1998-12-013911REPS99701998-12-01Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous997The Clerk laid on the table duly endorsed return to the writ for the supplementary election for the division of Newcastle, in the state of New South Wales.Miscellaneous997Mr Allan Agapitos Morris made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance.Questions Without Notice997997997Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, is it not a fact that when you came into the House last night to correct your answer to me from question time yesterday regarding the Skehill report into CASA, you did not indicate when your office had received the report? When did your office receive the full Skehill report on the seaplane crash? Did you inquire when the full report would be forthcoming when you were handed, as you said, the executive summary? If you did not, why did you not? Minister, when did your staff first give you the full report?997Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for the question. I was told yesterday afternoon that the full report had been received, I understand, towards the end of last week—informally—by my office. I was unaware of that at question time yesterday and I corrected it yesterday evening in the usual way.997997Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of recent sales tax rulings which provide further evidence of the need to reform our outdated 1930s sales tax system? Could he explain to the House how the government's reforms to the tax system will simplify compliance with the law?997Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. As he would be aware, and I think all members that follow tax issues would be aware, the wholesale sales tax is an outmoded, outdated system which is not relevant to modern-day Australia or the kind of tax system that we want to build for the future. This can be evidenced by recent rulings. The tax office recently issued a ruling in relation to general purpose road vehicles, which goes to 36 pages, deciding whether or not they are exempt. According to this ruling, after 36 pages, it is an exempt vehicle if it goes across a road from one property to another, but is not an exempt vehicle if it goes down a road from one property to another. That gives new meaning to the question: `Why did the general purpose road vehicle cross the road?' Answer: `Because it wanted to preserve its sales tax exemption.'PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—There'll be a GST on aspirin.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I hear the Leader of the Opposition vociferously interjecting. This is the Labor tax—the wholesale sales tax. This is what they are fighting to preserve. We recently had another ruling on classifying frozen yoghurt. Under Labor's wholesale sales tax all goods are subject to tax unless it is in an exemption for food, but ice-cream is an exemption from an exemption because it is confectionary. And the tax office has now decided that frozen yoghurt is an exemption from the exemption from the exemption from the act. This required the tax office, to administer Labor's wholesale sales tax, to try to define what frozen yoghurt was. The tax office said this:To be frozen yoghurt, the primary constituent must be yoghurt within the meaning given to that term by the tribunal in the Xerox case. To be frozen yoghurt, it is expected that the manufacturer would be able to provide scientific data showing that the primary constituent was yoghurt. Other ingredients added to the yoghurt base must have been for the purpose only of sweetening, flavouring or emulsifying so that the resulting product might be frozen and made ready for sale. The final product must retain some of the distinctive acidic taste of yoghurt, an indicator of which would be a pH of around 4.5. So now we have to have people putting litmus paper into frozen yoghurt, looking for a pH of 4.5. The tax office goes on to say:There must be, or must have been before freezing, a significant presence of live culture in the final product.You have to melt it down, see if there was live culture before the freezing. If there was, then it comes in the exemption to the exemption to the exemption to the Labor sales tax act.Tomorrow this government is going to introduce legislation to sweep away Australia's antiquated and outdated tax system. Tomorrow we are going to introduce a bill called the abolition of sales tax bill. We are going to give the Labor Party the opportunity to vote against the abolition of sales tax so they can stand in this parliament behind the tax which they really love: the wholesale sales tax. They can explain to the House why we should have tax inspectors putting litmus paper in frozen yoghurt, why we should be looking for live cultures to get the exemption to the exemption to the exemption, why we should have a system where a good gets one treatment if it goes across a road and another if it goes down a road, so Labor can show what a modern party it is in facing the future with Jim Scullin's 1930s tax system.998998Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, you say your office received the full Skehill report informally last Thursday. I ask: when did CASA officers and your personal staff first canvass with you the detailed findings contained in the full report as opposed to the executive summary? Why didn't you insist on receiving the full report at that time? Were you interested in the detail of this very serious issue which goes to confidence in general aviation safety in this country? How can we judge that if you are only interested in an executive summary and not a full report?UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 146 says that a question already answered cannot be asked again. I would ask you to rule it out of order.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It wasn't answered.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When I have to seek the advice of either the member for Prospect or the member for Brisbane before making a ruling, it will be time for me to vacate this chair. The member for Aston raised a standing order that I was entertaining while the member for Dickson was asking her question. It strikes me that the member for Dickson's question goes into a different area from the first question and I call, as a result, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.998Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The Skehill report was commissioned by CASA, which is a body set up to manage certain responsibilities for the government. It is headed up by a highly competent director of aviation safety. He has undertaken certain actions, as I indicated in here yesterday, in response to this report.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—What are they?4K4Mr ANDERSON—I will come to that. I have indicated that I want a fuller response from him—a total response from CASA—to be released in mid-January and then tabled in the parliament concurrently with BASI's investigation, which is an extraordinarily important investigation into this unfortunate incident as well. At that time, if there are no compelling reasons to do otherwise, I will release the Skehill report as well.I had the executive summary last week. I was satisfied that CASA had taken appropriate actions in terms of suspending licences and taking actions in relation to those officers over whom certain allegations were hanging. I see no reason at all to comment further on discussions within my office in regard to that matter.998998McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Could the minister outline to the House the steps the Australian government is taking to assist Australian exporters of agricultural products in a difficult trading environment?999Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I am very happy to answer the question by the member for Corangamite. Firstly, I point out that the government has extended national interest cover under the Export Finance Insurance Corporation arrangements to important regional markets such as Korea and Indonesia. We have taken these additional steps ahead of the game to facilitate, amongst other things, Australian Wheat Board exports during this particular summer. Secondly, we are opening additional TradeStart offices. One will be in Toowoomba in the electorate of the member for Groom, and another will be in Bundaberg in the electorate of the member for Hinkler as part of a roll-out of TradeStart offices across rural and regional Australia.Thirdly, the Supermarket to Asia, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, saw last week the launch of the FoodConnect web page whereby, through the Internet, sales are being made just in time to the hotel market of Asia and beyond in a very successful way. I welcome Australia's ambassador to the Philippines and our Philippines visitors to the House on this occasion. That is one market where we are making real progress. We are making progress in market negotiations, with the abolition of a beef quota into the Philippines and a reduction of tariffs from 30 to 20 to 10 per cent on both beef and flavoured milk over the next couple of years.Fourthly, I announce that we have decided to appoint a senior DFAT officer, Allan McKinnon, to the position of market access facilitator for the agricultural sector, in addition to Graeme Thomson's work with the processed food sector. Fifthly, we have tax reform, about to be introduced by the Treasurer tomorrow, which will greatly facilitate our export effort and impose a GST on our imports but abolish sales tax and give a $4½ billion boost to our exporters at just the right time.As a result of some of these steps, our exports are holding up very well. Wine exports to Japan are up 170 per cent; pork exports are up 60 per cent over the eight months to August; more beef is going into Korea—just to nominate some—and citrus fruit and juice exports to the USA rose almost 100 per cent from $19 million to $35 million last financial year. More sugar is going into the Philippines, and I welcome that along with a range of other breakthroughs, some of which will be detailed at the national export awards being presented in Sydney tonight. It is an outstanding effort, but there can be absolutely no complacency.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Batman!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The frontbench of the opposition, this vacuum of an opposition, can joke about our export effort. We are getting on with the job.Distinguished Visitors999999Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Following the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks, it seems appropriate for me, on behalf of the parliament, to welcome into the gallery the cabinet minister for the Philippines, Secretary Felipe Medalla, and to extend to him and his party a welcome. Mr Medalla is the Philippines Secretary for Socio-economic Planning and Development and Director-General of the National Economic and Development Authority. We welcome you, sir.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice999999999Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. It is on a different aspect of this matter. Minister, do you recall telling the House in question time yesterday that you fully supported Mr Toller's actions `to this point in time' and that you think `we can rest assured that appropriate action is being taken'? Minister, how can you justify having given this House this fast and loose assurance about an accident that cost five lives given that you had not read the full report, despite it being in your office and despite your admission that you only started ploughing through it yesterday after question time? Lives have been lost. People have been sacked.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson has asked her question and will resume her seat.1000Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Let me emphasise that this was a report commissioned by CASA, responsibly I think, into their operational matters. They commissioned it. It is a report to the board, the board which is elected by us.Ms Kernot interjecting—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson has asked her question and will listen for the answer and members on my left will remain silent. The minister has the call.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The fact of the matter is that there is a further very significant inquiry under way by BASI which will be made public. It is the one which will determine whether further action is required by the minister and the government. In terms of the executive summary, it made it quite plain that the areas that needed to be focused on by CASA in the immediate future were narrowed down to one or two specific actions which have been taken by CASA. I am satisfied with the quality of those actions.10001000Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of recent comments to the effect that there is no evidence to support the contention that a decline in private health insurance membership places pressure on Australia's public hospitals? What is the government's response to these claims?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Calwell is perfectly entitled to the call and I acknowledge him.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—The question clearly asked for an expression of opinion and he is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I rule the question in order. The question asked in fact if the minister was aware of reports on changes to access to private health insurance. The question is in order, and I call the Minister for Health and Aged Care.1000Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. If these assertions have been made by the shadow minister for health—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Are they right?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The Treasurer asks me, are they right? Not only are they not right; they are not even consistent with what she herself said in a report that she wrote in 1991, or chaired anyway. On page 160 of the report, Hospital services in Australia: access and financing , issues paper No. 2, the shadow minister said:If increased funding to public hospitals reduces the perceived pressure on public hospitals through smaller waiting lists and shorter waiting times, it is likely that private health insurance levels will drop. This could result in increased demand for public hospitals and reduced revenue from private patients.Of course, consistency is not something we expect, and we could dismiss that, except we look to some people in the Labor Party who actually have to run hospital systems. The Labor Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, in 1997 said:As fast as we hurled money at the hospitals, there was a further abandonment of private health cover and a further rise in demand on the public system.Peter Beattie, then Labor health minister and currently Labor Premier, on 4 October 1995 said:It is an unarguable fact that, if more people took out private health insurance, it would alleviate the burden on the public health system.Further, a study that I mentioned yesterday done for health ministers that started in 1993—about the same time that the shadow minister was chairing the National Health Strategy—came out with the figures of 507,000 people in a 15-month period dropping out of private health insurance putting a 322,000 extra public hospital bed days of pressure on the system. In fact, it could possibly be worse than this, and this was recognised by Graham Richardson. In his discussion paper, Reform of private health insurance , he said:It—the drop-out from private health insurance—is not an immediate problem as those who have dropped out are mostly young and healthy. However, as time goes on, an increasing number of older high users of health services will have to give up their insurance. These are people who do not currently use the public system much or at all. Should they come to rely on it, money and resources will have to be found to provide for them.So there you have it—the Labor Party's own discussion document from 1993, Peter Beattie from 1995, Bob Carr from 1997 and the shadow minister from 1991.10011001Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and it follows the previous question asked of him. Minister, given that you have admitted that you did not read this report, given that you have just admitted that you had a look at the executive summary and had some sort of discussion about it with your officials, what precisely permitted you to say to this House that, as far as you were concerned, on the basis of virtually no information, you were satisfied with Mr Toller's actions to this point in time and we could rest assured that appropriate action was being taken?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will call the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, but I must say that I think this has had a fair hearing in question time today.1001Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I certainly agree that the matter has had a fair hearing. The fact of the matter is that CASA is the body that is charged with responsibility for air safety in this country. I am satisfied with the actions that have been taken by the director of civil aviation. Further reviews are well and truly under way and will be fully tabled in this place. I believe that that is an adequate course of action at this point in time. In fact, I find it very concerning that it would appear that there is a willingness on the other side of the House to go out on a limb to imply that people who travel by air in Australia somehow cannot have confidence in the appropriate authority.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is called accountability and using parliament for accountability purposes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order is relevance. There is absolutely nothing in my question or anything that has been said here that justifies or requires the answer that the minister has so far given. He owes this place an explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister's answer has been totally relevant to the question posed. I call the minister.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The fact of the matter is that those people who are identified as having possibly failed in their responsibilities in this matter have been moved aside or are otherwise no longer employed in the positions that they were in.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—How did you know that?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Because that was made openly public at the press conference held by the director of civil aviation last week.10011001St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Could the minister advise the House of the outcome of the annual general meeting of the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation that was held in Goulbourn yesterday? Minister, what action will you be taking in response to this meeting?1001Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. Obviously, it is an issue of great concern to both him and a lot of his constituents. He is representing an electorate that is one of the finest fine wool growing areas of Australia. Yesterday's AGM of AWRAP was a very significant meeting in terms of the history of the Australian wool industry. It probably marks a bit of a turning point in terms of attitude and how the industry is managed and run.Members should be aware that the motion of no confidence in the board did get up, with 74 per cent of the wool taxpayers that were registered to vote at the meeting supporting the no confidence motion. That results in an almost immediate end of the tenure of the existing board. Under the legislation I am required to appoint a new chairman within 30 days, which I will do. In the meantime, the Managing Director of AWRAP will undertake that responsibility in a caretaker role until such time as a new chairman is appointed.More importantly, I have announced earlier today that I am going to establish a future directions task force for the wool industry to undertake a benchmarking study of wool against its competitor fibres and review the structures for wool marketing, promotion, research and development in Australia. It is a very serious issue, Mr Speaker, as you will no doubt be aware. I think it is incumbent upon the government—indeed this entire parliament—to take this issue very seriously. The wool industry has been at the centre as one of our great agricultural industries. We have to ensure that it has a viable and sustainable future. I certainly intend to do that.We need to end the uncertainty within the industry. We need to give growers more choice and we need to provide growers with more control over how their wool tax dollars are spent. I want the future directions task force that I am establishing—and I will announce the membership of it in a short period of time—to look at the future of the wool industry and where it should be going, not to look at the past and not to rake over old coals.It was a significant meeting that was held yesterday. I understand that it was extremely well attended. The debate went on into the night last night. The result of the debate was announced at about 11 o'clock this morning. Our government certainly intends to take positive action in partnership with the industry to ensure a viable and sustainable future for Australia's wool industry.10021002O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of evidence that the government's decision to freeze the wool stockpile will increase Wool International's debt by at least $20 million and will reduce the value of wool growers' equity? Does the minister recall giving a commitment to wool growers, who borrowed $30 million against their stockpile equity, that they would not be disadvantaged as a result of the commercial consequences of the stockpile freeze? Will the minister now today give the same commitment to wool growers that the value of their equity in the wool stockpile will be preserved and that they will not be financially disadvantaged despite the increase in stockpile debt, which will inevitably flow from your ill-considered freeze?1002Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The simple fact is that the government has no control over the equity in the stockpile, because we do not control commodity prices. On two occasions since the freezing of the stockpile there has been an immediate reaction in the marketplace in terms of a lift in the price of wool. When the freeze of the stockpile was first announced by cabinet earlier this year, there was an immediate reaction upwards in the price of wool.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Read the Senate evidence.10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Corio has asked his question.SU5Mr VAILE—Then we went into the process of the federal election, and there was a hiatus period while that election was undertaken. After the election result was known, when we won the election, we reconfirmed—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—You caved in, along with Anderson, and they are $20 million down the tube.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Corio persists in interjecting and is aided by the member for Burke. I ask them both to restrain themselves.SU5Mr VAILE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Immediately following the outcome of the election—when we won the election and the coalition was re-elected—we reconfirmed our commitment to the freeze of the stockpile and also confirmed that we would immediately be introducing legislation into this place as soon as the parliament was sworn in and sat. That happened in the very first week. That legisla tion has been through the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate. Hopefully, it will pass through the Senate this week. But the fact still remains that nobody in this place controls commodity prices—that is in the marketplace. The point I will reconfirm is that on two occasions, particularly after the election when we introduced the legislation, there was an upward turn in the price of the commodity again. I said yesterday in an answer to the honourable member's question that that in itself has increased the equity in the stockpile of wool growers, and wool growers recognise that fact. What the wool industry needs is security and certainty about the future of where it is going, and our government is providing it.10031003Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Good answer, Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Herbert will proceed directly to his question.HK6Mr LINDSAY—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, cane growers in the Townsville region are taking a battering at the moment because the commercial cane sugar levels in their cane is falling. Would you advise the House what extra research and development the federal government is undertaking to address this situation?1003Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As a member representing a seat that is vitally interested in the sugar industry, he will be pleased to know that we have announced and allocated an extra $13.45 million for sugar research and development over four years. The funding is to help boost sugar content levels. The issue that the member raises has been a very serious issue in North Queensland. The problems of low sugar content have arisen mainly in North Queensland and have reduced the profitability of the industry. The industry is quite concerned about the assistance that it may be able to be provided from government for the R&D that needs to be undertaken to address this issue. The SRDC has recently submitted for my approval an additional $2.6 million worth of programs to address these profitability issues, with an initial focus on North Queensland. I can assure the honourable member that the approval of the proposed program will be fast-tracked to ensure that the R&D activity can commence early next year.It is vitally important to one of Australia's great exporting industries that we address these issues. The House will be interested to know that some of those issues that will be dealt with in these R&D programs include an integrated management of weevil borers, which are a significant problem in North Queensland, and also the eradication of the grey-backed cane grubs in the Burdekin and Innisfail areas.Mr Beazley interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—No, I was thinking more in terms of we are accounting for a number of the members opposite.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, I don't think we should be thinking in either term.SU5Mr VAILE—This is further evidence of the government's absolute commitment to the secure future of the Australian sugarcane industry, particularly in North Queensland.10031003Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall his promise when launching the debt truck on 20 September 1995 that tackling the current account deficit and foreign debt would be `our first priority'? Is the Prime Minister aware that today's ABS data shows the worst ever foreign debt figures on record? Prime Minister, where is your fully imported debt truck today?1003Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the honourable member for Hotham, foreign debt is obviously not the first priority of the Labor Party, because it has taken 34 minutes for the Labor Party to ask a question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There are quite a lot of things that can be said about foreign debt. The most relevant thing that can be said about foreign debt is that today's debt servicing ratio—in other words, the capacity of this nation to service its foreign debt—now stands at a figure of 9.8 per cent. That is less than half of what it was in September 1990. It is the first time that the debt servicing ratio has been below 10 per cent since September 1984. In other words, it is the lowest debt servicing ratio in 14½ years.DT4CREANMr Crean—Where's the truck?ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is an indication of the capacity of the 1998 Australian economy to repay foreign debt. When you were in government not only was foreign debt at very high levels, but also the capacity of this country to service that debt was far less than what it is now. The measure of our economic strength in the context of foreign debt is the capacity of this nation to service that foreign debt.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The strength of the Australian economy is demonstrated every day. It is no idle boast to say that the Australian economy is now without doubt—DT4CREANMr Crean—It's the worst on record.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Australian economy is the economically strong economy of the Asia-Pacific region. On every count the economic performance of this country, despite the attempts of the Labor Party to talk it down—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, will you resume your seat. The member for Hotham persists in interjecting. Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not need any help from the members on my right. I merely indicate to the member for Hotham that my patience is running thin. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Hotham, as well as asking about foreign debt, also asked about the current account deficit. I am glad that he asked me about the current account deficit, because in June 1995 I asked the now Leader of the Opposition a question about the current account deficit. That is when it approached 6.6 per cent of gross domestic product. That is a lot higher than it is now. Do you know what he said in reply? He said:You have asked for our approach. Absolutely, we will give you our approach. Our approach is to produce budget surpluses . . .That was on 21 June 1995. It was only eight months before he infamously deceived the Australian people in the 1996 federal election campaign, when he went the length and breadth of the Commonwealth with the then Prime Minister swearing on a stack of Bibles that the Australian budget was in surplus.The reality is that the Labor Party has no credibility on economic management. We have turned the fortunes of the Australian economy around. I was proud to go to Kuala Lumpur as the Prime Minister of a nation whose economic credentials are widely respected not only in our region but throughout the world.10041004Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—When are you going to resign?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory sent me a note a little earlier indicating that he would be seeking the call. He may find it very difficult to get the call if I hear from him other than via a recognised standing order.RW5Dr NELSON—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. As today is World AIDS Day, can the minister advise the House of Australia's activities in the international fight against HIV-AIDS? Has the government taken any recent action in relation to support for people who are infected with HIV?1004Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Today is World AIDS Day. The theme for today is young people as a force for change. With respect to HIV-AIDS there is mixed news. A recent report from UN AIDS suggested that in some parts of the world, notably Zimbabwe and Botswana, 25 per cent of the population is now HIV positive. In some regions in Zim babwe, it goes as high as 40 per cent. That is something I find particularly frightening.Australia has had recognised success in dealing with the epidemic that stretches over a decade. We are well placed to help both technically and professionally. Our aid program was only $2 million for HIV-AIDS in 1990-91. In the next financial year, it will be $20 million, most of that spent in the Asia-Pacific region.The good news, though, is that treatments are far more effective than they ever have been before. The number of people living with HIV in Australia is about 11,100. Of those, about 430 a year progress to AIDS. The latest treatments are able to delay that progression. In fact, since the end of 1995 and the beginning of 1996, it has been estimated that 530 Australians have been prevented from progressing to AIDS from just being HIV positive by the new treatments. This comes at a cost. But as we cannot successfully treat AIDS, the prevention of the progression is the best thing that we can possibly do.One of the things about trying to treat HIV is actually measuring the load of the virus in the body. That enables us to titrate the treatment against the known viral load. Viral load testing is something that we funded 18 months ago.In the budget in 1997, the government announced that it was setting up the Medical Services Advisory Committee, a new body. It would mean that new items on the Medicare schedule would be listed on the basis of independent scientific advice, not ministerial discretion. I am pleased to say that the Medical Services Advisory Committee has looked at the issue of viral load testing and advised me that we should actually increase the number of viral load tests that are allowed per year to better manage HIV. For people who are having their cerebrospinal fluid tested because of cerebral HIV, we will effectively have unlimited testing. This again is a measured approach that should give the country some optimism.10051005Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen the Price Waterhouse Coopers study into the impact of the GST on credit unions? Is he aware of the conclusions of that report that (1) the additional cost of the GST for credit unions will be three to four times the taxes it replaces; (2) that credit unions will be made less competitive with the banks; and (3) that credit unions will have no choice but to increase fees or interest rates or shut regional services? Treasurer, how does this help red-hot competition or customers?1005Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have not seen the report and I suggest that the member for Hotham has not either, because credit unions did not release the report. What they released was what they said were the results of the report.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—No. It was not even an executive summary, I am afraid. It was a document drawn up by the credit unions which contained what they said was one table from the report. I am quite happy to see that report, because I would very much like to go through the methodology.DT4CREANMr Crean—Bring Anderson down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hotham.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I would very much like to go through the methodology and help the credit unions with their assessment.In relation to red-hot competition, I think today the credit unions, for the first time, get the right to issue cheques under legislation which this government introduced. Labor was in power in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993—there was not one bill in any one of those years to give credit unions access to the chequeing system. This side of politics had to do it. This side of politics had to give credit unions the right to issue cheques.This side of politics has also set up opportunities for credit unions to come into a national scheme of prudential regulation. Labor did not do that in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 or 1993. Thirteen wasted years; 13 years of nothingness. This government gets elected and it begins introducing significantly improved competition, giving credit unions opportunities which they have never had before. So let the responsibility lie where it lays. This is the side of politics that has given credit unions the opportunity to compete, and we were pleased to do it.10061006Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, when you were first appointed minister for health—thank goodness—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Indi will come to his question.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—In 1996, after Labor's 13 years in government, did you find evidence that Labor proposed to increase funding in health by $1.5 billion or anything like that in their forward estimates? What does that reveal about their current attack on you and the private health insurance rebate policy?1006Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The interesting point about that is, if you look at the forward estimates over the life of the last government, the three years 1996, 1997 and 1998, Labor had planned to increase health spending by $1.4 billion. The fact is that the result of what we ended up doing in our first term of government was increase spending by $2 billion. But the extra money went to areas such as an extra $830 million into state public hospitals as part of the negotiated Commonwealth-state health care agreements; $150 million for full cost purchasing of veterans' entitlements, something the Labor Party promised to do but forgot to put in the forward estimates and we had to fund; and $300 million for the private health insurance incentives scheme. If you look at the mix of resources and additional resources that we put in, the fact is we exceeded what the Labor Party had hoped to do in their wildest dreams and, in exceeding it, we had done it by specifically supporting and aiding the public hospital system.10061006Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is also to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, are you aware of Mr Kennett's comments today that Medicare should be axed basically because the Commonwealth is not meeting its responsibilities as far as the public hospital system is concerned? Minister, hasn't Mr Kennett let the cat out of the bag on your long-term health policy of undermining Medicare by starving it of funds and forcing Australians into heavily subsidised private insurance?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer to standing order 142. There is no element of that question for which the minister is responsible. I ask you to rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I rule the question in order and call the Minister for Health and Aged Care.1006Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—My attention has not been drawn to those comments. I have to say that I would be surprised because it is completely at odds with what the Premier has said over the last two months. The fact is that we had extensive negotiations with the Victorian government. The Victorian government took a lead in bringing the other state governments on board. The Victorian government said that what we were doing was more than adequate to meet their needs. The Victorian government has been running full-page advertisements in Victorian newspapers extolling the virtues of the new health care agreement. I cannot see how he could say that we are not meeting our obligations. It would appear to be completely contrary to everything we have ever heard in the last two months.The second point is that the government gave a commitment before the 1996 election that we would keep Medicare in its entirety. We have kept that commitment. We reaffirmed that commitment in our election policy in 1998. We believe in a mixed system where there is public provision and private provision, unlike the Labor Party who wants to see the British National Health Service in Australia.10061006Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, could you please advise the House as to the status of the government's financial support for the use of human growth hormone by children suffering from renal failure?1007Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question and his concern. This is a difficult area. The provision of the genetically engineered human growth hormone, also known as somatotropin, has been provided to people generally of short stature and in the case of renal failure in such people. That happened a couple of years ago under a special section of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It was done on the advice of a number of paediatric endocrinologists on the best available evidence at the time.What has happened subsequent to that is that the evidence that has flowed through has not confirmed that there is solid scientific research to back up its use in renal failure. Our pharmaceutical benefits system is a world-leading system, but it is very solidly based on scientific evidence. I get lots of requests from time to time for certain drugs to be on the PBS. I do not have that discretion myself. I have to take the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, a body of independent experts.The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee said that, given there was not the scientific evidence to back up its use, it should be removed from the PBS from 1 January 1999. I was concerned about this. So what I have done is given the company another 12 months—until 1 January 2000—to come up with the scientific evidence that it is in fact effective in the condition for which it is used. If that evidence is not forthcoming after 1 January 2000, we will not require people currently on human growth hormone to go off it. It will only apply to new people who would have used it for that condition.I understand how sensitive this is. I understand the anxiety of families. I will do everything I can to assist the company to come up with the evidence. I would assure the honourable member that anyone who is currently on human growth hormone will not be forced to go off it for financial reasons.10071007Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister recall saying in April this year that the government had `no intention of introducing vouchers for postsecondary education'? Will he confirm that this commitment applies for the life of this parliament?1007Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I may have to invite the minister to return because he had not, in fact, been acknowledged. For that reason, he would not have been recognised in Hansard or on the airwaves. I call the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—Yes.10071007Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House as to the present status of the government's compassionate and generous FarmBis program? Could the minister also remind the House of the benefits available to deserving farmers on incomes less than the dole or the pension?1007Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. Being a former Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales, he is obviously interested in the support programs that our government is providing the farming sector. As part of the AAA package that was announced by our government in our last term, we are going to provide $50 million over four years for the FarmBis program, which is about promoting a positive approach to change across the farm sector and improving the skills base of the farming community. It will assist all those involved in the management of the farm business to build their existing skills and improve the performance of their farm businesses.It is all about benchmarking to make sure that they are up to world standards as far as the operation of their farms is concerned. It has been welcomed by the farming community as a positive approach to improve the skills base of the farming community. The assistance will be provided by way of direct financial contribution towards the cost of training activities. FarmBis is a cooperative matching agreement between the Commonwealth and state governments. It is another one of the initiatives that our government has introduced to ensure an ongoing, viable and sustainable farm sector in Australia.10081008Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and it concerns his plans to change research funding. Is the minister aware that Peter Cullen, the head of the Federation of Scientific and Technological Societies, is reported as saying that the quality of Australian research would `nosedive' if your plan is implemented? Is the minister also aware that Don Aitken, the Vice-Chancellor at the University of Canberra and former chair of the Australian Research Council, said that the plan would `severely affect standards of research'? Minister, when will you release your secret plan so that we can be assured that it will not do to research what your Job Network did for employment services and your ministerial career?