1998-11-303911REPS87501998-11-30Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports87587512:32:00875Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 19th ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) Conference, Kuala Lumpur in August 1998. The delegation's participation in the 1998 ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference in KL came at a time of considerable economic and political turbulence throughout the ASEAN region. The organisation had expanded its size during the previous year. The Asian economic crisis was already impacting on all ASEAN countries, and several had recently experienced changes of political leadership—for example, in Indonesia—or some degree of political instability. It was interesting to note that only, I think, the week after the delegation left KL the then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia was imprisoned.Australia's role in the region, particularly its financial support and provision of technical expertise to several ASEAN countries, meant that our delegation was particularly welcome and was very warmly received. At the prior request of the Indonesian delegation, we held a separate bilateral meeting with that country's delegation to discuss ways in which Australia could help Indonesia develop its democratic institutions and help with other areas of concern.Unfortunately, after a very worthwhile ASEAN AIPO conference in KL, when the delegation moved on to PNG for its subsequent scheduled bilateral visit to that country the visit had to be aborted within a few hours of arriving in Port Moresby because of the calling of the federal election. We all came home in something of a hurry.The delegation is most appreciative of the help and assistance of Australian staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Parliamentary Relations Office, the Parliamentary Library and our posts in KL and Port Moresby. We are particularly grateful to the Malaysian and ASEAN staff for being such generous hosts and organising the conference so expertly. All members of the delegation learned a great deal, benefited from the networking opportunity and made new friends.I would like to thank all members of the delegation for their cooperation and the support that they gave me as the leader in ensuring that Australia benefited from its participation in the 1998 ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference, which I think advanced our standing within the region. I would like to thank the secretary, Denis Boutcher. Secretaries on these delegations always work twice as hard as anybody else—as I know, Mr Speaker, you will attest—and I would like to thank the delegation secretary for all of his hard work.The essence of the message that we took to this conference was that a friend in need is a friend indeed, and I think that was commonly and widely recognised amongst the ASEAN countries that we had dealings with during the conference. We of course have helped several in terms of financial bailouts and other specific purpose assistance, as well as our ongoing trading activity. In these conferences, formal speeches are made in the general plenary sessions and, as an observer to this conference, Australia had the opportunity to speak. The speech that I delivered is contained within the report.There were then dialogues with observer countries, where each of the ASEAN countries sends along some delegates to have a detailed discussion with an individual country. In our case, we had some very fruitful discussions on regional financial difficulties and on economic trade and relations, particularly subregional cooperation—in other words, the growth areas. I think that was particularly relevant to the Northern Territory. We had fruitful discussions on the nuclear non-proliferation and CTBT areas. We were certainly at one in our views there.The subject of Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party came up, as it does on a regular basis. Obviously there were concerns expressed in terms of trade, business, education and tourism and the peoples of ASEAN countries coming here. My colleague who is to speak next, I think, will elaborate on the bilateral conversations we had with the Indonesian delegation. But, suffice it for me to say, we discussed a wide-ranging list of issues with them, and there have been subsequent visits to Indonesia by the CDI and from some members of the Indonesian parliament to this country.Having attended the previous year's AIPO in Indonesia as well as this year's AIPO, I certainly detected a change of mood. Previously, ASEAN was on the rise and we were perhaps something of an adjunct. I think—given the troubles and given our not forcing our view and our assistance, but in fact encouraging and supporting ASEAN countries in so many ways—this time we were far better accepted and part of the group, rather than being just an outsider as we had been before. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:37:00876Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—If a week is a long time in politics, the three months since the delegation attended the AIPO conference in Kuala Lumpur seems like an eternity. As the member for Aston indicated, the conference we attended was opened by the then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim, and I think all members of this House share with the delegation deep concerns about the situation affecting Anwar Ibrahim.As the member for Aston also indicated, the most common issue that was raised normally in informal circumstances with the Australian delegation was the question of one Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party. Fortunately, that particular star is rapidly dimming, which should do no end of good for our relationships within our region.Also, over the last three months, there has probably been an increased national recognition of the fact that was pointed out dramatically by ASEAN countries particularly: the IMF is certainly not the fount of all wisdom in relation to international economic affairs. That realisation has become increasingly a shared view elsewhere in the world. Nonetheless, as was indicated by the subsequent APEC forum, the financial and economic circumstances of the region are catastrophic and certainly defy simple explanation or simple prescription.As with the APEC conference, the AIPO conference devoted a considerable amount of time to issues in relation to economic cooperation and trade liberalisation. As the member for Aston indicated also, from the Australian perspective, one of the more interesting discussions that occurred at sessions around the conference rather than at the formal conference itself was the longer term opportunity for Australia to participate through the ASEAN model of growth triangles, and the opportunity for Northern Australia particularly, in association with eastern Indonesia and the southern Philippines, to enter into somewhat more structured arrangements is very real and one which presents very exciting long-term prospects for this country.At the time of the conference, Malaysia had not yet taken the very dramatic steps that it has now to insulate itself from global financial turmoil. Nonetheless, there was great focus at the conference on financial markets. The mood of the conference was very much one of wanting to attempt to focus on the creation of effective international institutions. Certainly I think it is true to say that an approach to financial matters based on deregulation was not the flavour of the month.The conference also brought to members of the Australian delegation, certainly to me, the human dimension of the catastrophe that has hit so much of Asia, and in the bilateral discussions, particularly with the Indonesians, some very valuable exchanges took place. One of the issues the Indonesian delegation did raise with us, which I would certainly urge the government to look at very closely, if it is not doing so already, is the plight of Indonesian students, not just tertiary students but particularly secondary students studying in Australia in circumstances where the value of the rupiah has fallen through the floor. This situation is generating very substantial hardships for Indonesian students.In my particular part of Melbourne, for example, there is an Islamic secondary college which is attended, I believe, by 18 Indonesian students and those students, I am advised by the administration of the college, are suffering very considerable difficulties. Interestingly enough, the sons of one of the parliamentarians from the Indonesian delegation attend that particular school. That is a matter I intend to continue to pursue, but I would urge the government to take it up very closely as well. It is an important issue in sustaining the opportunities that are presented in Australia for Indonesians to study here, and we are all aware of the very long-term benefits that are derived for this country by those associations.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the presentation of this paper has expired.Private Members' Business87787712:42:00877Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I move:That this Parliament calls for the referral of an inquiry into the Australian insurance industry to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Administration and the issues to be considered to include:(a) the moral and legal responsibility of insurance companies to honour policies in respect of storm damage and flood;(b) necessary legislative change to ensure pedantic definitional arguments are not used by companies to negate payments to policy holders;(c) the examination of the legislative base in the provision of flood insurance in the USA and UK and its potential relevance to Australia;(d) the ways in which insurance companies approached the interpretation of storm and flood damage in recent disasters in Wollongong, Katherine, Coffs Harbour and Townsville; and(e) existing Commonwealth and State or Territory government legislative support mechanisms to assist areas and victims affected by such disasters and whether changes are necessary to ensure rapid and effective relief. This particular motion has been brought before this House with a sense of anger and frustration on behalf of my constituents in Wollongong. It has been brought forward specifically because of the events that followed the deluge which affected my electorate on 17 August last when an enormous rainstorm—the size of which is difficult to comprehend unless you were actually there on the night—unleashed a tremendous amount of water on the city. Hydrologists estimate something like 16 inches in old terminology fell within one hour and something like 25 inches fell in eight hours on the city of Wollongong.As a consequence, as I am sure you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, the ongoing effects of that particular storm have been traumatic on people whose homes were affected, on people whose cars were affected and on people generally who live within Wollongong and in some way were affected by the events of that night. The hardship and the trauma are still there for many of these people, and the hardship and trauma were exacerbated by the failure of the insurance industry in this nation to come to the aid of those people who had been paying—many of them for 20, 30, 40 years—for insurance policies that they thought covered them in the circumstances of the night.The ridiculous nature of those insurance policies was highlighted by the fact that people whose cars were destroyed by that massive volume of water were actually paid out, but those people whose homes were destroyed or partially affected in some way by the same deluge found that the insurance companies were playing semantics with words, with definitional problems of what was a flood, what was a rainstorm and what was the cause of that devastation. As a consequence, many in the first instance were refused the just, fair and reasonable compensation which they really deserved.As a consequence, we saw the growth of people power in Wollongong to try to get the insurance companies to change their minds. We had the obligatory visits by people. The Premier, Mr Carr, actually arrived in Wollongong on the Tuesday and, to his very great credit, declared a state of natural disaster in the Wollongong area, which triggered funding for a variety of things, including personal hardship assistance, loans, subsidies and assistance for the Wollongong City Council in dealing with some of the trauma—a trauma which was estimated to cost the city of Wollongong something like $70 million in terms of property damage alone.The Premier responded appropriately, as did Minister Faye Lo Po', Minister for Community Services, who immediately issued a whole range of notices which gave support and comfort to people affected. As a consequence, DOCS established a number of registry offices throughout the city to assist people to register for the benefits that might be payable.Also immediately after the event, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister showed an interest in the events in Wollongong, and they scheduled visits. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, came to Wollongong on the Thursday and, to his great credit, he went around and met people on the ground. The Premier had come on the Tuesday and did the same thing. Mr Fischer toured around and spoke to people, and there was a lot of genuine sympathy coming from him. He said he would take the issue up with the Prime Minister and the minister for finance, who had responsibility for the insurance industry. That was fine, and I took him at his word.On the Sunday night, the Lord Mayor received a phone call from the Prime Minister's office saying the Prime Minister wanted to be there on the Monday. I welcomed that as well. I had written to the Prime Minister's office on the Tuesday morning asking for immediate assistance, and the fact that the Prime Minister himself decided to come was a recognition of the fact that this was a disaster of incredible proportions. So we welcomed him to Wollongong on the Monday.The Governor-General had come on the Saturday, and he made some very telling comments about the insurance industry, saying that they should loosen the purse strings and pay up for the people who had been affected. The Prime Minister came but, unfortunately, what we sought from him really did not eventuate. We would have liked a considerable amount of assistance, particularly in putting back the flood mitigation program which his government had cut two years previously in the budget. That affects not only Wollongong but other council areas around Australia in their ability to put flood mitigation works in place. Unfortunately, we did not get that, but the Prime Minister made a pledge of $100,000 towards the Lord Mayor's emergency relief program. As welcome as that was, it did not go anywhere near fixing the problem.It is unfair simply to say that this government should have responded a little more: there is one part of the government I can be highly critical of, and that is Senator Newman. She had the power, under legislation that exists in this country, to release special benefits for flood victims, and she refused to do so. When I questioned her office—as did the media—about why this was the case, the response was that there was only one death. There was one death because of those floods and storms and, as a consequence, the minister would not free up the special benefits under the social security legislation to assist people in Wollongong. It is an absolute disgrace.But our anger is directed more towards the insurance companies themselves, because they have come out with extensive media campaigns telling people, `Come and get on board; help is at hand' and `Don't worry if you get into any sort of trouble. We will be there to look after you.' Where were they when these people needed help? Mr Fahey, the minister for finance, talked to the Insurance Council of Australia and they said to him, `We have assessors out in the field.' Big deal. Those assessors, doing the best they could, nevertheless found that the insurance companies were refusing, almost point-blank, every application for funds to assist people who were affected with material damage.There was no help until people power began, with the community organisations, the council and the local federal and state members. I am delighted that my colleague the member for Throsby is going to speak in this debate, because he and I were there at the meetings and at the rallies. He and I were there giving assistance to the people of Wollongong. He and I were out there on the night itself and in the subsequent week and a half, trudging around talking to people and giving them advice. These people were traumatised, not knowing what they had to do to get the insurance companies to come to the party on their behalf.Subsequently, we got letters like this one I received, as an insurance policy holder, from GIO. It states:Much of the media coverage of the aftermath of the storm and flooding in Wollongong has created the impression that many hundreds of householders have been `abandoned'.This is far from the truth.That is not true! They did abandon them. They were quite prepared to not do anything until people power got onto them, until people rallied at the NRMA annual meeting and yelled abuse at the people on the stage who were handling all this money on behalf of NRMA shareholders, and until they went on another rally at the Australian Stock Exchange to put their point of view there when companies were still refusing to bend to the will of the people.It is true that a number of companies did the right thing, finally. NRMA, GIO and several others have done the right thing, but there are others who are still holding out and refusing to pay out to people whose lives have been devastated. As a consequence of the ongoing people pressure that was brought to bear, the Insurance Council of Australia had a talkfest on this issue the other day and put out a statement to me, which I just received this morning. It says that several companies have already indicated that they will be offering cover from some time next year for flood damage. They have. NRMA have indicated they will offer coverage—for $3,000 a year! The principle might be right and their heart might be in the right area, but the cost is certainly going to exclude many of my constituents who might want to think about this.The point is, in the case of Wollongong, that it was not a flood—it was a storm. The game of semantics that insurance companies play as to whether or not they are going to pay out is just unbelievable. That is why I have put this motion forward. It calls for us to review these circumstances and to look at the definitional problems, and it calls for referral to one of the parliamentary committees to examine this issue. It calls for us to look at what happens in the United States and the United Kingdom where, as I understand it, they do offer coverage—not for $3,000 a year but for a reasonable amount for people who perhaps live in flood-prone areas. In the case of Wollongong, many of the people were not in flood-prone areas at all. They were affected by a massive amount of water coming off the escarpment in a short period of time.As a consequence, I think it is time for the insurance industry in this country to be looked into and for the issues we have raised to be looked at in a parliamentary committee. The industry could put forward their points of view, as could many other people in my area and around Australia who have been similarly affected. (Time expired)DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.12:52:00879Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I can say right at the outset that I share the indignation and anger of the member for Cunningham, because Coffs Harbour, which is in my electorate, was hit by stormwater—not floods but stormwater—on 23 November 1996. I just might read a couple of headlines. One report headed `Deadly torrent' states:One woman was killed, caravans were wrecked, shops and houses flooded and millions of dollars in damage caused by the deadly torrent which smashed through the centre of Coffs Harbour on Saturday night.Another article headed `Torrent sweeps woman to death' states:A woman slipped from her husband's grasp and drowned as they struggled through 2m floodwaters to reach a rubber dinghy that had come to save them . . . Sadly, the body of that lady, Alannah Amanda, was found 1.3 kilometres out to sea. That is an indication of just how strong those floodwaters were. People in caravans were in a most distressed situation. The article goes on to state:Caravan park manager Luke Hartsukyer freed one trapped resident by cutting a hole in the roof of his caravan.Another article is headed `Victims call for help'. I might say this followed the visit by the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, to Coffs Harbour who, bearing in mind the storm was on Saturday night, arrived on Tuesday and inspected all of it. I was very pleased that he was able to be there. I commend the member for Cunningham for this motion, and I congratulate him. The points that he makes in the motion are very significant. The first point is `the moral and legal responsibility of insurance companies to honour policies in respect of storm damage and flood'. If people have been paying their premiums for 10, 20, 30 and 40 years in some cases and, suddenly, there comes an event, an incident, and the insurance companies walk away from them—it is not good enough. As in the case of Wollongong, this was stormwater.A flood is where, as we had earlier this year, the rain falls on the Great Dividing Range and eventually the water moves down through Tamworth to Gunnedah to Narrabri. That is a flood because it is coming down and flooding out. In Coffs Harbour's case, the water was flowing through the houses 1½ to two metres deep before the creek even burst its banks. This was water coming off the hills. As the Bureau of Meteorology said in its report:An extreme rainfall event affected Coffs Harbour and environs during the afternoon and evening of 23 November, 1996. . . . The heaviest 24 hour rainfall reported was 540 mm near Boambee Bay, with numerous reports of rainfall in excess of 400 mm along the hills. The heaviest rainfall fell in the six hour period from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m.One fall of 459 millimetres is the equivalent in the old measurement of 18 inches—incredible! The report went on:Preliminary indications are that the rainfall rates were well in excess of a 1:200 year—not 1 in 100—rainfall event—possibly approaching probably maximum precipitation type probabilities (1 in thousands of years event . . .That is how bad it was. It was not a flood. It was just the heavens opening and that water running off the hills and straight through the town. Cars were being washed away before the water even reached the creek.The situation with the insurance companies is that GIO and NRMA are now coming to the party. There was even a meeting in Coffs Harbour this morning, and GIO have agreed to accept the claims and pay outstanding claims. That is worth about $400,000 for 41 GIO customers.8I4MARTINMr Martin—I bet it is an ex gratia payment.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—I acknowledge what the honourable member for Cunningham said.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cowper knows better than to respond to the member for Cunningham's interjection, helpful though it was meant to be.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—Ex gratia payments are not necessarily satisfactory. In fact, they are totally unsatisfactory. What we have to do is get insurance companies to honour their obligations. This means that where such stormwater instances appear they have to be paid for. Ex gratia payments are not satisfactory.I will just describe what actually happened. Sustained heavy rainfall combined with a high tide on the evening of 23 November resulted in flooding to the central business district of Coffs Harbour. There were much heavier rainfall totals—403 millimetres—as I said before. The flood peak hit Coffs Harbour at about 9 p.m. The New South Wales State Emergency Service reported the flooding reached a depth of approximately 1.5 metres—two metres in some places—with 300 houses and 200 shops damaged, and most businesses affected. Extensive damage was done to banana plantations. There was a great loss there. I am very pleased to say that John Anderson, then the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, came the following week and inspected some of the banana plantations. It was absolutely amazing to see—you could not even walk in—packing sheds that I had been in on previous occasions completely filled with silt and rocks and destroyed. If I can quote very briefly from a report from Mr Greig Ireland, who is the district horticulturist: Growers in the worst hit areas have areas of their farm with up to 100% loss as a result of large area land slippage and severe gully erosion. Areas of up to 1.5 hectares have been completely washed down the hillsides . . .In the Bruxner Park area, large area erosion has completely wiped out packing sheds, with one grower losing both his avocado and banana packing sheds along with cool rooms. Roadways throughout the banana areas are closed due to landslides, making it impossible for some growers to reach their plantations.I am also pleased to say that, when John Anderson came the following week and inspected the area, it resulted in a payment of $100,000 to assist banana growers to repair their roads so they could at least get back onto their hillsides and start to recover.The district horticulturist recommended that the area be declared a disaster area. Wollongong—and this is a strange thing to say—has been lucky, because the Premier did go there. The Premier was asked to go to Coffs Harbour, and he could not care less. That is the reality of it. Wollongong has been declared a natural disaster area, which means that the Commonwealth can participate in providing money to assist the state. Even though the council and everybody else requested the Premier to declare Coffs Harbour a natural disaster area, it was not done. This meant that everybody was on their own, not only being maltreated by the insurance companies but also missing out on assistance from the state government. This also meant the state then missing out on assistance from the federal government.The Katherine floods were declared a natural disaster area by the Territory government. People have to understand that the Commonwealth cannot participate in this unless the state or territory governments ask them to. I am very pleased that, in the instance of Wollongong, the state government did ask. In the case of Coffs Harbour, it did not ask. In the case of the Katherine floods, every adult was given $1,000 in cash and every child was given $200 in cash. There was no means test, just immediate aid to assist them, and that was absolutely essential. But Coffs Harbour again missed out.I would like to summarise by saying that the NRMA are now paying all policy holders rejected on the basis of flood and all costs associated with the claims. These payments are ex gratia and they make no acknowledgment of liability. One point of the member for Cunningham's motion was to look at the ways in which insurance companies approach the interpretation of storm and flood damage and to ensure pedantic definitional arguments are not used by companies to negate payments. He is spot on on this. The argument as to whether it is a storm or a flood in the cases of Wollongong and Coffs Harbour is clear-cut. These were not floods; these were storms. Under the existing policies those insurance companies had an absolute obligation to pay those policies.But some insurance companies are still holding out both here and in Wollongong, and I will name them. QBE, NZI and Suncorp are ones which are not doing the right thing. I must pay a special tribute to Ms Jenny Bonfield, who, on behalf of the Coffs Harbour Chamber of Commerce, has fought the fight and has resulted in getting the two companies—NRMA and GIO—to come forward, even though they are making only ex gratia payments. They really need to make sure that they honour their obligations in those policies.The question of providing flood insurance at a cost of $3,000 per policy is absurd. As with all insurance, we should be putting a small amount on every policy around Australia to provide everybody with flood insurance. Wollongong was not flood prone and Coffs Harbour was not flood prone: who knows where it will be next? If everybody pays a small amount, everybody will benefit. (Time expired)13:02:00881Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I was pleased to second this important motion by the member for Cunningham. Throughout one's lifetime a few major investments are made—a car every so often and the family home. Naturally, as these are major outlays, especially for working people, they are usually covered by insurance. Security is something we all seek, whether it be our personal security or the security of our major investments we have made throughout our life. Many hundreds of people in the Illawarra thought they had this peace of mind. When the Illawarra was devastated on 17 August and so many homes were damaged beyond repair, they felt the insurance companies would honour the insurance policies held for so long.But the insurance companies stood united in rejecting these claims. Countless people told me they had regularly paid their insurance premiums even if, as so often happened, it meant going without other things over the years so that they could have that peace of mind regarding their lifetime investments. Yet so many people, as the honourable member for Cunningham and the member for Cowper said, were devastated, indeed traumatised, when the insurance companies refused to honour their obligations.The insurance companies showed no compassion or understanding. It was only because of the determination of the local people and the campaign waged and led by a few outstanding individuals like Mark McDonald, who took on the insurance companies from a legal perspective, and Richard Netterkorn from SWAG, the Storm Water Action Group, that we have seen some of the insurance companies—but not all—accept their responsibilities. The campaign would not have been so successful without the total support of the Illawarra Mercury, which day after day brought the readers of the Illawarra Mercury the stories of the tragedy of so many families in the Illawarra. The Mercury publishes a shame file and I am going to quote from it and have it incorporated into Hansard. The shame file reads:. As part of The Mercury 's continuing campaign to encourage the insurance companies to met their obligations to our community, today we publish a list of those which have paid up, and those which haven't.. The information comes from the Storm Water Action Group (SWAG) and local solicitors, and will be updated and published regularly. . PAYING: CIC, NRMA, GIO, Commonwealth Connect, Australian Pensioners Insurance (Australian Alliance), AMP.Anyone who reads or listens to this speech throughout Australia should bear in mind that the following are the insurance companies which are refusing to meet their obligation. If you have your house or other things insured with them, I urge you to change your policies immediately. Those still to pay are: QBE, Zurich, Commercial Union, NZI, Suncorp, Mercantile Mutual, VACC, FAI, CUMA, MMI, AXA.The people of the Illawarra showed their usual grit and determination by not accepting what the big insurance companies were saying. They campaigned and they rallied. The way insurance companies in general are looked at will never be the same in Australia again. It has got to be changed. Why should people have to put themselves through this? Why should communities have to go through this just to claim what is rightfully theirs?The insurance companies used pedantic arguments about what was a flood and what was a storm. I can understand in towns where you see a flood coming for two weeks and it is a regular occurrence why insurance companies will not cover this and why they regard that as a flood. But surely the whole essence of insurance is the risk factor. We take out insurance because of the risk factor. We hope we will never have to call on the insurance but we expect, if we need to call on it, it will be honoured.One suspects the insurance companies have hijacked the definition of `flood' to suit themselves. Flood is more than any watercourse breaking its bank. What occurred in Wollongong was a sudden, violent storm. Just as the insurance companies would meet anything that happened from bushfires, they should also—and I believe they have a legal responsibility to do this—meet storm damage. You cannot compare floods that you have been waiting on for two weeks with a sudden torrential downpour, as the member for Cunningham has said. Anyone who lived through that night in Wollongong would remember that the skies just opened and the water came down. In the many years I have lived there I have never experienced anything like what we experienced then.Mr Martin interjecting—DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—That is it. I just never experienced anything like it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am very reluctant to interrupt the member for Throsby, but what you sought to incorporate is entirely readable and therefore it is not appropriate to incorporate it. You may want to modify your speech to bear that in mind.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has been some inappropriate comment made on this, not least, as usual, from Padraic McGuinness, who argues in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that there should be no payment for the insurance claims in the Illawarra. He talks about the NRMA's decision to throw $2 million of its members' funds away to help the people who have suffered in Wollongong. He argues against that and states:If they were not informed when they bought their houses that floods were not insured against, they may have a claim against their legal advisers.Then he says:But if we are to insist that insurers cover every possible misfortune, we are signing the death warrant of the insurance industry.Surely the insurance industry is there as a risk, so that when you suffer something such as this you are covered. This is an apology for the insurance industry, which would not meet its responsibility. He goes on to say:So while I feel sorry for the sufferers in Wollongong—big deal!—and am happy that some of my taxes will go to help them, their demands that insurers compensate them for risks they never insured against are intolerable.To put it at its kindest, that is crap—absolute crap. The people of Wollongong insured their houses and the contents of those houses against what was happening, and the fact that the insurance companies will not meet their demands is a disgrace. He goes on to say:Any chief executive of an insurance company who follows the NRMA backdown ought to be sacked. Unless he or she takes the money out of the budget for good causes . . . Mr Speaker, you know that the insurance companies have a responsibility, but they do not have a responsibility to act in a pedantic manner by arguing about `storm' or `flood'. What happened in Coffs Harbour and other parts was obviously a storm. It was unexpected, sudden, and had not been counted on. Those houses were insured, and the insurance companies should pick up their responsibilities.Although I have highlighted the situation that many people in the Illawarra found themselves in, the motion moved by the honourable member for Cunningham goes much wider in that we are calling for an inquiry into the insurance industry of Australia—just as, a few years back, there was an inquiry into the banking industry. Putting the insurance companies under the spotlight is long overdue in this country—long overdue. They have been getting away with far too much as they proffer up their millions and millions of dollars of profit each year.They have been getting away with that for far too long. It is time that they were put under the scrutiny and spotlight of a parliamentary inquiry so that committee of inquiry can go around Australia and give the opportunity to people throughout Australia to put their case. It is not going to be a `bash the insurance companies' exercise: obviously, the insurance companies will appear before the inquiry as well. Hopefully, something will come out of the recommendations that are made from that inquiry so that people of the Illawarra, Coffs Harbour and other parts of Australia do not have to go through this trauma again if their lives are devastated by storm.The inquiry will, I am sure, highlight the many inadequacies and inconsistencies in the industry. For example, in Wollongong, houses beside each other were treated differently by different companies. In one case, the same house had two different interpretations made by two different insurance companies. Some insurance companies are making much of the fact that they are now saying that they will look at the possibility of covering for flood. The difficulty is, as the honourable member for Cunningham has said, that the premiums, at $3,000, are beyond the reach of many people.What we have to do—and maybe we have to look overseas—is to come up with a scheme where the risk is evenly shared, as with bushfire coverage, amongst the community so that people who are put in this situation do not have to go through the trauma and the stress, and the insurance companies meet their demands. (Time expired)13:12:00884Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I am here to speak out for the residents of Townsville-Thuringowa, who this year have had two such incidences of massive storms hitting the region. On 10 January this year, Townsville received half of its annual rainfall in just 24 hours, a storm unprecedented in existence. I would like to tell the parliament the experience of one of my constituents, a Rick Bell from Forestry Road, Bluewater. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have had the same sorts of situations with your constituents. Rick's home was washed away in the deluge which occurred. The house of one of his neighbours was condemned, and the house of his neighbour on the other side had five feet of water through it.Both neighbours got paid out on their insurance claims, but Mr Bell's insurance company did not make any attempt to pay and in fact refused to pay his claim. How could that be? In relation to the claims on the companies, Mr Bell was insured with FAI; his neighbours were both insured with Mercantile Mutual. The wording in the policies for both the companies was the same. Mercantile Mutual paid; FAI did not. How could that be? How could we have that situation in this country? That is why the motion today from the member for Cunningham should particularly be supported, and will be supported, in a bipartisan manner. With the wording of the policies being absolutely identical, it is impossible to believe that there could have been different decisions made.Mercantile Mutual also responded in Townsville within five days, but others are still fighting to settle their claims and, 10 months later, probably never will settle their claims. How could that be? How could you have insurance and have to wait 10 months or longer? The member for Throsby made that point.I will you give an example of another quirk, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. This is probably peculiar to North Queensland, although perhaps one day Wollongong will encounter the same situation. This event was caused by Cyclone Sid off the coast on Friday, 9 January. Under insurance policies, if there is cyclone damage, you are covered. When Cyclone Sid crossed the coast, the weather bureau downgraded it to a tropical rain depression. It could not be a cyclone any more and, therefore, people who held insurance could not claim under their insurance policy for cyclone damage. However, it was the result of the arrival of a cyclone off the coast of Queensland.Another anomaly relates to big business and the battler. I do not know whether this was experienced in Wollongong, but I saw in my electorate where big businesses were paid out within 48 hours. They were paid, in one instance, over $4 million immediately for the event, yet the battler is still waiting 10 months later. How could that be? They are the sorts of questions we certainly need to be asking.Two constituents of mine, Jim and Cheryl Waugh, from the Bohle River—a different location—suffered storm damage and their subsequent claims to Colonial were refused. More than 10 months have passed since they made the claim. They invoked the General Insurance Claims Review Panel. It took until 14 November this year for any of the applicants in that action to receive any word that there may be some joy. This also related to applicants who had been insured with Suncorp. There were eight from the Black River. They were told that the panel had found in their favour and that Suncorp had been requested to honour their claims. However, nothing has been given for the claimants with the other insurance companies, again, 10 months later.Jim's and Cheryl's comments to me probably reflect accurately how most of the battlers feel. I will quote from their letter to me: As you can see, we've been treated rather badly by the insurance company and would be grateful for any help that can be offered by yourself in taking the insurance industry to task and making them have a really good look at the way in which they treat people. We believe that the policy wording is one of the matters you will be bringing up and the fact that when policies are sold they are not explained properly.Ours is a true case of this, as we were told we were covered for rainwater (means rain falling naturally from the sky, including rainwater run-off over the surface of the land and including rainwater overflowing from stormwater drains and channels) so we assumed we would be covered for that. But now we've made a claim for this. They now say we're not covered for damage caused by rainwater entering our building unless it enters as a result of structural damage made by a storm.We've suffered untold stress over the last 10 months. We would appreciate anything that the Parliament of Australia may be able to do to fix up these kinds of problems in the insurance industry.That is why I am here to support the motion put by the member for Cunningham this afternoon.Another matter needs some consideration and may be added to the terms of reference of the inquiry, if it proceeds and if it is appropriate. It concerns the responsibilities of the states and local government in all this. I have been a city councillor for 11 years on the Townsville City Council. I have always been mindful in making town planning decisions that, where subdivisions are approved, the proper conditions are placed on those subdivisions. It now seems clear from some of the subdivisions that have been approved by city councils in various areas around this country that perhaps there should have been more thought put into the location of the approvals of those subdivisions and the conditions that might have been properly imposed by the council on those subdivisions.Clearly, with what we have seen happening in the last 12 months in Australia with these relatively unusual rainfall patterns, some of the water levels that have been taken into consideration are perhaps not appropriate. There may be some review of that. Councils should be very careful. I also understand that some insurance companies may be taking action against councils in relation to what they have approved in the past. That needs to be borne in mind.I do not care how an insurance company defines `flood damage', because when more than half the annual average rainfall of a city falls in a single 24-hour period there is not a drainage system in the world that could handle such a large volume of water. This is where the insurance problems that all of us have encountered have their origins. What ordinary people thought was stormwater damage was, in many instances, being interpreted by insurance companies as flood damage and, therefore, not covered by premiums.I have seen the experience, which was referred to earlier in this debate, where people's homes had a lot of water through them but the creek behind them had not even broken its banks. The water had come from a different direction. You then get involved in the question of whose hydrologist you believe. The poor insured person, who is the battler, has to go through this enormous technical process and fight the big insurance companies on these technicalities. It is very difficult for the little man in Australia to be able to do that. They are the sorts of things that we need to be approaching. I strongly support what the member for Cunningham has brought to the parliament this afternoon. I will be supporting it through my contacts in the government. I certainly hope that out of all this we will see a better insurance system in this country.13:21:00885Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to support this motion today. I compliment the member for Cunningham on bringing it to this House. The major city in my electorate is Maitland. Of course, everyone who knows Maitland knows that it is synonymous with floods. The 1955 flood in Maitland still stands as a benchmark for flooding for all flood plain areas in Australia.That is not what this is about. Today's debate is about the rights of Australians and the fact that they have an expectation that their rights should be safeguarded. The rights of Australians should be determined here in the parliament where those things are discussed—not in a courtroom, and certainly not in a courtroom where the victory is going to go to the side that can afford the most. In my experience, that is generally the way it happens. We all know that that is certainly not going to be on the side of the average householder, on the side of the average insurer.It is amazing how differently one is treated when one goes to an insurance company and asks, `Am I covered for this? Am I covered for that?' They say, `Don't worry about that.' You will be given all the assurances that you can possibly be given that you will be looked after. But we have all dealt with people who have come to us and said, `As a result of the natural disaster we had recently, I certainly don't have the cover that I expected.'Over recent years in the Hunter we have had quite a lot of abnormal weather events—and not only weather events. If we go back 10 years, we will all recall the Newcastle earthquake. Thousands of Newcastle residents would have been without a home today if it had not been for the Lord Mayor's Appeal in Newcastle that took care of those people who suddenly found that they did not have the insurance cover that they fully expected to have. Insurance companies found the loophole—they probably knew it was there all along—and it was the unwitting householder who had continued to pay premiums religiously only to find that at the time they needed the cover it was not there.The theme of my participation in this debate is the same as that of every other participant. It is always the small consumer who is losing out. One only has to sit and watch half an hour of television to realise how well the insurance companies are going. As a result of the recent election, I am sure we all have a better idea of what a little bit of television advertising costs. But from the regularity of the ads and the fact that well-known actors can be employed to participate in such advertising we can only hazard a guess at the enormity of the companies' advertising costs. I wonder if it would not be better if some of that cost were spent on providing the service that people expect.I believe that Australians need to know there is a standard of household cover—that, once you purchase household coverage and insure your home, there are certain expectations that you will get for a certain amount of money. I believe it is the right of this parliament to ensure for Australians that that is so. I believe that a parliamentary inquiry as has been proposed in this motion today is long overdue and is the only just way that we can ensure that people, including us, are going to have the coverage that we expect.The extensive loss of life and property in any natural disaster is a cost that is always borne by the community. Whether it be in giving to an appeal such as the Lord Mayor's Appeal in Newcastle, whether it be in the fact that we lose workmates, whether we give generously or donate labour and goods to rebuild homes, the cost is borne by all of the community in lost productivity and in other ways. Therefore, this parliament should determine that an inquiry takes place. (Time expired)13:26:00886Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I support the general thrust of the motion and commend the member for Cunningham for his initiative. I do it partly because I have been a passionate advocate for urgent reform of natural disaster management in Australia—in the federal, state, local, regional and private sectors and also at the consumer level. I was prompted to do that in 1993. Members who were here then might remember that we had massive floods where I come from in north-east Victoria. Some 6,500 people were evacuated. There was massive damage to private homes, farms, factories and the like. Ever since I have focused on trying to get all governments and communities to work together to do better. I ask leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard a table of natural disaster events that have occurred in Australia since 1967—there are eight pages. Unfortunately, it only goes up to 1993, but members will see it in Hansard if leave is granted to incorporate it.Leave granted.The table read as follows—AUSTRALIAN DISASTER EVENTS SINCE 1967NOTES:1. This information was compiled by Emergency Management Australia (formerly Natural Disasters Organisation) from Insurance Council of Australia statistics, reports by the media and various emergency agency reports.2. Only disaster events which caused either human deaths or at least $10M damage (insurance pay-outs) have been listed.3. Insurance pay-out figures only reflect domestic, commercial, vehicle and industrial damage, which in most cases represent less than 50 per cent of the total loss to the community (especially in the case of floods).DateDisasterKilledInjuredAffected (where known)Homeless1993 Aust$M DamageDetailsFeb 1967Fire629003000300085.0Bushfires—Hobart, Tas (Black Tuesday) 1400 buildings destroyedJun 1967Storm30.0Severe storm (rain & hail)—Brisbane, QldOct 1968Earthquake16387440010.0Meckering Earthquake—WANov 1968Fire5100080025.0 (est)Bushfires—Blue Mountains, NSWJan 1970Cyclone1410067.0Cyclone `ADA'—Barrier Reef, QueenslandAug 1970Flood26.5Flooding, TasJan 1971Flood7155.0Flash-flooding (Woden Valley) Canberra, ACTFeb 1971Flood10.5Flooding—Gippsland, VicAug 1971Storm35.0Tornado—Kin Kin, Qld (10 homes destroyed)Dec 1971Cyclone325124.0Cyclone `Athea'—Townsville, QldFeb 1972Cyclone210.0Cyclone `Daisy'—Bundaberg, QldMar 1973Cyclone126.5Cyclone `Madge'—Qld, NT and WAApr 1973Cyclone8*unknownCyclone `Emily'—Coral Sea, Qld (* 8 deaths at sea)Jan/Feb 1974Cyclone163003000+277.0Cyclone `Wanda'—Brisbane floods, QldMar 1974Cyclone10.0Cyclone `Zoe'—NSWApr 1974Flood83.0Flooding—Sydney, NSWMay 1974Flood17.0Flooding—VicMay 1974Storm82.0Severe Storm (wind and hail)—Sydney, NSWDec 1974Cyclone6564045000710.0Tropical Cyclone `Tracy'—Darwin, NT Mar 1975Flood54.0Flooding—Sydney, NSWDec 1975Cyclone63.0Cyclone `Joan'—WA Jan 1976Storm42.0Hailstorm—Toowoomba, QldFeb 1976Cyclone10.0Cyclone `Beth'—Bundaberg, QldNov 1976Storm111.0Hailstorm—NSWNov 1976Storm28.4Tornado—Sandon/Castlemaine, VicDec 1976Cyclone41.5Cyclone `Ted'—QldJan 1977Storm41.5Thunderstorms—NSWFeb 1977Storm10.0Severe storm—Tongala, Echuca, VicFeb 1977Fire25.0Bushfires—Western District, VicMar 1977Flood19.5Floods—NSWDec 1977Fire32.4Bushfires—Blue Mountains, NSWFeb 1978Storms38.0Severe storms—Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, NSWFeb/Mar 1978Flood5unknownFloods—Sydney and Penrith, NSWMar 1978Storm13.0Severe storms—North Coast, NSWApr 1978Cyclone33.0Cyclone `Alby'—WAJune 1978Storm17.5Severe storms—winds/flooding—Sydney, NSWMar 1979Cyclone15*1535.0Cyclone `Hazel'—WA (*15 deaths at sea)Jun 1979Earthquake10.0Earthquake—Cadoux, WANov 1979Storm21.0Severe storm, hail/wind—SAFeb 1980Cyclone42.0Cyclone `Dean'—Pilbara, WAFeb 1980Fire4050015027.5Bushfires—Adelaide Hills, SA (35 homes destroyed)Dec 1980Cyclone14.5Cyclones—Brisbane, QldDec 1980Storm31.0Severe storm—Brighton, QldFeb 1981Cyclone1unknownCyclone `Cliff'—Sth Qld (Noosa to Burleigh Heads)Feb 1981Flood42.0Floods/severe storms—Dalby, QldJan 1982Fire5unknownBushfires—Sutherland, Sydney, NSWNov 1982Storm16.0Severe storm—Melbourne and district, Vic Jan 1983Fire3unknownBushfire—Sutherland, Sydney, NSWFeb 1983Fire751100200008000274.0Bushfires—`Ash Wednesday' Vic and SAMar 1984Cyclone10.0Cyclone `Kathy'—NTNov 1984Flood210112.0Floods—NSW (incl west Sydney)Sep 1984 to Feb 1985Fire62039.0Bushfires—central and southern NSWJan 1985Storm20253.0Severe storm—Brisbane, QldSep 1985Storm14.0Hailstorms—Melbourne, VicJan 1986Storm35.0Hailstorm—Orange, NSWJan 1986Cyclone31256.0Cyclone `Winifred'—Cairns to Ingham, North QldAug 1986Storm4137.0Severe storms—hail and flash-floods—western suburbs, Sydney, NSWAug 1986Flood1unknownFlooding—Lithgow, NSWOct 1986Storm84.8Hail storm—Sydney, NSWDec 1986Storm13.0Severe storm—Adelaide, SAJan 1987Fire1unknownBushfires—Deniliquin, NSWJan 1987Fire2unknownBushfires—Cootamundra, NSWFeb 1987Fire10.0Bushfires, southern TasMar 1987Flood1unknownFloods—Lismore, NSWOct 1987Flood12.5Floods—Sydney, NSWNov/Dec 1987Flood10.5Rain damage and floods—Melbourne, VicFeb 1988Flood2unknownFlash-flood—Cooyar, QldMar 1988Cyclone12.0Cyclone `Charlie'—Ayr, Giru, Qld (mainly flood damage)Mar/Apr 1988Flood612.5Floods—Alice Springs, NTApr 1988Floods31.0Floods—Sydney, NSWApr 1988Landslide2unknownFloods/landslide—Wollongong, NSWMay 1988Cyclone25.0*Cyclone `Herbie'—Carnarvon to Denham, WA (*incl ship—Korean Star) Jul 1988Flood1unknownFlash-flood—Brisbane, QldJul 1988Flood1unknownFlash-flood—Casino, NSWSept 1988Storm10.0Storms—widespread, WANov 1988Storm13.0Rainstorms—VicDec 1988Storm2unknownSevere storm (wind/flash floods) Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat, VicFeb 1989Storm20.0Rainstorms—Melbourne, VicApr 1989Flood945unknownFloods—South Qld/North NSWApr 1989Flood1unknownFloods—Canberra, ACT/Queanbeyan, NSWApr 1989Cyclone230.0Cyclone `Aivu'—Ayre, Home Hill, Clare, QldApr 1989Cyclone221.5Cyclone `Orson'—Dampier, Karratha, Panawonica, WAApr 1989Storm2unknownSevere storms and floods—Sth Qld (incl Gympie)Nov 1989Storm21.5Hailstorm—Ballarat, VicDec 1989Landslide1unknownLandslide/beach cliff collapse—Beaumaris, Melbourne, VicDec 1989Earthquake13150952.0Earthquake—Newcastle, NSWJan 1990Fire90,000 sheepunknownBushfires—S NSW/N Vic (Murray River) 90000 ha burnt, 30 houses lostFeb 1990Storm10.0Hailstorm—Dubbo, NSWFeb 1990Cyclone636.0Cyclone `Nancy'—Qld/NSW (mainly flooding)Feb 1990Storm10.0Hailstorm—Sydney, NSWMar 1990Storm25326.0Severe hail storm—Sydney, NSWMar 1990Flood1unknownFloods (Cyclone `Ivor')—Tully, Ingham, QldApr 1990Flood6511000032.0Floods—Sth Qld (Charleville) and Nth NSW (Nyngan)(worst for 35 yrs) Apr 1990Flood1930.est (incl uninsured losses)Floods—E Gippsland, VicAug 1990Storm12.5Storms—Sydney, NSWAug 1990Flood3unknownFloods—Central West, NSWDec 1990Heatwave4unknownHeatwave—Melbourne, VicDec 1990/Jan 1991Fire110.0Bushfire—Strathbogie, Vic (extensive livestock/property loss)Dec 1990/Jan 1991Cyclone63564.0Cyclone `Joy'—extensive coastal flooding, Qld (crop/livestock losses)Jan 1991Storm1100191.0Violent wind/hailstorm—Sydney, NSWJan/Mar 1991Flood1unknownMonsoonal flooding—Gulf country North QldJan 1991Storm10.2Hailstorm—Orbost, VicJan 1991Storm26.0Hailstorm—Adelaide, SAFeb 1991Flood6unknownMonsoonal flooding—Central and Southern QldFeb/Mar 1991Flood2unknownMonsoonal flooding—NT (north of Alice Springs)Apr 1991Cyclone29*10unknownCyclone `Fifi'—WA (*27 lost at sea)June 1991Storm13.0Storms and floods—south eastern NSWOct 1991Fire230010010.0Bushfires—near Sydney, NSW incl Gosford/Newcastle (21 houses destroyed)Dec 1991Flood3unknownFlash-floods—central and south coast, NSWDec 1991Flood20.0Floods/water damage—Melbourne/Ballarat, VicFeb 1992Flood1unknownFlooding—south eastern QldFeb 1992Storm101.0Severe storm—Sydney, NSWAug 1992Flood2525020. est (incl uninsured losses)Flash-floods—Adelaide Hills, SA Aug 1992Flood3unknownFlash-floods—Bendigo area, VicNov 1992Storm112unknownSevere storm—Pakenham/Melbourne, VicNov 1992Storm2unknownSevere storm/lightning strike near Gold Coast, QldDec 1992Storm1unknownSevere storm/lightning strike—Orange, NSWDec 1992Flood1160.est (incl uninsured losses)Flash-flood—Kanmantoo (nr Adelaide)/Adelaide Hills, SA (market gardens, crops and homes damaged)Feb 1993Storm13unknownSevere storm/lightning strike—Ocean Grove/Port Phillip, VicFeb 1993Heatwave17unknownHeatwave—SE Australia (1 infant, 16 elderly) up to 100 hospitalised in Vic, SA and NSWApr 1993Storm1unknownSevere storm/lightning strike—Sydney, NSWSep 1993Flood2unknownFlash flood—Berry, South Coast, NSWSep 1993Storm1unknownSevere storm/flash-floods—Central Vic, Bendigo and MaryboroughOct 1993Flood5100 livestock10000+ people200 (approx)(inc l uninsured losses)Floods—Nth East Vic, 12 rivers in flood (Benalla 1500+ evacuated, 2500+ homes damaged). (Shepparton, Wangaratta, Euroa total 4000+ evacuated, 4000+ homes/shops damaged), 3500+ sheep/1600+ cattle lost, crops destroyed. Total 10,000 people affected.