1999-02-083912REPS201301999-02-08Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Private Members' Business2013201312:31:002013Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I move:That this House:(1) draws the attention of the Government to the condition of the national rail track;(2) commends the Government for its commitment of $250 million to rail infrastructure but asks that it be expanded;(3) calls for the declaration of national rail highway from Brisbane to Perth; and(4) seeks removal of impediments to a seamless interstate rail system.The most neglected mode of Australian transport is unquestionably rail. As we approach the 21st century we expect it to make a significant contribution to the efficiency of the Australian economy, but for the most part we restrict it to a 19th century capability. If you think I exaggerate, I refer you to the Melbourne to Adelaide rail link. About 270 kilometres of that distance—namely, the section between Melbourne and Ararat, or nearly one-third of the journey—is restricted to a speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour, whereas 115 kilometres an hour might be a more desirable target. Worse still, this same stretch has 12 further speed restrictions ranging from 12 kilometres per hour to 65 kilometres per hour. Little wonder then that the journey takes three hours longer by rail than by car and that the rail transit time between these two major Australian capitals is 13 hours—the same time that it took 60 years ago. Little wonder then that industry, business and tourism ask: is government serious about rail?The one nation on earth that should be dedicated to a highly efficient shipping and land transport regime is Australia. We know what happened to ANL—it is almost too painful to contemplate. But now this crunch time has come for the poor relative of land transport—rail. In fact, so urgent is it that, if a plan of action is not devised and implemented within the next 10 years, the interstate rail service in certain corridors could become irretrievable.If we are serious about rail being able to compete with modern road transport, if we are serious about the efficient distribution of bulk commodities, if we are serious about our commitments to the environment, if we are serious about road safety and if we are serious about the economic efficiency of Australia, the Australian rail system must be addressed. That is what I seek to do with this motion before the House.The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform pulled no punches in its bipartisan report into the role of rail in the national transport system. It was a unanimous report. As chairman, I make no apologies that we said we did not want the report to have 40 tame recommendations, 20 of which called for further studies. We set out with the target of 10 or 12 hard-hitting recommendations. In the event we ended up with 16.During that inquiry the committee received 175 submissions, held 14 days of public hearings and examined 147 witnesses from 84 organisations. The committee spent six days on inspections, which varied from track facilities in the Pilbara to the condition of the said Melbourne to Adelaide line near Ararat, and from Queensland's tilt rail project to Goninan's Spotswood maintenance centre.Minister Sharp and subsequently Minister Vaile asked the committee in its terms of reference to examine the administration, operation and pricing of the national rail network, opportunities for private sector participation, means to access and utilise the rail network, effective investment in and ownership of the rail network, and characteristics of international best practice. The one denominator that is common to all those terms of reference is the track. If you do not get the track right it does not matter what rolling stock you buy, it does not matter what promotion of the railways you do, it does not matter whether government removes excise from fuel or not. All these things pale into insignificance if the track, the thing that takes the trains, is not in top condition—efficiencies will not occur.When trains in Europe are running regularly at 350 kilometres an hour and freight trains at 180 kilometres an hour, it is a joke that on our major trunk routes we have trains travelling between 10 and 65 kilometres an hour. We are an international joke when it comes to travel.In the release of the report on 12 August, I said that to achieve national best outcomes the committee had recommended three key actions for the Commonwealth to undertake. The first was to declare a national track on the standard gauge rail track linking Brisbane to Perth via both Melbourne and Broken Hill. By `declare' we mean declare it for purposes of access. The second was to address the chronic infrastructure deficiencies in the national track and the third was to immediately invest in the national track.The committee's proposal for a declaration of the track from Brisbane to Perth is a radical departure from the current situation and parallels the Commonwealth's road funding arrangements where it is responsible for the national highway, Highway 1. In effect, the standard gauge rail line from Brisbane to Perth would become the national rail highway, such as the Bruce Highway, the Princes Highway or