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! That is not relevant to the question. The member for Dobell will resume his seat. I call the minister.1008Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—This question is from the supposed spokesperson for a party which planned to slash university research funding in its policy put out during the last election campaign. The implication of the Labor Party's election policy—the Pezzullo and Angley policy, the policy that the member for Werriwa dissociated himself from—was to cut research funding in Australia by $90 million and spend some of that money on some of the favourite schemes of the National Union of Students. It is a good thing that they have the member for Werriwa on the back bench now, working out what a decent policy might look like. In fact, he says, `I'm planning a follow-up book.' So I do not want to upset the delicate policy petals on the front bench.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would invite the minister to return to the question, please.BT4Dr KEMP—The question was about research and research policy. I was just referring to the delicate policy petals on the front bench of the Labor Party.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is defying your ruling. Do you intend to take any action?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was following the minister's comments and waiting for him to get to your specific question. I agree that he had not done so, but he had had little time to do so.BT4Dr KEMP—There is no secret plan, and I will not be commenting on any speculative comments that may or may not have appeared in the press. The government is deeply committed to quality research in Australia, and any policies that we do announce and become public will be designed to lift the quality of Australian research.10081008Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Can the minister inform the House how initiatives in his portfolio have relieved pressure on the public health system in line with the government's plan to increase choice in health care for all Australians?1008Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the magnificent member for Robertson.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will come to the question.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—He took on the New South Wales Right with all its might and he is back here with much renewed vigour.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will come to the question.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—We have two very important initiatives I want to talk about in question time today which help our veteran community. I preface my remarks by saying that all our veterans are getting older and as they get older their health needs increase. In recognition of that, this government introduced a very important initiative to extend the gold card to 50,000 Second World War veterans, and those gold cards will be able to be used from 1 January next year. This is a very important initiative because those 50,000 Second World War veterans, with qualifying service, join nearly 250,000 veterans or war widows who already have a gold card. That means that these veterans will no longer need access to the public health system because it gives them the equivalent of private health care.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The level of audible conversation on both sides is much too high. The minister has the call.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—The second initiative, as alluded to by the Minister for Health, is the fact that we will be funding the hospital care of veterans through the state health agreement that was recently struck with all states. That means that the states will no longer have to subsidise the health care, in the public health systems, of those veterans in those public hospitals, because we will be providing $750 million over the next five years for the provision of health care for the veterans in those states. That money that is freed up will mean that low income people who do remain in the public system have greater access to that public system.All that really remains now is for the opposition to support the federal government's initiative of extending the rebate for private health insurance so that we can get more people encouraged to take out private health insurance and relieve the pressure on the public health system.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations100915:01:001009Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I want to take up a matter of personal misrepresentation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been personally misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, I was misrepresented by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs suggested that I led a party at the last election campaign that called for a cut to research. That is absolutely untrue, and he knows it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that, in a personal explanation, he must indicate where he was personally misrepresented, not where his party was misrepresented.Questions to the Speaker100910091009Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Mr Speaker, you may recall that on Thursday I asked you a question relating to the failure of the Minister for Defence to give us information. You said that you would come back to us after having inquired of the minister's office. I wonder whether you have done so.1009Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yes, in fact, my office has been in touch with the Minister for Defence's office, and they have indicated to us that a reply is imminent.Documents10091009Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows--Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation—Corporate plan 1998-2001.Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—13th meeting, Broome, W.A.,31 July 1998.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Australia Foundation for Culture and the Humanities—Financial statements 1997-98.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Report for 1997-98.Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation—Report for1997-98.Horticultural Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Meat Industry Council—Report for 1997-98.Snowy Mountains Council—Report for 1997-98.Finance—Issues from the Advance to the Minister as a final charge for 1997-98. United Nations General Assembly—Report of the Australian Delegation—51st session 1996.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Report for 1997-98.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.1010Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Request to allow commencement of the phasing out of battery hen egg production and sales within the Australian Capital Territory from the member for Dunkley—22,006 petitioners.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Mr Speaker, can I take a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition—Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I beg your pardon, member for Prospect. That is my determination, and it is not inappropriate to take a point of order at any time.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—The Leader of the Opposition has just called me a liar across the table. I ask him to withdraw.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I called him a liar and, for the sake of parliamentary standards, I withdraw.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I should hope so.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I want to know whether the same standard applies to ministers as applies to us, which is that they have to stand in their place and get the call before they get to the dispatch box—or does a different standard apply to him?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is aware of the fact that—Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The member for Batman is as guilty as anyone else when it comes to interjections across the chamber. The member for Fraser has raised a point of order and, in fact, I am endeavouring fairly to execute the requirement that people rise in their places. With the number of people on their feet, I was unaware of the move to the dispatch box by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I draw it to his attention.Matters of Public Importance1010101010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage being done to Australia's long term interests by the Howard government's attacks on higher education teaching and research.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:05:001010Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—If any scene could sum up this government's attitude towards funding for universities and Australia's national research effort, it was on Monday of last week here in this building. Here in this building in the Great Hall, we had one of the most important award nights of the year—the Australian national teaching awards. Here in the Great Hall, we had the cream of Australia's university teachers; they had come to receive recognition for their great work over a number of years. Under the Australian national teaching awards, one of those people was to receive the Prime Minister's award. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was there, with many of the vice-chancellors from across the country.But, when it came time for the presentation of the Prime Minister's award at these national teaching awards, the place went silent. The place was in darkness. The minister opposite walked to the microphone and had to explain to the people present that, due to prior commitments, the Prime Minister was unable to be present. Some of my colleagues might ask where the Prime Minister was on Monday of last week. I am embarrassed to say that, on Monday of last week, the Prime Minister was not in the Great Hall to speak to the cream of Australia's university teachers, to learn about the damage that his funding cuts have done to Australia's universities; the Prime Minister was not in the Great Hall.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I can inform the member for Watson that he was at the Southern Cross Club.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Was he enjoying himself?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—We understand he was enjoying himself.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Maribyrnong will not interject when he is out of his place.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—We understand the Prime Minister was enjoying himself. It would have been clear to anyone who saw the Channel 7 excerpts the next day that the Prime Minister was relaxing and having a good time. While he was snubbing Australia's premier university teaching awards, the Prime Minister was at the Southern Cross Club at a Liberal fundraiser. A Liberal fundraiser at the Southern Cross Club took priority over Australia's national teaching awards—the awards which this minister prides himself on, the awards which he gives himself a pat on the back for having established, the awards which this minister says are the premier awards for university teaching in the nation. But, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, they are not as important as a Liberal fundraiser at the Southern Cross Club.While all these university teachers are here in the Great Hall, the Prime Minister is out at the Southern Cross Club stumbling over his speech and dropping his notes. He could have been here at the national teaching awards using the power of his office to give credit to those university teachers for their work over a number of years. Does it not say something about this government's priorities? Does it not say something about this government's failure to recognise the damage that its cuts have done to Australia's university teachers and the students at universities right across this country?But perhaps, more importantly, it goes to show that once again this government does not understand the importance of Australia's national research effort. That national research effort in both the public and the private sectors is extending our knowledge of our physical and social world. That national research effort is there helping us better understand our nation's history and our nation's culture. That national research effort is there making sure that we are doing the research today that will drive tomorrow's improvements in health, science and IT, our future breakthroughs in manufacturing and our future breakthroughs in understanding our society. All of that flows from that national research effort.We are here at a time when this minister is out the back plotting and planning further dramatic, radical changes to the way the federal government provides funding for our national research effort. Our concern is that he will do to that national research effort what his Job Network did to Australia's training system. We believe that his Job Network has done massive damage to young Australians who are out there seeking assistance to get their first job or to get back into the work force. We do not want this minister to do to Australia's research effort what he has done to Australia's job training schemes.What we want from this minister is, first of all, a commitment that he is willing to admit the damage that his government's cutbacks have made to the tertiary sector. What we want from this minister is an admission that their funding cuts of $800 million in its first two years have done severe damage to Australia's tertiary sector. It has meant there are 21,000 fewer places because of this federal government's cutbacks from the forward estimates in funding for the university sector.The minister at the table throws his head back and laughs. He laughs at the cutbacks that this Howard government has made to funding for universities and funding for research for our country. The minister at the table laughs at the fact that his government has forced students to pay significant increases in the costs of their courses. He has forced people who are studying science and mathematics to pay an extra 92 per cent in HECS because of the changes that they have made. He brags across the table that applications are up.Minister, one day you are going to learn that your increasing the costs of science and mathematics degrees is causing a significant barrier to working class Australians getting into science and mathematics. You are the great exponent of market forces. Can you not understand that almost doubling the cost of a maths or a science degree makes it twice as difficult for working-class kids in Bankstown or Campbelltown or the outer western suburbs of Melbourne or Perth or Adelaide to get a chance to get into that university course, to have a chance to contribute something to their country? That is what we believe is threatened by this minister's attempts to introduce his radical deregulatory ideology into research funding. Not only have they made dramatic cuts to university funding; we have had an increase in the costs to students through the changes in HECS.We all know what this minister wants to do. It was quite clear in Fightback that this minister's long-term agenda is to bring in vouchers for the funding of university study. That is what this minister is about. Today he put on the record once again his claim that he would not introduce vouchers for the life of this parliament. That is what he said today. While he denies in the parliament today that there will be vouchers in postsecondary education, he is already out there developing his secret plan to bring in vouchers for the postgraduate research effort. The minister laughs, but we know very well that his plans to shake up research funding guarantee the introduction of a voucher style system for the postgraduate research effort.One of the great concerns we have is that this will undermine the Australian Research Council. Let me outline to the House what a number of prominent Australians have said about this minister's secret plans to shake up Australia's research effort. The current ARC chair, Vicki Sara, was quoted in the Australian as saying that:. . . the council was strongly committed to a national research system based upon excellence determined through open competition by internationally recognised peer review. We fund the best researchers and the best ideas wherever they are to ensure Australia's international competitiveness.Yet what this minister is planning to do is to diminish the role of the Australian Research Council. The Australian Research Council uses a world-class peer review assessment system to ensure that research projects that have the most to offer receive funding through the ARC. This minister's plan is to subvert the ARC process and introduce a system of block funding to the universities; a system which will allow the minister in future budgets to cut back the funding that is going to universities. Which area will be the first to lose out? The funding going into research will be the first area cut, particularly the funding going into research in the sciences and IT. All the areas in which it costs a great deal of money will be the first that will be targeted by the universities as a result of future cutbacks by this government.Do not just take it from the Labor Party. Professor Max Brennan, a former chair of the ARC, has made a number of comments. In a letter dated 18 November in the Australian Mr Brennan stated:The changes proposed—that is, in the minister's secret plan—therein would set the clock back 30 years to the time before an enlightened Liberal government—not the Howard government but an enlightened Liberal government—established the Australian Research Grants Committee—the main forerunner to the Australian Research Council.He goes on to state:One wonders if those who conceived the ideas reported in the . . . article have even the foggiest idea of the major roles of university research and the ways in which other countries fund university research.There is a former chair of the ARC, Professor Max Brennan, saying that he believes this is definitely the wrong way to go. Peter Cullen, the President of the Federation of Scientific and Technological Societies, made the following comments:. . . the standard of Australian research which, in the past decade, had risen steadily as a result of peer review, would take a nose-dive if the Government attempted some of the proposals in the paper.He said the paper raised concerns about `whether block funding would go towards research at universities when they are so painfully cash-strapped.' Mary O'Kane, from the University of Adelaide, said:It's getting up my nose—in the sense I'm being asked about it. I would have thought it was courteous to be sent a copy for comment.But Professor O'Kane, of course, is not in the inner group that the minister has selected to comment on his secret report. Professor O'Kane, a former chair of the ARC large grants committee, strongly supports the international peer review system. She said:It gives the work great international credibility if you can say the work is assessed in a totally open and dispassionate way.Professor O'Kane is not the only Australian who believes that a peer review system is the best way to allocate research funds. Let me quote from an answer which the current Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, made in this House on 11 February last year. He was making some remarks about the way the National Health and Medical Research Council allocate the medical research funding. He said:I would say to her in reply—that is, to Mrs Sullivan, the member for Moncrieff—that the National Health and Medical Research Council funds research on the basis of peer reviewed excellence and I would not want to see that changed.If it is good enough for the National Health and Medical Research Council to use peer review to allocate medical research expenditure, why is this minister seeking to undermine the role of the Australian Research Council?And it is not just the health minister. The member for Gwydir, the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in commenting on research and development that takes place in the primary industries area, said on 6 February 1997:There was a lot of external peer review. It is a sound and rigorous process. So if it is good enough to have peer review to assess medical research grants, and if it is good enough to have peer review to allocate funding for primary industry research, I would ask you, Minister: why are you trying to undermine the ARC process—a process that makes sure that those research applications that are assessed as having the greatest potential are the ones that receive the funding through the ARC? This minister wants to take us to a system that will be even less efficient than the one we have today. The implications of the minister's new plan are obvious. The quality of research will inevitably decline. Australia's international reputation, and hence our education exports, will decline. We will move from a single, central assessment process—which we have been using in the past through the ARC—to 37 separate processes at 37 separate universities. So the process inevitably will be less efficient.We will have internal politics within the universities being used to decide how those research funds are allocated. At the moment some of the funding goes through the universities—that happens today. We say: why should more of the research funding go through the universities rather than being allocated under a peer review process that makes sure that Australia's international reputation is protected?This plan will also result in the abolition of the central coordinating body and that will make national and international collaboration more difficult. It will also lead to a reduction in research funding, because it is quite clear that, contrary to the claims the minister made at question time today, this government's long-term agenda is to cut back the research funding effort going into our universities.The minister slandered the Labor Party in question time by claiming that the Labor Party was going to cut research funding. Minister, I refer you to page 419 of your own budget. The 1998 budget made it clear that there is going to be more than 10 per cent reduction in funding going into the Australian Research Council—that is in your own forward estimates. So your own budget demonstrates that you intend to cut the funding going into the Australian Research Council, and you have the hide to get up in this House and mislead it with your claims that our side of the House was going to cut back the funding going into the research effort. It is quite clear that this minister not only misled the House with the corrupt figures and statistics that he used in this House, but he has misled the House—BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It seems to me that if I am going to be accused of misleading the House, that should be proceeded with by way of substantive motion, and I ask the member to withdraw that remark.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I did not say the minister deliberately misled the House. I said he misled the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I was listening very carefully, and the practice has been that you can get away with `mislead' but if you say `deliberately mislead', it must be done with a substantive motion.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—He misled the House in his claims that his government has not cut ARC funding. There are the figures, on page 496 of his own budget. The minister has an agenda to hobble Australia's research effort. His secret plan to change the way we fund research in Australia is opposed by those who are dedicated to making sure that Australia's research effort delivers the jobs—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable minister, I would just like to make a comment on the usage in the House of `mislead' or `deliberately mislead'. I would like to suggest to honourable members on both sides that it might be better for the processes of the House if we could all agree that `mislead the House' is not a satisfactory statement. I commend the thought to all members.15:21:001014Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for that comment, and I hope that that is agreed on both sides of the chamber.We have just heard articulated the policy vacuum in the Labor Party that was identified by the member for Werriwa. Having heard the first speech in this House of the shadow minister as shadow minister for education—Mr Lee interjecting—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The shadow minister says he has spoken on education before in this chamber. He has spoken many times on health, and I apologise if I have missed his one speech so far on education. But, having heard this speech, it is evident that this shadow minister has absolutely no substance to him whatsoever because virtually every factual statement he made was incorrect. I propose to go through a number of those statements and simply illustrate where they were incorrect.The matter of public importance before the House has to do particularly with research and research funding. The shadow minister, the member for Dobell, said that it was the intention of the government to cut research funding, and he drew for his authority on the last budget papers where figures indicate the expiry of certain time limited funding programs that the government had put in place. What the member for Dobell has overlooked—perhaps he has not even read it—is the election commitment of the government to spend an additional $148 million on research—Mr Lee interjecting—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Absolutely. And infrastructure, which was of course completely overlooked in the Labor Party's policy. So where the coalition was undertaking to substantially spend on research and research infrastructure to the order of $148 million, the Labor Party in its policy was clearly intending to allow the fall in the forward estimates to continue. That is the substance behind my claim, which the Leader of the Opposition apparently so deeply resents, that the Labor Party was going to cut research and research infrastructure funding by over $90 million.In fact, the calculations of the government reveal that the Labor Party's funding of research and research infrastructure fell $90.6 million short of the requirement to simply maintain current real levels. It is quite clear that the shadow minister for education does not realise, even now, the extent of the inadequacy of the policy which the Labor Party took to the election and which the Leader of the Opposition—laughably, one might say—said would provide him with the platform to become the `education Prime Minister'.In fact, it was an appallingly bungled document. I do not want to be too personal about this. The member for Werriwa said that it was not his fault, although he was the shadow minister at the time, that this document was so bungled. This was the document that included five lines on literacy—perhaps the single greatest social justice issue in education today—which underfunded research by $90.6 million, which, I think, as the member for Werriwa said, `completely stuffed up the school funding policy', and promised to spend $126 million of taxpayers' money for 10,000 extra places in TAFE at the same time that the government was producing some 70,000 extra places at no cost to the taxpayer.So this is probably the worst education policy document put forward by any major party since Federation, and the person who blew the whistle on this and made this absolutely clear was the member for Werriwa, who following the election resigned and went to the backbench. He was, to his great credit, completely honest about the nature of the Labor Party's education policy. He said:Mike Pezzullo, chief policy adviser, and John Angley, who worked for Kim—that is the Leader of the Opposition—as finance minister and had no involvement in the education area, rewrote the bloody thing—I am just using words that were used by the member for Werriwa—all under the approval of McMullan. So they stuffed it up . . . He said:I put 18 months into a policy document to have it butchered by staffers the day before it was released, to the party's embarrassment.It appears that the first time the then shadow minister for education was shown the policy was at the launch and the first time that he read the policy was from the launch to the airport. He said:I first read the final document in the car going from the Frankston launch to Melbourne airport to go home. That is the truth of it, the God's honest truth. Yes, you can quote me. I'm now dealing in the truth.Of course, that does raise the question as to what the member for Werriwa was dealing in before he resigned as shadow minister. But, whatever he was dealing in, we can assume what the present shadow minister, the member for Dobell, is now dealing in because he is the voice for this policy in the parliament. He is the person who is getting up before this House and saying that the government is running down research when this policy underfunded basic research infrastructure in Australia by $90.6 million.The Leader of the Opposition says this is a lie, but it is quite clear on the analysis of the figures that the Labor Party was intending to hack into the research base in Australia to fund those policies which it did include which had been suggested to it by the National Union of Students—because there is one thing to know about the Labor Party, and that is that its education policies, its health policies and its policies in virtually every other area come from its union mates. It has virtually no capacity to think about its own policies intelligently. There is a massive intellectual vacuum in the Labor Party.Research has gone up under this government. The funding for university research since 1996 has gone up from $398.6 million to $450.3 million, yet the shadow minister gets up and tells the House that the government is cutting funding for research. He got up in this House and he told members of this parliament that the government was cutting places in universities for undergraduate students. Let me put the facts before the House. There is now a record number of undergraduate students in Australian universities—an increase of some 19,754 above the number that were there under Labor. There are now 392,560 undergraduate students in Australian universities compared to 372,806 under Labor.The misleading figure of 21,000 was cited consistently before the election by the shadow minister for education, the member for Werriwa. He persisted in repeating that figure despite the reality being that undergraduate places in Australian universities were rising. There are more undergraduates in Australian universities today than ever before. The number of fully funded government places is continuing to rise and will rise further between now and the year 2000. So the universities have more places now than ever before. Not only that, university funding is higher now than it has ever been before. The universities now have some $500 million extra in revenue—revenue from all sources—than they had in the last year of the Labor government. They have half a billion dollars more than they had available to them under the Labor Party.The sheer inability of the froth and bubble shadow minister that we now have to focus on the facts of the situation reveals the extraordinary intellectual vacuum which now exists within the Labor Party. To his great credit, the member for Werriwa has gone out of his way to attempt to explain why this intellectual vacuum exists. I think it might be useful to the House to quote him, to explain why we have this problem on the opposition side. He said:I mean one of the problems the Labor Party has at the moment is there's a policy consensus between the factions, the right wing basically agrees with the left wing and vice versa, and it's leaving somewhat of an intellectual vacuum in the Labor Party.He mentioned a comment that the present leader of the Labor Party had made to him in April 1996, which referred to the enormous leeway that the Labor Party had to make up in policy terms. He said:In April `96, Kim Beazley said to me that Australian Labor has fallen ten years behind comparable parties and our policy development and our ideas . . .There have been examples overseas—the American Democratic Party and the Blair government in the United Kingdom—of where modern parties of the Left are going. It is probably truer to call the Labour Party in England a party of the Left than the United States Democratic Party. But so far as Kim Beazley is concerned, Labor is 10 years behind. As the member for Werriwa says:. . . now if that was the case then, we've probably got as much ground to make up now.In other words, the Labor Party is still 10 years behind, and there is a colossal policy vacuum.Mr Lee interjecting—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—I just told you, research funding has gone up under this government, and the government intends to continue to strengthen Australia's research base. I do not intend in this debate to address entirely speculative comments about discussions which are clearly going on within the higher education sector at the moment. What the government is doing is consulting with the sector. We are talking very widely in the sector, and we will continue to hold discussions with the sector.Every initiative that the government has taken is an initiative designed to strengthen the higher education system. That is true for the Australian University Teaching Awards, which the present shadow minister was invited to and attended a week ago. These awards, initiated by this government, are having a dramatic impact on the status of teaching in universities.We now have a mass higher education system. We now have more undergraduate students in Australian universities than ever before, and they are demanding high quality teaching. It is very important within the universities that quality teaching is recognised and rewarded. The initiative that we have taken, at relatively low cost through the Australian University Teaching Awards, is having a dramatic effect on the attitudes of universities to their quality teachers.A number of vice-chancellors came up to me at the awards dinner and mentioned how valuable they thought this initiative was and how it had altered practice in their own campuses. They were now taking much more seriously their own intra-institutional awards for teaching because they believed that teaching deserved greater recognition than it had got in the past. It is getting greater recognition than it did in the past because of the initiatives that this government has taken.All that this froth and bubble shadow minister—one of the delicate policy petals on the Labor Party front bench—can do is inquire into the Prime Minister's diary. This is the substance that we get from him. He thinks that a comment about the Prime Minister's diary is going to—Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Be careful, member for Dobell.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—I have got a word of advice for you: unless you can offer something of more substance than that which you have offered today, you will continue to be treated as a joke within the higher education sector.15:36:001017Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—It is a real travesty of justice when the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs concludes his speech today by talking about froth and bubble, because by and large that was all he spoke for the duration of his presentation. His comments focused primarily on his obsession for the member for Werriwa, who was at one time the shadow minister for education, but is not now. The shadow minister for education of the day presented the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs with a range of policies on our side of the fence which the minister, who is at the table, in no way responded to in a way that meant anything.It is a sad reflection on the dearth of government policy in the crucial areas of both education and research that the minister would spend so much time focusing on the past. Indeed, as I will show later on, he is a man of the past. It is true to say that universities and research institutions associated with them have suffered more under the Howard government cuts than perhaps any part of the public sector.In a developing society, universities must generate ideas and perhaps guide the nation's value system. This government and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs stand condemned for their failure to in turn offer any guidance or support to the tertiary sector and their associated research institutions. These massive funding cuts have forced higher education down the commercialisation road—in some cases into the realm of incorporation. I will cite some of the more contemporary effects of the cuts endured by this sector and imposed upon them by this government. In New South Wales alone there were 1,285 places lost at the Sydney University, 950 at the University of New South Wales and 655 at the University of Newcastle. Across Australia, universities have been forced to cut the range of courses they are offering, including the University of New South Wales being forced to close its St George campus and its teacher education facilities. At Monash, there has been a loss of 120 staff in the arts faculty and the closure of the classics department. At the University of Tasmania, there has been the closure of the classics and Italian departments. Similarly, at the Northern Territory University, there has been the closure of the English department.This government is not in any way of the view that universities should be places of excellence, driven by ideas of scholars and their capacity to project knowledge into society. Alas, this government sees universities perhaps as quasi corporations, increasingly dependent on private sector revenue. But, on the other hand, perhaps the government does not see universities at all—or at least the minister does not. The minister has had responsibility for universities for over 12 months now and, to the best of my knowledge, has rarely visited one and he certainly does not listen to them. In fact, the Victorian Training Minister, Phil Honeywood, said that, like former Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, when Dr Kemp does not want to hear something he just turns his hearing aid off. If that is what his Liberal mates say in public, goodness knows what they say in private about the minister.We all know as well—just as a digression—that the Victorian Education Minister, Phil Gude, described the minister at the table as `a nutty professor'. There is nothing nutty about Labor's education or research based policies and, after the next election, there is no doubt that Labor will repair the damage that has been done to our vital tertiary and research sectors and restore the status of the university sector because it is a key contributor to social and economic progress. The Howard government reversed the growth of universities, abolishing some 21,000 university places and making it harder for students from lower and middle income backgrounds to gain access to university.Budget Paper No. 1 of 1998 highlights a massive 20.6 per cent fall in higher education spending between the financial years 1996-97 and 2001-02. This figure encapsulates the government's draconian approach to education. It was probably one of the catalysts for Professor Peter Karmel—a former principal adviser to the federal government on higher education and Vice-Chancellor of the ANU—to state in May this year that the university sector was `sliding into a morass of mediocrity as a result of inadequate funding, the axing of thousands of teaching and administrative jobs and a serious decline in student services and research standards'.The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee had similar things to say. Understandably concerned about cuts to universities and in challenging the government's figures, its executive director said, `We cannot continue on the basis of a funding model which locks us into the 1980s.' That reminds me that Western Australian Premier, Richard Court, referred to Dr Kemp's plans as `a blast from the past' and I am sure that the Vice-Chancellors Committee, having said what it did, would agree with that.Dr Kemp, it would seem, has not changed his mind on an issue for 30 years. He is a bit like that Japanese soldier still fighting World War II somewhere in the jungles of New Guinea—still fighting the good fight of 50 years ago. Like that Japanese soldier, someone should tell Dr Kemp that the battle he is fighting is—RW5NELSONDr Nelson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could the honourable member please refer to the minister either by his title or his electorate.