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—It is quite frightening that Australia, the great country that it is, has suffered a major natural disaster on average every four or five months in the last 30 years. We have had our share of those. In the 1993 north-east Victorian floods, the devastation was unbelievable. I personally know constituents who took some two, three and four years to resolve their problems with some insurance companies. It was only as a result of the magnificent work, on an honorary basis, of quite a number of members of the community—the legal profession in Benalla particularly—that resolution of some of those problems was reached.The issue, quite strangely, is if in a major disaster or storm you are `lucky' to have a break in the roof, then there is no question that the insurance company pays, because the water has entered a hole in the roof. But if, on the other hand, the water enters from the ground and floods your house causing massive damage, the question then arises: is that a flood due to a storm and tempest, which, if you are insured, you are probably covered for; or is it a manifestation of the breaking of the banks of a river or a stream and a floodway occurs which may or may not be covered? That is the sort of thing that is involved.I ask the member for Cunningham and others who are interested—I will certainly talk to members of the government and the ministry—that this inquiry should include the question of mutual obligation; that is, the question of how much obligation we all have to each other—the property owners, the insurance companies and the local, state and federal governments. Any scheme that we examine should require mutual obligation to be a criterion.In America there is a flood insurance system. Some people call it a national flood insurance management system. There is only an 18 per cent take-up, but I think we could gain some knowledge and experience by looking at the American system. The system is voluntary, I understand. More importantly, it focuses not only on the consumer—knowledge and understanding, the type of insurance policy that is needed and the education programs, which we need in Australia— but also on the other side of the equation—flood mitigation, flood warning and management of assessments and flood risks in storm areas.I think the inquiry should cover those areas, too. Any sort of flood disaster relief insurance scheme should require a whole gamut of things to be looked at, not only the outputs, the cost of repairs, but also how you minimise damage, because that would bring the cost down. If you minimise damage by good flood management practices and flood warning systems, for example, you can keep the premiums down. I urge members to give some consideration to that.I think the proposal to bring all the parties into a parliamentary committee on a non-party political basis is an excellent way of dealing with this. My own involvement and support for it would be on the strict understanding that this is not a taxpayer funded deal. There is too much of that. We have to emphasise that it involves all of us together as a nation in a country that has massive natural disasters regularly and it has to be on a mutual obligation basis—what is the role of everybody? If we do that, we will do quite well. (Time expired)13:31:00893Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—It gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion brought to the House by the honourable member for Cunningham. I am also very pleased to see that my colleagues on both sides of the House are supporting it. I watched, like everybody else, the tragedy that befell the people of Wollongong and the Illawarra with a very sad feeling of deja vu. It was only 10 years ago that large parts of my own electorate and the electorate of Fowler were submerged in some of the worst floodwaters our community had seen in 30 years, again, caused by large storms, as occurred in Wollongong and the Illawarra. In fact, we had areas covered by two and three metres of water. In my electorate alone, over 500 houses and small businesses were ruined beyond repair and millions of dollars of damage was done.Flooding is normally a natural disaster that most people living in metropolitan areas associate with rural and regional Australia. Yet in Fairfield, my electorate, as in Wollongong, there were homes and businesses in built-up suburban areas being swept away and destroyed by a muddy wall of water. I believe it was a flood equal in strength to any suffered by any Australian living in a country area.Flooding in urban areas, which is caused by heavy storms, is a very real problem that deserves very serious consideration not only by the insurance companies, which do have a moral and legal responsibility to honour policies in respect of storms—and I am pleased this motion covers the inadequacies of the insurance companies and how they have been able to get away with the structure of their premiums for so long and, as recently as the Wollongong floods, they were even trying to lay the problem on the doorstep of local government, and I think that is completely irresponsible and something that we, as legislators in this parliament, should not tolerate—but also by the federal government.It is a sad fact that this Howard government have treated the problem of urban flooding with very little tolerance. In fact, in the 1996 budget they decided to cut out a certain area of federal responsibility in their so-called debt reduction strategy. We saw 220 public servants put out of a job at a saving of $150 million and we saw the abolition of the division of regional development, which covered the Urban Flood Mitigation Program. Part of their reduction strategy included the decision not to continue any initiatives begun by the previous administration under its Better Cities Program. I believe that was a shame.It was under that Better Cities Program that the Commonwealth made its ongoing contribution to the Urban Flood Mitigation Program. There was an agreement between the three tiers of government to fund flood mitigation works in urban areas so as to stop disasters, as have occurred in Wollongong and in my electorate, from ever happening again. I know we cannot control the storms, but at least we can provide some means of correcting the problems caused by them.The Urban Flood Mitigation Program began under the Hawke government. I remember it vividly because, as the then New South Wales Minister for Water Resources, I fought long and hard to make sure that some of that funding went into urban areas rather than just into rural areas at that time. Under that program, state governments matched the contribution by the federal government dollar for dollar. Local councils contributed as well under a 2:2:1 subsidy. That is why it was called a 2:2:1 contribution.Councils used funding from the Urban Flood Mitigation Program to build flood walls, raise houses, widen creeks and stormwater run-offs, and strengthen bridges within our local areas. Local governments around Australia depended on that Urban Flood Mitigation Program for the funds they needed to protect their residents and local businesses from floods.I believe the flooding disaster in Wollongong should give members an idea of how important the Urban Flood Mitigation Program was to local areas. The scale of the flooding facing many areas, like Wollongong and Fairfield, should not be underestimated. To give members an idea of what I mean by `scale', my local government tells me that they probably need $30 million to complete the flood mitigation works in the urban areas of my electorate. If they have more than one or two hours of heavy rain, they are horrified because they realise the consequences. I do not believe we are going to overcome a problem like that by cutting Commonwealth government funding.I believe this government must also give thought to its involvement and where it should be going in the future. When the Prime Minister viewed the devastation of the Wollongong floods, I am sure he was reminded by the member for Cunningham that the decision to cut the program had certainly not helped his area. The Commonwealth must stay involved in the Urban Flood Mitigation Program. I completely agree with the previous speakers. I remind the member for Indi that everyone has been reading and talking about natural disasters, but we need action to be forthcoming. (Time expired)13:37:00894Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I came in to speak on this very important matter, believing it to be a nonpartisan way in which we could use the resources of the parliament to bring a very serious issue into focus and set some direction on it. So it is a disappointment to hear the member for Prospect's contribution. She should understand that the government is committed to mitigation, and it has provided funding for it: $27 million—$10 million over two years for mitigation works in urban areas, $10 million in regional areas and $7 million for regional flood plain management. To hear the kind of contribution of the member for Prospect, which is one of cheap politics being played on the matter before us—a matter on which we could finally get together and achieve a bit of momentum to get some change for the positive good—just destroys my enthusiasm.The particular issue on which I speak is not so much to do with a particular disaster which has happened in my own electorate but one that is waiting to happen there. Like the member for Indi, I reside on the Murray River in the provincial city of Swan Hill. That city is very well protected as it is surrounded by levee banks, but it has a significant local flooding problem. With hindsight, it would probably be said that it was a silly place to build a provincial city. But, sadly, unlike the member for Lindsay, we have the problem of this being where the city's population is already located; and the cost of relocating provincial cities with populations of 15,000 or more is equally expensive as compensating people for being flooded.More particularly, Swan Hill has a very local problem. Three weeks ago the city of Swan Hill had six inches of rainfall over a period of 12 hours which completely inundated the inside of the city. Swan Hill's drainage makes its way into a very large open-channel drainage system which ultimately makes its way to the river. Had the Murray River been at the high level at which it normally is in early spring, Swan Hill would have had a major problem on its hands—and it is that potential problem that relates to the very topic which has been brought to the attention of the House today by the member for Cunningham.The member has my enthusiastic support in asking that the parliament take this matter further because I would like to see the city in which I reside being prevented from having to face the massive difficulties that have confronted cities like Wollongong, which much of the comment has been about here this morning.For instance, over the weekend I pulled out a copy of my household insurance policy—and that is something that all unsuspecting members of the public should do, so that they understand what this issue is about. Under the definitions section, it defines `flood' and states, `the inundation of normally dry land by water escaping or released from the normal confines of any natural water course or lake, whether or not altered or modified, or of any reservoir, canal or dam'. This clause provides a wonderful environment for legal counsellors representing insurance firms and loss adjustors. It has been my personal experience that, even if six inches of rain falls on my backyard and finds its way over the rim of the slab beneath the house, that is a flood and not insurable. This comes as an enormous shock to people in the provincial residential city of Swan Hill.Since my time of being involved on local council and agitating to have comprehensive local drainage improved within the city—and some of that has been done, I am pleased to say—I have warned that within Swan Hill we have a disaster waiting to happen; that we will have a situation where Swan Hill residents are confronted with the same difficulty as that currently being confronted by the constituents of other members contributing to this debate. I urge the parliament to give its support to having this matter referred to a committee. Committees are a tremendous opportunity for us to be able to provide a public focus, collect evidence and succeed in getting some action on this matter. I am hopeful that we can do that before the people living in my city have to confront the same trauma as that which has confronted the constituents of other members. This motion has my wholehearted support.13:42:00895Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I rise in this place to address this motion today and give it my full support as a result of the Katherine Australia Day flood of this year. It is not until one of these natural disasters happens that we are made to think seriously about the implications of the way in which we insure ourselves or are required to insure ourselves. I do not have a lot of time and I was going to talk about the detail of the Katherine flood; suffice it to say that it was such a massive flood that the peak of the river rose to 20.4 metres and there was enough water to fill the Sydney Harbour in nine to 12 hours. The water was flowing at some 12,000 cubic metres a second. That is a large of amount of water and it had an enormous impact on Katherine. It covered 1,000 square kilometres, 1,100 dwellings were flooded and every business and government office were inundated.The implications for the community, of course, were horrendous. It was not until after the flood when people sought redress through their insurance companies that they found out how horrendous the implications were going to be. What became apparent was that, apart from the Territory Insurance Office, no insurance companies were prepared to fulfil their obligations to meet the costs of those people who were insured.One of the interesting things that flowed out of this investigation was the fact that some lending institutions who were providing mortgages for people were requiring the mortgagees to insure from particular companies. It turned out that one of those companies, Commercial Union, refused to meet its obligations. It was discovered that that company had a particular connection with a bank. That bank made it compulsory for people who borrowed, got a mortgage, from it to insure with Commercial Union—and Commercial Union did not have flood coverage. It was not a matter of choice; it was the way in which they had operated in terms of the financial institutions.The proposed inquiry is very important because there is no doubt that there are connections between various aspects of the finance industry—banks and other lending institutions and insurance companies—which need to be looked at very, very seriously so that people will not be disadvantaged as a result of decisions made by lending institutions about who they should borrow from. Those lending institutions should be providing people with advice as to the best possible insurer—not the only insurer—and they should be giving them the best possible advice about the various policies.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debated is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members896896896Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I am sure that all honourable members will join with me in congratulating young Chris Costanzo of the Rowellyn Park Primary School in winning the Victorian 100 metres track gold medal at the recent state championships. Chris won gold in the category for 11-year-old boys and joins a select group of only 80 athletes chosen from primary schools all over Victoria to compete in the Australian primary schools track and field championships held in Adelaide. I know that the family of Cossie—as Chris is affectionately known—is particularly proud of him, as is the entire school community led by its principal Rod Williams. I am sure that they join with me and with all those in the federal parliament today in expressing our congratulations to Chris and in wishing him all the best for the forthcoming championships.896896Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Earlier today I was privileged to speak to a motion moved by the member for Cunningham. I would like to raise a matter related to that motion. In times of heavy rainfall—and Townsville got half of its annual rainfall in one day on 10 January—many curious people flock by road to survey the local damage after the worst of the rain has eased. It is a pretty common habit in the rest of Australia, and people do it using their four-wheel drives.Despite the warnings, many of these people contributed to the damage in homes and businesses because of the wash created by their cars driving through the stormwater covering the roads. In some unfortunate instances people escaped direct water damage when floodwaters pulled up just short of entering their homes only to have a few minutes later a four-wheel drive come tearing down the street with a great bow wave out in front causing water to wash into homes and damage carpets, walls and so on.I would like to see local authorities work in association with state governments and the police to determine strategies to minimise this sort of damage and to keep non-essential traffic off stormwater affected streets and roads. If you must play the tourist in a flood situation, then do it on foot, I say to these people. If you choose to drive your car through flooded residential streets then perhaps you should also expect to cop a fine to help compensate for the damage you cause. (Time expired)897897Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I wish to draw the attention of the House to the state of deception between the Victorian state government and the Howard coalition. The Kennett government worked hand in hand with the Howard government to help sell a GST. The state government promised it would abolish nine state taxes and charges should the GST be introduced. This has turned out to be totally false. In fact, only six short weeks after the federal election, the Kennett government has slugged central Victorians with an outrageous new waterway catchment tax of at least $31 per rateable property. For our farming community, this will increase dramatically.This new tax has been imposed on people as a direct result of the Kennett government ripping some $20 million out of the environment and natural resources budget. Now the Kennett government hides behind its Water Catchment Authority to slam an additional tax on people to take up the gap. To add insult to injury, the North Central Catchment Authority has embarked on a taxpayer funded media campaign to convince people that this is not a new tax. To this end, they have retained the use of a mascot in the form of a large ibis named Carla in an attempt to convince country Victorians that this tax is worthwhile. One regional daily took the trouble to look up the word `ibis' in the Macquarie Dictionary. It is a bird with a long, down-curving bill. Given that this is a new upwards increasing tax, it might be more appropriate to find another mascot.897897Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I would like to bring to the attention of the House today a very innovative program introduced by Gosford City Council called the Coastal Open Space Program, or COS Program, which was instigated in 1984. It is a program by which council brings into public ownership land that is of environmental significance on the coastal areas of the Central Coast. As most people would know, Gosford is a very scenic area, one that has great environmental importance to the people of the Central Coast. Council introduced this scheme in 1984. Under that scheme, approximately 82 per cent of the land that they wished to acquire has been acquired—some 2,400 hectares of the 3,000 hectares that they wished to bring into public ownership.I am very pleased that the federal government recognised this unique scheme just prior to the last election, when environment minister Robert Hill announced a contribution of $1 million towards Gosford City Council's COS scheme, which will enable the program to come into fruition and to complete the purchase of this sensitive land. I would like to pay tribute to the late Alan Strom for his vision in setting up the steering committee to organise the COS Program, because it has protected for all time some of the most scenic and environmentally sensitive land on the Central Coast. (Time expired)897897Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The electorate of Shortland is home to more people over the age of 65 than 90 per cent of all other electorates in the nation. Yet aged care facilities in the electorate are well below the national average. Older people in Shortland bear the full brunt of the Howard government's disregard for the frail and aged. Transport, security and access to medical and other services are unsatisfactory for many living in isolated parts of the electorate. Housing for the elderly, in particular, is at crisis point in Shortland.At last there is good news for older people in Shortland—people who have suffered under this government's policy of attrition and cuts to aged care. Local government and the private sector have shown the leadership that the Howard government should be showing. An innovative approach to housing for older residents has been initiated in Shortland. Shop-top housing, specially designed for older people, will be erected in Charlestown. This bold planning initiative will allow our seniors easy access to transport, shopping, medical and social facilities, all within an easy walk of their homes, something that is most essential. Security issues will be minimised, which will be a great relief to these residents. This is an exciting initiative worthy of support and recognition.898898Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—In the 90-second statements today in the House, I would like to raise the question of privacy. Recently in the Adelaide Sunday Mail it was reported that there has been a campaign by Australia Post to increase the amount of information that they have on their clients. In fact, they obtained information on many of their clients which included their name, address, phone number, occupation, holiday habits, alcohol consumption, health and home insurance, monthly bill payments, food shopping, annual income and motor vehicle use.They obtained this information by communicating with five million households since 1997 through state government literature—for example, motor vehicle registration renewal forms. People are filling out these forms—induced by prizes like BMWs and Internet access—sending them back to Australia Post and Australia Post, through Custom Select, are letting this information out to people who compile lists, take the lists away and then on-sell them to other people for about $1,200 each.The problem with this is that some of these lists are falling into the hands of practitioners of sharp practice in our society who are duping unsuspecting members of the com munity by convincing them that they are familiar with their circumstances—know who they are and know some of their likes and dislikes—and particularly older people in my electorate—(Time expired)898898Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—If parliamentary duties did not prevent it, I would be in Brisbane this evening celebrating the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Bulimba and District Meals on Wheels. This organisation was established on 4 November 1968 in the Hawthorne Presbyterian Church and, since then, it has been served by many members of our local community. Presidents have included Mrs Kath McCart, Mrs Babe North, Mr Frank Saunders and Mr Graeme Trusler. Secretaries have been Mrs Laurie, Mrs Babe North, Mrs Betty Langley, Mrs Jeanette Sparkes-Carrol, Mrs Lee McMahon and Ms Kaye Connor. Treasurers have been Mrs Doris Mitchell, Mrs Mabel McCarthy, Mrs Cathy Fox, Mrs Jean Holcroft and Mrs Ann O'Connor. Supervisors have been Mrs Betty Langley, Mrs Joy Priest, Mrs Barbara Hoge, Mrs Christine Ames, Ms Kaye Connor, Mrs Annette Gamble and Mrs Ann O'Connor.In the period since November 1968, this service has provided to the residents of the south side of Brisbane some 616,376 meals—130 meals a day. Presently it engages some 260 volunteers. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Bulimba and District Meals on Wheels for the sterling contribution they have made to the residents of the south side of Brisbane over this long period of time, particularly to the aged members of our community who rely upon their charitable work to provide sustenance in their homes.898898Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—On 21 November I was honoured to attend the annual general meeting of the Spanish Latin American welfare centre known as CELAS. The centre has a proud 21-year history of providing community support and services to Victoria's Spanish speaking community.Understandably, the members of CELAS are distressed at the horror that Hurricane Mitch has brought to Central America. The devastation, including more than 11,000 deaths, one million homeless and the destruction of vital crops and infrastructure, must elicit a compassionate response even in the hardest heart.Against this backdrop, I urge the government to reconsider its approach to the provision of foreign aid. Australia has promised $1 million in aid but, given the scale of this tragedy, $1 million is not enough. I am confident that Australians who suffered Cyclone Tracy will support a generous response from the government. Indeed, a local aid worker, Wayne Ulrich from Doctors Without Borders, compared Mitch with Tracy and said:I've not seen something of this scale for many, many years. I look around and keep thinking of Darwin and Cyclone Tracy . . . I've seen volcanoes, earthquakes and floods, but this is big.I urge the government to act in this matter.899899Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I have today received the following communication from a constituent. The letter reads:The Liberal Party in its rush to streamline the Industrial Relations Act, is putting hardworking Australian taxpayers' jobs in jeopardy.Workers at David's Grocery Distribution, Blacktown, NSW, are forced to work to an unrealistic percentage or face termination by an unscrupulous employer.Manual lifting of 250 full boxes per hour, every hour, can only lead to serious back injuries and lifelong ramifications for the employee.This total disregard of workers' health and wellbeing will cost the company tenfold. Not only will they spend more time and money training people, these people will have a shorter working life, the company will then fight his right for compensation for a damaged back.This worker will now be unfit for work and fighting for a pension. The companies stance of no give and take all promotes an unhealthy them Vs us attitude inside the shed and eventually will be detrimental to all.Davids Pty Ltd long term plan of no permanent staff but unlimited use of casuals will ultimately leave generations of Australian kids with no future, no permanent employment, no mortgage, no car loan, no nothing. See what your bank will do for casual employeesThis bitter comment comes from an employee now back at work after a bitter dispute in Blacktown where Mr Reith's legislation was attempted to be exploited by an overseas-owned company. This is not good enough for Australians. (Time expired)899899Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Just briefly, I wish to highlight to the parliament the importance of tax reform. Over the past 2½ years, this government has rejuvenated this economy and repaired the damage that was done by 13 years of Labor.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Very objective assessment.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYD—Thank you, Prime Minister. We have stimulated small business growth. We have made inroads into unemployment in this country. We have created an investment environment that this country has not seen for 20 years. But there is still much more to be done.The final element in rejuvenating this economy and getting Australia moving forward again is tax reform. We need to introduce a simpler and fairer system of tax in this country. And despite the blocking of the Labor opposition and the attacks that they have made on our GST policy and our tax reform, I believe that the Australian community will support us in our efforts to get this country moving again, to stimulate our economy and to take advantage of the hard decisions that this government has had to make over the past 2½ years to enable business, particularly small businesses, to get on with the job of expanding, building business confidence and, ultimately, employing more Australians. We have made significant improvements.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 101A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice899899899Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee to not allow any mergers of the four major banks, at least until the next federal election?900Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The position on mergers of banks is very clear. We will not agree to any merger of existing Australian banks until there is greater competition in the banking system. Although there has been some increase in competition in the banking system, due to the enlightened reforms implemented by the Treasurer, we are still not satisfied that the level of competition is enough.Mr Speaker, let me simply make the point that the Australian banks occupy a very privileged position within our financial system but, as a result of the policies of the government, there has been a lot more competition in the home mortgage area. We would like to see that level of competition spread to the small business area. At the moment I can simply say that we do not see any public interest at all in allowing any mergers of the existing banks for the very simple reason that they are a long way short of providing the sort of competition that the Australian public requires.900900Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Has the minister seen claims that the private health insurance funds made a profit of $300 million in the last financial year? Can the minister inform the House whether these reports are true? What are the implications of the industry trends for Australia's health system?900Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I did see such a report in the Australian newspaper on Friday under the headline `Health funds reap $300 million fee bonanza'. I thought this was a wonderful piece of subediting, and I am sure there are many corporations in Australia that make a loss that would like to have such a heading. I cannot actually find any health fund CEO who thinks they have had such a bonanza, and the figures in that report show quite clearly the true state of the industry.In a letter to the Australian newspaper—a copy of which has been sent to me—the Commissioner of PHIAC, the body whose report this story was based on, makes three points to show the overall situation. He starts off his letter by saying:Whilst it is accurate to claim that the growth in premium income to health funds during 1997/98 exceeded that of benefit payments this is not the complete picture and a number of important aspects have been overlooked, or ignored by your writer.These aspects are that, if you look at the 15-year period during which statistics have been kept, you will see that premiums have gone up 213 per cent and benefits have gone up 235 per cent. This is untenable in the long term. Over the last five years, premiums have gone up 15.6 per cent; benefits, 18.9 per cent—clearly underlying the fact that this is untenable. Last year was the first time in three years that health fund benefit growth had not actually outstripped the growth in premium increases.In the previous two financial years there were very substantial losses from the health funds of the order of $134 million in 1996-97 and $70 million in 1995-96. Last year was a better year but the health funds still lost around $11 million, or their net operating margin—if you just look at their core business—was a $6.6 million loss. So, in spite of a period of consolidation, the fact is the funds have gone from a $134 million loss to an $11 million loss. This is hardly a bonanza, though it does underline the importance of the incentives that we introduced in 1996. Had we not done this, another year of a $134 million loss would have seen many funds—hence, members with accrued benefits—go to the wall.The Commissioner of PHIAC also points out that last year funds reserves declined 2½ per cent. The reserves are the funds investment incomes. If they are making a bonanza, the reserves went up. You can hardly have a bonanza when the reserves go down. Finally, as I have mentioned, the net operating margin for the funds was actually a loss.The report also shows how unbalanced the funds are becoming. Last year, for the first time ever, more than half the funds benefits were paid out to people over 65 years of age. Eight years ago, in 1989-90, this was only 40 per cent. So it highlights the fact that the funds have a larger number of frail people who are drawing more heavily on it and not a large number of fitter, younger people—which is effectively anyone under 65—to back this community rating. If nothing is done about this, we have a very stark future ahead of us; that is, a system where health insurance is only for the privileged and the wealthy, such as in Britain, and we can expect the public hospitals to be like the national health service.901901Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall his `cold anger' at the current account figures in 1995 and his promise to make it the government's number one priority? Has he seen the latest data on trade in goods and services showing in trend terms, under his policies, the worst ever goods and services trade deficit?CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Ha, ha.DT4Mr CREAN—He laughs. Treasurer, was it your priority to make it worse and, if not, when will the trend be reversed? Do you agree with concerns expressed about the imbalance in our growth between domestic and foreign demand?901Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course I have seen today's recent ABS trend data. The government has forecast in the 1998-99 budget that Australia's current account deficit would increase to $31 billion or 5¼ per cent of GDP. The balance on goods and services for the month of October released today reflects those forecasts. It also reflects the fact that we have strong domestic growth and it reflects the fact that in relation to prices, as a result of commodity prices generally, and in relation to the Asian downturn that prices are down.Of course, the current account deficit peaked at around six per cent of GDP in the mid-1980s, the late 1980s and the mid-1990s under Labor governments. In none of those circumstances—not in the mid-1980s, not in the late 1980s and not in the mid-1990s—was there an Asian downturn. The Labor Party peaked the current account deficit at six per cent of GDP during Asian booms. During Asian booms is when the Australian Labor Party peaked current account deficits.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—A special kind of genius.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That, as the Prime Minister said, must have taken a special kind of genius. In addition, Australia comes into the Asian downturn and the consequent pressure in relation to exports and prices in a much stronger position because this government took the steps to put the foundations of the Australian economy in shape.We come into this not with a budget in deficit, not in a $10.3 billion Beazley deficit, which he sought to conceal, you will recall, but with a balanced budget, with low inflation and with a retiring debt program, which the Labor Party again wants to oppose. All the measures which are necessary to deal with Australia's savings like balanced budgets and retirement of debt have been opposed by the Australian Labor Party. The best thing that Labor could do would be to support the government's policy, which has given us strong foundations and which will strengthen the Australian economy in the future.901901Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, does the government remain committed to finding the right balance between jobs and environmental protection for major projects in regional Australia? Is the Prime Minister aware of any other approaches to this issue?901Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The short answer to the question is yes and yes.UNKNOWNOpposition MembersOpposition Members—So sit down!ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, it will not be quite as easy as that. The slightly longer answer to the question is that we have a marvellous example of the balance that ought to be struck in the approach of the coalition government to the development of the Jabiluka mine.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Jabiluka—not Jay-biluka, it's not about J-curves.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh! A dramatic thrust—grammatical pronunciation is now the Labor Party's development policy. They have found a policy at long last! Congratulations to the Australian Labor Party.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Shows how much you know about it—you're not across your brief.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks will contain himself and the Prime Minister will come back to the question, as intended.ZD4Mr HOWARD—This project will involve the creation of 1,000 jobs. It will generate revenue of more than $12,000 million, with over 85 per cent of that revenue staying in Australia. It will also provide royalties estimated to be worth over $200 million to local Aboriginal communities. It will be carried out under the strictest environmental safeguards.I would have thought that, if you have a project that creates 1,000 jobs, generates $12,000 million of income, 85 per cent of which stays in Australia and $200 million is going to the local Aboriginal communities, there might be a possibility it would attract the support even of the Australian Labor Party. I thought it might be a possibility—just a slim chance—that they might be interested in jobs for Australians, royalties for the indigenous people and export income for this nation.A moment ago the shadow Treasurer was up here complaining about and shedding crocodile tears over the current account deficit. If you want to fix the current account deficit, you ought to export more. There are two ways you can export more: you can support this project instead of opposing it and you can support the GST and take $4½ billion off exports. That is a way of supporting exports.Instead of supporting this project that will generate 1,000 jobs, will give $200 million in royalties to the Aboriginal people and will generate income of $12,000 million for this country over the expected life of the mine, in the face of all that, what does the Labor Party do? The Labor Party goes scuttling off to UNESCO via its spokesman on environmental matters with what I can only call a submission which is against the national interest which says:The conclusions of this submission are that the Australian government and the responsible ministers have made an unsustainable decision in permitting the uranium mine to proceed.Then the document concludes with a quite unqualified statement. You can always find an unqualified statement of what the Labor Party is against; you can never find an unqualified statement of what the Labor Party is in favour of. On page 8, this is what he has to say—and this is a document written in the name of the Australian Labor Party and, therefore, has the personal endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition:The mine continues to be controversial and the ALP has opposed its development both in government and in opposition for a range of cultural and environmental reasons including the location of the mine within the boundaries of the area. The Australian Labor Party asks that the committee call for the immediate inscription of Kakadu on the world heritage endangered register on both cultural and environmental grounds.There you have the clearest possible statement by the Australian Labor Party. They are against 1,000 jobs. They are against $12,000 million of export income over the life of this mine. They are against $200 million of royalties going to the indigenous people of Australia. That opposition and that approach destroy the credibility of any Labor Party crocodile tears shed on issues related to the development of this country, employment or practical assistance to the indigenous people.902902Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Do you recall the Prime Minister's confirmation that he expects the proposed private health insurance rebate to lift fund memberships by 2.7 per cent? Do you recall the health minister's claim that, without the rebate, membership levels would fall to 20 per cent over the next five years? Could the minister explain to the House what measure of the price elasticity of demand for health insurance was used in these calculations and in the costings of the proposed rebate?Government members interjecting—YU5Mr TANNER—Perhaps you could explain to them what `elasticity' means while you are at it.902Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—That is a ridiculous question. What the Labor Party refuses to recognise—because it suits its purposes to refuse to recognise—is that the benchmark that all Australians must work from in respect of private health insurance is the trend terms of recent years. There has been a reduction in private health cover which, if it were not arrested, would clearly see those numbers go down from the current level of 30.3 per cent to about 20 per cent. With the level of private health insurance cover at some 20 per cent, the taxpayers of Australia would be required to contribute $2.5 billion under the current Commonwealth-state health agreement. That is something this government is not prepared to stand by and let happen.This government recognises that a dual system is vitally important for the best health cover for all Australians and that is why we made the decision, which was clearly announced to the Australian people before the last election, to provide the 30 per cent rebate. We have indicated in this House what the assumptions led to in terms of the arrest of that decline and the fact that that will contribute to the dual system, which is vitally important and in the interests of all Australians in terms of health delivery.903903Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House about the opportunities that exist in South America for Australian exporters and investors following his recent visit to Argentina, Uruguay and Chile? Are Australian exporters making good use of these opportunities, thereby reinforcing government policy of encouraging further diversification of our export efforts to key growth markets around the world?Opposition members interjecting—903Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I am disappointed that the frontbench opposite seem to make a joke about these matters.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Today we had the release of the ABS export trade figures. They show exports up 1.4 per cent this month from the previous, exports up three out of the last four months and exports up three per cent for the 10 months of this year compared with the 10 months of last year, reflecting the massive diversification.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—They would be up even more if you had not stuffed around on Jabiluka all these years. It seems the opposition is more interested in exporting jobs to Canada, than in giving them to Australian miners and workers in relation to uranium mining.In response to the question by the member for Mallee, it is true that I did make brief working and hectic visits to Uruguay, Argentina and Chile partly because of the inaugural Qantas flight now operating from Sydney to Buenos Aires, and that reflects the diversification of our service exports. Members would be interested to know that our trade is diversifying: Pivot fertiliser is now being exported to Brazil; the first ever beef shipment has gone to Uruguay; even leather products are going across to economies in South America, including products from Mick's Whips presented to the President of Chile and the President of Uruguay.The investment pattern is even more exciting. In addition to BHP and MIM, we now have Prime Television's direct interest in Channel 9 Argentina being successful. AGL gas has invested in Chile. P&O terminals are successfully managing and boosting the efficiency of terminals in South America. Even Hoyts Cinemas is redeveloping complexes in Santiago. All of that means more dividends back here in Australia and, ultimately, a win-win situation.All of this, I hope, will be reflected in the National Export Awards taking place tomorrow night in Sydney, because our exporters deserve a gold medal for their performance in very difficult circumstances. Imports are at manageable levels partly because, through diversification, our exports are holding up extremely well in all the circumstances.903903Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. In view of the minister's claim that the private health insurance rebate is intended to take pressure off the public hospital system, can he advise the House why the rebate applies to the cost of extras insurance at a cost of over $300 million? How will providing a 30 per cent rebate for extras benefits—such as sporting equipment, gym membership, massage and homoeopathy—relieve the pressure on the public hospital system? Why give priority for public funding to subsidising extras benefits over directly funding public hospitals?904Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer is very simple. There are a variety of reasons why we are trying to do this. We are making a philosophical statement that we wish to help people who are trying to help themselves. We believe in people making an effort for self-provision, and this is what they have substantially done with very great difficulty in taking out private health insurance.Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The Leader of the Opposition is interjecting about his health fund paying for his tennis racquet. I have a hard time believing the Leader of the Opposition gets on the tennis court. Even if he does, he is seriously trivialising—Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I seem to remember you standing in this position saying a similar thing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will return to the question.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—What the Leader of the Opposition does is trivialise the issue of what extras insurance does and it shows he clearly does not understand its place in the health care system. The fact is that extras insurance pays for a very substantial amount of dental treatment, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and psychological treatment. An overwhelming part of it is related to assistance for people in the broader expanse of their health care.Given that we are trying to cover people's health care costs and help them with their private insurance, this would seem to be eminently sensible. The final thing is that extras cover as a risk rated product is something that is in people's benefit if they have better access to those range of ancillary services. It will lead to better health outcomes. It seemed eminently sensible that we do so. Finally on the issue of this helping public hospitals or not, all you have to do is look at the state health ministers' own figures, because it is quite clear that they believe this would help state public hospitals. Peter Beattie, for example, in 1995 is on record in the Queensland newspapers saying, `Anyone knows, it is glaringly obvious that if you had more people in private health insurance you would take pressure off the state hospitals,' and that is absolutely correct.904904Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of claims that the car industry will pass on lower price reductions than those estimated in the government's tax package? What is the Treasurer's response to such a claim?904Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question. I am aware of claims that the car industry will pass on lower price reductions than those estimated by the government in its tax package. Such claims were made by none other than the member for Hotham in this House on 12 November when he asked:Is the Treasurer aware that the spokesman for the car industry Mr Peter Sturrock has said that the industry will pass on significantly less than that?It takes a few days, but you can always run these falsehoods to ground. I have now had the opportunity to get hold of Mr Sturrock's speech. Mr Sturrock stated in his speech:. . . the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and the implementation of a value added component will result in a saving to the consumer of around six per cent.I think those on this side of the House would say, `Isn't that a good thing to be reducing prices by six per cent?'DT4CREANMr Crean—What about your figures?CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Hotham says, `Only six per cent, you are only reducing prices by six per cent,' as if this is some rather big point. The Labor Party is reducing prices on cars by how much? Zero per cent. The Labor Party wants to keep a wholesale sales tax.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. Don't the government's own tax package figures show that the price fall in the car will be 8.3 per cent. Six per cent is significantly—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call. There is no point of order that bears any resemblance to relevance.CT4Mr COSTELLO—On this side of the House, we would say even a six per cent reduction in the cost of motor vehicles was something to be welcomed. We oppose Labor's proposal to keep the cost of cars high.As Mr Sturrock makes entirely clear in his calculations, the six per cent saving is the difference between a wholesale sales tax and a value added tax. What Mr Sturrock does not do is he does not model into the price the abolition of other taxes that impact on motor car manufacturers—financial institutions duty abolished under the coalition, imposed by Labor; bank account debits taxes abolished under the coalition, imposed by Labor; stamp duties abolished under the coalition, imposed by Labor. It is entirely clear when you read his speech that he is talking about one change and one change only—wholesale sales tax and value added tax. Mr Sturrock then went on to say this:It is quite possible that the size of our market within five years will be between 850 and 950 thousand vehicles: quite enormous gains. No doubt the growth will be at least in part due to tax reforms now to be implemented by your Federal Government.So not only does it reduce the price but it is going to boost the volume and boost motor car manufacturing. We had jobs for Australians. How can you get nought out of three? The member for Hotham then gets up and asks about exports. Let me read to you what Mr Sturrock, the man he was misrepresenting in this place on 12 November, said:The impact of tax reform on international growth will be positive. According to government figures, cost reductions in the order of 3.9 per cent will be possible on goods which this industry sells offshore.Listen to this:For our burgeoning export industry now in its tenth successive growth year this is very good news. Industry exports in 1997 reached a record . . . Over the 10 years exports have grown . . . Annual automotive exports of vehicles, engines and components will reach six billion by the year 2005. This will mean at least 100,000 Australian made vehicles will be exported annually, of great assistance to the nation's balance of payments.Precisely the point that the Prime Minister was making. Anybody who is interested in the balance of payments in this country will be supporting taking taxes off exports under the government's tax plan—$4.5 billion of taxes off exports—boosting Australian exports, dealing with the balance of payments, increasing jobs and getting those industries going. That is why this side of the House stands for tax reform. The no policy, policy free zone Australian Labor Party stands for higher export costs, fewer jobs and a worse balance of payments.905905Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you recall your predecessor, Mr Vaile, promising a, `completely open and transparent inquiry on two fronts' at the time of the seaplane crash in July of this year? How does that commitment square with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's decision last week to withhold the full report of the Skehill investigation into the seaplane crash? Minister, do you personally have a copy of the full report? If so, will you release it or will you direct CASA to release it?905Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question. CASA has released the Skehill investigation into the regulatory role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in relation to the South Pacific Seaplanes, following that unfortunate crash which all of us regret. The fact is that, so far as this matter is concerned, Mr Toller, the director of aviation safety, has taken certain actions. He has cancelled the air operator certificate of South Pacific Seaplanes and there have been certain staff changes and so forth.But, most importantly in relation to this matter, BASI, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, is looking at the direct factors which led to the accident—the systems and related causes behind them—as well as safety oversight arrangements. It will be giving me a complete report early next year. When I have that complete report, I will be in a position to determine what actions the government or I should take over and above those actions taken by Mr Toller, which I fully support to this point in time.906906Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise the House of the effect on Australia's health system of a continued decline in private health insurance? In particular, what would be the effect on premiums?Mr Beazley interjecting—906Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—If you wish to look at the Rehame analysis of talkback last week, it is certainly not the government who is catching up. The effects are sixfold. The first is that there would be a direct effect on the Commonwealth budget and there would be extra compensation for the states under the provisions that trigger an $83 million increase in funding every year that one per cent of private people drop out of private health insurance. This will be $2.5 billion of funding over the life of this agreement. The second effect will be that this will feed into the base funding for the next agreement from 2003 to 2008. We could expect the base funding to rise $5 billion one-off just because of this measure for the next health agreement.The third effect is that, if we followed the long-term decline trend, which it would be expected, with the 20 per cent rate we would lose 1.9 million Australians out of health insurance over the lifetime of this health care agreement. That would mean about 3.7 million people only. The fourth effect is that this would then have a direct effect on hospital bed days. When the Commonwealth, state and territory health ministers some years ago commissioned work to try to determine the effect of dropout of private health insurance on bed day utilisation, it was estimated that every half million people who dropped their private health cover led to 322,000 extra bed days. This would mean that 1.2 million extra bed days would be required in five years time—3,300 extra hospital beds. A large major teaching hospital is a bit under 500 beds, so you are looking at five to six extra public hospitals.The fifth effect is that public hospital revenue would drop by about $1 billion and the sixth effect is that the health funds who are currently doing their arrangements for the next financial year would have to go back to the drawing board. So rather than having premium increases in an increasing market, they would be looking at premium increases in a declining market. On this basis we can expect the increases would come earlier and would be higher than they would otherwise be.Finally, in response to the puerile interjections over the road, the fact is that we would still be facing a further dropout. All we would have done is treat the symptoms; we would not treat the cause root of the problem—which you are incapable of grasping.906906Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, does the Skehill investigation reveal serious problems with the organisation and administration of the Bankstown CASA office? Is this the reason that CASA has failed to release the full version of the report? What action will you take to ensure that the full report, not just the executive summary, is released for public scrutiny so that public confidence in aviation safety is not further eroded, as is happening in this country at the moment? 906Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I do not think I have much to add. I will await BASI's full report. It is a very respected institution. The fact of the matter is that at this stage only the executive summary has been handed to me.