whatever. Highway 1 is a vital artery for the nation's road system. Equally, a dedicated rail highway could achieve the same thing.The committee went on to recommend that the Australian Rail Track Corporation's role as the one-stop shop for access be enhanced by giving it control and management of the national track, including those sections of the interstate network currently controlled by state authorities. We believe this is absolutely essential.In launching the report, I highlighted the need for national consistency in standards and operations. The break in gauge is more than just the width of the track. Many witnesses gave examples highlighting how difficult it is to operate across jurisdictions; there are so many standards on just about everything. The list of inconsistencies impeding rail transport is long and almost seems beyond belief.To achieve a national approach in rail for the national track, the committee recommended that the Commonwealth fund a one-off grant to standardise signalling, radio and telecommunications and safety operations; the adoption of national standards for the condition of the track; and a strategic approach to providing consistency in safety standards and practices. While we went on to talk about other things such as training, operating procedures, transparency and access, the track was the essential and pivotal argument to our case.I repeat that, unless as a matter of urgency we deal with the infrastructure and other issues raised in the committee's report and that we do that in the next decade, rail will deteriorate to a point where the situation will become irretrievable. The appalling condition of the infrastructure for rail was one of the biggest points to emerge from that inquiry. It is not acceptable to have 70,000 concrete sleepers sidelined in a marshalling yard near Pura Pura and to have 20- and 30-metre stretches of the same train line adjoining that marshalling yard sitting in pools of mud.If we want rail to continue to have a role in the national transport system, substantial sums of money need to be invested in infrastructure. We recommended the investment of $750 million to fix the worst deficiencies of the national track. That needs to be spent in the next three years. We then recommended the investment from 2001 of $2 billion over 10 years, but that is to include funding in partnership with the states and territories or the private sector.Mr Speaker, that might sound like a lot of money, but when you consider that Queensland Rail will have spent nearly a billion dollars between Brisbane and Townsville in less than a decade on just one line it is not a big ask that, for a national system that links the five mainland capitals, we spend $2.75 billion over 12 or 13 years. What is important about it is that we have a bipartisan will to make it happen. The benefits are immeasurable. I again refer you to Queensland Rail, which has done some very innovative things over recent years. They have recently opened the tilt track line between Brisbane and Rockhampton. As recently as the 1980s, the train took 14 hours for that journey. The tilt train takes seven. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?12:41:002014Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I second the motion. I support the motion moved by the member for Hinkler. I commend him for bringing it before the House and also for chairing the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform inquiry that produced the report Tracking Australia . One hundred years ago, rail and sea were the main transport modes for Australia. Rail, in many respects, was the pride of Australia, although narrow parochialism meant economic folly—separate gauges. Rail opened up Australia. Often railway terminals were the most substantial buildings in country towns. But from those days of glory little has been done to maintain rail and its lines have been allowed to deteriorate.Contrast this with Europe, where rail is coming again into its own as a transport and freight service. As recently as last week, the French government approved a new high-speed rail link between Paris and Strasbourg. This will be only one of a number of important new rail links in Europe. We also have to get away from the idea in Australia of either investing in rail or road. In a country as vast as ours both are vital, yet it is true that over recent years a disproportionate amount of funding has gone to the road network.The British government has recently published a white paper on the future of transport, dealing with roads, rail, air, shipping, cycling and even taxis. One wishes that a similar paper could be produced in this country so for once we could look at the whole transport chain and see how all the components fit together. Our quality of life depends on transport. We all travel, even if only locally, and we need an effective, national transport system. Transport policies in this country have always been dominated by the short term.Tracking Australia is a report that at least looks at rail in the medium to longer term. During the inquiry over 117 people and organisations gave evidence and the committee inspected the world's most efficient freight trains, hauling iron ore in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. However, on