paper and say that we're taking submissions. We may decide that we will do it anyway . . . The verdict of the Council of State School Organisations was that this is an admission that any claim that this is a consultative process is ludicrous. They further pointed out that, in the area of schooling, getting some clarity was going to be difficult. They said that government pronouncements have been confused and contradictory. In the original tax package only tuition was to be GST free. Things like school excursions, camps, hire of musical instruments, sporting equipment, calculators and computers were given as examples of activities which would incur a GST.In contrast, by the end of the election campaign, the Prime Minister had stated that school provided services which contribute to the achievement of the national goals of schooling will be all GST free. We clearly need some clarification here.Then, of course, we ought to come to the banks. In the last couple of days, the Australian Bankers Association—fresh from their triumph with the Commonwealth Bank announcing yet another increase in fees for those over-the-counter transactions and automatic teller machine transactions—announced that banks could be forced to increase fees and charges by up to $600 million on account of the GST. Their Chief Executive, Mr Tony Aveling, has said that a study by the banks before the release of the government's tax package estimated that they would be $600 million worse off under the GST. This was because their inputs would be taxed but they would not receive a rebate because financial services would not be GST free.On this basis, the banks believe that they will be worse off. They say they are going to recoup that money from customers, and I do not think anyone here would doubt that they would take that action. Mr Aveling said that, if there is an increased cost, there will be pressure to pass on these costs to customers through higher fees and charges. An awful lot was said about that before the election. That was something the government managed to keep well hidden—the idea that banks would be forced to pass on additional GST costs to their customers. So on all these fronts there are a series of things emerging about the GST which were not the subject of discussion or community consideration prior to the election, and no doubt they will lead to a lot of people changing their minds concerning the merits of the GST.In the remaining minutes available to me, I will make some brief remarks concerning each of the detailed and specific provisions of this bill. It covers a number of distinct areas, and I will go through them as follows. Firstly—denial of artificially created capital losses—the provisions will limit the total amount of capital losses incurred by corporate groups under the law to the level of the corporate group's actual economic loss. The general anti-avoidance provisions—that is, Part IVA of the Income Tax Act—are also amended to allow these provisions to now apply to schemes artificially creating capital losses in the year in which the capital losses are created.Those amendments are said to protect around $100 million per year. This was being commented on by the tax office and reported in the Financial Review on 20 November. I would seek some response from the minister about the effectiveness of the provisions before the House to counter the kinds of schemes that were referred to by the Financial Review.Secondly, in the area of deductible expenditure and capital gains tax cost bases, amounts that are deductions for income tax purposes will now have to be excluded from the cost bases of assets for capital gains tax purposes. This is to eliminate an effective double deduction for such expenditures—that is, they both reduce the taxable income flow from an asset as it is earned and the amount of the capital gain which is eventually taxable when the asset is disposed of.This measure was estimated to raise $330 million over four years when it was announced. The Treasurer has subsequently amended his original decision and provided transitional relief to taxpayers who were hit pretty hard by the original announcement. So expenditure incurred until 30 June 1999 on land or buildings owned as at the 1997 budget will not be affected. Labor supports this measure.Thirdly—depreciation of assets—the measure clarifies the tax office's interpretation of existing provisions applying to formally tax exempt entities which became the subject of taxation between 1 July 1988 and 2 July 1995. That is designed to ensure consistent treatment of assets for depreciation purposes for entities that came into the tax system between 1988 and 1995. The sorts of things we are talking about here are superannuation funds, some Commonwealth government business enterprises that have come into the income tax net—for example, Telstra and Australia Post—state government business enterprises which have been privatised wholly or partially and private entities which have lost their tax exempt status such as sporting clubs as a result of changes in the nature of their operations.In relation to average calculated liabilities of life insurance companies, currently the tax law requires that life companies use calculated liabilities at the end of the financial year to determine the amount of exempt income to be allocated to the immediate annuity policies. As a result, this has caused distortions where the proportion of liabilities at the end of the year does not reflect the experience through the year. It has opened up the possibility of manipulation by life companies to reduce the amount of income tax that would be payable. Changing to an average calculated liabilities method will address this problem. This will protect revenue of $100 million per annum. We support this. This is quite a good example of where continual repair of the direct tax base can yield significant revenue to fund essential services without resorting to a tax on ordinary families as the GST will.Item 5 is passive income of insurance companies. At present, the formulae used for determining the passive income of the controlled foreign companies of insurance companies is flawed. The passive income does not fall foul of the existing rules and thereby escapes Australian tax. This allows life and general insurance companies to obtain a significant advantage in respect of offshore investment income. This bill proposes a new formula. It will raise some $10 million per annum. We support this measure, which overcomes an unintended technical consequence of the existing legislation and frees some foreign income from tax when it should be subject to Australian tax.In the area of dividend imputation and retirement savings accounts, franking—that is, imputation—credits or debits will be prevented from arising from the payment or refund of tax where those amounts are attributable to the retirement savings account business of a life assurance company. This is not punishing RSAs relative to other superannuation funds; it simply ensures that life assurance companies do not get a windfall under the dividend imputation system. We support this technical amendment.Item 7 is the effect of bankruptcy on carrying forward tax offsets. These are technical amendments which simply propose that the tax rebate available for landcare type expenditure for farmers will not be available to be carried forward into future years for a taxpayer who becomes a bankrupt. Labor supports this technical amendment.Item 8 is company tax instalments. The timing of when a company has to pay company tax depends on whether it is classified as small, medium or large, with large companies paying earlier than medium companies and small companies paying later still. The grouping measures that are part of that cover superannuation funds. The inclusion of superannuation funds is inappropriate as it can unfairly penalise a genuine medium size firm, and Labor supports this amendment. Item 9 is fringe benefits tax measures. The bill proposes five changes to fringe benefits tax. Included amongst these are exempting all taxi travel to and from work from fringe benefits tax. This extends the exemption granted by Labor in 1995 to out of hours travel; that is, after 7 p.m. or before 7 a.m. On balance, Labor has made a decision to support this amendment, as we have other proposals which involve exempting certain car parking fringe benefits provided by small business. This has been a rather unpopular tax measure, particularly when the car parking is simply being allowed to part on the premises: for example, in the backyard. The measures also alter the arranger provisions which deal with situations where a third-party provides a fringe benefit to an employee either on behalf of an employer or with their involvement. The new proposals purport to simplify what are very complex existing rules, although they may make them worse in some circumstances. Nevertheless, we do need to have rules in this area to ensure that fringe benefits tax cannot simply be avoided by someone other than the employer providing the fringe benefits. There are also some changes to the way in which employers will maintain fringe benefits tax records. These proposals come out of the Bell Review of Small Business and seem reasonable. Therefore, they will not be op posed by Labor. And, finally, there are some changes in the payments of tax by small companies. These benefit small businesses only and, on that basis, we support them. The cost to revenue of this particular measure will be negligible. Having said that, Labor has moved a second reading amendment which I urge members to support. (Time expired)16:47:00812Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Wills for his contribution, as the sole contributor to this important debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . I table an amendment to the explanatory memorandum, which the member for Wills has agreed to, as an addition to the existing explanatory memorandum. This bill contains a number of measures—some of them designed to protect revenue, some are making technical changes and others are demonstrating the government's commitment to assist small business. For example, small business will benefit from changes to fringe benefits tax and from the arrangements to allow small companies to pay their tax later. Importantly, the revenue will be protected by denying corporate groups the ability to multiply capital losses and by preventing taxpayers from claiming double deductions in certain circumstances. This bill also ensures that tax exempt entities that become subject to tax have depreciation deductions and balancing adjustments based on notional written-down values as if the entity had always been subject to tax. Also, this bill requires life companies to use average calculated liabilities rather than calculated liabilities at the end of the year of income, and it corrects a deficiency in the formula used to calculate passive income of controlled foreign insurance companies.In relation to the issues raised by the member for Wills, if he will provide me with a copy of the article from the Australian Financial Review that he referred to, I would be happy to respond to him at a later date. Unfortunately, I am not aware of the details of what he has proposed.In relation to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills, to that I say the single most significant step that can be taken by the Australian Labor Party to address the unfairness in the current taxation system, to plug some of the holes that are alleged in relation to aggressive tax planning in Australia and to plug some of the holes relating to tax effective investments in some related products and other measures to address the inequity of the current taxation system—support our tax package. That is the single most significant step forward that you can take to address the inefficiencies and unfairness in the Australian taxation system.To the Labor Party I say this: it is no use their coming into this House and waxing lyrical with anecdotal evidence about the inequities of the Australian taxation system on the one hand and, on the other hand, presenting no solution whatsoever to the problems that need to be addressed. Their only solution has been, and it seems will always continue to be, papering over the cracks of a 1940s based taxation system in Australia. As we have witnessed in extensive debate in this House over many years, simply papering over the cracks in a taxation system and moving taxation amendment bill after taxation amendment bill, is no long-term solution to the inequities and unfairness of the current taxation system. Therefore, on this side of the House, we have taken a very measured, a very well-researched and a very focused step forward which will address those inadequacies. It is about putting in place a new tax system that extends beyond simply a GST. It goes to the very heart of personal income tax cuts. It goes to the very heart of addressing the concerns of Australian businesses about the effects of globalisation and what they mean for a taxation system that is currently focused on taxing success and on rewarding people who avoid tax and use investments in a fairly opportune way.What we are focusing on is building a new tax system. If you are building a new system and starting from scratch, it is like putting together a car: you can get all the minor faults out of that vehicle by building a new vehicle. In the case of the current taxation system the faults are not minor; they are major structural faults. One major fault is that two-thirds of the Australian economy—services—is not taxed. Because that area is not taxed, all the burden of taxation is falling on those areas of the economy that really need an incentive to grow—manufacturing, product creation and so on.I would urge the member for Wills to break ranks with his colleagues and support the new taxation system. If the member for Wills is really serious about addressing some of the concerns that we have been talking about today, then the Australian Labor Party must at least come up with a solution that is more significant than a commitment to put capital gains tax on pre-1985 assets and to increase the tax on four-wheel drives. You need something more significant than that. That is not going to address the current unfairness, the current inadequacies and the current narrowing base of the Australian taxation system.We do not accept the amendment proposed by the member for Wills. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is a credible bill. It is a further step forward in our commitment to try to address some of the minor inadequacies of the current taxation system, but the only way you can address the major inadequacies is to support our impending legislation in relation to a new taxation system. That is the only way to do it. I urge the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats and Senator Harradine to come to their senses and support a new taxation system which will give Australian businesses the opportunity to grow. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.813Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.16:56:00813Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In his response, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation indicated that he was not aware of the Financial Review article. That may be one thing, but the government certainly needs to be aware of the statements made by the Commissioner of Taxation, Michael Carmody, and if it is not aware of his concerns it really ought to be. It is simply not good enough for it to say, `We don't know what is going on here.'I draw the minister's attention to what Taxation Commissioner Carmody was saying in the area of what he described as `structured option arrangements' because I have a specific query about the impact of this legislation on what are being described as `structured option arrangements'. Commissioner Carmody said:We are turning our attention to emerging financial products that appear to fall squarely under the description of aggressive tax planning. Perhaps the most aggressive of these are what are described as structured option arrangements. Essentially, these involve a series of put and call options entered into between a merchant bank and the taxpayer/investor.He also said they understood the need in the market for products to risk manage asset portfolios but that their interest was aroused when the arrangements were structured to produce a loss irrespective of which way the market moves. He also said:Our intelligence indicates they are marketed to people who have a capital gains tax liability they would like to avoid. In effect, what is offered is a $50,000 capital loss for a $4,000 outlay.The commissioner talked about arrangements where, no matter which way the market moved, the put and call options were such that the person concerned would incur a $50,000 capital loss. This strikes me as extraordinary, as it seemed to strike the tax commissioner as extraordinary. I wonder, therefore, whether the first part of this legislation, which talked about artificially created capital losses, will deal with this particular problem. Any information that the minister can provide on this point would be most welcome.16:59:00814Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—The member for Wills has asked a technical question. I cannot get back to him now with the relevant information, but I am happy to do that outside of the chamber as soon as the information is available.Bill agreed to.814Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills814s180814Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills814r637814Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.17:02:00814Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—On indulgence, I want to outline to the House the way we propose to deal with the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and the related package. There are five or six bills. The opposition opposes the entire package. It is proposed for the convenience of the House to divide on the second reading of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill and on the third reading of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill, and to oppose the remainder of the package on the voices on the second and the third readings.I might at the appropriate opportunity speak for one minute on the third reading of the Telstra bill. If I did choose to exercise that option, I would do it consistently with standing order 238.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am delighted to hear that. I don't think there has been any other occasion on which indulgence has been granted to such good effect. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.17:07:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)71Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.59Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, G. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Kerr, D. J. C.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Tanner, L. J. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Baird, B. G. Sciacca, C. A.Cadman, A. G. Evans, M. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.815Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Fahey) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.17:13:00815Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I would like to speak for one minute on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 as reported to the House, which involves a review of the bill in its final form consistent with standing order 238. I do this if only for the benefit of the members for Kennedy and Dawson in absentia. They did not have the courage of their convictions to turn up and vote against the bill. A key point needs to be made before the third reading as the House reviews the bill in its final form.10000Smith, Stephen, MPMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Lilley should not enter the House in that dress.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What about the member who's just walking out? He has rolled up sleeves.10000Smith, Stephen, MPMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not need the help of the honourable member for Prospect. The honourable member for Lilley should be appropriately attired. It is permissible for members to come in for a quorum or a division without a jacket, but not at other times.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The House by a majority vote on division, having approved the bill in this final form, which if approved in this form by the Senate, will have the effect of authorising by legislation of this parliament the sale of up to 49.9 per cent of Telstra shares and then, without further reference to the parliament, by a sham inquiry, disposing of all of the rest of Telstra. That is the disgrace of this legislation: flogging off all of Telstra without proper and appropriate reference to this parliament, on criteria not even contained in the legislation, to be effected by a sham review. This bill is a disgrace. Question put: That the bill be now read a third time.17:19:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)71Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. *Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S.McGauran, P. J. *Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.61Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Baird, B. G. Sciacca, C. A.Cadman, A. G. Evans, M. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills817r635817Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.817Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills817r633817Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.817Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous817817Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—If I may briefly seek indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I advise the House that we will sit the additional week in this parlia mentary session, that is, the week commencing 6 December. So we will sit on those four days: 7, 8, 9 and 10 December. I am able to advise the House accordingly as the Senate has just resolved also to sit those four days. I thank members for their patience and we look forward to a good week for the government.Bills817r636817Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second timeMessage from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.817Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills817r634817Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.817Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment818Motion (by Mr Fahey) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.81817:29:00818Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Following my election last month to the seat of Charlton, I met with a cross-denominational delegation of representatives from the Christian churches in my electorate. We spoke of a movement called Jubilee 2000 where organisations like Mission Australia, St Vincent de Paul and the Smith Family, in Australia and across the world, are calling upon the governments of wealthy countries, the IMF and the World Bank to write off debts owed by the poorest underdeveloped countries.A billion people in the world's most underdeveloped countries owe a debt that they can never repay. These people are some of the most vulnerable people in our global community. The Jubilee 2000 campaign intends to give the world's poorest people a debt-free new start. Jubilee 2000 aims to celebrate the new millennium by cancelling the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries. It is lobbying the federal government through parliamentarians. It supports and praises this government's and the previous government's overseas aid programs but—along with many others in our community—requests that this government take more determined steps to reach the United Nations agreement of 0.7 per cent of GNP as soon as possible.This campaign will succeed only with wide public support. The campaign requires that wealthy countries identify the poorest debt burdened countries, calculate the debt for each country which can never be repaid, work out conditions on a case by case basis, ensure the poor will benefit and cancel those debts by the year 2000.The facts are that Africa now spends four times more on interest than on its health care. Over half a million children die each year because of inadequate health services. Rainforests are being destroyed to provide timber and beef to earn money to pay back debts. In 1993, those rich nations took back $3 in debt repayments for every $1 they gave in aid. In the world's 37 poorest countries spending per person has decreased by 50 per cent on health and 25 per cent on education.My colleague the member for Shortland recently in this parliament urged the government to cancel Nicaragua's $5.8 million debt. France, Austria, Germany, Cuba and Spain have all written off millions of dollars of debt owed by Central American countries. This debt cancellation was inspired only by the devastation and tragic aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, where 11,000 people were killed and more than three million were left homeless. Australia is not a major creditor to these Central American countries. Nicaragua's $5.8 million debt is peanuts in relation to our total GDP. What has been the response of this government? It has graciously agreed to reschedule payments so that the pain of debt for Nicaraguans is extended for another 25 years.As a part of the global community, Australia does have a part to play. We live in a community where the other side of the world is at the other end of the phone, where you can hop on a jet and be there in a few hours. These countries have no way of paying off these debts. In Uganda alone, the then dictator President Idi Amin borrowed $1 billion, the majority of which was directed towards defence weaponry, which he then proceeded to use to consolidate his own dictatorial position. Each Ugandan woman, man and child now owes $170. This is in a country where half the population only receives $100 in wages a year.In our own country we would not pass by a person starving or homeless or in need of some kind of assistance without offering our help. In our country we provide support for those people who are unable, for whatever reason, to support themselves. We do not then ask that they pay it back. We expect those people who are more fortunate and more wealthy to provide the means of assistance through our taxation system. When the government provides assistance to industry in the form of import restrictions or tax breaks we say, `Okay, you are struggling, we will give you some assistance. It will not be for ever.' When government provides that assistance to business, it does not ask for it back.In our global community these countries were provided with assistance when they needed it to survive. A lot of them are on their way to economic independence and Australia, as a wealthy country, should be assisting that progress.819NaN:00:00819Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Tonight I want to draw members' attention and the Australian community's attention to the Ride for Haemophilia Research, which is to take place between Melbourne and Brisbane between 3 and 17 April 1999. The Ride for Haemophilia Research is part of a larger Rotary event called `Pedlin' Pete—Great Aussie Lifecycle'. So it will be a rather major event and, hopefully, will receive a large amount of publicity from the national media.This event has been motivated and initiated by Tim Bentley. The Ride for Haemophilia Research event will take place, as I said, next April. Tim will be riding along with two other people: Tom Pieper and Steve Hughes. Tom has a child, Jacob, aged six, who has haemophilia. This ride was motivated and initiated by Tim because he has a two-year-old son, Robert, who was diagnosed with severe haemophilia early in 1997. Tim Bentley says in a letter which is published in a brochure I have here:. . . I was frustrated by my lack of knowledge of this disorder.As a member of the general public, I began to wonder how an illness so punishing to the body could possibly go largely unnoticed. Often the little information some people did have was incorrect. Hospital staff asked my wife and I, when we visited for Robert's treatment, "How do you know he has haemophilia?" Friends asked, "Is he getting any better? It's like diabetes, isn't it, just a needle." Comments like these disturbed and upset me.He initiated this ride in order to lift people's awareness of the terrible disease of haemophilia and the suffering that it does cause, particularly for boys. It is a disease that is most common to the male of the species, and it does cause a great amount of suffering not only to those people who suffer from haemophilia but also to their families and loved ones. Obviously a ride such as this—it is some 2,129 kilometres long; it is a