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—If you are really concerned about air safety, you will accept that BASI is conducting a full inquiry into the whole matter. It will report to me shortly next year and further action, if required, will be taken from that point on.The point has already been made that SPS's licence has already been cancelled and action has been taken against those people who might have been regarded as having performed inadequately, and certain other personnel have left voluntarily. Until such time as BASI's full report is available, I think we can rest assured that appropriate action is being taken in the meantime.907907Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports that the government's proposed tax reforms received a hostile reception from European Olympic Committee delegates in St Petersburg? Will this lead the government to change its position on its tax reform program?907Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. A press release was issued on the weekend from the Queensland Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, Mr Gibbs. Mr Gibbs said in his press release that he just returned from leading a Queensland government delegation attending the 27th General Assembly of European Olympic Committees in St Petersburg, Russia, between 12 and 14 November, which I suppose is nice work if you can get it! Mr Gibbs said that, while he was in St Petersburg, he noticed that there was certain interest in Australia. According to Mr Gibbs:The Howard government's plans to introduce a goods and services tax before the Sydney Olympics had received a hostile reception from delegates in St Petersburg.I thought that was pretty interesting because, when I consulted the Coopers and Lybrand's survey of consumption taxes for 1997, I found out that not only does St Petersburg have a GST, but Mr Gibbs was paying it all the time he was in Russia receiving complaints. When Mr Gibbs went to Russia, he would have been paying, under Russian law, a 20 per cent value added tax on all goods and services but only a reduced rate in Russia of 10 per cent on various staple food products. Here is Mr Gibbs, courtesy of the Queensland taxpayer, sitting up and shovelling 20 per cent out to the Russian government under a value added tax and saying, `Wouldn't it be a terrible thing if there were a GST in Australia.'Mr Gibbs said that, as a result of his negotiations, he thought he could get people from Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, the Netherlands, Romania, the Czech Republic, Israel, Spain and Russia out to Australia to engage in pre-Olympic training, although he said delegates had privately admitted that they may have to reconsider it in the light of a GST. Let us think about who has the GST: Germany, yes; France, yes; Switzerland, yes; Poland, yes; the Netherlands, yes; Romania, yes; the Czech Republic, yes; Israel, yes; Spain, yes; and Russia. Every single one of the countries that Mr Gibbs wants to bring out to Australia has a GST. According to Mr Gibbs, they are now reconsidering their plans if Australia follows suit.You would have to be a mug to say that, when our athletes go to Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, the Netherlands, Romania, the Czech Republic, Israel, Spain and Russia, and when Mr Gibbs goes to Russia, those countries can get visitors to their country to pay taxes and reduce the tax burden on their own population, but the only country in the world that is not allowed to do that is Australia. The poor old Aussie taxpayer has to give a free kick to everybody else charging them value added taxes when they go into their country and pick up the tab. That is Labor policy.Labor policy is to slug the battler and give the international visitor a tax-free go in Australia. This side of the parliament will stick up for Australians. We will make sure that the Aussie gets a fair deal, that the Aussie who pays taxes overseas gets a fair deal from overseas people who come into Australia as well.907907O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of the plight of wool growers who borrowed around $30 million against their equity in the wool stockpile under a scheme developed and promoted by the government and that those loans are generally repayable in full by 31 December 2000? Is the minister aware that lenders are now seeking settlement of the debt or seeking to negotiate more costly alternative repayment arrangements with affected wool growers in the wake of your decision to freeze the stockpile? How does the government propose to compensate wool growers now caught in this mess of your government's creation?908Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I certainly thank him for his interest in the plight of the wool industry in Australia today. I am aware of some commercial arrangements that have been undertaken. I have had discussions with some of the financial institutions that undertook those arrangements. We have discussed the implications of the government's policy that we have announced and implemented so far. Those financial institutions have been satisfied with that. I will make one point: we will not, as a government, see anybody disadvantaged out of these arrangements. I took the opportunity early in the piece to talk to the financial institutions that had provided cover for wool growers in Australia.It should be also noted that the value of their equity in the wool stockpile since the government made its decision, and announced it and introduced legislation through the parliament a week or so ago—which is in the Senate now—has increased. Those financial institutions also recognise that. So yes we are cognisant of those elements. It is a very serious issue.The shadow minister will also be aware of a very important meeting taking place in Goulburn today about the future of the wool industry. Our government takes very seriously its responsibility in terms of facilitating the management of the future directions of the wool industry in Australia because it will have a dramatic effect, as it always has had, on our economy generally. We certainly will do that. I will leave it there. It is a serious situation and I have addressed a number of those concerns.908908Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the visit to Singapore by Chinese defence minister, General Chi Haotian, during which he warned against the further development of military alliances in Asia. Given that the general's comments are being interpreted as a criticism of the position adopted by countries such as the US and Australia, I ask: what is Australia's position on strengthening defence ties in the region and what is our response to these comments from China?908Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Blair for his question. I appreciate that such a sensible question comes from the member for Blair. I know some of the other candidates during the election did not have such sensible ideas as the member for Blair.From time to time, Chinese commentators have criticised alliance arrangements in the region, including the US alliance in the region. There is nothing new in those comments; they are made fairly frequently. The Australian government's position is that we have had a longstanding alliance relationship with the US, as indeed has Japan and the Republic of Korea. We regard the relative stability that our region has enjoyed in recent years as being partly as a result of the strong alliance relationships that exist in the region. If those alliance arrangements were to be swept away overnight, that would be a seriously destabilising factor in the region as a whole.With the Chinese, we work on a number of other arrangements. In particular, there is the ASEAN regional forum, where both Australia and China are very active and engaged participants. There are a number of different levels to the region's security architecture. But it has been this government's view and the view of successive Australian governments for a long time that the alliance arrangements we and others have with the United States remain an important component of the security architecture of the region.The Chinese government is aware that that is our view. It is aware that that view is shared by most of the other governments of the region. Whilst we do not agree on that matter, we do agree on a wide range of other important security issues. We have been able to discuss and agree on these issues from time to time in bilateral discussions with China.909909Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, concerns his government's continuing attacks on university teaching and research. Does the Prime Minister agree with his education minister that last Monday's Australian awards for university teaching here at Parliament House were a major item on the university calendar and that the highlight of the night was the Prime Minister's award? If so, can the Prime Minister explain why he thought enjoying himself at the Liberal fund raiser at the Southern Cross Club in Woden was more important than attending the awards here at Parliament House and presenting the award given in his name?909Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Unlike the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to the person who has occupied the spokesmanship for education matters over the last 2½ years—namely, the member for Werriwa—I have complete confidence in my minister. He is very able to present awards in my name.909909Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Could the minister advise the House of the impact on youth unemployment if junior wage rates were to be abolished? This is a vital issue for the young people of my electorate of Gilmore and throughout Australia. Could you inform members of the impact on youth employment if other proposals being aired were to be introduced?909Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I do not think there is any doubt that, if the Labor Party's legislation remains on the books, in June 2000 a lot of young people will lose their jobs. I will give the House an explanation of why that is the case. This is the government's submission to the junior rates inquiry. It has contained within it a fairly typical award in the retail industry. It is for shop employees in the ACT. It is the award in 1996.If you are less than 17 and today employed under that award, you will receive 60 per cent of the adult wage—namely, $259.10 per week. If Labor's policy is not prevented from being implemented—in other words, if our legislation does not pass—in June 2000, that young person will receive a wage increase of $172.70 per week to $431.80. They will get a pay increase of 67 per cent. Do you know what the Labor Party says? They say that if you increase a 16-year-old's pay by $170 per week it will make no difference. They say that not one job will be lost across the country and that it will be immaterial to the job prospects of young people. This is absolutely nonsensical. This is ideology before the jobs of young people.McDonald's employs a lot of young people. One of my sons had a job with McDonald's. There are literally tens of thousands of young people who have had a job with McDonald's. They have learnt the basics about working. They have taken it as the first step in their careers, whatever they might be. Julie Owens, the head of In Work Force, said this week that they have a 50,000-strong work force which would be decimated if junior wages are abolished in June 2000. The Daily Telegraph says of junior wage rates:The value to young people is psychological as well as financial. It creates a work ethic. Experience in the work force at any level creates confidence, a sense of achievement and a stepping stone to the next level of employment.In other words, this is a scheme that works for young people to get a job. The Labor Party is set and absolutely determined to ruin that scheme and to see the end of it in the year 2000. To conclude, the member asked me what alternative policies there are. The fact is that there are no alternative policies. If you ask the Labor Party, they say, `We're going to oppose the legislation when it's introduced.' The shadow minister says that in one breath. When he is asked, `What is your position on it?' he says, `We actually haven't had our caucus discussion about it, so I guess I should try and wait until the party has a meeting on it.' You have had 13 years to work out your position on this.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Quote it fully.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Brisbane.WI4Mr REITH—A lot of young people will lose their jobs as a result. The Courier Mail summed it up very well recently in an editorial. Its title was `Labor has no plan for the future'. It said:A decade ago, the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, was fond of saying that good policy made good politics. Today's Labor has not only lost sight of this truth; it no longer believes it.910910McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the Ward decision that discredited the confirmation of extinguishment provisions of the government's Native Title Act. Given that the Western Australian government has indicated its intention to pass legislation consistent with those provisions and the Northern Territory has already passed its legislation, will the Commonwealth meet the undertaking given by the Prime Minister to pay 75 per cent of the cost of acquiring the Miriuwung Gajerrong's native title? Can the Attorney advise the parliament of the government's estimate as to what the cost of that compensation will be?910Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I think we need to bear in mind that the Miriuwung Gajerrong decision, while a very important one, is probably going to be appealed. I say `probably' without knowing that any individual party has in fact formed an intention to appeal, but it does raise new issues that need to be addressed by the justice system. I strongly suspect that there will be an appeal. Whether the Commonwealth will be an intervener in the appeal will depend upon what the issues are. The member's question was no doubt prompted by speculation in the media over the weekend as to how much the compensation for extinguishment of native title rights in relation to this claim would be. I am not aware of any proposal for that to occur in any sense. On that basis, I think we can leave it as speculation as it was in the media.910910Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. In the course of recent consultations with members of the Job Network, has the minister received reports that some job seekers are perhaps not making the most of the opportunities available to them through the network? If he has received such reports, what is his response to them?910Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank my friend the member for Wentworth for his question. In the course of extensive consultations, a number of Job Network members have reported that some job seekers are failing to make the most of the system. They are either failing to register for job matching or, more importantly, they are not turning up for jobsearch training after referral from Centrelink. The government is considering refinements to the system including measures to ensure that job seekers on benefit make full use of the services available to them. Society has an absolute right to expect that job seekers on benefit will be actively seeking work, and that means making full use of the Job Network.I would have thought that that principle was commanding of such universal assent that it would hardly be worth restating—that is, until I saw a notice of motion from Senator Stott Despoja which noted with grave concern a report that the unemployed will be forced to seek assistance from the Job Network under threat of losing their income. I was very concerned about this lest other people had the same view. I was reassured to find support from members opposite. No less an authority than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when in government, said:What we are proposing is extra obligations on the part of those receiving the benefits to take them up. If they refuse a reasonable offer, they will be taken off benefits.That is what one half of the ACTU parliamentary team said. The other half, the member for Batman, said:The government is prepared to assist in finding work—that is correct; the government is prepared to assist—but it means people must front up to their own responsibilities.That is what the member for Batman said, and he is absolutely right. That is what the government is going to ensure happens.Senator Stott Despoja's outrage is of fairly recent origin. She herself said just last year:I do not believe that anyone in this place disputes the notion that has been talked about today of mutual obligation.Any idea that this government is scapegoating job seekers is completely wrong. This government is determined to ensure that people on newsearch take jobsearch seriously. A small minority who do not take it seriously taint a much larger number who do. When we do bring down a series of refinements to the system, the House will find that these are in the broad mainstream of Australian policy.911911Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has made an application to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to have the minimum wage replace award rates for the purpose of applying the no disadvantage test in enterprise agreements? Is the minister aware that the ACCI application would result in workers on average weekly earnings facing a wage cut of $364.30 per week? Does the government support the ACCI application? If not, will it oppose it in the commission?911Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I would not accept the shadow minister's interpretation of ACCI's submission on anything. In respect of the living wage case, ACCI has put in a submission. I have seen the press reports of it. The government will also make a submission in due course, and we will make our own submission thank you.911911Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister outline to the House the substantial benefits to regional communities which will flow from the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra?911Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The benefits are very considerable. They would certainly flow to people in the vast area that he represents in a way that, not surprisingly, makes them very attractive indeed. For example, the government has committed itself to some $70 million over five years to put rural transaction centres into approximately 500 small country towns. Those centres will provide services like personal banking, postal services, fax and phone services and Medicare Easyclaim. In the future, it could even look at providing services like Centrelink and various other medical information lines.The amount of $150 million will be allocated over three years to abolish Telstra's pastoral call rate and to provide untimed local calls in extended zones in remote areas. This will benefit nearly 40,000 Australian households in some of the most remote parts of the country. An additional $81 million will be provided over three years to the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. That will help us do a whole range of things, such as provide $20 million to the telecommunications needs of remote and isolated island communities, $25 million to upgrade to 100 per cent continuous coverage of mobile phones on many of our national highways, $36 million to increased Internet points of presence, and local call Internet access points. Also, $120 million over five years will be allocated to establish a television fund to extend coverage of SBS television and to eliminate a surprising number of television black spots where, even in 1998, people still cannot get television reception.To that must be added a $250 million boost to the Natural Heritage Trust, which is an outstanding innovation of the Howard-Fischer government and is very much wanted in rural Australia. I make this final point: if only my opposite number would go out into the bush and have a look, she might find out why these initiatives are needed and why they are very popular. Perhaps the cat has been well and truly belled by her previous colleague Senator Woodley when he said on ABC radio, `Cheryl was always telling me to stay out of the bush because she didn't think there were any votes there.' I am sure that is quite right: she ought to stay away from the bush.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Personal Explanations91215:01:00912Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Mr Speaker, on Friday, it was stated in the Financial Review that I was the first person to be thrown out of this House by you, as the new Speaker. Sadly, this is not true. The mantle belongs to the honourable member for Denison.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Can I observe to the House that it would be of great distress to me and I would have thought all members of the House if ejection from the House were seen as any sort of badge of honour. In fact, we are elected here by 80,000 constituents, who expect us to represent them. To actually choose, after being warned, to leave the House and so leave the constituency unrepresented would seem to me to be no badge of honour at all.15:02:00912Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes, grievously.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Today in question time the Treasurer, in answer to a question from me that he would not answer last week, said that I misrepresented Mr Sturrock when I said that Mr Sturrock estimated the fall in car prices to be significantly less than the estimate of the government. On 15 October, Mr Sturrock said, `With all factors equal, a motor vehicle now carrying a recommended retail price of $30,000 will fall to $28,200 with the new tax system.' That is taking into account all elements of the new tax system, and that is a six per cent fall.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—No, this is where I have been misrepresented. The government's own tax package says that the fall in prices will be 8.3 per cent. Therefore, six per cent is a significantly different figure from that that the government has been putting out.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham is abusing the privilege. He will resume his seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I am not abusing it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has made his point.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—No, there is another point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the member for Hotham.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—In the same answer to that question, the Treasurer also went on to rail forth about the increase that Mr Sturrock claimed would occur to the car industry in this country. However, according to the Business Review Weekly of 2 November, the industry does not believe those figures based on what the Treasury says.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. It would be reasonable if Mr Sturrock were a member of this House for him to seek a personal explanation but not, in these circumstances, for the member for Hotham.91210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:912865XJ6Anthony Larry MPTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the residents of Banora Point, in the Electorate of Richmond are upset and alarmed at the recent implementation of arrival and departure flight paths at the southern end of Coolangatta Airport. We question why flight paths over a population in excess of 16,000 people was adopted, a large proportion of whom live on an elevated area over 200 feet, when an option was available over an industrial and commercial area, green belt/golf course and low lying residential area of less than 2,000 people and then out to sea.This has had a traumatic affect on the Banora Point community impacting on our lifestyles and causing the loss of property values. Many of these people had bought or built homes on the under standing that flight paths were over the water of Terranora Inlet and the Broadwater. The community now experiences 100% of flights when historically it had only experienced a small incidence of them.We respectfully request the House to ask the Minister to intervene on behalf of Banora Point residents to ensure that more logical flight paths are selected with due consideration being given to Airservices Australia's Environmental Principles.Mr AnthonyXJ6Mr Anthony(from 865 citizens)91327083SBurke Anna MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of Australia, draws to the attention of the House, that the new Youth Allowance:Discriminates against young people aged between 18 to 21.Stops young people from getting any Government benefit if their parents earn more than $42,000.Doesn't recognise young people's independence when they turn 18.Your petitioners therefore request that the House reverse the Youth Allowance laws and recognise that young people do have the right to live an independent life, regardless of what income their parents may earn.Ms Burke83SMs Burke(from 270 citizens)913481SD4Cadman Alan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This humble petition of the citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that Family Planning Australia and its state affiliates promote the use of dangerous drugs on women: Medical Director of Family Planning New South Wales, Dr Edith Weisberg, prescribed and promoted the use of the injectable `Depro Provera' for many years. This drug was taken off the market in the US as a contraceptive for dogs. Family Planning New South Wales and Family Planning Victoria conducted trials of `RU 486' despite the fact that there have been RU 486 related deaths in France. Family Planning New South Wales is currently calling for volunteers for `Norplant' trials despite the fact that 160 lawsuits have been filed against its manufacturer, Wyeth-Ayerst, in the United States following serious side effects of the drug. Family Planning Australia urges the `over the counter use' of `The Morning After Pill' even though its manufacturer, Shering, warned it would remove the drug from the market for fear of litigation if it were to be sold over the counter.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray for the removal of all funding to all Family Planning Australia associations and affiliates in Australia since it is clear that such funding is having deleterious effects on women's health.And your petitioners as duty bound will ever pray.Mr CadmanSD4Mr Cadman(from 481 citizens)9133324K6Causley Ian MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned petitioners wish to bring to the notice of the House the situation regarding the proposed GST and the practice of natural therapies. Medicinal herbs, other natural remedies and the services of all natural therapists will be taxed at 10%. It is manifestly unfair that those who choose natural therapies are to be taxed while people who choose allopathic medicine are not only heavily subsidised by our taxes, but are also exempt from the GST. We pray that the House exempt all natural therapy products and services from the proposed GST.Mr Causley4K6Mr Causley(from 332 citizens)91316883NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We, the undersigned petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas, are deeply concerned at the prospect of the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST).A GST is unfair since everyone pays the same tax on goods and services, regardless of their ability to pay. A GST would also tax essential everyday items such as bread, fruit and vegetables, milk and eggs, making life more difficult for struggling Australians.Under a GST, big business benefits and will pay less tax because the full tax burden is passed to consumers, particularly people on lower incomes. Such a tax would be detrimental to Australian families, small business operators and people on lower incomes.We therefore call on the House to reject any plans to introduce an expensive, inefficient and unfair system of taxation such as a Goods and Services Tax, and to ensure that our tax system is just, fair and enforceable with everyone—big business, small business, high income earners and low income earners alike—paying their fair share of tax. Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 168 citizens)91411983NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 119 citizens)91410783NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the Government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 107 citizens)91431083OHull Kay MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizen of Australia draws to the attention of the House support of the undersigned for the establishment of radiotherapy services at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will commend the establishment of radiotherapy services at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga to treat cancer patients residing in the south-west region of NSW and north-eastern Victoria.The House is advised that the Minister for Health Dr Andrew Refshauge M.P. has given `in principle' support to the proposed co-located "sister" clinics at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga.We, therefore, respectfully request the House to call on the Federal Minister for Health Dr Michael Wooldridge M.P. to urgently approve the provision of these vital radiotherapy services for country cancer patients who are now disadvantaged by being forced to attend metropolitan based services for long periods of treatment.Mrs Hull83OMrs Hull(from 310 citizens)91433HK6Lindsay Peter MPTo the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives.The undersigned wish to draw the attention of the House of Representatives to the impact of the Youth Allowance Policy: Independent-At-Home Rate. This rate has equated to a $90 per fortnight reduction for thousands of independent students, previously on AUSTUDY, who are living with their parents.Students of James Cook University having placed their signatures below object to the following:1. That students having met strict independence criteria and therefore demonstrated that they live independently are expected to survive on a fortnightly income of $174.80.2. That students living with their parents and previously in receipt of full independent AUSTUDY allowance have, without notification had their support income sliced by $90 per fortnight.3. That notification for the above named rate was not given in advance of the release of the Youth Allowance on 1 July 1998.Mr LindsayHK6Mr Lindsay(from 33 citizens)91428HK6Lindsay Peter MPTo the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives.The undersigned wish to draw the attention of the House of Representatives to the impact of the removal of two-thirds concession under Youth Allowance Legislation. Previously under AUSTUDY legislation students were able to study two-thirds of the full-time workload and continue to receive payment for one semester.The removal of this concession has forced students, many of whom are attempting undergraduate honours, to drop to part-time study and further prolong their professional employment opportunities.In addition, as study support is not available, these students are forced to become recipients of Newstart Allowance. Clearly, there is no logic in extending undergraduate completion time while forcing students into unemployment support.Mr LindsayHK6Mr Lindsay(from 28 citizens)915509V5Pyne Chris MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The following residents of South Australia draw to the attention of the House the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to reverse the current funding arrangements for new low fee schools established since 1996.Your petitioners therefore request the House to observe the wishes of Australian parents to retain choice in the education of their children.Mr Pyne9V5Mr Pyne(from 50 citizens)91536SU5Vaile Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Lyne draws to the attention of the House the strong case for funding to expand SBS Television services to the Lower Mid-North Coast through a transmitter on the National Transmission Agency site at Middle Brother Mountain, north of Taree.We the undersigned ask the House to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Communications so that he may pursue the matter as a high priority as part of the Federal Government's expansion program of SBS Television services across Australia.Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile(from 36 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business91591515:07:00915Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I move:That this House:(1) strongly condemns the recent grave attacks on the Iranian Baha'i community, including the brutal execution of Mr Ruhu'llah Rawhani in July in the absence of due legal process, raids on 500 Baha'i homes in an orchestrated nation-wide attempt to prevent Baha'i youth from receiving education, confirmation of death sentences against two Baha'i men and the detention and imprisonment of 16 other Baha'is for practising their faith;(2) calls on the Government of Iran to end its oppression of the Baha'i community, ensure the safety and early release of all those Baha'is imprisoned in Iran, immediately take steps to implement UN resolutions defining steps required of the Iranian Government and calling for the emancipation of the Baha'is and respect for the principles of the International Covenants on Human Rights to which Iran is a party; and(3) expresses its deep disappointment that despite the consideration of this matter by both Houses of the Australian Parliament last year, the Iranian Government, far from taking action to remedy the situation, has intensified its persecution of Baha'is.In June 1997 this House moved to condemn the activities of the Iranian government in its treatment of Baha'is. Since then, the situation has got worse with the execution of Baha'i activist Ruhu'llah Rawhani on 21 July this year. The Iranian government has maintained its persecution of Baha'is and has subjected them to unfair and illegal trials, in contravention of its own constitution.The Baha'i faith is an independent religion which originated in Iran, then Persia, in the 1840s, and which recognises the divine origin of all major religions. The Baha'i faith was founded by the prophet Baha'u'llah, born in Iran in 1817. There are around 300,000 members of the Baha'i community in Iran, and more than five million Baha'is around the world. Because the Baha'i faith postdates Islam, Islamic fundamentalists regard Baha'is as heretics. They are regarded as `unprotected infidels' under the Iranian constitution—denying Baha'is basic legal and civil rights.The Iranian treatment of Baha'is has been unjust, intolerant and draconian. Since 1980 more than 200 Baha'is have been killed in Iran because of their religious beliefs. Baha'is are often accused of fictitious crimes, and it is believed that thousands of Baha'is have been arbitrarily detained. Baha'is often have their pensions, property and belongings confiscated. Their cemeteries throughout Iran have been seized and desecrated. Baha'i marriage is also not recognised in Iran.Particularly concerning for the Baha'is is the Iranian government's attempt to deny them higher education, excluding Baha'is from colleges and universities in Iran since 1980. University education is a key issue for any community. In its war against the Baha'is, `The Baha'i Question' policy written by the Iranian Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council in 1991 states that Baha'is:. . . must be expelled from universities . . . once it becomes known they are Baha'is . . . and that they must be denied employment if they identify themselves as Baha'is, and:. . . deny them any position of influence, such as in the educational sector.In response to this draconian approach by the Iranian government, in 1987 the Iranian Baha'i community founded the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education, an independent and decentralised university system for students of the Baha'i faith operating out of private homes and other buildings. Until September this year, more than 900 students were enrolled at the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education, which was able to offer 10 bachelor degrees.In late September early October this year, agents of the Iranian government staged a series of raids on the Baha'i institute, arresting at least 36 staff members and confiscating equipment and records from more than 500 homes. The detainees were asked to sign a declaration that the institute ceased operation from 29 September and that they would no longer be involved with it. The detainees refused to sign.Prior to the raids on the Baha'i institute, on 21 July this year Ruhu'llah Rawhani, a leading member of the Baha'i community in Iran, was hanged in Mashhad. The Iranian government claimed that this was because he had tried to convert a Muslim woman to the Baha'i faith. In 1984 Mr Rawhani was arrested on the retroactive charge of having previously been a member of the Local Spiritual Assembly and Baha'i Committee in the Mashhad region. Mr Rawhani served more than a year in prison, over two years internal exile in Najafabad near Isfahan, and was fined over one million rials before being allowed to return home.He was arrested a second time about four years ago for being involved in an informal planning meeting for a regular worship activity. Mr Rawhani and the others arrested were released after 24 hours. This time, his third arrest, Mr Rawhani was executed after serving nine months solitary confinement. After first denying the reports, the Iranian authorities subsequently acknowledged that he had been executed. The Iranian government by this time has changed the story it was giving about the reason for Mr Rawhani's arrest and, following the execution, asserted that he had been convicted of spying for Israel.The treatment of Mr Rawhani violates the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Article 32 of that constitution states:No one may be arrested except by the order and in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. In case of arrest, charges with reasons for accusation must, without delay, be communicated and explained to the accused in writing . . . No written charge appears to have been provided to Mr Rawhani. Article 35 states:Both parties to a lawsuit have the right in all courts of law to select an attorney . . . However, Mr Rawhani was denied the right to select an attorney. Article 165 states that `trials are to be held openly'. Mr Rawhani's trial was held in secret.In the most recent United Nations report, the Special Representative of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights urged the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to:. . . improve its treatment of the Baha'i community and specifically to refrain from ordering the death penalty for religious offences; to lift the ban on Baha'i organisations so that Baha'is may associate freely; to put an end to discrimination against Baha'is in all spheres of public life and services; to effect the return of confiscated personal and community Baha'i property; to institute the reconstruction of destroyed places of worship wherever possible or, at a minimum, ensure the provision of appropriate compensation to the Baha'i community; to lift restrictions regarding the burial and honouring of the dead; and to eliminate from passport application forms questions concerning religion so as to avoid undue infringements on the freedom of movement. Today I would like to acknowledge the concern shown by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon. Alexander Downer, for the Baha'i community, the treatment of Baha'is in Iran and his efforts at an international level to end their persecution.In 1992 I visited Iran as part of a parliamentary delegation. During that visit the delegation questioned the Minister for the Interior about the treatment of Baha'is. His response was quite interesting. First of all, he denied that Baha'is existed in Iran. Later, when pressed, he said that when Baha'is were arrested it had nothing to do with their being Baha'is; it was simply because they were engaging in illegal activities including theft and spying. This is how Baha'is have been treated in Iran.I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of the Australian Baha'i Executive Officer of External Affairs, Michael Curtotti, and acknowledge his work fighting against the persecution of Baha'is in the Islamic Republic of Iran.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Is the motion seconded?UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:17:00917Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I have pleasure in being part of this debate today, as I was on a previous occasion when I sponsored a motion with the member for North Sydney. The essential thrust and problem remain the same. I have to say at the outset that my electorate, being one which accepts a significant number of new arrivals because of the nature of the community and its housing content, has accepted a very significant number of Iraqi Shi'ite who have come to this country because of our protection of refugee claimants. I think we are all aware of the degree of suffering that they and the Kurdish minority have suffered in Iraq. I would hope they would be in agreement with me as to the universality of the matters we raise today. The plight of their religious confreres in Iraq is very similar to the plight of Baha'is in Iran.Some 300,000 Baha'is have come under sustained attack. The point I want to stress very strongly is that, despite endeavours by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to claim that these are outbreaks by uncontrollable elements and that they are individual initiatives, there is strong evidence that this is state orchestrated. In 1993 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights gained access to detailed government documentation which indicated that there is a wholesale government policy to essentially marginalise the 300,000 Baha'is in Iran, to ensure that they are deprived of education, that they are expelled from employment and that they are deprived of their rights to support their families. It is important to note that we have a concrete problem here because of the government's own participation in this discrimination and its attempt to destroy the Baha'i faith and their presence in Iran.The previous speaker, the honourable member for Hindmarsh, referred to the way in which a member of this parliament, Senator Brown, amongst others, has been misled in regard to events there. On 27 July last year the Iranian embassy said of Mr Ruhu'llah Rawhani:The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran represented by this Embassy totally rejects this allegation, and I can further inform you that no such person, as named in your letter, has been executed as you claim.That is typical of the attitude of the government. Both houses of this parliament have passed resolutions on these matters, and they are attempting to mislead people by saying that people are not dead or that they are in court facing charges that are very different to the reality. They are essentially facing charges because of their religious beliefs. These are sometimes covered up with wild allegations that, because the Baha'is have headquarters in Israel, this is essentially something to do with Iran's Middle Eastern attitudes on Palestine and other matters.The situation in Iran has certainly not improved between now and when this parliament last heard of matters. As I understand it, at least 18 people have been detained in Iranian prisons for their religious beliefs, six of whom are on death row. In the period since 1980, 200 have been killed and thousands have suffered arbitrary detention. I must stress that in a number of cases the people involved have family in this country. More particularly, residents in my electorate have had members of their family killed, detained, tortured and persecuted.A matter that the Baha'i community particularly raises at this stage is that of education. There have been enhanced efforts by the Iranian government to ensure that members of the Baha'i religion are faced with two alternatives: either they do not get educated or they change their religious beliefs. As a result, the Baha'i community—and I put on record my commendation of their endeavours—have established a Baha'i Institute for Higher Education in an attempt to ensure that their children have the opportunity to advance in life. From the records that I have been provided with, the alternative institutions of Baha'i have had such credibility that people have passed from there into Western tertiary institutions on occasion.But in the last few months the government of Iran has attempted essentially to wipe out their efforts to provide education for their children. That has entailed the arrest of 36 faculty members and the raiding of their premises. It followed earlier activity whereby they essentially used the government postal system to disrupt the transfer of educational material. More recently they have seized, in their looting of Baha'i properties, photocopying equipment which was very crucial to the distribution of this educational material. They have also sought to persecute people who have acted as conduits for this educational material. They have persecuted people who used their houses, their premises, to enhance this activity. As I said, there is a general policy to attack this effort.It interesting to note the attempt in a series of court decisions of the Iranian authorities to say that people are guilty of a variety of other offences. When they actually throw these people in gaol, when they actually order their murder by the state authority, in a number of the court decisions we see very clearly what it is all about. Mr Mansur Haddadan was arrested on 29 February 1996. The offence he committed was to conduct a `children's class'. He has been sentenced to three years impris onment. He was guilty of the crime of `being active in the Baha'i community and being involved in gatherings for Baha'i meetings in a private house'. In November 1997, Mr Nasir Qadiri was arrested and charged with the heinous activity of `persistence in continuing to hold a monthly gathering of a few Baha'i families'. And for that dreadful offence he received three years in gaol! Mr Arman Damishqi and Mr Kurush Dhabihi were arrested for misconduct in early 1996, along with several Muslims. That was an instance where we saw a clear distinction for religious reasons between the sentences people received. As detailed in previous debates, these attacks also go to property rights, the rights of burial, et cetera.In conclusion, I very strongly support the motion brought here today by the member for Hindmarsh. It goes to a very important matter of human rights. No-one is in any way confused or misled by the Iranian authorities' attempt to pretend that these charges are anything but religious persecution.15:26:00918Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—As has been said already, this issue of the religious freedom of the Baha'i people in Iran has been raised in this House before—by the previous speaker, the honourable gentleman from Reid; the gentleman from North Sydney; and I believe the former member for Capricornia. Senator Abetz has moved a similar motion in the Senate on a previous occasion.The parliament goes back quite a long way in expressing its concerns about the treatment of the Baha'i people in Iran. In the 37th Parliament, the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in its report A review of Australia's efforts to promote and protect human rights recommended that the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner monitor the human rights situation inside Iran with particular reference to any restrictions on religious freedom in that country, especially regarding the Baha'i people. In the 38th Parliament, that subcommittee on a number of occasions heard evidence and was briefed by members of the Baha'i community on the ongoing atrocities and problems.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Aston will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for Richmond to observe standing order 57 and pay his colleague the courtesy of not walking between him and the chair when he is speaking.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, as I say, in the last parliament this matter was certainly raised on a number of occasions. Of course, earlier this year the Minister for Foreign Affairs issued a media release on the execution of Mr Ruhu'llah Rawhani and stated that the Australian government was opposed to the use of capital punishment in any circumstances and was concerned about the grave violations of the human rights of the Baha'i people in Iran. As the honourable gentleman from Reid said just now, it is not a problem, unfortunately, that is in Iran unique to the Baha'i people. The Shi'ites have a similar situation.It is obviously an issue of long standing. It is an issue that has concerned this parliament for a long time. Unfortunately, in spite of the protestations of the Iranian government, it does not seem to be improving at all. Therefore, I think it is important that this government continue to raise these issues and to keep them at the forefront of public and international attention.Just to give an idea of the sort of scale of the problem we are talking about, when the execution of Mr Rawhani took place, no charge sheets were provided, no verdict was published, no public trial was held. These are all requirements spelt out in the Iranian constitution, itself guaranteeing protections such as these. They were all violated in his case.By way of background to what goes on, something like 36 Baha'i professors were arrested and raids on some 500 Baha'i homes took place. These were directed to the closure of the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education. Taken together, those sorts of things clearly show that there is a major government orchestrated attack on the Baha'i community in that country.I acknowledge that the government in fact has been vocal on this subject, and of course Australia is committed to respect for the most fundamental human rights—for the right to life and for the right to freedom of religious belief and expression. These rights are embodied in international human rights law, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.The treatment of the Baha'i community in Iran does not meet these international norms and is, therefore, of concern to Australia. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the signing of that United Nations universal declaration. It is important that Australia continues to urge the Iranian government to fulfil its obligations under that International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; to urge Iran to implement recommendations in relation to the United Nations report from its special rapporteur; and to continue to keep this issue very much before the public eye. I urge the House to support this motion.15:31:00919Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I would like to thank the member for Hindmarsh for raising this very important issue again in the House. The reason I asked to be able to speak to this issue was that I have been fortunate to have made friends with many Iranian people of the Baha'i faith. These people are contributing mightily to the seamless thread that is multicultural Australia. Many of them have escaped the tyranny of the current day Iran, but they face the uncertain prospects of seeing their many relatives who still face constant brutal repression.Many of the Tasmanian Baha'is now resident in Australia came here initially under the Special Humanitarian Program as a result of the persecution of the Baha'is in their homeland following the 1979 revolution. A number of these people were very young students who had been unable to complete their education in Iran. They were forced to flee and came to Tasmania as refugees. They have completed their education. Many have married, had children and have become active members of their local communities and of their professions.A central theme of the Baha'i faith is the oneness of humanity. Baha'is believe in the abolition of prejudice, the equality of both genders, universal education and the elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty. From its earliest days, the Baha'i faith has suffered periodic persecution in its land of origin. This persecution intensified following the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979.Theologically, Islamic fundamentalists regard Baha'is as heretics due to their belief in a religion that postdates Islam. Regarded as unprotected infidels under Iran's constitution, this community of approximately 300,000 is denied legal or civil rights.As has been mentioned previously, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has expressed concern for the Baha'is in Iran in resolutions passed every year since 1982. Special representatives and special rapporteurs have visited Iran in order to document the violation of human rights occurring there. Recent events in Iran highlight that these violations are unfortunately continuing at a breakneck speed. Concerted international pressure has been a key factor in the past in mitigating the severity of the persecutions. However, as the member for Hindmarsh and other speakers have mentioned, the recent grave attacks on the Iranian Baha'i community, the brutal execution of Mr Rawhani in July, raids on 500 Baha'i homes in an orchestrated nationwide attempt to prevent Baha'i youth from receiving education, confirmation of death sentences against two Baha'i men and the detention and imprisonment of 16 other Baha'is signals a grave escalation.The current actions by the Iranian government against the Baha'is in Iran provide a chilling reminder for many Tasmanian Baha'is of their own experience. For some they are particularly terrifying, as actions have been taken against members of their own families. For instance, the teenage sisters of one Tasmanian Iranian Baha'i were recently arrested and detained for some days simply for teaching moral education to a class of young children. These young girls are denied access to tertiary education in their own homeland. This man's father-in-law has already been executed on the charge of being a Baha'i, and his widowed mother-in-law was imprisoned for a lengthy period for her faith. In another Tasmanian Iranian Baha'i family, grave fears are held for the safety of the wife's brother-in-law, who was in prison some months ago on the charge of being a Baha'i. This woman's father has also spent time in prison for this beliefs.I, like other speakers in this debate, call on the Iranian government to end once and for all its oppression of the Baha'i community and ensure the safety and early release of all Baha'is imprisoned in Iran.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is to be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.92015:35:00920Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the importance of labelling to both industry and consumers;(2) acknowledges that the label `Product of Australia' is the premium label for Australian goods; and(3) calls on the Government to ensure that there is clear definition and understanding of the `Made in Australia' label by both industry and consumers.This motion deals with an issue that has been a concern of mine and my constituents for a very long time. Firstly, I want to congratulate the government for being prepared to tackle the issue of country of origin labelling and, in particular, to legislate how products can claim to be made in Australia and, most importantly, to legislate for a label that is totally Australian.When legislation was introduced in April this year to change the Trade Practices Act in order to end the confusion and uncertainty that existed with the `Made in Australia' label, consideration was given to the needs of consumers, the nature of Australian industry and Australia's commitment to free trade. It is a fact of life today that our Australian economy, especially the manufacturing sector, has become more reliant on imported compo nents as it becomes more integrated with the global economy and fierce global competition has forced economies of scale. Our car industry is a good example of this, where many of the components used in the production of a motor vehicle are imported but, importantly of course, those same components are used by Australian workers to make the end product.The government was mindful of all of these considerations when developing the country of origin labelling legislation—mindful that Australian consumers need accurate information to make purchasing decisions, recognising that we as a nation are part of a global economy with trade commitments and recognising the impact of globalisation on our manufacturing base. Previously the `Made in Australia' label could be applied to products using 100 per cent Australian content, to products where only a small percentage of the content was Australian and, sadly, in far too many examples, where the product was imported and simply assembled or packaged here. The result was that the `Made in Australia' label lacked credibility and integrity and was confusing. Consumers were right to be suspicious and cynical about many products bearing the `Made in Australia' label.Some manufacturers capitalised on the support for Australian branded products by consumers by promoting their products as `Made in Australia' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The changes, therefore, made to the Trade Practices Act were long overdue and needed and have replaced confusion and uncertainty with honesty and reliability. The changes essentially have created a two-tiered labelling system with the premium label `Product of Australia', which means that the product bearing that label must be 100 per cent, or as near to 100 per cent as possible. The `Made in Australia' label means that products now displaying that label must have been substantially transformed here and the majority of the costs of production of those goods must have been carried out here in Australia.Numbers of surveys have been conducted to understand the needs of consumers in relation to labelling and country of origin labelling. One of the most comprehensive and recent was the national consumer survey on food labelling by Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler for the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, ANZFA. This survey found that 75 per cent of people use label information as a check that they are buying the appropriate products for themselves and their families. The information they are checking is ingredients, use-by date, nutrition information and, of course, country of origin.The survey also found that the primary use of labels is at the point of purchase and, not surprisingly, because of busy lifestyles with the pressure of time people want accurate, clear and simple information on labels. The previous confusing system meant that consumers who wanted to buy food grown as well as processed and packaged in Australia were unable to do so with any certainty.Opponents of country of origin labelling have frequently used the argument that industry uses country of origin labelling as a tool of protection for their product in an increasingly competitive global market and that this practice could technically be regarded as restricting trade and, therefore, would be regarded as a technical barrier to trade and subject to retaliation by trading competitors or that Australia could find itself subject to the complaint mechanisms through the WTO. This line of argument, however, rests on the assumption that country of origin labelling is only an issue of trade. I do not agree with this assumption. Country of origin labelling is about providing honest and accurate information so that consumers can make an informed choice of purchase.To illustrate this point, I want to use as an example strawberry jam. Walk into any supermarket and pick up a range of jam and each will have boldly displayed `Made in Australia'. These jams certainly pass the substantial transformation tests and cost of production, but I can assure members that they are not made with Australian strawberries. However, I guarantee that consumers would pick up a bottle of IXL, Cottees, Allowrie or Monbulk strawberry jam, read `Made in Australia' and assume that the fruit that was used in the manufacture of that jam was grown in Australia. I must say to the House that the Industry Commission—not, I might add, a body associated with a protectionist attitude towards trade—in its report No. 49 on 14 February 1996 titled Packaging and labelling said:. most food types sold in Australia must be labelled with country or countries of origin;. the claim "Product of Australia" can only be used when all the major ingredients and all processing has occurred in Australia;. "Made in Australia" can only be used if the product acquired its essential character in Australia. Further, if imported ingredients are used this must be included in the statement of origin (unless the ingredients are not available in Australia)—for example, "Made in Australia from imported fruit"; and. other descriptions of Australian content such as "Packed", "Blended" or "Cured" may be used when there is some Australian content. The specific nature of the Australian content and the nature of imported ingredients must be declared—for example, "Squeezed in Australia from Chilean oranges".It went on to say:Consumers would no longer be misled. "Made in Australia" and "Product of Australia" or some region within Australia would generally be used for food products with Australian ingredients—but the descriptions could be used for particular products with imported ingredients when producers can show that consumers have been informed the ingredients are foreign.I heartily agree with the Industry Commission with regard to this issue. I believe it is an absolute nonsense to claim that providing a clear definition on a label is a restrictive trade practice designed to protect a local industry. It does, however, make very good sense to provide the relevant information on a label and, in the case of strawberry jam, the label could and should read `Made in Australia with local and imported ingredients'. The consumer then has accurate information on which to make a purchase and, ultimately, the quality of the product is going to determine whether the consumer continues to buy a particular brand.Given that we now have legislation in place that differentiates the wholly Australian manufactured product from the `Product of Australia' label and the `Made in Australia' label accommodates those products that are substantially transformed into an Australian product, I believe that, in the interests of both industry and consumers, the `Made in Australia' label for food should be clarified further to include the information relating to the imported contents.That raises the question: is it difficult to provide an even clearer and more accurate description to the `Made in Australia' label for food? The answer is no, it is not difficult. ANZFA has the authority to regulate this in regulation P90. It is time for ANZFA to act on this issue. It has made great progress with contentious issues like pork processing. It is just not sufficient to leave it to industry to self-regulate on an issue like this. It has been demonstrated over many years that only the responsible companies comply with voluntary codes and standards.In the case of strawberry jam, it is not that manufacturers use imported fruit only occasionally; they use imported fruit with consistent regularity. Sometimes there is a small percentage of Australian fruit which, it must be noted, is grown predominantly for the fresh fruit market, but almost always in the case of strawberry jam imported fruit is used.The government has indicated that it believes ANZFA is the most appropriate body to determine any extra labelling requirements for food. The government believes that, in determining whether or not additional requirements are necessary, ANZFA should have regard for the needs of consumers, compliance costs for industry and Australia's international obligations and commitment to free trade. There is no doubt that Australian consumers should be informed that products like the example I gave of strawberry jam are indeed made from an imported product. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?AK6GASHMrs Gash—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:45:00922Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I support the motion and welcome the continuing interest on the part of the member for McEwen in this area, which is part of her former shadow ministry, if I remember correctly. I am sure that the Prime Minister is taking due note of the fact that she still has an interest in this issue and that his distribution of ministries was perhaps not quite as some wished.I would certainly acknowledge the importance of honesty in labelling for Australia. It is an issue that was dealt with at some length by the former Labor government—there were many discussions and debates about the issue. The final outcome was that two categories were introduced into labelling: one was `Product of Australia', which required that an item was both Australian in origin and substantially transformed in Australia, and the other was a lesser category of `Made in Australia', which required that the product was mostly of Australian origin.This issue has produced many debates in recent times. The fact is that increasingly products are composites of different forms of economic activity, which means that some of them are sourced in Australia and some are not. All sorts of peculiar examples have emerged in the debate such as, for example, about the material in a bottle, the top, the label itself or whatever, to help determine whether or not a product could be legitimately described as Australian.One of the things that the inquiry that was established by the former government did determine was that it is probably not a great idea to have a very complex set of rules in this area because you are dealing with an almost infinite variety of circumstances and you run the risk of creating an excessively bureaucratic and technical set of requirements. However, it is fair to say that the new government has been rather dilatory on this issue after being essentially quite militant. After expressing a point of view broadly in line with that just expressed by the member for McEwen while in opposition, the government has taken a very different position while in government. We have seen a very substantial watering down of the requirement for the `Made in Australia' category so that now, under this government, 50 per cent Australian origin is sufficient to enable a product to be classified as made in Australia.It is very interesting to read some of the statements that were made by the then shadow minister, the member for Wide Bay, who subsequently went on to be the minister for consumer affairs in the last Howard government. On 31 January 1995, in debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Origin Labelling) Bill 1994, he said:The legislation gives a lesser status to the term `Made in Australia', which will be able to be used on goods which acquired their essential character or qualities in Australia but could include imported ingredients. This flies in the face of public opinion and is against the will of consumer organisations, the trade union movement, the rural sector and much of industry.In a recent Quadrant survey, 74 per cent of consumers stated that products labelled `Made in Australia' should not contain imported ingredients.. . . . . . . . .It seems that only the Minister for Consumer Affairs and perhaps one or two of her colleagues are left thinking that the words `Made in Australia' should be allowed to be used on goods with foreign ingredients.. . . . . . . . .There is widespread concern about the government's action in seeking to downgrade the importance and meaning of the term `Made in Australia'.Of course, the same person who was making those statements subsequently became the minister for consumer affairs in the Howard government. On 20 November 1997, as the minister, he proposed a two-tier test for the term `Made in Australia', the second tier of which was that 50 per cent of the cost of production being Australian sourced was sufficient to entitle a manufacturer to use the term `Made in Australia'. It was something of a major backflip and a major change in attitude for somebody who was extremely militant on this issue in opposition to suddenly discover a very different point of view in government.Of even greater concern in this area are the recent initiatives being pursued by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority—a joint authority between Australia and New Zealand, as its name implies. Effectively enabled by this government, it proposes to substantially deregulate the labelling of food. It is proposed that these new regulatory structures would come into effect on 1 January 2000.I will give you a couple of examples of the proposals that are being put forward by the ANZ Food Authority. It is proposed that the current requirement with respect to use of the term `chocolate' will no longer apply, and that requirement is that there be a substantial component of cocoa mass and sugar in the product. It is also proposed that the current requirement for use of the term `jam', which requires that that particular product has a 40 per cent fruit content, will also be eliminated. So, in effect, we are to move off the chocolate standard and off the jam standard. We all know what happened when we moved off the gold standard. That is going to be, I would suggest to you, a very serious problem for Australian consumers. Deregulation of food labelling obviously needs to be undertaken in a sensible and balanced way. As we found in government, if you get too regulatory or too intrusive you can end up with considerable difficulties. That is why we sought to impose a fairly broad, simple definition for `Product of Australia' and `Made in Australia', to avoid going too far down the extreme regulatory path.However, the proposals that are being put forward by the ANZ Food Authority appear to be taking us much too far in the other direction. Supposedly, the enforcement will now be left up to the ACCC and the general Trade Practices Act provisions with respect to false, misleading and deceptive representations.That does give rise to considerable concern. First, there are many grey areas in this whole area of debate: for example, the misleading use of symbols and pictures on products which can convey a particular impression without necessarily being susceptible to prosecution, particularly under very generalised provisions such as those in the Trade Practices Act. Secondly, it is fair to say that in Australia the enforcement of consumer laws generally speaking—particularly at state level but I would not let the former Trade Practices Commission, now the ACCC, off the hook on this either—has been less than fantastic. I for one am not happy with the idea of allowing this area of food regulation and food labelling to simply drift off into a general area that is supposedly going to be scrutinised and enforced by the ACCC purely on the basis of very general requirements in the Trade Practices Act. I support the concept of honesty in labelling. We need to be prescriptive to some extent. I think the former government broadly got it right with respect to the notion of `Made in Australia' requiring most of the product to be of Australian origin and having the top tier `Product of Australia' as essentially exclusively Australian product. I think that was a reasonable proposition.The fact that we have now seen this government water down the second tier to only 50 per cent, directly in contrast to the position it adopted on the issue in opposition when it actually criticised us for being too weak on the issue, is some grounds for concern, as is the fact that you now have the ANZ Food Authority out there—apparently with no great interest from the government; the government is allowing this to happen and appears to support it—proposing to further deregulate labelling in a way that will mean not only will we not know what the genuine origin of the product is but also we will not be able to tell what the product actually is itself. We will not know whether there are any strawberries in there, much less whether they come from the honourable member for McEwen's electorate or any other part of Australia. That to me is a serious concern. We do need honesty in labelling in this country. We do need consumers able to have some confidence in the integrity of the products. We do not want to go overboard, but we do need to make sure that the ordinary consumer can go into a supermarket and if they feel that the nation of origin of the product is of importance to them—they want to buy a product that is genuinely predominantly Australian made—then they can get accurate information about it. And if they want to buy a product that they think contains fruit, because it is described as `jam', then they are entitled to feel confident that that is precisely what will occur if they pick up something that has `jam' written on it and pay for it at the check-out counter.I would urge the government and I would urge the minister to call a halt to what the ANZ Food Authority is doing on this issue, to go back to square one on the issue and to think more deeply about what should occur on product labelling in this country. We do need honesty in labelling. We need to ensure that consumers are properly informed. We do not need some sort of bureaucratic maze, but we need clear, straightforward regulations that guarantee that when somebody picks up a product that says `Made in Australia' it is predominantly made in Australia, not just 50 per cent; and, equally, if the product is described as `chocolate', it actually is chocolate or, if it is `jam', it is jam. (Time expired)15:55:00925Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—It is almost two years to the day since I rose in the House to urge members and senators to consider carefully the labelling of origin of manufacture, especially the products used in offices and homes. At that time I referred specifically to paper products, which are particularly close to my heart as we have the only specialty paper manufacturer in Australia—Australian Paper's Shoalhaven Mill in Bomaderry.At that time I told parliament that it was a case not of advocating an inferior product just because it was Australian but of making your own judgment, because you will find in most cases that Australia can do it better. It is because we have pride and confidence in our ability as a nation of manufacturers, producers, marketeers and sellers that the labelling of our home-grown produce is so important. Even in my electorate of Gilmore where we have a paper mill, for example, there is still the case where imported paper is sold in local stores and supermarkets. Labelling of these products is the only way local residents who want to buy Australian made products can do so.In my electorate I recently had the honour of launching Nowra Copy, a locally manufactured recycled copy paper sold exclusively by the Shoalhaven Paper Company. This company is just one example of the excellence found in our own communities. Established by Mr Mal Starkey and his family and staff, the Shoalhaven Paper Company set up shop with the idea of using local products, equipment and workers from the Bomaderry Paper Mill to produce a fully home-grown product in Nowra Copy.There is an example of how a demand for such a product by local consumers who want to buy Australian, combined with dedication, persistence and principles, can result in such an important initiative. Already a number of local schools and businesses, including the Defence Force personnel at HMAS Albatross, have expressed a firm interest in or have signed contracts to use Nowra Copy.The `Made in Australia' and `Product of Australia' labels are the most important recognition of not only local products but also local business and local employment. In speaking today, I speak for the residents of Gilmore and for all Australians who like to buy Australian products and who, in doing so, know that what they are buying is actually made here, therefore providing jobs for local people and investment for our future—not just packed here using overseas products, processes and staff.It was this government which has moved to further protect the `Made in Australia' and `Product of Australia' labelling to protect Australian jobs. The member for Melbourne spoke very forcefully about the issue, but I remind him that actions speak louder than words. It is vital that this House recognises the importance of labelling to industry and consumers and that we do more than pay lip-service to the idea of Australian made products. The recent display of Australian paper and paper packaging in parliament is one example of how we can help showcase the best of what we have to offer.The Shoalhaven Mill also produces the watermark of parliament which I use on my stationery and which I urge all members and senators to consider using for security and recognition of our unique correspondence. Not only do we need to protect these important labels from false representation on imported products but also we must make sure that industry and consumers are fully aware of the definition of the `Made in Australia' label.In Gilmore there are a large number of exporters of all sorts of products, many of them in family businesses which are pushing the boundaries into world markets. Everything from abalone and fresh fish to flowers, water purifiers and surf wear is on display. It is not just our consumers and industry who need to be made aware of the importance of these labels, for `Made in Australia' and `Product of Australia' stand for first-class quality, competitive prices and cutting-edge technology. Protecting the identity associated with these labels allows Australian innovators, business people and their staff to research and develop new ideas, new products and new technologies in the knowledge that they will be supported by product protection through these labels in the marketplace.Unfortunately, in some cases, it has been—until the introduction of the government's legislation—relatively easy to market goods in this country as Australian made, with scant regard to what it really means. I endorse a recent petition by the Shoalhaven paper mill's Paper Action Community Team calling on the government to ensure all imports to Australia do carry country of origin labels, for not only are we faced with the situation that some imported products are not labelled but also we are combating fraudulent advertising of country of origin. I am delighted that there is provision in the government's legislation for these very serious matters to be investigated.I urge all members of the House to ensure that their communities, both industry and consumers, are aware of the importance of Australian made products for our industry, economy and employment. I applaud the former Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, Minister Truss, on his efforts in presenting this legislation to the parliament. But, most importantly, as members of this House, we must educate ourselves and our staff to ensure that we buy only Australian goods and products where possible and preferably from Gilmore businesses.16:00:00926Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I wish to generally support the thrust of the motion of the member for McEwen and also some of the comments of the member for Gilmore, although I was a bit puzzled by her conclusion because she seemed to be wanting all this action and then at the end she praised the minister who has been guilty of total inaction in this matter.Mrs Bailey interjecting—QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Why have you moved the motion? You have moved the motion because you are unsatisfied with what the minister has put in place on this issue. Let me say something about the history of this matter. I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and I had direct ministerial responsibility for this area of the national food authority and for this very big question of the differentiation between `Product of Australia' and `Made in Australia'.Mrs Bailey interjecting—QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—We did do something. We put down the outline of very important legislation, which the member for Wide Bay when he was in opposition said did not go far enough and when he became the minister he watered it down completely. That is what happened with that, and you know that very well.As a result of the decisions of the government we have the `Product of Australia' label, which was agreed, and we also have the `Made in Australia' label. But the `Made in Australia' label is now completely watered down, especially in relation to food. As the member for Melbourne mentioned, we now have the situation where if 50 per cent of the total production—production, not the actual ingredients—of the food is done in Australia, you can claim that it is made in Australia. It may have only 10 per cent Australian ingredients. You may have it processed here and, by using that process, you can claim that it is made in Australia.So the former minister, the member for Wide Bay, has completely done an about-turn. He criticised us when we were in government and we presented a balanced approach, which he did not pursue. The member for McEwen said she wants the `Made in Australia' label on food to be extended to allow or to require further elaboration. That is exactly what we had in our proposals.Mrs Bailey interjecting—QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—What a lot of nonsense. When I was parliamentary secretary, we called a meeting of all of the vested parties, including the trade union movement, the consumers association, the producers and the farmers. More than 30 people got together in a meeting and thrashed out the proposals, which I then put to the cabinet and which were accepted and recommended as the position of the Labor Party.What happened? After the government changed, the member for Wide Bay, having said that those proposals were not sufficient and that they were too weak, turns around and further weakens the proposals so that he has made the `Made in Australia' label a bit of a joke now. Especially in the case of food—and you are right in your comments—it is very serious that you can have up to 80 per cent of the ingredients imported and yet call it `Made in Australia'. That has to be changed.If people are going to be able to still say that that type of food is made in Australia, certainly they need to indicate what is not made in Australia. That is what we originally suggested and that is what we would like to see now. In the case of food particularly, the `Made in Australia' label should be supplemented with additional information as to what aspects are not made in Australia so that people know. For example, if 80 per cent of the ingredients are imported from another country, then that should be recorded on the food. That is a very important point that needs to be taken up. We will be taking that up.In conclusion, I also want to support the comments of the member for Melbourne. He says that now there has been a new approach taken by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. Having been a very responsible regulatory body, responsible for very high standards in food, they are now saying that they want to deregulate the labelling of food to the point where we are not even able to identify what the food is and what its contents are. This decision has to be reversed. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate927Question proposed:That grievances be noted.92716:06:00927Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise on this occasion to grieve about the ongoing issue of the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. I also grieve for the inner city residents of Sydney who, no matter what plan the coalition government comes up with, are still being inconvenienced by aircraft noise. The election may be over, but the opposition to the Badgerys Creek proposal is not. The unwanted 1980s proposal for a year 2000 and beyond problem remains on the waiting list while we await the much discredited EIS report.Other western Sydney ALP MPs and I have been prepared to speak out on this issue for the whole of the last parliament. My colleague the honourable member for Prospect, Janice Crosio, has been objecting to the airport for over two parliaments. The delay in waiting for this discredited EIS has caused a major road project in my electorate to be delayed—the Western Sydney orbital road system, which is long overdue. The opposition to the Badgerys Creek airport is now bipartisan with Liberal ministerial support now clearly on the record from the new Minister for Sport and Tourism, the Hon. Jackie Kelly, and senior minister the Hon. John Fahey following Western Sydney Labor MPs' stand in opposing the airport.I grieve, however, about the fact that the government continues to not want to make any move on the issue, despite the fact that it is absolutely clear that the EIS that was commissioned is defective. On my side of the house, I am hoping for a fresh approach to the airport issue from the shadow minister for transport and regional development, Cheryl Kernot.Opposition to Badgerys Creek has been bipartisan on the surface, but the most structured and broad based political opposition has come from ALP branches and members in western Sydney. As a result of resolutions from branches, FECs and SECs in Western Sydney, federal and state Labor MPs and rank-and-file members formed Labor Against Badgerys in February 1998. LAB has been the political driving force within the ALP in opposition to Badgerys Creek. LAB organised a regional assembly which has passed a resolution totally opposing an airport in the Sydney Basin. I am looking for the coalition parties to former a similar anti-airport committee in Western Sydney, perhaps being called Coalition Against Badgerys, or CAB.I remind the members for Macquarie, Macarthur and Lindsay that they now have a mandate to oppose the airport at Badgerys Creek and that the Western Sydney community is wanting some quick results. During the election campaign all these members campaigned strongly in opposition to the airport. There were plenty of anti-airport leaflets and badges, but these members seem to have gone into their shells on the issue since the election. The people of Western Sydney are fed up to the teeth with the fact that this proposed airport continues to hang over their heads like a massive sword of Damocles.I repeat my comments and those of many others that it is quite outrageous that anyone could want to inflict on the people of Western Sydney this clearly daft idea. In the inner city suburbs it has been clearly established that children are subjected to unreasonable noise during their attendance at school. They and their parents are also subjected to unreasonable noise up to and until the curfew hours so properly imposed on Kingsford Smith airport users.Inner city residents would no doubt be discouraged by a number of recent newspaper reports indicating that relief from aircraft noise for these residents may be a long way off. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 January this year, under the headline `Badgerys can wait 30 years, study finds', an article reads in part:Better management of Sydney airport could delay the need for a second international airport at Badgerys Creek for another 30 years the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) has revealed. On 21 November, again in the Sydney Morning Herald , it was reported that the chief of Sydney airport, Mr Tony Stuart, had told business and political leaders that there was no immediate need for a second airport although passenger numbers would jump from 21 million to 42 million by the year 2010. We can appreciate the additional aircraft noise that this increase in aircraft movements would impose on the residents of the inner city. Mr Stuart was also reported as saying that a second airport was not justified.Speculation was also raised in the same article about the member for Cook becoming chairman of the Sydney Airport Community Forum. As a former managing director of Tourism Council Australia, the honourable member is reported as being `a vocal proponent of easing curfews and air traffic movement limits at the airport particularly for the Olympic Games.'This is bad news for inner city residents, particularly when there was a further report a few days later in the Sydney Morning Herald , with the headline `Aircraft noise shatters promises'. The article reads:The federal government has failed to deliver its aircraft noise sharing plan for Sydney. The latest data from the department of transport shows a year after the long term operating plan was introduced, aircraft noise levels to the north and northwest of the city are getting worse.In spite of the attempts of the government, aircraft noise is actually getting worse for residents of the inner city. The article also states:Despite promises that the noise targets would be made by October suburbs such as Hunters Hill, Drummoyne, Summer Hill, Concord, Croydon, Leichhardt, Haberfield and Ashfield are enduring more noise than two years ago . . . That is an increase in noise level for inner city residents while in Western Sydney the alliance of mayors—who have been very vocal in opposition to the Badgerys Creek proposal—have in response to the Sutherland Shire Council decision to join the Marrickville Council push for Sydney's second airport to be built at Badgerys Creek agreed to fund another campaign against the federal government's proposed Badgerys Creek airport. So we have a double whammy here on the residents of Sydney. Their taxes are being used to fund discredited EISs and, of course, the councils are using ratepayers' money—quite justifiably—to fight this proposal.I find it quite extraordinary that some of those who protest about the noise of the inner city are prepared to make major efforts to impose the same noise on Western Sydney residents. They are also prepared to support the Badgerys Creek option, knowing that it would be a 24-hour, non-curfew airport. Where is the Australian fair go in such support? Where is the compassion in one community for members of another community?How could anyone say that this out-of-date 1980s proposal for an area that was then sparsely inhabited can remain acceptable when the residential growth around this area is now quite phenomenal? How could anybody support a proposal with so much likelihood of pollution over an area that is the major water collecting base for almost the whole of Sydney? We had a major outbreak of water pollution in Sydney earlier this year, and that alone should cause the government to immediately drop the Badgerys Creek proposal and not wait for the discredited EIS. As Dr Jenny Reath said in a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 September 1997:Considering the well documented pollution sink-hole of the western Sydney plains and the inevitable consequences which an airport and the necessary infrastructure will have on the problem, it is amazing this site has ever been proposed.With opposition from within the cabinet and from the outer ministry, it seems to me that the government could in fact obtain a major public relations windfall by dumping the 1980s proposal. As we approach the year 2000, we can now see much evidence that in the transport area there have been major leaps forward in the technology available to move quickly from one point to another, such as with the Very Fast Train.The government should be looking at alternate sites outside the Sydney Basin for the site of Sydney's second airport. Possible sites that should be considered are ones that have been on the drawing board for some time: Goulburn, where the council actually wants an airport; Newcastle-Williamtown; Canberra; and Lithgow, which is another site which has come to the fore in latter times.I believe it is now time to put aside this inner city versus Western Sydney argument about Sydney's second airport and start afresh, recognising two very important points. Firstly, inner city residents need to be given some hope of relief from aircraft noise, and this is not happening at the moment. Secondly, an airport at Badgerys Creek is quite clearly politically dead in the water. I once again call on Western Sydney government members—the members for Macquarie, Macarthur, Lindsay and Parramatta—to come out from under their shells and start campaigning publicly, as they did during the election campaign, against the Badgerys Creek airport.92916:15:00929Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I rise today to talk about the situation within the retail grocery market in Australia. Right now, nearly 80 per cent of all groceries sold through the retail chains are done so through Coles, Franklins and Woolworths. This is an unprecedented level of concentration in the hands of these three companies. Why is it such a concern? Back in 1975, just over 20 years ago, 60 per cent of retail groceries were sold through independents and only 40 per cent were sold through the major chains. Since that time, there has been a systematic buy-out and concentration of power in the hands of the big three.To the average consumer, that may well seem a positive thing in some elements, because it does provide variety. But, bit by bit, it also destroys the sort of Australia we have lived in for the past 100 years, where the inspiration, hard work and attitude of individuals who wish to make a contribution to their own welfare through the retail grocery industry has been diminished. It is not only through the retail grocery industry but through all the smaller, more specialised industries, such as bakeries, fruit and vegetable shops and butchers.I am sure any study of those three organisations would clearly indicate that there are far fewer of those outlets than there were just a few short years ago. I would like to outline the situation that I know first-hand in my own area. In Caboolture, there are two Bi-Los. There is one Woolworths a short distance away, a Coles and a Franklins Big Fresh. All are within a very short distance of each other and all are competing for the same market. There is also a number of independents, such as Cut Price and IGA, just to mention two. The bottom line is that there are also bakers, butchers and fruit and vegetable stores all attempting to make a living in this one area.So why would only some 18 months ago two of the big three open even larger and newer complexes on this already concentrated market? It is simply because they wish to dominate and push out the smaller independents. There is no real reason for them to move into this market at this time. But, in doing so, they will see the demise of independents who have flourished in that community, added to the community, created employment in the community and provided opportunities for young people as they have left school.The situation is somewhat different overseas than it is here in Australia. Even though we are a country that prides itself on free enterprise and people having an opportunity to make a go in life, we have allowed this situation to evolve in the last 20 years. For our major trading partners—the UK and the US—this has not been allowed to occur. In the UK, the three largest chains have less than 45 per cent of market share. In the US, the big three have less than 21 per cent.Let us reflect for a moment on the US, which is always held up as being a great free economy, where free enterprise is No. 1. Why is it that the three largest retailers have only 21 per cent of market share, that they have lower unemployment than almost any other place in the western world and that individuals feel they can get themselves out of the situation they may have been in through their own endeavour?I believe it is much in part through anti-trust laws. I looked at some information on the Internet recently. I would like to read from the Legal Information Institute's home page, which says:Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few. Such conglomerations of economic resources are thought to be injurious to the public and individuals. This is because such trusts minimise, if not obliterate, normal marketplace competition and yield undesirable price controls. These, in turn, cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative.It could well be that when a Woolworths or a Coles first moves into a neighbourhood we see prices come down and variety go up. But, in the long term, what actually occurs?I know that when a Franklins Big Fresh opened at Maroochydore on the Sunshine Coast we saw butchers closing for a radius of 20 kilometres. We saw fruit and vegetable shops go out of business after a very short period. I am sure that the pressure was also on the independent grocers, who had served their communities for a long time.An article from the Attorney-General of Washington referring to anti-trusts, particularly monopolisation, states:Conduct undertaken by a firm that is already monopolistic—in other words, has a large market share—designed to enable it to preserve its monopoly position is called monopolization. The conduct has been defined as the wilful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.It is very important. A good many of the small businesses I refer to involve good business people. They work long hours, and they put an enormous amount of effort, time and money into their endeavours. When they see a large conglomerate come into what is a rather small market—Bribie Island is a case in point—they wonder why this is so when the market has already been well served.The article of the Attorney-General in Washington goes on to say:The offence of attempt—I underline the word `attempt'—to monopolise is concerned with conduct designed to give monopoly power to a firm that is not yet a monopolist in the market in which the conduct occurred. The offence of attempt to monopolise has three elements: (1) a specific intent to control prices or destroy competition in the relevant market—We have seen this occurring in Australia—(2) predatory or anti-competitive conduct directed at accomplishing the unlawful objective; and,(3) a dangerous probability of success in achieving a monopoly in the relevant market.I turn to what Professor Alan Fels said in addressing the National Press Club on 29 July 1998 when referring to the role of the ACCC, specifically to do with the market share. You will recall that earlier on I pointed out that nearly 80 per cent of grocery sales are now through the three major chains. In Queensland, that is 86.5 per cent, but the lowest—the area I wish to highlight—is Western Australia at 58.6 per cent. Professor Fels, when relating the powers that the ACCC can bring to bear in relation to market power—remembering that Western Australia with 58.6 per cent of market share is the lowest of any state in Australia—said:The ACCC tries through merger law to stop unjustified increases in the concentration of market power. Thus in the Coles/Myer/Foodland case it opposed Coles/Myer's attempt to acquire 75 per cent of the Western Australian wholesale grocery market and thus (a) to increase its buying power in relation to suppliers; (b) to increase its competitive power versus the small retailers it would have both supplied and competed against in retailing; and (c) to reduce retail competition.I think Professor Fels's comments are well founded, but the unfortunate reality is that he is trying to protect Western Australia when the rest of Australia has already failed to have been protected with 82.5 per cent of concentration in New South Wales, 76 per cent in Victoria, 86 per cent in Queensland, and so it goes on.I believe that Australians have to look at what sort of a society we want to live in in the next 20 years. Do we want all the power that retailers have to be even further concentrated? Do we want to see alcohol, fuel, pharmaceuticals and newsagency items, all the exclusive right through the power of competition or through the power of the large three, being concentrated in their hands? To do so, I believe, would undermine the fundamentals of Australian society—that is, for the individual to be able to have an opportunity to grow and to be able to sustain themselves through personal endeavour.That is what I believe is at risk here. That is why I recently strongly supported the newsagents in their push. I believe the ACCC can actually do something positive in this regard. I know it is quite often held up as being against the welfare of smaller communities, but it does have the power and the will to be able to turn this around. I refer once again to Professor Fels's speech to the Press Club where he concluded by saying that the opposite of competition is monopoly and that monopoly is no more a friend of the poor than is competition a friend of the privileged.To conclude, the ACCC has a role to defend consumers, small business, rural Australia and others from unfair prices, the abuse of market power and the violation of consumer rights. It has a strong, valuable act. Its role is to enforce it properly now and in the years ahead. Now is the time in which we should all act to ensure that independent retailers do have a role to play in the future of this great Australian economy.93116:25:00931Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise today to air a grievance, one that is held by me and by many Australians. It is about a government that claims it has a mandate and claims that it responds by listening to the community yet has the capacity to make decisions that are completely out of touch with mainstream Australia. We have only to look at what happened in this place last week. A piece of legislation, the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 , was driven through this House, forced through this House after the guillotine was applied. An opposition amendment was thrown out without even as much as a debate. It is interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade is at the table. He, like me, represents an area where there are a great number of elderly Australians.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—But 38,000 have private health insurance.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I am pleased they have private health insurance, because if they have to go to a public hospital it is well known that they will not get any service. This is a government that particularly likes to restrict funding. I am quite happy to debate in an open forum with anyone the fact that this legislation will not provide a single dollar for public health. I was even accused by the Prime Minister himself of failing to represent the majority of people in the electorate of Paterson.Today I would like to read to the parliament a couple of letters that I have received from constituents which identify that the policies of the Howard government are not only not working but also forcing unnecessary hardship on many Australians. The first one is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. It says:Dear Sir,I am writing this letter to lodge a formal complaint to you about the treatment of my mother-in-law Mrs Margaret Smith, in Blacktown Hospital. I am also notifying you that I have also sent letters to the following people the Premier Mr Bob Carr, Dr Andrew Refshauge, and the Health Care Complaints Commission. Something has to be done about our public health system.My mother-in-law sustained a fracture of her right hip on 18th November and she was admitted to the hospital the same night. She had the fall at her nursing home and the staff there had her x-rayed by their mobile x-ray unit. She was then conveyed to the hospital and kept in casualty waiting for 4hrs even though her injury had been diagnosed. The rest of the details are as follows:-1) The specialist eventually visits her on Friday, 2½ days after the fall, we are told that if she doesn't have the operation that she will be bedridden and will become susceptible to infections and bed sores. The operation has to take place because she was very active before her fall.2) The operation is scheduled for 10:30 Sunday morning. It is postponed due to emergency cases and we are told "her operation isn't a priority because she is in the hospital."3) The operation is rescheduled for Monday around 2:00 PM. It is postponed because she has now developed a bladder infection. Antibiotics have been prescribed.4) The operation is rescheduled for around 3:00PM Wednesday. I called at approximately 3:30PM to see if she had gone to theatre and I was told that she would be going in 5 minutes. Just after I rang, a call was received by my nephew, that the operation had been postponed yet again. I rang my husband and told him. He rang to find out why and was told that they had run out of money and operating time. He was also told that it wasn't the hospitals fault and to complain to our politicians.5) The operation has been rescheduled for today at 1:00PM. I can't help feeling sceptical about whether or not it will take place.You can make all the excuses in the book but the bottom line is, if you are over 80yrs old and you don't have private health cover, you don't count. Who said the euthanasia bill wasn't passed in parliament? All you have to do is delay the treatment long enough and they die of complications. If my mother-in-law was an animal and treated like this you would be in court charged with cruelty! I hope and pray you never get treated like this when you are old. I am also very sorry that I voted for your government.That is a letter from Carol Smith of Rutherford. Over the weekend my office received another letter by fax. This is about another policy that the Howard government was extremely proud of in its last term. I refer to aged care, and we saw the fiasco of that. The letter is from Mrs Kelly Kurth of Bulahdelah. It states:The Prime MinisterMr John HOWARD. . . . . . . . .Recently I contacted the Commonwealth Health Services Department because I am concerned regarding Nursing Home charges that are currently being incurred by my elderly (82 year old) mother.My mother was admitted on 28th October 1998 to Wallgrove Nursing Home in Lakemba a suburb of Sydney. She is being charged $21.69 Basic Fee & because she owns her own home $12.00 Accommodation Charges . . . That is a total of $33.69 daily fee. It says that the monthly fee for a 30-day month is $1,010.70. The monthly fee for a 31-day month is $1,044.39. The letter continues:I was informed that as these charges are in excess of pension received (from which sundry expenses must also be met), there are two options to raise the shortfall:1. Rent the house2. Sell the house Mr. Howard, you made a statement that no Pensioner would be forced to sell their house, and that they should be encouraged to remain in their own home if possible.Can you please provide information regarding the current Government Nursing Home policy guidelines.My mother is a War Widow and as such receives a Veterans' Affair Pension plus a Social Security top up. She is extremely anxious and concerned that she will be forced to sell her home thereby relinquishing any possibility of her being able to return home when she is medically fit.I look forward to receiving your reply regarding this matter at the earliest possible date.As a result of reading those two letters, I looked up a number of statements made by the former minister and member for Bass, Mr Warwick Smith. I found that on 2 December 1997 Mr Smith, in debating matters of public importance in this House, said:What we announced yesterday was that, where the home is rented out to pay an accommodation charge for a nursing home, the total income derived would be exempt from the income test for the pension and would not be taken into account after 1 March 1998 in calculating an individual's contribution to daily care fees.In the same speech, Mr Smith said:As I have said continually, the arrangements that we have put in place mean that the family home is safe.On the previous day, 1 December 1997, Mr Smith said:The family home will be safe under the Liberal Party with regard to charges that are paid. I will be announcing the assessments later in the day.On 2 December, he said:Further, I addressed the issue yesterday . . . And on he goes. He was talking about an outrageous scare campaign. Isn't it amazing that 12 months down the track we can see that exactly what this government claimed was a scare campaign has come to pass. Judy Moylan, another former minister—there appears to be an enormous number of them on the other side—said:Scaring the elderly and using them as a political football is about as low as you can get in this place in debate. It is about as low as you can get to use the aged in this country, the most frail and most vulnerable, as political footballs . . . I suggest there is an act that is much lower than telling the aged people of Australia the truth about what they can expect from the Howard government; that is, in fact, the rules of the Howard government as they apply and have been shown by these letters. These letters are from people of Australia who deserve the full support of our community, but they are being denied it by the Howard government.93316:35:00933Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—There would be little disagreement either here or elsewhere with the proposition that unemployment remains the single most important economic problem facing this nation. We have all witnessed the numbers month after month at levels which are unacceptable, yet there are no easy answers or they would have been implemented by whichever party has been in government in Australia.Involved in this problem is not only the economic cost, the loss of opportunity, the waste of talent and the under-utilisation of resources but also a deeply worrying social cost, because when hope is replaced by resignation and aspiration is replaced by despair the vitality of the nation and its people is greatly undermined. Sadly, the social consequences of unemployment multiply. This is illustrated by a recent report that I bring to the attention of the House. The report entitled A Not So Perfect Match by Monash University researchers Bob Birrell and Virginia Rapson charts a growing divide in our society, which is related to, in part, unemployment and, in part, family formation.As members may be aware, in 1986, 73 per cent of women aged between 25 and 29 were or had been married. By 1996 this proportion had fallen to 55 per cent and, because of the increased level of de facto couples, the fall in repartnering rates was not quite so sharp—from about 67 per cent in 1986, a decade ago, to 55 per cent in 1996. Of men aged from 30 to 34—once the prime nesting or marrying age—in 1986 about 71 per cent were partnered and only 22 per cent had never married. By 1996, a decade later, the share of those in partnerships had fallen to about 62 per cent and the never married had grown to 35 per cent.These statistics disguise some very profound changes, as Birrell and Rapson indicate in their report. An article based on that report states:The decline has been least among the better educated—who are often thought to be leading the challenge to traditional marriage arrangements. Rather, it has been steepest among men and women without post-school qualifications and among men in the weakest labour market situation. By 1996, many more men in their 30s with degrees were partnered than among their counterparts with no post-school qualifications.This is partly a consequence, according to the researchers, of men on the margins of the economy. In relation to this the researchers state:There has been a significant deterioration in the employment situation of many Australian men over the 1986-1996 decade. By 1996, about 30 per cent of men aged 25-49 were not employed full-time, up from about 23 per cent in 1986. In 1996, 20 per cent of all Australian men in this age group reported annual incomes of less than $15,600.They go on to state that for Australian men:. . . there was a close correlation between economic marginality and isolation from couple relationships. For example, of those aged 30-34, just half of those earning less than $15,600 were living in partnered relationships, compared with 75 per cent of men earning more than $52,000. Similarly, the proportion of men who were divorced or separated was much higher among those on low incomes than among their better-off counterparts.The consequences of these changes, according to Dr Birrell and Dr Rapson, is that we are now:. . . fast developing a two tiered society in Australia, divided between the majority of families headed by intact couples, most of whom live on at least moderate incomes, and a growing minority of families headed by female sole parents who survive on welfare payments.Birrell and Rapson say that there are a couple of factors which they isolate as being involved in this process. The first is:Our interpretation of the partnering decline described for low-income men is that women likely to encounter such men tend to see partnering as a pact involving the provision of domestic services in return for household resources. Low-income men simply have little to offer in these terms. Women are also in a better position to make choices about partners because their employment chances have improved over the 1986-1996 decade. Where dependent children are involved, women also have the austere but reliable sole parent and family payment alternative to fall back on.The second factor identified by Birrell and Rapson they describe as:. . . the growing reluctance of young men and women to commit themselves to married couple relationships. As a result, the proportion of ex-nuptial births has increased from 17 per cent in 1986 to 27 per cent in 1996. One link with the sole-parent phenomenon is that the more that young men and women enter sexual relationships outside stable couples (particularly married couples) the more likely any resulting children will lack a long-term parental commitment, especially from fathers. By 1996, 30 per cent of female sole parents aged 15-49 had never married, up from 21 per cent in 1986. Very few of these women were tertiary educated.So what they are describing is a cycle which, in itself, has a consequence that many of those who are unemployed in society and who are isolated or on the margins of society are unlikely to enter into relationships in which there is stability, whether they are marriages or de facto relationships. The consequence of that, of course, is for the generation of children who are born as a result of some of those relationships. Therefore, one has a spiral in terms of the impact of not only the economic effects of unemployment but also the social effects on the children.This study, which as I indicated earlier is a recent one, is consistent with other studies about the divide which seems to have been occurring in the Australian society between the haves and the have-nots. For example, a 1995 study found that `families required two incomes to maintain their position in the middle class'. According to the study by NATSEM:. . . couples with children make up half the middle class. Of these, 50 per cent are dual income families. Only a quarter survived on a single income, with the other quarter relying on investments and other income.And:Where a family had a second job, it was more likely to be part-time, suggesting a financial imperative. The other factor, which has been identified in work undertaken by Professor Bob Gregory and fellow researchers, is that there is a reflection of this division in Australian society occurring not only between individuals but also between the places where individuals work and live. That is, it is now possible to identify neighbourhoods in which there are those who are congregated—if I can put it that way—with the effects of unemployment, versus other neighbourhoods where employment in fact exists.As I said at the outset, these are worrying matters not simply because of the economic consequences of unemployment—which we all, as members of this place, are aware of from dealing with our own constituents—but also because of the social consequences which flow from these situations. These studies, such as that undertaken by the Monash researchers, I think show additional reasons why we in this place must continue to look at the issue of unemployment as being one which should demand our attention.The fact that unemployment is linked to long-term adverse consequences beyond the immediate situation in which those families living with unemployment place themselves, especially as they relate to the children, is something which I find to be a worrying concern—as it should be to all Australians, including all members of this place. I believe that this study, which has been undertaken and published in a valuable form by researchers at Monash University, gives us more reason again to continue to examine the situation. The study, in fact, provides another reason why we must renew our efforts to address the blight of unemployment in this nation.93516:45:00935Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Banks in Australia have a lot to answer for. In particular, I have a definite matter of grievance about the conduct of National Australia Bank. They have profits some 100,000 times the amount of money involved in the particular matter that I raise today which affects a constituent of mine, Mr Keith Smith of Robertson. William Keith Smith has had very little education. He left school in the fifth grade at the age of 13 and went to work for Hancock and Gore as a labourer. He eventually received an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner and joined the Royal Australian Air Force in 1942 at the age of 18. He was discharged in 1946. Since 1957 he has been mainly involved in the hotel industry, either by way of hotel lease and/or ownership. He held numerous hotels in this manner spanning some 25 years.On giving direct hotel involvement away, Keith decided to try his hand at hotel brokering. During Keith's hotel involvement years, he had several dealings with National Australia Bank managers and had always found them to be people of integrity and trust. If he borrowed money, he paid it back. However, it would be fair to say that he was commercially illiterate. Like so many people who have lost so much through crooked bankers, he in turn also trusted the bank manager.This particular story commences a long time ago, in early 1984, and it is illustrated by Keith's own record of events in a letter that he sent to the banking ombudsman dated 27 July 1990. This letter of complaint sets out the facts very plainly. As a matter of interest, Keith also furnished a submission concerning his case in a letter dated 3 December 1990 to the Martin inquiry chaired by the member for Cunningham. In essence, it is very similar to the letter of complaint to the banking ombudsman. The ombudsman said that they could not investigate Keith Smith's complaint because the legislation did not allow them to go back to a complaint originating in 1984. The Martin inquiry referred the matter to National Australia Bank and they replied that on investigation everything was okay, which turned out to be a pack of lies.The bank manager at the Sunnybank branch of National Australia Bank was transferred out under a cloud. The bank manager's customer interview record records the circumstances of Keith's execution of a guarantee for $15,000 as follows:"22 April 1984 CGB International:The Company Secretary, John McPherson, called together with Kel Sweeney, the Managing Director, and Keith Smith, our customer, the hotel broker. The firm is buying a series of hotels and borrowing overseas.They left an extensive rundown in the form of a presentation. Kel Sweeney and Keith signed a Guarantee for $15,000 and they had to issue a cheque for $10,000 to their agent to go to Hong Kong to negotiate their overseas loan.At the time the National Australia Bank branch manager could not approve an unsecured loan in excess of $1,000. Yet here he was approving one for $15,000. He took no statement of position to confirm the sufficiency of whether Keith was safe for the $15,000 as a guarantor. The normal standard bank guidelines at the time were that, if a proposed guarantor's principal asset was the matrimonial home and it was in joint names, then the bank's guarantee was to be executed by both. If this were not the case, it would need to be fully explained by way of customer review record.The fact is that the National Australia Bank bank manager was in on the deal in some way. The interesting fact is that in the preceding months to February 1984 the National Australia Bank was dishonouring Keith Smith's car lease payment for $396.68 monthly. So NAB were not prepared to meet a payment of around $397 per month when there was insufficient funds in the account, but the local bank manager was prepared to accept an unsupported guarantee from Keith Smith for $15,000. Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous, especially when you bear in mind that the co-guarantor, Kelvin Sweeney, was an undischarged bankrupt and had a criminal record? Both the company manager and company accountant now have criminal records for stealing offences from other matters.The brief details of the case can be described as follows: Keith accompanied Sweeney and McPherson to NAB, and there was a statement by the latter to the effect that bank manager Sutherland `owes me a favour'. At the beginning of the interview in the manager's office, a manager by the name of John Patterson was also present. During the initial interview discussions in which Keith did not take part, there was never any mention of bank lending or the guarantee. The relieving manager, John Patterson, has con firmed the contents of the above by way of affidavit in a statement to the police. I think Patterson himself was being used by the manager Sutherland.In Patterson's statement to the police he said:McPherson and Sutherland did all the talking. The discussion was about the hotel purchase and lasted about 15 to 20 minutes.At that time I was called away for an interview. I did not see McPherson, Sweeney or Smith from then on that day. There was no discussion of the guarantee and indemnity while I was present.After Patterson leaves Sutherland's office, a typist brings in a document which Sutherland casts his eye over and verifies is okay. The document is placed in front of Sweeney to sign, which he does. The document is then placed before Keith Smith. The company secretary, McPherson, then asks him to witness Sweeney's signature, which he does. Keith cannot read the document, as he has only his driving glasses with him. He has a special pair for reading. He signs where McPherson requests, not realising that McPherson has placed his finger over the word `guarantor' just above where he signs.This all happened in front of the National Australia Bank bank manager. In normal banking procedures, the bank manager, Sutherland, should have explained the importance of the document. For instance, Sutherland should have made Keith Smith aware of the nature and extent of his liability under the guarantee. Smith must act under his own free will. Should there be suspicion that he was acting under duress or undue influence from the customer or anyone acting on the customer's behalf, and if Sutherland considered that Keith had failed to understand his responsibilities, then he should have told Keith to seek some independent legal advice.Sutherland completely disregarded normal banking procedures. He did not obtain a statement of position from Keith Smith. He was, after all, a National Australia Bank customer, yet the NAB manager failed his duty of care. This was a bank manager that Keith Smith trusted; a bank that he trusted. The manager did not even question that the company CGB International was in the course of buying hotels with aggregate consideration of about $25 million, and yet it could not raise $15,000 set-up costs. This was an NAB manager whose category C unsecured lending authority most definitely did not exceed $1,000. In other words, this manager exceeded his authority by at least 1,400 per cent.After Keith Smith witnessed Sweeney's signature, he left bank manager Sutherland's office. The company accountant immediately drew a cheque for $10,000 which he signed, and the manager then issued a bank cheque in replacement, despite the fact that the bank's own authority for CGB International required two authorised persons to sign. It is quite easy to see that it was a con job right from the outset.The company accountant, John McPherson, was once an NAB employee and had, in fact, reached the status of branch accountant. So he fully knew the ropes and, what is more, he could have quite easily worked with Sutherland. The National Australia Bank has expunged McPherson's personnel records from their resigned officers' files. I have spoken with ex-NAB staff who, in turn, have spoken to current and past NAB employees who have worked alongside McPherson.Shortly after Sutherland permitted the deceitful transaction, he was transferred and it was left to his successor at the Sunnybank branch to inform Keith of his obligations under the guarantee. To the best of Keith Smith's knowledge, the bank has never attempted to claim any type of reimbursement from Sweeney—the company owner, the company manager. In fact, the NAB told Keith that it was only interested in chasing him. Bank employees acted wrongfully, yet Keith Smith was left holding the bill.Keith's involvement with the legal profession is a story in itself. He was ripped off once again. The trouble was that one of his solicitors permitted the opposition to gain a judgment by default and, from that time onwards, he has had his back to the wall. For instance, the bank's documents were never called for in the discovery exercise. The NAB has simply wrecked Keith Smith's life. That he received brummy legal advice was an additional advantage that NAB used to punish Keith Smith further. Keith never did anything of his own volition; it was always on legal advice. For instance, he was advised to pay the judgment debt and follow up with the appropriate proceedings, and when it came to the appropriate proceedings he was advised that he should not have paid the judgment debt in the first place. It would seem at times that his counsel was working for the other side. When Keith Smith witnessed Sweeney's signature, he was not to know that it was going to cost him almost $36,000 all up.Given that National Australia Bank is the most profitable bank in Australia, it is worth reflecting on its arrogance and the way that it has no doubt trampled on the lives of others like Keith Smith to make its billion-dollar-plus profit a year. Keith is a war service pension recipient. He deserves better. Our nation deserves better from one of our largest corporations. The NAB has acted like thugs in this case. Perhaps NAB's performance was based more on the fact that, should Keith Smith be given the dignity he deserves, the floodgates would open as other claims are made.This is an old story, going back almost 15 years. The NAB will have a go at me for raising it again today, but it is a matter that keeps on coming back. That Keith Smith has lived a horrible life over the last 15 years and that his family have suffered is a matter that I personally will not forget. I have known Keith for about 11 years. I first highlighted this story when I was working as a journalist at Channel 7, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise it again here in the House of Representatives today.93716:55:00937Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—One of the issues causing great concern in Australia and in the communities I represent is the impact of privatisation—or, should I say, the sale of government assets.This government has an ideological commitment to privatising anything and everything. Unfortunately, this type of unconditional ideological commitment does not take into account the effect that privatisation has on the lives of Australian workers, families, pension ers and those people in our society who need a little bit of extra assistance. Unlike those on the other side of this House, I believe that the only things privatisation guarantees Australians are increased costs, decreased and inferior services and massive job losses. It is no longer about providing a quality user-friendly service to the people of Australia; rather, it is about companies making a profit.One of the most interesting aspects of privatisation is that governments sell only those assets that are profitable and returning a good dividend. We do not hear about the government selling those things that are returning losses or things that are great drains on government. In other words, if you have a government business and it is making an enormous profit, particularly if that business is a monopoly or has a very large share of the market, then this government believes it should be sold. If this is coupled with deregulation, then there is the potential for a very dangerous situation to develop—a situation where vital services are controlled by a small private sector and where few restrictions are placed on the providers of these services and often the only regulation is self-regulation or industry regulation, and I believe that that is not strong enough.There are numerous examples of this negative impact. One of the most visible currently is the banking industry. This is an industry where there is no public service provider and where the government refuses to regulate to protect consumers. Time and time again in this House we have heard the government say that it is not going to be involved. The government believes that the protection is there—I do not.The sale of the electricity industry in Victoria is another good example. It has had an enormous impact on the communities and the people living in that state. Since the industry was privatised there has been an increase in service charges. Every service costs more and every service must be paid for. There have been massive job losses in the industry. Almost an entire work force has been dislocated. This in turn has created enormous problems within the community, with businesses failing, family breakdowns, domestic violence increasing, along with problems with gambling and alcohol abuse—all the types of things that happen in communities that are under severe pressure.Along with the increase in the cost of service, there is a decrease in service provision. Since the privatisation in Victoria, there has been an enormous increase in the number of brownouts and blackouts. The time taken to restore the services or address the problems that have been caused by these brownouts and blackouts is getting longer and longer, and the number of staff there to deal with those problems is insufficient. This is the legacy of privatisation: poor service, increased costs and massive job loss.My latest concern about privatisation is this government's move towards fully privatising Telstra. It would appear that this government's philosophical and ideological commitment to privatisation blinds it to the impact of the sale of government assets and blinds it to the impact that privatisation has on the people in Australia. The Howard government's move to further privatise Telstra is a disgrace and does not have the support of the majority of Australians—the people who will be the losers with further privatisation.During the last election, the privatisation of Telstra was a major issue within the Shortland electorate and, during that time, thousands of people signed petitions protesting any further sale of Telstra—petitions that I will be presenting to this House. The Howard government's move to further privatise Telstra is a blatant disregard of the voices of the people of Australia. It is a disgrace and does not have the support of the majority of people.Services to customers have already been slashed. Telstra's equipment and assets have deteriorated, with maintenance and asset renewal being secondary to profit. This is reflected in the fact that, when the people of Shortland and other areas throughout Australia ring Telstra to lodge a complaint, there are long delays before their needs and problems are addressed. There have been enormous job losses in Telstra, with many thousands of other jobs being earmarked to go in the future. It is no wonder people have to wait days for services that they received in hours before the partial privatisation.My electorate office in Shortland has been inundated with complaints about Telstra services and the moves to further privatise Telstra. The people who ring the office are real people with real problems—problems that affect their lives and, in some cases, even place their lives at risk. The partially privatised Telstra, with its reduced number of employees, is unable to maintain the high quality of service that the people of Australia have come to expect from Telstra over the years. People constantly contact my office and complain about waiting for long periods to have their telephone services connected or reconnected or to receive even the most basic service.Last week, a young mother spoke to me about her problem. She has a young baby and her phone was disconnected on Tuesday. She was advised that there was a problem with the line and it took until Thursday before her service was restored. This was a young woman with a very young baby. She is a person who relies on the telephone to contact doctors, her family and all the support services she has out there in the community. Her situation is not unusual because this is happening on a daily basis. Young families, elderly people and the sick are left without vital telephone services because Telstra cannot meet the needs of its clients since the partial privatisation. It is just not good enough. I have been advised that there is a shortage of lines in the Hunter and Central Coast area—the area that I represent. This shortage of lines is having an enormous impact on the people waiting to have their telephone services connected.Last week, I received complaints about this from a number of people. One family in particular come to mind. They had moved house and did not immediately have the telephone connected. This was because they were a little short of finances after the move and they had to balance their budget. They were very much aware of the restrictions their finances placed on them. There was a telephone sitting in the house, but they waited for three or four weeks and then they rang Telstra and said, `We've got the money now. We would like the telephone connected.' Telstra said, `Sorry. We allocated your line to someone else. Unfortunately, you now have to wait and, when one does become available, you're going to have to pay for it.' This family were most distraught.They rang my office and said, `We've already been waiting two weeks. Can you do something to help us?' We spoke to Telstra and tried to sort out the problem, but it is a problem that families are facing throughout Australia today. It is a problem that will get worse and worse if Telstra is fully privatised. It is just not good enough. The lack of lines and the problems that people are facing really demonstrate that there is no forward planning; it is just a reactive approach. If people want a service, then they have to pay for it. Everything that they get, they must pay for.Telstra has obviously opted completely out of the planning process. It has opted out of everything that does not relate to making a profit. This reflects the direction in which it is going and the priorities it has. It reflects the fact that service is no longer the thing that is important. If we go further down the privatisation line, it will only affect ordinary everyday Australians—people who rely on Telstra to live in a safe environment, people who rely on Telstra for their contact with the outside world and people who need the valuable services that Telstra has provided over the years. This is a service that people in Australia for many years have come to expect as a quality service, a service that will be there; it is not something they should be provided with if there is an enormous profit going to the company. (Time expired)93917:05:00939Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I did not intend to start in this vein, but I have just heard the member for Shortland come forth with another stream of forgetfulness. I cannot understand what has happened to all my friends on the opposition benches. Are they all suffering from a mass memory loss, or do they think the people of Australia are dills? Since this parliament has resumed, we have had a stream of opposition members who have been carrying on about privatisation, attacking the government about privatisation, and their memories are completely defective and faulty. Have they forgotten about Qantas? Have they forgotten about the Commonwealth Bank?HH4JENKINSMr Jenkins—No.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—I am delighted to hear from my friend that they have not forgotten. He is the only one who has got a working memory, because the rest have forgotten. What have they kept saying? `The Liberal and National parties have been carried away with an ideological commitment to privatisation.'The people of Australia remember that the Labor Party said they would not sell all of the Commonwealth Bank, and then they went ahead and did it. And they sold all of Qantas. People have not forgotten that, unlike our sale of one-third of Telstra which mainly went to getting rid of debt, they did not pay off a single dollar of debt. It is like somebody with a farm who is in big trouble with the mortgage. They sell the back paddock but, instead of paying off the mortgage, paying off the debt, they take it all down to the pub and drink it. That is what Labor have done.I am sick to death of people on my right coming in and wailing, whingeing and whining about the government's ideological commitment to selling things. When we do it, we do it for the good of Australia and we use the money to pay off the debt of all Australians. And that is worth doing.I have one final point to make on this subject. The member for Shortland suggested that we never did anything, sold anything or wanted to sell anything if it were not making vast profits. Obviously she does not know about the ANL, which the Labor Party when in government wanted to sell as well. That was not making a profit, and we are delighted that we managed to sell it, even though the member for Kingsford-Smith at the time said it was unsaleable—and that destroyed their sale. We should also not forget that the then Labor government appointed Neville Wran and Mr Turnbull to try to sell it for a fee of $600,000. Enough of that, but I say to my friends on the other benches: get your memories working and cut out this pious whingeing and whining about what we are doing when you did exactly the same—you just frittered the money away.I want to talk immediately about a lady who, regrettably, is no longer with us. I am talking about Mrs Enda Dotti, who was an Aboriginal elder in Kempsey in the Macleay Valley and a wonderful woman. I am privileged that, over the years that I have been in this place, she and I became very good friends indeed. We both had a high degree of affection for each other. If people want to talk about reconciliation, that is the best form of reconciliation.As I have said countless times, the `p' in politics stands for `people'. When we talk about reconciliation between white Australia and Aboriginal Australia, we have to start talking about people too. I deeply regret that Enda is no longer with us, and I convey my condolences to her children and her family. She was a great woman. She was a great Australian. She worked tirelessly for Aboriginal people and reconciliation in the real way, which is not political fighting but getting on with the job of being people.I would also like to speak about a young gentleman, a young boy, Jake Skelly, who is seven years of age and lives in Urunga. Since the age of nine months, he has suffered from chronic renal failure, which totally stunts the growth of affected children. But, for the past two years, his quality of life has surged dramatically because he has been treated with a growth hormone. It has changed his life totally. In that period, his weight has gone up by 10 kilograms and his height has increased by 20 centimetres. Unfortunately, this drug will supposedly be removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 1 January.The family has two other children and, of course, if Jake's access to the growth hormone which has changed his life is removed, the family will have to find $7,000 a year for the treatment that he needs. You cannot put a dollar value on life. You cannot put a dollar value on the quality of life. The reality is that, within our society—people in need, people with health problems—the community spends far more than that, and I just want to appeal to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to reconsider this.Of course, it is not only Jake. Throughout Australia there are 60 kids suffering from this disease. In Jake's case, ultimately he will receive, I hope, a kidney transplant. He will certainly need one when he is older. But the reality is that this growth hormone has made such a major impact. He has not only grown in height and put on weight, he is now a member of the local surf club as a nipper and he has joined the swimming club. This is a young Australian who has found life through the growth hormone. If it is removed, he will certainly lose that quality of life. I would also like to talk about a road in my electorate, the Point Plomer Road, that runs between Crescent Head and the north shore of Port Macquarie. So what, you may say. I see the member for Barton and I am about to tell him that it is a very important road to the future of the Macleay Valley and the Hastings Valley. As we progress with the Pacific Highway, the town of Kempsey will receive a bypass, a deviation. One of the things that people are concerned about when a major highway which currently goes through the town—which is a negative really because the queues at Christmas are kilometres long—is to be bypassed is the effect on their commercial survival. The people of Kempsey are right to ponder that.I would like to make a suggestion. We should get the Kempsey Shire Council and the Hastings Municipal Council together with the state and federal government. If we can seal the Point Plomer Road—which runs right along the coast, along those beautiful beaches, through national parks—we will have one of the best one-day tourist drives in the whole of Australia. It will enable the Macleay Valley and the people of Kempsey to tap into the tourism numbers of Port Macquarie. It will provide Port Macquarie with an additional feature for their visitors.If they drove from Port Macquarie to Kempsey, they could inspect Akubra, one of the most amazing manufacturing places that you will see. Perhaps we could get an Aboriginal keeping place in Kempsey as well and then they could proceed out to the coast and travel by the Point Plomer Road back to Port Macquarie to the north shore. There is no bridge across, which many of the residents of the north shore really want, but ferries are a means of transport that is presently used. Providing the people of the north shore of Port Macquarie were not disadvantaged by such action and were not pushed out of the link, bigger ferries could be put on. I am sure that that is possible.The ordinary people from the electorates of Barton, Scullin or New England would regard a ride across the river on a car ferry as very interesting and exciting. It is something that they never see these days. I would like to urge those two local government bodies—the state government and our own government—to get together and do something about getting this going.I would also like to talk about the need for funding for the City Hill Art Gallery in Coffs Harbour. We have had a very hardworking committee going now for 10 or maybe 12 years. City Hill is an area that was originally going to be used for welfare housing, but Tom Uren, when he was Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, stepped in and made sure that it could be sold to the Coffs Harbour City Council and it would be the site of a major cultural centre. We need an art gallery. We already have the Bunker Cartoon Gallery, which is a great success, but the city council, by itself, will not have the funds to actually proceed with the development.The design for the art gallery has been drawn, the scale models are there. It has actually won an architectural award for design excellence. So I say to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation that we have a distinct and definite need in Coffs Harbour, in the electorate of Cowper, for funding to enable the regional art gallery to be built for the benefit of not just Coffs Harbour but the whole region.94217:15:00942Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Protection of our heritage is the responsibility of all of us. It will only be achieved through a partnership of government—local, state and federal—and the community. So yesterday I was pleased to attend a German Heritage Fest at Westgarthtown in my electorate. The first thing the Consul-General to Melbourne from the Republic of Germany—who had only been here a couple of weeks—did on being invited to Westgarthtown was to look up in the Melways where Westgarthtown was. Of course, Westgarthtown does not survive as a modern suburb of Melbourne. Westgarthtown is in the area of Lalor and Thomastown.The importance of a German Heritage Fest, of course, is that much has been written about the German immigration to South Australia but less is known about the immigration from Germany to Port Phillip directly, before the gold rush and before Victoria's colonial separation from New South Wales. Some of these German settlers settled on a 640-acre tract of land known as Westgarthtown, purchased for them by the prominent Melbourne merchant William Westgarth, in Thomastown. Westgarth had encouraged German immigration to Port Phillip because he had seen the South Australian Germans and was impressed with their `industry, frugality, sobriety and general good conduct' which had made them excellent colonists. The point about Westgarthtown was that these select migrants from German and Wendish families came together to establish a Lutheran settlement and, using their Lutheran beliefs, common farming and dairying practices and a hardworking ethic, set out to build that settlement. It was appropriate that yesterday, during the 150th anniversary of German immigration to Victoria and amongst the bricks of modern Thomastown suburbia, people were able to come together amongst the original bluestone buildings that still stand as evidence of the earlier German-Wendish presence to celebrate that connection in historical terms. It was a great celebration not only for the local community but for the wider German community of the state of Victoria.The Westgarthtown settlement as we know it today has been absorbed into the suburbs of Thomastown and Lalor, but in the 1980s it was declared a historical precinct. Robert Wuchatsch in his book Westgarthtown: The German Settlement at Thomastown quotes the comments made by one of those who adjudicated on the suitability for listing, Dr Miles Lewis of the University of Melbourne's School of Architecture, who wrote in his report to the National Trust that Westgarthtown was:. . . one of Victoria's most distinctive ethnic settlements, reflecting the historical circumstances of settlement, German vernacular building traditions, and the geology and conditions of the area.Today, at Westgarthtown, several very important buildings survive. Ziebell's farmhouse, barn and outhouse survive. They are in the ownership of the City of Whittlesea. There is the Lutheran cemetery and the Lutheran Church. Then there are Graff's homestead and Siebel's homestead, which are still in private ownership. Lastly, there is Wuchatsch farmhouse, which is in private ownership and still inhabited by the descendants of the original settlers.Whilst these buildings have been preserved and the larger area—including Ziebell's farmhouse, the cemetery and the church—was the centre of the activities yesterday, today I grieve that there is another building which is suffering great neglect. That building is Maltzahn's farmhouse. It went into the ownership of the Victorian ministry of housing back in the late 1980s. Up until then, it had been inhabited by several different families who were related to the original Wendish settlers of the area.At that time, the ministry of housing applied to build nine dwellings. They applied for a permit back in 1992, and the City of Whittlesea Council decided to issue the permit against some objections. The fundamental reason for deciding to support the proposal was of course that there would be community benefit because the heritage building itself would be refurbished. Whilst the dwellings were built by the ministry of housing during 1996-97, the Maltzahn's farmhouse has been allowed to become derelict. The ministry had taken the roof off it. The roof was just strewn around the front yard, destroying the garden, and now all that is left is the walls and the chimney.Recently the Department of Planning and Housing decided to go to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal to gain a demolition order on the walls and chimney of the Maltzahn's farmhouse. Regrettably, the tribunal decided in favour of the ministry for housing. This is a crying shame because in fact what the ministry for housing did when they built the dwellings was to build residences that were architecturally sensitive to the Maltzahn's farmhouse building. The significance of course of Maltzahn's farmhouse is that it is slightly different to the other bluestone buildings that have survived. It had symmetrically located groups of three windows on either side of a central door, and at the turn of the century the walls were rendered and painted white. It was in use up until the late 1980s.Fortunately, upon the request of the City of Whittlesea the Minister for Planning and Local Government, Robert MacLellan, has intervened. Hopefully, through his good graces, the Department of Infrastructure and bodies like Heritage Victoria, some agreement may come about to save what is a very important part of the Westgarthtown historical precinct.In talking about the precinct, we should not only talk about the buildings but also talk about the people who inhabited the area through such books as Westgarthtown by Robert Wuchatsch and other oral histories that have been collated. Recently, the City of Whittlesea used the German classes of the Mill Park Secondary College to put together some oral histories of survivors of the original families. The point we should learn is that throughout history there has been a degree of tension over and a degree of questioning of the tolerance with which Australia has welcomed migrants from all over the world. At the time of the Great War, the loyalty of these immigrants from Germany was questioned. Many of them had been here for 40 or 50 years and had made a great contribution to the efforts that Australia was making to the British war effort. Many of the families sent sons to the front, many of the families actually contributed to the patriotic funds, but always they were open to innuendo and rumour. Always they got a clean bill of health. For instance, when William Zimmer, a carter of nightsoil from the Broadmeadows camp, which was nearby, was the victim of many scurrilous complaints, the local constable, Constable Woodhouse, was required to investigate each complaint and finally got sick of it all and said:I have made careful enquiries and I have been unable to find anything that would tend to prove that he was disloyal. I am sorry to say that these people who are only too ready to spread reports are the last to give information to the police. Zimmer bears a good character in the district.Robert Wuchatsch, in the conclusion to his book, described his life at school as follows:As with the Germans before them, life for today's immigrants has not always been free of difficulty. As a pupil attending Thomastown Primary School during the late 1950s I vividly recall the insults and ridicule heaped upon immigrant children not conforming to contemporary Australian standards—those with unusual clothing, names, accents and lunches, or parents who were either unable to speak English or who worked long hours to establish themselves. One of the greatest migrant crimes I recall was the growing of vegetables in front gardens . . . Fortunately, times have changed at Thomastown and Lalor. Today the residents, both old and new Australians, have moved towards a working understanding of each other's cultures and values, if not an embracement of them.I would really be grieving if that was not the case. I would really be grieving if in multicultural Australia those diversities were not welcome and if they were not welcomed with open arms to ensure that Australia develops from strength to strength as a multicultural society.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous94494410000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—For the information of honourable members, on behalf of the Speaker I present the annual report of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia for 1997.Bills944The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998Address in Reply944944Debate resumed from 26 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.944Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for Swan, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.17:26:00944Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP01—Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, let me start by adding my congratulations to you on your appointment to the position of Deputy Speaker. It is with considerable pride, and certainly gratitude, that I undertake my first speech. I thank the people of Swan for their trust and for the opportunity of serving them in this place.My linkages with the electorate date back some 75 years when my mother's family moved to South Perth. In fact, my mother was born at a small maternity hospital in Angelo Street, close to where the family still lives. In my childhood I spent many days on the river or its boundaries and have seen much of the area developed over the years. My employment experiences have been varied but started when I was selling newspapers in the Mends Street area of South Perth at age 12. This progressed to the sale of specialised parts to the manufacturing industry, some time as a primary producer, 4½ years spent as a prison officer and over nine years working with juvenile offenders and the long-term unemployed, predominantly in the Swan electorate. Whilst working in the electorate, I found particular reward in being involved in a voluntary capacity with many of the organisations serving the community. These include the Rotary Club of Victoria Park, the Regional Community Policing Crime Prevention Committee, the Victoria Park Jobmate program and the Lady Gowrie Centre of Western Australia. I would like to acknowledge the work of the volunteers of these and other groups in the electorate who donate their time to serving others. Their contribution is invaluable. These experiences led me to becoming a councillor at the City of South Perth, brought upon by greater awareness of the relationship between public policy and the community. My presence here today is a result of that experience and a belief that one can make a difference. The seat of Swan is a diverse series of communities whose boundaries include the Swan, Canning and Helena Rivers and the Roe Highway. Following the 1996 election and the subsequent boundary changes, Swan also embraced the suburbs of South Guildford, Hazelmere, High Wycombe and Beckenham. The seat has both a rich and historic heritage along with having the characteristics of a modern, dynamic and rapidly growing city. The seat of Swan has existed since 1901. It is named after the river that brings so much life and enjoyment to the people of Perth. At the time of Federation the local community would have consisted of riverside holiday houses, workers residences and a strong rural mix including dairies, market gardens and horse racing facilities. Today Swan is lucky to experience a rich diversity of people from a wide range of cultural backgrounds. Common to all are an enjoyment of a near city lifestyle, access to the Swan River and an ability to make the most of the many beautiful parks and gardens throughout the electorate. Swan is an electorate of contrasts. There are areas of high wealth along with areas of high unemployment and great hardship. The average income per household is, on the whole, less than the national average and certainly less than in many parts of Western Australia. Swan has a high proportion of rental accommodation and is the home of a growing population of seniors. Many members of the community are veterans of our armed forces, and there are those who are totally and permanently incapacitated as a result of this service. I have a high regard and personal affinity for these men and women as my father served and was wounded in World War II.Included in the electorate is Curtin University. Curtin is one of the most respected learning institutions in the country. It is named after the famous Western Australian Labor Prime Minister John Curtin. John Curtin led this country through the terrible times of World War II and is widely regarded as one of our greatest leaders. The electorate also contains a number of specialist technical and further education colleges which are leaders in their fields of excellence.More recently the highly successful Technology Park has been established in Bentley. This development, which was the brainchild of Western Australia Labor Minister for Commerce and Trade, Mal Bryce, is, as its name suggests, the centre for excellence for research and development. Seventy-five companies, employing some 1,800 people, are currently on site with over 70 per cent of the $225 million of income generated through exports. The expansion of this facility has also suffered from the cuts in research and development allocations introduced by the current government.In 1946 Perth airport became fully operational at its new home in Swan. Whilst playing an important part in the economy of the electorate, problems associated with its location and the way it is being managed have been observed. These issues include aircraft noise and more recently the granting of a heavy industrial use proposal on Commonwealth land contained within its boundaries. This occurred without an environmental impact study, which would have normally been undertaken had the development occurred on private land under state control. I will be monitoring the future granting of land use applications on Commonwealth land and their impact on surrounding residential developments carefully.I am, however, particularly disgusted at the government's complete disregard for the people of Swan over the issue of aircraft noise. Whilst Labor has consistently announced policies which, had they been implemented, would have substantially reduced the suffering of many in the community, the coalition has maintained a position of doing nothing. This is despite the fact that the coalition supported a similar plan put forward by the Labor government which compensated people in Sydney who suffer a similar misfortune. The hypocrisy demonstrated here by not extending the program to Perth is something which I will continue to make considerable noise of my own about until the government addresses the problem.As previously stated, I was involved with local government for a number of years. My involvement with the community has enabled me to give considerable thought to the role of public administration and the relationship between government and the community. My reflection on this has led me to the works of Nicholas Barr. Barr, a noted social welfare economist, suggests that an assessment of government should be based on a number of principles. Those principles are: the effectiveness of a nation's ability to produce goods and services for the country, the effectiveness of the distribution methods of these goods and services, the relationship between the state and personal liberty throughout the process of production and distribution, and the resulting mix of social and cultural elements in society.There is no doubt that, for Australia to be internationally successful and competitive, it must reform and progress in a number of ways. However, for Australia to achieve this reform in a successful and unifying fashion requires this progress to be implemented within a framework of opportunity and social compassion that ensures that those who are most disadvantaged by change are not forgotten. This requires Australia to be supportive of its manufacturing and service industries, to identify those industries that could and will be export driven, and to assist industries to meet that potential. Australia must understand that high-tech and service orientated industries are the way of the future and are likely to be the sectors within which significant employment growth is achieved.Australia must also understand that, in order to take advantage of this potential, we must invest in the community to ensure our people are skilled and equipped not only to deal with change but to take full advantage of that change. This requires a commitment to accessible education at all levels. Our education system is the tool that creates opportunity and ensures that Australians can be trained and provided with the skills and ability to share in the advantages of change. Education allows us to produce citizens who can lead Australia in the growth industries. The commitment to education ought to be seen as an investment, not as a cost.We must also ensure we have a commitment to those in our community who will, unfortunately, be disadvantaged by change. This requires a commitment to ensuring we have a system of income distribution that seeks to assist and support those less advantaged than many of us. Assistance to the unemployed and other sections of society that require government assistance should not be seen as a cost to our country; it should be viewed as an element of our inclusive, healthy and compassionate community. This framework which allows reform within a regime of compassion is what Barr is referring to when he discusses his principles of assessment. Australia's ability and potential to positively respond to these principles influences my approach to public policy. In my own electorate of Swan, the community and its representatives are constantly being challenged by the changing nature of society and its impact on all parts of the community.The electorate of Swan has a large population of seniors; in fact, almost 20 per cent of the population are over 60 years of age. Amongst the most enjoyable moments of the recent campaign have been those spent at locations with senior members of the Swan community. I am fortunate to say that I have been welcomed by many. I suggest that this is not surprising given the treatment that seniors have experienced under the current government. Seniors deserve better. No senior citizen should be hungry, have unsuitable accommodation or wait on extended medical lists whilst suffering pain purely because the government will not cater for their needs.For the last nine years I was employed in the non-government community based sector providing services through the YMCA of Perth. My last appointment was as manager of the YMCA SkillShare program in Victoria Park. This program was one of the four ill-fated SkillShares operating in Swan which ceased operation in that form when the new Job Network was established. I can attest to the work performed by the SkillShare network and other not-for-profit organisations. I was particularly proud of what they could achieve.SkillShare provided opportunities for us to equip people with the skills needed for employment. In most cases these translated to opportunities in the labour market. Aside from the issues of dignity and social contact for our clients, there were definitive and measurable outcomes for the money expended. The SkillShares in Swan were particularly vibrant, some having operated since the days of the old Community Youth Support Scheme. Nothing now exists of that enterprise. Millions of dollars worth of equipment has been sold and the skills of the staff have been lost—all sacrificed for a government obsessed with privatisation.In Swan the coalition was not content, however, with the destruction of training services and the reduction of other employment services. The government in its wisdom also decided that it should reduce the number of Commonwealth service providers to one for the entire electorate of over 146 square kilometres. It located its one service in Cannington. We now have the ludicrous situation where an unemployed person may register as unemployed at the Victoria Park Centrelink office, but if they want access to employment or other referrals, they must travel some seven kilometres to Cannington or to the Perth CBD. This is an example of the poor standard of service currently being delivered by the government to the unemployed people of Swan.When you remove hundreds of millions of dollars from programs, there will be a down side. There are now over 5,000 unemployed in my electorate and it is estimated that the youth unemployment rate is approaching 30 per cent. When you consider that this rate was 18.5 per cent at the time the Howard government took office, the rise is shown to be dramatic and unacceptable. It is another sad indictment on the government's new programs.Betty Hounslow of ACOSS indicated in 1996 that `Unemployment is the most savage determiner of poverty and disadvantage in our community. In Australia today, there are over 700,000 children being raised in families without employment. The number of households in which nobody works is 1.15 million.' I ask myself: what hardships and despair must be endured before we embrace change? I believe that many causes of insecurity and poverty are undeniably linked.In reflection, of course, when long-term unemployment is so high, when rising crime rates make us live in a state of fear, there is the greater malaise. The development of public policy should not occur in isolation. Policy in one area will impact on policy in other areas. Further to this point, research illustrates that there is a direct link between crime and unemployment. In a classic analysis of the problem, Rifkin, in his seminal work entitled The End of Work, indicated that every one per cent rise in unemployment will approximate to a five per cent rise in crime.To me, the message is simple: if we invest in people, if we give them a chance with a decent wage, skills and long-term prospects, they will not be the only beneficiaries; society itself will prosper. We must provide protec tion in a material as well as a physical sense. Tony Blair summed up the approach we must adopt when he stated that we must not only be tough on crime but we must also be tough on the causes of crime. We must, for example, restore funding to the Australian Federal Police and the Customs Service whilst ensuring that programs that address the social issues of crime are well supported.We need to foster a nation with a sense of achievement in industry and trade, a smart nation looking forward to developing new opportunities. What has become of the clever country? In my electorate, schools are currently being closed through rationalisation whilst universities and other places of higher education are suffering declines in funding. In a decade we will lament the decline in investment of public education. Not only is it a valuable tool in terms of revenue but it is the only way that we can equip our young with the skills necessary to ensure our prosperity. Of course, this gets to the heart of the matter. The Labor Party embraces education and skills as an investment. Unfortunately the coalition believes that education should be the preserve of a privileged few, where only those who can pay for their studies get educated.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a fortunate individual. My parents provided me with love, guidance and security. They also enabled me to access many opportunities. One of these was the opportunity of a secondary and tertiary education. I wish to ensure my children have the same educational opportunities and that these are enshrined as fundamental rights for all Australia's youth, irrespective of the income of their parents. Of course public education also extends to equipping our businesses with skilled trades people and managers. It means enabling our industries to produce quality goods and services, both for export and to compete with imports.I would like to move on to the subject of industrial relations and its importance as a base for a secure and prosperous society. In the 1907 Harvester judgment, the principle of `a fair go' in relation to workers and their wages was established. I believe this principle is as important today as it was when the decision was handed down over 90 years ago. It is this principle that has separated Australia from many other parts of the world and has enabled us to maintain a fair standard of living for workers.I am saddened that this is now changing and that opportunities for equity and justice in the workplace are now remote. It was one of my greatest fears that the election of a conservative government would treat workers with contempt. It has turned out to be far worse. The destruction of security and the destruction of fairness is, I fear, imminent.The area of Swan has a multiracial population with well over 30 per cent of the electorate not born in this country. My wife, for example, was born in Italy and migrated here with her family over 30 years ago. Whilst on the subject of people migrating to Australia, I would like to make the following observations regarding citizenship and the opportunity that this brings to new Australians. For the last 5½ years I have had the great pleasure of attending citizenship ceremonies as a councillor for the city of South Perth. For me, one of the highlights of this office was to witness people pledging their loyalty to their new country. The pledge or oath is simple yet effective:From this time forward, under God I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.Once citizens, these people are eligible to run for political office. I point out to the House the situation which currently exists, however, if these citizens are subsequently elected. From a position of committing themselves to Australia, which is good enough to become an Australian citizen and become elected, these same citizens need to swear allegiance to the Queen of England, her heirs and successors.Whilst I have made this oath, and will uphold this commitment, the reality is that this practice must be changed. Serving Australia and its people must be the primary focus of any elected representative. I welcome the referendum to be conducted on this matter.In summary, in an ever more complex world, the bottom line should not be a matter of an accounting surplus. In the final analysis, we need to do a number of things. In fact, I feel that we are obligated to do these things. Firstly, we must see education as an opportunity to invest in the nation's future. That is not only universities but the technical colleges, schools and skill training networks. These institutions must be adequately resourced.Secondly, we must see society maintain an equitable position on social welfare. That does not preclude the responsibility of the recipient. It must be seen that benefits both alleviate suffering and enable those in the system to have dignity as they climb back into the driver's seat. As Harold Wilson once said, `a society should have both a floor and a ladder.'Thirdly, clearly, we must restore opportunities for families where both parents work. They must have access to quality child care. As the chairperson of the Lady Gowrie Centre of Western Australia for a number of years, I saw community child-care centres close and families suffer as a result of this government's policies. From a position of being world leaders in this field, we have now fallen well behind. Coalition members have espoused the virtues of families while promoting and implementing policies which are detrimental to them. Often they ignore the fact that both partners in a family relationship should be entitled to pursue a career. Quality child care is vital for that to occur. A somewhat harsher reality is that, under the coalition's policies, both parents are often forced to work to maintain a reasonable standard of living for their families.Fourthly, we must not underestimate the hardship that our seniors are facing as a result of cuts to services or the insecurity they feel because of the unfair rules that have been levied upon them by this government. The elderly must also feel secure in their homes. They must not be allowed to feel vulnerable to physical or emotional abuse. I intend to fight for their rights.In closing, I would like to mention some of the people who have made the return of Swan to Labor possible. The first is my campaign director, John Halden. John was an inspiration during the 10 months of our effort to regain the seat. Whether we were printing and folding letters, stuffing envelopes or letterboxing pamphlets, John was the first on and the last off. On many occasions, John would work all night if the job needed finishing, and he would be back the following night to do the same. Others in the team, including Donna Plummer, John Dagastino, Tony Walker, Damien Karmelich, Raelene Murray, Bill Johnson, Mark Bishop and Tad, George and Vito also made invaluable contributions. I would also like to mention the contribution made by Labor state members of parliament. The first is the Leader of the Opposition and the next Premier of Western Australia, Geoff Gallop, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Eric Ripper, and Michelle Roberts. Thank you all.I would like to thank my family for the invaluable support and encouragement that they have unselfishly provided. To my wife, Jo, and to my children, Mark, 11, Ben, 5, and Alexander 2, I thank you most of all. In years to come, I hope that we can look back on these times and say that they were worth the sacrifices you made.The campaign for Swan was fought around the commitment `I will make a difference'. I look forward to honouring this commitment both now and in the future in fighting the inequities imposed under this administration and in representing the electorate in a Beazley-led Labor government. When all is said and done, only Labor can and will make that difference.949Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for Parkes, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.17:47:00949Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP11—I am indeed most fortunate and humbled to have been elected by the people of Parkes to represent them in this parliament. May I say that I am more than a little daunted by this challenge—not daunted by speaking in this chamber, but by the enormous challenge of standing before the people of my electorate after three years and being able to say that I have been an effective representative for them. The people of my electorate demand things to be different. For too many years, governments of both persuasions have either taken for granted the votes of rural and regional people or been unconcerned by the numbers that do not stack up against the demands of the more numerous metropolitan Australians. This has led to an obvious decline in services to my constituents. Our services have undeniably been savaged—medical, communications, police and financial services, to name a few—due to both state and federal decisions.We must fight the drug problem rife in all our towns. A drugs in community forum was held recently in Dubbo which requested that the federal government recognise and support the role of Australian cities against drugs. I support this motion wholeheartedly.People on the land work long hours, risk enormously, produce much and earn little. It defies belief how those who are responsible for billions of dollars worth of exports for Australia somehow miss out on the rewards. Having said that, some of our producers have grasped the future like champions and changed their output to reflect changing global demands. Irrigators in Bourke and Menindee on the mighty Darling River, those in Narromine, Trangie and Warren on the Macquarie and some on the Lachlan are world leaders in irrigation techniques. They produce cotton and horticultural products. They are wise and efficient water users.These men and women are environmentalists of the best kind because they are business people who are there for the long haul. Because of this, they look after their land and water, and they are the lifeblood of the towns they surround. They have stepped into the breach left by the decline of wool and other rural produces and their economic input into their towns is such that the towns would not survive without them. Despite this, they battle with the environmental lobby. I do not deny for a second that this green lobby has had a hugely beneficial effect on our country over the years. But the pendulum has now swung too far the other way and it now has a disproportionate influence on government policy.We need a balanced production focused plan. The restriction on water usage is laugh able. In the last four months, the equivalent of 22 Sydney harbours have flowed past Bourke. It takes 150,000 megalitres to grow one year's crop. There has been 11 million megalitres flow past in the last four months and these producers have hardly been able to touch it. These people are prepared to build storages at their own cost to store some of this very high flow water, which may flow about every two years. They could inject some $50 million into their local economies on top of the $50 million that they inject each year already, but at the moment they are not allowed to. So we lose jobs and, with it, prosperity, dignity and health.Despite the hardships, the Parkes electorate is an enriching and exciting place to live. It is a vast electorate of 320,000 square kilometres. Unlike some metropolitan electorates, where it is a $3 bus fare from one side of the electorate to the other, it is about a $300 airfare from one side of my electorate to the other. It was named after Sir Henry Parkes, who is recognised as the father of federation. The electorate, like the man, is massive, durable and imposing. The seat was created from surrounding electorates. Different parts have been represented by Ralph Hunt, Noel Hicks and Michael Cobb. May I say at this point that Michael Cobb was of enormous help to me during the election period, always available to offer advice and support. He continued to work in the electorate office weeks after his official retirement date.Dubbo is the major population centre of my electorate and it is one of the few regional cities in Australia still experiencing strong growth. This is no accident. There are people with vision and entrepreneurial skills second to none in this city. Down the Newell Highway we pass through Peak Hill, Parkes and Forbes. These towns too boast leaders who think outside the square—people who take up the challenges of nature, the challenges of government policy and the challenges of human short-sightedness. The town of Parkes is rapidly becoming the inland distribution centre of Australia with its unique position on road and rail corridors, and they are looking to expand this concept through air.Westward through Condobolin, Lake Cargelligo, Nyngan, Cobar, Brewarrina, Wilcannia, Menindee, Ivanhoe, Broken Hill, Tibooburra and White Cliffs—mining towns and areas that grow wheat, wool, cotton, canola, beef and lamb. Many of these towns too have recognised the need to diversify and look for other means of sustainability apart from direct reliance on the rural industry. Tourism will be a major contributor to the economies of these towns. Broken Hill has just received a Federation Fund grant of $4.625 million for their living mining museum, the Line of Lode. What a fair and benevolent government to give this much money to a town where we receive about 14 per cent of the primary vote. This is indeed a government for everybody and it recognises that a lot has been taken out of Broken Hill over the years with very little given back.Bourke, Cobar and Narromine all have major tourism projects in the pipeline and they recognise the need for a team effort to attract tourists to an exiting driving holiday looping through the outback. Cobar is a town with enormous heart. These people are going through a period where we have allowed a foreign company to come into the country, loot one of our towns and depart. They have left debts to the workers and small businesses in the town of tens of millions of dollars. It is a ridiculous situation where these workers are looking forward to maybe receiving 79c in the dollar for these entitlements and nothing in redundancy payouts. The joke of it all is that it appears they are meant to be grateful for the promise of this money 10 or 11 months after Ashanti, a company partly owned by the government of Ghana, pulled the pin on the town.Wilcannia was the queen of the outback in the paddleboat days. It now has its own set of unique problems, which brings me to touch on some areas of government policy which I believe need to be addressed because the conditions in some of these remote towns are unique and normal social and economic policy just does not work there. I have strong views on the culture we have manufactured since the Whitlam days, and I will expand on this later. However, as much as I believe in governments governing and businesses employing, we must be flexible enough to recognise areas of need.In Wilcannia we have, as I said, a unique situation where the town is 200 kilometres from the nearest town east or west. There are significant social and law and order problems. If there was ever an opportunity to measure the impact of work programs on social problems, it is in this situation. There are just no jobs and no hope of jobs for these people. I believe we have a responsibility to provide some employment for them.In the past when work programs were introduced, court appearances went from 100 per week to 10 per week. A corresponding decrease in vandalism, violence and drunkenness was experienced. The work program was cut back and the court appearances went up again to 100 per week. If you need figures to measure the dollar savings of having work programs resulting in lower costs to courts, police, social and health care workers, then this is the place to measure it. It is remote and isolated.Having said that, I believe that work schemes should be a genuine attempt to address social problems and/or prepare people for work—both are commendable objectives. These programs should not just be a way to decrease unemployment figures. It is foolish and irresponsible to play with people's lives like this. For the long-term unemployed it takes the best part of six months for them to understand the work ethic and to experience the satisfaction of finishing a job, even if it is not a job that you particularly enjoy doing. So job schemes must continue for longer than six months. While speaking about these schemes, may I pass on to the House the wishes of all the councils involved in the Work for the Dole Scheme. Their wish is for the age to be raised for the Work for the Dole Scheme so they can make the scheme work much more effectively.Mr Deputy Speaker, it grieves me to say this, but it is something that we must recognise if we are to fix it. We have manufactured a culture that relies on someone else to blame for our actions, someone else to pay for our needs. This is not the fault of the kids wan dering the streets. It is not even the fault of the adults who themselves have lived in a generation of welfare. We need to change the attitude of society by putting a value on the things we have been taught to take for granted—the cost of police, the cost of roads we drive on, the cost of hospital beds we occupy, the cost of visiting a doctor and the real cost of medication that we pay $3.20 or $20 for but which cost the taxpayer $150 or $200 a month. Perhaps then we will have less of an attitude that we are owed and more of an attitude that we have a responsibility towards each other.Let me talk a little about responsibility. There is a fine line between providing help for the disadvantaged and living beyond our means. It amazes me how the Labor Party believe they have a mortgage on compassion. It is the responsibility of governments to provide for those who cannot help themselves—the aged, the frail and some disabled. It is also the responsibility of government to be able to provide this help for the long term. We absolutely cannot meet these long-term needs by following the Labor Party's tax vacuum. If we left it to them, by now we would have such high wholesale sales tax on selected items that the tax would be higher than the product itself. And I am not just talking about petrol!The only way we can afford compassion—and I do not apologise for saying that; ask St Vincent de Paul or the Salvos if they have to cost their charity programs—is by keeping people in work. The only way to provide long-term jobs is through stimulation of business. Our side embraces a business-stimulating tax system. We do not take the morally wrong but politically easy path of knowing change is necessary but not having the guts to do it.I do not claim to be an economist. In fact, I do not know if there isn't a better tax system than ours that someone has not dreamed up. I do know, however, that the one we have is broke. I also believe that no amount of modelling by economists and financial whizzes is going to predict all the possible outcomes of the introduction of our tax reform plan.All the social service groups—ACOSS, Vinnies, the Salvos—agree that tax change is necessary. They even accept the broad thrust of our plan. They are only rightly looking to protect their patch. The Labor Party is out on a limb on their own—in fact, a very thin, dry twig—in opposing tax reform. I would like to see the whole tax plan implemented, recognise any shortcomings and then fix them if they appear. It is inquired out. No-one can predict every possible outcome that may arise from such a massive and brave change. When this is done, I predict that the thin, dry twig upon which the Labor Party are perched all on their own will snap and they will plunge into an abyss from which it will take them years to reappear, hopefully with something positive to contribute.I believe in free enterprise and we should always start from a position where the government is not involved. If it looks like society will be disadvantaged by a total lack of governmental intervention in a particular arena, then I believe the government should step in, interfering as little as possible to rectify the problem. As a small business person, I challenge the Labor Party's stand on unfair dismissal. These laws are crippling business and employment and the laughable thing for me is that the legislation assumes all small business owners to be ogres and the workers all to be saints who would never take sickies, be rude to clients or steal. I am extremely fortunate to have a tremendous team working for me in my pharmacy in a relationship that is based on mutual trust and respect.I believe the government for too long has stood aside and watched the main supermarket chains take ever increasing slices of the retail market to the point where they now control 80 per cent of total retail sales in Australia. The government's lack of action has virtually wiped out fruit and vegetable shops, butchers and record