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member. The honourable member for Isaacs will proceed.YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—I note that, until recent years, the member for Bradfield had not voted Liberal in his life, so I am pleased to acknowledge his point of order. Today we are fighting new battles. We are fighting battles which this minister fails to grasp. Our ability as a nation to innovate, to generate new ideas, to spread those ideas throughout the productive sectors of our community and our economy and then to bring those ideas into real effect is one of the single most important determinants of our future prosperity and is driven and underpinned by the capacities of our university and research sectors. Our standard of living, the quality of our lifestyle and our place in the world are all linked directly to productivity growth and to innovation through science and engineering.This MPI debate also goes, as you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the question of research. Research is the foundation of innovation and drives investment in industry and commerce which, in turn, creates jobs and disposable incomes for all Australians. Nevertheless, it need not be the case that a science or engineering postgraduate degree means that you must do research—that you must be an academic—or that you have failed because generating employment in industry or government in more general areas with such a specialist qualification will be the mark of a successful person, employer and, indeed, nation in the next century.If we are to prosper in the next century in the favourite industries of Bill Gates, such as information technology, molecular biology and many others, then we need managers and decision makers in all fields who have a good fundamental grasp of these science and technology based issues. Again, what underpins this is the quality of our tertiary sector. Unlike business, the function of universities is not to return profits to their owners but to guard and promote our civilisation and our culture.It is for these reasons that Australia will be a poor nation if our universities fail under the sorts of funding cuts wrought on our tertiary sector and our research institutions by this government. The future of universities in Australia will be determined, by and large, by a balance of three critical variables. They are resources, access and quality. Of course, cuts to resources of the kind imposed by this government limit access and reduce quality.The impact of these cuts has been particularly severe in the postgraduate area and also in the undergraduates, arts and humanities areas. Some 3,000 academic jobs have been lost, with regional universities especially affected by the reduction in operating grants. Labor will not only seek to add to the national investment in higher education but also ensure a fairer distribution of resources between institutions. Indeed, our education minister would certainly not snub the tertiary awards, which were handed out on Monday this week, to attend a political fundraiser. This is a government which continues to poleaxe the tertiary and research sectors. (Time expired)15:46:001019Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—The previous speaker, the member for Isaacs, has really put the nub on what this MPI is all about. The opposition are smarting about the fact that the member for Dobell could not get his question up yesterday. They are smarting about the fact that, as a failed shadow health minister, he has now been moved across to the portfolio of education. We know that an intellectual vacuum has been created in the portfolio of education in the Labor Party ever since the member for Werriwa moved on.As the member for Isaacs and the member for Dobell have mentioned, this is about an invitation to a function that the Prime Minister did not attend. If the Prime Minister attended every function that he was invited to, he would be spending very little time running this country. I am actually very pleased that on many occasions and at various functions I represent the Prime Minister, and I hope to continue to do so.In a way, I was pleased to see the member for Dobell back on his feet in this place. As a former shadow minister for health, last week I was looking forward to his contribution on the private health debate, but I was disappointed when his leader pulled him at the last moment in order to rev up his troops.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I normally would not take a point of order during an MPI, but the member for Bradfield did. The member is misleading the House. I did speak in the debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—I did not say that he did not speak; I said that he was pulled at the last moment in an attempt to rev up the troops on the other side. I can see now why he was pulled the other night. I suspect there was probably an attempt to pull him today as well. We witnessed a rambling display of nothingness, a vacuum of intellect, as I said, left by the departure of the member for Werriwa, who at least has a modicum of honour.This is the first MPI by the shadow minister for education, and it indicates where their priority lies. It lies with the 30 per cent of Australians who go to university but not with the 70 per cent who do not go on to university and who require from a government a response to ensure that they—those people who do not have the ability or do not have the wherewithal and the privilege to go to university—are able to make a life for themselves and embark on a career. They are not concerned about that 70 per cent, they have never been concerned about that 70 per cent, and that has been witnessed by the fact that we have seen very high literacy and numeracy shortfalls amongst those 70 per cent.In the last parliamentary term, as a member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, it was my privilege, along with a number of members on the other side, to conduct two inquiries. One of them was on factors affecting youth employment, and I see the chairman of the employment committee with us today, the member for Bradfield. The other one was on the overlapping role of TAFEs and universities. One of the things that came out of the initial inquiry, which I would say was a landmark inquiry in this House, was that there are so many Australians out there who are looking to see that the nexus between school and work is fulfilled to make sure that governments have a response.Have we seen some sort of connection being made today by the member for Dobell? I do not even know whether he has read the report, whether he even has a comment to make. I hope that at some stage he will read it because some very interesting recommendations came out of it. I do suggest the member for Dobell reads it. It will enlighten him in terms of what Australians really think about education and the role that it plays in making sure that young kids out there have an opportunity to go on to a fulfilling career.Nonetheless, this MPI illustrates Labor's attitude to higher education. In government, their attitude at first was, `Let's make it free and then everyone can go on to university.' When that policy failed, they introduced HECS and raised it three times in one parliamentary term, using the same approach they have with tax reform. Their higher education policy was more about feeling good than about producing any real benefits to students, academics and institutions in Australia.When we came to office in 1996, we promised to spend additional money on education, research and infrastructure. We realise that a changing and more competitive global environment means that schools, universities and education institutions must produce graduates who are job ready—ready for the jobs of the type that are relevant to modern needs. We proposed some significant reforms to the sector. The Labor Party, as it always does, has howled loudly in an attempt to whip up hysteria among the tertiary fraternity. The only real support it received was from the National Union of Students. From reading the flimsy Labor higher education policy document circulated before the October election, I can see that the ALP is clearly still more interested in kowtowing to the union than it is in serving the interests of education in Australia.It is a matter of regret that the ALP makes its living today by moaning about the increased pressure on public funding in various areas. In fact, when Labor is exposed for being in a policy-free zone or when it is out of step with the needs of the community, it makes its living out of—and we witnessed it again today in question time by the member for Dickson—whipping up a fear campaign and whipping up hysteria. We saw it last term with the member for Jagajaga on aged care. We saw it last week on private health insurance. We saw it in the last couple of days over CASA. Now we are seeing it by the member for Dobell over education funding.Labor is trying to create the image that there is a crisis in research funding and funding for educational services. That is not the case. I refer to the member for Werriwa once more, who seems to be the only person on their side of politics who makes a reasonable contribution. He said in a cabinet meeting on 10 October, `I can't remember the last time shadow cabinet had a serious policy debate.' And I am not sure whether they have had one since 10 October. It has been a month, you have had a chance—and education is a major issue in Australia. Have you had a serious cabinet debate about education? I imagine that you have not. All you did was say, `We need an MPI today. Let's whip one up. After all, the Prime Minister didn't go to a function last Monday and we might as well create some sort of hysteria.'The member for Werriwa is not alone in realising that there is a need for intellect in policy development. The Leader of the Opposition, in a ministry press conference on 20 October, spoke about winning the next campaign and how difficult it would be. He said:. . . the need to both have the appearance and reality of an ability to conduct fresh thinking on those issues as those issues change. We are not in control of the Australian political agenda.How right he is. They are not in control of the Australian political agenda. Their appearance is certainly all over the place, and no more so than today.In the time we have been here we have seen increased pressure on funding in all sectors. We know where that pressure came from—the huge deficit the Labor Party left us in 1996. The pressure on funding comes from 13 years of Labor in government where it spent money to improve its electoral chances rather than to address problem areas. Once again I turn to the member for Werriwa. In terms of the lack of funding and the need for Labor to get its house in order, he said:We have fallen for this trap which is out there in the populous debate and . . . this sort of argument now that you can have all economic gain, no pain, no reform, no microreform, no interest in the efficiency and productivity of the market based economy. That is not realistic.But the truth is that you can have a set of policies that produce both a stronger economy and a stronger society and a clever, modern, reforming social democratic party can achieve those goals.He is right with the first part; he is wrong with the latter. We do not have a reforming social democratic party so it cannot achieve that agenda, but certainly we have a government which is making sure, through sound economic management—as we are witnessing day after day—that it is able in turn to address those other social issues which are so important to be addressed in modern-day Australia.That pressure on funding is maintained now because Labor in opposition refuses to bow to the will of the Australian people. It refuses to countenance changes to the taxation, health and other systems which need fixing. Labor does not recognise the need for change. It punishes those who have ideas. The member for Werriwa thinks a little bit too much about policy for the likes of his colleagues. They have slashed his education policy, they have slashed his staff and they have sent him to the back bench, but they have not silenced him. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—This discussion has concluded.Committees1021102110211021Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 7 December 1998. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 7 December 1998Pursuant to standing order 28D, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 7 December 1998. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND MALAYSIA: Report of Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Republic of Korea and Malaysia, 4-19 July 1998.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 30 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—10 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and for related purposes.2Mr 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.Time allotted—private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Sercombe to move:That this House notes:(1) the special relationship between Australia and Turkey, which developed out of mutual respect engendered by the horrific experiences of the First World War;(2) that Turkey is a modern, secular state with which Australia should further enhance relations; (3) the importance of Turkey as a trade and investment partner in its own right and as a base for Australian trade efforts in the Middle East and Central Asia;(4) the significant contribution of Turkish migration to Australia's economic, social and cultural development; and(5) that Turkish speaking residents of Australia have contributed significantly to the Australian community by their approach to potentially divisive issues that could undermine harmony in our multicultural society.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Mr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) notes the increasing number of closures of bank branches within the Australian community;(2) agrees to refer the issue of bank closures to the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs to take evidence as appropriate and consider appropriate recommendations to place before the House; and(3) determines that, as well as the general reference, the standing committee also inquire into and report on the increasing number of service reductions within communities and the increasing difficulties with which remaining services are able to be contacted by local residents where services are reduced or removed.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Delegation Reports1022102215:57:001022McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the United Kingdom and Germany that was held between 5 and 19 June this year. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.Leave granted.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—There was a delegation from both the House of Representatives and the Senate that went to Britain and Germany earlier this year. The delegation was led by the President of the Senate, Senator Margaret Reid, and the deputy leader of the delegation was the Hon. Peter Morris, who was at the time the member for Shortland. The other members of the delegation were Senator Alan Ferguson, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, Mr David Hawker and me. The committee secretary was Dr Pauline Moore from the Senate committee office.The delegation had rather long discussions with politicians and business people in Britain and in Germany. We particularly looked at the devolution process in Wales. We had discussions on a range of political issues in Britain, including Northern Ireland, and we talked to Minister Mowlam at some length about that. We also talked to our colleagues in Germany about problems in Central Europe, in particular Kosovo.There were also discussions about the forthcoming elections in Germany. The President of the German upper house, who hosted us on two of the functions that we attended in Berlin, Gerhard Schroder, is now the Chancellor of Germany. It was a very interesting time to have been in Germany with the change of government—the long-term government under Chancellor Kohl was on the ebb tide—and to have been in Britain at a time when the Blair government was consolidating its position and involved in rather dramatic constitutional change.We had some discussions with people, as I said earlier, about the devolution process in Wales and with Minister Mowlam about the devolution process and the peace process in Northern Ireland. As well there were discussions in a private manner with members of the House of Commons on both sides about what their reactions were to the Blair government's proposals to change the rights of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. I guess that, while our Senate colleagues who were on that delegation would like the idea that they might be a senator for life, as they are in Canada, they are probably happy with the fact that they can get re-elected, which it would seem the hereditary peers in Britain are going to be unable to do in future.The overwhelming impression the delegation received both in Britain and in Germany was that Australia is a country that is no longer seen as an appendage of Britain but is seen as a country that can be talked to about circumstances in Asia and in our part of the world and that can add a different perspective from that which the European countries are used to. The delegation found it very interesting to see how Germany is coping with both the financial and social costs of reunification. We also had very interesting discussions with German politicians and academics on whether there was going to be any slide in the German elections to more totalitarian views that have been caused by the problems of unemployment which are rather rife in eastern Germany.The impression the delegation received from talking to German politicians was that there was concern that in the east views were coming out which would give the impression that Germany might go the way of some of the other central European nations such as Hungary. That in fact was not borne out by the German elections. But people should not discount the great cost both in financial terms and in social terms of the reunification of Germany. I think everyone should agree that the outcome will be a stronger Europe. From the perspective of an Australian politician, to hear the way younger politicians in Europe talk about European issues, you really do have a falling away of some of those ideas of nation states among younger politicians in Europe. The concept of pan-Europeanism is a very strong issue there, particularly among those people who have come into the parliament in recent years.While I was happy to see Schroeder win the election, in some ways it was an interesting lesson to all politicians to see the electorate turn on Kohl in the way they did, because if there was any politician in Europe who has been the greatest proponent of the idea of Europe rather than of European nation states it was Kohl. If there was a person who brought about German reunification, it was Kohl. The unfortunate reality, which I suppose is a reality of politics, is that, in the end, Kohl paid the price for that. But, as I have often said to the member for Dobell, history will record Johnson as one of the great presidents of America and history will show Kohl as one of the great political figures of Europe.From my own personal perspective, and I know from the perspective of other members of the delegation, it was a very interesting time to be in Europe to see the way a new Labour government was working in Britain and to see a socialist government in Germany on the way in. But, more importantly, it was interesting to see the way in which Europeans are thinking about Europe. While in the past we have seen ourselves as being great traders, and Australia's new directions are into Asia, there is a massive amount of Australian investment in Europe. Britain is obviously where we have based our jump-off point, but Germany is becoming a bigger and bigger market for us, and we should pursue it even more. The academic links between the ANU and the university in Potsdam are very useful. I think all members of the delegation learnt more than a bit and, as well, brought an Australian perspective to our interlocutors in both Britain and Germany.Miscellaneous1023Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 Bills1023The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 Bills1024r6311024Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Mr Price interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I remind the honourable member for Chifley that it is quite disorderly to interject on the chair.Bills1024s1831024Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills1024r6001024Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Swan moved by way of amendment: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 dollars 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 prep 996 election Commitment that his Government would not cut social security pensions and entitlements."16:09:001024Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to apologise. It is just that one has grown accustomed to having speakers and deputy speakers on their feet pontificating to the House rather than in the sedentary position that you adopted. I sincerely apologise to you.I thought I should read to the House from the Strategic Directions 1997—2002 document produced by Centrelink. It says:Our PurposeCentrelink's purpose is to provide exceptional service to the community by linking Australian government services and achieving best practice in service delivery.Our visionMaking a difference to the Australian community through responsive, high quality government services and opportunities, and giving value for money. PositioningTimeframe For the customer Centrelinkwithin 18 personalised service gain customermonths loyalty and get community involvement and respect for outcomesAgainst that backdrop and statement, which I am sure all members of the House could agree to, Centrelink has decided to slash 5,000 staff.Michael Raper from ACOSS said that the staff cuts announced by Centrelink CEO Ms Sue Vardon are disastrous. The Canberra Times editorial stated:These cuts are a concern to every one of the six million Australians who are in receipt of some kind of government assistance.Bill Kelty from the ACTU said:These cuts are outrageous and will result in more stress and excessive workloads in Centrelink. In case any honourable member opposite thinks that I am biased in recording these comments, I will report to the House what Peter Lindsay, the Liberal member for Herbert in Townsville, had to say when he met with the CPSU. He said that he would lobby other government backbenchers for support and that:. . . you can't keep cutting and not affect customer services.MG4LEEMr Lee—Who said that?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—This is Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert. I have to say in a very bipartisan way that I agree with him. He goes on to say:I am at the stage where enough is enough—well, QED—and customers need to deal with real people, not computers.Who are we on this side of the House to argue with the sentiments of the member for Herbert? I regret that the Chief Government Whip has been so ruthless as to preclude him from the speakers list. It would have been most informative for honourable members, but particularly Centrelink customers, if they had had the benefit of hearing the views of the member for Herbert first-hand. But no matter what way you twist and turn these things, it will be a disastrous outcome.The honourable member for Longman, in his contribution, made light of the fact that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lilley happened to mention the pensioner dental health scheme. Far from making fun of it, I think it is an absolute tragedy to the pensioners in my electorate, who used to go to the May Cowpe Dental Clinic at the grounds of the Mount Druitt Hospital and have their dental needs attended to. In the last year of its full operation, 600,000 of our fellow Australians benefited from this scheme.MG4LEEMr Lee—They did emergency work as well?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—They did the whole box and dice. There was one at Penrith as well. I spoke to the doctor in charge of it. They were absolutely distraught at the heartless impact of cutting this out. There is a proposition that teeth and dental work are optional. However, I have run through to this House before the very serious illnesses that can arise through the neglect of dental health.I have to say one thing about the honourable member for Longman. No matter how severe or nasty the initiative of his government, he is always up here praising it to the hilt. He lauds it and suggests that any disaster will somehow be of great benefit to the people of Australia. He also said in his contribution that I would be pleased the Senate had passed the child support legislation. I am always pleased to see meaningful reform to the child support scheme. However, I notice how, prior to my getting the call, you your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker, advised the House that Mr Speaker had received a message that the Senate had proposed amendments. Those amendments are clearly ones that the government is not inclined to accept. Otherwise they would have been dealt with straightaway. They are now listed for discussion at a later date. So the crowing of the honourable member for Longman is just a little premature in relation to child support.In my electorate, the former Department of Social Security was housed in two separate offices. I have to say to the staff who worked there that they did so under very extreme conditions. It was with some delight that I learnt that there would be a new office constructed at Mount Druitt. It opened just before the federal election. What bemuses me is that so pleased are the government with their initiatives in Centrelink that to this day no member of the government has officially opened the new Mount Druitt office.I have been pleased to go there. It is a huge change in terms of not only the environment that the staff work in but also the atmosphere for clients walking into the place. Why won't they open it? Why won't we have an official opening of the Mount Druitt Centrelink office? Is it the case that the opinion of the government of the people from my electorate who utilise the services of Centrelink is so low that they feel that they are unworthy of an official opening of a multimillion dollar building and facility?I hope that that would not be the case. After a function has been taken out of a Public Service department and put it into the form of Centrelink, which is virtually a statutory authority, and given the statements by Sue Vardon about believing this market will be contestable in three years, wouldn't you think that the government would live up to the statements they make in their strategic directions about wanting service to customers to be the very best, the leading edge? How can you do that when you are cutting 5,000 staff from the heart of the organisation?People might say, `Roger, you've only lost five staff from Mount Druitt. I think St Mary's has lost five. That's not a very big cut at all.' Given the staff numbers, perhaps you are right, but I do not happen to agree with that point of view. The point I would make, lest anyone thinks that this is the extent of the cuts, is that these are only round 1 of the cuts. We still have to wash through round 2 and round 3. As I was saying before, if it were the case that I was not getting complaints about Centrelink through my office from those seeking to use it, perhaps I could have greater confidence in these measures. But, given the level of complaints I already get, I know it is going to be an absolute disaster.I am pleased that we are moving the amendment to ensure that the notification period will not be reduced from 14 days to seven days. Again, there are the complaints I deal with in my office where people say, `Yes, I did ring'—it is a miracle that they can get through—but no action was taken, and you have to make the written representation to try to untangle it. If that is happening now with 14 days, what is it going to be like with seven days? It is all very well to talk about reciprocal responsibility, but there is a thin red line between responsibility and unfair invasion of privacy and lifestyle. This legislation proposes to cut that line. Like my colleagues on this side of the House, I believe that this will be an unmitigated disaster. (Time expired)16:19:001026Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—What a fine speech my colleague the member for Chifley made on the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 . As far as I can make out, this bill brings pensions and family allowance into line with other allowances so that they will be paid fortnightly. This means that pensioner paydays might be spread throughout the week rather than all being on the same pension Thursday. It is said that there will be some flexibility allowing the Secretary to determine a longer or shorter period in some cases. The new arrangements allow for pensioners and family allowance recipients to choose their paydays, although new and existing customers will be encouraged to choose days other than the traditional Thursday.This may help some people if the waiting time is shortened before payment. However, there is a big problem in that many of the notification provisions in the act are to reduce the period in which recipients must inform Centrelink of changes to their circumstances from 14 days to seven days. Because of the current set-up of Centrelink, this has major problems for people in my electorate of Lyons.Apart from any other difficulties, morale in the offices is very low, particularly because of Centrelink taking on many of the functions formerly carried out by the Commonwealth Employment Service. The officers are trying to do twice the amount of work with half the number of people. Many of the people who have left have taken with them their corporate knowledge, particularly of the Social Security Act. Even the department admits that the act is complicated.There have been a number of occasions where a client has asked the same question of many different officers and has received different answers on each occasion—not because those officers are particularly incompetent or their training is inadequate but because much of the wording in the act is ambiguous. It could be taken in a number of ways depending on the circumstances. Unless you have experience in the different circumstances, the decisions of the people making them may vary in each case. The client is then often left confused and angry because they have no idea as to who is actually right.I had a situation the other day when a constituent rang and said that he had rung Centrelink about a child that had come into his care and was told that the child had to be in his care for eight weeks before he could claim family payment. He waited eight weeks and put in his claim, only to find that he could have claimed for the whole eight weeks because the child was to be in his care for longer than eight weeks. Someone had made a mistake in advising him. Okay, he was reimbursed, but he had to struggle in that eight weeks to ensure that the child was looked after when he need not have struggled as hard as he did. It is just not good enough and it is unfair on families who have enough problems without people misinterpreting legislation.Then we have the situation of those who live outside major towns, as most of the people in the Lyons electorate do. There are a few experiments going on at the moment to share premises with Service Tas, which will be a distinct improvement for those in the towns of St Helens, Campbell Town, Sorell and Queenstown, but there are many others who live in other towns. Governments forget that Tasmania has the most decentralised population of any state. It has no public transport in many areas, particularly in my area, and many benefit recipients do not have cars. They rely on friends, intermittent private bus companies and the telephone.I had a case recently where a client rung me in desperation as they had had a change in their benefit circumstances and had spent three days on the phone trying to get through to the Centrelink office on the free call line. In the end, one of my staff had to ring on a regular line and ask the office to call this person back, which they did. Three days! Many people also talk about spending hours hanging on the line. Even the local paper has now picked up comments from people who are sick of `hanging on'. There is a regular column in the northern paper in Tasmania, the Examiner, which has little anecdotes that pick up on those sorts of comments. A client made a phone call at 9.20 a.m. and was still waiting for an answer at 12.40 p.m. I know it is not uncommon. In fact, it seems to be the norm, rather than the exception. I just do not think that is good enough.This bill is not only reducing the days of notification—when in the seven days you notify will determine when the change will occur. If you spend three days trying to get through, this will affect the overall time change. I have been advised that, when a person notifies of a change that will result in an increase in social security entitlement and does so within seven days of the change, entitlement will be increased from the date of the change. This is different from current arrangements, where entitlements can only be increased from the date of notification.That is okay, but where a person advises of a change that will result in an increase in entitlement but does so more than seven days after the change, entitlement will be increased from the date of the advice. That presumes people can get on the phone immediately their situation changes, and that is often impossible for many people. Seven days is just not enough time under the current arrangements. Where a person does not notify a change within seven days that would reduce payment, all excess payment can be recovered by Centrelink.Many people try to get casual or part-time jobs to help supplement their income. They have to wait to see if their circumstances have changed sufficiently to notify a change and sometimes this is not known within seven days. Casual jobs can be paid very intermittently and it might not be possible to work out what the change to their circumstances will be within seven days. It can be a nightmare for many people who are trying to do the right thing but cannot afford to wait hours on the phone to change their circumstances. I am surprised that so many still try to do the right thing. Basically we have a very honest and long suffering group of receivers of benefits in this country. Businessmen and women would have given up a long time ago and looked for some alternative.What is all this for? To save money. The government says that there will be a total net saving in the family and community services portfolio amounting to $145 million between 1997 and 2001. It goes on to say that there will be a one-off saving of $90 million in 1999-2000 as a result of the change from the payday based payments to payment in arrears. This is because some years have more days of the week of a certain kind than other years. The year 1999-2000 has 27 family allowance payday Thursdays. Spreading paydays across the fortnight would mean fewer payments are made on the 27th payday. They tell us this is a mere accounting exercise as there would be more paydays of other kinds in outyears. It would mean lower expenditure in 1999-2000 but exactly the same expenditure over an 11-year cycle. That is not much good if you are dead by then, though. Somewhere somehow someone is missing out on something if there is money being saved, and you can guarantee it is not the government but people on benefits.The government also says that changing the payday based payments to payment in arrears will produce ongoing savings of $18 million per year. These savings are to be produced by reducing overlapping entitlements and non-recoverable excess payments because of efficiencies gained by reducing processing times. They reckon because all pensions are now paid on the same day the lead-up time to process the 2½ million payments is considerable. They argue that when a person notifies Centrelink of a change in circumstances resulting in a decrease in entitlement and does so within the time allowed, it may nevertheless be too late to alter their entitlement for that fortnight if the processing of their payment is already under way.If pension payments were spread across the fortnight, the lead up time to process each day's payments would be much shorter, and advice of changed circumstances would more likely be taken into account in determining entitlement for the fortnight in question. But it all rather depends on whether pensioners and family allowance recipients choose paydays other than the traditional Thursdays.I suggest that there would be some problems, not the least of them being that it relies on the computers being reasonably reliable and not falling over. Judging by my time in parliament I can say that, if we had had to depend on the internal computer system in this place to process Centrelink payments, I think we would have had many, many sorry customers; the computer systems in my office always seems to go down at a very crucial moment.So I am not convinced that the savings which it has been suggested will be made by this bill have any hope of being achieved. Although the opposition is not opposing outright the changes to the act, I think the suggested amendment of retaining the notification period at 14 days is sensible and would allow some flexibility in the until now abysmal record of Centrelink. In many cases people just cannot get through on the phone, nor can they get people in person. So it is nigh on impossible to keep to the seven-day deadline.Centrelink is having a hellish time. It now just does not have the people necessary to do the work. It appears that the organisation is losing another 5,000 staff members between July 1997 and 2002, and that will put further pressure on those poor individuals who are trying to do the right thing by their clients now. How can Centrelink staff possibly cope? Does this government have some vendetta against public servants? I think it probably has.This government does not believe very much at all in the public sector, and that certainly comes out when we look at its record here. Does this government really want to send all of those staff members off to the mental asylum? Is there any other reason than that that one could reach? These people working at Centrelink are heading for stress levels that will be untenable. They are being placed in unworkable positions. What a measly amount the government might save by jiggling around the dates for pension payments. The government will have to pay out tenfold in workers compensation and sickness benefits to the poor demented Centrelink staff.Lately I have been watching the press in its discovery of the fact that many people are working hours and hours of unpaid overtime, trying to get their work done, while the unemployment queues are growing. It is not so obvious on the mainland, as many have dropped out of the figures. But in Tasmania the problem is intensifying, and there really are no alternatives: it is either work or a benefit. Our small population has very little option, and this sort of tinkering at the edges will, at the least, just inconvenience people and, at the most, totally devastate some families.As I have said, people are waiting incredibly long times to get their phone calls through either in advising Centrelink of changes to their circumstances or in seeking advice in some way. I think that now is being picked up. I think most people now accept the fact that those waiting times are lengthy.Other major changes, such as the closure of six Centrelink offices, are to take place—and I understand that some government backbenchers were saying there would be no closures of Centrelink offices. But that is not true. The government is closing offices, and it is also going to slash 5,000 jobs—5,000 more public sector jobs to go when Australia is battling with its unemployment figures.Last time the statistics were published, we had a little increase in employment figures in the mainland states. But for how long will those figures be as good as they are if we still have the government slashing jobs in this way? And, of course, those jobs are to be cut from this vital agency which is battling to meet its obligations to about six million Australians; that is the number of Australians who rely on the Centrelink's services. The minister should make it a priority to ensure that Centrelink can work, and that he has the staff to make it work.Going back to the amendment, I think the amendment moved by our shadow minister is a correct one. I believe that the minister should have taken it on board and given support to it, and I look forward to his reasoning of why he would not do that. I remind him of the difficulty that people within my state are having in getting in touch with a Centrelink office. I also remind him of that article in the Launceston Examiner which picked up on there being a Centrelink client who had started making a phone call at 9.20 a.m. and was still waiting for an answer at 12.40 p.m. I believe that is too long to wait, and I think the minister should acknowledge that. I believe also that he should accept the fact that he has some real problems within that department, and that the slashing that is occurring will not do anything to help.I will certainly be supporting the amendment, because I want to ensure that people get their full entitlement without having to placate some bean counter keeping the computers going. The 14-day notification period should be kept. That period of time gives people an opportunity to get any changes in their circumstances through to the people that they need to. I certainly support the amendment. I hope that the minister will take it on board and give some consideration to it.16:38:001029Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate, particularly the honourable member for Longman, who made a very constructive contribution. I have been somewhat disappointed by some of the contributions of members opposite, in particular, the contribution of the shadow minister for family and community services, the honourable member for Lilley. The amendment moved by the opposition is appalling and will certainly be opposed by the government. It is dishonest in almost every clause and should not be supported by anyone in the House simply on the basis that it is factually incorrect. The honourable member for Lilley has been very keen to criticise Centrelink at every available opportunity and has frequently been caught out making inaccurate statements. That is sadly the case in the opposition amendment that is before the House.I would like to comment briefly on the contribution of the honourable member for Lyons in case he leaves the chamber before I have an opportunity to respond to his comments. He is no doubt again mimicking the words of the shadow minister when he makes the comment that six Centrelink offices are to close. The shadow minister has put out a media release to that effect this afternoon. As usual, the honourable member for Lilley is absolutely wrong. I repeat the assurance that I have given to this House on previous occasions: there will be no Centrelink office closures as a result of the reforms being made under the new service model.The honourable member for Gilmore, whom the member for Lilley criticises in his media release, was absolutely right when she made the comment on ABC radio that there will be no office closures as a result of these reforms. It seems that there was an inaccurate article in the Australian this morning that may have led the honourable member for Lilley to make these claims. He did not bother to check the facts. He just ran off with yet another set of inaccurate statements. It has been unfortunate to see these sorts of comments.Over the weekend the honourable member for Lilley tried to drum up interest in the press with a media release entitled `Centrelink service crisis is of titanic proportions'. It is fortunate that the media release struck the same fate as the Titanic: it sank largely without trace—and rightly so because again it contains a whole series of inaccurate statements. He claimed that Centrelink offices will not be