huge undertaking—will need a lot of support and assistance to make sure that the event is successful. It will begin in Melbourne on 3 April and they will cycle, as I said, 2,129 kilometres, going through such places as Shepparton, Canberra, Sydney and Grafton before reaching their final destination of Brisbane, hopefully on 17 April, which happens to coincide with International Haemophilia Awareness Day. Obviously, if members are in Canberra at the time when they do visit, I would be pleased if they would welcome Tim and his riding team to Canberra.The purpose of this ride is to not only lift awareness of haemophilia but also raise money to help with research for the disease, and obviously to raise money you need sponsorship. This event is being sponsored by Rotary International. That is how I became aware of it. I am a member of the Kariong-Somersby Rotary Club and do attend whenever I can. Tim Bentley's wife, Lisa, is the daughter of one of the members of the Kariong Rotary Club. He asked whether I could bring this matter to the attention of members, and I said I would be pleased to do so.If people, particularly companies, would like to be involved in the sponsorship of this ride, they certainly can contact the Haemophilia Foundation of Australia. Their executive director, Jennifer Ross, would be pleased to hear from them. There are differing ranges of sponsorship, from naming rights or corporate rights on clothing through to company names on logos or sponsoring on the posters that will be distributed throughout Australia. Of course, all donations are tax deductible, so it is an assistance in that way.I would urge all honourable members to take this message out to their electorates and to become involved in what is a great initiative. It certainly shows a great deal of dedication to ride so far to raise funds for haemophilia research. I know I have trouble getting on my bike and riding around the block; riding from Melbourne to Brisbane is quite an undertaking. I wish them well in their ride and every success in raising money for haemophilia research.82017:39:00820Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise on a matter of real importance to the people of Brisbane, particularly the people of the southern and northern suburbs of Brisbane. I refer to the proposal to construct a parallel runway at Brisbane airport. This saga is one of corporate arrogance, community contempt and, to date, government indifference. In March 1998 the master plan for the Brisbane airport was released by the Brisbane Airport Corporation. It contained growth forecasts which suggested that by the year 2006 Brisbane would have an airport about the size of Sydney airport today. It contained within it a recommendation for a parallel runway. This recommendation is fundamentally flawed on a number of counts.In the first instance, it is indifferent to the community's interest in terms of quality of life. Secondly, it is equally indifferent to the impact on local education. There are a number of schools which lie under the flight path of the proposed new runway. Thirdly, it is indifferent to, and in fact contemptuous of, the impact of a parallel runway on property values across the southern suburbs and northern suburbs of Brisbane. Fourthly, there is the impact on public health. Studies released by the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney demonstrate that there are as yet unproven public health impacts which flow from a concentration of aircraft over residential areas. Finally, there is the matter of public safety.It beggars belief, in my view, why countries such as ours, as we approach the 21st century, are contemplating the construction of yet another airport or yet another runway which will concentrate aircraft over suburban areas when there have already been occasions around the world when aircraft have ploughed into the suburbs. This is something which we now have the planning capacity to avoid if we have the will to do so.In addition to these points, there have been fundamental breaches of process in the way in which the Brisbane Airport Corporation has determined its decision. Firstly, in the master plan report there is absolutely no documentation provided in terms of draft flight paths. The community is therefore left completely in the dark in terms of where the flights will go and what suburbs and streets will be affected by this new and very large runway. Secondly, the master plan contains absolutely no consideration of an alternative runway option. There are many such alternative runway options, but this report considers none of them.Between March and June 1998, the consultation process embarked upon by the Brisbane Airport Corporation could only be described at best as a farce. At the conclusion of that so-called consultation process, we had nearly 5,000 written objections to the proposal for a parallel runway. In August 1998, just two days before the federal election was announced, the then transport minister, Mr Vaile, announced that he had `rejected' the recommendation for a parallel runway.My predecessor issued a statement saying that there were three grounds on which this decision had been made. Firstly, he said that there were fundamental problems with the noise maps which had been released with the parallel runway proposal. Secondly, he said that there was a problem because no flight path routes had been provided to the community. Thirdly, he said that this report had not adequately examined alternative runway options.However, upon examining the documentation actually provided by the department of transport through the minister to the Brisbane Airport Corporation, it became clear that simply one technical ground had been found to reject the master plan proposal from the Brisbane Airport Corporation. That technicality was an inability to verify the noise maps, or the ANEF maps, contained within the documentation. The BAC itself indicated that this was a mere technicality which could quickly be overcome.The saga then continued with a visit I made, as the new member for Griffith, to the Brisbane Airport Corporation, in early November. I asked whether the Brisbane Airport Corporation would be revising their proposal for a parallel runway. They said that they would not. Furthermore, they refused, having initially indicated that they would, to release an internal consultancy report which established the technical basis on which their proposal for a parallel runway was based.On Monday this week I presented 10,000 petitions from the citizens of the south side of Brisbane indicating their fundamental objection to the proposal. Notwithstanding that action, on 25 November—yesterday—we found that the Brisbane Airport Corporation, in the most recent chapter of the saga, resubmitted their runway proposal to the new transport minister, Mr Anderson, for decision. It yet again contained a recommendation for a parallel runway. I call upon the minister—when he has considered the revised master plan and its recommendation for a parallel runway—to reject it. It enjoys no support from the community of Brisbane. (Time expired)82117:44:00821Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—If my parliamentary duties had otherwise allowed, I would have been in Perth this evening at a very special gathering at the Indiana Tea House on Cottesloe Beach in the electorate of Curtin. The evening is in celebration of the work of the Hancock Family Breast Cancer Foundation on the anniversary of its incorporation five years ago in 1993. Mrs Gina Rinehart established the foundation, which is a non-profit making charitable organisation. Its aims include: to increase public awareness of breast cancer, to influence government policies on breast cancer research and treatment and to promote further research and better patient care.Five years on, and with the increased awareness of this disease and the generosity of the public, the foundation has been able to embark on some important research and patient care programs. I commend Gina Rinehart and the foundation for their wonderful work. While I am not present in Perth at the celebrations, I am with them all in spirit, and by rising to speak tonight I am hoping to continue to raise awareness of the need for a continued commitment to breast cancer research funding.At the time the Hancock Family Breast Cancer Foundation was established in 1993, the then federal government was allocating only $1 million a year to breast cancer research. Funding has steadily increased, but we have a long way to go. It is common knowledge now that breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in women in Australia. The Commonwealth government each year provides financial assistance for medical research, including breast cancer, to the National Health and Medical Research Council.It is difficult to allocate research funding priorities, but the National Health and Medical Research Council confirms that grants for projects focusing primarily on breast cancer were provided in amounts of $1.85 million in 1997 and $2.08 million in 1998. The 1997-98 budget provided $33 million to extend a number of public health programs for an extra two years, including the National Women's Health Program and the NHMRC's National Breast Cancer Centre. Further funding was provided by NHMRC in the form of block grants. I commend the federal government's commitment this year for a further $4 million to breast cancer research and treatment, including innovative services such as special nursing care and assistance with access to travel and treatment for breast cancer sufferers in rural and remote regions.Recently, the June 1998 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare journal stated that Western Australia and Queensland reported the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the period 1990 to 1994. Western Australia reported 91.9 cases per 100,000, while Queensland reported marginally higher. This is in stark contrast to the lowest incidence rate of breast cancer, which is found in the Northern Territory with 59.6 cases per 100,000. Why is this so? Sadly, this reflects the fact that Western Australia also reports the highest incidence of cancer in women generally, compared with the other states and territories. This is, of course, a matter of great concern to the women and families in my electorate of Curtin.The impact of research into breast cancer is not limited to finding ways to reduce and, ultimately, combat the disease. Cancer survivors are alive today because years and years of research have given doctors better information and tools to deal with cancer. This has resulted not only in improved survival rates but also in improved quality of life.Because of the more widespread use of early detection methods, many of the most common cancers, such as breast tumours, are being diagnosed at earlier stages, when chances for successful treatment are greater. Breast screening is currently the principal means by which the mortality rate for women with tumours can be reduced. A more enlightened use of chemotherapy combined with improved surgical and radiation treatments for several cancers is also improving the outcome.Being able to deal with a cancer can be a key to reducing its effects and, it seems in some cases, is in fact a key to the cure for breast cancer. Research today suggests that women who remain optimistic and minimise the impact of the disease on their lives survive twice as long as women who are overwhelmed by it. This was backed up by a study referred to in the Australian this morning. I have given my commitment as a member of the federal government to do all I can to advance the work and opportunities for breast cancer researchers, and I will continue to argue for the continued commitment for funding and assistance in this vital area of health for women.82217:49:00822Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In speaking on the adjournment this evening, I desire to point out that Labor's commitment to developing a rational long-term population policy has created a challenge for all those interested in the future of our great country. Political parties, religious groups, rural organisations, environmentalists, local governments and ethnic communities must now start to seriously debate and put forward alternative options for the 21st century. We should strive to ensure that all sections of society get actively involved in discussion, debate and argument.This important issue should not be left to the so-called elites. It is a matter that should be discussed at our tuckshops, supermarkets, church halls, temples, mosques and cathedrals, as well as the pub, the bowling club, the Country Women's Association and the Rotary club. The issue is: do we want Australia's population to grow? Where do we want that population to grow? Where do we want to see some controls on that population growth? Most importantly, in the context of a democratic society, how do we create the opportunities, incentives and disincentives to ensure that we get people to settle in the places we want to see grow and not in the places we think are already overpopulated?I believe discussion about our immigration levels should be firmly part of the overall debate about population. I do not think people should be labelled as either anti-immigration or pro-immigration by the elite just because they are concerned about the quality of life in their particular suburb, town or city which, in their view, is already witnessing a resources crisis because of overpopulation. I do believe, alternatively, that we should try to get more people to settle in places as wide apart as Hobart, Launceston, Brisbane, Townsville, Dubbo, Newcastle, Albury-Wodonga, Ballarat, Bendigo, Darwin, Adelaide and Perth—to name a few centres of potential jobs growth and population growth.On that note, it is one of Australia's greatest national tragedies that we did not have bipartisan support for the Whitlam era decentralisation plans. Unfortunately, they were killed off by the then coalition. Imagine how much better off we would be today if we had had the foresight and commitment to stick at least to the broad ideas established by the Whitlam government more than 20 years ago which included infrastructure plans to help regional Australia in places such as Albury-Wodonga and the Bathurst-Orange growth area. That was about vision. It was about the future of Australia. It was about helping regional Australia, and making sure that we pursued a proper population development program in AustraliaWe could, on that note, have assisted our overseas migrants as well as internal migrants—and that is what the population debate is about. It is about where we locate people in Australia at the moment, and where we locate people who want to come to Australia from overseas. Should we, for example, be shifting them from Sydney and Melbourne, creating new jobs in infrastructure development, creating jobs in new export oriented industries with local value adding projects?Back in the seventies we did not have the vision to stick to a long-term project. Now in the nineties unfortunately we are paying for it—especially, for example, in Sydney and Melbourne, where the strains of a growing population are now so obvious. We must argue in terms of reason and not emotion. That is what Australia has to front up to at this point in time. Australia needs to confront the issue of population, but it has to be argued in a sensible, reasonable and non-emotional way.On that note, I also suggest to the House that this debate must look at a number of key issues: for example, the ageing of our population; the employment incentives and disincentives of population growth; the depopulation of regional Australia; the effect of inappropriate population growth on our environment, especially water and arable land; ensuring that we build a cohesive society with a growing diverse population based on an Australian sense of fairness, tolerance, solidarity, community and citizenship. We must also debate in a proper way the size and composition of our migration intake.Labor is prepared to promote that debate. I hope that others, including the government and other stakeholders in the Australian community, are also prepared to front up to the present debate in a reasoned and non-emotional way. (Time expired)82317:54:00823Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—The issue of rural and regional health is a very important one for my electorate, as I am sure it is for many other electorates in Australia. I am proud to represent the coalition government which has spent substantially more money in its first term of government than Labor did in its last term—the amount has nearly doubled, in fact, in regional and rural areas. This, coupled with our $50 million commitment to attract and retain doctors in country areas and the funding of 30 new regional health centres in the future, proves that we are serious about improving the health of all Australians, regardless of where they live. We are not looking for special circumstances; we are just looking for a fair deal.I am already working with people in my electorate to try to secure one of those new regional health centres. I believe that they are an innovative concept, and I know that people in country areas will greatly benefit from them. I am pleased to say that this government is attending to health issues in rural and regional areas, not simply paying lip-service to them. For 13 years rural health was neglected because of Labor's wasteful spending and mismanagement.Can I also add that around 40,000 people in my electorate of Barker will benefit from the coalition's 30 per cent health rebate. I will ensure that my constituents know that both Labor and the Democrats are opposed to this legislation—and their opposition seems to be not for any rational reasons but purely political ones. I look forward to helping the people in my electorate and ensuring that they have adequate access to quality health services.On another health matter, I have written to our state Minister for Human Service, who has suggested an idea that we might be able to use to ensure that doctors do come to country areas so that we do not have that shortage. It is fairly simple, and at a later time I will reveal that possible solution.Also at a later time, I intend to raise the matter of respite health for the parents of intellectually and physically handicapped children. This especially is a problem in rural areas because they, as yet, do not have the same access to such services as their cousins in the city.I am also pleased on this occasion to congratulate Trish Draper, the member for Makin on her re-election in the last election. Even the Prime Minister congratulated her on election night. The member for Makin had the lowest swing against her of any member of parliament in South Australia, and this was because of her dedication to her electorate and the compassion that she shows when working with her constituents.Trish Draper has achieved a lot for her electorate in her first term, and she has been able to do so because of her Liberal philosophies. The constituents of Makin know that the coalition government have made owning a house more affordable. They also know that that government is committed to reforming the taxation laws, which will further strengthen Australia's economy.The opposite side of the chamber have always felt that they own the seat of Makin, and they took their constituents for granted. The electorate have hit back. At the recent election Ms Gail Gago, a member of the Bolkus Left faction, chose to stand against Trish Draper, after unsuccessfully standing against Trish Worth in the seat of Adelaide in the 1996 election.Ms Gago sought the seat of Makin in this election because she thought it was easy picking. So cocky was Ms Gago, and so convinced was she that she would win this seat, that she organised photos to be taken by the local press in front of Trish Draper's office in obvious victory mode—and this was three days before the actual election. The voters of Makin proved that the Labor Party cannot take its voters for granted and treat them with contempt. The voters of Makin have proved that the coalition government is a government for everyone, not special interest groups as are represented by the Labor Party.After losing Adelaide to Trish Worth and losing Makin to Trish Draper, it could be said that Ms Gago has been `rung through the Trishwasher' and that you should never take a Liberal Trish for granted. My seat of Barker has always enjoyed a special connection with Makin. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.18:00:00824House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Documents824The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 November 1998:Corporations Act—Accounting standard No. AASB 1038.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 314.1998-11-26Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members82582509:40:00825Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—The national pollutant inventory is an Internet database designed to provide the community, industry and government with information on the types and amounts of certain chemicals being emitted into the environment. The NPI was established as a national environment protection measure by the National Environment Protection Council on 27 February 1998. In developing the measure, an independent expert technical advisory panel was formed to compile a list of substances to be reported on. Dioxins and furans are on the list of 90 substances but the council decided that, for the first two years, only a reduced list of 36 substances would be reported on. It will be expanded to the full 90 substances in the third year but this is subject to a review. What is unacceptable to my constituents of Port Kembla is that the full reporting of substances is not being carried out. If it is important enough to put 90 substances on the list, why not report on 90 now?On the first Saturday of each month, a well attended pollution meeting is held at Port Kembla. Current issues are raised and local industries as well as the Environment Protection Agency, the Illawarra Public Health Unit and organisations such as BHP and Port Kembla Copper attend. This issue was raised and discussed at a recent meeting which does not accept the reasons given by the NEPC for not placing dioxins or copper smelters on the first list of the NPI. Thousands of people will be subject to the dioxins from BHP and the emissions from the Port Kembla Copper smelter at Port Kembla. It is the feeling of my constituents that the emissions should be reported on.There has already been an unexplained leukaemia cluster in this area. There is much debate about the reopening of the Port Kembla smelter and the residents of Port Kembla demand to be kept fully informed of what is going into the air in their community. They also ask that dioxins and copper smelters be placed on the list reported on. It may be that there is no danger to the people of Port Kembla, as Port Kembla Copper have strict environmental guidelines placed on them. In fairness to them I would say that they are working to see that the operation is not a danger and they are meeting all the environmental requirements.We hope that the operation will not be a danger to the residents of Port Kembla, but while the copper smelter is not on the list to be reported on there will continue to be worry and concern amongst the residents of Port Kembla. I ask on behalf of my constituents, especially the residents of Port Kembla and the surrounding suburbs, that copper smelters be added now to the list.82509:43:00825Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise today, I believe as the first in the parliament, to extend congratulations to General Emile Lahoud on his election as President of Lebanon, which took place on 25 October. I understand that President Lahoud is coming to the end of his first week in office. President Lahoud is credited with tremendous achievement in terms of taking hold of the armed forces, which were fractured and disunited after the civil war, and welding them into an organisation of coherent discipline, free of sectarian tension.The president was educated at, among other places, Dartmouth Naval College, in the United Kingdom, and has a reputation for personal discipline and austerity. His lifestyle involves rising at 4 a.m. daily, swimming a mile before breakfast and conducting his first official meetings at 6 a.m., although I understand that Prime Minister Hariri has not been required in his office until 7.30.The election of President Lahoud has been greeted with tremendous optimism by financial markets, as many Lebanese have rushed to exchange their dollars for Lebanese pounds. A result has been a drop of two percentage points in interest rates in the month of October alone. That is a mark of the esteem and respect in which the president is held. It would be remiss of me if I did not discharge my sacred democratic duty to the aspirations of my Lebanese-Australian constituents, who would be keen that I pass on their concerns and their hopes about Lebanon's future and what the new president's mandate might stand for. I note the President has reaffirmed his view and the current policy that Lebanese external interests are virtually inseparable from those of Syria. This has resulted in a rejection of any unilateral solution to the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon.Those of us who enjoy the luxury of an island continent to ourselves may have difficulty understanding the nuances of an ancient relationship such as that which exists between the people of Lebanon and those of Syria. We nonetheless affirm the aspirations of the Lebanese to complete sovereignty and complete independence. We note the constant references to UN resolution 425, which is obviously critical, legitimate and important, but it is not the only UN resolution applying to Lebanon. UN resolution 520 refers to the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon and states that it:calls again for the strict respect of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese Government through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon.I congratulate the President and look forward to his efforts to bring both resolutions into being. (Time expired)82609:46:00826Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I join the previous speaker, the member for Parramatta, Mr Ross Cameron, in congratulating President Lahoud. I note the failure the other day of the foreign minister to extend the government's congratulations as well.The matter I want to talk about today is the peace process and, more particularly, the actions of the Netanyahu administration in undermining the Oslo accords. We do know that the Wye River negotiations occurred recently and that there was some progress, but that progress must be seen in the context of the continued construction of settlements by the Israeli government. There are now 170 settlements over the pre-1967 cease-fire line which entail 180,000 people in East Jerusalem, 164,000 people on the West Bank and 5,500 people in Gaza. But more particularly, at a period when the United States has tried to pressure the Israeli administration to honour Oslo, they are going ahead at full steam in regard to this construction.The Israeli government will not actually admit in the Knesset the levels of construction but it has been reported that 5,000 further units have been commenced in the last year. That entails building construction and housing construction in 93 of the 130 West Bank settlements, then there is government activity and infrastructure on 80 of those settlements. It is informative to note that in Nablus, Ramallah and Gaza, the level of housing construction is three times that of the rest of Israel, so essentially we are seeing government instituted activity to try to ensure that there will be no reclamation of that land by Palestine. Of Arafat, Alain Gresh recently said in Le Monde Diplomatique that his:. . . authority does not extend beyond a few overpopulated bantustans, isolated one from another and subject to permanent control by Israel's armed forces.The reality of Arafat's weakness and the reality in Palestine is that Arafat is being undermined by his failure to deliver in this peace process. Edward Said, the renowned Palestinian writer, recently made a fairly critical comment in regard to this, saying that:The time grows less and less before we will have allowed this ruinously incompetent and corrupt leadership to sell us out totally, and the sooner we start to organise a major Palestinian meeting to take place outside the Arab world, the better. The midnight hour has already struck.So what Netanyahu is essentially accomplishing is a further growth of extremism and fundamentalism within the Palestinian diaspora and in Palestine itself by this process of holding out and not honouring those peace requirements. I join others in saying