shops. The chains are now targeting unashamedly hardware stores, bookshops, pharmacies, newsagents, corner stores and sporting goods shops. The economic rationalists say that it is competition. They say that competition reduces prices.Where will the competition be when these chains own 95 per cent of retail sales? Will someone convince me that these chains will compete aggressively, leading to lower prices for consumers? Incidentally, many of these consumers will not have a job if they are aged over 21. At the very least, the chains' domination should be capped at their present levels. Let them expand into Asia to meet our demands as shareholders clamouring for more profits. But let us stop this crazy expansion within Australia now, because it will not only be the people in regional areas to suffer this time.These companies do not want to run pharmacies, newsagents or hardware stores. They just want to sell the top 20 per cent of profitable lines to meet their prescribed returns per metre of shelving. The rest they say can be retained by the stores I have mentioned. Thanks, but no thanks. They cannot operate without the top lines to subsidise the slower moving ones that, for example, in a pharmacy may be a drug that an 80-year-old grandmother may need to save her life but may only need an intermittent but urgent supply. Squeeze out the pharmacy and there is no way the chains would carry this product.Despite what we have done to it, we live in the greatest country in the world. I encourage the members of this place to make sure we do not follow the lead of many other countries which appear to strive for mediocrity by mistakenly paying too much attention to the thought police who do not want anyone to feel challenged.We must strive towards reconciliation with our Aboriginal countrymen. They must also strive to recognise that, though perhaps misguided, an enormous amount of money and energy has gone into trying to rectify wrongs perpetrated on their forebears, the scars of which are so easily recognisable today. May I also say that, in my experience, meaningful reconciliation is achieved when the person wronged recognises the efforts made by the offender and moves towards forgiveness. To achieve reconciliation we must give of ourselves, not just our money. Just giving money guarantees the stripping of dignity. How do we develop respect for what we are merely given?I am reminded of a line from a movie, a classic of our time known to all—well, perhaps very few—that is, The Excellent Adventures of Bill and Ted. This line should be our catchcry: be excellent to each other.I must thank many people for their assistance in getting me across the line at the recent election. It was never going to be easy to win, but it was fought in a manner in which all candidates respected that, despite differences in politics, all were striving to make Australia a better place to live.The expertise of Doug Moppett MLC was absolutely instrumental in getting me over the line. The man is an electoral genius. Pat Gallaher, Amanda McKay, Mike Blake, Charlie Cosgrove, Trevor and Pauline McAllister, Barbara and Douglas Webb, David Brownhill and Emma Ridley all played key roles. To them I am extremely grateful. There were numerous branch members and chairmen who guided me in their towns throughout this vast electorate. There were hundreds of others who manned the polling booths around the electorate, people whom I had never met and who have served the National Party since before I was born. I am proud to stand here as a National Party member, and I hope I can repay their trust.A special thanks to my parents, Peter and Carmel Lawler, here today with my sister Bernadette, one of my 13 brothers and sisters. They are all special—Louise, Jenny, Mary, Sam, Simon, Luke, Monique, Dominique, Joe, Justin, Ben and Carmel.I am who I am because of my upbringing. I had a wonderful childhood starting with mum and dad opening a business in Dubbo, living in a rented house with no hot water and one power point. Through sheer hard work and unselfishness, they are where they are today with eight fantastic sons and daughters-in-law and 14 beautiful grandchildren. My parents, brothers and sisters, and brothers- and sisters-in-law are an inspiration to me. Mine has been a most fortunate life up until now.Most importantly, I thank my darling wife, Ellen, for her wonderful support and encour agement. It has been a very hectic 12 months and she has been my strength. It is my wife and four beautiful children—Emily, Amelia, Sam and Isobel—who are my proudest achievements—and I love them all.18:07:00953Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak in this address-in-reply debate to raise with the government one important issue: employment and, in particular, the failed Job Network. The Minister for Employment Services is about to take proposals to cabinet to try to reform and, if possible, make the Job Network work. To prepare us for these reforms, I note that in recent days there have been some timely leaks in the media. The Minister for Employment Services has been given this job because his predecessor, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, was an abject failure—as he and I both know—when it came to the issue of employment and the implementation of changes to the competitive model brought in by Labor with respect to the delivery of employment services. I see my job as being to hound this new minister to reform the Job Network in order to overcome some of the difficulties created by his predecessor.I also note from recent media reports that, in his younger days, the new Minister for Employment Services used to quite fancy himself in the boxing ring. I refer to the Weekend Australian of 7 to 8 November where it is entitled `Minister renowned for boxing clever—Tony always had appetite for a blue'. On the basis of that history, the question I have to ask the Minister for Employment Services is whether he thinks he can get the Job Network off the mat. I know, as does he from all his discussions in recent times, that the truth of the matter is that at the moment in the minds of a lot of the providers—and especially in those of the community, the unemployed and their families—the Job Network has a glass jaw. The time has come to admit failure and to try to make the necessary changes.From my point of view, as the opposition spokesperson for employment, my job is to throw a few punches in an attempt to get the minister to front up to the fact that the Job Network has a glass jaw. I can suggest to the new minister that the choice is his: just as those punches landed heavily on the former minister for employment, so they will land on the new minister if he does not act quickly to fix up the mess. This is his chance to prove himself—to prove that he has the capacity to listen and to make the necessary changes. But it also comes back to his ability to stand up and be counted with respect to cabinet consideration of these issues from the government's point of view.What I want is for this minister not to let his head guard slip, blinding him—like the previous occupant—to the reality of what is happening in the Job Network game. Having said that, I would say that I also have enough respect for the new minister to know that in the few weeks he has been in the job he has quickly acted to gather together those who are seeking to make the system work in both the private and the community sector; to listen to their criticism of the system and take on board what is necessary to fix up the hopeless Job Network. I congratulate him for at least his willingness to sit down and listen. Unfortunately, that did not occur in any meaningful way with respect to the previous minister.On that note, Minister, I offer a few ideas about what needs to be done. I also note that, with respect to some of those media reports, one idea that is being floated is that, if the necessary changes are approved by cabinet, there might be a requirement to push out the next tender round. From the opposition's point of view, I support such a proposal; changes are required. I also believe that, if the government makes those changes, there is a requirement to at least test those changes and, in that context, there may be a necessity to push out the next tender round so as to ensure that on this occasion we at least get it right.From the opposition's point of view, I suggest that the government, if it does not act quickly, will see the number of players in the employment services market collapse as more and more job agencies are forced to the wall. All too many job agencies have been forced to the wall to date and, unfortunately, a number of those Job Network providers were decent community and private sector providers who not only tried hard but, for example, with respect to such operations as San Miguel, also subsidised the government's mistakes. They should not be described as failures in the minds of the community or the government. They did their best. It was not their fault that they were required to withdraw from the network—the system itself was flawed.The minister also needs to act fast to avoid further centralisation of the Job Network as it denies real choice to the jobless. He also needs to seriously consider that issue in further advancing another media leak as to whether or not he gives those network providers additional responsibilities with respect to some of the duties that are currently provided by Centrelink. If one wants to place a further onus of responsibility on the unemployed, then it is also necessary to ensure that they have adequate access to Job Network providers. It is difficult enough to be unemployed at the moment and to live on the meagre benefits that are available, without imposing on the unemployed additional costs on the basis of which they are entitled to their benefits in the future whilst at the same time suggesting that there are barriers to their accessing the services with the choice that exists in the field at the moment.I further suggest that, if the minister does not act promptly, he will end up with only a handful of big players. I know, as he knows, that at the moment there is also a game going on in the Job Network between the big and the small providers. The endeavours of the big providers are meant to force as many small private sector companies and community sector providers out of the market as possible. Unfortunately, the number one concern of some of those major providers is not the unemployed but the accountants' bottom line. The minister must be very careful to ensure that, in listening to submissions from the range of network providers he is consulting at the moment, he concludes the changes they suggest are on the basis of improving the network to assist the unemployed and not improving the accountants' bottom line.The Labor Party is not against competition. I have said on a number of occasions that we support competition with respect to the operation of the Job Network; in fact, we started that idea with Working Nation. Competition is not the problem; it was the nature of the competition in the first tender round that has created the problem. We in actual fact forced the Commonwealth Employment Service to get out and compete, and we are proud of having bitten the bullet with respect to that very issue.It is good to have the pressure of competition. From the opposition's point of view, there is clearly nothing wrong with that. It is the nature of the competition that has created the problems. I am concerned with the market driven, harsh ideology of the former minister for employment, Dr Kemp. That is what drove the changes and drove them hard. Unless we are careful, the end result of that ideology will be a sector dominated by a few commercial interests. That is not true competition. Some of those commercial interests, with their multinational connections, unfortunately, have little or no interest in the crisis faced by our unemployed.We still have an unemployment crisis in Australia, despite the unemployment figures of the last couple of weeks. I understand the saw-tooth nature of the monthly unemployment figures. If you go back over the last 32 months you find that little or no progress has been made. For example, I refer to total jobs growth. Over the last 32 months the Howard government has created 351,400 jobs in Australia. When you compare that with Labor's record in its last 32 months of government, total jobs growth was 671,400. Therefore, this government's jobs growth represents only 52 per cent of what the Labor Party achieved in its last 32 months.I turn to full-time jobs growth. The Howard government's achievement in its first 32 months of government was 151,300 jobs. The Labor Party in its last 32 months of government achieved 387,100 jobs. The government's total jobs growth represents 39 per cent of what the last Keating Labor government achieved.Finally, I turn to part-time jobs growth. As I have said on a number of occasions, I do not question whether they are part-time or full-time jobs—that is the nature of employment in the Australian community today—provided that wherever possible part-time workers receive their appropriate proportionate entitlements to terms and conditions of employment. The part-time jobs growth of the Howard government in its first 32 months was 200,100 compared to the 284,300 part-time jobs growth achieved by Labor in its last 32 months. So the Howard government achieved 70 per cent of what Labor achieved.I also draw the attention of the House to the question of the long-term unemployed. Unfortunately, as of October 1998 we still have 234,700 long-term unemployed people. That represents an improvement of only 9,100 in the reduction of the long-term unemployed since the change of government in March 1996. Youth unemployment stands at 27 per cent compared with 26.8 per cent at the change of government in March 1996. I raise those figures to reinforce the fact that in the context of a major jobs crisis in Australia the time has come for the Minister for Employment Services to stand up and win the fight, to make the necessary changes to make the Job Network work.The Job Network is an interesting experiment. It might have been an interesting experiment, from an ideological point of view, for the former Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The problem is that the crisis and the failure of the changes to date have impacted on the lives of ordinary unemployed Australians and their families. In many instances, it has made it more difficult for employers to fill sought after vacancies by the unemployed to get a foot in the job market.It is also unfortunate that, as a result of the ideological bent of the government, a range of decent private sector and community employment service providers have hit the wall. Some of them hit the wall after subsidising the changes in a genuine endeavour to make the system work. It is for that very reason that the government has to get it right now. We are prepared to go out of our way not only to offer ideas to the government but also when the announcement is made, if it is fair and reasonable, to state publicly and to be supportive of the government, if need be, in extending the next tender round in an endeavour to ensure that the changes have a chance of operating and then being reviewed and assessed as to whether they are the right changes.Having said that, the government has to be careful because some of these commercial interests have little or no interest in servicing job poor areas in rural and regional Australia. That is a major problem with respect to the operation of the Job Network at the moment in some areas. The reforms that the government announces should bolster diversity among job agencies.The government should also act to ensure that the jobless will have not just a choice created by this diversity but also access to quality services. Unfortunately, not all the Job Network providers are providing a quality service. That especially relates to the performance of some of those companies with respect to FLEX 3, where they are going out of their way to spend as little as possible. There is no accountability with regard to the FLEX 3 payments in providing some training opportunities for the long-term unemployed.This is not about the bottom line; this is about an investment in the creation of a competitive model which ensures that we have economic efficiency in getting people into available job vacancies but which also ensures that we equip the unemployed with the necessary skills that will make them attractive to an employer. Choice and quality services should be available from small, medium and large players. Choice and quality services should be available from job agencies run by the community and church sector, the private sector and the government sector, which understands that it has special responsibilities.There should be real choice, quality and valued services for those in regional and rural Australia. That is not the case at the moment. There are too many gaps in the system, especially in regional and remote areas of Queensland. If real choice is to survive in the new employment services market, the government will have to look at creating more flexible payments and a variety of different ways of paying agencies in rural, regional and metropolitan Australia. Unfortunately, some of these providers are more concerned with the accountants' bottom line rather than facing up to the fact that, in order to provide those services in regional and rural areas, they have to be prepared to subsidise them because of the difficult nature of some of the job markets in those areas and the huge distances and costs involved in servicing those areas. The government also needs to look at more flexible methods of payment for those in job poor areas and those in job rich areas.If real choice is to survive in the new employment services market, you will have to act promptly to break up the concentration of FLEX 3, intensive assistance services, among the four organisations. This concentration—created by the government in the first round of tendering—has undermined the competitive and quality delivery of Job Network services to all unemployed Australians. Consideration has to be given to carefully breaking up this anticompetitive concentration to allow small and medium sized agencies to survive in the market. Most of the small and medium sized agencies were left with the least profitable parts of this new job market the government created. To their credit—and credit should be given to a range of these companies—they are trying hard to do a good job for the unemployed, against horrific odds. But they will be forced to go to the wall if the rules of the game are not changed quickly. At the moment, the Job Network game rules allow the big players to pick off the little players one by one. I venture to suggest that will become the order of the day after the next competitive tendering of the Job Network.If choice disappears because of the rules of the game, it will be the Australian community laying the punches on the minister, not the opposition. My advice to the Minister for Employment Services is to look at bundling up the intensive assistance payments with FLEX 1 (job matching) and FLEX 2 (job search assistance payments) to allow a lot more players to survive.When the first tender round was started that is what most agencies expected, and the minister and I know that from his consulta tions with the providers in the network. They expected that because that would have created a fairer market and fairer competition. Minister, if you are going to guarantee real competition and diversity, you also need to look carefully at the lack of independent regulation in the new Job Network market. In other deregulated markets for public goods and services we have regulatory watchdogs—why not for the Job Network? Austel is there for the telecommunications market, the airline industry has a watchdog and the health industry has a watchdog. What we now have is the department which hands out the tender also regulating the market. There is an obvious conflict of interest.The so-called code of conduct for the Job Network members means nothing if it is not properly promoted and monitored. The department seems to have very little interest in promoting and monitoring the code of conduct. In our biggest state of New South Wales, for example, I understand there are only two people allocated by the department to monitor the implementation of the code.The jobless are vulnerable. They have the right to support and protection from the unscrupulous. A key consumer reform for these consumers must be an independent regulator along the lines of Labor's Employment Services Regulatory Authority. We argued for that when the Job Network was first mooted by Senator Vanstone. She was so hostile to this idea—and the fact that the majority of senators backed Labor's position—that she withdrew the bill. And then she introduced the whole Job Network by administrative fiat, not legislation.I suggest, in conclusion, that the failure to allow parliamentary oversight was the first slip, and, ever since, the Job Network fiasco has slid and slid into its current mess. The new minister should be given a clear slate. He should be given a fair go. He and I know he has inherited a mess that was driven by ideology rather than a desire to create a competitive model that would assist the unemployed and employers.I can guarantee this afternoon bipartisan support for a Job Network which has an emphasis on quality, value, diversity, real competition and accountability—one that is driven not by ideology but the needs of the unemployed, the community and the employers. The choice is the minister's. The opportunity for bipartisan support and a testing of the model is available. He has spoken to the same Job Network providers as I have; he understands the problems. The real issue is whether or not he can actually win the fight in the cabinet room and make the necessary changes. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Abbott) adjourned.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills957r610957Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:00957Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 will insert into the Aged Care Act 1997 the facility for the minister to set a schedule of fees that the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency would then charge when processing applications from aged care facilities for their accreditation under the Aged Care Act 1997. Accreditation under the act will be a prerequisite for receiving government subsidies from January 2001.The Labor Party supports any initiative that seeks to improve the standard of aged care in Australia. Residents in these facilities are potentially in a vulnerable position and may be unable to effectively represent their own interests, while providers are often struggling to remain financially viable. It is in this context that this bill has been introduced, and that context leads to many of the objections and reservations that the Labor Party has about this bill.As all members would be aware, there have been substantial funding cuts in the area of aged care over the last three years. This has put considerable pressure on nursing home proprietors and on the quality of care in nursing homes. We have seen, for example, very substantial cuts to the recurrent grants that fund nursing homes.Originally, it was a Labor government that introduced an annual inspection system, which has acted to ensure that aged care facilities were required to maintain a reasonable standard of care. We do not believe this government shares our concerns about the standard of aged care in Australia, given the size of recent funding cutbacks and the consequent pressure that those cutbacks have put on the standard of care in nursing homes right across this country. We believe the government has demonstrated a lack of concern by slashing funds and generating high levels of anxiety amongst the aged and their families by continually amending and altering its policies in this area.Let us just consider for a minute the recent history of this government's nursing home policy, which is quite relevant to this bill. This government believes that our seniors—who have paid taxes all their lives and survived depressions and world wars—should, in a time of need, be forced to pay for essential nursing home care. This government believes that seniors should sell, mortgage or borrow against their family home to pay for that essential nursing home care. We believe—and we said this during the term of the last parliament—that this sends a dreadful message to our seniors, and that message is very clear: if you are young and you are sick, you get free treatment under Medicare; if you are old and frail and sick, you pay, you pay and you pay. That has been the history of the last three years. It has been the history of the entrance fee and the history of the very high daily fees.All of those members opposite claimed in speeches elsewhere—in bills concerned with aged care and our seniors—to value the contribution of the elderly in our community. But when it came to nursing homes—the most essential aspect of care for the elderly in this community—they all walked into this House and voted for the pernicious policies that we have seen over the last few years. They did not speak up for the elderly. They were mute. They put their party interest first and the elderly last. So we have great reservations about how this proposal may work.It was those opposite who forced those with no substantial asset other than their family home to sell, mortgage or rent that family home to gain access to essential care. For over 70 per cent of pensioners, their family home is their only asset. So the approach with nursing homes was to force people with very few assets, or their only asset being the family home, to sell it. That is what it meant. But if you had substantial assets over and above your family home, or your family had substantial assets over and above the family home, there was no requirement to sell it.Just think of this: for the first time in Australian history it was the Liberal Party that introduced a policy in this House that forced battlers to sell their family home by including it in an income and assets test. That is something that will not be forgotten very quickly.In addition to including the family home in determining eligibility for entry to nursing homes, the government has brought in the entry fee and additional daily fees. The thing about the additional daily fees that were brought in is that there was no requirement that those fees be spent in upgrading nursing homes. All of that money went straight to the Treasury—straight to the Treasurer, Mr Costello. It did not go into upgrading nursing homes.There has been a lot of debate about this policy, and it is still the case that members opposite come into this House and claim that there is no requirement to sell the family home. Well there is a requirement to sell the family home if you are a battler. This is what the Australian Catholic Health Care Association had to say about this policy:. . . the accommodation charge is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing . . . selling their home will be the only option for many . . . That is the climate that has been created. The climate in aged care is one where people who need essential care have been told they have to pay. If it means selling the family home, so be it. In many ways, this bill represents just another of the changes that this government has made to the Aged Care Act. It will not be the last, but it too will have a detrimental effect on aged care and nursing homes.I am also told we will be seeing shortly another amendment to the act, which could have well been introduced now. I do not know why it has not been, but we will be seeing another one in the near future. If this government's record is anything to go by, it will be making more changes as time goes on because this measure, along with so many of the other measures, is simply unsustainable.It is because of our concern for standards in aged care that we oppose the amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997. We oppose them outright. The amendments are an ad hoc approach to the funding of the accreditation of aged care providers which this government is attempting to rush through the parliament without full consideration of the issues. More importantly, the proposed amendments may jeopardise the very standards the government claims to be protecting.Amongst providers in the aged care industry, there are genuine concerns being raised about the transfer of responsibility that this bill represents. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Aged Care indicated that the fee proposed in the amendment would reflect the cost of the accreditation service. The current arrangements for administering the standards in the sector, as established by the Labor Party, are budget funded within the Department of Health and Aged Care. Under the proposed amendment, the entire responsibility for funding the aged care standards and accreditation agency would be transferred on to the providers in the aged care sector, and this transfer could begin as early as 1 January 1999.It is unclear what the cost of administering this function adds up to. Industry providers estimate the cost of actually carrying out the accreditation in each facility to be in the order of $5,000 to $10,000. If the minister is to be believed and the fee covers the total operating cost of the accreditation agency, we also need to add in the $5.5 million that the agency received in budget funding as reported in the 1997-98 annual report of the Department of Health and Community Services. This would add another $2,000 per facility per year, resulting in an accreditation fee of between $7,000 and $12,000 per facility.According to the minister, this cost will be borne by each and every one of the approximately 3,000 providers in the aged care sector—that is, this industry will be required to pay up to an additional $36 million as a result of this bill. This comes on top of a funding cut during the period of the last government of around $500 million.This is yet another slug that this sector will have to bear in an environment where it is struggling with recurrent funding cuts as well. When gauging the impact of the $12,000 fee on providers, or a $36 million fee on the industry as a whole, it is important to take into account the cuts that have already occurred. To the $500 million that was cut, we are going to add another $36 million. In addition, because of the resident classification scale that is currently being implemented around the country, most nursing homes across this country have also faced additional cuts in their recurrent funding.I would like to briefly refer to a comment from one of the nursing homes in the Lilley electorate, the Freemasons home. I will quote from their 1998 annual report to demonstrate the magnitude of this problem. The report from the General Manager, Mr Gordon Blake, states:Significant amendments to the documentation which forms the basis of assessing the dependency of a resident has created many changes to Nursing Home categories resulting in a reduced value of daily subsidies for the frail.This has been repeated in nursing homes right across the electorate of Lilley and right across this nation. Anyone who is working in the nursing home sector, the unions representing nurses and the doctors will tell you that this reclassification has led to a decrease in most instances of recurrent funding in nursing homes, and that has produced redundancies across the board and threats to the quality of care in those homes.This was something which was evident relatively early on, and the Queensland Department of Health, under the former conservative government, produced a report in January 1998 on this very topic. They produced a submission to a review of the resident classification scale for residential aged care. What the then conservative Queensland government had to say about these cuts to recurrent funding was this:The funding implications of this—that is, the new instrument—are not completely clear . . . but initial estimates show an 8 per cent drop in overall funding.I repeat: an eight per cent drop in overall funding in their institutions in Queensland, and this drop has been occurring across the sector, whether it has been in the private sector, the community sector or the government sector, since the government began its slash and burn approach to aged care.That has produced tremendous pressure on the quality of care where staff struggle to maintain decent care, where staff struggle to keep up the quality of their work in an environment where more and more is expected and less and less is provided. It is into this environment that we now get this $12,000 fee, which would represent for many small nursing homes a significant additional impost. It would, for example, probably be about half the cost of a nursing assistant at a nursing home. This is not inconsequential. It is small in terms of the magnitude of the government's attack upon the aged care sector, but it is significant in the context of resources being absolutely and completely stretched to the limit by this government's arrogant and insensitive attitude to aged care.It is worth noting that 50 per cent of nursing homes have fewer than 41 beds and that many of these smaller facilities are located in rural and remote areas. The closure of even a small number of rural and remote aged care facilities would represent a real crisis for many families in these areas who are already finding it very difficult to get the care and support they require for aged relatives.In terms of the impact of any fee on the many small aged care facilities, a number of the submissions to the current productivity inquiry into nursing home subsidies suggest that 60 beds is the minimum efficient scale for the operation of nursing homes. In other words, facilities with fewer than 60 beds are already struggling to remain viable, so on top of that the government is going to introduce an additional fee. The proposed fees for accreditation, therefore, would only increase the financial pressure on many of these smaller facilities.That we can only estimate the potential scale of any fee is yet another reason that we oppose this amendment. The government bill is virtually a blank cheque, one that providers will be responsible for when the government finally comes clean on the fee that will be introduced. That fee will be set by the minister without any accountability to parliament. This is absolutely breathtaking when you consider the government's recent record in this area. Providers have made repeated requests for some indication of the size of the fees that will be imposed on the sector as a result of this bill, yet the government has remained ominously silent on this issue. Perhaps we are about to have a repeat of the nursing home entry fee debacle of the last couple of years. Very understandably, the providers are nervous and somewhat afraid.If the government had been honest enough to state what accreditation fees would be introduced, the providers would be able to properly assess what impact the fee would have on their operations and we would be ensured that the services provided by the sector would not be adversely affected. It is not as if this issue has arisen suddenly. The accreditation agency stated in a newsletter it published in March this year that it had devoted `much thought' to developing principles for establishing a fee schedule and that these would be `shortly sent to the minister'. Nine months later, and the minister is still silent on the schedule of fees. No wonder they are suspicious.In the face of this uncertainty, the minister's claim that the amendment clarifies the government's intention that the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency would charge appropriate fees is very difficult to understand and very, very difficult to believe. The amendment clarifies nothing other than this government's desire to strip publicly funded services and highlights the uncertainty and confusion this government has caused in the aged care sector.It must also be remembered that the fee proposed by the amendment is not the only cost incurred by providers through the accreditation process. Facilities may need to introduce new quality control and management systems, provide training for staff and purchase new IT systems. A recent survey of providers indicates that the total cost of accreditation may be of the order of $50,000 per facility. Of course, on top of all of that, we are going to have the GST if the government has its way. That has tremendous implications for the cost of these facilities as well.A number of submissions to the Productivity Commission inquiry have raised the issue of government subsidies to the sector being increased to cover the additional costs associated with accreditation. I am very sorry for them but, given the recent record of this government in slashing and burning funding in this sector, there is very little hope of that.The accreditation process clearly represents a major new impost on aged care facilities. If this is not recognised in the subsidies paid to providers, they will have to meet these additional costs through a reduction in their services or capital expenditure—which has already been occurring because of other government policies across the sector over the last couple of years. It would be tragic if the implementation of an accreditation system designed to ensure the maintenance of standards in the aged care industry was in itself responsible for the erosion of those standards of care. Doesn't that say so much about the approach of this government not just in that area but in what has happened with the Job Network, with Centrelink and across the board?The minister claims that the impact of any charges levied as a result of the bill on providers will be `minimal' given the financial advantages of becoming accredited. The financial advantage the minister is referring to is the opportunity for providers to continue to operate in the sector. So what the minister is really saying is, `We will let you live, but you have got to pay a fee of $12,000.' The only difference is that, under the proposed amend ments, providers will be required to pay potentially large fees for the right to continue to provide aged care and to support the aged.That this government would characterise the status quo as `an advantage' reflects their whole approach to aged care—one, as I said before, that has seen $500 million worth of funding removed and services decline. What the minister is saying is that any facility that does not go backwards under her government is doing well—and I think that is probably true.In the face of all of these concerns and uncertainty, it is not clear why the funding arrangements have to be in place by 1 January 1999—unless it is simply the case that the government wants to have the legislation passed before announcing the real impact it will have on the aged care sector. The accreditation agency is currently funded by grants under the Aged Care Act, and it should be able to continue its operations into 1999 on that basis. So what is the rush? This would allow the many providers to go through the first round of accreditation but would not require them to pay a potentially crippling fee on top of the many other expenses they will incur through the trialling of the new accreditation regime.It must be remembered that this is very much a trial of a new scheme. Everyone involved in the process—the providers and accreditation agency auditors and assessment teams—will be dealing with the system for the first time. We remain to be convinced of the effectiveness of the new system and will be monitoring its implementation until the January 2001 deadline.That the government is proposing to charge providers to participate in a trial of its new accreditation system is simply not appropriate. I think everybody in this House is aware of the importance of maintaining standards in the aged care industry. Unfortunately and sadly, there is now too much evidence that standards are under severe pressure. The failure of any quality assurance system will have dire consequences for thousands of aged care residents. For that reason, the evaluation of the new system through this first round of accreditation must be open and transparent to allow everyone to assess the impact of the new system on the standards of residential aged care.The issue of any fee that might be charged by the accreditation agency should be re-examined in the light of the first accreditation round and after the impact of the many other changes that this sector has recently faced can be taken into account. This would also allow the report the Productivity Commission inquiry on the funding arrangements for nursing homes, which is due on 13 January 1999, to be taken into account.I would also like to raise an issue we have become aware of in relation to the setting of fees for accreditation. Some providers report having their applications for accreditation refused by the accreditation agency, because the funding arrangements for the agency have not yet been put in place. It seems that the accreditation agency is refusing to process accreditation applications until this bill is passed and it is allowed to charge fees from the providers. If this is the case, the future viability of providers in the aged care industry is being made uncertain and being potentially placed at risk given the January 2001 deadline by which all providers must be accredited to receive subsidies.The linking of the introduction of accreditation fees to the processing of accreditation applications by the accreditation agency represents a form of coercive pressure on the industry to accept the implementation of fees. This government is clearly saying that unless it can charge for the accreditation service it simply will not be provided. That would put standards of care in the industry at risk for the sake of the fee that this bill would reintroduce. As I said before, the aged care industry has already been the subject of a number of nasty government cuts through 1997-98, some of which have been just as hastily withdrawn when their impact was fully realised, but were then replaced by further cuts.It seems that this government does not learn from its mistakes. The proposed amendments are another example of a blind user pays approach in a sector which, perhaps more than any other, requires considered and well thought-out initiatives to resolve fundamental funding and resource issues. The proposed amendments are yet another example of this government's failure to fulfil its responsibilities to elderly Australians.On another issue to do with the accreditation process itself, the government in its second reading speech spoke about getting rid of red tape. I was looking through the materials provided to the nursing homes which are quite bulky and large and I think are far from being simple. The minister's second reading speech referred to the need to `not unduly burden small business with administrative red tape' and stated:The agency will play a leading role in ensuring that residential aged care facilities achieve and maintain high standards of care and accommodation . . .It went on to say:. . . the impact on aged care services of paying an `accreditation fee' every one or three years, depending on the quality of service, will be minimal.This is more from this government of the Orwellian approach where they keep saying, `Service is up, quality is up, funding is down, staff are cut, but it is all fine.' It is not all fine. It is not all fine in aged care and it is getting worse; it is not all fine in Centrelink and it is getting worse. But the government continues to bring forth these sorts of proposals which everybody in the industry who has a practical role in dealing with their effects knows will lead to further pressure on the quality of care, further pressure on the staff and, in the end, a lessening of the quality of our aged care system. It is for all of those reasons that the opposition opposes this bill.20:25:00962Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—In speaking to this Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 , I will just refute a couple of things mentioned by the member for Lilley. Firstly, under the taxation reforms proposed by the Howard government, costs for nursing home providers would actually decline because health and residential aged care is GST free, which means that no GST is applied to the service and input costs are claimed back as a credit. The second issue raised by the member for Lilley is what he describes as `slash and burn policies in aged care particularly in the context of a fee charged for accreditation'. He would do well to go back and have a look at how the Australian Council on Health Care Standards was established and the consequence of that policy initiative on the standards of Australian hospitals and now day surgery centres.The Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill amends the Aged Care Act that was passed in 1997 to give effect to what was always the government's intention, and that is of enabling the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency to charge fees for service. Fees raised by the agency will partly fund its operations. When the act was drafted, the government was advised that the power to charge a fee could be handled by subordinate legislation. But the Office of Legislative Drafting has recently advised the government that the power to enable the agency to charge a fee for its services would need to be included in the act, hence the amendment. This advice was also confirmed by the Attorney-General's Department on the basis that the agency performs statutory functions.Whilst the level of fees has not yet been determined by the minister, as we have just heard, it will be the product of negotiation between the government, aged care providers and the agency itself, taking into account the cost of accreditation and the capacity of facilities to pay based on size and location. Smaller facilities have a lower capacity to pay, and in particular the government is quite concerned about those in regional and rural areas.The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency is currently funded by the Commonwealth through the Department of Health and Aged Care but is established as a company limited by guarantee with its own memorandum of association and board of directors. The first six months of this calendar year saw the agency's establishment period, the board having met for the first time in November last year and the general manager having commenced in March 1998.One of the key planks of reform to the funding and provision of aged residential care services after the 1996 election was to move from standards monitoring to accreditation. If homes are able to receive private contributions in the form of accommodation charges and continue to attract Commonwealth subsidies, all services must be accredited by 1 January 2001. It does not seem like an unreasonable proposition that those facilities which are offering to provide residential care for Australia's older and most vulnerable citizens should meet a form of accreditation which is the product of intense and extended negotiation between the government, the department, the industry and consumer organisations.The agency took over the standards monitoring role of the department in July this year and has been conducting visits to facilities against risk management indicators. The core functions of the agency are threefold: the first is the management of the residential care accreditation process itself; the second is the provision of assistance to proprietors to continually improve service quality through education and training, the dissemination of information and the identification of best practice to promote and encourage better quality aged care; and the third is to assess and strategically manage services not yet ready for accreditation.The product of extensive consultation with providers and consumer organisations is the now developed innovative system of quality accreditation for the aged care industry, which has now been distributed, with many services well advanced towards achieving accreditation. Building certification, which has also been the subject of some debate, is an entirely different issue from accreditation which ensures that a service is operating in accordance with the act and that it is providing high quality care within a framework of continuous improvement so that, whatever the standard of the facility, it is continually improving. A service may be accredited for up to three years.There are four standards for assessment: management systems, staffing and organisational development; health and personal care; resident lifestyle; and physical environment and safe systems. The accreditation process involves four major stages. The first is that services need to apply to be audited for accreditation. It is up to each service to decide when it is going to apply. The service should have been working towards accredita tion by the time it submits an application and the application should demonstrate that it meets the standards set by the agency.The second part of the process is that the aged care accreditation auditors assess a service's performance against accreditation standards. Again I emphasise that these standards have been developed in very close consultation with the industry and consumer organisations. The third part is the accreditation decision itself and the fourth part deals with appeals and disputes when the provider chooses to disagree with the decision. Interim accreditation can be given, as with other health care facilities under the ACHS. Appeals will be heard by a committee chaired by an agency board member. It will determine what investigation may be necessary to resolve the appeal and it may require the service to be reassessed.A service's accreditation status will be reviewed prior to expiry of the current accreditation period if the facility is sold (and I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing), if the service is relocated—relocation by definition may well have and is likely to have an impact on standards, either up or down—or if the facility is changed in any significant way, whether that be to the service itself or if there is a change in senior personnel in the facility. Sometimes a facility survives and meets an adequate standard simply because the staff who are managing that facility are going the extra mile to see that it does. A service's accreditation may also be reviewed where the agency reasonably believes that a service may not be complying with accreditation standards.In relation to some of the bigger issues that have been raised by the member for Lilley, there are a number of points that need to be made, and they need to be made over and over again. The first is that all of us as Australians, whatever our political affiliations, are living in a country that faces problems that we all share. The first of them is that Australia is ageing. That imposes significant challenges upon us, but we are not unique in that regard.Those members who opposed and still continue to be opposed to what the government has done in the area of aged care should have a very close look at the Retirement Incomes Modelling Task Force report that was published for the National Commission of Audit in July 1996. That report found that the ageing of Australia's population will add $32 billion in 1996 dollars to the health and aged care costs of Australia by the year 2031. If you add to that the costs of pensions, you are looking at an extra $38 billion in 1996 dollars, which is more than the drain on the Australian economy during the banana republic balance of payments crisis in the mid 1980s.To put it in other terms, the National Commission of Audit estimated that, over the next 40 years, we will have to spend some 10 per cent more of our nation's entire productivity on the health and welfare costs of ageing above and beyond real growth from where we are currently at just to provide the level of service that Australians currently enjoy and have come to expect. That is 10 per cent more of the nation's entire productivity just to keep treading water. In 1993 there were 5.3 Australians between the ages of 15 and 64 for every person over the age of 64 or under the age of 15—it is called an age dependency ratio. The Commission of Audit further estimated that, by the year 2031, that ratio will have collapsed from 5.3 to 1, to 2.6 to 1.Twenty-four per cent of Australians currently over 85 years of age are suffering from dementia and this age group is the fastest growing in the community. In fact, there will be a 300 per cent increase in the over 85 years age group over the next 40 years alone. Then you can add to this scenario that in 1974 Australia consumed 7.4 per cent of its entire productivity, its GDP, on welfare. By 1995 that proportion had almost doubled to 14.6 per cent.As Saul Eslake, the Chief Economist of the ANZ Bank, pointed out, in 1970, 18 per cent of Australians over the age of 15 were in receipt of some kind of social security benefit. By 1995 some 30 per cent of the population of this country over the age of 15—most through no fault of their own—were relying on some form of social security benefit. So in the space of one and a half generations we went from having something like 18 per cent of the adult population on some kind of welfare to having almost 30 per cent. If you take out the unemployed, in 1995 it was still 24 per cent. That is an enormous challenge that we all face. We have different views about how we ought to go about addressing it.So what are our options? We could be living in a country with very high sustained rates of growth. It is not likely that we will live in a country sustaining five, six or even seven per cent growth at least in the medium term. The second option we have is to further increase taxes. The government in trying to broaden Australia's tax base is trying to secure a broader base upon which we finance the social infrastructure of which caring for older people is an important part. Of course, every time you increase tax you also pay a cost in another part of the economy. If you increase taxes on people, you are providing disincentives to work and that can lead to unemployment.The third possibility is that we increase personal contributions, that we ask people who can afford to do so to make a contribution to their care, whether it be aged care, health care or any one of a number of other things. The fourth option, which is something that I suppose none of us likes, is rigorous cost-cutting. What the government has done from 1996 is to look at Australia's future in terms of collapsing aged dependency ratios and rapidly changing demographics. We have looked at Australia's financial situation where, after 13 years, we had found ourselves with a $10.3 billion deficit and we had propped up essential social infrastructure and consumption over 13 years of Labor government with debt and asset sales—which not only exposed us to exchange rate depreciations and gave us an intractable balance of payments problem requiring the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates every time growth got anywhere near four per cent, because we had such an appalling savings ratio, but also created an unsustainable expectation of what governments can and will provide.In trying to introduce a form of user-pays into residential aged care whilst at the same time still increasing in real terms the amount of money available for this sector—6.7 per cent in the first budget and 4.2 per cent in the second budget—we are trying not only to secure a financial base which is sound for funding residential aged care when I am old enough to be needing it but also to change cultural expectations. We are trying to say to a generation of young Australians, `You can't spend all your money on a Bali holiday and a nice car; you actually have to start to think about who is going to finance your pension, your education and your nursing home place if you need one.'The problem that I think still exists between the two sides of the House—and I am someone who is extremely committed to what some might describe as social justice—is that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot live in an economy that is growing at around two per cent underlying growth and say, `We don't want to reform the tax system, transport, the waterfront, electricity, communications or water resources. On the other hand, we do want to see that everybody can get a free or at least a fully government funded place in a nursing home; we do want to see that everybody, irrespective of their income, can get into a hospital when they want to; we do want to see that our public schools are well funded and provide the sort of education that we all want our children to have.' Something has to give somewhere along the line. I go back to the four options.It is interesting that out of the mouths of babes come some of the most honest and forthright statements that you will ever hear. Like most members, I invite new people on the electoral roll in the electorate of Bradfield to come to my office and meet me. About 100 people turn up to these meetings. At the height of the argument about accommodation bonds, before the Prime Minister changed direction there, a constituent was expressing concern to me about the concept that you might actually have to pay a bond, and now an accommodation charge, to go into a nursing home. A young 18-year-old first-time voter quite innocently said, `If you are going into a nursing home, why would you still need a house?'I also remember addressing at the time an audience of a couple of hundred predominantly older people at the top end of my electorate. One woman said to me, `I wasn't too sure about this idea that we might have to pay a bond or something to go into a nursing home until I overheard my husband talking to my son about this. My husband asked my son, "What do you intend to do with our house once we die?" He said without hesitation, "I will be selling it, having an overseas trip and paying off the car." So I decided that, if we are required to spend a little bit of what we have on our own care when we most need it, I am prepared to do that.'The other thing that we all have to recognise is that the next generation of people going into Australia's nursing homes will not accept the same standards that the current generation have. The generation that went to war, sent off their families to war, lived through the Depression and built up wealth through the postwar period have lived in conditions in nursing homes over the past 25 years that I certainly would not have my mother in, nor would I want to be in them myself. The next generation are going to have far, far higher expectations.When Bob Gregory said in 1994 that we needed to spend $1 billion to bring nursing home stock up to meet fire design, health and outcomes standards—at the same time that the Labor government was reducing capital funding from $45 million to $12 million over four years to 1995—we were really ignoring the truth. The Australian government, the Labor government, whatever good things it may have achieved, was abrogating its responsibility to the future.Addressing the future is never politically popular but it is something that has to be done. I feel very proud to be a part of the government that has done it, particularly in this area. This is one of the big achievements of this government, for which the former minister, the member for Pearce, can take enormous credit and for which she will be remembered very highly in history.20:43:00966Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I must comment on the comments of the member for Bradfield, who made a few key points in this debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 . Even though I come to this House with a philosophy that embraces the need for more social economics—rather than decrying the cost of things, we should be looking at the cost of not doing things—I have strongly argued for the need in this country to bring about what I called a one-star, at least, service in aged care in this country. That has been misinterpreted most recently during the campaign by the Labor candidate as my having said that I wanted only a one-star service for aged care in this country.I was reflecting on the comments that came independently from Professor Bob Gregory back in 1993-94, when he identified, as the member for Bradfield quite correctly points out, the huge backlog in funding that was required to bring our nursing home standards up to anything that resembled proper care for