accepting any appointments on Friday, 11 December 1998. That statement is completely wrong. Centrelink will be accepting appointments. It will be open for business and will assist clients as required on that day.The member for Lilley also claimed that `a similar appointment free day was held on 25 November 1998'. Again, that is wrong. Centrelink offices were all open and interviewed many people on that day. It is true that individual Centrelink offices manage their workload as they see fit, but Centrelink offices remain open. That is in stark contrast with the situation when Labor was running the social security department. It closed every Wednesday afternoon. It went out of business every Wednesday afternoon so it could catch up. That simply does not happen with Centrelink. It is open every working day. The claims by the honourable member for Lilley in this regard are completely wrong.The next thing he said was that Centrelink was closing down its policy units. Again, that is a load of rubbish. Centrelink does not have a policy unit. So there is nothing to close down. Centrelink is a service delivery agency. Policy units are in organisations such as the old Department of Social Security and other clients of Centrelink. Centrelink concentrates on service delivery and therefore does not have policy units of the nature referred to by the honourable member for Lilley. He then talked about review work being neglected. Again, he fails to acknowledge the substantial number of successful prosecutions and the amount of money that has been recovered by this government with its tough on fraud and tough on cheating approach. Indeed, all targets that have been set by Centrelink in relation to its review work have been exceeded.Unfortunately, the honourable member for Lilley is not too concerned about the facts. He would prefer to talk down the achievements of the Centrelink staff and the work that has been done to develop a new service model. It seems Labor hates quality service coming from the public sector. When Centrelink announced its new model last month—a new model which will concentrate on personalised service, individual point of contact decision making, better back-up facilities for Centrelink call centres and improved service for all customers—rather than welcoming it, Labor was quick to criticise these proposals.The amendment being proposed by the opposition utterly fails in almost every regard. It contains a great deal of inaccurate information, and it is most unfortunate that the opposition would seek to base their assault on this legislation on inaccurate statements. The comment in the first clause of the proposed amendment deals with Centrelink's inability to deal with a number of people attempting to contact them; therefore, that is some kind of an excuse for not agreeing to the reduction in the notification period from 14 days to seven days. The reduction from 14 days to seven days does not increase the number of calls that have to be made. It just means that they have to be made in a more reasonable and common time frame.So Centrelink, with its new service model, is clearly addressing the issues associated with providing a prompt service. I have been assured by the board of Centrelink that the new service model can be delivered and that it will be delivered in a more efficient way, which will require fewer resources than have been needed in the past.Also in the amendment is the quite extraordinary claim that this government has cut the social security budget by $2.6 billion over three budgets—a statement that is a complete figment of the imagination of the honourable member for Lilley. In actual fact, not only have we not cut social security spending, this government is now spending more. The social security budget was $40.6 billion in 1996-97 and is expected to be $42.7 billion in 1998-99. So the amendment again fails absolutely because it contains information which is completely factually wrong.The next point refers to the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Program, a program which Labor had set up to run for four years and which had certain targets. It achieved those targets and this government then allowed it to expire. In addition, the whole nature of the proposed amendment fails to address the key issues of the bill—the reforms that are being proposed.I need to refer by way of rebuttal to a number of other points made by the honourable member for Lilley in his address which were factually wrong. He said that the government had cut $87 million from the Home and Community Care Program. In fact, the Commonwealth contribution to the program has grown by $77 million since 1995-96. For the four years from 1996-97, funding is due to increase by 3.5 per cent in real terms each year.The honourable member for Lilley also accused the government of withdrawing free hearing aids. Again, the member is not accurately reporting the facts. There are still some 580 hearing aids available on the free-to-client list. The government introduced a new voucher system for the Commonwealth Hearing Services Program on 1 November 1998. This reform introduced a choice of service provider for eligible clients and competition for the provision of hearing services and hearing devices. And so it goes on. Sadly, for the honourable member for Lilley, truth is the first casualty whenever he makes a contribution to a debate.The honourable member for Lilley also criticised the government's work on aged care. The government spends $4 billion a year to support 130,000 residents in aged care facilities and we are committed to reforms to improve the quality of care. The House is well aware of Labor's legacy. After 13 years, 40 per cent of nursing home residents were still sharing their bedroom with four or more people, 13 per cent of homes did not meet fire regulations and 11 per cent of homes did not meet health standards. That was the sort of aged care system that we had when Labor left office. This was despite the fact that their own review, the Gregory report, clearly showed that in 1994 the nursing home sector was suffering because of a shortage of capital. This government has moved to address these issues.Finally, the honourable member for Lilley sought to make great capital about criticism of Centrelink in the Ombudsman's report. He ignored the key finding in the Ombudsman's report which said that there has been an 11 per cent decline in complaints this year about the services delivered by Centrelink compared with the old DSS-CES model in the previous year. Even though Centrelink has only been operating for a year, there has already been a substantial decline in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman about the services that have been delivered. That was the key finding in the Ombudsman's report, an element that the honourable member for Lilley chose to ignore. He again presented some highly inaccurate quotations from the Ombudsman's report to support his argument. He purported to read from the report but, unfortunately, he did not quote the section accurately. The member distorted the passage to create the impression that all overpayments mentioned in the report were due solely to Centrelink's errors, and that is quite false. Whilst no organisation is perfect and some overpayments are a result of Centrelink errors, under some circumstances these sorts of debts can be waived. However, in most cases, the overpayment is due to a mistake—sometimes innocent—by the person receiving the benefit. But these issues were not mentioned by the honourable member for Lilley.This bill contains two major provisions—amendments to allow all social security and veterans affairs payments to be paid on an arrears basis so that people receive their exact entitlement, and amendments to the date of effect provisions to give a seven-day notification period for changes in customers' payments. It seems that the opposition have devoted most of their criticism to a seven-day notification period. I should point out to the House that the seven-day notification period already applies for a number of benefits provided by the government, but none of the catastrophic consequences which have been referred to by opposition members have occurred.The bill offers the opportunity for a standard seven-day notification period. The bill reduces the complexities associated with the existing payment processing and notification provisions. The bill also provides for a simpler and fairer system which will ensure that all customers are subject to the same notification period and receive their exact entitlements.Customers will be given notice and flexibility regarding the day of the week that they are paid. It is important to note that, as part of the implementation of this initiative, no pensioner will be forced to move from their current payday. They will have the option to do so if they choose, but they will not be forced to change their payday. This bill allows for a consistent approach for all payment types and ensures equal treatment for customers on different payments. The introduction of the period based payment system for all pensioners and for the parenting allowance and family allowance payments ensures that all customers receive equal treatment. Payments will be calculated daily, will be made fortnightly in arrears and will be available any day of the week.The payment in arrears amendments will correct present problems which result in some customers receiving too much and some receiving nothing at all. Customers will be paid for each and every day for which they are entitled—no more, no less. Currently, for example, a person who turns 65 the day before a pension payday gets a full pension payment, yet a person who turns 65 the day after the payday has to wait a full fortnight to receive the payment. This will also allow for a reassessment of customers' social security payments, including transfers to new payments, to take effect from the actual date of the event or the date of the change.The introduction of the standard seven-day notification period will provide for consistent notification provisions for all social security payments. Under present arrangements, payments like the Newstart allowance are already subject to seven-day notification provisions. This has proven to work effectively.These amendments will go further to ensure that consistent and simplified arrangements apply to all social security payments. For the first time, customers who are entitled to increases in their payments because of the changes in their circumstances will be able to receive arrears payments from the date of the event, provided that they notify within the seven-day period. Currently, increases only apply from the date of notification. According to Centrelink customer surveys, over half of all pension and family allowance customers already provide details of changes to their circumstances within seven days. Therefore, this measure takes into account customer expectations and enables payments to be made more exact in relation to their immediate circumstances.In recognition of the difficulties some groups may face with the reduced notification period, the bill provides for longer notification periods of up to 28 days where special circumstances exist. Customers who reside overseas, in remote localities or those who experience a bereavement, can all be provided with an extended notification period. The amendments simplify the social security system to benefit both customers and staff.In the implementation of this initiative, as I said before, no pensioner will be forced to move from their current payday. The government recognises that many pensioners, especially the elderly, want to remain on their Thursday payday to avoid having to make changes to their financial arrangements. Those customers who wish to change their payday and require a transitional payment will not receive less money overall. In order to provide a spread of customers across the fortnight, only minimum rate family allowance recipients and basic partnered parenting payment recipients will be encouraged to move to a new payday. This move, however, even for them, will not be compulsory. The initiatives provided in this bill provide for a clearer, fairer social security system.I believe that these new measures do provide a significant enhancement to our social security system, and I commend them to the House. The government will reject the opposition's amendment, which is not based on factual information, which fails to address any of the significant issues that are involved and which looks backwards rather than forwards in delivering to this country a more efficient and better targeted social security system.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1033Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills1033r6541033Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.16:57:001033Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition will be supporting this legislation, and we have indicated our intention to allow the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998 fast passage through the parliament. Our intention is to treat this legislation in a non-controversial way in the Senate so that it can be proclaimed and become a fully operational act in the shortest possible time.I certainly hope that the minister at the table, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, is able to progress this bill somewhat more quickly than his predecessor. I know he has not had a particularly flash start to his portfolio due to indiscretions involving bank mergers and some confusion about the identity of Asian region currencies. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would seem that he does not know his rupiah from his ringgit, his baht from his elbow, but we hope he can move on this one a little more promptly. I want to emphasise that because his predecessor, the previous minister responsible for this issue, the Assistant Treasurer, has had a shameful record of delay and indecision on this issue. That ought to be exposed, and I intend to do just that.This bill proposes to give the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal the power to arbitrate disputes between complainants, superannuation funds, insurers and other parties using the contractual laws of each state or territory. Under the bill's provisions, the SCT's powers to make awards are dependent upon the parties to the dispute voluntarily agreeing to the arbitration under contractual law.Quite clearly this is simply an interim solution, an interim fix, designed to try to clear the backlog of complaints that the SCT cannot resolve as a result of having its powers to make binding determinations removed by the courts. While Labor hopes that this bill will assist in that process, it is not a long-term solution to the SCT's problems. Now that the government has appealed the full Federal Court's decision to the High Court, a decision on that front will not be ready for some time.The opposition is aware of the government's intention to examine options for longer term solutions to the SCT problems and that one of those options might be an industry based complaints resolution model. I do want to put on record here that, while several industry based complaints resolution schemes already exist and operate reasonably successfully, the compulsory and long-term nature of superannuation gives it a very strong case in my mind for maintaining a dispute resolution process that is largely independent of the industry.The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal was established by Labor in 1993 to ensure that superannuation fund members had access to a quick, cheap, fair complaints resolution body as an alternative to the court system. In establishing the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, Labor considered a range of options for a dispute resolution mechanism that would meet those key goals of being easy to access; involve little or no cost to the complainant; and allow for fast resolution of dispute cases, which often involve people who may be in financial hardship or facing financial uncertainty. And, perhaps most importantly, it would be a mechanism seen as being independent and fair.It was determined at that time that, on balance, with the advice at hand, the mechanism which best suited those goals was a tribunal type body, which then became the current Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, SCT. After a few teething problems, which were quickly sorted out, the SCT operated in an efficient and effective manner, as was expected of such a unique but important complaints resolution body. I say `unique' and `important' because superannuation occupies such an important position in Australia's economic system, one which is often neglected or conveniently overlooked by those who sit opposite.In terms of economic credibility and responsibility, Labor's retirement incomes policies, established throughout the 1980s and the early to mid-1990s, are first-class. Labor recognised the importance of developing a savings policy which would not only assist in meeting the increasing demands that older Australians will be making on budget outlays through the age pension and health care services but also meet the burgeoning need to boost our national savings levels so that Australian enterprises would not have to borrow from overseas capital markets. Labor policies were working, as many commentators have pointed out. For example, I draw to the attention of the House the statement by Mr Mark Paterson, Chief Executive of the Aus tralian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who on 13 November this year said:Australia's three pillar retirement income system has been widely hailed as a comprehensive system which, coupled with comprehensive social welfare and public health care, is a benchmark for developing countries and many developed countries.That is a pretty big rap for Labor's three pillar retirement incomes policy. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for what the Howard government is doing to retirement incomes and national savings. National savings in Australia are at a low ebb. The government's own 1998 budget papers tell us that story. It is no coincidence that, since this government came to office in 1996, national private savings have trended downwards and continue to do so.Introducing the superannuation surcharge, trying to introduce a ramshackle choice of superannuation fund policies, trying to steal workers' superannuation entitlements away from them by removing superannuation from awards, and a disastrous opting out policy which will see low income earners lose even more retirement income—this is far from the best track record when it comes to retirement incomes. Indeed, this government's retirement incomes record is so bad and has generated so much alarm within the financial services sector—the sector that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation is supposed to be responsible for—that a powerful conglomeration of organisations from that sector has written to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister asking for a review of the retirement incomes system separate from the Ralph business tax inquiry. That conglomeration includes the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, ASFA; the Investment and Financial Services Association; the Australian Bankers Association; the Financial Planning Association of Australia; the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies; the National Credit Union Association; and the Mortgage Industry Association of Australia. For the benefit of the minister, that is a group of financial services' representative bodies who have around $1 trillion in funds under management—that is Australian dollars, for the benefit of the minister, in case he gets confused. This group has called for a separate inquiry from the Ralph inquiry. It is little wonder. You have only got to skim the first Ralph discussion paper—you have only got to treat it with the same degree of seriousness with which the minister for transport treats aviation safety reports—to discover that there is little in it for national savings. In fact, the opposite is the case.What those groups have called for is very similar to what Labor proposed during the election campaign. On that basis, I would encourage the government to give some serious consideration to a separate inquiry on retirement incomes. Perhaps the minister could enlighten the House in the course of this debate as to how the government proposes to respond to that call for a separate inquiry from those important organisations.I guess what must be even more alarming to the government than that, when it comes to savings and retirement incomes, is the press statement issued on 13 November by Mr Mark Paterson, Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in which he said:ACCI's General Council, meeting in Canberra this week, has expressed grave concern about the current retirement income arrangements, and urges the government to adopt a comprehensive approach to retirement income planning and policy for the future.The statement continues:. . . the ability of the Australian economy to sustain a full level of support for pensions will come under increasing pressure early next century.He is dead right there. The statement further reads:The compulsion to save for those in full-time work is there, but many would say that it will not be enough to sustain people in their retirement without a top up from the social security system. The experience of other OECD countries shows additional policy initiatives are needed.Australia's retirement income policy must be improved if it is to adequately provide for the needs of an ageing population.His press release concludes:Further, an independent review of retirement income arrangements would provide the impetus to reconsider the future needs of our ageing popula tion and the appropriate policy responses which will be required.Why would Mr Paterson choose to use such strong words? The ACCI and Mr Paterson could hardly be considered to be strong opponents of the Howard government agenda; as a general proposition they seem to be strongly supportive of the Howard government agenda. So what we want to hear is whether the minister has a response to Mr Paterson's desire for an independent review of retirement incomes, because it is crystal clear that there is very little confidence—on the part of those whose job it is to know about these things—in the retirement incomes system that this government has in mind for Australia.This bill seeks to restore confidence in the superannuation system by restoring the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. This, however, has been the victim of a history of government indecision and delay. If you go back to February 1997, the Federal Court determined, in the case of Wilkinson v. CARE, that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's dispute resolution power—its power to make binding determinations—was quasi-judicial and, as such, was unconstitutional if exercised by an administrative body. That is a train of thought which some will be familiar with as a result of the Brandy case and what occurred in relation to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As a result of that decision, while the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal retained the power to conciliate, some 250 to 300 cases have not been resolved and they cannot proceed any further except via the courts. The government has appealed the full Federal Court's decision to the High Court, which is listed to hear the appeal in a week's time; however, a decision is not expected until 1999.The minister said in his second reading speech that this bill delivers on the government's ongoing commitment to ensure that superannuation fund members have access to an effective dispute resolution mechanism for superannuation complaints. However, given the track record of the previous minister, that ongoing commitment must be the subject of some doubt. We do hope that the new minister will rectify that situation.I want to take the House through the evidence of delay and indecision which has caused so much hardship for those 250 to 300 people who are still awaiting a determination of their disputes. And there may be many more who, upon hearing that the SCT no longer had the power to make a binding determination, simply gave up and did not bother registering their complaint with the tribunal.On 31 July last year, Justice Northrop handed down his decision in CARE v. Bishop, which gutted the SCT's powers. On 9 October last year, the Assistant Treasurer was kind enough to brief the opposition on the situation. He advised us that the SCT was appealing Justice Northrop's decision to the full Federal Court. The government took the position that it would take no further action until the outcome of the appeal had been determined. One cannot help but think that a contingency plan could have been put in place in the event that the appeal was not successful. That, in my view, may have been more prudent and would have meant that the issue could have been dealt with much sooner than it has been.On 13 February this year the full Federal Court handed down its decision which essentially upheld Justice Northrop's determination, which was that section 37 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act was not constitutional. That same day I issued a press release calling on the Assistant Treasurer to immediately convene a meeting with industry representatives and consumer groups to resolve this issue of how to provide a complaints resolution process. I said that the government needed to act quickly to ensure that Australia's almost seven million superannuation fund members have access to an independent, fast and cheap superannuation dispute settlement body. I pointed out that some of the options open to the government included an appeal to the High Court against the Federal Court's decision, amending the SCT enabling legislation to avoid conflict with the constitution, or establishing an interim complaints resolution body with the support of the industry.At that time, I gave the opposition's commitment to fast-track legislative changes which would reinstate the SCT's power to resolve disputes. That was in the middle of February this year, on the very day the full Federal Court handed down its decision. It is now nine months later and we are still dealing with this issue only on an interim basis. I think the government ought to be ashamed. I must say it is disappointing, from the opposition's perspective, that the government did not take up our offer to fast-track the legislation through the parliament until now.When introducing this bill into the House the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation sought to claim—in fact, he went so far as to stress this point—that the government has responded quickly to the court's decisions on this matter. I think the minister is acting a bit like the queen in Hamlet, who emphasised her undying devotion to her husband a little too emphatically, which had the opposite effect to disguising her involvement in his murder. I think my response to the minister would be similar to that of Queen Gertrude, who responded to a question from Hamlet by saying, `The lady doth protest too much, methinks.' By claiming—indeed, stressing—that the government has acted speedily in this matter, the minister is drawing attention to clear evidence that the government has been slothful in resolving this matter.The minister mentioned as supporting evidence in his speech that the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation convened a round-table group to discuss options for dispute resolution and reported in July 1998. This is not in dispute, but the minister's own words again draw attention to facts which condemn the government's slothfulness. The minister's second reading speech states:. . . on 7 April this year the Senate referred the issue of options for dispute resolution . . . for inquiry and report by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation.We need to draw the minister's attention to page 2 of the Senate select committee's report titled Resolving superannuation complaints , which states at paragraph 1.13:Following a proposal from within the committee . . . In other words, the government is claiming credit for acting speedily when it did nothing of the sort. The proposal from the Senate select committee came from within the committee itself. Senator Kemp had ample opportunity between 13 February and 7 April to ask the committee to examine the issue. Given the opposition's stated commitment to fast-track legislative changes, he could have been assured of our support, but he did not do it. He chose not to refer this issue to the Senate select committee; instead, the committee determined off its own bat to examine this critical issue without a reference from the government. Frankly, if the committee had a reference earlier, we should have been able to deal with this legislation in the winter sitting. For the government to now claim to have been acting speedily in this issue is rubbish.I know that the minister is new to the portfolio. He is probably not familiar with the history of the issue. His staff are possibly in the same position, so I am willing to cut him some slack and assume that he was unaware of this when he read the second reading speech. But I do think he needs to reflect on some of these things and perhaps not just read out everything they put in front of him because they may leave him in an awkward position.I wish now to turn to an individual case which has come to my attention which highlights why it is so important to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. Mr Lee Chapman has been waiting for an opportunity to have his total and permanent injury complaint resolved for some time now. Unfortunately, Mr Chapman suffered an injury back in 1994 while at work and had to make a claim on his insurance offered through his superannuation scheme.While Mr Chapman did receive a settlement from the insurer in August 1996, it was quite a good deal less than he was anticipating and what he thought his latest statement said he was entitled to. Accordingly, on 21 February 1997, Mr Chapman lodged a complaint with the SCT after going through the internal complaints resolution mechanism of the insurer. On 19 May 1997, the SCT wrote back to Mr Chapman advising that it was seeking further information from the insurer. It was shortly after this that Justice Northrop handed down his decision in CARE v. Bishop. Thus began a series of letters from the SCT to Mr Chapman informing him of the developments in the courts and how the SCT's hands were tied in terms of resolving his dispute.Mr Chapman's case is still pending. He has advised that he has, until recently, been suffering from financial hardship as a result of the delay in his disputed settlement. I hope that the legislation which we are passing through the House today will go some way towards resolving Mr Chapman's case.The bill requires the parties to act in good faith by, firstly, voluntarily entering into an agreement with the other parties to the dispute that allows the SCT to make a determination. The parties must then agree to be bound by the SCT's decision. If they do not agree, the contracts law of each state and territory can be used to make that decision binding, but I would hope this remedy would be rarely used by the parties. It requires goodwill and voluntary agreement, and I would certainly encourage the various industry bodies whose members may be associated with disputes in the SCT to ask them to meet the spirit of the legislation. In that context, it is somewhat alarming that, in the SCT's 1997-98 annual report, the tribunal chairperson, Mr Neil Wilkinson, states:. . . there are some funds and insurers who appear to retain an indiscriminate opposition to any attempt to resolve complaints through a formal conciliation conference.I would certainly hope that the funds and insurers to whom Mr Wilkinson refers are able to improve their attitude in this area. I also raise as a matter of concern for the minister the SCT's annual report, which states that, on the issue of staffing, the current staff of a chairperson and 19 personnel:. . . is slightly below the requirement needed to maintain an efficient inquiry and conciliation role . . . I would hope that, given the minister's enthusiasm for getting this legislation into parlia ment and given his apparent determination to see it become law as quickly as possible, he also shows the necessary commitment to the SCT's role in the superannuation area. A further important measure is to ensure that the SCT has adequate resources to do what this bill is designed to do—that is, clear that backlog of complaints and ensure we have ongoing confidence in Australia's world-class retirement income system.In the remaining time available to me, I will mention two other matters. The first is by way of background to the particular case which gave rise to the Federal Court judgment—that is, the case of Katrina Bishop. It is a significant case and it illustrates the sorts of problems that come before the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.Katrina Bishop was a casual worker at the Sanctuary Cove Fruit and Vegetable Trading Co. in Queensland. She belonged to the Clerical Administrative and Related Employees, CARE, superannuation plan and paid 50c a week for death only insurance cover. By February 1994, she was too ill to work, and she died in September, leaving her husband Daryl and a son aged 10.In March 1995, CARE paid Daryl Bishop the $545 in his wife's superannuation account but refused to pay the insurance of $38,585. CARE argued that, because Katrina Bishop was a casual worker, her employment finished on the last day she was able to work, which was 3 February. Under the insurance policy, death cover ended some 60 days after a worker left the service of an employer, and Mrs Bishop had survived for seven months.The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal ordered CARE to pay the insurance component. CARE appealed to the Federal Court. As we have seen, the Federal Court determined that this money could not be paid because the tribunal did not have the power to make the decision that it had made. But all three judges did say that Mr Bishop's claim was valid. They said the key issue was whether his wife had left the service of her employer on her last day of work, so they looked to the trust deed and it became a question of whether the employer regarded that person as still being in their service.Then we come to the employer's view. Katrina Bishop's employer had filed a statutory declaration stating that she was employed by the company until the time of her death. It said:. . . she was on leave from the company solely for medical reasons. She contracted cancer and, as a result, was unable to return to her normal duties at her place of employment, although it was made clear to [her] that she could return to work immediately she recovered from her illness.. . . . . . . . .She did not resign from her employment, was never dismissed and remained in the service of the company until her death.The view, therefore, of the Federal Court was that the tribunal had got the decision right on the merits. Unfortunately, its ruling was also that the tribunal did not have the power to make a binding judgment on this matter. Mr Bishop is forced to pursue his quest for justice back through the court system. He has no other way of getting redress in these circumstances. It has been a matter of considerable concern that we could come to this situation.The final thing I want to say on this bill relates to complaints resolution in the area of superannuation. The other area where we have seen complaints concerning superannuation being resolved is via the Industrial Relations Commission. Given that background, I want to put on the record Labor's concern about the government's backdoor attempt in the last week or so to use the Industrial Relations Commission to force its own choice of superannuation fund policy on employers and workers.There is a substantial test case going on where the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has applied to the Industrial Relations Commission to amend the superannuation clauses of several building awards. If its claim is successful, employers could push employees' superannuation into any fund that they can persuade the employees to agree to without having to provide what we would regard as essential, basic information to employees about their entitlements, about the superannuation provider or the employer's relationship with that provider.The clause that was presented to the Industrial Relations Commission falls well short of even the minimum standards of the government's own superannuation policy as set out in the choice legislation, which is still to be debated by this House and the Senate, and it certainly falls well short of the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation on choice of fund. Given that, we are most concerned about what it is endeavouring to do before the Industrial Relations Commission.The proposed new clauses would restrict payments to the superannuation guarantee levels. Amongst other things, that means we can then have a situation of annual payments of superannuation guarantee money rather than regular payments. In an industry like the building industry that means that many workers would not ultimately receive superannuation guarantee payments because the company they are working for becomes insolvent or they change jobs and people lose track of it. It also leads to a loss of retirement income due to loss of interest. It also leads to loss of insurance arrangements.It is my understanding that the employers are not particularly supportive of what the government is putting forward and that it is highly likely in this test case that the employers and workers will sort it out for themselves with no help from this government. As I indicated at the start, we support the legislation that has come before the House and we intend to give it speedy passage through here and through the Senate.17:27:001039Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—It is reassuring to learn that the opposition supports the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998 . Just as I thought the member for Wills would be almost gracious in his support, he went off on another tangent at various times on matters unrelated to this bill and then returned to criticise the timing of its introduction. The timing of this legislation is not remarkable given the Federal Court decisions were handed down on 12 February 1998—they are the subject of a current High Court appeal—given the bill has been the subject of a Senate select committee report, which came up with a number of options for an interim solution, and given the intervening election. There is little room for fair criticism.I speak in support of this bill, which introduces an interim solution to difficulties which have arisen as a result of the two Federal Court decisions handed down in February of this year. By section 6 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act—I will call it the `Complaints Act'—the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal must pursue the objectives of providing mechanisms for the review of decisions to which complaints relate that are fair, economical, informal and quick. Decisions that a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund makes that are unfair or unreasonable are subject to review. In the Wilkinson decision, the full Federal Court found that the determination of whether a decision was fair and reasonable was a new substantive right not previously known in trust law. This was said to be an exercise of judicial power of the Commonwealth and not merely a matter of administration.The case of Breckler in the full Federal Court out of the Western Australian Registry was heard at the same time, and it was declared that section 37 of the `Complaints Act' that gives the tribunal the powers, obligations and discretions of the trustee was wholly invalid as it purported to confer the judicial power of the Commonwealth on the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and was therefore inconsistent with chapter III of the constitution. The proposed bill has two effects: it creates an administrative function for the tribunal consistent with its charter of fair, economical, informal and quick resolution of complaints and it provides a new dispute settlement mechanism to address the backlog of complaints consequent upon the decisions of the Federal Court. The concept of arbitration arises after an unsuccessful conciliation. The bill proposes that the tribunal give the parties notice of its ability to arbitrate and present the party with an arbitration agreement in advance. This sets the tone of the proceedings. If the parties come to arbitration and they do so voluntarily, they know that they are doing so to get the matter resolved, not merely to find out more information or to confront the trustee. The setting of a dispute mechanism is apparent from the procedure. The parties have to enter into this arbitration agreement before the tribunal will arbitrate the complaint. The arbitration is to take place according to the law relating to commercial arbitration of the state or territory nominated in the agreement. In my state of Western Australia, the Commercial Arbitration Act is a well-worn piece of legislation that covers all aspects and dimensions of an arbitration.There are various elements that make this bill commendable. The first is that it is voluntary. In a 1995 article by Naughton QC reviewing the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court—the citation is 1995 Environmental and Planning Law Journal at 373—he stated that a coerced settlement is not a quality settlement and will quickly lead to dissatisfaction and possibly further conflict. Justice Black of the Federal Court in an article in the Australian Law Journal—64 ALJ at 941—expressed the view that `alternative dispute resolution' narrows and defines the issues in dispute. He stated that there is no `universal solvent' for litigious disputes but that a range of methods is particularly important. The public accepts the need for the courts and tribunals to develop new procedures. This is particularly so when the issue is complex, involving mixed questions of policy, law and fact.The recent decisions of the Federal Court in Wilkinson and Breckler have provided an opportunity to introduce a procedure that should have been there from the inception of the tribunal when introduced by Labor. This mechanism will apply to both discretionary decisions and non-discretionary decisions. Justice Sunderberg in the Federal Court cases considered that matters within the jurisdiction of the funds were not reviewable because, if the tribunal found a decision was correct, it could not then examine if it was fair and reasonable. If it decided that it was incorrect and in excess of power, it could not then examine if it were fair and reasonable. The provision of `fair and reasonable' was there fore superfluous. As a result, section 37(5), which states that the tribunal must not act contrary to law, means that the tribunal could not deal with non-discretionary matters. This is as a result of the wording of section 14(2) which gave powers to the tribunal to examine the matter for excess of power as well as for fairness and reasonableness.This bill puts the matter back on track by providing that an issue relating to either discretionary decisions or what was termed non-discretionary decisions are able to be the subject of arbitration. These provisions simply clarify the problem that occurred by placing both in the same clause, which states that if a decision is incorrect it is automatically unfair and unreasonable. So this bill is in effect an interim solution, enabling the tribunal not only to inquire into complaints and conciliate as between parties but also to use its review powers—thus the introduction of the mechanism to arbitrate disputes by consent as between parties.17:35:001040Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—in reply—I would like to thank the member for Curtin for her contribution to this debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998 .0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—A most erudite contribution.