that the United States must continue to put pressure on this administration to ensure that Oslo is respected.82709:49:00827Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The long weekend in October starting Friday, 16 October through to Sunday, 18 October was a very special time for many people in the Dunkley community. Monterey Secondary College, of which I am a product, organised a conference program called `Seize the day' which was held in Marysville. A number of senior secondary school students from the secondary colleges within the Greater Frankston area participated. What characterised the day was that the students who were participating were students with skills, gifts and a great future ahead of them, but they were perhaps not necessarily academically minded or likely to access the chances to fulfil that potential they obviously had.The idea of the conference—driven by Heather Worrall and Sue Robinson, with the support of Viv Foley and Peter Thomas of Monterey Secondary College and the local secondary school to industry link partnerships that operate within our region—was to bring these young people into this special occasion, talk to them about their futures and provide them some tools to make sure that the obvious talents they have can be transformed into a very satisfying and productive life for themselves and those around them.I would like to compliment David Nicolson, Manager—Learning and Development, from BP Australasia; Shaun Carney, Associate Editor of the Age, who is also a Monterey product; Ms Vicki Pridmore, Manager—Transforming Client Centred Care, for the Victorian Department of Human Services; and Andrew Scagliarini, Special Sales Project Manager for Computelec. All except Mr Nicolson are products of Monterey Secondary College who came together with me and generously gave of their time, along with me, to talk to these young people about the particular journeys we have been through in our lives, the key message being that we might come from a community not known for its wealth or its high achievers, but there are opportunities out there for these young people to apply those skills they have in the future.One of the key themes of the day, which Ms Anne McCleish, Executive Director of the National Industry Forum, introduced was this concept of key competencies, something very familiar to me. This is something that the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology uses in its postgraduate management program and is also being translated into secondary schools because those competencies are what employers are looking for. When these young people apply for jobs, as interesting as how they interpret Schindler's List and those sorts of things might be, assessments like those are not responsive to the selection criteria that employers are using. They are looking for key competencies like the ability to get on with others, the ability to work within a team, the ability to communicate ideas and concepts and to use formulas and techniques to solve problems. Those sorts of key competencies are what the employers are looking for.The work being done by the Industry Forum is about translating academic activity into those competencies that employers are looking for. I look forward to working in the future with Anne McCleish and the National Industry Forum. What they are doing is something very worth while. I think the government should get behind it and I look forward to talking more about it in the future. (Time expired)82809:52:00828Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I am most concerned about the government's move to reduce the number of employees at Centrelink by 5,000 Australia-wide. It is an issue that a number of constituents have already contacted my office about. I feel it is incumbent on me to bring it to the attention of the parliament.In the Hunter there are 230 staff going to lose their jobs, and those staff relate to the number of people within the community who are relying on those services provided by Centrelink and will be disadvantaged by this. What is happening is that it is depleting an already much depleted and demoralised service. It is a service that has looked after people, not only people in the Hunter and Central Coast but the people of Australia, and looked after them very well over the last few years.I have had a number of complaints from constituents. They have complained to me about long waits—about ringing Centrelink and being put on hold for a long period of time. When they visit the Centrelink office, they have found that they have had to wait for a long time and have been given different information by different people. They feel that this is largely related to the fact that there are very few staff there. A young man came to see me last week who had a major payment problem. It related to the fact that there were so few staff available at the time. An older woman who had been receiving a pension for some time had a pension superannuation inquiry and she was shifted from one department to another. When she rang the call centre she was put on hold for a very long time.As well as the problem that is caused to constituents, it creates a large amount of stress for the staff themselves. Prior to becoming a member of parliament, I worked for the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. As a rehabilitation counsellor, I visited staff at the call centre. At that time, staff told me that it caused them enormous stress when they had to put people on hold and they were aware that there were a large number of people waiting for the service that Centrelink offered them. This will only get worse. There will be extra work. The staff are going to feel more devalued and that their jobs are under threat. The fact that they feel under threat will increase that stress and make it harder for them to work. At the same time, it will reduce the service to the constituents. My real fear is that this is the first step to privatising Centrelink. As somebody who has worked with people who receive workers compensation, I know that this privatisation would disadvantage them. (Time expired)829Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (9.55 a.m.) I want to report on two successful projects under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Fund. As you will remember, the fund was worth $70 million. I have had two successful projects worth about $2 million in the electorate of Boothby. Around Australia, there have been 60 successful projects out of over 700 applications. To have two successful projects is very satisfactory and I thank the minister, Senator Robert Hill, for the interest that he has shown in these projects and for his support.The first project will provide $447,000 to complete the restoration of Townsend House and the establishment of an assistive technology resource centre for vision and hearing impaired children and their families. Townsend House has a long and proud history of supporting the vision and hearing impaired in South Australia. The house was established in 1874 by William Townsend, a prominent Adelaide philanthropist in the late 19th century. Townsend was also lord mayor of Adelaide and a member of the first South Australian parliament.Its buildings were designed in 1878 by Thomas English, one of South Australia's most notable and successful 19th century architects who, like William Townsend, served as lord mayor of Adelaide and a member of parliament. When opened, Townsend House was just Australia's third school for the blind and deaf and operated as such until 1963. It is listed on the South Australian Heritage Register. By 1988, only the original building remained and it was quite dilapidated. Ten years ago, a fund raising program began to restore the original building. The funding will complete the final stage of Townsend House's restoration as an assistive technology resource centre for vision and hearing impaired children. I have had a look around and it looks like it will be a very interesting place.The second project is $1.45 million for the Warriparinga Interpretive Centre. The main purpose of this project is to assist the Kaurna Aborigines, and the wider Aboriginal community, to develop a sustainable future, to conserve and develop their culture and spirituality and to promote wider reconciliation between all Australians. The interpretive centre will conserve and adapt the grounds and two heritage listed buildings, and construct a living Kaurna cultural centre on the Warriparinga Council Reserve in order to develop unique Kaurna Aboriginal, European and environmental tourism and heritage features. The cultural centre will be developed as an interactive museum and the grounds will feature a Kaurna food trail, a European heritage trail and an environment trail. Both projects meet the federation fund criteria. The successful projects celebrate Australia's rich history, while looking forward to the second century of Federation.Having had a look around at where it is proposed the Warriparinga Interpretative Centre be built, I think it is a very worthwhile facility. It sits between three major roads in my electorate but is quite a haven in the middle. I hope local schools will use the opportunity to visit the cultural centre. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The Main Committee will now consider government business.Bills830r637Billsr635Billsr633Billsr636Billsr634BillsBillsBillsBills830Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:00830Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Howard government's attempt to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra is nothing less than public theft. On 2 May 1996, the Howard government introduced the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill 1996. The effect of this bill was to sell one-third of Telstra, 35 per cent of which float could be purchased by foreign investors. Let us recall the facts of the first Telstra float. The Bills Digest 1997-98 notes:The Telstra share offer opened on 15 October 1997. By the close of applications on 3 November 1997, 1.8 million Australians applied for shares. Of the employees eligible to subscribe for shares under the employee share scheme, 92% took up the offer. Shares were issued at $3.30 and that price was payable by two instalments; the first, $1.95 ($2.00 for institutions) and the second $1.25 ($1.30 for institutions).. . . . . . . . .Telstra shares were first traded on the Australian Stock Exchange on 17 November 1997. At the opening of trading on 9 April 1998, the partly paid Telstra shares were priced at $3.80.As at 25 November 1998 Telstra shares closed at $6.81 per share. We see that the float price of $3.30 was less than 50 per cent of the current market value. It is interesting to note that, of the one-third of shares which were sold, up to 35 per cent—that is, 11.67 per cent of all issued shares—could be purchased by foreign investors. At the end of 1997, the actual figure was 19.5 per cent—that is, 6.8 per cent of all issued shares. This is so despite the fact that, in light of these facts, we can safely say that the first Telstra float was priced at a substantial discount.The next and final phase is the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . What expectations can we have with respect to the forthcoming 16 per cent float? It is a rule of thumb that a discount of 20 per cent is applied to floating additional stock of pre-listed shares. Based on the 25 November 1998 closing price of $6.81, a 20 per cent discount would price the next float of 16 per cent of Telstra's equity at approximately $5.45 per share.Anything less than this price would be to blatantly sacrifice public assets to the open market. But then the last Howard government has a history of flogging public assets at bargain basement prices, including the first Telstra float, so why should it stop now? That is not to say that this sell-off is justified. I totally opposed the first float, and I totally oppose this float as well. The point being made is that the last Howard government fundamentally failed the people in its custodial trusteeship of administration of public assets. Any trustee duly appointed carries a wide range of responsibilities. Principally, these responsibilities surround the maintenance and preservation of the trust assets for the benefit of the trust's beneficiaries.If I were the trustee appointed by will to a deceased estate and I sold a significant asset in that estate at something like 50 per cent below its fair market value, I would be hanged from the rafters by the beneficiaries and/or the creditors. I would be in serious legal trouble and would be held accountable for my actions.Let us not mince words; this government is hell-bent on flogging these shares to the cashed-up big end of town, sacrificing a further 16 per cent of Telstra and ripping off the battlers and the taxpayers who have made Telstra the strong, public utility it is today. However, merely selling the 16 per cent of Telstra at its proper discount value will not solve the ethical implications of this immoral sale. It is not enough that Telstra has been deliberately and grossly undervalued, depriving the public purse of its fair and reasonable consideration for sale of a valued asset.There are three implications of this bill which are immoral: (1) impact on jobs within Telstra and diseconomies in my electorate through flow-on scaling down of economic activity; (2) decrease in service levels to existing Telstra customers; and (3) economic surrogacy—substitution of the rights attaching to Telstra's political accountability with a mere contractual promise.The first immoral implication of this sale is that of employment impacts. I wish to bring to the attention of this House the plight of employees in Telstra, particularly in my electorate of Lowe. Let us look at Telstra's employment record against the history of privatisation and profiteering. In 1996 Telstra employed approximately 76,500 employees. Today, the number is approximately 54,000. It is anticipated that Telstra will further reduce staffing levels to 51,000 by mid-1999 and that levels will plummet to 49,000 by July 2001. These drastic cutbacks represent a 36 per cent decrease in employment within Telstra from July 1996 to July 2001. These callous cutbacks must be juxtaposed against the decrease in service standards and the words of the Chief Executive Officer of Telstra when he states:It has as it must, a strong focus on delivery of increased shareholder value to our over 1.5 million shareholders.The technical ability of Telstra to switch traffic between service centres means that Telstra service centres can be located almost anywhere. Hence, the ability to distribute employment opportunities in areas of greatest employment need is an important moral responsibility; a responsibility that large employers face as good corporate citizens.Telstra has already demonstrated its ugliness as a privatised entity. It has lost its ethic of social responsibility in favour of its newfound ugly Wall Street attitude. There are significant Telstra facilities that service my electorate of Lowe. These are located at Burwood, Strathfield, Greenacre and Ashfield. What is their future? What guarantees do we have that these centres will remain open? What impact will their demise have on our local economy?We are forced to accept job losses, as well as a collapse in service standards, as the new masters of Telstra demand profitability, not equitable distribution of services. My party and I remain committed to an equitable distribution of employment and retention of such regional sites. There is more at stake here than a mere profit line; there is the wholesale destruction of the vitality of regional industry in the heart of Sydney.Like the rest of the public sector impacts of privatisation, there are social contract implications on services. The fundamental reason why certain infrastructural assets and industries are held by government is that they serve some strategic purpose or that they are industries which, if left to the private sector, would result in inequitable distribution of services. Telecommunication services, if left to the private sector, will result in an unequal distribution of services with marginal and nonprofitable services being whittled away or cut out completely. Country services are one such example. Senator Alston and the Hon. John Fahey note in their joint press release of 22 July 1998 that:. No further sale, beyond 49 per cent, will occur until: the Government has established an independent inquiry which will assess Telstra service levels to customers in each of metropolitan, rural and remote areas against the prescribed standards. The new consumer protection legislation will specify the performance criteria which the inquiry will use in testing whether Telstra's performance on maintaining service levels has been adequate. Those criteria will build on those which underpin the current arrangements, and will be developed in consultation with all interested sections of the community.. unless and until the independent inquiry certifies that service levels are adequate . . . So how has Telstra performed in-service delivery since privatisation? The single greatest concern facing the sale of Telstra is the performance of service delivery, especially in country areas.Let us examine Telstra's performance since the one-third sell-off. Concerns in respect of the standard of service provided by Telstra to country areas have been underscored by statistics contained in the most recent issue of the Telecommunications performance monitoring bulletin. Telstra's performance in the provision of new services in country areas on or before that agreed commitment date declined by nine per cent to 66 per cent during the quarter ended 31 December 1997. This was a 16 per cent reduction on the quarter ended 31 December 1996.Telstra's performance in country areas in the number of faults cleared within one day also fell during the December 1997 quarter by seven per cent to 61 per cent. This was a 13 per cent reduction on the December 1996 quarter. The percentage of faults cleared within two days fell by six per cent to 80 per cent during the December 1997 quarter and by 10 per cent when compared with the December 1996 quarter. The clearing of faults with payphones in country areas is even worse. The number of faults with public payphones which were cleared within one day fell by 14 per cent to seven per cent during the December 1997 quarter and by 20 per cent when compared with the December 1996 quarter.Of most concern is the application of the universal service obligation regime, USO, contained in part 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The USO is the obligation to ensure that the standard telephone services, STS, and payphones are reasonably accessible to all Australians on an equitable basis. STS refers to a service that permits voice telephony or an equivalent service for a person with a disability. Regulations may be created which extend the definition of STS.The definition of the STS was recently reviewed by the Standard Telephone Service Review Group with a view to determining whether, amongst other things, the STS should include integrated services digital network, ISDN, capability. The STS review group recommended that digital data capability, that is, the ISDN equivalent, should be provided through the operation of the market throughout most of Australia, and where the market does not operate to make this capability reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis it should be provided through the USO mechanism.Under such a regime there is a risk that digital data services may not fall under the definition of STS. Digital data is the future as an increasing amount of telephony services rely on the ISDN protocol. It is submitted that the sale of Telstra means the distribution of services, including service delivery of repairs and provision of 21st century services in digital data, may not be equitably or efficiently distributed. A sinister by-product of this degraded service is to deliberately undervalue the value of the corporation, thus driving down the price of the stock and making it easy pickings for corporate bargain hunters.Finally, there is the issue of absolute responsibility of Telstra in its service delivery. I refer to item 18 of schedule 2 of the bill which inserts new section 8AUA into the Telstra Corporation Act 1991. That section will allow the minister to amend Telstra's constitution, that is, its memorandum and articles of association, at any time between the commencement of the section and the day on which the Commonwealth's shareholding in Telstra falls below 50 per cent. The amendment must relate to the sale of Telstra, and the effect of the alteration must be to remove the requirement that a particular act or thing be done only with the consent of the minister. We see in the proposed section 8AUA the power to effectively remove political accountability from the operation of Telstra, that is, the requirement that a particular act or thing be done only with the consent of the minister.In substitution of this political accountability we are offered provisions of a customer service guarantee of which I have already spoken. This government thinks it can give the people a surrogate, a cubic zirconium or fake diamond, in substitution for the real jewel in the crown called public ownership. This government has come to the people offering them a mere contractual promise in substitution for the full protection afforded through political accountability. It is no swap, no dice, no deal.I leave this topic with these open questions for the House, questions I hope will be answered during the second Howard ministry in a full and competent manner: (1), is it appropriate to sell the remainder of Telstra given this poor performance in services in country areas; (2), how could any inquiry into service provision, which is proposed as a precondition to the further sale, be satisfied with Telstra's performance given the history that these independently assessed performance indicators appear to tell; (3), is service provision the only criterion upon which selling a strategic public utility is based; that is, do other strategic interests prevail, such as national security of a public asset, over other criteria? The ALP remains committed to its position of no further sale of Telstra regardless of the level of service provision.10:14:00833Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—My own thoughts and feelings that I bring to this cognate debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 are coloured very strongly by the events that have occurred over the last 12 months in the electorate I represent, and also by the events that have occurred over the last 10 or 12 years where this philosophy of privatisation, corporatisation and economic rationalism have been introduced.Many people like me started off very enthusiastic supporters of going down this pathway. There may have been benefits, in some cases significant benefits, but as time has moved on inland Australia has found that what this means is those people with the political muscle will be able to maintain the services. Those people, because of the density of population, will be able to provide the profits that will attract private enterprise, and that those areas without the population and political muscle will be able to provide neither the profits nor the political clout to achieve the subsidies.It is a little known fact but, if you read the Industry Commission's report on transportation in Australia, you will see that the commuter systems of the capital cities of Australia are costing the taxpayers of Australia $4,000 million a year. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I am sure that you would love some offsetting benefit for your electorate, and I most certainly would like some offsetting subsidy for my electorate. There is nothing in the areas outside the capital cities that remotely resembles that per capita subsidy that the Australian capital cities are enjoying. We cannot provide the profits or the subsidies that will attract these services in the years to come.What does that mean on the ground? As you know, Normanton had floods early this year. When I arrived up there, I arrived to a very hostile reception. I was hurt that people who were very good friends of mine were so hostile. As I listened to them, I found out that there were only two technicians servicing an area the size of Victoria. People have criticised me for making the stand I have against the sale of Telstra. It would be the act of an arch hypocrite for me to do anything else except continue down that pathway.I cannot speak with great authority on that area and what it was like in the days past, but I know that when I was in Cloncurry, my own home town, we had 15 technicians operating there for an area smaller than that Gulf Country area. Two friends of mine, Mick and Pat Gallagher, and another stockman were on horses looking for cattle because all of their cattle had gone from an island. The floodwaters had risen and taken the island and the cattle away. I said, `Why didn't you phone up?' and they said that their phone was out of order. I said, `Lucky it was the cattle on the island, not like 1975 when it was your homestead that was on the island and your family being washed away.' And he said it was very lucky indeed. I said, `Why didn't you use the RFDS?' I come from the Gulf Country and I am very familiar with how things work there. He said, `Because we just haven't used it; we've just forgotten it. It no longer exists because we have got a good and adequate telephone service now so we haven't worried about RFDS.'A system had been put in that did not work properly and there were technical difficulties with the phones there. There were only two technicians and they could not get out to all the surrounding station properties to fix up the difficulties, so it simply had not been fixed up when the floods hit. Thank goodness they were not the big floods or there would definitely have been loss of life there.Let me switch from a very serious matter to what might be considered by many to be a very peripheral one. For a long time I was the president of the Mid-West Rugby League, and the biggest event in my home area, comprising the four little towns of Cloncurry, Richmond, Julia Creek and Hughenden, was the annual rugby league confrontation, and this was indeed important stuff. It is relayed over the mid-west radio station and broadcast throughout the area to about 10,000 or 15,000 people who live in those four towns and the surrounding areas.For the first time in 10 years it was not put out on the radio because the broadcast was not working. The game was in Richmond. They rang the technician who was in Hughenden and by the time he got to Richmond, the game was over. It took him about a minute and a half to fix up the problem. Had there been a technician on the spot, the problem could have been fixed up immediately.Far more serious was the situation that arose in Julia Creek. At about 6 o'clock at night or late in the afternoon—I cannot remember which—the entire telephone service at Julia Creek went out. Some rats had nibbled their way through the optical fibre cable. The ground had opened up and the rats had got down the big cracks and caused the damage. It was night time and nothing could be done. By the time the technician got there the sunlight had gone. So 12 hours had to elapse and it was not until the next morning that the technician could find out what was wrong. They then flew in a crew to fix the problem.For 24 hours, a town of 1,000 people was without any telephone services. If a person had a heart attack at home, if they were a pensioner by themselves and if they had tried to ring somebody to say, `I am dying of a heart attack', it would have been too bad; they would have just died. When a technician is on hand, it is the same as having an ambulance man or a fireman. Sure, these people spend most of their day sitting around doing nothing because they are an emergency service. If they worked all day, they would not be an emergency service because, if you were to ring them, they would already be servicing somebody or doing another job. That is the nature of an emergency service. The person really has to be on hand.A fourth case, which is slightly different, involved a very big cattle family in the mid-west area of North Queensland, the Slack-Smiths. One of their daughters runs the station all by herself. She is a very capable lady in her 20s. To have her out there in the middle of nowhere by herself without a telephone is not a very happy arrangement. She had been there for three weeks without a telephone. Telstra argued that, because of the rain, they could not get out there. There was some merit in that argument, but really they did not have enough people and they were not prepared to fly someone from the coast or wherever to