our aged people. I see that more and more in the rural and regional areas that I represent. So it basically came down to a battle between ideology and outcomes. The case of the former government was quite exemplified by the fact that it did cut back significantly on capital funding in its last year or so of office and basically put the aged care sector in the too hard basket.Having said that, I must comment again on the fact that this policy, when brought in by this government, was abysmally explained and sold to the electorate. While we may have in place an organisation representative of the industry to look at the fees that may be applied in this accreditation process, if the dissemination of information to the aged care industry is anything to go by at the beginning of this process of reform in 1996, I shudder to think what sort of fee structure this group may come up with. Even the peak bodies were not disseminating information down to the grassroots. I had nursing home management coming to me in the last week before submissions were due saying, `Where is the draft legislation on this? We haven't seen it.'I had good dealings with the former minister. I sympathise greatly with the fact that to some degree she was given a poisoned chalice in this whole area of policy. She was asked to implement the difficult things and then she was not given enough credit for the changes once they had been implemented. It was handed across to someone who could perhaps more easily take the credit when the backflips on that initial reform, including the accommodation bonds, were seriously looked at. They should have been attended to earlier.I guess that that is all a preface to my reservations about just what sort of fee structure they may come up with. From January 2001, all aged care services will have to be accredited in order to achieve any sort of government subsidy. The process of ensuring minimum levels of service and quality must be achieved through a combination of user pays and subsidy; Gregory made that quite obvious in his report. To resile from that position is to stick your head in the sand.The government says that it has listened and taken a long while to come around to its position. I believe that regional and rural aged health care providers must be listened to a lot more carefully than they were in the initial round prior to the introduction of accommodation bonds and such. The Productivity Commission has come out with a preliminary report which shows that more listening needs to be done in this area. Not enough listening was done prior to the introduction of the first raft of reforms. The government, to its cost, had to go back over that, realising that it had made some quite fundamental mistakes in the way that it tried to implement that program.I truly believe that, if it had the confidence of its convictions, the government should have introduced the daily fee change of structure first and then perhaps looked at the annual fees in substitute for the accommodation bond rather than try to stack both of them on to the aged care sector in one go and frighten the devil out of the clientele, which it did. It was really a sad chapter in this government's early history that it chose to take that path when it could have spread those reforms over two terms of parliament. It says something, I think, about the lack of security about government in this country that it probably did not have the confidence, even given its vast majority, that it might be around in three years to introduce a second raft of changes. But I believe that that was what was required to gradually educate the aged care sector, the clientele—those old people—and their families, for that matter, that this had to happen and that it was to be a gradual phasing in.I agree with the allusion by the member for Bradfield to the arguments in the marketplace at the time that tended to distort the message. It was largely coming from those who stood to inherit the family home. The people coming into my office were largely people who were, in many cases, more concerned about where the value of the home was going rather than the end result of a user-pays philosophy.The Productivity Commission has highlighted that more listening is required. I agree with most of those early reports. I am pleased to see that the commission has rejected any move to standardise funding rates across all states and localities because of the inherent differences in wage rates, costs and community needs. I particularly applaud the commission's argument that available government funds should be used to support uniform quality of care right across Australia. That has been my argument during the entire aged care debate. A combination of government and users who can pay funding should ensure a minimum level of care. That is what I called a one-star service—whether that is the right terminology or not—right across the board so that there are uniform standards. That is where the accreditation process comes in. It ensures that the delivery of quality aged health care does in fact occur.The commission has no problems with the move to national uniform basis subsidies to hostels and nursing homes provided there is adequate additional support for high cost services in smaller rural centres. The rigid application of resident classification criteria can penalise hostels. The Uralba hostel at Carcoar is a classic example. It is most concerned about the classification process for its residents. The rural and regional centres—even Bathurst and Orange to that degree—have fair swings in the classification of clients. They can find themselves on the borderline with some cases, which they do not believe the classification process adequately addresses. It is a little hard to determine. On one day, a particular client can have an incontinence problem but can find their way from their room to the meal table once the bell goes. They are thus classified under one category. The next day, a different set of circumstances might apply. These centres may have a lot of classification aids at one period and then, for whatever reason, they are replaced with others. They do not see any recognition of this factor in a rural and regional sense. They are very nervous about their cash flow. They are budgeting for two or three months ahead let alone 12 months.The situation applies, as I said, equally to other areas of funding. For example, the aged care facility in Bathurst at St Catherine's wrote to me recently and said:. . . we believe that the structural arrangements of the new funding arrangements are flawed through such things as inadequate indexation of Subsidy rates, failure to recognise costs differences as a result of State legislative requirements and additions to the cost burden without a corresponding increase in income.That applies to the existing structure. They are concerned too that whatever comes out of the final ascertaining of the rate they must pay under the new accreditation agency decision may in turn penalise them because they do not have the resources to meet the fee. I suspect this government's bent on full cost recovery in many areas may be applied to this. Even though it has industry representation in establishing these fees, I believe that industry representation left the rural and regional aged care sector in the lurch to some degree. I wonder how carefully they will be listening to the requirements of the rural and regional aged care sector.I am encouraged that the industry itself is involved in establishing the final fee. I would hate to think that the health department boffins or Treasury would be involved in this process. We would then see a system that penalises the aged care sector. As we debate this bill and as we look down the track, I ask the accreditation agency and those people from the industry to look very carefully at the costs they may be imposing on smaller rural and remote aged care deliverers. There are peculiarities of rural and larger regional centres, and their special costs and special needs must be recognised.20:55:00968Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—Quality control has become an increasingly important issue for both the public sector and indeed the private sector in better management. It provides greater consistency and higher standards of service. The member for Calare has talked about the benefit of consistency and uniform standards across the nation. I support that idea. That is what this part of the new Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 is all about. Consistency and high standard delivery of service improves the quality of life for those receiving the services. It increases the level of job satisfaction and reduces occupational injuries and accidents, which is very important when it comes to those who dedicate their lives to providing services. It also maximises the resources and the efficiency of the service providers themselves.Quality control in the aged care sector is of utmost importance. Although many residents are capable of demanding quality of care—and they do—there are many others who are so physically and mentally frail that they rely entirely on others for most or all of their daily living requirements. The care of the aged is a very special occupation, but it is also demanding and challenging for those who choose to dedicate themselves to this field. The level of care and commitment by many in the field is indeed impressive. But there is not always a consistent approach or a process in order for them to attain excellence in care standards.While some attempts have been made in the past to introduce quality control through a monitoring system, it was found to be excessively bureaucratic. There was little attention given to balancing the needs of residents with nursing care practices which also look after the wellbeing of the carers, which is of utmost importance. Also, those working in the nursing homes often felt very disconnected to the old monitoring approach. There was no ownership by the sector itself.When the coalition government came to office in 1996, a commitment had been given to completely reform aged care in Australia. Part of the policy rethink was to provide a contemporary system of quality control which took into account the wellbeing of residents, the safety, wellbeing and morale of staff, and the efficient management and operation of facilities. Division 54 of the Aged Care Act 1997 outlines the responsibilities for quality care and division 54-2 sets out the accreditation standards. These standards are for quality care and quality of life. They include management systems, staffing and organisational development, health and personal care needs, resident lifestyle, physical environment and safe systems.The act states that the accreditation standards are intended to provide a structured approach to the management of quality and represent clear statements of expected performance. They do not provide an instruction or recipe for satisfying expectations, but rather opportunities to pursue quality in ways that best suit the characteristics of each individual residential care service and the needs of its residents. It is not expected that all residential care services should respond to the standards in precisely the same way.Within the framework of consistency and quality there needs to be a recognition that the diverse needs of residents in care require a flexible people focused orientation rather than a rigid bureaucratic approach that was a feature of the old monitoring system. I visited many aged care facilities and the issue consistently raised with me by staff and management alike was the need for a new assessment process. The old system, while it was better than the shambles which existed prior to the implementation of monitoring, was seen as a system devised and delivered by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. Staff and management often felt penalised, victimised and alienated from the system.The new accreditation system involves those who work in aged care. In fact, the chair of the task force, which was set up while I was minister, is Dr Penny Fleet, who manages Brightwater, one of the oldest and well-known establishments in Western Australia. This accreditation system involves those who work in aged care, and they are responsible for the design and implementation of the system in consultation with the professionals working in the area. The system will require continuous improvement in service delivery.This is not about setting down some bureaucratic standards for today never to see any change, because there have been dramatic changes in the kind of care given to the frail aged. No doubt we will continue to find better ways of delivering that care. The basis for this system is to provide for continuous improvement in aged care. It is to provide greater flexibility in meeting the diversity of needs of our frail aged, and it will have a strong element of peer review; in other words, people in the system will feel that sense of ownership of and pride in the system which they have been involved in devising.In fact, the member for Calare did raise a concern about the cost of accreditation. I know this was one of my concerns as minister that the accreditation process should not be costed so that some facilities, particularly those in rural and regional areas, found it difficult to meet those costs, given that very often they have low numbers and more difficulty in operation. I think there are some sensitivities there, but I am confident that with a task force made up of people from the sector who understand the needs, we will see a sensible regime for pricing of standard accreditation services.The other point I want to make that might give the member for Calare some satisfaction is that, while I had that portfolio, I also set up a rural and regional task force specifically designed to advise government on some of the issues of particular concern to operators in regional and rural Australia. Like the old monitoring system, the new accreditation system will be required of facilities if they are to receive a concessional resident supplement from the Commonwealth. Indeed, the standards of these facilities will be required before they are able to be funded. That will rely on certification by 1 January 2001. Nevertheless, time has been given to the sector to be able to meet the criteria by the given time.In place of a rigid policing style system, we will have a system that will work to assist residential aged care facilities to improve service delivery and, indeed, the social and physical environment by the process of continuous education. That becomes a very important feature of the whole accreditation process. It is not one driven by waving the four by two around and having a very policeman style of monitoring, but this is an accreditation system that seeks to assist, aid and educate facilities so that they can continue to provide the best possible services available.I understand that standards agencies have been established in most capital cities and those responsible for assessing facilities have come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences—some with experience in health quality systems, which has provided a health and aged care interface with substantial benefits for both the deliverers and recipients of aged care. One of the significant benefits to this approach is the developing partnership between the people responsible for the delivery of service and the government. This was an important feature of this government's policy when we came to office. Indeed, we felt if we were to have an aged care system that was going to serve the people of Australia we needed to forge and develop that partnership between those who deliver the services and ourselves as a government.While the government has funded the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency under an agreement, it has always been the intention of the government that the agency would be able to charge a fee for service. This amending legislation is necessary if the agency is to be able to cost recover as part of its operation. Most facilities will have no difficulty in meeting a fee and in some cases—in many cases, I suspect—facilities will run much more efficiently.I know that there is quite a difference between the delivery of aged care and the delivery of child care. I remember when an accreditation system was brought in to ensure a high standard of care in the child-care sector there was some concern at the time about the cost of this, but most facilities in the child-care sector have now indicated that this has been a most worthwhile process because they have not only lifted the standard of care but also lifted their competency as managers in the field. I have no doubt we will see this occur in aged care.I listened with interest to what the member for Lilley had to say about services being stretched. I think one of the great things about the debate we have had on aged care since we came to government is perhaps looking at why the services were stretched to the limit. Part of the reason for that was that the former Labor government ran down the funding for nursing homes in particular over its term of office. The member for Lilley was indeed a member of the government which contributed to the running down of funding for nursing homes, consigning the most frail aged in our community to some of the most deplorable living conditions that we have seen.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He's going to get up and apologise.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—So he should apologise because the frail aged have been overlooked, ignored and cast aside—and that happened under a government to which the member for Lilley belonged.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—But he's paid a penalty.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—He did, and it is a pity that he could not rethink and perhaps ponder on what his government did in its term of office—which was precisely nothing. Not only did the former Labor government run down the funding for nursing homes but it had a policy vacuum as well. I think I have pointed out on a number of occasions in this House that the former government's policy, as it went into the election before last, consisted of just several paragraphs. Not only did it run down the funding, but it had absolutely no policies about how it would address some of the deficiencies that were evident to everyone involved in the sector.It is interesting to observe what Labor did or did not do over this period of time. My colleague the member for Bradfield, who tonight gave a very eloquent address to the House on this issue, pointed out some of the cold facts of life in terms of our ageing population and the demands that will be made on our community in caring properly for our aged. Many say that a society can be judged on how it cares for its children and its aged. In the past, I do not think we have done a particularly good job—and particularly in relation to the frail aged who, as I said, have been forgotten and ignored.It was sobering to listen to the figures put forward by the member for Bradfield. I am not going to cover those again, but I would point out that we are living in times of immense social changes. We are living in an age where men and women often are now in families where both partners are working and where it is not easy and sometimes not even possible to care for the aged. Sadly, with the high divorce rate, we have seen the fragmentation of families in Australia. Often, what is happening today in our society is that there is no-one available to care for our frail aged.In these circumstances, I think families must be prepared to make a contribution toward the care of the frail aged in some way. If in the community this physically cannot be attended to, then we must be prepared to make some contribution toward others who dedicate a lifetime to care for our frail aged.I do not think those of the former Labor government have had anything to contribute to this debate since our coming to government in 1996. I personally do have a strong commitment to providing a decent standard of care to residents in nursing homes and, indeed, in hostels. I did play a part in setting down the guidelines for the implementation of this new accreditation system and the establishment of the agency.Our government can be proud of its achievements in this area because, during this period of time, it managed to put a bill to this House that provided more hardship provisions and more safety nets for those in our community who are disadvantaged frail aged than ever have been seen before in the history of this country—and that has been the tragedy of the debate becoming so politicised. Often, the debate is not being had in the interests of the community out there but purely as a points scoring exercise in this place—and I think that is a tragedy for better public policy.But, despite politics getting in the way of rational debate on how we as a nation continue to care for the increasing needs of our frail aged, I am very pleased that the debate brought the issue to the forefront of public consciousness because, in an era where dramatic social change requires new answers, we need the community to become involved in the discussion and debate about how we care for our frail aged. This bill has the capacity to assist us in putting forward an accreditation system that can indeed improve the standard of care on an ongoing basis—a system which will give us continuity and a uniform standard so that, no matter where you go in this country, you can expect a high standard of aged care services. I commend this bill to the House.21:13:00971Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—In opposing the Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 , which amends the Aged Care Act 1997, I am not opposing the proper accreditation of aged care facilities. What my opposition to this bill does mean is that I believe all efforts must be made to ensure that our aged are protected and measures put in place to improve the quality of care for residents in aged care establishments—and I do not believe that the current amendment will achieve these aims.There are a number of aged care providers in my electorate of Canning in Western Australia. During the last 12 months I have been to visit the majority of them, and I have been impressed with the compassion and dedication shown by the staff I have met. All those to whom I have spoken believe that accreditation is necessary and will ensure that high standards are maintained. However, the majority are concerned at the lack of information they have received so far about the accreditation process, and the costs they will incur as a result of it.Bedingfeld Park, an independently operated aged care facility in Pinjarra in Western Australia, recently conducted a survey of 45 similar facilities. Of those surveyed, 23 have returned the forms. While the results are still being assessed, the following facts have become clear. The majority of the stand-alone small aged care facilities do not have the necessary staff or expertise to go through the accreditation process. If they were in a rural area, they found that it would be even more difficult and costly to assess expert advice and training. The emphasis of the aged care providers has always been on providing a high standard of care for their clients. It has not been on creating administration systems. It is vital that the accreditation process does not remove the expertise of delivery of high standard care with a staff that has expertise in administration, finance and management.In small facilities at the moment one staff member may be responsible for administration as well as completing other duties. It was the belief of those who responded to the survey that this would probably not be possible if the amount of paperwork increased dramatically under the accreditation process. Not only would the paperwork increase; a red tape maze would be created where forms take over from care of people.One of the major problems being faced by places such as Bedingfeld Park is that there is a lack of information regarding the requirements and costs of accreditation. Of the 23 facilities which responded to the survey, only 10 had fully examined the financial impact of the introduction and implementation of accreditation. One of the directors of one of the local facilities stated:While some might say that this is bad management we believe that it is difficult for small stand alone organisations to fully comprehend a system with which they have no previous experience and which is somewhat foreign to the whole background of providing a care service to the aged. It is a system more attuned to manufacturing rather than service providers.These facilities which had estimated the costs had calculated that it could cost between $10,000 and $50,000 to implement accreditation. Not only does the accreditation process have to be completed; extra administration work will need to be done most probably with new technology. Then the staff will need training in this technology. The demands on these providers get longer. Where is the money coming from? These facilities are already cash strapped. They can ill-afford extra training for staff and the cost of installing computer management systems when the money could be better spent on resident care. The staff training which will take place will not make them better carers. It will be con centrating on making them administrators and clerks instead.One of the providers told me that recently at a residents' meeting many of the residents had complained that staff were spending less time with them and they were feeling emotionally neglected. It was estimated by one industry provider that the accreditation process might take 700 hours to complete—that is, 700 hours away from resident care. Who will be providing this when staff members are tied up with the accreditation process in the office? Surely the priority of aged care should be taking care of the aged, not completing forms at great expense.Many of the smaller stand-alone facilities rely heavily on volunteers to help with their day-to-day activities. This vital resource will be stretched to the limit during the accreditation process, with many providers having to rely more on the goodwill of the local community to provide help when staff are busy with the accreditation submission. Volunteers, who play a very necessary role in aged care, cannot be put upon any further than they are already. Ultimately, some of the small facilities may find the cost of administering the new accreditation system too high and may close their doors. In areas where there is already a shortage of aged care beds, the closure of a facility would be a tragedy for the families who are already having trouble finding appropriate care for aged relatives.I have already raised in my first speech the fact that elderly people want to be able to access aged care facilities close to their families and close to the community where they have been living. It is not an easy decision to leave your home and to move into aged care. These people have a right to be cared for in their local community. If some of these smaller aged care facilities in rural areas are forced to close because of the cost of accreditation, it will have a devastating impact on the local community who will be forced to travel great distances to have contact with their elderly family and friends.This government need to make a real commitment to aged care. They have slashed huge amounts of money from aged care, and it appears that they are now trying to raise those funds from the providers. The industry has already suffered from previous decisions made by this government, and it is nervous that after nine months the government still have not announced what the schedule of fees will be. This makes it impossible for the industry providers to be able to appraise the degree to which the fees will impact on their operations. There are also no clear guidelines as to what other costs may be incurred in the future in relation to the ongoing maintenance and management of accreditation. The deadline for accreditation submissions is getting shorter, and there still has been no clear direction given by the government to the industry providers. No wonder there is confusion and mistrust about the government's refusal to come clean about the fees.In Canning we cannot afford for any of the aged care providers to close. We already have a lack of facilities for the aged. Each aged care facility that I have visited has shown a high level of commitment and care for the residents. When visiting, it was great to see the director having the chance to have afternoon tea and taking the time to talk with the residents. The priority was creating an environment where the residents were made to feel like they were at home, not one where the staff were distant because they were too occupied with administrative work. Not only is it important to provide a safe environment for the aged; it is important that there are staff who care and can spend time with them when they can be so isolated from the outside world. In many cases, the staff become the surrogate family.I am sure we all agree that there must be a framework to make sure that our aged are cared for. The system which is to be implemented should be as simple to administer as possible, and the costs to providers should be minimised. One of the local providers told me that $5,000 was spent to purchase a computer management system to help with the accreditation process. This was only one expense that will be incurred in order for them to comply with all the requirements of accreditation. They are not a large organisation. They would need only to purchase such a system once and then put it in place in their group of facilities. The financial burden on these smaller facilities is great and they do not have the administrative structures and organisational support enjoyed by the larger facilities.One of the major problems with this whole process is the lack of information given to the providers, which has made them very frustrated. They have been told that they must be accredited by January 2001 or no government subsidies will be available. They have not been told what the process will involve, how often they will need to be audited, the cost of the initial accreditation or the cost of being audited at regular intervals.I oppose the bill, which would amend the Aged Care Act 1997, allowing the minister to impose fees on aged care providers. The imposition of those fees will reduce the funds available to providers to provide care to aged residents. This bill will reduce the quality of care provided for the aged, and for that reason I oppose it.21:24:00973Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—in reply—In summing up the debate as we have heard it, I would like to begin by taking issue somewhat with the member for Lilley, who responded initially on behalf of the opposition. I was interested in his comments about how funding for aged care had been cut when in fact, in his own electorate of Lilley, funding is up $1.186 million as a result of the residents classification scale.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Also because of Mrs Grace.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Indeed—also because of Mrs Grace. What a very good point. I suppose that is an introduction to the fact that we should look at the funding overall and how it applies to residential care. In fact, in the current budget this government has increased spending on residential aged care by $160 million. But that is but part of the $2.9 billion which is expended on aged residential care—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How much was that?SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—$2.9 billion on the 135,000 people who are in residential aged care. To put it another way, we have 2.2 million Australians who are over the age of 65 years. We have 135,000 Australians who are in need of, and are in, residential care, being both nursing home care and hostel care, as it was previously known. On those 135,000 people we spend $2.9 billion.What the previous Labor government had never done was to put any accountability into place. Governments do not have any money; it is taxpayers' money that is spent, and it is spent on people who need care. But there has to be accountability in the system. What this Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency does is provide the mechanism for having accountability for that expenditure of $2.9 billion. It was always the intention of the government to have that agency able to charge cost recovery fees in order that they could carry out that function. The initial advice from the department, as the member for Bradfield correctly said in his contribution, was that it was not necessary to have the legislative power to strike those fees; that it could be done in subordinate legislation. The advice to me is that that simply is not the case, because it is carrying out a statutory function. Accordingly, I introduced the legislation as quickly as I could after becoming minister in the first week of the sitting of this parliament.The bill very specifically says that the fee may not amount to taxation. Therefore, the nature of the fee will be a cost recovery fee. But I would hasten to add that rural, regional and, indeed, remote Australia are particularly high on the agenda of this government. I have accordingly instructed the agency that, as part of the government's targeting of the needs of people in regional Australia, and particularly the needs of small facilities, those considerations need to be taken into account when fees are set.This government and I, in particular, are committed to the philosophy of individualism, which means that every single, solitary Australian is important. That means that older Australians are entitled to have quality of life throughout all their lives. That means that the quality of life and the comfort of life of older Australians who are in need of care is to the fore in my thinking at all times. Putting standards in place so that action can be taken against providers which do not meet an adequate standard has not been adequately addressed hitherto.I listened to the comments of the member for Calare, who was concerned about people having quality of life in their own homes. Accordingly, this government has brought into existence stay at home packages which are designed to do precisely that.I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Pearce who, as the former minister in this area, had a very difficult task in the early part of the first Howard government. The Prime Minister, in determining how the path for aged care could best be pursued, made certain decisions which are now in place and will not be changed. I would like to thank the member for Pearce for the contribution that she made.My putting in place the necessary legislation to allow the setting of fees for the agency to carry out its tasks as quickly as possible once the election was over and I was appointed to this job means that there is a solid commitment on the part of the government to ensure that the agency pursues its task in an efficient, diligent and effective manner. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.974Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) read a third time.Miscellaneous97497421:31:00974Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to correct and add to an answer I gave in question time today.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—The minister may proceed.QI4PRICEMr Price—Did you let the shadow minister know? 4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Yes, I have informed the member for Dickson. The member for Dickson asked me two questions about the Skehill inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's regulation of Aquatic Air Pty Ltd, which traded as South Pacific Seaplanes. Honourable members will recall that one of this company's aircraft crashed on 26 July this year, tragically killing five people.In my response I told the House that only the executive summary of the report had been handed to me, which was correct, but I have since discovered that my office did at that time have a copy of the full report. The full report is highly critical of the approach that some CASA officers took towards regulating South Pacific Seaplanes. Their conduct was, frankly, totally unacceptable. The Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, has responded to the report by cancelling the company's air operator's certificate. CASA has terminated the contract of one officer. A second officer returned to work but subsequently decided to leave the authority.Mr Toller has set up a team to work through the report and use its insights to improve CASA's surveillance and certification procedures. I have requested CASA to provide me with a report by mid-January about those improvements. I intend to table the report when parliament resumes in February as well as the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation's report into the incident. I will table the Skehill report then unless there are compelling reasons why it should not be tabled.Opposition member interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I will come to that. While I have only just begun to plough my way through this full report, the fact is that it mentions a number of people by name and I want to make sure that their rights are not prejudiced by releasing the report too hastily. I want to see a calm, sane and sensible debate about this very important issue and about the report and CASA's response. I believe this is best achieved by releasing them together with BASI's independent report.The BASI report will ultimately be more important than the Skehill report. The Skehill report, it needs to be remembered, is a report to the CASA board by a hired consultant about management issues. The BASI report will deal directly with the causes of the accident and make concrete recommendations about how similar tragedies can be avoided in the future.In conclusion, I remind the House that the Civil Aviation Act was carefully drafted to give CASA statutory independence. My role is to appoint competent and expert people and let them get on with their jobs without grandstanding.21:34:00975Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: Minister, there are a couple of points I would like to make about this. You say that the BASI report will probably be more important than the CASA report. In fact, they are both very important, and I am not convinced of your reasoning that they should be tabled together, because the CASA report goes to the administration of the regulations and the BASI report goes into the air safety reasons for the accident. I do not think that one is necessarily dependent on the other and I do not think they are interdependent either.On the matter of exposing the names of individuals, I have seen many a report in this place where people are protected by having their names blacked out. But I think the nub of the matter is this: you say that action is being taken and you approve of the action that has been taken to stand people down—to sack people. I think in the interest of public accountability, we need to see the full report in order for us to judge whether that action was appropriate.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He's going to table it.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—But he is talking about next year. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not accept the minister's argument that we should wait for both reports. It is not acceptable that there is only an executive summary released. Public accountability really means full accountability. That is what your predecessor said. He said that there would be full and transparent inquiries on both fronts. We do not have to wait for the BASI report to be concluded in order to understand and make an assessment about whether the administration of the regulations has been appropriate.Bills976r600976Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.21:37:00976Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—At the outset, I wish to indicate that the opposition intends to move a second reading amendment to the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 at the end of my remarks. This bill seeks to make three changes to the payment systems of social security and veterans' affairs. It is timely to remind the government of its legacy of shame when it comes to our nation's seniors and families.Earlier, we had the remarks of the minister about what a compassionate and caring government we have when it comes to the vulnerable and the elderly in our community. The government has cut $500 million out of nursing homes and added extra daily fees, forcing people to sell or rent their family home; cut $800 million from public hospitals; abolished the Commonwealth Dental Program; cut $87 million from the Home and Community Care Program; increased the cost of lifesaving medicines, some by up to $5 a script; withdrawn free hearing aids and so on. If that is compassionate, I would hate to see when this government wanted to get into some slash and burn. This government has a dreadful record in the area of social security. It is this government's track record, when it comes to its commitment to pensioners and families, that is a perfect reflection of a number of aspects of this bill and its cost cutting approach.I find it astounding that this government has repeatedly denied responsibility for its actions or its consequences. It has denied that responsibility, and we have heard it all tonight when we talked about nursing homes, about the Home and Community Care Program, about the disaster of the Youth Allowance and about what it has done to young unemployed people. Most latterly, we are finding this denial of responsibility when it comes to the disaster of Centrelink.For the record, you would think that a minister who is responsible for an agency which is administering $42 billion worth of payments would accept responsibility for the consequences of the decisions and the actions of agencies that are under their control, but that has not been the case with Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. I think she was finally brought out of hiding in Tasmania two weeks ago when under pressure she said on 7ZR in Tasmania, `I'm not the minister responsible for Centrelink.' It is very quaint for a minister who is actually responsible for $42 billion worth of payments to say that.If you have a look, for example, at the Centrelink annual report, you will see an organisational chart, and Centrelink, through its board of management, is responsible to the minister. But on radio in Tasmania the senator said, `I'm not responsible for Centrelink.' When she was put under pressure by the announcer Ross Peddleston, the minister did finally concede that, whilst she was not responsible for Centrelink, she was responsible for social security policy. I suppose that is a minor concession—and so she should.Of course we do know she is responsible for Centrelink because not only does the organisational chart say it but the annual report of Centrelink is addressed to the Minister for Social Security, as she then was, Senator Newman. Why is the government constantly seeking to wash its hands of responsibility for Centrelink? I guess it is pretty clear when you look at what has occurred with Centrelink and what has occurred right across the area of social security in recent times.When considering some of the proposals in this bill, the opposition views them with deep suspicion because, as there has been with Centrelink, with the Youth Allowance and with nursing homes, another agenda is hidden behind the proposals that are contained within the bill, particularly given what has happened with Centrelink in recent months. It is understandable that the minister would not want to admit responsibility, and it is also understand able that the proposals contained in this bill will have a much more dramatic effect than the government concedes. The government's proposals in this bill demonstrate yet again its complete disregard for the effects of its action and for the 6.2 million people who rely upon Centrelink and its dedicated staff and who are on the receiving end of the messes this government is creating in the area of social security.The opposition are very concerned by this bill because, first and foremost, we are worried that Centrelink will not be able to cope with the changes yet again. We know that the government, especially the minister, constantly says that Centrelink is not in crisis. On the morning radio show I mentioned earlier, the minister dismissed the issues raised by the opposition, dismissed the issues raised by the union, dismissed the issues raised by welfare and community groups and even dismissed all of the problems that have been raised by the Ombudsman.If anyone was concerned about what was going on with Centrelink and was sceptical about what the opposition had to say, about what the union was saying, about what ACOSS was saying and about what local community groups were saying, you would think they might just believe what the Ombudsman had to say. You would think they might take a look at some of the material contained in the reports from the Ombudsman. Page 81 of the Ombudsman's annual report for 1997-98 states:Most of the people who complained to the Ombudsman's office about social security and student assistance overpayments appear to have tried to comply with the rules with varying levels of success. Not surprisingly, these people are upset. There are some overpayments, however. They are caused solely by Centrelink errors.Page 75 states:It is not unusual for Centrelink customers to tell us they are frustrated, bewildered or lost within the system. This often happens when Centrelink staff are pressured by the introduction of new payments or new systems.That is the Ombudsman, but you do not need the Ombudsman because any member of this House who is talking to people in their electorate would be confronting this every day of the week. In the last few weeks since I have been a member of parliament and a shadow minister, I have done something which the government appears to regard as a complete waste of time: I have personally met with literally hundreds of Centrelink staff who are at the coalface of welfare service delivery.These are the dedicated staff members who have endured the staff cuts and other problems created by this government and know the truth about the government's propaganda about service delivery. These are the people whom the government devalues when it cuts more staff from its offices. These are the people who have to deal with the government's messes. These are the people who, despite all of this, still remain dedicated to their clients.Centrelink staff have told me that, regardless of what the long-term effect of the proposed changes outlined in this bill will be, in the short term they will create yet another nightmare for staff and for clients. Centrelink has already started receiving calls from concerned pensioners who do not understand what these proposed changes will actually mean for them. The problem is that Centrelink is already struggling. It is already experiencing gridlock in trying to meet its existing workload. Staff are genuinely and understandably worried that people concerned by these changes will not be able to get through on the phone, and that means a lot of unnecessary worried and distressed pensioners, families and many others.There is some sobering material contained in this report, which was also produced by the Ombudsman. Some of the most damning information is actually contained in a footnote. This report is called Balancing the risk. We find in the footnote on the bottom of page 13 the following information:Centrelink was expected to handle over 18 million calls in 1998. Recent changes to income support programs, however, resulted in an unprecedented 15 million calls being made to the agency in June 1998. Centrelink has acknowledged it is currently able to answer only one-third of all calls made to its call centres.At the height of the youth allowance debacle, 900,000 calls were made to Centrelink—90,000 got through. The experience that people are having is that on average only one-third of calls are getting through. Into this environment, into this gridlock, the government is proposing to introduce yet more complex changes, some of which have the potential to hurt people because people who are dependent upon income support arrangements live day to day and a mistake made in a fortnightly payment for them is extremely serious. It is not a matter of these people having discretionary income if mistakes are made. This government is proposing yet again to introduce more complex changes into this gridlocked organisation, so is it any wonder that people are sceptical that the same thing that occurred at the height of the youth allowance debacle will not occur again? Into that environment, we are now told by Centrelink that they are going to cut an additional 5,000 staff—2,000 or so have already gone or are in the process of leaving, but, in total, over a period, 5,000 more staff are to be cut.And what do we get from the management and from the minister? Less staff means more service! It is a very quaint equation. But they go one step further and say that this will enable them to produce one-to-one service. Five thousand fewer staff, more clients—if you are to believe the reports that come from agencies like ACOSS and all the other community groups—but suddenly that produces one-to-one service. In the middle of that, the chief executive of Centrelink, Ms Sue Vardon, said, `Excellent customer service will be realised when the organisation convinces staff that it is committed to them.' What a terrific way to convince staff you are committed to them—by cutting 5,000 more from an organisation of 23,000!This is extremely serious. It is extremely serious for those 6.2 million people who depend upon Centrelink for their timely payments—particularly serious for pensioners, families and the unemployed. Just ask all of those young people that were at the middle of the debacle over the introduction of the Youth Allowance. Into this shameful context enters this bill, so it is not surprising that the opposition views with a great deal of suspicion this bill and the government's proposed changes to how entitlements are paid.To summarise, the bill proposes a number of changes, which are indeed complex and which will affect a range of ordinary Australians. Firstly, it seeks to change the way in which pensions and family payments are paid from payday based payment on alternative Thursdays to payment fortnightly in arrears. This would bring such payments into line with existing arrangements for other allowances and benefits. Secondly, it provides a uniform scheme for determining the date of effect of decisions regarding ongoing social security entitlements and, thirdly, it seeks to reduce the period in which pensioners and a number of other social security recipients must notify Centrelink of a relevant change of circumstances from 14 to seven days. This is a measure we are extremely concerned about.The first of these proposals seeks to change the way in which pensions are paid. Under the present system, all pensions are paid on the same pension payday—which we, as members of parliament, are all aware is alternate Thursdays. Pensioners are entitled to a full fortnight's worth of pension on the first pension payday after they qualify. This bill seeks to remove the notion of a single pension payday and provides that pensions will generally be paid fortnightly in arrears, although it does allow for different periods in exceptional circumstances. Under the proposal, a pensioner will become entitled to a fortnight's worth of pension once they have been qualified for a fortnight. They will be paid one day's worth of pension for each day for which they qualify.I note the government suggestion in the 1997-98 portfolio budget statements that the move away from a single pension payday will mean shorter queues in banks on pension paydays and a reduction in the pressure experienced by financial institutions on those days. I suppose it would be appropriate to observe that in recent times the banks have hardly demonstrated their commitment to providing services and assistance to pensioners and other beneficiaries—just like the government, I guess. We are getting the same approach from Centrelink as we are getting from the banks. The banks have cut staff and reduced access to local services, just like Centrelink. Local branches have closed and fees have been increased. There can be no doubt that both the banks and the government have the same approach to providing services to pensioners and families, and it has got nothing to do with their concern for their needs; it has everything to do with cost-cutting.We have been told by the government that current pensioners and family allowance recipients will continue to receive their payments on alternative Thursdays unless they choose to have their payday changed. Fine, we are quite happy with that. There are good reasons for many pensioners not to change their paydays—because they have organised their tight budgets around existing paydays and may have arrangements in place for bills to be paid by direct debit on those days, that social events for pensioners are regularly organised for pension payday, and so on. Changing the payday may require many pensioners to rearrange their affairs in significant respects, so we are quite happy that those that wish to stay with the current system can do so. I just hope that this government does not get to the stage where those people are put under all sorts of subtle pressure to change.Given that new pension applicants represent a small proportion of total pensioner numbers and that the bill allows new customers to choose their paydays, I would be surprised if these changes have any significant effect upon the way the banks or the vast majority of pensioners conduct their affairs in the near future. That is, most will probably seek to stay on the same day. But I do think it is the height of arrogance that the government believe that, with a stroke of their bureaucratic pen, they can ordain a change to how pensioners organise their finances and their time. The government says there will be a one-off saving of $90 million in 1999-2000 as a result of the change from payday based payment to payment in arrears. This is quite complex. It is because some years have more days of the week of a certain kind than others, and 1999-2000 has 27 family allowance payday Thursdays. Spreading paydays across the fortnight would mean that fewer payments are made on the 27th payday. This is merely an accounting exercise, as there would be more paydays of other kinds in the outyears. Generally, it would mean lower expenditure in 1999-2000 but exactly the same expenditure over a 11-year cycle.The government has to provide a much clearer explanation as to why this measure will save money. If there will be a real saving, which I very much doubt, who is losing? Who is it that the government is anticipating it will squeeze this time if it is actually going to produce the savings? The government also says that changing from payday based payments to payments in arrears will produce ongoing savings of $18 million a year. These savings are to be produced by reducing overlapping entitlements and non-recoverable excess payments because of efficiencies gained by reducing processing times—possibly. It is not entirely clear whether the measures in this bill will produce the level of savings anticipated by the government, at least in the short to medium term.It does reduce the payment to new pension applicants and people transferring from allowances to pensions. Under the present scheme, a person who applies for a pension one day before a pension payday may receive a full 14 days worth of pension in respect of that day. And under the proposal in this bill, they will only receive one day's worth of pension for each day on which they qualify. But this will be largely offset by the fact that, under the present arrangements, a person who goes off the pension one day before a pension payday receives nothing in respect of that fortnight. So whether the savings that the government is talking about are generated depends on whether pensioners and family allowance recipients choose paydays other than traditional Thursdays, and so on.The second measure I wish to talk about is the proposed change to the date-of-effect rules. These rules govern the date upon which decisions to cancel, suspend, decrease or increase social security payments are to take effect. At present the rules vary, depending on the kind of payment involved. One measure that I wish to spend some time talking about is that this bill reduces the time allowed to advise Centrelink of changes to relevant circumstances from 14 to seven days. While this is one of a number of measures, I wish to speak about this one in detail. It is an appalling measure. With some important exceptions, including Newstart allowance, sickness allowance and special benefit, the act generally allows recipients 14 days to advise Centrelink of such changes. That is, you get 14 days if you are a pensioner or if you are in receipt of family allowance or a couple of other benefits. That time is going to be reduced to seven days.Mr Slipper interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—This is an appalling measure, one which will affect very many people in your electorate, because it is being introduced into the gridlock that I was talking about before. I am also extremely surprised to see that the bill proposes to reduce the period with respect to the Youth Allowance and new Austudy payment so soon after the government agreed to extend it to 14 days, when this matter was debated in the Senate earlier this year. Hasn't there already been enough pain associated with the Youth Allowance? Now we are going to revisit that with the reduction of the period from 14 days to seven days. This is not an insignificant change. In fact, its impact could be considerably more serious than a change to payment days. More than ever, Centrelink clients will be under pressure to get through to Centrelink within a very limited time frame. I will read from a letter to the editor in the Sydney Morning Herald:I have been on the phone from 3.30 pm to 4 pm trying to dial the Centrelink office.I received a letter from Centrelink asking me to get in touch within 14 days. I promptly reached for the phone to make the call to the number listed on the top of the page. I hit the redial button over and over in the space of half an hour. I was not on hold—I couldn't even get through to be on hold, just an engaged signal for half an hour.Any claims of increased efficiency from Centrelink's upper echelon has to be treated as a huge joke. It must seem a cruel joke for those 5,000 whose jobs are to be axed.I'm fortunate that it was not urgent for me to speak to Centrelink, and I have 14 days in which to try. I feel badly for those who are desperate. As annoying and frustrating as those mechanical voices who keep you on hold for half an hour are, you have to start worrying when you don't even get that.And most people do not even get that. Look at the two Ombudsman's reports. They chronicle the fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people around this country who cannot get through to Centrelink. You are saying to pensioners, to people who are going to receive family allowance and to people who are on mature age allowance that you cannot necessarily get through in the time frame that you are stipulating. Two-thirds of all calls do not get through.Everyone except the government knows that Centrelink currently cannot respond. It is in gridlock; it is in crisis. If the ministers actually bothered to talk to the staff, they would hear about the extended time period—sometimes weeks and weeks—it takes a person to get through on the phone or to get appointments.Mr Slipper interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—That is the situation right now. It is pretty clear that you are not talking to people in your electorate, Parliamentary Secretary. It is very clear, because you cannot move around this country, you cannot walk down a street—if you are a public figure—and not talk to someone who has been thrown out of this mess, who has been mucked around and punished by this debacle. It is a crisis, and sooner or later those on the other side are going to wake up. But the Minister for Family and Community Services says on the radio in Hobart that she is not responsible. If she is