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It was a very thoughtful and erudite contribution. It was an important contribution because it certainly reflected an enormous amount of research, unlike the contribution of the member for Wills, who spent half an hour giving me gratuitous advice on the best way to run my ministerial portfolio. I will take those pieces of gratuitous advice from the member for Wills and the member for Dickson on board and set up appropriate mechanisms in my office to ensure that there is a full and frank reflection on those suggestions. I will come back to him at a later date. However, more importantly, I would like to address the key parts of this bill. I would like to respond to the member for Wills's allegation that we have not moved swiftly. We have in fact moved swiftly. It has been important in this process to have appropriate consultation with affected stakeholders, and we have undertaken that. Given that there was a federal election in the meantime, there were understandable delays, but that public consultation and that stakeholder consultation is particularly important.The member for Wills also suggested to me that we should put in place some longer term proposals to assist the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. That is a very timely suggestion given the fact that tomorrow I will be introducing some proposals that will address some of the longer term problems of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, including a measure that will allow the tribunal to sit with fewer than three members, which should assist with the speedy resolution of outstanding complaints.On that basis, I appreciate the support of the opposition in this matter. I think it is important that there is a bipartisan approach to it. It is also important that they have agreed to assist us with the speedy passage of this bill through the Senate. Many members of the public would be aware that there are very few things that move quickly through the Senate, least of all the senators themselves in the middle of a division. However, in this case, I am very pleased that the Senate will be able to pass this legislation quickly so that we can get on with addressing some of the concerns of people who have very legitimate complaints which they have taken to the tribunal. On that basis, I support the bill and commend it to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1041Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills1041r628Billsr630BillsBills1041r627Billsr6261041Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.17:39:001041Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It is indeed a sad indictment on the government that we are debating these superannuation legislation bills again today. We have debated them once before, of course. Unfortunately, the government has not seen fit to adopt what are constructive amendments coming forward from the opposition concerning Commonwealth public sector superannuation.The government claims that these bills are about choice. If they were genuinely about choice, the opposition would not be opposing them. However, these bills are not about choice unless you consider that limiting the choices of Commonwealth employees amounts to choice. These bills are all about the Prime Minister's broken promise to all Commonwealth public servants, which he gave prior to the 1996 election and which Labor will not let him forget.Honourable member interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I will read it out for the honourable member in due course. These bills represent an opportunity to remind Commonwealth public servants that the opposition intends to fulfil its role of holding the Prime Minister and his government accountable. So it is with a sense of deja vu that I move the following second reading amendment: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House condemns the Howard Government for introducing this Bill which is a clear breach of the Prime Minister's pre-1996 election promise that the Coalition would not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective Commonwealth Government employees".These bills break yet another of the election promises of the Prime Minister: that he would not cut and destroy public servants' superannuation entitlements.Commonwealth public servants will be disadvantaged by this legislation, which the government claims will offer them choice of fund but which actually closes the natural industry fund, thereby preventing it from becoming one of those choices. The general choice of fund legislation has not yet gone through the parliament. I suspect that it may well not go through the parliament. Despite being introduced into the parliament before the bills that we are debating, it has not yet been debated in this House. That indicates that there is either a huge problem with the government's superannuation choice of funds bill—something which the opposition has been arguing ever since we first saw it on 4 December last year—or the Assistant Treasurer has been rolled by the finance minister. I suspect that there is an element of truth in both those propositions.Perhaps the Minister for Finance and Administration thinks he will have better luck in getting his legislation through the parliament than the Assistant Treasurer, who has had three goes now but has still not been successful. This is the second go at this legislation by the Minister for Finance and Administration, so he has at least one more try up his sleeve compared with his colleague.On the issue of choice of fund, the government has not been honest at all. It has this package of bills, which it claims will bring choice to public servants but which is actually closing off one of those choices. It has the Assistant Treasurer's legislation, which it claims will offer choice to the general community but which is actually about forcing choice on employers rather than giving genuine choice to employees. Into the bar gain, it has a bill waiting to be introduced which is designed to remove superannuation as an allowable award matter and which will rob workers of their rightful and current entitlements.Notwithstanding this enormous legislative attempt to introduce choice, the government has shown contempt for the parliament in trying to introduce choice through the Industrial Relations Commission. We have seen a backdoor attempt, with an application going off to the Industrial Relations Commission in relation to certain building industry awards which, if passed, would take away the right of the commission to make decisions concerning superannuation in those awards. It would have the effect of taking away from workers their entitlement to regular payments of the superannuation guarantee. It would simply cut back their entitlements to the annual superannuation guarantee payment, thereby putting at risk some of their superannuation guarantee payments and certainly depriving them of the interest on those payments.So that is a backdoor attempt by this government to introduce choice. They clearly appear to have worked out that their prospects of getting their legislation through this parliament are not that good. Nevertheless, it really ought to be seen as a contempt of this parliament that they are off to the Industrial Relations Commission while these matters are still before the House.The amendments we are going to move are designed to keep the Prime Minister to his promise of 28 February 1996 to all Commonwealth public servants not to `cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes'. We will do that by opposing the closure of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. We are also going to provide employees with a real choice of fund from 1 July 2000 including access to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, the natural industry fund for Commonwealth public servants. It is the opposition's intention to allow the other administrative changes in this package of bills to pass.Currently, most public servants are required to become members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, or the PSS, or, in some cases, they are existing members of the now closed Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, the CSS. The government claims that this package of bills extends its choice of fund policy to Commonwealth public servants, but it is bizarre for the government to be claiming it is offering public servants more choice when it closes off one of the choice options for new public servants. That is just one of the reasons why we are not prepared to support the bills before us.But there are others. We go back to the Prime Minister's broken promise. We have come to expect some pretty colourful and spectacular backflips from the Prime Minister who coined that expression `core and non-core promise' as a way of wriggling out of hand on heart commitments he made to the Australian people both when Leader of the Opposition and in government. The words `core and non-core' have become part of the Australian political vernacular, a sad indictment of the man who gifted them to us.Even given our lowered expectations of prime ministerial integrity and honesty and the fact that we do not expect a whole lot from him, it still comes as some surprise that he would allow this legislation to come forward again, given that it represents an almighty breach of his pre-1996 election promise to Commonwealth public servants. On 29 February 1996, in response to an article in the Australian Financial Review about the coalition's views on public sector superannuation funds, the Prime Minister wrote an open letter to all Commonwealth public servants. He went that far. He wrote an open letter to all Commonwealth public servants claiming that they had been `subjected to a lot of misinformation' about the coalition's position on public sector superannuation.What were those views that the Prime Minister insisted were wrong, insisted were misinformation? The Australian Financial Review article on 28 February was headlined `Coalition vows super cuts' and suggested that the coalition would be slashing Commonwealth employer superannuation contributions to bring them in to line with general industry payments. That article was based on com ments made by the coalition's then spokesperson on public administration, John Moore. A further Financial Review article a day later reported Mr Moore as saying that it was a fair interpretation to assume that there would be cuts to Commonwealth employer contributions in the future.If I had been a public servant at the time and had read those articles and heard those comments from the shadow minister, I would have been pretty concerned and fairly worried that my superannuation entitlements were going to be hacked into by a coalition government. Obviously fearing a backlash from public servants, the Prime Minister decided to take defensive action. He wrote that open letter to all Commonwealth public servants, published in the form of full-page advertisements in the Canberra Times and other newspapers. Members may recall that the Prime Minister was, at that stage, into hosing down and reassuring everybody and promising to do absolutely nothing in what turned out to be a highly successful bid to sneak his way into government. That letter said:I give you my rock-solid guarantee that the Coalition will not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective Commonwealth Government employees.We have to look at public sector superannuation schemes and what has happened to them. I want to emphasise the words `existing and prospective', because those words highlight the Prime Minister's broken promise.Closing the PSS to prospective Commonwealth employees is a cut in entitlements and destroys their access to the public sector industry fund. Mr Howard had attached to his letter a section of the coalition's Public Service superannuation policy which stated:A Coalition Government will guarantee all accrued superannuation entitlements and retain separate arrangements for public sector superannuation.Once again, if I had been a Commonwealth public servant, after reading that letter I would have thought that the coalition was going to continue the superannuation arrangements I was currently enjoying. I would have also thought that new employees were going to be given the same entitlements I had. After all, honest John Howard had given his rock-solid guarantee, and that is something which thousands of Australians thought meant something. As we have subsequently discovered so many times and in so many ways, the Prime Minister's promises are not worth the paper they are written on nor the breath with which they are uttered. These bills are a flagrant and direct breach of Prime Minister Howard's promise. The government and the Prime Minister ought to be condemned for introducing them.It is far from the first time the Prime Minister has broken promises to public servants. They are in fact non-core promises. They are disposable promises. The House would be aware that the Prime Minister made a firm commitment before the last election to cut the public sector by 2,500 by natural attrition with no forced redundancies. That firm commitment became pretty floppy and the 2,500 number awfully rubbery. In the 1997 budget papers, the Howard government conceded that 27,700 Public Service jobs would be cut by 30 June this year. Indeed, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for wage and salary earners for the December quarter of 1997, the number of Australians in broader Commonwealth public sector employment decreased by 77,400, or 21.9 per cent, from February 1996 to November 1997.In much the same way, the Prime Minister also gave a firm commitment to all Commonwealth public servants that a coalition government would be committed to a strong, independent, apolitical Public Service. But this government's attempts to rewrite the Public Service Act will undermine its professionalism and its independence. Commonwealth public servants are becoming used to promises being given by this Prime Minister which he is happy to turn around and break.I want to turn to the 11 ways in which Commonwealth public servants, both new and existing, are going to be disadvantaged by this legislation. First, the PSS will be closed to new employees. Current CSS and PSS members will lose their present right of re-entry to these funds from 1 July this year, unless they have previously preserved contributions.Second, employees will be offered a number of options by the employing agency for the payment of their employer contribution but, unlike other employers, the Commonwealth will not be required to provide the industry scheme as one of the options. This puts Commonwealth employees in a position of less choice than that provided to private sector employees.Third, the government says that it will guarantee only an employer contribution of superannuation guarantee—that is, the community legal minimum standard. On 1 July this year, the superannuation guarantee level became seven per cent. It will move to nine per cent by 1 July 2002. The current employer notional contributions are 13.1 per cent for PSS members—that is to say considerably above the superannuation guarantee contributions—and 21.9 per cent for CSS members. Three per cent of this is the productivity amount which was provided to public servants in lieu of a pay rise some years ago.The government now says that it will fund departments and agencies to the same level for CSS and PSS members, but it has refused to state that it will guarantee individual staff the level of entitlement they currently enjoy under the legislation. So, in effect, new staff lose the certainty of the amount of the employer payment. A new employee has to bargain with the employing agency to get any superannuation contributions above the superannuation guarantee level.Fourth, the closure of the PSS will be a major financial loss to new starters, as currently PSS members can obtain an employer benefit above 13 per cent if they pay higher personal contributions. I understand that over 80 per cent of PSS members contribute above the minimum level, so those new starters will lose out financially immediately the PSS closes.Fifth, it will be possible for agencies to pay the superannuation guarantee and then retain some of the 13.1 per cent paid to the agency. There is nothing to prevent an agency paying some or even all of the remainder as a pay rise as part of pay bargaining.Sixth, we will also see administration costs being transferred from the employer to the employee. CSS and PSS are administered by ComSuper, which is paid for by the employer. New starters and staff who elect to move to a choice scheme will have to pay the administration costs. It is also likely that the employing agency will now deduct the in-agency administration costs from the 13.1 per cent for each new staff member.Seventh, staff will also lose the excellent death and disability insurance benefit provided under CSS and PSS, and they will have to pay the additional costs of purchasing death and disability cover. Eighth, the new arrangements mean that the employer is transferring all liability for final provision of a benefit to employees because of the difference between defined benefit and accumulation schemes.Ninth, the outcomes for a pension retirement benefit as opposed to a lump sum will be worse. It is difficult to calculate, but the cost difference between purchase of a non-indexed pension and an indexed pension provides some guide, and that is in the region of $100,000.Tenth, there is a factor applied to the calculation of the non-contributory period effectively to exclude it for choice purposes. That means that when two people with identical contributions, identical length of service, et cetera, leave the scheme, one through choice but the other through resignation, the person who resigns will get a bigger employer finance benefit than the one who leaves under the choice of fund arrangements. Eleventh, people who choose to leave the CSS after minimum retiring age will also get a lesser benefit if they opt for a postponed pension than a person in similar circumstances who did not choose to go to another scheme.On all those counts, Commonwealth public servants will be disadvantaged by this legislation. For the parliamentary secretary at the table to claim that public servants are not being disadvantaged by the legislation and that therefore in some way the Prime Minister has not dishonoured that election promise of February 1996 is nonsense. We understand that the parliamentary secretary might feel disposed to ingratiate himself to the Prime Minister by making a claim of that kind, but it is not the case. On 11 separate counts this package of legislation will disadvantage Commonwealth public servants in clear and stark breach of the Prime Minister's commitment given to Commonwealth public servants in the shape of an open letter published in various newspapers.The third reason why we do not think this bill should be here is that the general choice of fund legislation has not been passed. Indeed, it is yet to be debated in this House. If the government had a proper sense of decency towards Commonwealth public servants and did not regard them as lesser mortals and second-class human beings, if the government had any sense of responsibility towards parliamentary processes, it would withdraw these bills at least until the general choice of funds legislation is debated in the Senate. This reveals the government's true agenda in introducing these bills. It is not about offering choice of funds to public servants at all; it is about closing off the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme on ideological grounds.Many large corporate superannuation funds offer terrific benefits to their members. There is no doubt about that. They consider superannuation to be an important part of their employees' remuneration, and they offer generous superannuation fund arrangements, including above superannuation guarantee contribution levels. Therefore, why would the government believe that having the PSS available to Commonwealth public servants is out of step somehow with wider community superannuation? These bills prove that yet again we have a government which wants to treat public servants as second class citizens—a group that the government, particularly the Prime Minister, is happy to make commitments and promises to and then break them.Another example of the way in which the Commonwealth has treated public servants can be seen in the application of the superannuation surcharge. I draw to the attention of the House a case that came to me from the member for Grayndler. One of his constituents by the name of Angela Nanson wrote first to the Commissioner for Superannuation, then to the Commissioner for Taxation and then to Mr Albanese as her local member. Her situation was that she had been advised by the Taxation Office that she would have to pay a surcharge amount of $1,706.50. Her taxable income was $72,625, to which was then added a notional employer superannuation contribution of $12,198. This brought up her adjusted taxable income for surcharge purposes to around $84,000. On that imaginary amount, the notional amount, she was then required to pay a total of $29,000 in tax for the 1996-97 year.This was hard enough for Ms Nanson, who indicated to the member for Grayndler that she was a sole supporting parent with a nine-year-old daughter; but, even worse, she discovered that she was being asked to pay more than two colleagues at her workplace who were on SES packages. As she said to the Commissioner for Superannuation:It cannot be correct that a lower level PAYE employee, whose real taxable income is just over the surcharge threshold, is being required to pay more than a member of the SES.Ms Nanson sought an extension of time to pay because she simply did not have the $1,706 in a lump sum to pay within the time given to her. She also sought an investigation of the basis of calculation. Indeed, after the matter had been brought to my attention by the member for Grayndler, I wrote off to the CSS board to check out the application of the surcharge in her case.Towards the end of October I received a response from the CSS board stating that, `Yes, she is right, she is paying a greater surcharge than others in her office who are on higher salaries.' The board went on to explain that the reason that this was so was that the surcharge amount:. . . is determined by multiplying the member's annual superannuation salary by a notional surchargeable contributions factor—what is known in the industry as an NSCF; and that that factor:. . . represents the cost of the employer-financed benefit accruing to the member and is determined by the Australian Government Actuary . . . and that it:. . . varies from 9% to 35% according to variables such as a member's age, scheme commencement date, and length of membership. So, on that basis, it is possible to pay a higher surcharge than a colleague who is on a higher salary. I have to say that, when the government introduced the surcharge to this parliament, it boasted about it as an equitable measure. But how you can defend as an equitable measure something where employees on a lower salary have to pay a higher surcharge than that paid by employees on a higher salary certainly beats me.The opposition will be moving amendments which keep the Prime Minister to his 28 February promise that he would not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes. Those amendments will oppose the closure of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and provide employees with a true choice of funds from 1 July. We will allow the other administrative changes to pass, thereby holding the Prime Minister to his promises as best we can.This bill is simply one more in a package of bills—with choice of fund legislation, Public Sector Superannuation Scheme closure—which will lead to diminished retirement incomes. This is a government which says that it is concerned about the future, that it is concerned about national savings, about retirement incomes. But everything this government does is to the detriment of national savings and retirement incomes.We want to keep the government honest on these matters. We intend to hold it to its election promise that the PSS remains there for new entrants as well as for existing employees.Mr Slipper interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Existing and new members—go back and read the Prime Minister's comments.Mr Slipper interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Disadvantaged in 11 ways—read the speech. We intend to apply our choice of fund model, which is a superior choice of fund model to that which the government has come up with. It amounts to genuine choice of fund for employees, not forced choice of fund on employers. We intend to pursue that in the Senate as well as here. We believe that on these counts we can come up with a much better superannuation arrangement, a much better retirement incomes arrangement than that which the government has been putting forward.I conclude my remarks this evening by referring the House to a very significant press release on the subject of choice of superannuation fund. This press release has been put out today by the Council of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, ASFA. The council has considered the issue of choice of fund, noting that the government's bill has been recently reintroduced into the parliament, and has agreed that:. . . in the current environment first priority in extending member control over their superannuation benefits should be through encouraging informed member investment choice.`Member investment choice' rather than choice of fund—exactly the proposition which Labor has been arguing as a kind of stage 1 introduction of choice of fund for superannuation members with superannuation guarantee contributions. ASFA has expressed concern about the government's choice of fund bill on the basis that:It is likely to increase administrative costs for fund members and employers, and holds a number of dangers for both members and employers.ASFA notes that both the market and the superannuation funds have changed significantly since the legislation was first introduced on 4 December. It states that the choice of fund bill is not now appropriate and that the government has not responded to the necessary member safeguards previously highlighted by ASFA and others. ASFA has proposed that the government ought to reconsider the issue and take it back to the drawing board. That is a very significant development, because it shows that the government's choice model has no support from employers, from workers or from the industry itself. On that basis, it is time for the government to go back to the drawing board and to look seriously at Labor's choice of fund model, which is a far superior model and which has a great degree of support from the industry.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Is the amendment seconded?XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:09:001047Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I rise to support this package of four bills which in total combine to amend the various superannuation arrangements applicable to Commonwealth employees and to support the choice of fund policy for Commonwealth employees. I will turn to the amendment later. The four bills also seek to rationalise the current superannuation schemes, including the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. This is all about choice.The choice of funds policy was announced in the 1997 budget. The purpose of these bills is to ensure that Commonwealth employees in both the general Public Service and a number of Commonwealth authorities may participate alongside the private sector in their choice of fund. It is intended to give the Commonwealth employees greater control over their superannuation arrangements and greater flexibility in making such arrangements so that they are not tied to compulsory membership of the CSS and are in a position to take advantage of the choice of funds offered by employers. This is good not only for the constituents in Curtin and in Wills who are Commonwealth employees but also for the public sector throughout Australia.The first bill in the package, the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998 , will amend the 1990 Superannuation Act and will, in effect, close the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme to new members from 1 July 1999. The closure of the PSS is not contrary to the Prime Minister's 1996 pre-election commitments.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Absolutely right!83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—The bill is entirely consistent with the Prime Minister's pre-election commitments. Current or future Commonwealth employees will not have their entitlements cut. Employees' overall remuneration packages should not reduce, as the government will continue to fund agencies at the existing cost levels of the existing schemes. From 1 July 1999, new members will be able to choose from superannuation arrangements made available by their employer. They will have the same choice of fund that applies to the private sector. Current CSS and PSS members will be able to cease active membership and choose alternative superannuation arrangements if they so desire. Their existing benefits will be preserved in the CSS or the PSS until they reach minimum retirement age or permanently leave the work force, unless they decide to receive immediate benefits on involuntary retirement.A precondition for this choice of fund to Commonwealth employees must be the closure of this government employees `defined benefit fund' to new entrants. Existing employees can choose to retain all existing superannuation entitlements. So all future employees after July 1999 can choose a superannuation scheme, and their employer agency will be budget funded, thus ensuring that the employer contributes no less than current contributions to existing employees.The closure of the unfunded PSS scheme for new employees after July 1999 will require the Commonwealth to contribute to the fund, which will in effect bring a forward expenditure—expenditure otherwise made when the person became entitled to their benefits on retirement or invalidity or redundancy. The estimated increase in cash flows does not represent an additional expense. They are, in effect, a bringing forward of future cash flows in lieu of the increase in unfunded liabilities.It is estimated that, as a result of closing the PSS to new entrants, Commonwealth unfunded liabilities would decrease over time to a point where they would decrease one-third by the year 2025. That was an estimate of the Department of Finance and Administration provided to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation in its consideration of these bills prior to the election. To provide choice and retain the PSS as a fund choice would significantly increase scheme costs and thus the cost to the taxpayer of providing superannuation to public servants. That much should be apparent to the opposition.In relation to the CSS, the bill changes the superannuation redundancy entitlements in line with the 1997 budget announcements and restores the original intention of provisions relating to late election of preservation of benefits. There are other amendments to the 1976 and 1990 acts which are also dealt with in the subsequent bills. This bill seeks to amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act to improve access to spouse benefits. As the main purpose of the legislation is to allow Commonwealth employees to participate in the government's choice of fund arrangements available to the private sector, this first bill of four should be supported. The provision of choice is an important option for all employees both in the public and private sectors. This is all about choice.The second bill, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998 , creates a new Commonwealth Superannuation Board, which will be responsible for the management and administration of the Commonwealth's closed civilian superannuation schemes—the CSS, the PSS and other schemes—and it will replace a number of current administrators, the CSS and PSS currently being administered by two boards. Both boards have delegated the bulk of their administrative powers and responsibilities to ComSuper, and there is a great deal of overlap between the membership of the current PSS and CSS boards and the allocation of investments—they are in fact identical—as well as portfolio allocation.So, consistent with the choice of funds legislation, which includes the closure of the PSS to new employees, the responsibilities of the CSS and PSS boards will be amalgamated into a single board. The new body corporate will take up its responsibilities from 1 July 1999 and will administer and maintain the rules of the closed schemes. The one entity will streamline in an efficient manner the management undertaken by the previous boards where, as I said, the membership and portfolio responsibilities were similar if not identical. It is eminently sensible to have one board with an independent chair and the same number of members nominated by employers as are nominated by scheme members. So the member representatives on the board will be elected by scheme members.The third bill in the package, the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998, arises out of the first bill, the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998 , particularly because of that bill's repeal of a number of schemes. Importantly, this bill continues the operation of those repealed acts, including the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1990, through their administration by the new single entity, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board. As the board will continue to use ComSuper as its provider of scheme administration services to the board, this will remain in place for at least three years. This bill contains provisions to protect members from the impact of the repealed acts. It preserves benefits available to members of the various schemes. Current or future Commonwealth employees will not be worse off, will not have their entitlements cut, will not be disadvantaged.Finally, the fourth bill in this package—all of which are designed to give Commonwealth employees choice in their superannuation funds—the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998, deals with the situation arising from the repeal of acts, setting up the current schemes and the transfer of responsibilities to this new single entity, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board. So the amendments are necessary to amend consequentially a number of other acts.This package of legislation is consistent with the government's 1997 budget measure to implement superannuation fund choice for Commonwealth employees from 1 July 1999. Employees will have greater choice, greater control and greater flexibility with respect to their superannuation savings. Employees will be able to tailor their superannuation arrangements to suit their individual needs—no more compulsory membership of a single inflexible scheme. An impact of this package—particularly the closure of the PSS to new entrants—will be to decrease the Commonwealth's unfunded superannuation liabilities in the long term. It is a responsible measure, a financially responsible initiative. The bills, which are about choice for Commonwealth employees, have much to commend them.18:19:001049Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998, the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 and the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. This reintroduced package of bills is another classic example of this government's new high standards of accountability to the people! You may ask how. That is a pretty fair question. It is really quite simple. Prior to the 1996 federal election—and, while I regret having to go back so far, this bill goes back that far, so it is necessary—the then Leader of the Opposition, and now Prime Minister, personally wrote a letter to all Commonwealth public servants, giving them one of his infamous `rock solid guarantees' that his government would not `cut and destroy' public sector superannuation arrangements for both new and future Commonwealth public servants. The Prime Minister's letter said:I give you my rock-solid guarantee that the coalition will not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective Commonwealth government employees.This same Prime Minister attached to the letter a section of the coalition's public service superannuation policy of the day, which stated:A coalition government will . . . guarantee all accrued superannuation entitlements and retain separate arrangements for public sector superannuation . . . I can assure the previous speaker and other speakers from the other side that those of us who are over here really do understand the intention of the government. We really do understand the evident intention of the government in relation to this package of bills, and that intention is to go back on that commitment. This is a reintroduced package, as we know, and I had the opportunity to speak on this subject in the last parliament. Given the battering that the government took at the last election—and rightfully so—it is really quite amusing to me and a bit of a bizarre puzzle to believe that they are coming back with this legislation and not rethinking what they are doing.The stated purpose of this legislation, as we know, is to amend various superannuation schemes applicable to Commonwealth employees to provide for choice of superannuation fund and to terminate eligibility to enter the current Commonwealth superannuation scheme. The bills contain a number of key features, including the closure of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme—commonly referred to as the PSS—to new members from 1 July 1999, after which date new employees will have to choose a superannuation fund offered by their employer; measures to allow current CSS and PSS members to opt out of their fund and choose an alternative fund offered by their employer from, I think, around 1 July 2000; measures to allow CSS members to transfer amounts held in the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust, AGEST, or other funds to the CSS; modifications to redundancy entitlement arrangements for CSS members who cease employment as a result of a sale or outsourcing; new preservation arrangements from 1 July 1999 for the employer financed component of a CSS lump sum; and a number of supplementary administrative arrangements that are necessary.Currently, most public servants are required to become members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, the PSS, or are existing members of the now closed Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, the CSS. The coalition's 1996 pre-election policy statement included a commitment to maintain that separate public sector superannuation arrangement. There is no doubt about that. It is what we call an industry fund these days.We on this side believe that the PSS should be maintained as the industry fund. With the greatest respect to the members opposite who are arguing—that is their job; they have to come in here and argue this case—we believe that it is quite misleading and quite mischievous to suggest that what they are doing here is actually in line in any sense at all with that stated policy that the Prime Minister touted so much back in February 1996. If he had any intention of changing the scheme as it was known—or the system as it was recognised then—then why go to the bother of writing to every Commonwealth public servant to attempt to assure them that nothing would be done? I do not understand the logic behind that. Why do that and then turn around and do what you have said to them in a personal letter you won't do?The other aspect of this is the public servant involved. It is really quite sad and a little bit pathetic to have to note that the number of public servants this is going to affect is dropping day by day. Another 5,000 Centrelink public servants are not going to be involved for much longer in any super schemes no matter how they exist. The cynicism out in the community at large—let alone within the public sector community—in relation to this government's consideration and belief in them is now testimony for itself. We had promises that we would not sack any public servants. We had promises at the beginning of the 1996 term that there would be only 2,500 public servants ever sacked and, frankly, I have lost count—30,000, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000; you could pick a number on the board.The hypocrisy of this government in relation to its intended use of public sector workers in this country is now breathtaking. This is another example of how that hypocrisy has gone to a rampant level. No wonder people in the community sit out there and say, `How can we believe any politician any more?' This Prime Minister is the man who raised the high-jump bar so high, but he did it on purpose. He did it because he said that he was going to bring in this new standard of accountability, this new standard of honesty, this new standard in parliamentary behaviour. In the last 2½ years in this place we have witnessed time and time again an abuse of that undertaking, and we all know that. Nobody in this House on either side could deny that that is what we have seen. Now we see a promise—written individually to thousands of Commonwealth public servants—broken. It is little wonder that the level of cynicism in the community towards the parliament, its members and the institution itself is where it is on the graph.As far as I am concerned, nobody deserves to earn their stripes in any career by undertaking to do one thing and then blatantly doing the other, and that applies in this place as well. I am a member of this place. I attempt as hard as I can and as often as I can to be honest and to call it as it is. I have no intention of telling my constituency something that is not the case as I understand it. I find it pretty rough that as an honest member of this place—and I am not the only one; there are many of us here—we have to then wear the outcome, the flow-on, from these sorts of decisions.Any government, any minister, any shadow minister, then has the job of trying to convince the community that what you are intending to do with them and for them is for their benefit and our benefit collectively, and they do not believe you—and you wonder why they do not believe you. Well, here is an example; here is an absolutely perfectly example. I defy anybody on the other side of this House to convince me or anybody else that this is not a flip-over, that this is not a blatant recall of policy, that this is not a blatant action of hypocrisy in relation to an undertaking given personally by the Prime Minister of this country to thousands of Commonwealth public servants. That is what it is. That is what it is seen as. That is what it is recognised as by the Commonwealth public servants working in this community. That is why the workers of this country look at the MUA dispute and scratch their heads.All honesty and all respectability starts to become so threatened by this very action. Frankly, I do not care how those on the other side attempt to justify the financial responsibility—if there is any—for this sort of decision. It is bigger than that. It is a case of credibility. It is a case of honesty. It is a case of being who you are and standing up and giving a commitment. And if you are going to break the commitment, say so—say that that is what you are doing. Don't hide behind some mystical sense of words about, `No, this is exactly what we intended.' Rubbish! It has nothing to do with what was intended—nothing at all. Unless of course I am wrong and this is what was intended all along, and is being done as was intended all along, and those letters from the Prime Minister were nothing more than letters of deceit. That is what I believe they were. I cannot see any other explanation for it.I know from the public servants that I speak to that they have had it up to the eyeballs. They get kicked; they get abused; they get sacked; they get retrenched; they get outsourced; they get their superannuation scheme taken off them—and you wonder why people in the community are cynical towards this government and, sadly, this parliament. It is about time people stood up and said to the Prime Minister, `Enough is enough.' I know we do it often, but I am wondering how many people on the other side have the nerve to start to say it to him as well. I urge them to because this is nothing more than an act of absolute deceit upon every Commonwealth public servant in this country and it stands to be condemned.