fix one little telephone in the middle of nowhere.I have mentioned four cases. In Normanton, we were able to secure an extra two or three technicians immediately for that area and a technician was to be based at Richmond. In the case of Julia Creek, different programs were put in place that we hope would overcome the problem so that it does not occur again. In the Slack-Smith case, within two days of my ringing Telstra, someone went there to fix up the problem, whereas their entreaties over a period of 3½ weeks or more had yielded no benefits at all.Let me quote a fifth case, the case of the Kershs. Their telephone goes on the blink. It does not go out entirely. It is just so bad at times that they cannot speak properly at all. They go to the extent of breaking an emergency glass and that always brings out the technicians very quickly. This may be regarded as a little naughty but that is the only effective method they have found to get a technician to come.You might say to the member for Kennedy that the system is not working now. Each of those cases had a political solution to the problem. The people rang their member of parliament. I kicked people in the pants and screamed, yelled, howled and performed, and we overcame each of those problems.One lady in Queensland, Betty Fysh—I do not know her but her grandfather-in-law founded Qantas—said that it is like owning a supermarket. If I own the supermarket, I say, `I want that on the shelf. Put that on that shelf.' If I do not own the supermarket, I cannot come in and say, `Put that Mastercraft chilli sauce on that shelf.' So when I ring Telstra and say, `I want an extra two technicians up there or I will see Senator Alston. I will be really mad and I will say really nasty things about you people in the national media, and Senator Alston is not going to like that', I find that I get action. I am not going to get any action once Telstra is privatised. The private company would be in business, quite rightly so, and it would be very unfair for me to attack them.The other area of concern that is very great indeed to me is the change of technology. We owned a cattle station north of Richmond for many years and we saw four changes of technology. We had a piece of wire called the party line in the old days—the old days were about 10 years ago, I might add. Then we changed to DRCs, digital radio concentrators. Then some stations were changed over to satellite, and in fact our station was changed to a satellite service. Now there is a new service coming in. I am not too sure of the name of it, so I will not dare attempt to say what it is, but there is a fourth service there now. That is four changes of technology in the space of 10 years.Quite frankly, where the problems were occurring in the Normanton case was a problem with technology. I do not want to go into the details here but it concerned a switch-on mechanism from the solar power. The solar power was magic but the switch-on mechanism was not. It was most defective and they needed a change of technology.There were four changes of technology in the space of a decade. Clearly, there will be changes of technology. When those changes of technology are required, we will have to go to the government and ask for a subsidy because you cannot ask a private operator to bear the cost of supplying this service. Some will say, `Yes, we can, by legislation, make the private operator pay for this service.' That sounds good in theory.Maybe if I had not seen the CoT cases—the casualties of Telstra cases—I would not be taking the position I am. But it is so clear to me that you can pass all the laws you like—and in 24 years in parliament, we have passed many laws; I personally, as a minister for many years, passed many laws—but you need somebody to back up those laws. And, in this case, someone would have to be an enormously powerful person because Telstra, I am informed—I have not had the time to check it out—admitted in the Senate hearings that they had spent $13 million in fighting these 30 little businesses.One of those businesses I know is up to $986,000 in legal fees and the person involved is technically bankrupt at this stage. Their assets, which were very substantial when all of this started, are now almost non-existent. In that case, the then TIO—the ombudsman, if you like—Warwick Smith, made a scathing attack upon Telstra. So there was a mechanism there that was supposed to deliver justice but the people who had to get justice enforced—these little people—had to do it through a court of law.We live in a legal system, we live under the rule of law. If you want to enforce the law, then you have to mobilise somebody to pay for the legal cost of fighting Telstra. That $13 million figure was when this thing was less than halfway through, so I can imagine what they have put out in fighting those 30 little people who were wiped out by the mistakes that occurred in North Melbourne and in Fortitude Valley in Brisbane. Those people, who were asking for $2 million, have seen in excess of $20 million in legal expenses put out to fight them.What happens when Miss Slack-Smith, up there north of Julia Creek, has no service? You can say, `The legal situation is quite clear-cut.' Well, unfortunately, that is not the case. These things go on the blink; sometimes they are working, sometimes they are not, sometimes they are working very imperfectly. It is a matter of one side arguing this, the other side arguing that.The other thing is that I cannot see the machinery of government being mobilised against Telstra to help Miss Slack-Smith, north of Julia Creek. It is just not going to happen. Clearly, in the CoT cases, it did not happen. At least at the present moment we have had the force of government to be able to back up some of these cases, but this particular case went out of the realm of politics into the realm of legalities. That made it slightly different, I suppose, to the normal course of events.The other point which needs to be made here, very importantly, is that we have low earth orbiting satellites—the LEOS, as they are called—and they are able to provide an adequate service at an adequate cost. That can be provided now. But, because everyone is allowed up there, the cake is split up in so many ways that no-one can say that each of the service providers that will be up on the low earth orbiting satellites will have enough money, enough profit, enough economies of scale to be able to provide to all of Australia this adequate service at an acceptable price.We will have a completely global coverage of all of Australia; we will have an adequate service that will be able to provide ISDNs and all of those sorts of services, we are told; and we can do it at an adequate price. But if the cake is split up four or five ways, such service simply cannot be provided.Every other country in the world, we are told, has sold off its telecommunications system. This may well be true and it may be suitable for every other country in the world. But Australia is a country where 95 per cent of the surface area is more than 100 kilometres away from a city of 500,000 people. It is very difficult to find any other country in the world where 95 per cent of the continental land mass is 100 kilometres away from a city of half a million people. That makes Australia fundamentally different.The privatisation of telecommunications in a country like the United States is probably a very good idea. In a country like Australia it most certainly is not. I cannot see any effective mechanism by which we will be able to deliver appropriate services in the future. If more than 49 per cent of Telstra is sold, people like me will have to fight for subsidies. But I cannot say anything else to the people of Kennedy except that I am not confident that we can win those battles because there are so few of us now to do so, because of the introduction of the so-called one vote, one value. That leaves my seat, at 85,000, one of the biggest in population in Australia. Graeme Campbell's former seat—whoever holds it now—is also one of the biggest in population in Australia. We have maybe half a dozen people representing these areas and they do not carry much political clout, when they are maybe three each in the coalition party room and the ALP party room. We will not be able to deliver those subsidies.The second thing that we know will result is that we will lose population. The technicians that are there now will be removed back to the bigger centres. It is a privatised structure. They are out to make money. They do not want these people sitting around in a country town. So those technicians that are still out there will vanish. I must say to the people of Kennedy that it is my belief that they will ultimately vanish from inland Australia.We were told that corporatisation of the railways was going to deliver to us cheaper services. In the mid-west area again—my homeland that I go back to—we were told this would be good for us. Railway charges have not gone down. Services have been cut dramatically. The number of fettlers has been cut from 400 to 92, and the number of workshop employees has been cut by nearly 100—in that tiny little area. We have a situation where an individual will be pitted in the courts against the might of Telstra, if the legislation is to be enforced which the government—in all good conscience and all good faith—is delivering to us.My home town of Cloncurry was the home of the Reverend John Flynn—Flynn of the Inland, as he is known—who delivered the mantle of safety to the inland of Australia. All I can say is that Telstra, for all of its shortcomings, has provided a mantle of safety to inland Australia. I have very grave and grievous fears that the mantle will be removed or its fabric torn, in ways that will really be very detrimental to us in the future. Those are the reasons why I have opposed any sale above 49 per cent and will continue to do so.10:34:00838Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you and I share a common interest in this debate because we come from the state of Tasmania. If the member for Kennedy is correctly articulating the concerns of rural Queensland, he shares with us concerns that flow right across regional Australia. Whilst Queensland is a state which is increasing in population and which may have some parts where unemployment is at a significantly lesser rate than other parts of the Australian community, you and I come from a state where unemployment is stubbornly high—now about 10.8 per cent. Since the rounds of privatisations and government cutbacks, employment in the state has declined and we face the ABS projections for future Tasmanian population as declining to about two-thirds or less of the present population of the state in the next 50 years—an ageing and declining population with a declining base of federal investment to sustain employment.In that context, it was hardly surprising that, when the proposal for a sale of one-third of Telstra was put forward, Tasmanian Labor members spoke out strongly against that proposal. We saw that not only would it mean a decline in services but that it would mean loss of jobs for our community. We have now seen both those fears realised. There has been a decline in services. There are problems flowing from the loss of cross-subsidies and the restructured administrative arrangements that have occurred with Telstra. Most importantly, there have been reductions in employment in an economy which is struggling to face the future at a time when other federal government agencies have been massively cutting back their support for this state.The most recent manifestation of cutbacks in employment was the decision made on 26 October this year where Telstra managers announced the closure of the work management centre in Tasmania. That has a particular resonance because the work management centre in Tasmania had been announced as an initiative by Telstra which would give significant benefit to the state. It had been announced with a flourish of publicity as an initiative which showed that the organisation would not simply be focused around mainland distribution points but that there would be specific concern for regional centres and our state of Tasmania. In fact, the work management centre was the first of its kind in Australia; it was a pilot. It has operated very well since its inception and Telstra does not deny that.They say the decision to close it is part of a corporate planning system and reflects nothing in terms of the efficiency of the Hobart based operation. Indeed, Senator Mackay and I put to Telstra representatives—when they came to Tasmania as a response to the criticisms made by me, her and Tasmania's Premier, Jim Bacon—that internal work management assessments had rated the Hobart agency as being the most efficient in providing those services across the centres which now exist. That was not denied. There was no suggestion that it was denied.The Hobart work management centre currently allocates all fault reductions for Tasmania's public phones—about 1,000 connections—and some of those phones are in very remote areas of the state. The proposal now is for the work that is done by the work management centre to be done out of Bendigo. Without local knowledge, Bendigo staff will be sending Tasmanian staff to fix radiophones or solar powered phones. Valuable time and money will be lost in sending communications officers all over the state to regions with which they are not geographically familiar without the correct tools or skills to do the job.A good example of local knowledge was shown on Thursday, 22 October this year, which is a public holiday in the south of Tasmania for Hobart Show Day. There were three communications officers rostered to do the work, but Bendigo was still accepting fault jobs for that day. There were attempts to shut the books off, but there was an inability to get through, and tremendous confusion in terms of being able to satisfy those complaints.Thirty-five jobs in some parts of Australia might be regarded as expendable but my experience, as a member representing the seat of Denison now for over a decade, is that we are facing a time of quiet despair in Tasmania unless we are able to do better. When federal public authorities withdraw support for good, well managed, successful operations which could be continued in the state of Tasmania in my electorate, then it is a time for anger. It is not a time for passive resignation. This is not the sort of thing that we should accept lightly. Most importantly, that anger is heightened because the decision was made under a cloak of deception.It is unclear precisely whose deception it was. Either it was Minister Alston's deception or it was Telstra's deception. At the very least, Telstra shares the blame. The organisation, because it is now one-third privatised, has an obligation to maximise the return to its shareholders. That obligation conflicts to some degree with Telstra's obligation to continue and to maintain services in regional Australia. How is that balance to be resolved? When the legislation was proposed for a one-third sale of Telstra, the balance was struck in negotiations in part with Senator Harradine, and Senator Harradine received assurances that there would be no decline of employment in the state of Tasmania as a result of the changed ownership arrangements for Telstra.Plainly that still rankles with Telstra. They may not like the situation where a federal minister and the parliamentary processes require services to remain in parts of Australia when they believe they could operate more profitably by withdrawing those services, but there was no doubt that there was a clear understanding that there would be a special arrangement because of the economic circumstances of Tasmania and because 35 jobs in Tasmania matter. Thirty-five jobs in Tasmania, in my seat, matter.What happened? In the run-up to the last federal election, the union got wind that there was going to be some changes. It obviously made representations. On 26 August of last year, they received correspondence from Bob Bull, acting regional general manager for Victoria-Tasmania from Telstra, saying that he had been advised to contact the union with regard to the letter they had written to him around the future of the centre. He said:We understand that there has been some uncertainty regarding the interpretation of recent actions and comments by management with regard to the operations of both the Hobart and Bendigo sites. I would like to confirm our discussion at a meeting today between us that there is no plan to close the Hobart site.That is on 26 August: `no plan to close the Hobart site'. A person of goodwill, who is sent a letter of that nature, who later found that on 26 October, immediately after a federal election, that `no plan' had turned into a strategic decision made by management to close that centre and to relocate it to Bendigo, would say that there has been a fundamental breach of good faith. Of course, if it was deceit only at that level, one would have reason to be contemptuous of the way Telstra's management has operated; but there is more. Senator Brian Harradine also wrote to the union in relation to these matters because those concerns had been expressed to him. Senator Harradine wrote to Mr Graeme Sturges of the CEPU on 11 August, saying:Following our discussion last week on Telstra jobs in Tasmania, I undertook to seek a response from the minister's office on the future of the Work Management Centre in Hobart.Then he says:I have been advised late yesterday by Senator Alston's Chief of Staff that Telstra has no plans whatsoever,no plans whatsoever—to reduce the existing 19 staff nor to remove the Work Management Centre to Bendigo.So there we are: Senator Harradine was advised by the minister on 10 August that Telstra had no such plans. But, immediately after the election, what occurred? The closure was announced. `No plans' had become a management reorganisation based on the strategic needs of Telstra to remove a Hobart work based centre and relocate it in Bendigo: the very plan whose existence had been denied in August of that year, both by the management of Telstra to the union and by the minister's office to Senator Harradine, that denial then being conveyed by way of assurance to the union.We went into the last federal election, a contest that was quite vigorously fought in Tasmania, and where in the upshot we secured all five House of Representative seats and three of the six Senate positions contested. But at that time, before the election and 11 August, no such certainty existed. The federal election was going to be a tight one. Tasmanian seats were very much in the balance, and assurances were being given by the minister's office and by Telstra that there would be no closures—that there would be no staff sacked, no jobs lost and no positions destroyed.Then, hard on the heels of the election on 3 October, only days later, we discovered the plan that had been denied had actually been hatched and implemented. A complete deceit, not merely by omission but by commission—a breach of assurances given at the highest level from the minister's office to Senator Harradine and a breach of assurances given by Telstra management to the people employed. Why would you believe goddamn anything that you are told about assurances of the future of employment in my state? These are the actions of people who are not afraid to lie. These are the actions of people who are quite happy to deceive in order to secure the support of this parliament for the passage of legislation and then to breach undertakings solemnly given.We are asked in the debate to accept assurances that a further sell down of Telstra to 49 per cent will not damage regional Australia. We just heard the member for Kennedy expressing his concerns about what will happen to rural Queensland. He is on the coalition side. He knows that the assurances that are handed out are not even worth the paper they are written on. He knows that words that have been used in these debates are spoken with a forked tongue.This legislation not only authorises a sell down to 49 per cent, it also authorises the complete sale of Telstra where all public obligations and the capacity of the minister to direct the organisation are removed entirely. This has been deceitful. This will not be forgotten. This legislation must be resisted.10:48:00840Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—Firstly, this legislation honours the commitment made by the government and a commitment that I made to the people of my electorate. That commitment is to allow a further 16 per cent of Telstra for sale into private ownership, allowing the government to retain 50.1 per cent ownership. This government majority ownership will be retained and no further sale of Telstra will be permitted under this legislation until an independent inquiry has assessed that Telstra is delivering a certified service level to both its metropolitan and rural customers. While I have been in this Main Committee, I have heard various members making mention about the threat to regional areas with the further privatisation of Telstra. I stress that this safeguard for regional areas is contained within this legislation.The independent body established to conduct this inquiry will include representatives from regional areas as well as metropolitan areas and must, as prescribed in this legislation, issue a written certificate that Telstra has met the prescribed criteria for the designated period and give that certificate to the minister. Further, the minister must arrange for publication of the certificate in the Gazette and for the certificate to be presented to both these houses of parliament within 15 days after receiving the certificate. Further to that, the Australian Communications Authority or the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or both, can assist the body conducting that independent inquiry.The net effect of this assessment by the independent body will be to ensure Telstra delivers the highest levels of customer service. This, as many speakers have indicated, is of major concern to people living in regional areas. I want to stress that this part of this legislation is absolutely vital. As well as these important safeguards for customer service, this legislation retains safeguards in relation to foreign ownership. No more than 35 per cent of the privately owned percentage of Telstra can be owned by foreigners, and no one foreign individual may own more than five per cent.The headquarters for Telstra must remain in Australia and the chairman and the majority of directors must be Australian. Therefore, many of the concerns raised by speakers in this debate are unfounded because many of the concerns are actually safeguarded and dealt with in this very legislation. All of these safeguards are vital and this legislation ensures the establishment of these safeguards. Together with these safeguards, this legislation ensures that $671 million of the financial benefit gained from the sale of the further 16 per cent will be directed to some of the most disadvantaged areas of our nation, our regional areas, to both the people and the land in those regional areas. This includes a further $250 million to the Natural Heritage Trust. This will continue to build on the repair of our rivers, our badly salinated and eroded land, our coastline, and help preserve some of the most vulnerable areas of our natural environment. Seventy million dollars over five years will be provided for rural transaction centres, an initiative of the Prime Minister to return access to services in our small regional towns with populations between approximately 500 and 3,000 people. Once again this shows that a concentration, a focus of this legislation, is on the provision of services to people.These transaction centres will be access points for a range of services including, for example, online assistance and fast speed fax, services taken for granted in our metropolitan areas. Postal services and videoconferencing services are going to be available as well. This means that local people living in these small rural towns in our regional areas will have the opportunity to conduct commercial transactions at these centres.While the suburban business executive simply has to attend a local conference in one of the many large conference centres within our metropolitan cities, or our large suburban areas, to remain in touch with what is happening nationally and internationally in whatever line of business he or she might be operating in, those people living out in our regional areas today do not have that sort of access. However, with the implementation of the rural transaction centres, we could now have a situation where a group of farmers will be able to access the same level of communication that so many business people in the cities simply take for granted. They too will have the opportunity to keep up to date with the latest biosecurity issues or market opportunities via the new range of communications which will be available at the transaction centres funded from the revenue raised from the further privatisation of Telstra.There will also be $150 million provided over three years to extend access to untimed local calls to those people who live outside standard zones and to those who live in standard zones but have only limited access to untimed local calls. In addition there will be $36 million provided over three years to enable access to the Internet for people in rural and regional areas. Once again, this provision in the legislation reduces the disadvantage that so many people experience, simply because of where they live, in terms of gaining access to information and opportunity for education. Young people in these areas will be able to surf the Net, just as their peers in the cities do. The disadvantage of distance and remoteness will disappear as soon as they click online.There is no doubt that the mobile phone has changed the way we live and do business. How often do you hear the comment, `What would I do if I did not have my mobile phone? What did I do without the mobile phone?' It is certainly true that for the majority of Australians the mobile phone allows us to leave our office, our home, our place of meeting, et cetera, and continue our daily responsibilities without interruption. However, if you happen to live in a regional area, and in order to conduct your business and go about your daily life you happen to travel along many of our major highways—and I would nominate just a few of these within my electorate, namely the Hume, the Goulburn Valley, the Northern, the Mid-Goulburn, the Warburton and the Maroondah highways—you would be familiar with the frustration of being in the middle of a conversation and suddenly the phone connection dropping out. I know that the member for Indi sitting here would agree with me on that. Can you imagine having to explain to an interstate or overseas client each time your conversation is terminated abruptly simply because you have driven out of range? Twenty-five million dollars over three years will mean that those of us from regional areas frequently using our highways in our daily working lives can look forward to uninterrupted coverage.Another frustration of living in regional areas is having to put up with extremely poor TV reception and, in most cases in my electorate, no coverage of SBS television. At long last there is light at the end of the tunnel. This legislation provides for $120 million over five years to provide TV reception into 250 black spot areas that currently miss out, and to extend SBS coverage. I can tell you that people living in my electorate throughout the shires of Yarra Ranges, Murrindindi, Delatite and Mitchell have welcomed this news. Importantly, as well as providing these services into our regional areas, the minister will have authority to direct Telstra to comply with improved consumer protection contained in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 .The universal service obligation, which, of course, is the cross-subsidy of rural areas, remains because it is and has been the law. It has been and still is the case that, if Telstra, or any other carrier, does not comply with the statutory obligations, it will be prosecuted. This legislation in no way changes the universal service obligation or the customer service guarantee. It is also important to remember that every dollar raised from the sale of the next 16 per cent of Telstra that is used to reduce debt means more funds become available to provide better health and education services.In summary, this legislation provides for the further sale of 16 per cent of Telstra and an independent monitoring body, charged with the responsibility of assessing the level of service, importantly in our regional areas, and providing certification of their assessment to the minister before any further sale of Telstra can proceed. The $671 million from the 