not responsible, who is responsible? Sue Vardon says that the government is responsible. The government is responsible for the $150 million cut to Centrelink, and that is the source of this. I challenge each member of the government to read this report and then try to look the clients and the staff of Centrelink in the eye. If they had any sense of decency they would be ashamed, particularly when they read the chronicle of shame outlined in the Ombudsman's report and the case studies contained in the Ombudsman's other report Balancing the risk.In this environment, what do you get from the government? It says service is improving in the face of the Ombudsman's report, in the face of the fact that two-thirds of calls cannot get through, and in the face of the announcement of 5,000 staff cuts. There is not one piece of objective evidence that indicates it is improving. In that environment you are going to say to pensioners and people in receipt of family allowance and the mature age allowance that they are going to have less time to notify the authorities of an overpayment, of a mistake. You are going to put those people in the invidious position of then having to meet the debt, to solve the problem.The bill does allow for time to advise Centrelink of changes to be extended to 28 days in special circumstances. But, as I said before, with the complete inability of Centrelink to answer a recipient's phone call, what will amount to a special circumstance? How will they prove that they could not get through on the phone? Do they go to Centrelink and wait endlessly in a queue? What do they do? This provision of the bill is extremely pernicious. It is going to hurt many pensioners, many families and many people on mature age allowance and cause more pain, more chaos and more distress.Centrelink talks about a new service model. When you go through the catalogue of woe that has become this administrative disaster, they say, `Don't worry, with 5,000 fewer staff we are going to have one-to-one service. You're going to have one-to-one service.' That is what they say. If you pick up the annual report, you will see talk of the introduction of new technology and you will see talk of computer screens, shopping kiosks and so on. But when you read the fine print, all the new technology—which I do not dispute may well provide a very valuable role in enhancing service—does not even come into operation for the next three years and all the staff cuts are happening now.This new service model that Centrelink talks about with one-to-one service really smacks of Orwellian language, where a person is simply an outcome or an arrear. In Centrelink you become an arrear if someone behind the counter has to deal with you more than once. I am sure members will be very familiar with the book Animal Farm. In that book there was a character called Squealer. For those who do not remember, I will re-acquaint you with Squealer. Squealer was one of the pigs who ran Animal Farm. Squealer's most defining feature was he was continually issuing these glowing reports and statements—bold new plans, fantastic new service, great benefits to the people. Squealer used his statements to attempt to trick those working on the farm into believing they were better off and that things would soon improve. As we all know, they were not. They were not better off; in fact, they were literally starving.It would seem to me that this government is full of Squealers. All of the rhetoric, all of the overblown claims about increased service, one-to-one service, new technology—that brave new world is Orwellian and it is not true. It is producing pain and dire consequences out there. Whether it is Animal Farm or Centrelink, it is all the same with this government. Squealer has been churning out figures in an attempt to prove how wonderful things are and how much better off everyone else is, but the truth is out. The clients and staff of Centrelink will not bleat along with your slogans about better service any more. They know the truth. Your commitment to service is an absolute sham and the job cuts will mean more hardship all round.The $150 million efficiency dividend is not a dividend; it is simply a cut. A cut is a cut, which means less service, more pain and more misery in our community. It is all Alice in Wonderland stuff. All the government needs now is for the mad queen to materialise and shout, `Off with all of their heads.' Staff are set for the chop and services for those most in need are set for the chop. Where is it all going to end? Where it all ends is in the sorts of provisions we get in this bill today. To cut that period back from 14 days to seven days for some of the most vulnerable people in our society and put them in the invidious position that they cannot discharge their legal obligations under the law of this land is simply unforgivable.These people are just numbers on a page. They are just part of the erosion of services and entitlements. It is nothing short of a betrayal of families, pensioners, young people and the unemployed. That is why we intend to move amendments in the Senate retaining the notification period at 14 days. While the government has indicated this would increase expenditure by some $33 million a year, that is less than the savings it expects to make under the bill as a whole. We, therefore, regard our position as more than reasonable. I now formally 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 condemns the Government for:(1) reducing the period in which many social security recipients will have to advise Centrelink of changes in their circumstances from 14 to 7 days while not adequately addressing Centrelink's inability to deal with the number of people attempting to contact them;(2) failing to provide Centrelink with sufficient resources, causing it to cut 5,000 staff positions and further reducing its capacity to provide an adequate service;(3) cutting the Social Security Budget by $2.6 billion over three budgets;(4) abolishing the Commonwealth Dental Program, and increasing the cost of pharmaceuticals and hearing services, in direct contradiction of the Prime Minister's pre-1996 election commitment that his Government would not cut social security pensions and entitlements."83CMcFARLANEMs Jann McFarlane—I second the motion and reserve my right of reply.22:06:00982Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I have sat through 30 minutes of the member for Lilley's diatribe. It just goes to show that he can speak long and often and still say nothing. Give him an hour and he would continue to say absolutely nothing. I query his amendment to the second reading of the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 . This bill deals with some very specific administrative points to do with the Social Security Act and he waffled on about things totally unrelated. He condemns himself with his own words. He is quite obviously not serious about this issue, but he is after empty rhetoric. He is renowned for it—I must say he is very good at it—but, when it comes to substance, he is somewhat lacking, and you can thank me for that too if you wish.This bill contains two major provisions. There is the proposal to move all social security and veterans' affairs payments to an arrears basis so that people receive their exact entitlement. What is there to oppose about that? Fancy suggesting a system which recommends that people receive their entitlement! But this is what they are opposed to. There is also the proposal to amend the date of effect provisions to give a seven-day notification period for changes in payment events instead of the existing 14 days.I agree with the point that the member for Lilley made when he said that pensioners have to watch every cent they have. Why would he stand here for 30 minutes condemning a measure which, in its largest part, is designed to ensure that people get what they are entitled to? As it currently stands, it would mean that some people miss out on a substantial amount of money to which they would otherwise be entitled.He went on to say how this was such a complicated and complex bill. Maybe it is for the member for Lilley but it certainly is not for the rest of the members of this House or for the social security recipients. It in fact simplifies their approach. It takes away the burden of their having to receive their payments on a date set by bureaucracy. They are able to set that date themselves. I believe this will have many flow-on benefits throughout the communities.I have numerous complaints from time to time in my office from pensioners stating that they get sick and tired of the cost of fuel going up on pension Thursday. As we see this bill take effect, over a period of time, they will not be able to anticipate the payment days. The pensioner will be able to have that money in their hand when they feel that it is of best use to them.The payment in arrears proposal will correct the present problems which result in some customers receiving too much. I should point out that this is an important element of this bill. It goes to the heart of what this government has tried to do, and that is to ensure that people actually receive their entitlements, and not 1c more nor 1c less. The member opposite had very little to say about that. But it is a fact that during their time in government that they could have, and should have, saved the people of Australia a considerable amount of money. We are currently saving the taxpayer—which all of us in this place are—$28 million per week by closing loopholes and ensuring that those who should not be receiving funds do not do so. It is about mutual obligation, which is another issue that the Labor Party finds very hard to accept.This is just another of those measures which the Labor Party has opposed for the sake of opposing. After 13 years of Labor there was an estimated 1.9 million people living in poverty. That included nearly 600,000 children aged under 15. This was after a government that claimed that no child would be living in poverty by the year 1990. That is not a bad record. Between 1976 and 1992, the number of households in Australia earning between $22,000 and $72,000 per year declined from 65 per cent to 40 per cent. The number of people earning less than $22,000, or below the poverty line, doubled from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. That is an indictment on Labor's record and its failure to look after those whom it purports to do so.If you go back to 1993, you will recall that just days after the election Labor broke its election promise to take all age and service pensions out of the tax system—yet another broken promise. We recall that after that election Labor did manage to put up the wholesale sales tax system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would bet you a pound to the proverbial pinch that in the next two weeks the Labor Party is just as likely to vote to retain that very same failed wholesale sales tax system in this place. It has not learnt by its lessons. It knows that it is an easy take. Here is a system that allows you to put the prices of anything up and basically remain immune from persecution from the voters.Labor has opposed genuine coalition measures aimed at ensuring that the social security system is fair and targeted to those most in need. Labor continues to show more interest in political opportunism. That could not have been better emphasised than by the member for Lilley tonight. They are not interested in sound policy. They are not interested in measures that will actually assist those who are most in need in our society, those reliant on social security.The coalition has moved steadily over the last 2½ years to ensure that a number of very positive measures have taken place. This is yet another in a raft of measures designed to streamline, improve and simplify the social security system. I emphasise once again that it will ensure that those people who are genuinely in need receive their entitlements.These measures also include the establishment of Centrelink, which the member for Lilley waffled on long and loud about. He does not seem to understand that Centrelink is a massive organisation which has a tremendous workload and that the overwhelming majority of people are dealt with by Centrelink in a positive manner, and in a timely fashion, and are very satisfied with their outcome.I was fortunate enough at a social function to meet with the manager of one of the teleservice centres in Brisbane only the weekend before last. This gentleman introduced himself to me. He said what a shame it is that so many people, particularly those opposite and in particular the member for Brisbane, continue to harp on about a system which is working well. Certainly there are times when it is not perfect, when there are times of high congestion. But when you are dealing with over one million attempted phone calls per day, I do not think there is a system in the world or enough staff in the world to be able to cope with that at those peak times. I encourage the member for Lilley to visit one of the teleservice centres that have been established and see for himself what they are achieving, where they are going and what benefits that will mean to the members of his electorate in Lilley.Many of the other positive measures that the member for Lilley did not bother to talk about include the fact that the coalition has developed a package of measures to improve the position of carers, including more for respite carers. There is an increase in the domiciliary nursing care benefit, access to income support for those caring for a disabled child and encouragement for carers to return to the work force. These are just some of the more positive measures taken by this government. We have had a two-pronged approach: give to those who genuinely are in need, and who require the support of their fellow Australians, and ensure that those who have taken without justification are caught and penalised.The coalition has also initiated a broad range of reforms to the child support system. I am very pleased to see today that they have passed through the Senate. The member opposite has had a lot to do with that since 1994. I am sure he joins me in being pleased that those measures have passed through. I am sure we both look forward to further measures being introduced into this House in this term of the government and to further improvements to that most important system.This is just a recognition that the difficult issues, the hard issues—the ones that Labor put in the too hard basket; ones that they could not address, for a variety of reasons—have been tackled by this government. That has been to the benefit of all Australians.The coalition has also introduced the parenting payment. This amalgamated the sole parents pension for lone parents and the parenting allowance for partnered parents. All this did in simple terms is recognise that the task of parenting is no different for a couple than it is for an individual. It did not stigmatise the fact that someone for whatever reason was on their own. It is just another caring measure which this government has implemented as part of its social security reforms.The coalition has also given older Australians the opportunity to work past their retirement age by giving them a lump sum bonus payment if they choose to do so. We have embodied in legislation the 25 per cent of total average male weekly earnings. This guarantees pensioners an increase should average male weekly earnings or the cost of living increase. It gives them some peace of mind. They were before at the whim of those opposite, who quite often neglected them, as is their wont.The coalition has also developed a single youth allowance to replace the existing payment for students, further simplifying a very complicated system that the opposition had when they were in government. It also extended rent assistance to students for the first time. I am sure that members such as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, who reside in rural areas understand only too well the importance of providing rental assistance to those who have to leave country towns to move to the cities to further their education.The coalition, as I said, balanced this on both sides of the ledger. We also initiated amendments to remove inconsistencies in social security payments, ensuring the consistent treatment of people in similar circumstances. Surely those opposite cannot complain about such a measure. We have enabled the integration and transfer of family farms through the changes to gifting provisions. We have established a youth homeless pilot program. Surely you will not come up with any negatives on that one. The coalition has reformed the child disability allowance.As I said, these are a continuation of the ongoing program. I outline them tonight simply to refute the pathetic argument that the member for Lilley tried to mount that this government has not reformed or improved the system. Nothing could be further from the truth. But there is still more to be done.I return to the actual bill that we have been referring to here specifically. It is the one that the member opposite seemed loath to speak about. In fact, as I said, his amendments, when referring to a piece of administrative legislation, refer to the dental program. It is not even an issue within this portfolio. I wonder just what he was thinking about when he was sitting whiling away his hours in his room trying to come up with amendments. Perhaps in future the member for Lilley will just come up with the standard amendment that states `omit all the words after . . . with a view to including . . . ' new words. That might be about as imaginative as he can come up with.Customers will be paid each and every day for which they are entitled. As I said at the outset, nothing could be fairer. That is no more and no less. Currently, a person who turns 65 the day before a pension payday receives a full pension, yet a person who turns 65 the day after the payday has to wait a full fortnight to receive their payment. Is this the treatment that those opposite want to hand out to those whom they believe can least afford it? I think not.On the date of effect provisions, customers will generally have a standard seven-day period to notify of changes in circumstances. The honourable member took great issue with this. For the first time, customers entitled to increases in their rate because of a change will be able to receive arrears provided that they notify within the seven-day period. This also goes to our having a mutual obligation. We the taxpayer are providing something to those who are in genuine need. They in turn have a right and responsibility to ensure that they fulfil their obligations.It relates to work for the dole. Wasn't there a lot of screaming about that one—but now we find that there has been a backflip. During the campaign, those opposite decided that it was not such a bad thing. It is just like another one of our social security provisions which prevented migrants coming to this country from immediately going onto our social security system. It says a lot about what we are as a nation when we reward those who deserve to be rewarded, we make provisions for those who are in the greatest need and, most importantly, we ensure that those who have no just right to any provision from the taxpayer do not receive it.As I said, these are simply two further provisions which go another step towards ensuring that the social security system that this country enjoys is not only maintained but improved upon. This is for the betterment of not only those who receive the money but also those who actually pay into the taxation system. They can realise that the taxes they pay are for a good benefit, they are going where they are most deserved and the beneficiaries are worthwhile beneficiaries. I commend the bill to the House.22:20:00985Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I was wondering whether I might, before I specifically address the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 , and as it is my first opportunity, firstly congratulate Mr Speaker on his election. It did not come as a surprise to me to see you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, return to your position. In particular, I commend those who have made maiden speeches in this House. Forgive me if I say that I was particularly impressed with those made by members on my side. It made me reflect on how open I think members have been about their backgrounds and what inspired them to contest the election. It was very pleasing to hear them acknowledge all those who had been helped on the way.I had the feeling that perhaps it would be nice after every election if members were able to again acknowledge the source of their inspiration and assistance and the great honour it is to represent an electorate. That is not the case, so I will not venture into that field. Again, I would like to say how outstanding I thought the maiden speeches were. On my side, the class of `98 will leave its stamp on this place, perhaps not quite initially but certainly for some time in the future.I notice that the honourable member for Longman has skedaddled from the House. I regret that, because there are a couple of things that I want to respond to. Firstly, he says that it was really disappointing that the member for Lilley has not been to a telephone answering area for Centrelink.I have to say that I have not been there either. I have seen it operating in the Child Support Agency. Prior to coming to this place, that was my so-called area of expertise. But the point I want to make is that I have, on a number of occasions, tried to use that information line. It is absolutely the most frustrating thing you can imagine doing. I think I am reasonably patient and reasonably informed, but I really do get annoyed at being interrogated and having to respond by hitting a particular number that still may not actually satisfy you even when you are at the end of a whole sequence of interrogations. Just waiting for a response can often be very annoying.It is trite for the honourable member for Longman and me to debate how virtuous or difficult this technology is to use. The reality out there in voter land is that 30 per cent of people are functionally illiterate. I do not know what percentage of those would find it exceedingly difficult to use this technology. As I say, as someone who is reasonably adept at it, I got absolutely irate and at boiling point on a couple of occasions when I attempted to use it. God help the ordinary citizen who may have suffered the same indignities that I have.What we are really debating tonight is a bill and an organisation, Centrelink, that has had a special efficiency dividend imposed on it. It is not just the usual one per cent or two per cent that Commonwealth departments and organisations have been subject to but is a special 10 per cent efficiency dividend leading to a staff cut of some 5,000 people. The essential debate we ought to have is this: is this approach of productivity and efficiency that the private sector is well known for always going to be applicable to Public Service type organisations? I am not suggesting that we ought to go back to the Dark Ages or adopt old technology, but I am asking whether that approach is the most appropriate.Let me give you an example. Banks these days do not want to know their customers. The fewer customers that go through their door the better off they are. It is a private enterprise approach that we on this side have some great difficulty with but, in a sense, these are private organisations taking these decisions. When we are dealing with the Public Service, we are dealing with issues as to whether or not ordinary citizens have a right to interact with the organisation. Does an ordinary citizen have the right to be able to ring up his local Centrelink office or walk into his Centrelink office and be responded to, and in what time frame?When referring to the telephone system, the honourable member for Lilley said it was in utter gridlock. That may be acceptable. It may be perfectly acceptable for a private enterprise organisation to suffer such a severe degrada tion of service. It might feel that the money required to provide a higher level of service is not worth the returns. It is an interesting proposition but, theoretically, quite possible. The point I want to make is that I have always felt, whether we are millionaires like Mr Packer or whether we are ordinary pensioners in the electorate of Chifley, that when we are dealing with the Public Service we ought to have the same rights, protection and clout.What worries me is that, if it was just merely an issue of being able to offer the same standards, the same service with fewer staff, we have all been in this scenario before. But it is really beyond the pale to suggest that somehow Centrelink is going to be able to operate with 5,000 fewer staff and provide the same service. When I am in my electorate or if Ann Platounjak who works with me and handles a lot of my constituent enquiries is there, we get case after case where I would question the standard of service ordinary citizens are being subjected to. I would say that already, but what we are going to do is make it even worse.It is suggested that a computer and a touch screen are going to solve all our people problems in Centrelink. In fact, perhaps it is even more than 5,000 people we can get rid of. But the point I want to make again is this technology point. Thirty per cent of people are functionally illiterate. I do not believe that percentage has come down at all. Therefore, not everyone can utilise it. The probability is that the clients of Centrelink are going to have a higher probability of not being able to use this technology than the rest of the population. They are going to be worse off.I must confess that I raised this issue with Mike Keating when he was head of the Prime Minister's department, but I really do think that we need to take a step back from efficiency dividends and from productivity increases to try to map out what standard of service ordinary citizens should expect as a right. That has certainly not been done. There has been some good work done, I will admit, in setting up objectives, visions and charters in various departments and various organisations, but we actually do not have an over arching view. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment98710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.98722:30:00987Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise tonight in this House to bring to the notice of this parliament my concern about what is happening in my electorate, and I am sure in many other electorates, particularly where there is a large multicultural population, when some people apply for visitors visas to come and visit their families. I am concerned that the problem has become more prevalent over the last 12 months. I am not saying that we, as a government or opposition, should allow people to come into this country as visitors and overstay their welcome. I understand and appreciate that that causes concerns for many others. But I have had case after case—this is becoming very prevalent—where the government, not the opposition, seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water, to adapt an old cliche.I have had to make numerous representations on behalf of people who have proved time and time again that they have had genuine visits to stay with their family in this country. They have returned to the country of their birth and when they have applied again they have been told, `No, we don't think you are an appropriate person to come out here and you may even overstay your visa.' I could give you examples of case after case. I was rounding up in the last couple of months just how many cases I have had where I have had to put pen to paper to particular ambassadors in the relevant countries to say that I personally know these people.One person came out for a wedding, had gone back to their place of business in the country of their birth and then requested to come out again because another niece was getting married but was told, `No, we don't know if you're going to overstay your wel come. Therefore, we are not going to grant you a visitors visa.' That was a recent case from Lebanon. I wrote and said that I genuinely knew this family and how often this particular person had visited. He was a well-known business person in his own country, who had returned on numerous occasions. Surely that record should speak for itself.I had another case where a grandmother wanted to come out to visit her grandchildren. Two constituents of mine, who are well-established people in my community, had paid for their mother to come out and visit them because they could not afford to take their family—the husband, the wife and all the children—to visit her. The grandmother often comes to visit the family. This time she was refused because the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs said that she might overstay her welcome and want to stay in this country, regardless of the fact that she was leaving her personal family in the country of her birth and had proved by her previous record that she had visited, stayed the limited time and gone back. Yet two years later she wanted to come again but was refused. Again, I made written representations expressing to our embassy in that particular country—in this case Sri Lanka—the circumstances of how this mother was leaving her own family over there.I had another case where a visitors visa was refused because it was thought that the person concerned might want to overstay. Again, this person had visited this country on three different occasions. She had come here, visited the family, stayed two months or three months and gone back. The family had all chipped in together to bring her over for another visit 18 months later but again the visa was refused.We have to look objectively at the fact that case histories prove that individuals have been able to meet their requirements. They have visited their families and have good records as visitors, yet they are being refused permission to return. My sister lives in America and she has visited this country 37 times. She is now an American citizen and she has not been refused a visa to come to Australia. But I can give examples that have been given to me of citizens of country after country where I have had to make representations to the relevant embassies explaining the circumstances.Also, as an MP, I have had to stand up for the good character of my constituents. I do not do that lightly. I do it if I know the family personally. I do it if I know the family's past history, where the family have honoured their obligations and have met all their commitments. Yet time and time again they are being embarrassed.I had another case just recently where a young lass wanted to come and visit her family. This girl was leaving a very good job in her country of birth. She had been given leave for only three weeks. She wanted to come and visit because she had not seen her married sister's children. Naturally, as a young girl of 18 or 20, she wanted to bring her friend with her. Again, her friend was from a legal office in her country of birth. Their visas were refused. They were told, `No. You may stay in this country.' Even though they had shown that they come from good families, they have jobs in the country of their birth and they had been given leave from their employer, their visas were refused. Fortunately, I was able to intervene in that particular case.I think it is unfortunate that people have nowhere else to turn and they do not realise that they can come to their MPs for help in these circumstances when they believe that they have good records with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Ironically—and I know we have to be very harsh at times with some countries—when we look at the statistics in 1997-98, we find that the United Kingdom had 11.8 per cent of overstayers. (Time expired)98822:35:00988Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Australians are great gamblers. They have always had a reputation for being willing to bet on such things as two flies crawling up a wall. Each week tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of Australians cross their fingers and hope that their special numbers will be drawn out of a barrel—a barrel which is often Lotto, Powerball, Keno, the old-fashioned lottery or something very similar.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—It's always good to win the lottery.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—Normally, it is always good to win the lottery; the member for Robertson is right. But today, unfortunately, a number of good hard-working Australians desperately did not want their number to come out of the barrel—and this was the lottery that nobody wanted to win. It took place in Eden in my electorate. It was a lottery conducted by the company Harris Daishowa Australia to decide which contractors would not have their timber harvesting contracts renewed for five years.One can ask: why was this lottery taking place? If we go back—well, where do we go back to? It is a pretty emotional thing for the people of Eden-Monaro, and particularly for the timber workers in that Eden-Bombala area. We had a process, a Regional Forest Agreement process, which was based on science, and it was working quite well. We were doing studies, scientific studies, to decide what areas should be protected and what areas should be allowed to be logged.But the New South Wales Labor government decided that it could not wait for the scientific process to take place; it much preferred a political process. Several weeks ago it announced an agreement. To this day, we still cannot work out who the agreement was with. I think it was between a couple of ministers, probably around a coffee table or some other sort of table, a few weeks ago who said, `This will do,' and away they went.Mr Lloyd interjecting—OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—Probably as well. They came to an agreement. This agreement basically says: let's throw out a few more timber jobs—and this applies to an area which has sacrificed so much in the way of jobs over the last decade, as one piece of forest after another has been locked away.As I have said, we had a process which was very scientifically based, and it was working quite well. Six months, nine months ago, the Eden management area of hardwood timber had a quota of something like 59,000 cubic metres. The New South Wales government, in part of the RFA process, said that reductions had to take place—and it guaranteed that reductions would not go below one-half of the current quotas. From when I did mathematics—and mathematics was part of my profession—one-half of 59,000 cubic metres is 29,500 cubic metres. But the so-called agreement put out by the New South Wales government gave a quota basically of 23,000 cubic metres, which probably cannot be sustained anyway.The difference is not a great deal, and that is the tragedy in this—that the New South Wales Labor government did not have to give much. It has taken far more in reserves than it ever promised when it went to election in 1995. There are significant areas locked up into national parks. That government did not have to move very much at all, and we could have had a win-win situation. It is a tragedy.Today we had contractors—the Slaters and Coxes from Eden, and the Rodwells and Norm and Wendy Wilton from Bombala—with three contracts having to go. The Slaters, Bob and Maree, split their contract into two crews; they drew the first two balls out of the hat thereby losing both their crews. The Rodwells were the third to go; and the Coxes and the Wiltons have remained. And 30 jobs now go as a result of what the New South Wales government has done.What has happened today is really a tragedy. I wonder whether Bob Carr understands what he has done to the people who have lost their livelihoods. Unfortunately, I doubt it; in fact, he could not care less. He is only interested in keeping his urban constituency happy—and these hardworking Australians are expendable, as far as he is concerned. (Time expired)98922:40:00989Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Last week was Asbestos Awareness Week, and this particular issue is extremely important to my electorate. The reality of life is that close residence to job availability means that people from an area are disproportionately represented in particular workplaces.In my case, the former Wunderlich and James Hardy factories are in the electorate of Reid and, therefore, there was a disproportionate number of people employed in those plants for the use and manufacture of asbestos products. Those workers, I would also stress, tended to be the most recent arrivals in the country because that was a fairly unskilled employment area; people did not really need language skills and, therefore, over a number of decades there was a large number of people of Lebanese and Maltese extraction who worked in those plants. Similarly, the region has been characterised by a wide range of illegal and secretive dumpings of asbestos by the companies—and, quite frankly, people acknowledge that throughout the Parramatta-Granville-Dundas region there are many sites where there is great danger in regard to construction because of these dumpings.Therefore, it was important last week that Asbestos Awareness Week was centred on the Parramatta municipality, and I would like to put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the Parramatta City Council in sponsoring a series of events in the public mall in very strong support of that issue.It should also be said that the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, in the persons of Doug Cameron and John Roy and others, has put a great emphasis on making sure that the Australian public appreciates the dangers of these products and the need to start initiatives to phase them out in this country. The AMWU's proposal is that there be a prohibition of the use of chrysotile for non-chrysotile product in all areas of use by January 1999; that, by that same time, car importers and manufacturers should provide a list with justification—that is, scientific evidence—of those models of cars that cannot, for reasons of road safety, use non-chrysotile replacement parts; that, by January 2000, there be a prohibition on the importation and exportation of chrysotile raw and in parts, except for those uses outlined by manufacturers and importers as mentioned above; and, finally, the phrasing in of non-chrysotile products be accompanied by an awareness campaign specifically targeted at home mechanics, the repair industry and car owners.In this country there has been reliance placed on a nine-year-old US study, financed by the commercial interests of the asbestos industry. That has been the lone product to defend the continued use of chrysotile in a variety of cars, essentially for supposed safety reasons. This has not been of any moment in Sweden, Finland and other countries that have already banned the use of these products. They have not had an alarming growth in car fatalities after banning it, despite the supposed evidence from these companies that we have to use the product for safety reasons.I would also note international concerns at the fact that the Canadian government is attempting to subvert the European Community's move towards banning the importation of asbestos. At the moment a number of European countries singularly ban the importation of the product, and it is reaching momentum whereby the whole European Community would be moving that way. However, the Canadian government is seeking to use the World Trade Organisation to stop that ban.The other aspect that is already being predicted is their attempt to overcome the loss of sales in the Western world with the predictable tactic of exporting to less developed countries which do not have health and safety knowledge, trained bureaucracies, et cetera. These are aspects of a very important health and safety problem in this country not only for the workers involved but also for their spouses and families, many of whom have died by washing down their work clothing on clotheslines, et cetera. I commend those who have taken up this issue. I commend their efforts to try to move against both the exportation and the importation of this product.99022:45:00990Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—Tonight I want to discuss deregulation by the ACCC of newsagencies and the case put up by 7-11 stores, amongst others. It was clear to those who were at the hearings that the case was prepared by the oil companies, with a view to the oil companies moving into this area. The situation with respect to the existing newsagents would be that a large sector of their profits would be removed. They would simply not be able to maintain deliveries, and it would be almost impossible to envisage how they could survive with Woolworths and Coles being able to market their current products—products which Woolworths and Coles are not able to market at the present moment.If there is any doubt in the mind of any member in this House as to what is going to happen in this area, in Queensland we deregulated the milk vending industry to some degree because Woolworths and Coles said that they should have the right to buy off the manufacturers, and they bought off the manufacturers. The net result—and I can only speak personally of the situation in my home of Charters Towers—was that we simply got a letter from our milk vendor saying that it was no longer profitable nor financially viable for them to continue milk deliveries. So no more was milk delivered to the people of Charters Towers, which did not distress us, but two of our four neighbours are old people on pensions. One of them does not have a motor car, and it is a very long walk indeed to the local supermarket/corner store, which is also being wiped out by the change in extended trading hours which so much favour Woolworths and Coles.If you want to know what is going to happen here, you need look no further than what happened in New South Wales. On the date of deregulation, which was 1 June, the price of milk was a certain price. By the end of that month in indecent haste—in only four weeks—the price of milk, depending upon which newspaper you wanted to read or which commentator you wanted to believe, went up by between 3c, which was one allegation, and 18 cents, which was another. Both commentators agreed that the price to the farmers had gone down by one cent. Whether Woolworths and Coles took 4c or 19c, that is up to whoever wants to view it. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the farmers got less, the consumers paid more and the people in the middle—Woolworths and Coles—got a hell of a lot more money than they were getting previously.The partial deregulation of the oil industry by Mr Keating wiped out some 8,000 service stations in Australia. We went from 17,000 service stations to 9,000 service stations in Australia. This again was done by the economic rationalists that were going to deliver to us cheap petrol prices. Does anyone in Australia believe for one moment that petrol prices have gone down in the intervening period from 1984 until now? Of course they have not. The price of a barrel of oil in 1984 was $38. Yesterday it was $12 a barrel, and the price paid to the oil companies went up from 12c a litre to 22c a litre, giving them $6,000 million a year which they are not even remotely entitled to. Here they are again before the economic rationalist tribunals that have been set up in this country, such as the ACCC, requesting deregulation and again telling us that this will be good for the people of Australia. I suspect that when a foreign owned oil company tells us that it is good for us it will really be good for them.Woolworths, Coles and Franklins have now reached 86 per cent of the marketplace in Queensland. Australia wide they have reached over 80 per cent of the marketplace. Let me give some comparable figures. The three top grocers in the United Kingdom have reached 45 per cent, the three top grocers in the United States have reached 21 per cent, and the three top grocers in Japan have reached 17.5 per cent. In Australia they have reached over 80 per cent! This nation cannot afford to deliver to Woolworths and Coles another huge sector of the Australian economy. If we do not proceed with newsagency legislation and the regulation of newsagency legislation throughout Australia, then we will be allowing those newspapers to go into Woolworths and Coles, and the 5,000 newsagents that exist at the present moment will cease to exist. Also, the subagents will cease to exist. To a very large degree, those people will be wiped out by the oil companies coming in on one side and Woolworths and Coles coming in on the other.As far as the publishers are concerned, we sell three times as many newspapers in Australia as they do in the United States. But my family will simply cease to get newspapers, because my wife is not going to go for a drive every day to buy a newspaper. If it is not delivered, we will not get it. There will be a huge fall-off. I personally love going to a newsagency. There is a plethora of magazines that are interesting, stationery and everything else. (Time expired)99122:50:00991Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I wish to speak tonight about the public health services in my electorate of Gellibrand. Indeed, had the government not gagged the debate in the House on the private health insurance bill last week, I would have spoken at more length of the manner in which this bill will have an impact on my electorate of Gellibrand. Unlike the figures quoted last week by the government, at least 85 per cent of my community rely on the public health system. We rely heavily on public hospitals in particular. We have three public hospitals in the electorate—the Western Hospital in Footscray, the Sunshine Hospital and the smaller hospital in Williamstown. These hospitals are facilities that we are proud of, but they are under extreme pressure. They have been subject to constant cutbacks since the election of the Kennett government in Victoria, and they are suffering further pressure from the policies of this government.In choosing to allocate an enormous $1.5 billion to privately insured individuals rather than putting this money into the public health system, it is very clear to our community that the Howard government is quite happy to neglect the people of Gellibrand and happy to neglect our region. I am here as the member for Gellibrand to tell the Prime Minister that the western suburbs of Melbourne do not accept being neglected. Our health needs are just as important as anyone else's. We will fight against this government's plans because its priorities condemn us to second-rate health services.The government openly advocates pouring enormous amounts of money into private health insurance cover—or, as the minister proudly put it today, `helping those who are prepared to help themselves'—instead of putting money into public facilities, which are used by at least 85 per cent of our community and particularly by those who are most vulnerable and those that we should be protecting, those who do not have any other means to help themselves to costly health services, no matter how vital they are.Can the 15 per cent of our community with private health insurance be happy with the government's health priorities? Unfortunately not. The government has done nothing to fix their problems—namely, the high costs of premiums and the residual extra fees that insured persons are forced to pay in alarming amounts. Mike Steketee, in the Weekend Australian, summed up the government's approach to health policy when he said, in commenting on last week's debate:the Government's real priorities were exposed: to buy votes rather than to improve healthcare.This is the nub of the problem and a very real complaint for my electorate. I believe the community is smart enough—and those holding private health insurance are smart enough—to know that when push comes to shove and things get really serious they still rely on the major public hospitals for emergency surgery and acute care.Despite the government going to rather tedious extremes last week to point out the exact number of people with private health insurance in a number of electorates, as compared with the respective margins in each of those seats, you will note that the Howard government did not use my electorate as an example. And I know why: they would feel forced to bow their heads in shame.The electorate of Gellibrand has a total of 123,064 people living in it. Only 17,960 have any type of private health insurance cover at all. This is only 14.6 per cent, less than 15 per cent of our community. The rest rely solely on our public health services. They are entitled to a fair share of the government's spending in health but, if the government has its way, they are not going to get it.Even those with health insurance in my electorate will benefit only marginally from the government's skewed priorities. The electorate simply does not have any significant private hospital services in it. Unless the privately insured in my electorate travel significant distances to a private hospital with full facilities, they are most likely to do what we all know is the reality. They will use the public hospitals in the region, perhaps with doctors of their choice.This brings us back to the point: why doesn't this government give priority to the public system in the first place? It is the public system we all rely on. It is the public system that desperately needs money to operate effectively. And it is the public health system that deserves this government's priority, as do the people of my electorate.99222:54:00992Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Tonight I would like to bring to the House's attention how successful the Work for the Dole scheme has been in my electorate and throughout Australia. When the scheme was first introduced, we heard loud squeals of indignation from the Labor Party opposite about how terrible it was. But I have noticed over the last few months that there have not been many complaints from the opposition, because they know full well that they misread the Australian community on Work for the Dole. They misread the support that was there for Work for the Dole from mainstream Australia—not only from those people in work but from those people who have been affected by the Work for the Dole scheme.I have received a number of letters from participants in the Work for the Dole scheme in my electorate—remembering that my electorate is one of those that had the largest pilot scheme anywhere in Australia to introduce Work for the Dole and that it now has a number of successful schemes operating in the electorate. The first letter I have is from Benjamin Lawlis of Tascott in my electorate. He wrote:At first, the thought of Work for the Dole was something to be avoided. Like a lot of other people, after being unemployed for over 2 years, the last thing I wanted to do was meaningless work for no pay. As it turned out, nothing could be further from the truth.As a member of the Marketing and Special Projects Team, I've been involved in many interesting projects, such as organizing an environmental forum and the opening of Barralong bridge. This gives me something to focus on and work towards, instead of just living day to day.Perhaps the most important thing that I have learned is to set goals and stay motivated to achieve them. After being inactive for so long, working in a professional atmosphere with deadlines has me thinking again about where my life is going.I would have to recommend `Work for the Dole' to anyone who is in the unemployment rut. As well as learning new skills, people are being motivated again to get on with their lives. More importantly, this isn't a lone example of the positive benefits, but the description of the majority of the people which I work with.Another letter from a young lady of Wyoming reads:Thank you for giving me back confidence and self-esteem, for showing me that I could do far more than I thought I could—to prove my worth to myself when I needed it—and most importantly, for the chance to work with such an outstanding group of people I am proud to call friends and team mates.Yet again, a third letter reads:This is the best thing that has happened to me in a long time. People on this program are learning how to be team leaders and team members. This lifts our self-esteem, gives us a lot of confidence, teaches us how to think positive, etc.The reason these programs have been so successful is that we do have a great team in the Gosford City Council, and the managers of the Work for the Dole scheme, Personnel Attention and Associates, have conducted these sorts of schemes under different names for a number of years in my electorate, and they are very successful in what they do.The Work for the Dole scheme is, as those letters say, not meaningless work; it is about giving young people in particular self-esteem, the enthusiasm to work and self-respect. One of the things that happens to a lot of young people who find themselves unemployed, particularly for any length of time, is that they very quickly start to lose their self-esteem, their belief in themselves. This has been one way to at least give them back their self-esteem.One of the most heartening things about our Work for the Dole scheme on the Central Coast is the success that it is having in finding people continuing casual and full-time jobs. Of the 200 people who started in the first program, over 120 now have full-time or part-time work, after having completed the Work for the Dole program. I understand that many of the new intake that have been working in this scheme for some three months have also found full-time work. In fact, employers are actually coming to the Personnel Attention managers and saying, `We want people from your scheme, because we know that they are motivated, that they want to get on with their lives, and that they will be great employees.'The Work for the Dole scheme is a great program. It is working and it is giving hope and optimism back to young people.23:00:00993House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices993The following notices were given:Dr Theophanous to move—That this House:(1) acknowledges the importance of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirms the commitment of the Australian people to that Declaration;(2) affirms the principle that those guilty of gross abuses of human rights, especially genocide, torture and arbitrary killing of political opponents should be brought to account before the international community;(3) welcomes, on the basis of this principle, the decision of the British House of Lords not to grant immunity from prosecution to the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who has been accused of many crimes during the period of his reign;(4) calls upon the British Government to now act to expedite the extradition of Mr Pinochet to Spain, where the courts are seeking to prosecute him for such crimes; and(5) acknowledging that there are many Chilean Australians whose relatives have been killed or disappeared under Pinochet's rule, calls on the Australian Government to actively support the extradition of Mr Pinochet to Spain and to support all actions to ensure Mr Pinochet is brought to account for his actions.Mr Nehl to move—That this House:(1) regrets that the action of the NSW Government in progressing the regional forest agreements for north-east and lower north-east New South Wales has forced the Commonwealth Government to withdraw funding of $40 million; and(2) calls on the NSW Government to act with responsibility to protect the future of the forest industry.Documents994The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 30 November 1998:Air Navigation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 321.Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 320.Christmas Island Act—Regulations 1998 Nos. 1, 2.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations —Exemption 1998 No. CASA 43.Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Regulations 1998 Nos. 1, 2.Currency Act—Determination 1998 No. 7.Evidence and Procedure (New Zealand) Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 317.National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 316.Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 318.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 319.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Horticultural Levy Act—Regulations— Statutory Rules 1998 No. 315.Answers to Questions in Writing995The following answers to questions were circulated:995(Question No. 6)6995McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 3061 (Hansard , 15 July 1998,page 6263), (a) what human rights issues were placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Adelaide on 29 to 30 October 1998 by each Attorney-General, (b) what was the outcome of each item on the agenda, and (c) where and when will the next meeting of the, standing committee be held.995Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The Commonwealth's written report, placed before the 29/30 October 1998 meeting of the standing committee of Attorneys-General, referred to a number of human rights issues. These include:. the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;. the Commission on Human Rights;. the Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention;. the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);. possible optional protocols to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;. complaints under International Communications Procedures;. and reporting under International Communication procedures.Other matters included:. Disability Discrimination Legislation and Disability Standards;. the review of exemptions in subsections 40(2) and 40(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984;. the reform of the Human and Equal Opportunity Commission;. co-operative arrangements with the States;. the SCAG Working Group on Human Rights; . the Human Rights Forum for Non Government Organisations;. the decade of Human Rights Education;. the review of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;. the joint ALRC/HREOC reference on Children and the Legal System;. the Inquiry into the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children;. the National Policy on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation; and. the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.(b) These items were placed on the agenda by the Commonwealth in the context of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Human Rights Paper. This paper serves to inform States and Territories about the activities of the Commonwealth in this area. Matters raised in the Human Rights Paper were noted by State and Territory Attorneys-General.(b) The next meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held in Darwin on 15/16 April 1999.995(Question No. 32)32995Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Attorney-General, 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.995Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department has a Workplace Diversity Program that ensures that employees of the Department and those seeking employment with us receive fair treatment in recruitment, selection, conditions of employment and career development, regardless of status, background or personal beliefs. However, this could not be categorised as a posi tive discrimination program. Rather it is a program to help ensure that discrimination of any kind does not occur.(2) Not applicable.996(Question No. 42)42996Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2413 (Hansard , 27 November 1997, page 11589), (a) have the front gates of the Ingleburn Army Camp, NSW, facing Old Campbelltown Road been identified for their historical significance; if so, what arrangements have been made for their preservation, and (b) has consideration been given to renaming the site if it is developed for other purposes; if so, what are the details.997Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Yes. While future planning for the property and its rezoning is subject to a decision by the NSW Government to include the property on its Urban Development Program, Defence's redevelopment plans for the site envisage a permanent presence of the entrance gates.(b) Any consideration to rename the site will be linked to the land's rezoning, which will follow its inclusion on the Urban Development Program. Defence is keen to reflect the tradition of naming precincts and roads within the site after people and/or events associated with its military history.