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:001051Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Why are we here? Why are we debating this legislation? I can tell you why—because the Prime Minister cannot keep his word. This legislation is just another example of why any written guarantees by this Prime Minister are written in water. `Honest John' is how the Prime Minister likes to think of himself, but there is little that can be said for some of his rock solid promises over his time in the top job. This is the Prime Minister that gave us core and non-core promises. What is `core' and `non-core'? Perhaps it is the difference between truths and untruths.This legislation was debated during the last parliament, and there were a great number of reasons put forward as to why this piece of legislation should not be allowed to pass without amendment. The hypocrisy of this government is outstanding. That they can make guarantees and not fulfil them is a disgrace. It seems as though the Prime Minister's chest beating pleas during campaigns are just sleight of hand tricks. Let me remind the House, as other colleagues of mine have done during this and other debates, of the Prime Minister's words:I give my rock-solid guarantee that the coalition will not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective Commonwealth government employees.Let me just repeat some of those words: `rock-solid guarantee', `will not cut and destroy', `existing and prospective'. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer in his words than he was in that letter. There was no dodging of the issue, no half-truths or rumours. He was absolutely certain about what he was saying, yet now we see this legislation that makes a mockery of his guarantees come before us again. If the Prime Minister is not true to his word when it is that clear, then what can we trust him on?This legislation proposes to cut and destroy the superannuation schemes of the Public Service. It proposes removing the entitlements of the existing service and not giving the same benefits to the future employees of the Public Service. The net effect will be to change the superannuation of the 69,000 members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and the 114,000 members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme.The Prime Minister made his comments the day after newspaper reports suggested that these superannuation schemes would be cut. It was just days before the 1996 election. The person making the suggestions was the then opposition spokesperson for public administration, now the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore. I suppose the least I can say about this whole joke of a process is that the one and only person we might be able to believe is the Minister for Defence.The Prime Minister, desperate not to get public servants offside prior to the election, wrote an open letter to all public servants in the form of a full-page advertisement in the Canberra Times. In that same open letter he also stated part of the policy he was running on: A Coalition Government will guarantee all accrued superannuation entitlements and retain separate arrangements for public sector superannuation.Again, this was an abject untruth. If we look at the propositions of this legislation, there are no separate entitlements and arrangements. In fact, with no industry scheme available, the Public Service will be more disadvantaged than many other groups in the community that have had the choice of their own industry scheme. But what do we see from these `rock solid' guarantees? We see them cast aside for blind ideological reasons. There are no good economic reasons why the existing schemes cannot continue to be included in the choices that public servants have and why their entitlements cannot continue to be met. The National Commission of Audit criticised the cost of the schemes, even though it did mention that unfunded liabilities were declining. So there is no other reason than ideology for opposing these schemes.We have an insight into the Prime Minister's and the coalition's ideological vision of the future in the National Commission of Audit report that was supposedly written straight after they won government in 1996. In it, the authors call for the abolition or, as it was termed, `replacement', of the defined scheme with an accumulation scheme. It was a nice way of saying that the industry scheme should be abolished and replaced with a commercial one not handled by the government.There are disadvantages to this bill's proposals. Let me list a few: the closure of the scheme to new employees; no industry scheme available to the Public Service; the benefits currently entitled to the Public Service to be replaced with the minimum standards required, which is a distinct loss of entitlements; the loss of a three per cent productivity gain paid as superannuation in lieu of pay some years ago; the loss of the current 13 per cent superannuation payments can be retained by the government and some departments, either as a saving or for other purposes; employees will bear the burden of fund administration costs; benefits from the current scheme will be lost; and outcomes for pension and lump sum payments will be worse. Labor has proposed a series of changes to this legislation. We believe that there can be changes made to the current superannuation schemes without resorting to the dramatic changes proposed by this government. There can be choice and there can be option within schemes, but it does not need to be done in such a way that current and future employees of the Public Service are disadvantaged.What we see here in this superannuation bill is the ideological hatred for employee-employer savings by this government. We hear the Treasurer complain over and over again about how there are not enough domestic savings in the economy. Yet superannuation is domestic savings. We hear from this government that they want choice of funds for employees, but this legislation offers no industry scheme to give employees a choice.The choice that employees will have is either a private sector scheme or a retirement savings account. We have all heard the debate in the last parliament about how poor the RSAs were for employees. Sure, the banks thought they were great for business, but the whole point of superannuation is that the money in large industry funds can not only provide benefits for the employee but can also be used as a pool of savings for the nation.This legislation is as poor as the retirement savings account legislation that was debated in the last parliament. They claimed that employers would be better off with these schemes. Yet the employer has a greater workload and administrative cost in making these schemes work and there are not the kinds of large industry funds available to provide the best returns for the employees.Ideology drives this government. Nothing drives their ideology more than their dislike for the national Public Service. How many other areas of the Public Service have come under attack from this government? You cannot look at this legislation alone when considering what this government has done since 1996. Centrelink has been assaulted—and I mean assaulted—by this mean, petty government. Five thousand jobs have been earmarked to go. The outcome of that will be the destruction of services to the community, cuts to education, cuts to child care and health care, 62,000 federal public sector jobs abolished and pressure put on this parliament to politicise the Public Service.Might I also mention the Public Service Bill 1997—the bill that tried to politicise the Public Service, make it an instrument of the government and not an instrument of the nation. The bill was so appalling that it was widely condemned for its vile attacks on the nature of the Public Service.What we see with this bill is that it forms part of a concerted attack by this government to dismantle the Public Service. It does not believe in the federal government or the federal public sector. Benchmark, collect taxes and destroy the morale of the military are all this government thinks that it should be doing. We oppose this legislation because we believe in the Public Service. We believe that the schemes currently available should be retained and choice offered for those who want it. This government talks about choice and really just pays it rhetoric, poor and pathetic lip-service.20:12:001053Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I would like at the outset to thank particularly the honourable member for Curtin for her erudite performance and also the honourable members for Wills, Canberra and Fowler at least for their participation. Opposition members have indicated a number of concerns about the superannuation bills under consideration by this House. The government makes absolutely no apology for the fact that we remain committed to the introduction of new superannuation arrangements that will give workers control over their superannuation savings.The package of bills we are debating at this time will allow Commonwealth employees to participate in the proposed new choice of fund arrangements. Listening to the contributions made by some of those opposite, it was very clear that they have totally misunderstood the very many meaningful and necessary changes contained in this package of bills.Instead of being required in most cases to join the PSS, future Commonwealth employees will be able to choose the scheme to which their employer contributions are to be paid according to the choice options offered by their employer. Employer contributions will be paid to that scheme at a rate agreed between employer and employee. Budget funded Commonwealth agencies will continue to be funded at the existing cost levels of the current schemes. In the context of the devolution of employer responsibilities to agency level, it is more appropriate to allow the level of contributions to be agreed between the employer and employee, and they may be taken partly as superannuation and partly in some other way.The bills also allow members of the PSS and CSS from 1 July 2000 to move to another superannuation scheme offered by their employer. However, they do not have to change. They will not have to move from the CSS or PSS if they do not wish to. We do not agree with the opposition that the PSS should remain an option for new employees and to do so would not meet the government's objective to provide its employees with superannuation arrangements that are more portable and more flexible than the current arrangements.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member for Wills ought to listen. If he did, he would hear that actuarial advice has said that, if the PSS were to remain open as an option for new employees, this would increase the employer cost, as only employees who were likely to obtain most benefits from the scheme would join. In order to contain any increase in costs, we would need to consider changes to the scheme to ensure that the costs were not affected as a result of members moving in and out of the scheme.When one listened to the participation in this debate by the honourable members for Wills, Canberra and Fowler, it was very obvious that they are still seeking to fight the class warfare battles of the 1890s. I am sick and tired of listening to Labor speaker after Labor speaker standing up in this place and suggesting that the Prime Minister and the government are in some way, shape or form breaching an obligation or a campaign promise. Nothing could be further from the truth. We promised that the coalition would not cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes or the entitlements of existing and prospective government employees. There is absolutely nothing in the bills before the chamber tonight which breaches that commitment given by the Prime Minister prior to the election.Let us look at the facts. The honourable member for Wills ought to recognise, if he had read the bill and if he had listened to the second reading speech, that members are not being forced from the CSS or PSS. From 1 July 2000, CSS and PSS members can choose to leave the CSS or PSS if they wish. There is absolutely no compulsion in relation to this. They can remain in their current schemes if they wish, and no changes are being made to reduce their benefits. The new choice benefit in the CSS is to ensure that the unfunded liabilities of the scheme do not increase as a result of members exercising choice.It ought to be noted also that the government will continue to fund budget agencies, as I said before, at the existing cost levels of current schemes. So there is no need for a new employee's remuneration package to decrease. There will be no change in contributions for those people who choose to stay in the CSS or PSS. Much of the debate by the other side has concentrated not so much on the rights of existing members, because there appears to be a broad consensus that the situation of existing members will not be affected adversely. Honourable members opposite ought to appreciate that new members will not be adversely affected either. They will be able to receive the same level of employer contributions as members of the PSS.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Listen again, my friend, employers and employees will be free to negotiate whether their funding is used to provide the same level of employer superannuation contributions or whether some is directed to increase salary or enhance other employment conditions. This is not about reduced benefits; this is all about flexibility. It is all about employers and employees, including public servants, being able to sit down and work out what packages most suit them.Also, honourable members opposite have suggested that it is inappropriate that members of the PSS and CSS who cease membership on or after the deferred date of closure of the PSS will not be eligible to rejoin the PSS or CSS if they recommence Commonwealth employment at a later date. It ought to be noted that, unlike people who have already left the CSS or PSS by the deferred PSS closure date, these persons will cease CSS or PSS membership with the knowledge that they will not be able to resume active membership. People who leave the CSS or PSS before the new arrangements apply will still have the options available to them when they left.It also has been suggested by Labor members that the PSS should remain open as an industry fund and that, if it were to close, Commonwealth employees would have less choice than other employees. Commonwealth employers have the same responsibilities and requirements under the general choice of fund legislation as other employers. Commonwealth employers, like other employers, do not have to offer a closed superannuation fund when providing choice under the choice legislation.An employer is not required to offer a fund if he or she cannot make contributions to it, and the general choice of fund legislation does not force any closed funds being opened or prevent a fund—for example, the PSS—being closed. Therefore, new Commonwealth employees will not have any fewer number of funds available to them under the general choice of fund legislation as other employees in the community as a result of the PSS being closed.I want to reiterate this next point because there may be some people listening who might be misguided by the inaccurate statements made by the honourable members opposite, particularly the honourable member for Fowler and the honourable member for Canberra. The government is going to continue to fund budget agencies at the existing cost levels of current schemes. We are not walking away from the commitment we gave to public servants prior to the 1996 election. We are lock, stock and barrel observing the commitment given to public servants by the Prime Minister prior to the poll. There will be no need for the employee's remuneration package to decrease. As I said before, they will be free to sit down, talk and make sure that the package is in fact suitable for employees and employers.The level of employer superannuation contributions cannot be less than that required to satisfy the employer superannuation guarantee obligations. While only the superannuation guarantee is actually guaranteed by legislation, it is no different for the general work force. The treatment of new employees might well be a little different from that of existing employees, but those new employees will be treated equally, fairly and equitably.It was also suggested that the closure of the PSS may be a major financial loss to new employees as currently they can obtain an employer benefit greater than 13 per cent if they contribute higher than two per cent. It ought to be noted and recognised that the 13 per cent is an actuarially determined average cost for all PSS members. This rate does not reflect the employer contribution for any individual employee or for any particular employee contribution rate. Because the 13 per cent is an average cost, some PSS members receive less than 13 per cent and some receive more than 13 per cent. It is very unlikely that all employees who contribute two per cent of salary into the PSS would receive superannuation benefits that equate to an employer contribution of 13 per cent.I reiterate for people like the honourable member for Wills, who seems to have great difficulty in understanding the intricacies of this legislation and its fairness, that an employer and employee can agree on a mix of superannuation and other salary components. It is quite wrong to suggest that, just because the superannuation is not guaranteed at the level that it is, the remuneration and other benefits received by the employee will be any less.A number of other matters were raised by various members. I think the honourable member for Wills may have, in his fairly superficial treatment of this matter, suggested that administration costs may be transferred from the employer to the employee. One ought to appreciate the significance of these funds and the nature of them. Who pays the administration cost is related to scheme design: in a defined benefits scheme usually the employer is responsible and in an accumulation scheme it is usually the employee who is responsible. Employers and employees will be free to take into account fund administration costs in negotiating the overall remuneration package.Some people in the general community have talked about the matter of death and disability insurance. We agree that that is an important feature of fund design and the Commonwealth will be strongly encouraging Commonwealth employers and employees to take into account the issue of death and disability insurance in selecting funds.This is a very important package of legislation. It is a package of four bills. They are all very necessary and they are all consistent with the Prime Minister's pledge to the Australian people and particularly to public servants prior to the last election.There are a couple of other matters I would like to address before I resume my seat. One is the question of why the PSS should not be an open choice fund. The PSS is a defined benefits scheme and the provision of choice of fund does not sit well with an open defined benefits superannuation scheme. Under choice, if members could transfer in and out of a defined benefits scheme the members would be able to play arbitrage against the fund, which has the potential of significantly increasing the cost of the scheme. That would mean that people would be able to opt in when they want to or opt out when they want to with the result that the scheme would not be able to be administered fairly for all employees.The capacity for members to transfer in and out of a defined benefits scheme significantly increases the financial risk faced by employers. Employers could never be sure of the membership base of the scheme and, as a consequence, they could not be sure of the employer contributions required to maintain the scheme. We would all be aware that, with defined benefits schemes, it is the employer who has all of the financial risk.To provide choice and to continue to have the PSS option, as I think was suggested by the honourable member for Fowler, would have the potential to significantly increase the cost to the taxpayer of providing superannuation to public servants. To provide choice and to continue to have the PSS option at equivalent cost would require a substantial redesign of the PSS. The Australian Government Actuary has indicated to the government that redesign would result in the PSS looking like an accumulation scheme.There are benefits. Through the closure of the PSS there will be more opportunities for Commonwealth employees to have choice and control over their superannuation savings and it will provide more flexible and portable arrangements than have been available to most employees in the past. Closure of the PSS funding of future contributions for new employees and CSS or PSS members choosing another fund will decrease the Commonwealth's unfunded superannuation liability over time.Summing up, these are very important bills. They are bills which are completely consistent with our election pledges. Unlike the Labor Party, which has a litany of broken promises to its credit, this government places very great store in its credibility with the Australian people. When we make promises to people prior to an election, we certainly keep them. The bills currently before the chamber are entirely consistent with keeping the pledges made by the Prime Minister to public servants.I think it does absolutely nothing for the image and reputation of this place when we find that members of the opposition do not hesitate to come in here and distort the facts. These bills are absolutely, totally and completely in line with the Prime Minister's commitment to public servants. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I commend these four bills to the chamber.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment) stand part of the question.20:33:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews)72Abbott, A. J. Andren, P. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Downer, A. J. G.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. *Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.62Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Crean, S. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1057Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:40:001057Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 2), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Part 1 of Schedule 1, Part 1 of Schedule 3 and Schedules 7, 8, 10 and 11 commence on 1 July 1999.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 11 to 16), omit subclauses (7) to (9).(3) Schedule 1, items 249 and 250, page 93 (lines 8 to 11), omit the items.(4) Schedule 2, page 99 (lines 2 to 6), omit the Schedule.(5) Schedule 3, item 15, page 104 (line 25) to page 105 (line 11), omit the item.(6) Schedule 4, page 110 (lines 2 to 6), omit the Schedule. (7) Schedule 6, page 130 (lines 2 to 6), omit the Schedule.(8) Schedule 9, page 134 (lines 2 to 6), omit the Schedule.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration certainly gave the game away in the course of his reply. On the one hand, he was trying to tell us that the pledges made by the Prime Minister had been entirely consistent with this bill, but on the other hand he was saying to us that he could not accept what the opposition was putting forward because of the cost to employers. Clearly he cannot have it both ways. Either the bill is going to disadvantage public servants or the Prime Minister has in fact been caught out in relation to this pre-election pledge.There are a number of points that the parliamentary secretary did not refer to on the way through in terms of the impact of this bill on Commonwealth public servants. I draw his attention to them and seek his response to our allegation that this amounts to a detriment to Commonwealth public servants. I draw his attention to the fact that the closure of the PSS for new starters will involve substantial financial loss, because currently you can obtain an employer benefit above 13 per cent if you pay higher personal contributions. As I said before, some 80 per cent of PSS members pay those higher personal contributions. Under the new arrangements, you would not be able to do that. So those new starters lose out immediately and financially upon the closure of the PSS.Another point I want to draw out some more is his comments in relation to death and disability insurance benefit cover. He described the government as being aware of this and as wanting to encourage Commonwealth public servants to take out death and disability insurance benefit cover. But clearly under the existing arrangement they already have it. They would have to pay the additional costs of purchasing death and disability cover. So on that count we would say it is clear that this bill will disadvantage new Commonwealth public servants.Another point I want to draw out is that there is a difference between a pension retire ment benefit as opposed to a lump sum. Where you calculate the cost difference between purchasing a non-indexed pension and an indexed pension, you get a difference in the order of $100,000. So we are talking about some pretty serious outcomes here. The parliamentary secretary needs to explain to the House why this bill will not disadvantage Commonwealth public servants on those counts.I also seek from him an explanation as to just how public sector scheme members could use choice to arbitrage different superannuation schemes if the PSS were to remain an industry fund, as he claimed in his summing up. As we are considering this issue in committee, it might be appropriate for the parliamentary secretary to provide the House with some responses concerning those matters.20:44:001058Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—At the outset, the government rejects the amendments being moved by the opposition, as one would expect, because they seek to water down the important reforms contained in the legislation. At the outset, I want to stress that the Commonwealth will encourage Commonwealth employers and employees to consider the very important matter of death and disability insurance in selecting funds. The member for Wills suggested that, because death and disability benefits are incorporated in the current fund, by moving to more flexible arrangements we are detracting from the benefits that are available.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—We very strongly support the principle of death and disability insurance. We are all about flexibility. We are saying to people that they are able to sit down with their public sector employers, their Commonwealth employers, and negotiate a package which is most suitable to them. We would hope and strongly encourage that death and disability benefits be included as part of the tailoring of an appropriate fund design. We believe that that is particularly important.There was also certain ongoing suggestions that members of the Commonwealth Public Service would be disadvantaged because they would no longer have access to the PSS fund. In my initial contribution I pointed out very clearly that members are not disadvantaged. While there might be some changes in the nature of the particular provisions applying to new members of the fund, their treatment will be absolutely equal and will in no way be watered down or inferior to the benefits which are currently provided.The 13.1 per cent is an actuarially determined average cost for all PSS members. It ought to be recognised that this rate does not reflect the employer contribution for any individual employee or for any particular employee contribution rate. The 13.1 per cent is an average cost. Because that is the case, some PSS members cost less than 13.1 per cent and some cost more than 13.1 per cent. As I said in my summing up, it is very unlikely that all employees who contribute two per cent of salary to the PSS would receive superannuation benefits that equate to an employer contribution of 13.1 per cent.Again, I come back to the key basis of this legislation. It is not about reducing the benefits to Commonwealth employees; it is all about giving them choice. It is all about bringing in flexibility. It is all about allowing them the privileges that exist in other parts of the work force. The government said prior to the election that we would not disadvantage present or future members of the Commonwealth Public Service. No member of the Commonwealth Public Service who is currently in the CSS or the PSS scheme will have to change. There is no obligation on people to elect to move away from those schemes. Any member of those existing schemes—the PSS and the closed CSS—can elect to stay in or they can elect to move out.In relation to new employees, there will be benefits of an equal nature but they will be different benefits. The benefits are not being reduced. It does not matter how often the member opposite tries to tell us the benefits are being reduced. The simple fact of the matter is that benefits for new Commonwealth employees will be every bit as good as those for existing Commonwealth employees and the amount of money being paid by the Commonwealth will not reduce. Some may be paid for superannuation and some may be paid as other parts of a tailor-made package as agreed between the employer and the employee.20:49:001059Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The parliamentary secretary just told us that this bill is all about giving Commonwealth public servants choice and flexibility. My question to him is: if new Commonwealth employees choose the ABC superannuation fund, or whatever superannuation fund, to move their money to, can they move their money to that superannuation fund? It is a simple question. If they make a choice that they want their money to be moved into a particular superannuation fund, can they move their money there?20:50:001059Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—New members of the Commonwealth Public Service who join after the PSS is closed, following the situation which existed with the CSS, will have the opportunity to enter into a range of funds offered by the Commonwealth employer.Ms Hoare interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The PSS is closing. The Labor Party closed the CSS some years ago. I think it was about 1990 or 1991. This is a very sensible and reasonable reform entirely consistent with the commitments given by the government and the Prime Minister to public servants prior to the election.20:52:001059Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—What a lame and dismal defence we have had of this set of broken election promises on the part of the Prime Minister. The parliamentary secretary wants to tell us that this is about giving employees choice. In fact, what they get is a choice which comes from the employer which is employer driven. It is not a choice which includes the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme—the scheme to which they have had access in the past, the scheme which provides a whole range of benefits which they will no longer have access to. The other point I make about the parliamentary secretary's defence of this broken election promise is that he completely blew out of the water the government's proposition concerning choice in relation to defined benefit funds generally. He said that one of the reasons why they cannot continue the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme is that it is a defined benefit scheme and choice does not work in relation to defined benefit schemes. If he bothers to go and read the other piece of government legislation concerning choice of superannuation fund, he will find that the government is proposing to do precisely that.Labor's amendments to this bill are designed to keep the Prime Minister to his 28 February 1996 promise to all Commonwealth public servants not to cut and destroy public sector superannuation schemes. We do this by opposing the closure of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. The amendments which I have moved also propose that employees be provided with genuine choice of funds from 1 July 2000, including access to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, which is the natural industry fund for all Commonwealth public servants.As I indicated previously, by moving the amendments in this way, we are allowing the other administrative changes to pass at this stage. I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate that the Prime Minister and his government ought to be condemned for breaking their promise to existing and prospective Commonwealth public servants not to cut and destroy their superannuation fund, which is precisely what they have done by proposing here to close the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme.The last time this bill came before the House the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Fahey, indicated in closing the second reading debate that this was about offering choice to Commonwealth public servants. We know that this is an attempt to hide the truth of the matter just as the surcharge tax was an attempt to hide the Prime Minister's new tax on superannuation to pretend he had not broken that promise that there would be no new taxes or increases of existing taxes.The closure of the PSS will limit the choices of new Commonwealth public servants, not enhance them. That is why our amendments oppose closure of the PSS and why we are offering employees a true choice of fund from 1 July 2000. After that date, employees can reach agreement with their employers to opt out of the PSS should they choose to do so. It will be entirely up to the individual. It will be genuine employee choice; it will not be forced employer choice, as provided for under the government's model. That is consistent with Labor's broader superannuation choice of fund model, which best meets the needs of those whose superannuation funds are at stake, not the vested interests but the interests of the employees themselves. This package of bills contains other measures which we are not opposing at this stage and our amendments will allow those measures to go through.On the issue of the start date, Labor believes there should be one consistent start date for both new and existing employees and that that start date should not be until 1 July 2000. It is hard to understand why the government is pursuing a split start date for new and existing employees. In fact, the Minister for Finance and Administration has already made out the case for Labor's position on choice, particularly in relation to the start date.On 13 May this year—the last time we were considering these bills—the minister said in response to my calls for there to be a thorough government education campaign on choice:I have noted the encouragement he—the member for Wills—has given the government to embark upon a public education campaign to ensure that all workers understand that choice might be there—there seems to be a lack of knowledge on that choice at this point in time.If the minister believed in May of this year that there was a lack of knowledge on the part of employees concerning choice, what has happened in the meantime to change that perception? There has been no government funded education campaign on choice of fund. There has been a government funded campaign in the order of $15 million of tax payers' money advertising the GST package prior to calling a federal election, but we have not seen any advertisements concerning choice of fund. I wonder why the Minister for Finance and Administration now thinks the lack of knowledge he claimed was evident in May is suddenly not there any more.On the issue of preservation of entitlements, Labor is proposing that the current PSS and CSS rules should apply—that is, employees who suffer involuntary retirement can access both their own and the employer's contributions as a cash lump sum until 1 July 2000. The reason we do this is that the government announced in the 1997 budget that from 1 July 1999 all contributions to superannuation funds must be preserved, but private sector workers will still be able to access their non-preserved benefits, both employer and employee, accrued at that date—that is to say the preservation policy is prospective. The government is proposing here to bring forward the 1 July 2000 Public Service preservation date to 1 July 1999 in line with its 1997 budget announcement. However, Labor believes that the current rules should apply. That is why our amendments oppose the government's attempts to bring the date forward.Finally, I want to briefly mention what is happening in the United Kingdom. There we saw mass misselling of pension products after the Thatcher government introduced a similar policy to what the Howard government is proposing. Thousands of employees were encouraged to leave perfectly good defined benefit funds and take up private pension plans, which is exactly what this government's bill would have them do. However, some of the largest players in the pension fund industry in the UK saw it as open slather to lure people into products which did not meet the best interests of the people buying them. They offered increased fees, charges and commissions to those who sold the products.The UK ended up with a massive case of industry misselling, which has led to a compensation bill of some $18 billion, growing by the day. Some estimates suggest that it will take in the order of six to seven years to fix that clear-cut case of misselling—that is, the misselling debacle will still be around in the UK in the year 2004. That is a serious problem which Australia cannot afford to allow to happen here. That is one of the main reasons why the opposition opposes the government's decision to close the PSS and offer open slather choice to public sector workers. I commend the amendments to the House.20:57:001061Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—The matters contained in the bill have been fairly well canvassed. The member for Wills did mention the United Kingdom. I think most people would readily agree that the mistakes which occurred in the United Kingdom must be avoided. We have already stated it is very important that people should have the opportunity to make an informed choice, and the government is currently in the process of developing necessary education measures to make sure that the mistakes made in the United Kingdom are not repeated. Employers will be required to provide members with information about the consequences of leaving a defined benefit fund as part of the choice arrangements.The other point that ought be noted in closing is that each department and agency will be regarded as an individual employer for the purposes of complying with the choice arrangements and will have the responsibility of deciding on the particular choice of fund option to be offered to staff. It will be a requirement that Commonwealth employees be provided with any prescribed information that is required to be provided to employees in the wider community. This will be the responsibility of their employer. It will not be centrally organised or managed for Commonwealth employers.The government does not resile from its point of view that it is important that people should make an informed choice, and I reiterate that necessary education measures are currently in the process of being developed. Our department, the Department of Finance and Administration, will be issuing general advice bulletins from time to time that will outline issues relevant to Commonwealth employers and employees; these, of course, will be able to be accessed through the department's home page. We, naturally, oppose the amendments, and we commend the bills to the House. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.21:05:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)61Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crosio, J. A.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.73Abbott, A. J. Andren, P. J.