16 per cent sale will be used for the benefit of people living and working in our rural and regional areas, providing services that will enable them to enjoy a better quality of life and better business and employment opportunities for better consumer protection.I have listened to many of the speakers in this debate, and it seems to me that those opposing this legislation are talking about the needs of Telstra. This legislation is about fulfilling the needs of people. I commend this legislation to the House.11:02:00843Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—You may have gone away from the federal election thinking the National Party would ensure that only another 16 per cent of Telstra would be sold by a re-elected coalition government. Certainly, that was the impression I was under, with some Nationals promising they supported more of Telstra being sold to the point where the government retained a 51 per cent controlling interest. Reports at the time suggested that people like the member for Kennedy and the member for Dawson forced a rethink on this.In my electorate, Senator Sandy Macdonald had written to all the local newspapers saying how wonderful it would be for rural Australia for the remainder of Telstra to be sold off. The following week, after the members for Dawson and Kennedy supposedly forced this backdown, Senator Macdonald was back saying how great it was for rural Australia that in fact 51 per cent control would stay in government hands.Let us not kid ourselves; the telecommunications bills that we have before us pave the way for the sell off of the remainder of Telstra. We are not talking 49 per cent; we are talking 100 per cent. True, the legislation makes a sell down below 50.1 per cent conditional upon the outcome of an independent review of service standards. But I say to my National Party friends, `Do not be fooled by this. This clause is worthless.' The legislation makes provision for an independent inquiry. But, at this time, we do not know what the regulations or terms of that inquiry are. So, effectively, we are signing a blank cheque.The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts will have the power to prescribe the criteria using disallowable instruments. We do not know what those prescribed criteria will be. Do you really think Senator Alston is going to stop the entire sell-off of Telstra simply because people in rural and regional Australia cannot get a decent phone service? I do not think so. The privatisation ideology and the huge cash windfall offered will always come ahead of delivering good service.The bill suggests this review, to take place before any more of Telstra is sold, should look at Telstra's performance over a period of at least six months. Again, it is a weak trick to try to fool people like the members for Dawson and Kennedy and all those other people in rural Australia who honestly believed this government would look after their best interests. I hope these members are not being given a convenient escape clause, because the people of rural Australia certainly are not fooled. They know a look at Telstra's performance over six months is just not enough to get an accurate picture.We know that Telstra management is keen to see the full privatisation go ahead. Of course, the management will ensure there is sufficient staff on hand over that particular six-month period to ensure services are maintained properly. But, as we have heard already from the member for Kennedy, that is no guarantee anyway, even over that six-month period. As soon as the six months have passed and the remainder is sold, service will go back to the way it is now.In this debate, the member for Fairfax challenged opposition members to declare whether or not they had bought shares in the first-third sale, as if such purchases demonstrated some sort of hypocrisy. In some cases it might. But I have certainly met many people who have made it clear they opposed any sale but, if such a sale was inevitable and a fait accompli, then better it be retained by them, here in Australia, as far as possible. I might say that I was not one of those purchasers.As I made clear two years ago, I oppose any sell-off of Telstra. I say to my National Party colleagues and others: if you really are determined to support this sell-off, to sell out the best interests of your constituents, you should at least insist the review takes place over an 18-month period. It would take 18 months to get a truly accurate picture of whether or not Telstra is meeting any sort of performance target.Look at the ACA's assessment of Telstra's performance recently. The last report, for the June quarter, shows an improvement. So you could say, looking at the past six months, that things are on the way up. But, if you look back at its performance over the past 18 months, you realise the latest report was one bright spot on an otherwise bleak horizon. Telstra's performance since it became partly privatised has been absolutely abysmal. Anyone with an even basic understanding of statistics and how they are used to judge performance of a utility can tell you that to look at a short, six-month period is useless; you need 18 months or a full six quarters of figures to get an accurate picture. Of all the members in this House, I have certainly made it clear that Telstra's service record to the bush has declined rapidly since the first third was sold. I guess I have become something of a lightning rod for complaints from all over the countryside for the problems facing not only my own electorate but those further afield.Pitching itself as an aggressive private operator, Telstra is working hard to match international telecommunications standards in relation to prices and, more importantly, employee numbers. Telstra has been busy shedding staff by the thousands to try to meet these world's best standards—whatever they are. What it forgets, of course, is that Australia is not like any other country. Our needs are completely different. When there are floods there are not enough Telstra servicemen and linesmen to fix all the problems due to old waterlogged cables. Who suffers? The people of rural and regional Australia.One lady faxed me this week saying that she was in the Toyota dealership in Dubbo and there were three Telstra four-wheel drives in the workshop at once. She remarked that she had not seen so many Telstra service vehicles together in one place in ages. They said the three vehicles were the entire Telstra service fleet based in Dubbo to service that huge region. It is a real worry, when you consider the poor technical state of the network in the bush, to have the three vehicles in the shop at the same time.Forget about high-speed data and Internet access. Some people are struggling to even get out a decent fax message, because they are still hooked up to old copper wire. Consider the case of one isolated family north of Bathurst. The children rely on faxes and computers to study by correspondence, but the copper wire strung out to their property cannot handle either form of technology. It means the young ones are not getting a fair go. Telstra has no plans to upgrade the cable into this family's property. Well you may ask: if it keeps delivering the huge multibillion dollar profits and massive dividends to its new private shareholders, where will it ever find the money to complete expensive upgrading such as this?Another case is the situation regarding the provision of mobile phones for Rylstone-Kandos. This has been on the backburner for the past 2½ years. They were going to get it; they were going to get it; it was going to be up by Christmas. Now, of course, the CDMA technology is the priority, and it again sits on the backburner until they can get around to it.Frank Blount wants the federal government to pay Telstra $1.8 billion to compensate for its unprofitable rural services, yet the minister wants to cap it at $253 million. Given there is some room to negotiate between those two figures, it is obvious Telstra will still end up with a lot less money than it needs to properly service and maintain rural services. Guess who will suffer. It will not be the Melbourne based minister for communications or anyone else in the major capitals. It will be the people of rural and regional Australia. Mr Blount made it clear when he spoke at the National Press Club recently, saying that Telstra should not have to shoulder more of a burden in terms of community service than its competitors simply because its major stakeholder was the government.Look at even the basic problems that are afflicting and annoying rural people, problems that Telstra has neither the will nor the inclination to address. One of these problems is outdated local call zones. Bathurst and Orange are the major cities and business centres in the Central Tablelands. Smaller towns in the region want to have local call access to these bigger centres to do business, but in many cases they are hampered by local call zones put in place in the 1960s. It is a basic charging policy that affects country residents and makes them very angry every time they use the phone, if they are in Yeoval or Cumnock doing their business in Orange and they are hooked into a call zone that makes no sense at all economically to them.The Liberal Party likes to think—indeed, the Treasurer has said it to me in the House—that hot competition will deliver improved services such as banking in the bush. Dream on! Look at the situation of Cumnock, north of Orange. It does most of its business in Orange, yet it has Wellington as its call zone centre. My senior staffer raised this issue face to face with Frank Blount when he came to Parliament House in March this year to put on a show about how swell Telstra was doing. But Mr Blount left with his tail between his legs after he copped a grilling from angry rural members such as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.As a member with a huge rural electorate, I am sure the member for Maranoa has, like me, been inundated with calls from angry constituents since the first part of Telstra was privatised. Strangely enough, it was about the time when the first part of Telstra was floated that service really started to go downhill badly. It has actually overtaken child support as the biggest issue in my electorate office at the moment.Frank Blount promised at that meeting that he would get back to me about my concerns about local call zones, an issue I had been raising in letters to Telstra since I was first elected. I am waiting for Mr Blount to get back to me on that one. It has been eight months so far. I read in the paper today or yesterday that he is hoping to be home in the US for Christmas, so I think I might be waiting a bit longer for an answer. This is an example of the level of courtesy and accountability within this organisation under its new privatised regime.People in the bush are fed up. I have not met anyone in rural Australia who actually supports the further privatisation of Telstra, not even those who may have picked up shares in the first round. Bathurst City Council says that since the partial privatisation it has suffered as a result of a lack of service. Design and construction staff have endured problems because Telstra management has told local ground staff not to attend construction sites for the purpose of locating underground cables. Council used to be able to call the local Telstra depot in Bathurst and someone would come out and locate the cable, and it was no problem. Now, in the brave new world of privatisation, council calls an Adelaide number and this is then directed to Canberra. Council says it takes 20 minutes for the call to be answered in Canberra and then it has to wait up to 10 days for a site plan to be faxed through. The plan contains an arrangement of lines and rectangles indicating cables and pits but it lacks any actual measurements, including how deep the cable was laid.This is just one of the many problems that Bathurst council tells me it has faced since the partial privatisation. It underlines the need for local staff with local knowledge and local access to enable this infrastructure to be not only interpreted but put in place in this huge continent. Great for regional development! Council says it has written to Telstra pointing out these problems on numerous occasions but to no avail.Today I received a letter from a Rylstone family who are just refusing to pay their latest phone bill because their service has been out of action so many times over the past 12 months that they are desperate. They say they have been given every excuse under the sun, including lightning strikes, rats eating through cables—I heard in earlier debate that the rats are busy in Queensland at the footie matches, as obviously they are in Rylstone—and water in cables. Of course I cannot condone anyone refusing to pay their bill, but this is the level of frustration out there.The government likes to pretend that a penalty regime imposed in this legislation will force a 100 per cent privatised Telstra to provide good service levels. `Why, there are penalties up to $10 million,' I am sure they will say. But the penalties there at the moment are not, in fact, effective. The tiny refunds Telstra has to pay out for every day it delays are just minuscule—petty cash—for a company the size of Telstra.Every member of this House would have to be aware that, since the penalty regime was introduced, Telstra's performance has continued to decline, according to the Australian Communications Authority. Despite the slight improvement in the performance levels in the last quarter, Telstra's record for connecting new services was still three percentage points behind what it was 12 months ago. By staying in government hands, Telstra remains owned by every Australian. Therefore, every Australian through their local federal member has a say on how Telstra is run—not just foreign investors and those lucky enough to be able to buy shares. This sell-off will end this by effectively removing the minister's ability to direct Telstra to address problems in the public interest. That reserve power is now contained in section 9 of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991. Now, under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill, there is still some provision for the minister to be able to give directions to carriers through the ACA.But I say once again to country members who support this sell-off: this new provision is no replacement for the old. It is a bit like a bulldozer being replaced with a feather duster. Do not take my word for it. Do not just come in here and vote to support this bill when the bells ring. Go away and read the bill and explanatory notes. Then you might realise that, by voting in support of these bills, you are a party to a massive sell out—not just a sell out of Telstra; you are selling out your constituents and their very basic right to a decent, affordable and reliable telephone service.There are three issues crucial to regional development that we really have to get right for the people of rural Australia to have any sort of future exporting our produce to the world. First, there is the issue of rural production and exports; second, that of the physical transport links and, third, that of communications. I am absolutely dumbfounded in trying to comprehend how any rural member could possibly support selling off our national communications company at a time when a high-speed Internet service is increasingly seen as being crucial for business and for future communications needs. Yet so many people in regional Australia do not have access to such a service. I would suggest that, under a privatised Telstra, they have little or no hope of ever getting access to high-speed data lines in future. I say to any country member who supports this sell off, `You should hang your head in shame.'11:17:00847Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—In rising to speak to the Telstra (Transition to Full Ownership) Bill 1998, I would like the House to be aware that my family owns Telstra shares. We all know the share market is an unforgiving place, and the surge in values serves to remind us what a truly great organisation Telstra is.The proposed full sale of Telstra has generated an intense public debate, especially in regional and rural Australia where there are very significant and understandable concerns about the service delivery by a fully privatised organisation. I do appreciate that the government has acted to provide customer service guarantees and, as far as they go, these are acceptable. I also appreciate that the government has acted to provide redress for customers of a privatised Telstra and, again, these provisions are welcome. However, I have never made any secret of my views. Last year, on 2 July, I wrote to the Prime Minister and said:Overwhelmingly, my constituents are opposed to this full sale. This opposition is based on a range of what I consider to be very legitimate reasons including serious reservations about the standard and quality of service which would be provided by a privatised Telstra and an understandable worry about selling off a publicly owned asset.I also stated:I would accept a proposal to sell no more than 49 per cent of Telstra if the proceeds of the sale were devoted to urgently needed infrastructure works in regional and rural Australia and if the time frames for Telstra's `customer service guarantee' were considerably reduced.However, it is undeniable that Telstra's performance since it was partially privatised has been disappointing, to say the least. According to the Australian Communications Authority, between December 1996 and June 1998 Telstra's service in country areas plummeted. New services connected on or before the agreed day fell from 82 per cent to 73 per cent. Faults cleared within one working day fell from 74 per cent to 62 per cent. Faults cleared in two working days fell from 90 per cent to 81 per cent. Payphone faults cleared within one working day fell from 67 to 48 per cent, and within two working days from 84 to 68 per cent. By comparison, Telstra's shares issued at $3.30 have doubled in value. It cannot be any wonder that people who are enduring a substandard service are hostile to full privatisation, knowing that a fully privatised Telstra would be devoted to bottom-line results. In essence, Telstra, by necessity, would have its eye on the bottom line and not the back paddock.The dilemma facing Telstra is the confusion it faces in defining itself. Is it a money making corporation for the benefit of shareholders, as is every other corporation, or is it a service provider? I referred earlier to the various customer guarantees the government is seeking to provide and certainly they are most welcome. In fact there is no reason whatsoever they cannot be implemented now without a full sale.There is a belief in regional and rural Australia that, as the government retains majority ownership under the existing section 9 of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991, which allows the minister to give written directions to Telstra in the public interest, Telstra customers in those areas will have a far better hope of obtaining a standard of service that their city cousins regard as a fact of life. However, this bill provides for this existing section 9 to be repealed upon the sale proceeding beyond 50 per cent. I have grave concerns about that.It is Corporations Law, in particular section 246AA and the fiduciary duty directors owe to a company and its shareholders, that causes the greatest concern. Could a fully privatised Telstra successfully argue in the court that the range of customer guarantees proposed oppress shareholders? The proposal to cap the cost of local calls could precipitate such a challenge. As well there is the question as to whether a Telstra board, bound by Corporations Law not to fund uneconomic activities, could deliver future infrastructure to some rural and regional Australians. These people could well find themselves at the mercy of the government of the day to fund such infrastructure. Knowing the ALP track record, that is a sobering prospect.I also have significant concerns about the unresolved matter of the universal service obligation. To date this has been valued and accepted at the value of $250 million. Telstra's new valuation done through Bellcore is $1.8 billion, a considerable discrepancy. How this is to be resolved is unknown at this point in time. This USO issue again highlights the fundamental conundrum between a commercial entity and service provider. I am left wondering where my constituency, the people of rural and regional Australia, would be left.On the general matter of social responsibility, I also noted last week that Telstra's chief executive, Mr Frank Blount, complained publicly about its current obligations to cross-subsidise a whole range of services, such as the 000 emergency service and the directory assistance service. Mr Blount has complained publicly that since 1991 all communication ministers with whom he had to deal meddled in what he saw as the exclusive preserves of the company. Mr Deputy Speaker, what an outrageous comment! Telstra is a government owned corporation and the minister and the government have a clear duty and responsibility to ensure that it acts in the public interest.Telecommunications infrastructure is a public good and Australia is disproportionately dependent on telecommunications because of our relative isolation from the rest of the world and the vast distances between population centres. An efficient, fair and equitable telecommunication service is critical to the social fabric of the nation and our economic performance. I believe that a fully privatised Telstra would not be wedded to this belief. Public ownership also allows for cross-subsidisation of socially valuable services. As I noted earlier, Telstra's chief executive has already complained about having to carry this burden. A fully privatised Telstra would undoubtedly abandon any thought of cross-subsidisation.While I am supportive of majority government ownership of 50.1 per cent, there is a myth that this is not the norm in the international scene. Let me assure other members that there are countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal, that have majority government ownership of their telecoms. Another one of the myths surrounding the debate over the full sale of Telstra is that Telstra is really just reliant upon ageing copper wire and will decline in value over time. Nothing could be further from the truth. The copper wires are only pairs from the customer's home to the main distribution frame. The vast bulk of the public switch telephone network is optical fibre—digital.By next year Telstra will have achieved 100 per cent digitalisation and rival the Netherlands as the OECD country with the greatest level of digitalisation worldwide. The OECD average, by the way, is 82.8 per cent. Telstra is far from being an ageing lady. In fact, she is a dynamic telecommunications service provider in a dynamic and growing country.It has been suggested that I should cross the floor and deny my electorate the benefits of the infrastructure package that will be fully funded by the sale to 49 per cent or 49.9 per cent. However, I will not be supporting the bill as it could be seen as a window of opportunity for a full sale.Let me talk for a moment about the infrastructure package and what it will mean for the people in my electorate of Dawson. It will deliver SBS television to Mackay and the Whitsundays. We waited in vain for 13 years for the Labor Party to deliver SBS. The revelation that Labor would vote against the 49 per cent sale and deny SBS to Mackay militated against the ALP candidate in the election. One of the other big pluses for my electorate is the improvement to television reception. Jindalee Pocket and other areas in Dawson have got poor television reception, and this is finally going to enable them to enjoy a service that the rest of us take for granted.As for mobile phone coverage along highways, I certainly empathise with other speakers who have said their mobile phones drop out. It is a common problem in Dawson. Internet access for people in rural and regional areas is very important. And extended access to untimed local calls as well as the rural transaction centres are also very worthy initiatives for rural and regional Australia. However, at the end of the day I have to confess that my opposition to a full sale of Telstra is, quite frankly, an emotional one. Not so long ago in Dawson we had an instance where the daughter of friends of ours living on a cattle property outside Mackay suffered an accident and sustained severe head injuries. Her family was able to ride back to the homestead and, thank goodness, the phone was working.I would like to thank Telstra and its employees in our area for ensuring that, although standards have dropped, they do their utmost to ensure that those who need a service do have it. Fortunately, the phone that day worked. They were able to phone the CQ rescue helicopter and that young girl was flown to Mackay hospital. Had she been delayed by half and hour she would not be here today. Good telecommunications are not just a matter of the Internet, mobile phones and the information superhighway, although we welcome that; in rural and regional areas it is often a matter of life and death.I would like to talk a little about the opportunities for my son and other young people who live in rural and regional Australia. The Internet really is just beginning. They are going to be able to conduct their businesses, sell their products, communicate with friends, and perhaps educate themselves, all on the Net. I hope that they will not be on the information goat track but on the information superhighway.Mr Deputy Speaker, mateship is the culture of Australia. It helped our pioneers, and in the early part of this century it sustained our ANZACs in war and in prison camps. It unites us all for the good of all Australians. I do not believe that you can outsource patriotism and I do not believe that you can privatise mateship.11:29:00849Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, I offer my congratulations on your election to the panel.I am proud to have been re-elected as the member for Blaxland at the 3 October election because one of the key things I was re-elected for was to participate in this cognate debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . This debate is about the entire future of what is left of Telstra in public hands. I participated as a member of the Labor Party in the debate against the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill 1996 that was put through the previous parliament, when one-third of the biggest public company that exists in this country was put into private hands—that which had been fully owned by everyone in Australia.I was re-elected to this parliament to do my job as the member for Blaxland, arguing against any further sale of Telstra. The set of bills we have before us today are bills designed for a series of purposes—but interlocking purposes. The key bill is the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . That is at the core of what this government want to do, but it is now in a staged process. We have got here because their previous bill, introduced in March of this year, was knocked over in the Senate, so they have come back for another go. And they have come back for another go after a great deal of angst in the country areas of Australia and a great deal of angst within the National Party, as expressed here again today by the previous speaker, the member for Dawson. That angst primarily concerned two things: the first was about service standards, particularly service standards in the bush and regional areas; the second, interlinked with that, was a demand from various members of the National Party that no more than 49 per cent should be sold.What is the coalition government's solution to this? Their solution is to put forward this package of bills which we are debating today in cognate fashion. The key bill, the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill, provides at this stage for selling off 49 per cent of Telstra. So an extra 16 per cent of Telstra would be sold if this bill passes through this House and then passes through the Senate. Automatically and immediately, not 33 per cent but up to 49 per cent would be sold. Telstra would then be on the cusp of moving into full private ownership.What would stand in its place? What is detailed in these bills in terms of the process? What is there to mollify members of the National Party? The process is that there should be an independent inquiry, over a period of six months, into service standards in the bush and regional areas. If that `independent' inquiry finds that the service standards are adequate, then, without further reference to this parliament—not to the Main Committee, the main chamber of the House of Representatives or the Senate, that is, without a single further reference to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia—100 per cent of Telstra would be sold. I note the position of the member for Dawson in regard to this bill. She is not silly; she is not silly at all. She understands that this bill, which pretends to go to only 49 per cent, is in fact an open window directly through to the full sale. Most of the other people in the country understand that as well.You do not have to be particularly smart to work out that the key thing this Prime Minister, John Howard, has been looking towards in terms of telecommunications and in terms of Telstra throughout his parliamentary career is to flog the lot to private interests. Those private interests, in his view and in the view of his government, should be 65 per cent Australian and 35 per cent foreign, with the foreigners being able to take up a tranche of only five per cent: one mini-Bell after another; we could have seven of them here in Australia making up that 35 per cent.But John Howard has been ideologically committed to the dissolution of the major businesses and service provision of this Commonwealth. That has been apparent since the election in 1996 when they put the National Commission of Audit in place, and the bare skeletal bones of the approach by this government were laid clear for all to see. It is simply this: in 1901 when we became a federation there were three pillars to the Commonwealth—three key jobs that had to be done by this Commonwealth. It had to do customs and excise, defence, and posts and telegraphs. It was realised finally by all the states that, in order to do the job in a vast continent, we needed a Commonwealth government to provide things they could not individually provide.What does this coalition government say about the three pillars? On defence, they say that, yes, they will retain responsibility for that absolutely. Concerning customs and excise, they have not found a way to move out of that area. With regard to post and telegraphs, they will support local newsagents because they actually disseminate things within a local area, and they say that they will protect Australia Post, although they have taken most of the business away from it. They have left the standard letter so far, but we know that they will whittle that away over time. They cannot do much with telegraphs because that has been overridden by technology.But it was a Commonwealth responsibility in 1901, it is today and it should continue to be in the future to 2001 and beyond. Because we live on one continent and that one continent has vast spaces and people dotted all around it, we need a Commonwealth government that is responsible for the telecommunications of this continent, we need single sets of standards and we need a Commonwealth government that owns Telstra.I was utterly against the sale of any of Telstra. The one-third sale was a complete and utter travesty. Why? Because the telecommunications infrastructure of this country was built with the money, the brains, the intelligence and the effort of the Australian people from 1901 onwards, in a federal sense. All the money had gone in from the federal government to build a national infrastructure for a small population and a vast land. There were enormous costs involved in order to build that infrastructure. With one stroke of the Governor-General's pen, when the dilution bill went through, one-third of that was sold off cheaply to individual Australians and to Australian entities. All of that effort went on through most of this century to build a strong communications infrastructure in a company that the government owned and that people could be sure would be compelled to deliver services.Here we see an utterly ideological approach to wiping away all the rest of the public ownership of this company because the coalition government does not believe in public ownership. It also does not believe in public provision of services, because the National Commission of Audit says that the Commonwealth government should not provide one single direct service to any individual in Australia. They do not believe in any service provision. They only believe that the Commonwealth government should benchmark and monitor—that is it; end of the section.So in this, their second term, the 39th Parliament, the coalition government are moving towards their great goal: the decimation of the responsibilities of the federal government of Australia. But there is nothing more important than this bill which is before us now. Why? Because the government seek a short-term monetary gain to the Commonwealth for the other side of it, which is long-term effective debts.I spoke on five previous occasions in relation to this bill. When I last spoke on full ownership in March I pointed out that our then shadow spokesman, Bob McMullan, indicated that, when you do the figures for the first five years—up until 2003—you can see that the positive returns to the Commonwealth from the sale of one-third of Telstra would in fact be wiped out from then on, even if you take the whole of Telstra into account.If you look at a five-year period, the money comes to the government, the government do not have to make interest payments and therefore they can reduce the government debt. But what is lost after five years is the vast income stream that Telstra has been providing—and providing not just at an even rate and not at a declining rate but at an increasing rate of dividend since it started to pay dividends to the Commonwealth government of Australia in 1992. So for five years it would be worth the Commonwealth's while in money terms, in terms of how much they were able to save.But, from 2003, for however long this planet is in existence and however long we have a Commonwealth government of Australia and a Telstra in operation as its key business, those returns would be obliterated. They simply would not be there. And the end result of that would be that the Commonwealth of Australia and its people would be impoverished, and our ability to control our national communications would be effectively taken away.All of the other bills here as part of the cognate set, those that deal with standards and services and so on, on their own have nothing remarkable in them. There is nothing objectionable about those arguing for better services and better control and conditions. Even those that argue for greater expenditures in particular areas, whether through the Natural Heritage Trust, which they used as a ruse to get the first third through, or through any other means, such as the social bonus as they have called it. There is nothing objectionable in relation to those individually, if they were not tied utterly to the sale of the other two-thirds, because we are speaking about the other two-thirds here, not just up to 49 per cent. Inexorably the rest would go.With those moneys coming back to the Commonwealth, Telstra's dividends allow the Commonwealth to do everything that is involved in those other bills. The Commonwealth can choose to spend those moneys and more on infrastructure for rural and regional Australia. With the returns coming now and through to 2003 and then into infinity, those returns will allow for all of those things to be done. They will also allow for all of the changes in technology in communications that we are going to see running into the next century. This is a dynamic area; we have a dynamic company in Telstra, still two-thirds owned by us, with two-thirds of the returns coming back to us.It is the craziest, stupidest, dumbest thing—even for a coalition government to do—to flog it off to private interests. They will sell not only control of the telecommunications infrastructure in Australia but all the long-term dividends coming back to the Commonwealth which would help the Commonwealth to allow both for telecommunications and other expenditure.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—It is actually called dumbing down.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Dumbing down. This is a key bill. Part of the reason that I am in this parliament, and the manner in which I define my reason for being here, is to fight the stupidity of this bill as I fought the dilution bill. Australia's future and the future of Australia's citizens is tied to Australia's continuing to maintain government business in Telstra. Our ability to mark out our place in telecommunications and telecommunications services in our region, as we have done enormously successfully through Telecom and Telstra, will be carved apart. We will have no central part to play in that if Telstra is sold off and then broken up and all of the other players take it.Bill Gates is not dumb. If Bill Gates owned a company like Telstra, with its debt to equity ratio, the very last thing he would be doing is selling any of it. He would not have sold the first third; he would not sell up to 49 per cent; he would not sell the rest. He would be aggregating. Any sane, sensible government would keep what they have got and then use the competitive advantage we have with Telstra to provide services to our people and to build that service in Telstra through into the region.This is a crazy, stupid, dumb step. I am voting against it. The Labor Party is voting against it. I would hope—as the member for Dawson has indicated she is voting against it—that the other members of the National Party do likewise, and that anyone on the other side, free as they are to vote, would vote in Australia's real national interest and vote to retain the 66 per cent that we have got.11:45:00853Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Talking of being dumb, perhaps the member for Blaxland might like to answer this: what is the dividend from Telstra currently? It is about $1.3 billion. And what is that as a percentage return on capital investment? Three per cent. Do you know what would happen if Telstra were privatised? It would have to pay the normal company tax and so on. And do you know what we would get out of that? Perhaps $4 billion or $5 billion a year. In fact, it is in the country's interest and the country would do better and the cash flow to the country would be better with the sale of Telstra. But there are other reasons. I know there are community concerns because people come to me and say, `Why are we selling the family silver? There'll be a loss of jobs. There'll be poorer services.' I understand that.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—You don't deny that?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I have said that they are the community concerns. The other day, a young lady came to see me and said, `The people are against selling Telstra. The government doesn't care about the bush. Services will be lost'. Altogether she was pretty damned steamed up. Deep down, she knew that John Howard and the coalition government had done a pretty good job of fixing the economy. She told me that her family were much better off now that home loan interest rates had fallen. She felt that supermarket prices were not rising nearly as often as they used to and she was pleased that there were more jobs around. But she felt the government was wrong in selling Telstra. My reply kind of surprised her. I said that sometimes it takes a bit of courage in politics to say, `These things are right.' Although it is easy to govern according to opinion polls and demands of noisy minorities, the national interest always loses out in that sense. We are often worse off in the long run.I opened by saying to her that, if I can deliver a better life for my constituents and if I can deliver world-class telecommunication services anywhere in Australia, then I cannot be afraid to stand up and say so. `Words, words, words,' she said. `You parliamentarians are all the same. Why sell a national icon when it returns $1.3 thousand million a year to the government? We'll lose all that money.' `Yes,' I said, `but the money from the sale will go to paying off the massive debts run up by the previous government. This will save us perhaps $4,000 million a year in dead interest being paid to moneylenders overseas every year.' She warmed when I told her that it would only take half that saving to build 1,000 kilometres of new four-lane highway every year, year in, year out; the other half could be used for better health services, education and the care for older Australians.I went on to say that most people were not interested in Telstra's poor rate of return on its investment of only about three per cent. However, she did understand that businesses run by the government never do as well as those run by private companies. Then, why hold Telstra back? This gave my constituent the opportunity to fire back with the issue of poor service in the bush. She reckoned a private company would not do what Telstra could do. `Exactly,' I said. `For the last 20 years, Telstra in government ownership has not delivered a good phone service to people in rural and regional Australia. In fact, it has been a very poor service and that is where the complaints are coming from. But, if Telstra is sold, the government can afford an excellent package of better services.'3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—They'll get an even worse one now. It might disappear off the face of the earth.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I will answer that in a second. For example, it has been announced that the government would spend up to $150 million to provide untimed local calls to around 37,000 households and farming families in remote Australia, many of them in Queensland. And the government also announced that a further $60 million would be allocated to the Networking the Nation Program, which provides funds to help regional communities meet their telecommunications needs. More revolutionary benefits are to be announced soon. I reminded her that none of this could be afforded without the sale of Telstra. Then there is the extension of the CDMA digital phone system, putting the bush on the leading edge of technology but keeping the benefits of the existing analog system. This is worth more than $400 million.She began to see the extra benefits that could be provided, but was still sceptical that the new owner would not fix broken phones quickly in the outback or, for that matter, in the city. I was able to tell her that the government was way ahead on this one and that it had already addressed this concern. For the first time ever there are now minimum service standards. They are enforceable because they are already in legislation and are the law.For example, if you are in Townsville and your phone breaks down and Telstra do not fix it within one day, they must pay you $11.65 per day for every day that your phone is not fixed; should you be kept waiting for more than five days, it will rise to $40 a day for every day past the fifth day. And this is going to be strengthened, as part of the legislation authorising the sale of the remainder of Telstra, to enable the Australian Communications Authority to enforce customer service performance standards and to fine companies up to $10 million for breaches. The government is being fair dinkum about looking after the bush.Telstra has for a number of years been subject to the universal service obligation, which says that all Australians must have access to a standard telephone service and access to payphones, regardless of where they live in the country. This obligation is entrenched in legislation and will be unaffected by any change in the ownership of Telstra.The next part of our conversation raised a point that my constituent had not thought of. She started by telling me that the government should not be selling off the family silver. I understood her feelings exactly, but immediately went on to explain how precarious the position of the family silver really was. I told her that the previous government had totally deregulated the telecommunications industry. This meant that any phone company could start up in Australia. If Telstra remained in government hands, it could not make the quick decisions necessary to respond to the competition in the marketplace. It would surely then lose market share to other competitors.While the value of Telstra was presently at a premium, it might not be so in 10 years time with the entry of new service providers. Surely, then, if we were ever going to sell Telstra, it should be at a time when we would get the best price, the best deal for the people of Australia. She agreed that it would not really be sensible to wait 10 years and then only get half the price, particularly with the benefits that all Australians can get now.She was further surprised when I told her about the new satellite technology. It may not be too long before Telstra will be superseded in the bush anyway. All communications services to the remotest parts of the country will be delivered by satellite; anyone wanting a phone anywhere in the country can have it the same day, if they want. That service is on its way right now. Indeed, in Western Australia, for example, where Telstra and Optus compete in the provision of television services to that state, Telstra provides three channels and Optus provides 20. That is the kind of competition that is coming and that is the kind of competition that will drive down the value of Telstra if we do not take action now.My constituent's last concern was for the jobs of Telstra workers. She won me on this, because it can be really distressing when the breadwinner comes home to announce they have lost their job that day. However, I reassured her that, with the telecommunications industry being the fastest growing industry in Australia today, and as it cannot grow without people, there is certainly every chance that a job lost in Telstra will be a job picked up in one of the other service providers. Sure, Telstra might have to shed jobs. But there are now many other opportunities for people with expertise in communications.By this time, we had probably talked for about half an hour. My constituent was out of questions and had changed her view. She had not mentioned that competition and technology had brought falling telephone call charges. She had not remembered that the government had guaranteed that untimed local voice and data calls for households were here to stay, regardless of who owns Telstra, and that the price of untimed local residential and business calls were subject, by law, to price caps. We finished our discussion agreeing that, while it is easy to get sentimental about Telstra, the good for all Australians must prevail. It is a win for everyone if Telstra is freed from government ownership. After all, federal law, regardless of who owns Telstra, guarantees services to rural and regional Australia and to mainstream Australia. I support the legislation.11:54:00855Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to commence my contribution by talking a little about the address of the member for Blaxland. He is a good friend of mine and I have a great deal of respect for him. He gave a very well-structured speech on the three pillars on which Federation was based. However, the days of putting copper wire over vast distances across this country have passed. During the previous parliament I was fortunate enough to go to a demonstration by Ericsson of what would be happening with low orbiting satellites, in respect not just of communications but also of data transmission and the speed of data transmission. One has to say—and we all know—that the speed of change in telecommunications is mind-boggling. Not two years ago, in this parliament, both sides of the House were quite concerned that digital mobile telephones had not delivered what we expected. The dilemma was that the previous government, no doubt in good faith, had signed off for analog phones to go in the year 2000. Had it not been for the emergence of CDMA at that time, Australia would have had a great dilemma on its hands, with analog being phased out and digital not meeting expectations.I have to say this to my Labor colleagues: you have got to be consistent in these things. You cannot just speak emotionally about Telstra as the godchild of Telecom and PMG, and then forget about a lot of other Australian icons. It did not seem to concern you that the people's bank—for heaven's sake, something that you lauded for generations—could be sold; not only sold, but sold after you said you would not sell it. Not only that, when you did sell it, you did not put the money back into new infrastructure for Australia but into recurrent expenditure. You wiped away the benefit that that could have brought to Australia.Let me tell you where I stand. I have no objection to infrastructure being sold which is reaching its use-by date in government hands—I do not mean its use-by date in absolute terms, but in government hands—provided it is reinvested in new infrastructure or in the retirement of debt. In both those things there is a public benefit.We move on from the Commonwealth Bank to Qantas. Talking about icons: what could be a greater icon than our national carrier? Again you said you were not going to sell it, but you did. Let me move on to the medical field. What about the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories? It pioneered a number of important medical technological breakthroughs. You could probably say that medicine was one of the three pillars. But it did not concern you about selling that, nor the AIDC, nor setting up the framework to sell the airports. Some would ask what could be more essential to a country's integrity than the ownership of its airports. If you want to take emotional arguments, you could go on forever.I ask this question about something which has long been a matter of conjecture in this parliament: did the current Leader of the Opposition, when communications minister, either formally or informally signal to Frank Blount that he was prepared to sell Telstra? I do not believe that question has ever been adequately answered. On the basis of the track record of the party at that time, very little happened.Let me also take you to task over another thing. The member for Denison made a big play about 35 jobs. I am not being disparaging of the fact that he is concerned about 35 of his constituents; I would be, too. He is very concerned about the jobs of 35 of his constituents being transferred from Hobart to Bendigo; and any good, loyal member of parliament would be concerned about a thing like that.But let me put this to you. During the time that the current opposition was in total control of telecommunications and the current Leader of the Opposition was for part of that period the telecommunications minister, when none of Telstra had been sold—and your whole argument over this Telstra matter is that when the government's majority ownership goes there will not be any ability to fully control Telstra, regardless of what we might put in the act: that is the core of your argument—in the period from 1990 to 1994, the number of staff employed by Telecom dropped from 87,018 to 65,830.In other words, Telecom dropped about 22,000 jobs when you were in control of the agenda—more than 5,000 jobs per year in that period—and now you are pillorying the current government because Telstra wants to move a call centre from one state to another. I really have to bring that back onto the agenda, because you cannot go on with all these things. Let us make something very clear. With the sale of Telstra, both in the 33 per cent sale and now in this legislation for the 16 per cent sale, we have done two things. We are making the money available for the retirement of debt and we are going into new infrastructure for regional areas.Is the argument about Telstra really about bureaucratic ownership or about a mechanism that delivers a better lifestyle to the Australian people? I think the latter is more important. I conceded that it was important: I was one of those who took a very strong stand that it was important for the government to mandate certain conditions before we moved beyond 49 per cent. I wanted to be absolutely certain of that, but I am not such a bigot as to think that, once that is delivered and once there is in place a fair dinkum committee of audit which has ruled on the benchmarks and performance standards of Telstra being adequate, we cannot move on to a further sale.That committee of audit should comprise people of the highest integrity. It should have on it representatives of rural Australia as well as of capital cities. What is more, the terms of reference and the application of those terms of reference should be rigorous. If they are not, I will be the fiercest of critics from either side of the House.I would like to say that it is very important that we deliver a better standard to people in regional and rural areas. I was the person who actually moved what is now referred to as the `Bundaberg resolution' on 22 March this year. It was the administrative side of the National Party saying to the coalition, `These are the standards that must be met before we consider going beyond 49 per cent.' For example, it set standards to remove the pastoral call, which had totally disadvantaged a lot of people in outback Australia; to have untimed local calls to designated service towns; to have a program to extend the digital mobile phone network to the boundaries of the existing analog network—and that has already been, or will be, delivered on by CDMA; and to have a program to make ISDN facilities, or an alternative data-friendly technology, available to all rural Australians—and that is being worked on.Another standard set was to have an unequivocal contractual obligation to ensure that, as a minimum requirement, free-to-air commercial television would be provided by way of digital transmission to the same boundaries as for the analog signal—so that we did not have another stuff-up such as the one we had with the mobile phones. The minister has been very good in mandating that. We also wanted an inquiry into the ability of provincial free-to-air television networks to provide high definition television production and transmission; a definitive timetable to fill the existing blind spots in the current free-to-air television coverage of rural Australia; and the extension of at least two commercial television services to country areas.The government has gone beyond even that because in this bill we have rural transaction centres at $777 million over five years. I know how important that is because I had the Commonwealth Bank close the last branch in the township of Mount Morgan, in what was to become my electorate, three weeks out from the election. So I know only too well the angst that causes in the small community.The bill also extends access to untimed local calls, which we talked about earlier. It meets that standard. I know how important meeting the telecommunication needs of people in remote and isolated communities is from having been on the external territories committee and gone to Norfolk Island. There is Internet access. Mobile phone coverage along the highways comes to $25 million.I fought very strongly for one social bonus myself because an area of my electorate, which sits between two provincial cities—it is an hour and a quarter travel each side—comprises 3,000 to 4,000 people who do not have any reasonable television transmission. There is $120 million to extend television reception coverage and also the coverage of SBS to the people of the Miriam Vale Shire. That is not talking about some sentimental ownership of Telstra, that is delivering services. The whole thing is about delivering services.While I have reservations about the extremes of competition policy, competition has been good in many areas of the Australian community. Before Optus and Vodafone came on the scene, and before I got into parliament, in my previous job I remember trying to get telephone boxes for various areas. You could never get them. Telecom, as it was then, always had 1,000 reasons why you could not have these telephone boxes. We wanted a telephone box on a surfing beach so that, if someone had an accident, you could get assistance. No matter how hard we tried, we could not get them. Interestingly, since Optus and Vodafone came along, they are like mushrooms—banks of three and four, lovely aluminium things in streets everywhere. I know that is only a small example but, if you are realistic, unshackling Telstra and making it a competitive force in the community will be great for Australia.I will finish on this note: I entered into this arrangement with the minister in good faith and I would not rat on the deal. I hope that the committee of audit is well constituted and that its activities are rigorous. If it is, then I think that the Australian public will be able to move on to the further sale of Telstra, having had all these things I have outlined earlier