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. *Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Crean, S. F. Fischer, T. A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.1062Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1062r6301062Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1063Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills1063r6271063Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1063Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills1063r6261063Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1063Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time. Bills1063r5991063Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.21:16:001063Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—This is the first piece of the government's industrial relations legislation in this parliament—that carries on their performance in the last parliament—which is designed to reduce the conditions of employment of ordinary Australian men and women in the work force. It is the first of three bills that were announced to be introduced before the end of this year as a precursor to a major second wave of industrial reform next year—no doubt predicated on the Des Moore paper released by the minister last Friday.The bill before us today deals with unfair dismissals and is in many respects a simple piece of legislation. It has at its heart the intention of denying some hundreds of thousands of employees—in fact probably some millions of employees—who currently have access to unfair dismissal laws the right to continue to have access to unfair dismissal laws. Specifically, the bill imposes a six-month continuous service probationary period for those workers not presently covered by a probationary period through award, agreement or other legislative means, and it also ensures that employees who work for a company that employs 15 people or fewer lose their rights to unfair dismissal. That is, people working for an employer where there are 15 or fewer people, and who currently have access to unfair dismissal rights, will have their access to a remedy against harsh, unfair or unreasonable treatment removed from them by virtue of this bill.It is worth reminding ourselves, having looked at the main purpose of the bill, what the Prime Minister had to say before he became Prime Minister. The famous words that all of us on this side of the House recall were: No worker in Australia under the Howard industrial relations system can have his or her award conditions taken from him or her.That was John Howard's commitment to the people of Australia in the lead-up to the 1996 election. Here we have the first piece of legislation in his second term in office and he is legislating to take away from employees presently working in small business any access whatsoever to unfair dismissal laws. You can add that to the list of broken promises, or you can put down the Prime Minister's comments on that occasion as non-core promises.He made the other memorable comments in relation to industrial relations at about the same time in the lead-up to that election: that `under a Howard government you cannot be worse off'. Of course most Australians understood that they were worse off at the last election, which is why this government presides on the smallest percentage of voter support achieved by any government in the history of the national parliament. That is why we in opposition happen to have the highest vote of any opposition in the history of this parliament. Most Australians understood that, but they are now seeing that principle reinforced very directly by this government's decision to remove from their existing conditions any access to unfair dismissal proceedings.It needs to be remembered that the matters that are before us now have largely been before the parliament on another occasion. Certainly the section of the bill dealing with small business has been before the parliament on two other occasions and has twice been rejected by the Senate, and I anticipate that it will suffer the same fate when it goes into the other place this time.What we have here is an amendment not to Labor's laws of 1994 but an amendment to the government's laws. These are Peter Reith's laws. This is Peter Reith's unfair dismissal law that the government is now saying is ineffective. This is the outcome they wanted in the last parliament and which Peter Reith heralded as a great improvement on the previous Labor legislation. Now, in the second term of this government, they want to renege on the undertakings they gave the Australian people; they want to renege on the agreement they had with the Democrats; and they now want to introduce new provisions that will strip away even further the rights of Australian men and women.It is worth putting on the record the changes that the Liberal government made to the Labor unfair dismissal laws in the last parliament, just to reinforce the point that what we are dealing with here is not a change to Labor's laws. We have at the moment the preferred model of Peter Reith—or at least it used to be until he decided he wanted to strip further rights away from workers. What has changed since our 1996 legislation is this: there has been a change in the onus of proof from the employer to the employee, that is, in unfair dismissal cases now, under the law the employee has the onus of proof placed upon him or her in relation to proving that there is unfair, harsh or unjust treatment of them in the dismissal process. That is a very significant change.The hearings are now heard in the commission instead of the Federal Court and that reduces substantially the costs involved, yet costs may be awarded if the employee proceeds with a claim that is considered to be vexatious or frivolous. So, already in the first three items I have mentioned, you can see a very substantial shift in the way in which the legislation operates.In the previous parliament, the government introduced an application fee of $50 as a disincentive to people that want to speculate on the off-chance they might get something. In dealing with unfair dismissal cases now, the commission is actually required to take into account not just the facts of whether or not a person has been harshly and unfairly treated but whether or not the employer is able to viably deal with any costs or award of damages in lieu of reinstatement. So you can actually have a circumstance where the commission is satisfied beyond all doubt that an employee was harshly and unfairly dealt with and the commission believes that a remedy should be imposed but, by virtue of Peter Reith's existing legislation, the worker can get no remedy because that particular enterprise may be deemed not to be viable enough to sustain the cost. And we have already seen the lengths to which some employers in this country will go to contrive business structures to avoid their obligations to workers. The waterfront dispute with Patrick's is the most obvious of those examples.Procedural fairness in dealing with unfair dismissals is no longer a mandatory requirement, and that removed one of the major objections that I know was raised during the period 1994-96. Probationary employees are excluded from any access to the unfair dismissal legislation.All that is not good enough for this government. They actually now want to legislate so that someone who does not have a probationary period in their employment will effectively be deemed to have a probationary period of six months—not three months, which is standard and applies elsewhere in the act—to apply in respect of any entitlement they might have to access to unfair dismissal laws.At the moment, casual employees cannot apply under the unfair dismissal legislation unless they have been employed for a 12-month period. At the moment, the act precludes anyone on term contracts—that is, either by time or by specified task—from having any access to unfair dismissal laws. Of course, the current act did what it could to reinforce the state systems. I intend to return to some of those issues later.But the major point to recognise at the outset is that the law which this bill proposes to amend is a vastly different law to that which applied in 1996. It is Peter Reith's law. It is already a law which restricts the rights of workers. The government has sought to pursue this on the basis that if we do not pass this bill the sky is going to fall in on the employment market, that if we do not do something very quickly to stop these people having access to unfair dismissal laws we are going to confront Armageddon in the labour market and unemployment will rise.There are a couple of interesting comparisons which can be made. If you go back to when the original Labor legislation was introduced in April 1994—remember, this is not the current law; these are the laws before all of those changes I just described—you will find an interesting thing happened to unemployment. In the year 1993-94, unemployment was 10 per cent. In the first full year after we introduced the unfair dismissal legislation, it fell to 8.4 per cent—the biggest drop in unemployment in this country for some years.So the year after this dreaded unfair dismissal law came in, what was the impact on the labour market? It created more jobs. If you want to argue that, if you want to actually have a look at the graphs and you want to argue the linkage, the simple fact is: if you track it since it was introduced in the federal parliament in 1994, you will find unemployment has gone down; jobs have gone up. It is a bit hard to run the argument that Peter Reith and the government do when that is the case. But it did not just go down in the following year. In 1995-96, it was maintained at that low level of 8.4 per cent. In fact, it did not start to go up until the Howard government got elected the following year. In 1996-97, unemployment actually went up. So, if you want to find a correlation with what caused unemployment to rise, it was not the introduction of unfair dismissal legislation, because in the two years that followed the introduction of unfair dismissal legislation unemployment fell quite markedly. Unemployment went up the following year when John Howard became Prime Minister.I just quickly want to make a comment about the six-month probationary period. I do not intend to dwell on that but, given that it is in the bill, I just want to make a couple of quick observations. Six months is an arbitrary period. I think the minister would admit that it has been plucked out of the air. It is more than exists at the moment and less than Des Moore and the lunatics in the H.R. Nicholls Society are advocating, so you strike a happy medium and you think that you have come some way to being reasonable. The minister well knows, as do the members in this chamber, that when it comes to employing people you do not need six months to find out whether you have got the wrong person in the job. Any employer who needs more than three months to figure out whether they made the right decision needs to get themselves a new personnel manager or a bit of in-house training in a hurry. The six-month period is arbitrary. There is no justification for it. It is beyond the period that customarily applies in Australia for probationary periods, and we will oppose it.Let me return to the central theme of the government's case for this bill, and that is to create jobs. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has on many occasions in this parliament and in the media stated that the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia have claimed that 50,000 jobs will be created by virtue of the passing of this legislation. I was a bit intrigued by that. I have written to COSBOA and I have asked them if they could provide me with the details of the research and survey work they did to substantiate that. My office has rung COSBOA, putting that question to them. I have not actually got a reply to my letter, but my staff did get a reply over the phone. And—wouldn't you know it?—the staff at COSBOA said, `Actually, there is no survey. There was no research done. That 50,000 figure just happens to be a figure which our president, Mr Bastian, decided to quote in public, but there is no work we have done and no evidence that we have to support it.'So the minister has stood in this parliament in question time, and even in his second reading speech, relying for this move on figures from Rob Bastian, on behalf of COSBOA, that COSBOA publicly wiped their hands of and said, `It was really a figure Bastian picked off the top of his head.' This figure that has been plucked out of the air by Mr Bastian happens to be one of the pillars of the government's argument for introducing this legislation and further reducing the rights of Australian men and women.If you try to actually get some empirical data on it, you find that it falls into a couple of categories. There are the surveys that ask basically open-ended questions of business, such as, `What is important to you?' Then there are the push polling survey questions, the ones that ask things like, `Do you believe it would be better for your business if unfair dismissals were removed?' Questions asked in push polling surveys of course get predictable responses. It is a bit like going to any factory and asking the workers, `Do you think you would be better off if you had a pay increase?' But questions asked in genuine surveys get a totally different response.What does the government's own department research show? A major survey that was done, admittedly, in 1995, was released only last year by the government. That survey was the Australian workplace industrial relations survey, which was put to small business firms, workplaces with 20 or fewer employees. That is an interesting point; the legislation deals with workplaces with 15 or fewer employees. This is another figure the minister has plucked out of the air. For all other purposes, the ABS and the department itself use the figure of 20 in the definition of small business, so one of the lovely ironies of the government picking 15 is that it is not possible to make direct statistical comparisons. If the government had wanted to stick with its definition of small business it would have used the figure of 20, but it has not.The department's own survey of small business asked people in small business to identify the reasons for not recruiting employees during the previous 12 months. The response `not recruited due to unfair dismissal legislation' equated to 0.9 per cent of respondents. Not even one per cent of respondents to the government's own small business survey regard unfair dismissal as an impediment to them engaging employees. Not surprisingly, the answer that topped the poll was that they did not have enough work to warrant putting on extra staff; that response accounted for 89.2 per cent of respondents.If the government were genuinely concerned about generating jobs, they would stop this attack on the rights of workers and they would set about doing something to generate job growth, job training and export development. But there is none of that from this government; the work on that is a little bit demanding.I wanted to mention one other research document that is regarded authoritatively and that looked at this question more recently.Remember, though, that that 1995 survey that was released last year dealt with Labor's legislation. Under unfair dismissal version one—before John Howard and Peter Reith had made the changes that I described at the outset of my address—you could not muster one per cent of small business people to say it was a problem for them. These were the very rights that were conferred on workers by the former Labor government that were so decried by the then opposition—the Liberal Party—and the business community. Since then the Liberal Party has been running around trying to beat up this issue.There is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy in this. You go around and try to make an issue of it. Maybe that is the tactic; it may be that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business adopts the view that the best way to make yourself a hero and conduct a cold war with the Treasurer and look good is to create a problem if one does not exist and, then, having created the problem, set about solving it. He has done his best to get out there and light the bushfires and try to tell small business—who do not think it is an issue—that it really is an issue. How successful has he been in doing that?The Yellow Pages conduct business surveys that members of this House would be familiar with. In May this year they asked small businesses to nominate the most important issue the government should be tackling to assist small business. Changing unfair dismissal laws managed to get a six per cent response. So the high water mark is six per cent. In their most recent survey in August this year, proprietors were again asked what the most important small business issue for government should be. Unfair dismissal laws again got a six per cent response. So after about four years of beating it up as much as they can out there, getting Rob Bastian to come out with ridiculous off the top of the head statements about 50,000 jobs being created, a massive six per cent of the small business community responded that unfair dismissals were a problem for them.This is not a debate about the problems in the labour market. This is not about creating jobs. The minister has been asked repeatedly to identify small businesses that would benefit if he were to succeed. My fancy was rather taken by an answer he gave to a question on notice by the member for Barton in the last parliament. On 15 July this year Hansard records the minister, in replying to a question from the member for Barton about where these new jobs were going to be created, as stating:It is not possible to specify the number of small businesses which would directly benefit from the government's proposed exemption from unfair dismissal laws for small business.`It is not possible', he said. So although he trumpets about there being 50,000 jobs every second day in answer to a dorothy dixer in question time, he is not able to nominate a single one of them or a single employer—not one job, not one employer anywhere in Australia—when he is put to the task of actually coming up with the goods. But he continues to rely on Rob Bastian's off the top of the head figure of 50,000. That is simply no way to conduct public affairs.What is the magnitude of this problem? Let us look at how many unfair dismissal cases are run. Many of the respondents in the Yellow Pages survey who say that unfair dismissals are a concern to them do not distinguish between state and federal unfair dismissal laws. I have had employers in my constituency complain to me about unfair dismissal laws, yet they do not employ a single person under the federal jurisdiction. So it does not matter what we do, they are not affected by it. The simple fact of life is that the majority of workers in all states except Victoria are covered by state jurisdiction. These laws do not affect the majority of workers in all states bar one. So that figure of six per cent which I quoted before dramatically overstates the problem that this parliament is confronting—if, indeed, there is a problem at all.Let us have a look at the size of the problem. How many people have actually been applying under the government's laws for unfair dismissal? If you take the period from 31 December 1996 through until 24 July this year, you find that in all of Australia the total number of unfair dismissal cases that have been arbitrated by the Industrial Relations Commission for that entire period—nearly two years now—is 639. In nearly two years in all of Australia 639 people have had unfair dismissal cases arbitrated. That is what this is about. That is what this fight is about. Supposedly, that is what this bill is about. In nearly two years the princely number of 639 people in the entire country have had an unfair dismissal case arbitrated. But the people in the government would have us believe that if we did away with it 50,000 jobs would be created. What arrant nonsense!If you have a look at those 639 cases that were arbitrated, you find that 142 of them were actually decided in the employer's favour. So the actual number of cases arbitrated in favour of the worker in Australia in the last two years has been 497. Under unfair dismissal laws, 497 people have been successfully able to prosecute their case before the Industrial Relations Commission. And for that this government wants to remove all the people in small business and impose a six-month probation period on everybody else. It is also worth noting that those figures I mentioned represent the ones that were arbitrated. Of course, there are a number of cases that are dismissed because the commission determines that it does not have jurisdiction. If you add them in, you discover that there were some 467 cases that were decided in favour of the boss and 497 for the employee—that is, 48 per cent of the cases, where the commission actually had to make a determination, went to the boss and 52 per cent to the employee. It is pretty close to a fifty-fifty break, isn't it? That is the way they have been decided.This is no impediment to jobs. The truth is that this legislation will not help job security. What it will do is create a revolving door of unemployed people. This is the sack led recovery. This is the dismissal led recovery. The government is going to create meaningful, secure jobs for Australian families in the future by letting the boss sack more people more readily and easily and without any accountability. That is this government's prescription for the future. It is a disgraceful position that denies basic rights to ordinary Australians. It is, however, a very different song to the one that the current minister used to sing when he was in opposition. When the member for Flinders was shadow minister for these matters, he would occasionally come out with a speech of reasonableness. He did not want to scare too many people then. He has managed to scare, I suppose, a few people since, but he did not want to scare too many people before they got elected. On this very subject of unfair dismissals, the member for Flinders, in a debate on industrial relations matters in May 1995 when he was shadow minister, said:Right at the outset I say that there ought to be a proper course of appeal for people who are sacked so that they can ensure that their grievances are properly heard. Let us face it: from time to time some employers will do the wrong thing. They will get no truck from us. There ought to be in place a system to properly safeguard the interests of employees.What a laudable point of view that was that Mr Reith held in 1995. It does not measure up too well with what he has done since. It certainly does not measure up with his legislation as it stands now and it certainly does not measure up with the bill that he has put into the parliament today which aims to make it worse. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for:(1) increased job security for all Australian workers;(2) protection for workers from harsh, unfair or unreasonable dismissal,regardless of the size of the business;(3) ready access for all workers to an affordable and fair industrial umpire todeal with unfair, unreasonable or harsh dismissal; and(4) repeal of paragraph 170CC(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to giveworkers engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of timeor a specified task protection from unfair, unreasonable or harsh dismissal".This amendment, which has been circulated in my name, replaces some of the words in the bill and substitutes certain other words and I want to make mention of a couple of things related to it. One of those things is that, in the course of the last few years, there has been a marked change in the way in which work in this country is being undertaken. The days of having not only permanent jobs but also employee relationships is quickly being replaced by contract labour. Some of that is, if you like, a natural progression; much of it, though, is ideologically driven. At the moment, people on contracts are barred from any access to unfair dismissal. Employers are now engaging people on contract who, for all intents and purposes, are and should be employees. They are doing that to avoid their obligations as employers. One of those obligations is in this area, which is why the amendment I have moved seeks specifically to remove that provision.I will cite an example. If you want a window into the future of how Liberal industrial relations policy is meant to operate in a Liberal mind, you go to Victoria where they no longer have a state jurisdiction. And if you really want to see how it works, you go to the Victorian public sector where there is also an extreme right-wing government imposing these extreme right-wing views on its own employees. Everyone who starts there now starts on a contract.It is an interesting contract because you cannot get a job unless you sign it and, when you sign it, you actually write away your rights of access to the commission. The contract that you sign in the Liberal state of Victoria says that you can only go to the Industrial Relations Commission to settle a dispute if the boss agrees. That is a good deal for the ordinary worker! You have a situation where the Liberal government retains the right of veto to stop any employee getting access to the commission for anything.They have also now moved to dramatically increase the number of people on contract. I will cite a couple of quick figures on Victoria's school teachers who are now on contracts. In 1995, six per cent of the teaching service were on contracts. That has now just about doubled. It is now 11½ per cent of teachers on contracts, and it will continue to grow at that rate because of the employment policies I just described.In the area of TAFE in the state of South Australia—again with a conservative government—the percentage of fixed term temporary appointments, that is, contracts, for advanced skill lecturers is now 12 per cent. An amazing 75 per cent of lecturers are now on contract and 74 per cent of lecturer assistants are on contract.Whether we like it or not, we are seeing a dramatic shift from employed status of workers to contract status of workers. The parliament needs to recognise that. We need to afford people on these contrived contracts the same rights and benefits that they would have had if they had been engaged properly as employees, and our amendment seeks to do that.In looking at some of this stuff—and when you look at the evidence it really is overwhelmingly opposed to the government's proposition—I have wondered whether or not the minister and this government are serious about this. I have come to the conclusion that all this may just be a smokescreen for what is the real game next year, the second wave of legislation that is going to see the arbitration commission restructured and effectively removed as an arbitral body and replaced by a mediation discussion board, unions without the right to enter premises or union officials without the right to inspect time and wages books and the Des Moore approach to lower minimum wages—the ACCI submission before the Industrial Relations Commission that I raised in question time.All of these things are main game. This may be the prelude or it may be the sideshow. But I want to make it absolutely clear to the government and to the people of Australia that the Labor Party will oppose it. We will oppose it at every opportunity at our disposal.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Is the amendment seconded?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.21:46:001069Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—This legislation shows the great chasm that exists between the Labor Party and the coalition in this place and right across Australia. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to require a six-month qualifying period of employment before new employees, other than apprentices and trainees, can access an unfair dismissal remedy under the act and exclude new employees of small businesses, other than apprentices and trainees, from the unfair dismissal remedy under the act.An employee will not be able to make an application on the grounds that the termination of his or her employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable if either he or she had not completed six months continuous service with that employer or his or her employer employed no more than 15 employees. The exclusion will not affect the rights of existing employees, the rights of apprentices or trainees or the rights of small business employees and employees with less than six months service to take action against unlawful termination of employment.The people of Australia voted for this at the recent election. It is amazing to me, as I think it is to everyone on this side of the House, that the opposition are walking around blindfolded on the issue. There is a very serious principle at stake here—that is, whether or not people have the capacity to get employment if employers are encouraged to offer it. If they are being offered a morass of legal technicalities and a minefield of consequences, there are huge disincentives to businesses to participate in the system. Unfortunately, the opposition are not listening to the community. I do not know whether they think the community did not vote for it, but they certainly did.This bill, or one very much like it, was introduced for the first time on 26 June 1997. Since then, it has been twice rejected by the ALP, the Democrats, the Greens and the Independents. When I said that the opposition were walking around blindfolded, apparently not all of them have been averse to the dangers of the current requirements for unfair dismissals. I would like to quote the member for Hunter, who has already been quoted, but I will quote him to a greater extent, from when he appeared on the Small Business show. Apparently his wife is in business and the member, who has a small business portfolio on the opposition bench, said:Well my wife consistently tells me she could afford to put on one person or would like to put on one more person, but is fearful of unfair dismissals, she is fearful of going through the barrier to another level of red tape and regulation. All those perceptions are out there, all of them are well founded but I think that too much—Then the journalist cuts in to say:So you're saying that even your wife agrees with Peter Reith's comment?And the member for Hunter, who is in the chamber, said:No, no, I didn't say that, my wife's employees do not work under the Federal award. That is the key point there. Peter Reith wants all the small business community to believe that if you can pass his unfair dismissals laws they're all going to be better off but we should know that only 7% of those who work in small business work under Federal awards.The member for Hunter apparently advocates not only that we pass this federal legislation but also that we have corresponding state legislation. I would like to draw his attention to the legislation that applies in Queensland which does have precisely the provisions—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—That's an extraordinary interpretation.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—No, I am reading it. I have read it there. It is exactly correct. It is exactly what you said. You apparently want not only federal awards to follow these amendments but also state ones. Obviously, if only seven per cent can enjoy the benefits of the federal change, it would be good if others could too, and then your wife could employ not only one more but maybe two.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! The honourable member for Hunter is listed to speak and will have an opportunity to refute any claims that are made. The honourable member for Blair should direct his comments through the chair, not to the honourable member for Hunter, who will desist interjecting.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I referred to the statement that was made by the coalition and the fact that Australians voted for it. One of the most important things to realise here is that not only had it been around the traps twice before but in this election just passed the coalition released a document entitled More jobs, better pay , which:. . . commits the Coalition to continuing workplace relations reform so that the benefits of changes made during the Coalition's first term of office can be extended more widely throughout the community to protect and improve the living standards of Australian workers and enhance the productivity of Australian industry.Hear, hear! However, it states in that document:A re-elected Coalition Government will have a fresh electoral mandate to implement this measure as a matter of high priority. Following re-election a Coalition Government will resubmit this legislation to the parliament, and require its immediate commencement.We are doing exactly that tonight. The Australian people having voted for it, I hope that the people in this House will support it too.I have a concern that the opposition members have no concern for employment. That is really the basis of it. They have no concern for what really does motivate employers to take on an extra employee. One thing that Australians generally do not like is the relationship between the Labor Party and unions. Members of the Labor Party can mount a rearguard action to defend unions as much as they like, but the important thing to be considered in this debate is employment—not defending union mates, union friends or whomever. In this place it is the coalition who put up the plans, and they knock them. We are the ones who get on with the job, and they delay. We have established priorities, and they do the deals. We put the country first, and they put themselves first. That is the situation as it stands, unfortunately.We have to set about maximising the benefits that come from Australian society and ensure that Australians benefit from the wonderful opportunities that are created by our strong economy and some of the other good things that are out there. So we have to share responsibility in our community and accept obligations to each other. Labor does not acknowledge those sorts of obligations. It does not support issues like Work for the Dole. It apparently supports the idea of welfare rorting. We are now getting somewhere like $40 million a week back that the Labor Party was happy to accept by way of rorts.Opposition members interjecting—84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It has been tabled on many occasions. To get back to the concerns of the people of Blair, they are really quite concerned about the need for more opportunities in employment. I spoke to Neil Axelby, who is the past President of the Ipswich Region Chamber of Commerce, on the question of unfair dismissals. He said that the legislation proposed by the government was a step in the right direction, the current laws are a big impost on small business and the cost of dealing with an unfair dismissal claim is quite horrendous. He said the time lost in processing such a claim is huge and that we do really have a crazy system. There have been cases where people have stolen from an organisation and then wound up getting compensation through the system.Mr Axelby is the CEO of quite a large organisation. It has 92 employees. Even though his organisation will not be encompassed within the provisions of the 15 employee sections of this legislation because it has more than 15 employees, there is no doubt that unfair dismissals would be a big hindrance to his organisation, just as they would to any others.The member for Brisbane quoted various tables. Well I can throw a few back. I would like to start by looking at the one from the Australian Business Chamber. Immediately prior to the last election, employers were asked to list their concerns in order. For organisations with zero to 20 employees unfair dismissal legislation came sixth on their list and for those with 21 to 99 employees it was seventh. So I think the concerns that Mr Axelby spoke about do flow across the board.If you want to go to another study, we could look at the one done by the Queensland Chamber of Commerce which evaluated the level of responses received from employers in the 1996 election and the responses received in 1998. What is the trend? In 1996 unfair dismissals rated sixth on the shopping lists of Queensland employers. By the time the 1998 poll rolled around, unfair dismissal legislation was third on their list. So it is going towards the top; it is not going down. That is a very important issue.Not only does this question hinder employment, it also reduces productivity. According to Mr Axelby—and I am sticking on him because he is the past President of the Chamber of Commerce and he really has his finger on the pulse locally—the kicker is that every employee for a small business is vital. The member for Hunter knows that. I think he was referring to it when he made those comments on the TV. Mr Axelby said, `On occasions there are bad employees, just as there are on occasions bad employers'—and the member for Brisbane spoke about that. He said, `These employees on occasions abuse their employment.'You do get things happening out there. Some kind of sabotage, provoking customers or whatever—those sorts of things happen because they might have a barney with the missus, with the employer or his wife, or with the neighbour. But they do get into that kind of thing on occasions. I can recall, for example, some of the experiences I had when I was first in employment. I worked for a while for a company, which I think is now defunct, called Avery Scales. There were some incredible work practices there.I remember an employee who on one occasion got drunk and lost the company car for several days. He was not able to find it. Imagine if that had not been Avery Scales, which at the time had branches in all sorts of countries; imagine if it had been a small firm. That would have been a very miserable position for that company to be in—to have an employee get drunk and lose the company car for several days. It is incredible.Under the current system, employers have to act like Perry Masons, they have to be like barristers and they have to snoop if they want to catch up with some of these issues and to document them in an effective way in order to fit within the existing legislation. You have to prove the things that enable you to go ahead with your dismissal case. You have to do warnings. You have to document whatever the transgressions of the employee are in writing. You have to monitor their progress and you have to give them feedback. This can take a couple of months.What happens then if you make a mistake, a little bit of a blue somewhere in the process? You are quite likely to have a rather vindictive employee whom you will then be facing in the court. If you challenge it under the legislation, you are looking at another couple of months of lost productivity. And there are legal fees involved and all those kinds of things. Let us have a look at the submission made by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to the Senate Economics References Committee on the question of legal costs. It stated:In the case of an unfair dismissal claim that went to conciliation, was not settled or withdrawn and went to a one day arbitration, ACCI's informed estimate is that this might involve about 10-15 hours of a solicitor's time. At a cost of about $180 an hour (a moderate solicitor's fee) this would involve a cost of $1,800—$2,700. If the matter was settled at the door of the Court, just before arbitration started, as they often are, the estimated hours would be 8-10 hours, a cost of $1,440—$1,800.Of course, if they then settled out of court, that would be another cost. It could cost an employer six months pay or possibly reinstatement. That is a lot of money. It raises the question about just how much lawyers and other hangers-on get out of it.It is worthy of note that Queensland has provisions under its legislation that are equal to those in the bill. What is really interesting is that those provisions were introduced by the former Queensland coalition government, by then Minister Santo Santoro, and they have not been repealed or changed by the current Queensland government. So perhaps the Queensland government under the Premier, Peter Beattie, shares the view of the member for Hunter and wants to see the same thing as the member for Hunter: he wants to see that transgress from state to state as well as into the federal sphere.When we come to the question about the legal workload involved in this exercise, I would like to quote from a statement made concerning the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission at the time the Queensland legislation was introduced:From dealing with 154 cases in 1990/91—these are unfair dismissal cases—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What year?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—This was in 1990-91, 154 cases there were then.Opposition member interjecting—84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Wait a minute. The statement went on:. . . the last financial year saw the QIRC process 1849 cases—an increase of over 1000%.I quote from the annual report of the QIRC president for 1995-96, which was not that long ago:. . . the volume of unfair dismissal applications is running at such a high level that conferences and hearings are often subject to scheduling delays. This impedes the Commission's capacity and flexibility to respond as expeditiously as in earlier years.That is an incredible impost on the system, a great logjam, a mess. It is good to see that the Queensland state government has proceeded down this path in such an expeditious way. Why have the number of cases spun out of control like this? I would like to return to the submission by the ACCI which stated:A problem continues to exist of legal practitioners and consultants successfully persuading employees to initiate claims, using a no fee no win offers (a practice at times falling into the category of what is colloquially known as `ambulance chasing'). ACCI's anecdotal evidence is that often reasonable offers to settle from employers are rejected in full knowledge of the opportunity and other costs to small businesses. The need for small businesses to quickly settle claims for commercial not merit reasons appear to be too often exploited.That is a real concern. In closing, I would like to draw the debate on to the wider question about how we do create jobs. Some time ago—it was not that long ago—I attended with the member for Oxley a Centrelink meeting at Ipswich at which all local Job Network providers were present. They reiterated some serious concerns about the amount of kicking, negativity and that sort of thing that they had received from the media, and probably from members of the opposition as well.They particularly wanted to see some emphasis given to the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme which, in their words, is the most successful labour market program we have running. I would like to advertise the NEIS scheme:The . . . scheme assists eligible unemployed people to establish commercially viable new businesses through a comprehensive package of assistance. The Scheme is delivered locally by managing agents and has been retained under Job Network. Expenditure for 1997-98 was $90.7m (including $10.1m for Job Network from 1 May 1998).This is what I want to point out:NEIS appeared to be successful in generating employment opportunities for others. For every 10 businesses that were still operating in both the 3 and 12 month groups, on average an additional 5 people were employed in the businesses:. this was made up of one full-time employee and four part-time employees for the three month group and two full-time employees and three part-time employees for the 12 month group.What is going on is that they are going out there and establishing these new small businesses. Often these businesses do not have sufficient capital to enable themselves even to purchase a business name, and they have to work at that before they can go anywhere.Opposition member interjecting—84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It has a lot to do with the bill because we now have to say to these people—Opposition member interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Blair will ignore the interjections and direct his remarks through the chair.