delivered, with a great deal of confidence.12:08:00858O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I rise to speak briefly on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . I do not intend to canvass the arguments on this bill ad infinitum. I made a speech when the government made its first move to dilute the public ownership of Telstra and I canvassed what I considered to be very substantial arguments why Telstra ought to remain in public hands. Just to recap some of those, Mr Deputy Speaker, very briefly, I said at the time that this was one of the greatest sleights of hand that the Australian public had ever seen. Here was a government selling the Australian people something they already owned.The people who were going to benefit from this sale were going to be those that had some income available to purchase shares and that was certainly not the battlers in my electorate in the suburbs of Norlane, Corio, and Geelong West, and down the Bellarine Peninsula. They had not any surplus cash to purchase back from the government what they already owned but certainly those who had that cash would have been able to purchase the shares that had become available with the 33 per cent sale of Telstra.I mounted in that debate some very strong industry development arguments. This is a great Australian company at the centre of Australia's economy. It has spawned a telecommunications industry which is now export oriented and hacking its way very well in the international marketplace in a huge area of growth for our export performance. That particular aspect is one that has been ignored by this government. Telstra has a buy Australian policy that has seen it, through its purchases, assist the development of many small and medium companies as well as large companies in this economy. In that debate, I also raised the point of the impact that the sale of Telstra would have on rural and regional Australia and that is an issue that I want to address in the debate in this Main Committee.I ought to refer to some of the remarks of the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, Mr Neville, who is somebody for whom I have a degree of respect on the National Party side of politics or on the coalition side. The members in the National Party are not much chop but, certainly, the honourable member for Hinkler is one person whose views I do respect. He is a rural socialist—somebody who really has the interests of working people in his electorate at heart. I am not here to give him a free kick on that, but that is my honest view. I am very disappointed in the honourable member for Hinkler that he could entertain the wholesale sale of this great Australian and community asset to foreign interests and to institutional interests when, in fact, his electors already own this enterprise in which the benefit of the profits would flow in perpetuity to the electors of Hinkler.It is no secret that the Australian people when they make a phone call contribute to the profit of Telstra. That profit is returned to them when the government takes a share of that particular profit and builds schools and hospitals. I do not buy the argument that is being advanced that we must sell this great Australian asset to mount expenditures in the infrastructure area because we have already indicated that, from the profits of Telstra, we would put into rural and regional Australia an amount, on the last tranche of profit, of $300 million for infrastructure and social development purposes.The electors of Hinkler would know that, when they made a phone call, they would be contributing to the profits of Telstra and the Australian government would direct the enterprise to feed back to their community the infrastructure development that the honourable member for Hinkler says is so necessary in rural and regional areas. The honourable member for Hinkler must really believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden if he thinks that at the end of the day the mechanisms that the government is setting up to try to get him off the hook in his electorate because One Nation is breathing down his neck are really going to work and that his rural constituency is going to be adequately protected over time. That is just nonsense.When he mounts these arguments about what Labor did with the Commonwealth Bank and what Labor did with Qantas, let me say that there are some very, very important differences between a national telecommunications carrier and a bank which had 25 per cent of the customer base—not 100 per cent, 25 per cent of the customer base. And, of course, there is a difference between an airline on which very few working people ever travelled and a national telecommunications carrier. It is a nonsense argument when it comes to the issue of Telstra. Telstra is a critical piece of communications infrastructure to this nation.I rise in this debate to bring to the attention of the House the potential adverse impact that this sale will have on farmers and people who live in rural and regional areas. We know that the competitive edge for Australian businesses, be they in rural and regional areas, be they farming businesses, or be they in urban areas, is going to be their ability to access telecommunications technology. We already know from the surveys that have been instituted up to this point in the wake of the sale that has already taken place of one-third of Telstra, that service has declined to the constituents of the honourable member for Hinkler and to farmers and others.We have already seen disparities appearing between the usage and access of people in urban areas as opposed to those in rural and regional areas. The gap is already there. If you go out into the countryside—and the honourable member for Hinkler ought to know this—one of the problems that we face with the farming community is their slower uptake of critical technologies that could overcome the tyranny of distance and put farmers in contact with their marketplace and make sure that they retained some competitive edge as they hack it out in international markets and with economic forces beyond their control.It is absolutely critical to the farmers of this nation, and to people in rural and regional areas, that this telecommunications infrastructure stays in public hands. It is only in that way that the federal government of the day can insist, through the legislative means available to it, that services are maintained in rural and regional areas at a reasonable cost to farm businesses.One of the most important elements for the survival of Australian agriculture in the new millennium will be the way we access and utilise these telecommunication technologies. I have never been convinced, be it with the provision of electricity services to rural and remote areas, telecommunications services to rural and remote areas, and a lot of other services to rural and remote areas, that if the market conditions were to prevail that people in those areas would get a fair shake from the marketplace as far as the provision of adequate services is concerned.I congratulate the shadow minister on the way in which he has articulated our total opposition to this sale. This mob opposite would sell their grandmothers. Telstra is one of the great public assets of this nation. It is critical to the future economic survival of all Australian businesses, especially those in rural and regional communities. One after another the National Party members and rural Liberals have caved in on this particular issue. And with One Nation breathing down their necks they have gone to the government to get these particular guarantees that will not hold water over time.The electors of Hinkler need to understand that the member for Hinkler wants to sell Telstra lock, stock and barrel. That is what he wants to do. He wants to sell it and, what is more, he is prepared to entertain the sale of 35 per cent of this public asset to foreign interests. He is going to surrender the ownership of Telstra by Australians living in the Hinkler electorate and he is going to give it to foreign interests. I wish you luck with One Nation up there in Hinkler. Not only will you have them breathing down your necks; we will be after you with a vengeance on this issue. It is another betrayal by National Party members of the interests of rural and regional Australia. Make no mistake about it, farmers will be disadvantaged by this measure. People who live in rural and regional Australia will be disadvantaged by this measure and no amount of breast beating in this House by National Party members will obviate or dilute this one simple fact: the National Party has once again betrayed farmers and people living in rural and regional Australia.We will make sure that in every electorate in every forum we go to—and we will be going to them, let me tell you; we have them marked on the wall—we will be saying to the farmers, `Your local National Party member voted for the total sale of this asset to foreign interests.' That is what it amounts to; that is the bottom line in this. These National Party members that come into this House, beating their breasts about the defence of rural interest, need to have a good, long, hard look at themselves again. I oppose this bill. It is not good for Australia; it is not good for Australia's farming community; it is not good for people who live in rural and regional Australia.12:21:00860Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Throughout this debate on whether we should sell one more share of Telstra, we have heard the government members pontificate on the virtues and the perceived advantages of fully privatising our national telecommunications carrier. I want to look at some of these areas which are included in what the Prime Minister is calling the government's `social bonus'. The government claims that some of the funds will be directed towards the Natural Heritage Trust. I have stated on many occasions in this place and in the community that the protection and the rehabilitation of our natural environment should not be used as blackmail in this debate. Our natural environment is one of our greatest resources which, as we all know, we as governments hold in trust for our children and our grandchildren. Why this government has linked the environment to Telstra is beyond me.Another part of this so-called `social bonus' seems to include the establishment of rural centres. This is a government that has presided over the withdrawal of vital services in rural and regional centres. It has savagely destroyed government services in these areas and has overseen the abandonment of these areas by the private sector, including banks and industry. And still, even as of today, the Prime Minister has refused to acknowledge the impact that the proposed GST on bank fees will have on our rural communities.Further capital is proposed to be directed towards the upgrading of our telecommunication networks. This is a process which has developed and advanced telecommunication systems in Australia while Telstra was still 100 per cent Australian owned, publicly owned. There is no reason that this could not, or would not, continue without selling any more of Telstra.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—You never did it when you were in power.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—We did not sell Telstra and we did not propose to. It is a national communications carrier which is publicly owned by all Australians. Prior to 1996 and the sale of one-third of Telstra, this hugely profitable organisation was 100 per cent owned by all Australians. Telstra was one of the great public success stories. It was one of the leading telecommunications giants in the world, the main contributor towards Australia's exports of nearly $1 billion of communications products and technology every year. This had grown from about $50 million in the early 1980s. In 1996-97 Telstra recorded a profit after tax of $2.6 billion. This was an increase of over 18 per cent on the previous year.In 1996-97—this was when Telstra was still 100 per cent publicly owned—Telstra paid a total dividend to the Commonwealth, in effect to its owners who were the people of Australia, of $4.1 billion. That included a $3.15 billion bonus in special dividends. If one takes into account taxes, interest and dividends, Telstra paid a total of $6 billion to the government in the 1996-97 year before one single share was sold. Australian families do not need private share ownership while public assets deliver results like that to them via Australia's national government.After privatisation of one-third of Telstra, the total dividends paid were $1.8 billion. Of this, $1.2 billion was paid to the government; that is, Australians now own two-thirds of Telstra. The sum of $600 million was paid to those people who were able to afford to buy Telstra shares and then continue to maintain their share investment; $600 million was paid to just one-tenth of the previous owners of 100 per cent of Telstra.As I have stated previously, prior to 1996 Telstra was 100 per cent owned by all Australians. After the sale of one-third, it was owned by only one-tenth of them. And now this government wants to sell all of it. One-third of Telstra has already gone. Why? To whom? And for what purpose? The big end of town and foreign investors are the ones who will reap the rewards. Why doesn't the government ask what will happen to the consumers—those Australians who rely on affordable access to reliable, quality communication services?There have been many serious and grave concerns raised regarding the massive decline in service delivery since the first one-third sale of Telstra. I will be outlining the dire circumstances which many of my constituents in Charlton have found themselves in. But, firstly, let me draw your attention to some of the statistical data provided in the most recent issue of the Telecommunications performance monitoring bulletin. The decline in services to country areas has been particularly devastating to our rural communities that rely so much upon these services to conduct their daily business, to communicate with family and friends; they rely upon them in times of emergency. This is the constituency which returned this government and this is the constituency which is now being betrayed by it.Telstra's performance in the provision of new services declined by nine per cent to 66 per cent during the quarter ending 31 December 1997. This was a 16 per cent reduction on the quarter ending 31 December 1996. What this means is that only 66 per cent of new connections requested by customers were provided within what had been determined as an acceptable time frame. Telstra's performance in country areas in the number of faults cleared within one day also fell by seven per cent to 61 per cent in the December 1997 quarter. This was a 13 per cent reduction on the December 1996 quarter. Remember that was before one-third of Telstra was sold.I will give you an example—this has been brought to my attention by my constituents—of a small business which this government claims to represent. An article in the Newcastle Herald states:A Wallsend businessman has accused Telstra of failing to deliver service, thereby affecting his financial viability and stunting the potential growth of his suburb.The article goes on:The provider was told no more lines were available and it was not planned to install more cables.This small businessperson said:The irony is that my building is about half a kilometre from the local exchange.The article says that Telstra advised:`Currently there is not a problem with main cable pairs in the (Wallsend) CBD but distribution pairs, although available, are not plentiful.The advice also says that the situation `can be rectified quite easily'. But it was not rectified, Mr Deputy Speaker. For a business in the sixth largest city in Australia not to be able to get a phone service connected is absurd.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—Telstra continues to explain these reductions in service delivery usually in terms of organisational changes or inclement weather. These inept excuses provided by the minister to my constituents in Charlton and to all Telstra customers who have been more than inconvenienced have complete disregard for the fact that, since a partial privatisation of Telstra, over 25,000 jobs have been slashed from the organisation and that this trend continues. These figures, supplied by the two major unions representing workers in Telstra—the CEPU and the CPSU—point to the most likely reason for the decline in services. How can an organisation such as Telstra continue to maintain the previously held high level of services when the human resources provided to deliver those services are slashed by nearly a quarter? The whole proposal is ludicrous.At the 1996 election the coalition put to the electorate that, if they were to win, they would sell one-third of Telstra. In 1996 the coalition was elected with a huge majority in the House of Representatives but still without control in the Senate. The electorate which delivered that huge majority in the House of Representatives still denied the government the balance of power in the Senate. Why? Because the voters said, `Okay, you have bribed us, using our environmental conscience, but we do not trust you to push it through with no safeguards—that is, without any scrutiny or investigation in the other chamber.' At the last election Mr Howard said that the coalition government now wanted to sell all of Telstra. He backed down a bit in the wake of moves by the renegades in Queensland, the members for Kennedy and Dawson—and I am sure the member for Hinkler would probably endorse those moves.The Prime Minister announced a committee to investigate—a puppet committee, a committee that is not even required to report to the parliament, and the government will take no notice. It has not taken notice of the quality of service figures which I have quoted. It has done nothing to ensure Telstra lifts its game and returns to the quality of service provided when it was owned by 100 per cent of Australians.Very clearly, even more than in 1996, the electorate has said, `Enough is enough. We do not want the GST. We do not want further attacks on workers' rights and we do not want the sale of the rest of Telstra. We do not need or want further decline in communications services.' Let me make this point very clearly: over 60 per cent of the electorate voted against the sale of Telstra. They voted against the GST and they voted against further attacks on workers' rights.We on this side of the House have been given the responsibility by the voters to oppose the sale of one more share in Telstra. We know, the electorate knows, government members know—including the members for Kennedy, Dawson and Hinkler—and the Prime Minister knows that, if this legislation passes through the Senate in any form, our national telecommunications carrier will be sold 100 per cent—not to everyday Australians, not to workers and their families, but to those with the wealth to buy shares and then to maintain that share investment. Not only did the electorate charge us with the responsibility to oppose the sale of Telstra but the voters clearly elected a Senate composed in such a way as to deny the government carte blanche to push through this further sale of our national telecommunications carrier.This government must respect the will of the people who voted for both the House of Representatives members and the senators. This government must not pursue this agenda or demand a vote in the Senate prior to 1 July 1999, when the senators who were elected on 3 October 1998 take their seats.12:35:00863Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—in reply—I have listened with great interest to all the contributions to this debate that have been made by members over the past few days. I think it is fair to say that there is, in fact, some common agreement. There is an issue which all elements of the House agree upon: that our future prosperity depends on Australia having a first-class telecommunications network. That is what we all want. That is a theme that has run throughout all the contributions that members have made. Where the government and opposition differ is how that can be achieved.The Labor Party believes that first-class telecommunications can be achieved only through government ownership, and government ownership by one carrier, Telstra, despite the fact that we have a competitive market. I would like to point out what that competitive market consists of. When that competitive market regime commenced on 1 July 1997, last year, there were about four licences for telecommunications in this country. I think all honourable members would know those major companies. Of course there was Telstra; there was, as had been arranged by Labor when it was in power, the grandfathering in of Optus; Vodafone also had a licence; and there may have been one other. At this present time, I understand—it changes at a pretty rapid rate—there are some 26 telecommunications licences in this country of ours. Four only a little over 12 months ago; 26 today. That represents a very competitive market, that represents a very competitive field, in which all are seeking to provide the service in this growth industry.Throughout this debate something has been missing: no-one has canvassed what Telstra thinks. We now have Telstra, which, on its share value, is the largest company in Australia by a considerable amount. Simply on the value of all the shares out there in the market, it is a company worth close to $80 billion—significantly above other large Australian companies like News Ltd and the banks up there on the top line.It is interesting to note that the day after the successful float of Cable & Wireless Optus on the Australian Stock Exchange, the CEO of Telstra, Mr Frank Blount, spoke to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia on Telstra's view of creating the challenges in the Australian telecommunications market. I believe that it is important for Telstra to have a voice in this debate. I would like to quote what Mr Blount said to CEDA on 18 November, just a short time ago:Basic telephone and other core business products now account for just 55 per cent of Telstra's revenue. Aggressive and agile new competitors are emerging on an almost daily basis, especially in the international long-distance products market and the area of newer services, such as the Internet. The result, from management's perspective, is a rapidly changing mix of risks and opportunities.In our open, competitive environment, the argument for private ownership is a powerful one. We now operate in a global market against the world's largest companies, and to succeed in this environment, to grow Australia's most important information technology company, we need to have the highest level of commercial focus—a focus which naturally governments do not aspire to and cannot possess.It was the decision of the former Labor government to expose Telstra to full and open competition that created, in Frank Blount's words, a powerful argument for private ownership. We were inexorably moving down that course right throughout the 1990s as a result of Labor's decisions in the earlier part of this decade.If Telstra is going to be one of the companies delivering first-class communication solutions to Australia, then it must be able to do so unfettered by the risk of adversity approach of a government business. It is worth expanding on just what that means. A government owned business is reluctant to make business decisions that expose taxpayers to commercial risk. That is fair enough. While this reluctance assists in reducing the exposure of taxpayers to potential losses, it also constrains the company's ability to take commercial decisions that have the potential to further enhance shareholder value.I noted in this morning's paper some reference to Telstra looking at markets offshore—looking at Korea, Hong Kong, the United States and a number of other countries. None of us would argue, from the point of view of expanding this great Australian company, that it ought not to take its rightful place in this competitive world—this growth area of the world of telecommunications—and that it ought not be confined to the Australian mainland or to Australia itself. But I think all of us, as taxpayers, with our responsibilities, would argue fairly strongly that a company that wishes to expand in this nation should not expose the taxpayers' dollars to events in other countries, to systems that we have no control over, to systems that we do not even understand and to economies we cannot predict to the extent that you can do here. At least this is within our country and that is our responsibility.Telstra was unshackled by Labor back in the early 1990s, told to become competitive and is moving down that path of being a great world company—not just the great Australian company which it already is. Public ownership gives taxpayers no choice about whether they want to be exposed to commercial risk. Private shareholders are able to make assessments. They can make up their mind if they want to invest in the company or not. They can assess whether they want to and to what extent they wish to be exposed to the risks through their ownership. The transfer of Telstra from the Commonwealth to private shareholders will protect taxpayers from those risks which I have spoken about—the risks attached to owning a large commercial enterprise, operating in a changing and competitive market that the former government invited Telstra to jump into.In responding to the competitive regime begun by Labor, it must be recognised that Telstra has reduced the size of its work force. That was determined long before this government moved down the path to obtain legislation to sell the first third of Telstra. That was part and parcel of the charter which Telstra had under the competitive regime which the Labor Party set in place. To compete, it had to be competitive, and that meant looking at the way it did business, including the size of its work force.However, the value of the communication sector output grew by 11.2 per cent in the year to June 1998, compared with a growth rate of only 3.9 per cent for the economy as a whole. Industry employment has risen on an average of 4.2 per cent per year since 1993. I think the honourable member for Hinkler very properly pointed out that there is an opportunity in this growth area, that we are seeing massive expansion. We are seeing it through the competitors that are coming into the field to create jobs and the figures show that this area has more than twice the growth in employment than the economy as a whole.The government's approach to privatisation of Telstra has been consistent and it has been transparent. We have taken it to the people in two elections. It is as simple as that. There is none of this cloak and dagger stuff that we saw in the earlier parts of this decade in respect of Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank.I noted that the opposition's spokesman for communications stated that the government had engaged in some sleight of hand. This phrase, `sleight of hand', seems to have come up in the contribution of everyone from the Labor Party to this debate. He alleged that the government had engaged in some sleight of hand about its intention to ultimately sell all of Telstra. That is sheer effrontery from the party that said, `We will never sell the Commonwealth Bank.' That is what you said. You also said, `We will never sell our airlines.' You say we have engaged in sleight of hand—when we went to the people twice with this clearly on the table. We so cleverly hid our plans that there was a communications policy document released publicly during the course of the last election campaign for all of the Australian people to see. So do not talk about sleight of hand. You invented the phrase and you practised it throughout the early 1990s in the lead-up to your privatisations at that time. The Labor Party's current opposition to the legislation is simply a policy of convenience. We know that. We know that you would abandon that policy without blinking if you were in government, and that is the only conclusion that anyone, including the Australian people, can draw from the way in which you dealt with Qantas and the way in which you dealt with the Commonwealth Bank.The bills before the Main Committee will enact a comprehensive telecommunications regulatory regime with a range of consumer and competition safeguards unequalled anywhere in the world. Yet, of course, all of these bills are opposed by Labor. You do not want the protection that is contained in a number of those bills. You just oppose the whole lot because of the ideological bent you take to this particular debate. You have not identified any of the major deficiencies in the framework. You have not even suggested that it needs change. You have simply dismissed the proposed improvements as unremarkable. Wow. Unremarkable. But you are opposing them, of course, as I said, for the sake of it. You have a clear option in this case to support them regardless of your position on sale. You can assist us in tidying up, but you do not even want to look at that aspect. You can assist us in strengthening the consumer protections, but you are not interested in that either.We have clearly separated the regulation of telecommunications from the ownership of Telstra. The opposition has failed entirely to make a case why Telstra should be retained in public ownership. You have not made a case on that in any of this debate. You have demonstrably failed to indicate what ownership can achieve what industry regulation cannot. The umpire is still there. You do not have to be a player as well. The umpire controls the game, not the players.No opposition speaker in this debate has advanced a cogent public policy argument for the need to retain Telstra in public ownership. The opposition complained about service standards—we have heard a lot of that—and infrastructure shortcomings—we have heard a lot of that—which in many cases were features of the fully publicly owned monopoly when it was Telecom. It was there then and that is what you continue to debate at this point in time.You bemoaned the loss of the ministerial power to give directions to Telstra in the national interest—a power that has never been used and yet you have spoken at great length about it. It will of course be retained whilst ever the Commonwealth has majority ownership. It will be relinquished only when the Commonwealth does not have majority ownership as it should under Corporations Law. It is an entirely sensible principle at that point in time. The facts are that it was the Labor Party which removed Telstra from direct ministerial control when Labor corporatised Telecom in 1989 and reinforced it through incorporation under the Corporations Law. Labor installed the board and gave it the responsibility for running the company and ensuring that Telstra had a commercial focus rather than a public service mentality.The government has heard concerns expressed by the community about service performance. Of course we are interested in that. We have listened to those concerns that have been expressed. We have moved to address them through refinements to the regulatory regime and by phasing the sale. Under the legislation, government will retain majority ownership until there is very clear confirmation that Telstra's service performance is meeting reasonable community expectations.The opposition has claimed that if the legislation were passed the government could move to full sale without further reference to parliament. That is not correct because the regulations establishing the performance criteria will be assessed by the review and will be disallowable instruments. There is a power for the parliament to assess those regulations and to disallow if it is not satisfied. Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the regulations before we proceed to any sale beyond 49.9 per cent. We have not specified the performance criteria in the legislation because we want to get it right. We want to make sure that there is full consultation and that we get it right before those regulations are promulgated.The government is committed in the legislation to explicit expenditures on practical measures which will enhance access and will reduce the cost of telecommunications services—$671 million to enhance telecommunications services throughout Australia, which, of course, Labor wants to deprive the people in regional Australia of. Failure to pass this legislation means that tens of thousands of Australians, and their children who will reap the benefits of that particular program, will simply not get those benefits.In order to provide greater visibility and clarity, we have also brought together in one act all the consumer safeguards: the universal service obligation; the national relay service for hearing impaired people; untimed local call rights; the customer service guarantee; the provision of emergency call services; price controls; and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Scheme. This is also being opposed by Labor. We are taking the opportunity to upgrade the consumer safeguards, to put the punitive powers in there to make sure that proper backup is there to deliver those services. We have also put in an important new power of a ministerial direction on consumer matters, and we are refining the competition provisions, based on experience since 1 July 1997.One important aspect of the regulatory framework is its flexibility. This will enable the government to address issues as they emerge but always within a framework laid down in the law which is both transparent and equitable. Labor says that the best form of regulation is regulation through ownership. It does not make the slightest bit of sense and we know that they are really saying, `You can get things done by a quiet word in the right ear.' That is the theme that you are running through this entire debate—`When you own it, a quiet word in the right ear can fix any particular complaint that comes your way.' That might have been all right in the past and it might have happened in the past. For all I know, there might have been backroom deals in the past, when it came to the way in which Labor operated in government businesses. But I can say here and now that that is not the way this government operates, nor should we, in the context of the 1.6 million Australians who purchased shares in this company when given the opportunity to buy into the first tranche of Telstra when it was sold in November of last year.It may have been appropriate for you to play those sorts of games when there were no other players but there are now a lot of other people in the industry—those competitors that I spoke of—and there is an obligation to the private shareholders. There are also the duty and responsibility of the board. The board is bound by law to act in the best interests of the company as a whole. In addition, we know there is constant scrutiny by the market of Telstra's actions, which makes the cost of management decisions much more transparent.Policy making should not be captive, hankering for a simpler past, when all phones were black and were provided by the Postmaster-General's Department. Yet that is, again, what Labor want to see occur in this whole thing in the way in which they have approached this debate. They want to go back and live in the past. It has gone, and it has gone in this particular industry far more than in any other industry, with its growth and development and with the technology that is emerging on a very regular basis.There was some reference to and debate on the Australian National Audit Office report. The report clearly concluded—and this is the overriding theme, the take-out of that report—that the completion of the sale was conducted in accordance with an ambitious timetable and in a period of significant market volatility. That was fact. The Auditor-General found that this represented a significant achievement, given the unprecedented scale of the offer.That one-third sale of the first tranche of Telstra realised $14.3 billion. It realised in the course of that a recapitalisation of another $3 billion. That is a total of $17.3 billion, of which this government used almost the entire amount to pay off Labor's debt, to reduce the burden that was placed on all Australians as a result of Labor's management of this country over the 13 years prior to 1996.Despite the numerous misleading comments made by the opposition, the overall sale cost, as a percentage of the proceeds, was very low when you consider and compare the established international benchmarks. I will state a couple of figures here. The overall costs as a percentage of the proceeds of Telstra one were 1.8 per cent. When Labor sold Qantas, in its initial public offering, the costs were 2.8 per cent—a whole one per cent more than we saw as a result of the sale of Telstra. What were the costs when Labor sold CSL, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, in 1994? They were 3.1 per cent of the proceeds. Yet we hear that there was too much spent in respect of the sale, with the commissions that were given and with the amounts that were paid to the advisers, et cetera. That comparison clearly indicates what is there.This legislation gives this company a chance to grow. It gives this company a chance to make a significant contribution to Australia's economic growth, to expand its horizons as it wishes to, as it has done, as it did under Labor, as it will continue to do into the future, and as it must in the interests of its shareholders. The legislation gives this company a chance to enter a very exciting period in our economic history. (Time expired)Motion (by Mr Fahey) agreed to: That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House.Motion (by Mr Fahey) agreed to: That orders of the day Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5 be conducted in the House.Adjournment868Motion (by Mr Fahey) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.86812:57:00868Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise on the adjournment to congratulate the people of my electorate, and most particularly the Wyndham community, on defeating the CSR proposal to turn our local quarry into a toxic dump. In my first speech in this place on 11 November I said the following about the CSR toxic dump proposal: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.My words turned out to be prophetic because on 13 November, just two days later, CSR and the Wyndham City Council settled Supreme Court litigation between them on the basis that CSR would not further proceed with building the toxic dump. Since that day my community, the community of Wyndham, has celebrated the fact that we are now safe from the health risks that a toxic waste dump would have posed to the community. We have celebrated the fact that our Werribee South farmers will keep their reputation as clean, green producers of vegetables, and we have celebrated the fact that our precious Ramsar protected wetlands do not now face a pollution risk from toxic waste. But above all we have celebrated the fact that my community has proved that even in today's society where so many feel powerless, a community of ordinary people who fight together in a united way can beat the bullies, the corporate bullies and the political bullies.My congratulations on winning this fight must go to Joanne Ryan and Harry Van Morst who led the community group known as WRATD, Werribee Residents Against the Toxic Dump; to the mayor and councillors of the city of Wyndham and to their very able officers who fought the campaign for more than two years; and to our very courageous Werribee South farmers who risked everything to ensure that the toxic dump did not come to Werribee. And, most particularly, my congratulations go to Julian Menegazzo who led the Werribee South farmers in their fight.And was not the biggest political bully of them all, the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, humiliated by my community's victory? In the days immediately following the victory, and with all the tact and grace one has come to expect from the arrogant Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett berated CSR for failing to build the dump in Werribee. He berated CSR for listening to the community. He said:. . . in the end they simply did not have the stomach for seeing it through . . . In one sense, I'm not surprised. CSR would have been the most inept private-sector organisation I have come across in trying to establish a facility.Apparently the Victorian Premier is only satisfied if communities are defeated and corporate bullies go on with their flawed plans no matter what the community cost is. The Kennett display of petulance about this matter might have stolen the public show, but we must not forget that the federal coalition government failed to do anything to protect the people of my electorate from the building of this toxic dump.Last year, 20 schoolchildren from my electorate came to Canberra to ask the federal coalition government to exercise its powers under the Ramsar Convention to intervene and prevent the toxic dump being built in Werribee adjacent to internationally protected wetlands. Needless to say, the federal coalition government listened and then, with supreme indifference, failed to act. The community then went on and won this fight by themselves.I now put the governments here and in Victoria on notice that we will continue to fight to protect our precious Ramsar protected wetlands. In particular, an issue has arisen where the current Minister for Conservation and Land Management in the Victorian government, the Hon. Marie Tehan, best known in Victoria for the Intergraph ambulance dispatch fiasco, has decided that in 1999 she will review the Ramsar protected site in my electorate and develop a management strategy in respect of this site. I wrote to her on 22 October, asking how she intends to conduct this review and involve the Commonwealth, and to date have received no response. I call upon this Howard government to ensure that the Commonwealth's interest in protecting this vital site is protected. (Time expired)86913:02:00869Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—As one of those members wishing to contribute to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 , but missing out as the government truncated debate, I want to make some comments on that legislation here. There is absolutely no doubt that our health system is in urgent need of more federal assistance, and the recent Medicare agreement between Canberra and the states falls way short of the kind of money required to keep the system in proper shape. A major injection of funds is needed for country hospitals. In my own electorate the staff at Orange Base Hospital are in a state of despair at times over the lack of space and staff. Recently a heart patient was airlifted to Sydney for urgent treatment. He had relatively minor surgery during the week and then was forced to catch a train back to Orange. The reason? Only hospital to hospital transfers are available on the air ambulance. When there is no other form of transport is available, you catch the train or bus.Another patient went to Sydney expecting a heart transplant. When that operation fell through because of unavailability of a donor organ he, too, had to catch the train home. He had an angina attack at Orange station and was immediately admitted to Orange hospital. To make way for such an admission, elderly patients have been moved sometimes as far as Cowra hospital because of a lack of nursing home beds in the district. So you see there is both a state and federal funding component at work—or, might I say, not at work—here. Doctors I have spoken to at Orange are at their wits' end, quite apart from the public on the end of waiting lists.Many would argue that the almost $5 billion being injected into this incentives program is wasted and is only buying time. But I must say that I have supported, from the time of my first election and for years before that, the need for an incentive program such as this to attract people into private health insurance. Many say it will not work; it is a bandaid; it is only buying time. I can begin to appreciate that argument too. But we have to decide in this country if we want private health insurance to survive, and we will do that only if we make such insurance more attractive to those who are not attracted to it at the moment.I would have preferred a rebate scheme targeted at the younger and less well-off in the community. I do not need the rebate myself, but the fact remains that those who choose private health insurance also pay the Medicare levy. There is an argument that the levy should be increased if we want to maintain the standard of hospital care we once had in this country, but there are other reforms that are desperately needed, too. The gap payment is one of the greatest disincentives to private health insurance and, unless the AMA can come to an agreement with the health funds on this issue, people will not regard health insurance as any insurance at all.But it is not an either or situation. It is not either the $5 billion or nothing else. We should be looking at ways of sustaining both the private and public health systems and that means more funding for the public system as well and the restoration of proactive health programs like the scrapped dental scheme. The federal and state governments need to expand the multipurpose service model in smaller communities so the federal aged care and state hospital care functions are clearly defined and properly funded. Some communities will have to accept rationalisation of services so sufficient resources can be given to base hospitals. We should also regulate Medicare provider numbers to communities, not doctors, in need. I have always believed public health funding should be exclusively a federal matter, then we could have a truly federal health system without the constant bickering about cost shifting. We need a strong private and public health system in this country, not an ideological debate that gets us nowhere. We need to encourage private health cover as much as we need to provide more resources and staff to base hospitals like Orange.In the few moments I have got left, I also want to place on record my hope that the Prime Minister will initiate a review of the parliamentary superannuation scheme. This issue is a running sore out there in the community, and until this scheme is brought into line with acceptable community standards, there is no way we can stand here and talk about youth wages, cut backs at Centrelink or rules that restrict access to superannuation when people are downsized in middle age and desperate for those funds.We remain a bunch of hypocrites while ever this super scheme remains in its current form, where people can leave in their mid-30s and enjoy half a backbenchers' salary for life. It is absurd and unfair. How can we describe ourselves as leaders if we follow the leader to this trough? The Prime Minister must instruct his Minister for Finance and Administration to get cracking on this reform now.87113:06:00871Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to a number of talented young people in my electorate of Hinkler, in particular in the city of Bundaberg. As I have said many times in this place, my electorate is one rich in nature's gifts and renowned for agriculture and manufacturing innovation. But today I would like to speak with some pride about the cultural achievements of our high school students.Recently, Bundaberg bands and orchestras dominated the B grade section of the Australian Academy Festival of Music in Brisbane. This followed Bundaberg State High School's earlier victory in the open section of the state-wide competition, Fanfare. At the Academy Festival of Music, Shalom Catholic College, Kepnock State High School and St Luke's Anglican School were all outstanding but, unfortunately, Bundaberg State High School was absent. Shalom Catholic College won the B grade string ensemble category for five to 15 members in competition with orchestras from eight other schools.Kepnock High School won the B grade string orchestra competition and was third in the full orchestra section. St Luke's Anglican College came home second to Kepnock in the orchestra section and third to Kepnock in the B grade string orchestra competition. However, I would like to reserve a particular note of praise for the performance this year of Bundaberg State High School. Late in November 1997, Bundaberg State High School was named best regional school for music in Queensland. Since then the students involved have gone on to bigger and better achievements in music at the school and some, of course, have moved on to university and the conservatorium.Earlier this year, Bundaberg hosted the Queensland Eisteddfod. At this competition, the school's string orchestra was placed first, as were its choir and concert band. From the eisteddfod, the school auditioned for the biennial Fanfare competition and, of the six groups that made district finals, three were from Bundaberg State High School—a truly remarkable achievement. The string orchestra, conducted by Christine Buwalda, won at district level and then went on to the state finals in Brisbane, where the orchestra of 25 was crowned state champion.The string group have recently returned again from Brisbane, where they represented the school at the recent Showcase concert sponsored by the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. They were asked to play the finale for the concert, which was the showcase for the best music performers in schools in Queensland. The high standard of musical achievement at Bundaberg State High School is testimony to the efforts of the instrumental music staff and a very effective music curriculum group. I also pay tribute to the principal of the school, Mr Dave Wilkinson, for his leadership of this particular venture. I know he takes culture as a very serious part of the school's profile.I cannot recall, in 30 years of living in Bundaberg, when we have enjoyed such a wealth of musical talent. It is a credit to teachers, parents and students alike at all the schools. It is also testimony to the far-sighted music programs established in Queensland schools under previous state coalition governments. It just goes to show that there is a real wealth of talent in rural and regional Australia—all the more reason for the government to sit up and take notice of these areas and ensure their continued economic, social and cultural vibrancy.87213:11:00872Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I want to take the opportunity to talk about a very frustrating problem in my electorate, but it is not unique to Canberra. It is the inability of some households to adequately receive television. I have an area in my electorate, to the south of here, about 30 kilometres from this house, which is a very modern, newly established urban area in the suburb of Conder, with the relating areas of Banks and Gordon particularly, which is locally known as the Lanyon Valley. It is the southern end of Tuggeranong. Whilst the problem is not unique to that area, that area seems at the moment to be suffering the greatest deprivation in relation to TV reception.There are houses down there that cannot receive any free-to-air channels at all. The reason is that, in the infrastructure planning process for that urban development, nobody thought to go beyond checking the supply of water, roads, light, gas, power in general, and so on; nobody thought of including TV reception as a question. The outcome is that we have families with young children who do not get to watch their favourites like B1 and B2. On rainy days in school holidays we have parents going quite insane trying to look after kiddies at home. But, more importantly, we have families who have an expectation, living in the national capital, that they will be able to automatically receive television, but they cannot.There have been a lot of meetings, and a lot of lobbying on my part on behalf of this part of the community—currently to no avail. But we will be continuing with gusto because I cannot believe that we need to accept that, because nobody thought of it, nothing can be done in an equitable fashion. There have been some suggestions, loosely described as `self pay', that maybe community cooperatives could be set up. All of these things are fine but they mean quite an amount of money. They also come on the coat-tails of some of these households having already spent, in some cases, up to $1,500 for metres-high antennas—all to no avail. I am of the view that, unless you happen to live in the middle of the Simpson Desert or somewhere geographically related, you really do have a right in this country to receive television as a member of our urban community particularly.One family in particular, to give a good example, came from Cowra or that area, having lived on the land for generations. Unfortunately, the gentleman has contracted MS. For health reasons, they sold up, moved to the ACT and are very happy. They have built their new home in this particular area and they tell me that they had every television reception they could ever dream of where they came from but they cannot get anything here. I have visited people's homes and have watched their TV screens and they look like some piece of abstract modern art. They in no way relate to what we would call television.The message we need is twofold. First of all, we have to acknowledge that the right we now assume that people have for information flow in our communities actually covers the reception of television. I know this occurs in other areas—there are what they call geographic shadows behind hills and buildings; I understand that. But, with the technology we have today, I cannot believe that we cannot somehow work towards addressing it in a sensible way.It is equally important to encourage local government, in its development in this country generally, to examine this as part of its infrastructure for urban development as well, whether it be a new suburb on the edge of Broken Hill or an area on the outskirts of Sydney, Melbourne, Coffs Harbour, Canberra or wherever. Whilst we acknowledge the flow of information and the receipt of that by our community, we must ensure that it is possible and that, if people are forced to live in area where this cannot be done, they know that from the outset and do not go blindly into a situation where they find they cannot redeem their services.My efforts on behalf of the people in that area will not be stilled. We will continue to try, inventively, to find a way around this because I think it is an appropriate thing to do. I look forward to further correspondence and, hopefully, some meetings with government officials to try and come to a satisfactory outcome on behalf of these people—and, I hope, consequently, on behalf of a lot of other people as well.87313:16:00873Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I know that, effectively, the activities of the chamber have wound up, but I would like to support for a few minutes my colleague who has just spoken, in her request for better television transmission. I know just how frustrating it is to have people living so close to a major provincial centre like Canberra without being able to get decent television reception.I have a parallel case in the electorate of Hinkler, between the cities of Bundaberg and Gladstone. They are only 2¼ hours apart, but the several thousand people of the Shire of Miriam Vale, which contains the townships of Miriam Vale, Bororen, Turkey Beach, Agnes Water and Seventeen Seventy—Agnes Water and Seventeen Seventy being the Noosa of the future—do not have adequate television.My colleague may not be aware that I made a particular point of this in the last parliament. If she refers to the social bonus that is being proposed by the government in the next 16 per cent sale of Telstra, which we just dealt with earlier today, she will find that $120 million has been put aside for the extension of television transmission. I understand that $60 million of that will go to the extension of SBS and another $60 million to the extension of general television facilities, presumably commercial stations.The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, as I understand it, has not yet laid down any guidelines, but from informal discussions I have had with him I think it is envisaged that the community has to take a part in asking for these additional transmission facilities, and also that the commercial television stations need to cooperate.The point I am making is that the government has now provided a facility which will allow some of these black spots in television transmission to be repaired. I would be happy to work with my colleague and those in other parts of Australia who are in this anomalous situation to see that all the people of Australia have adequate access to television transmission. I hope that, as soon as the next partial sale of Telstra is completed, the government will deliver on that promise.Main Committee adjourned at 1.18 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing874The following answers to questions were circulated:874(Question No. 18)18874Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case.875Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)—(2) I am advised that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has not undertaken any measures which could be categorised as positive discrimination programs for the Department's staff or potential staff. However, the Department is committed to providing employment equity in the workplace and to valuing the diversity of its staff.