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have to ensure that these people are encouraged and that they are not put in a position where they are left with this current disaster of a requirement in which they are treading through a minefield if they want to employ a single person, as the member for Hunter's wife apparently is wont to do.I would like to make one other point in closing. I have here a graph of the `Unfair termination of employment—rate of Federal applications' to the AIRC that covers the period from April 1994 right through to October 1998. It is interesting to note that, under the ALP government, the number of applications to the AIRC from April 1995 through to the end of the ALP government was averaging between 250 and 300 applications per week. It is interesting to note that since the coalition got into government the number of applications has dropped to a rate of between 150 and 200 per week. Quite a dramatic drop is shown there on that graph, which is a great achievement of the coalition government. I am very proud and pleased that Australians chose to vote in favour of this legislation when they went to the recent poll.22:06:001074Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—What an enlightening contribution from the new member for Blair. He has not been in here all that long, but we have quickly worked him out. We now know that he is no less extreme than the lady he beat to the seat. He is no less extreme than the former member for Oxley. He, like many on his side, seem to be of the view that human nature has not changed, that there is no such thing as exploitation in the work force, that the market takes care of all, that everybody should be happy and that there does not need to be any government regulation. I had a look at the speakers list. Who is up next but the honourable member for New England. The former member for New England warned us that we had a person with fairly extreme IR views coming into this place. No doubt later tonight we will be hearing a little more about that.I am pleased to see the member for Richmond in the House because we know that he is far more moderate on these issues. We know that he understands the employer-employee relationship. He knows that the parties to the bargain are never equal and that there will always be a role for government to regulate these relationships.I was thinking about the comments by former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when she said that there simply is no such thing as society. I know that the member for Richmond would have to disagree with that view, as a young family man and a person with aspirations for his children. I certainly beg to differ with the views of the former British Prime Minister. For me, society is a community of individuals working towards a common goal. It is a group, unfortunately, that is not always working together, because in any society there will be class divisions. The role of any government is to mitigate the concerns that flow from those divisions.Those divisions lead to all sorts of things. They lead to immorality, crime, the exploitation of employees and even war. The most successful societies are those that work very hard to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots to ensure that everyone within the society enjoys a similar standard of living. Those principles of equality should underpin all of society's decisions. In other words, those principles of equity should underpin every decision of government.There should be no exceptions. Society's protection mechanisms and its safety net should extend to all citizens equally. Once a society has deemed through the democratic processes what is fair and unfair, it should apply those principles equally to anyone, be they principles concerning conviction for murder or the employee-employer relationship.What a crazy proposition it is to suggest that you should draw a line in the sand and arbitrarily decide to apply those principles of fairness to one part of society and not to the other. That would be similar to deciding to treat two, three or 14 workmates differently and saying, `We will not apply these fair principles to you.' It is akin to saying that we should regulate for workplace safety and legislate to ensure employers take care of the safety and wellbeing of their employees but that if you are a small business, and therefore we recognise there could be a cost impact which might lead to a decline in employment levels, we will not apply it to you. Cost and creating jobs are seen as more important. It is 19th century stuff, where masses of labour worked in atrocious conditions and there was no concern for workplace safety. It is akin to regulating for the safety of motor vehicles on the road. It is like having safety standards to protect the lives of people and then saying, `But we won't apply it to commercial vehi cles, because commercial vehicles are important to the economy. If we apply it and add additional costs to those commercial operations, they might employ fewer people.' The analogy is very clear indeed.I know of those types of exceptions because I have been moving extensively around the small business community for months now. I know that its members do not support those divisions. They are not keen to make excessive profits at the expense of their employees. Generally speaking, these are fair people. They are out to make a quid, sure, but not excessive profits. Generally speaking, they have excellent relationships with their employees. In small business, the employer-employee relationship is very important. Trust is important, faith in one another is important and teamwork is important. So they do not support these divisions.Human nature has not changed, though, as I said earlier. Unfortunately, in any sector, you will find some unscrupulous employers prepared to exploit and make excessive profits at the expense of their employees. I said earlier that the parties to the bargain are never equal. It is important that we have legislation that regulates these things and protects these people. It is just extraordinary to say that these regulations and protections should apply to one section of society and not the other.It is bad policy. Arbitrarily seeking to apply this law to one section of society and not the other is just crazy. The people we are talking about tonight are the most vulnerable in the employment sector. This is the least unionised sector in the Australian economy. These are people who work in small firms who do not enjoy the protection of a trade union. If anything, the unfair dismissals should extend more widely to protect these people, yet the government wants to do just the opposite.I want to turn to the magic number of 15. Given that the ABS definition of a small business is one which employs 20 employees or fewer, I just do not have a clue where this magic number of 15 comes from. Again, it is an example of the worst sort of arbitrary decision making. There could be no better example of bad public policy than this bill. But this bill is not about public policy. It is not about building a better Australia. It is not about fairer industrial relations laws. It is not about economic growth. It is not about more jobs in the Australian small business community or jobs in the economy generally. It is not about helping Australia's almost one million small businesses. It is about two things.84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—We will create 50,000 jobs.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I thank the honourable member for New England for his interjection. He says that it is about the creation of 50,000 new jobs. I did not think I needed to expand on the comments of the member for Brisbane, because he has already enlightened us quite well in terms of COSBOA's estimate of the potential jobs growth that would flow from the passage of this legislation. I did not want to say too much about it because I have to say that I think Rob Bastian is a good bloke. He bought me lunch recently, and I owe him one. I look forward to working with him very closely to create a fairer deal for the small business community.But Rob is just like most of us. We gild the lily from time to time to gain some political advantage. Peter Reith went knocking on his door and said, `Mate, I've got this idea. I need you to beat it up a bit. I need you to give me some sort of estimation in terms of the sorts of jobs it will create.' So they had one beer and it was 30,000. They had another beer and it was 40,000. By the fifth beer it was 100,000. But commonsense prevailed and they thought that that was probably going to be pretty tough to convince anyone of, so it went back down to 50,000. So now it is 50,000 jobs. It is a bit like an auction, isn't it? I can just see them. They say, `It is going to be 50,000. Will we get away with that?' `Yes,' and it is once, twice, three times gone. This is the basis on which the government underpins this legislation—the basis of a figure plucked straight out of the air.This bill is about two things. It is not about economic growth and job opportunities. It is about ideology and it is about desperation—absolute desperation. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—like many others on the government frontbench, including the primary industries minister, the Treasurer and even the Prime Minister—brought to the job very high expectations. After 13 years on the opposition benches, they were prepared to say anything. They were going to offer the Australian community the world.What has the minister for small business done for the small business community? Not a thing. This bill is about diverting attention. It is about diverting attention away from his failure to tackle the market dominance issue in the retail sector. The member for Blair talked about the Small Business show. I saw the minister for small business on the same show just a week before I appeared. What did he have to say on the market dominance issue when asked about it? He was ducking and weaving, slip sliding away. He is still having some difficulty reconciling the issues within his small business constituency with those of his natural constituency. We all know his natural constituency—his natural constituency is the big end of town.We remember the Prosser affair very well. We must remember why the member for Flinders is the minister for small business. Here he is now, tux and all. He is prepared for a wake because he knows how appalling this bill is and I suspect he knows that it has no hope whatsoever of getting through the Senate. The member for Flinders comes into the job and what does he say? First of all, he comes in and he starts twisting what I had to say on the Small Business show. The fact is that he is running around the country trying to instil in the small business community a perception that the world will be their oyster, if only he can get his unfair dismissal laws through the parliament.We all know that 93 per cent of those who work in the small business community work under state awards. The minister knows that very well. Like the figure of 50,000 plucked out of the air, he knows that this is a furphy and a desperate attempt to cover up his failings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the question be now put.A division having been called and the bells being rung— Mr Leo McLeay interjecting— Mr McMullan interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—He does not need your advice, and neither do I.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, then I take a point of order. Maybe in future you might tell the minister that he takes a point of order in the proper way. Question put: That the question be now put.22:22:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)72Abbott, A. J. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baird, B. G. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Hull, K. E. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. *Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thompson, C. P.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.Washer, M. J. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.63Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Burke, A. E. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Danby, M.Edwards, G. J. Ellis, A. L.Emerson, C. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Gerick, J.Gibbons, S. W. Gillard, J. E.Griffin, A. P. Hall, J. G.Hatton, M. J. Hoare, K. J.Hollis, C. Horne, R.Irwin, J. Jenkins, H. A.Kernot, C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.Murphy, J. P. O'Byrne, M. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Swan, W. M. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilkie, K. Wilton, G. S.Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Bevis's amendment) stand part of the question.22:29:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)73Abbott, A. J. Andren, P. J.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. *Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.62Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the bill be now read a second time.22:32:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)73Abbott, A. J. Andren, P. J.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bishop, J. I. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Haase, B. W.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hockey, J. B. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lawler, A. J.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E.May, M. A. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. *Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Schultz, A. J.Scott, B. C. Secker, P. D.Slipper, P. N. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.62Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Bevis, A. R. Burke, A. E.Cox, D. Crean, S. F.Danby, M. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McFarlane, J. S.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Plibersek, T.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Ripoll, B. F. Roxon, N. L.Rudd, K. M. Sawford, R. W. *Sciacca, C. A. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Sidebottom, P. S. Smith, S. F.Snowdon, W. E. Swan, W. M.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S. Zahra, C. J.Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Adjournment107810000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being past 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.107822:34:001078Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The parliament needs to know that there are 23 members whom this government has tried to gag tonight who wish to speak on this legislation—23 members of the parliament being denied the opportunity to debate an important industrial relations bill which this government claims is a priority piece of legislation that must be put through in the next couple of days. The government afforded the opposition the total time of 40 minutes to debate that piece of legislation—40 minutes total debating time for a piece of legislation that this government says is so important that it cannot wait until tomorrow, it cannot wait until next week and it certainly cannot wait until after the new year. That is the position that the government has adopted in this debate by gagging the process in the course of the last 10 minutes.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It's a disgrace.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—It is an absolute outrage and an affront to the parliament to see so many members—and, I might say, about eight government members as well—denied the opportunity to make any contribution whatsoever. I know that the member for La Trobe would have been keen to make a contribution, and he was on the speakers list. Eight members of the government and 15 members of the opposition have been denied the opportunity to say anything in relation to this legislation.It is important that legislation of this kind be properly dealt with in the parliament. Unfortunately, what has transpired here tonight is one of the first examples in the new parliament of the heavy-handed approach that the Leader of the House wants to adopt. I suppose we should not be too surprised by that because it reflects the same heavy-handed approach that he expects to be applied to workers, the same heavy-handed approach that he encourages employers to adopt when it comes to their relationships with their employees in workplace relations. It is little wonder that we have a bill before us tonight seeking to strip away from ordinary workers the opportunity to access unfair dismissal measures if they have been unfairly or harshly treated; the government that promotes that legislation now wants to impose the same harsh and unreasonable standards on the conduct of this House.There has been a longstanding arrangement where bills of this sort with particularly long lists of speakers are able to be dealt with in a proper manner. It is not unknown for the gag to be applied by governments of all political persuasions. But I have to say that it is pretty extraordinary for the Leader of the House—who now is leaving the chamber in his tails and tux—at the present time to adopt that view so harshly, preventing virtually all debate on this piece of non-budgetary legislation.We are not coming to the end of a term. This is not the end of a parliamentary year where you expect legislation to be rammed through because it has to be in place by 1 January. We are talking here about legislation which in the last parliament was rejected by the Senate, and it is legislation which this government would have faint hope of getting through the Senate when it arrives there, whenever that will be.Against that background, the consideration that this government is willing to show the parliament is absolutely outrageous. Mr Speaker, it may well be an issue that you, in terms of your responsibility for the discharge of members' rights in this place, should contemplate. That gag was not an arrangement that was agreed to; that was not a gag applied in the normal course of activity.What we had was the Leader of the House coming in here all dressed up in a dinner suit and bow tie just before 10.30, obviously unaware of where the debate had got to, deciding that he was going to launch into the heavy-handed approach of cutting off the debate. Members of the opposition are not going to tolerate that sort of activity. In terms of legislation that is important to the workers of Australia, we are not going to sit idly by and see this government legislate to ram through repressive unfair laws affecting millions of Australian workers and to do it in the heavy-handed way that they have adopted tonight.107922:38:001079May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Tonight I would like to bring to the House's attention a Work for the Dole scheme immortalising the faces of a hundred children that was launched in my electorate today. As I was unable to attend the launch, I wanted to bring the House's attention to the benefits of such a project in the McPherson electorate. `Faces of the Gold Coast' is the first project of its kind in Australia and will be of national significance. Not only will it beautify a stretch of the Pacific Highway but it will create work opportunities for youth in the McPherson electorate.`Faces of the Gold Coast' will engage 75 young unemployed people who will effectively paint the faces of a hundred children along the highway in a brightly-coloured collage interspersed with Gold Coast flora. Not only will it develop a new image for a stretch of the highway and, in particular, the ugly noise barriers but it will provide our young unemployed persons with the opportunity of working on the artistic beautification of their community. It also means they will participate in invaluable work experience that gives each of them a chance to learn essential workplace skills and work ethics that will lead to paid long-term employment. It is planned that the mural will be completed fully by Australia Day 1999.This project explores the ethnic make-up of our community and will provide a visual celebration showing the McPherson electorate as one made up of people from many cultures living together harmoniously. The project has drawn together many sections of our community, from preschoolers to high school students, teachers, parents, grandparents and unemployed youth. The faces of the children were selected through a process whereby the children themselves, their families or teachers nominated portraits of children between the ages of one and 18. Today at the launch a hundred faces were drawn at random from a barrel, and those faces of local children will be painted on the walls in a trail of public art which will last up to 20 years.`Faces of the Gold Coast' follows two similar highly successful projects run by not-for-profit organisation Phantast. All three projects were made possible through a Work for the Dole initiative known as the Suburban Centre Improvement Project. For me one of the most heartening aspects is that, in the first project initiated by Phantast involving 120 unemployed youth, 82 per cent of participants at the conclusion of the project entered paid employment. A tremendous effort, Mr Speaker. Without a commitment by the federal government, support from Dulux, which supplied all the paint, and the dedication of the two project coordinators—June Hintz and Calvin Pybus—our youth would not have such opportunities.It is my intention to further develop Work for the Dole schemes within my electorate leading to more long-term, full-time jobs for our youth. I would recommend such a scheme to anybody who is unemployed. As well as developing essential skills, participants develop the confidence and motivation to secure paid employment. In this particular project, a major benefit is that youth develop visual resumes which will be seen by residents and visitors to the Gold Coast in the 80,000 cars which travel the highway daily. This high visible exposure of the art gives off a sophisticated and positive image and a welcome message to our interstate and international travellers. It creates a lasting impression—an impression that will remain in the community for the next 20 years.For our local residents, it develops a unifying link and creates a psychologically pleasing environment and an opportunity to unite as one. The public artwork will become a tourism landmark, and it is envisaged that within five years all the faces—the real life children—will meet at the site for a reunion and reflect on the unity which occurred on the highway today. I look forward to reporting to the House on the success of this project and further Work for the Dole projects in the McPherson electorate.108022:42:001080Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I rise tonight to speak about industrial relations—an extremely important issue for the whole community. We are facing one of the grossest attacks on workers' rights that we have faced for a long time. Persistently under this government we have suffered abuses. We have suffered abuses at the waterfront. We suffered abuses when the Workplace Relations Act was first introduced in 1996. We now have a new attack on workers and their job security by this government, which is not even prepared to allow our second speaker the opportunity of debating.We have a number of very important issues to raise in respect of industrial relations, and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business parades around here as if this bill that was before the parliament earlier today is going to be another feather in his cap. He parades around here, in dinner suit and all, saying that this is a feather in the cap for productivity in the nation, for creating jobs, for freeing up the market, for opportunities for business. He parades around saying, `Look at me. I am going to be the saviour of the nation.' What I say to the minister is that the feather looks to me more like a feather in a peacock's tail. It is all about pride and strutting around and showing off. There is actually no substance; it is just there for decoration.Workers in this country deserve security. The myth that this bill is about small business cannot be sustained. This bill is about every single new employee in every workplace that is covered by federal legislation—because the first six months of employment for any employee, whether they are employed by a business with 15 people or less, will be caught by this act. There are some extremely difficult technical provisions in the workplace relations amendments that are being suggested which have not been debated in this House, and they are vitally important for our community.I do not even think this parliament yet understands that part of this proposal is the difference between unfair dismissals and unlawful dismissals. Most of the people in this House would think that if you have under 15 employees this bill means you can sack people with gay abandon. You will be able to sack people unfairly if you have an employer who is even handed in his abuse of his employees. He is allowed to dismiss people. If he is discriminatory in the way he abuses his employees, then we will have a claim, and that employee will be able to go off to the court—but no longer the commission—to raise their claim.What sort of a nonsense is this process? What sort of a nonsense is it, except the minister wants to parade around in front of the small business community saying, `We are offering some fantastic job creation program'? Frankly, it is very hard for our community to believe that this minister is interested in creating jobs. He is certainly not interested in providing any security for the workers in our community.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Where is he now? He's gone back to dinner.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—He has gone back to dinner; that is right. He is not very worried about this debate. He tells us that we cannot speak on it. I say to this parliament and to the community that, if this government are not concerned about security of employment for their employees, they do not deserve to govern. Job security should be one of the key issues of concern for this government, but it is not.If you are in the first six months of your employment, you miss out. If you work for an employer who has fewer than 15 employees, you miss out. What happens if you work with 30 employees but 15 are employed by one company and 15 are employed by another? This is just not Patrick's; we do not need a grand strategy like Patrick's to be able to get into this situation. Textile, clothing and footwear companies all across the country already try to abuse provisions to get out of paying termination and severance payments in situations of redundancies. What is to say that they will not use these provisions to be able to avoid their obligations to treat their employees fairly? What is to say that other industries will not do the same thing?Casual employees are not counted. What will happen? I can work with 40 employees. I need to know whether 18 of them are casual. If 18 of them are casual, I need to know the hours they work. I need to work out whether that is regular and systematic employment and then I will be able to work out whether or not I actually have job security and am entitled to be treated with some fairness and dignity. But this government does not care about fairness and dignity, and it does not care about security of employment. I think it is a great shame that we have seen this absolute charade in this parliament today. The minister pretends he is interested in creating jobs and he pretends he is interested in security for employees.108222:47:001082Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—Talking about job security, the last speaker, the member for Gellibrand, should recall that before the advent of Gough Whitlam we had 1½ per cent unemployment in this country. I was working as a labourer at the time for two or three years and I must say I really appreciated that, because we took great delight in making life fairly unpleasant for our employers on a regular basis but they had to take it. They could not sack us because there was no-one else to put in our place. When Mr Whitlam came in and introduced a 25 per cent across-the-board cut of all tariffs in Australia, he most certainly removed that part of Australian life for good. Unemployment rose to 7½ per cent and it has never gone down since. So if you are looking at the architects of our misery, look no further than your own great leadership. The honourable member for Reid laughs. Mr Whitlam took a 25 per cent across-the-board cut—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Kennedy will address his remarks through the chair.HX4Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTER—I will continue. I spoke about prime interest rates being a way to help our Australian industries combat trade from overseas and imports coming into this country. I spoke about the far more effective way of doing that, which is to keep interest rates very low and allow our dollar to float down to a realistic level, which after the ALP years in this place is probably around 50c, I would say.The government is in an enormously powerful position to help Australian industry. I have mentioned government contracts. One in four motor vehicles in this country is purchased by the government. Government purchasing power enabled the Holden motor car in this country to get away to a very wonderful start. In Queensland, where I was part of the government for many years, we used government contracts very, very extensively to help our own local industry. One newspaper report stated that a 10th of the computers purchased in Australia are purchased by Australian government.One of the great unsung heroes in the steel industry—and it pains me to admit it, as he was from the other side of the House—was John Button. Very few people really appreciate the significance of the Button plan in Australia. One worker in the steel industry in Australia was producing 80 tonnes of steel a year, whereas one worker in the Kaohsiung plant in Taiwan was producing 600 tonnes. That was how hopelessly inefficient the steel industry in Australia was. Obviously, it would have to be destroyed if Australia were to be internationally competitive in all other industries.John Button promised them $350 million—I thought that was rather clever because they never got the $350 million; all they ever got was $170 million—on the condition that they put $1,000 million in and the unions came to the party. The net result of that was the industry rose to a point where one worker in the steel industry in Australia was producing 620 tonnes of steel and the industry was probably as efficient as any other industry in Australia.For those who say that the steel industry is having bad problems again, I just say that we got 10 magnificent years out of that industry. Unfortunately, some very dreadful mistakes were made in Western Australia which have cost the industry dearly and have set it back again. I saw John Button in the main street in Melbourne and I said to him, `You rescued the Australian car industry, made the Australian steel industry competitive and got sacked for your achievements.' He said, `You're right on all three counts,' and smiled and walked off. He was proving the economic rationalist policies of the Keating years to be wrong.Government infrastructure—the building of dams, the building of that magnificent port of Gladstone in Queensland and the building of roads—enables us to work on economies of scale that enable us to be the most efficient producers in the world. I bless, as every Queenslander blesses, those wonderful years of great government in Queensland—the Bjelke-Petersen years—that are much maligned by our opponents on the other side of the House. They built this port and said, `It will be world's best practice. It will be built on the best economies of scale that exist in the world. We will use coal loaders that the rest of the world can only dream of because of their size, and this port will take ships of 200,000 tonnes.' There are only six ports in the entire world that take ships of that size.We built a huge power station which produced the cheapest electricity in the world because of its enormous size. We were able to produce coal cheaper than anyone else in the world and we are still producing coal cheaper than anyone else in the world today, because the government was prepared to invest money to help industry. (Time expired)108322:52:001083Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise on this occasion to add my voice to the voices of complaint from the opposition about the disgraceful conduct of the government tonight in gagging the important debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill. We could have no more grand example of arrogance and high-handedness than to watch the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business scuttle back into this chamber, dressed in a dinner suit—obviously with somewhere more important to go—only to participate in a division which gagged this important debate on a piece of legislation which he knows, and every member of this House should know, is fundamentally bad public policy. One has to assume that the coalition members opposite sought the opportunity to gag this debate because they know that, if the debate was allowed to go to its full potential, ultimately they could not defend this piece of legislation.The legislation is bad public policy on three clear counts. First, it is bad public policy because it takes us further and further away from the International Labour Organisation convention dealing with termination of employment. In a world in which we are dealing with globalisation and increased insecurity, when every mind and mood study and every attitudinal study of the Australian population will tell you that working people are crying out for security, crying out to know that they will be in jobs tomorrow, that they will be able to meet their mortgage payments tomorrow and that they will be able to feed their kids tomorrow, it is somehow the answer of government members not to deal with the full debate, not to deal with globalisation and not to deal with one of the buttresses against globalisation which is of course spreading international labour regulation throughout the world. Instead of dealing with that public policy debate, their answer to those feelings of insecurity is to introduce and ram through this House a piece of legislation which will make it easier for employers to sack workers. It is fundamentally bad public policy, short-sighted and ridiculous for anybody who is trying to deal with these major public policy questions.Secondly, it is bad public policy because it means for workers in small businesses with fewer than 15 employees that you can be treated with almost any act of unfairness. The magic number is 15 employees; apparently something major happens if you get to 16 employees. This is the minister's `through the looking glass' approach.Prior to coming into this House, I worked as an industrial solicitor for eight years at Slater and Gordon and I was proud to do so and proud to represent working people and trade unions. I was also proud to work with a woman called Kate Hawkins, who is now a partner of that firm and who ran a case that I would like to tell you about briefly. It was a case involving a worker in a rural bus depot, a small business with fewer than 15 employees. The boss of the depot allowed his german shepherd to range at will, unrestrained. This worker was constantly being harassed by the dog until one morning it bit him. With blood coming out of his leg—it was a severe bite—he went to the boss and said, `I am having a bit of a problem with the dog. Would you mind chaining the dog up?' to which the boss said, `If that is your attitude, you can go.' And that worker was dismissed.Under your piece of legislation, that worker would have no rights at all to complain about the dismissal—which only goes to prove that, under this minister and under this government's regime, if it ever comes to a confrontation between a worker and a dog, you know who this government is going to back. They are going to back the dog. They showed it down at Patrick's and on the wharves during the confrontation down there. They preferred the dogs to the workers and they continue to show it now.Thirdly, this piece of legislation is bad public policy because, as the member for Gellibrand pointed out, it can be manipulated by any sharp employer who divides his or her work force between more than one company in order to come under the number of 15 employees. It is bad on three counts, three strikes. It ought to have been out, but you did not have the courage, you did not have the guts and you did not have the tenacity to come in here tonight and meet us speaker for speaker, point by point, because you knew that you could not handle the debate. That is the hallmark of this minister and the hallmark of this government on industrial relations.I will make a prediction now that you will try to do the same on every piece of industrial relations legislation that you bring into this House in the coming weeks of sitting, and next year, because you know that, on the merits, you cannot defend it. You are playing to a constituency that you are seeking to wrap up in GST tape and you are trying desperately to claw some votes back there before your new tax compliance burden hits them. You are not going to win that debate. (Time expired)108422:57:001084Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—It is timely that I bring to the House's attention tonight an innovative and creative look at the future for passenger transport over water—straight from my electorate of Gilmore which, as many here will know, is the environmental icon of Australia.Over the next few weeks, the Renewable Energy Showcase grants will be decided between the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The showcase represents the government's support for this country's most important and potentially lucrative projects developed by local inventors, manufacturers and dreamers.Solar Sailor, which was once the dream of a Gilmore resident, Dr Robert Dane, is now a reality which this country can use as an example of what can be achieved if we act upon our dreams and if we have the courage and experience to support such an innovative idea. Solar Sailor is a wholly Australian-owned company which has developed a new application for existing technology—solar power. This application makes passenger transport by solar power and other forms of renewable energy a reality this century.Solar Sailor's first vessel, a solar ferry on Sydney Harbour, is destined to be a world first, and I am delighted to say that this world first will become a reality because of the belief of Dr Robert Dane, his colleagues and the residents of Ulladulla who have wholeheartedly supported this venture. The solar powered ferry would be a highly visible way of showcasing Australia's advanced marine and renewable energy technology to the world, particularly in time for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. As a nation which will be priding itself on the green games, what better way can Australia show this than providing renewable energy transport for the many visitors who will be attending the games from throughout the world—not to mention the obvious benefits for the environment and the multimillion dollar investment this will mean for Ulladulla, for local business and particularly for employment.Ulladulla is a stunning coastal town in the south of my electorate—the perfect setting for the construction and sea trials of this vessel. The Solar Sailor team includes naval architect Graham Parker, solar computer and marine engineers in Ulladulla and Sydney and business support from Panasonic, BP Solar, Venture Corp Australia, as well as engineers Robert Pongrass and John Patterson.They have received support not just from the local community but also from some of the most influential business people in the country and companies at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology. The first seven-metre prototype, the Marjorie K, travelled at 15 knots on a sunny day in eight- to 10-knot winds. The larger the vessel the more improved the performance, with the potential for environmentally sensitive solar powered cruise ships or cargo vessels a reality. The Marjorie K was judged the most innovative vessel at last year's international Solar Advanced Technology Boat Race here in Canberra on Lake Burley Griffin.Solar wings on the ferry provide the opportunity for sailing into headwinds, recharging the vessel at sea and harnessing the power of the sun and wind.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned.23:00:001085House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices1085The following notices were given:Mr Brough to move:That this House:(1) places on record concern about the lack of awareness in the community of prostate cancer;(2) notes that the number of deaths per year ascribed to prostate cancer has nearly doubled, rising from 1355 in 1982 to 2660 in 1996; and(3) calls on the Government to support the designation of one day or week per year as National Prostate Cancer Day/Week as a means of heightening awareness.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to provide for compensation measures related to the implementation of A New Tax System, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to implement A New Tax System by providing bonus payments to older Australians, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to provide for aged care compensation measures related to the implementation of A New Tax System, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to implement A New Tax System by establishing a Register of Australian Business and providing for the issue of Australian Business Numbers, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to implement A New Tax System by amending legislation consequentially on the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1998, and for related purposes.Documents1086The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 December 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part 40—Amendments 1998 30 November.Customs Act—Instruments of approval 1998 Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination 1998 No. T22.Migration Act—Certificate under section 502 24 November 1998.