the other side of Australia where most people live, we saw National Rail and other interstate freight operators struggling with poorly maintained track in Victoria with numerous speed-weight restrictions, along with track having `steam age' alignment. The main impression of the committee was just how bad the condition of some of the mainland national track was. For example, as the chairman has said, we found a section of track between Geelong and Ararat with worn-out, old wooden sleepers slowing trains down. Concrete sleepers have been sitting by the side of the track for over three years.Another problem needing urgent attention is the upgrading of the safe-working arrangements between Casino and Brisbane. They were the subject of a crucial report by the ABC's 7.30 Report on 6 November 1998. The lightweight rail on the Melbourne to Albury standard gauge track, except for the Somerton-Tallarook section that was upgraded by the Keating government as part of its $430 million rail capital works in the 1992-95 program, has reached the end of its economic life since it was laid in the early 1960s.It is now a potential safety hazard for trains moving at any reasonable speed and needs adjustment. There is a curve for every kilometre plus steep ruling grades from Sydney to Albury. We were advised that many studies have been done on the need to upgrade the worst of the `steam age' alignment, but nothing has been done. It is of concern that the recently completed Booz Allen Hamilton report, in listing nominated and evaluated rail projects for the national rail network, did not even allocate funds for the planning of the rail deviations that will be necessary to lift the average speed of Melbourne-Sydney intermodal trains from the current 70 kilometres to the agreed 80 per hour. Since this target was set in the historic 1997 rail summit of the Australian Transport Council as a five-year goal, we should either start work now or openly admit that we will fail to bring the rail track linking our two largest cities up to speed.Between Sydney and Brisbane the track alignment is even worse. Some 396 kilometres or 41 per cent of this track fails to meet basic fast freight train standards of any curve having a radius of at least 800 metres. This is one reason why the average terminal to terminal speed on intermodal freight trains is little more than 50 kilometres per hour on this corridor. Another reason is the lack of a modern signalling system north of Casino. As found by the 1994 BTCE report for the National Transport Planning Task Force for this rail corridor:Transit times, reliability and costs are so poor that the corridor may not survive as a commercial freight alternative unless improvements are implemented. Not only is the future of this corridor in doubt but also other interstate rail corridors may be lost if they are not upgraded to basic modern engineering standards.The Sydney-Brisbane rail corridor was noted as far back as 1989 as being in jeopardy by an earlier Booz Allen Hamilton report for State Rail. Its present outlook, at current levels of upgrading, is poor. Indeed, the current upgrading of the Pacific Highway to a near four-lane standard by 2005 may prove to be in vain if all it achieves is taking more and more freight off rail and putting it onto B-doubles. This would likely be followed by the closure of the line.The committee was advised that, on the basis of earlier BTCE estimates for the National Transport Planning Task Force, it would cost about $3 billion to upgrade the national rail system so that freight trains could operate efficiently and effectively against trucks using the upgraded national highway system. The committee's report makes it very clear that, if we are to retain railway tracks between our largest cities, they will need upgrading at a cost far exceeding the $250 million currently on offer over four years by the Howard government. We have recommended that this amount be increased to $1,000 million over the next three years, and that from 2001 a further $2 billion be invested. The amounts involved may seem large, but the stark choice is either upgrading our national railway network linking our state capitals or closing it down and increasing the nation's road freight task by some 15 per cent. Australia's road freight task, about 114 billion tonne kilometres in 1995, is already the highest per capita in the world.So the option of closing down the interstate rail network should be thrown out by this parliament and an increased allocation made for basic upgrading. This should include the basic deferred maintenance, plus funding for rail research and forward planning, and the lifting of overhead clearances of Melbourne-Adelaide to allow for Perth-Adelaide double stacked container trains to be extended to Melbourne. The cost of such clearance lifting, plus some grade and curve easing on the eastern side of the Adelaide Hills, would be of the same order as the new Adelaide Hills-Crafers Highway with its new tunnels, which is due to be opened later in 1999 at a cost of $138 million. I would suggest that upgrading the Melbourne-Adelaide rail corridor should be given the same priority as this road works nearing completion.We also need to identify a longer term Melbourne-Brisbane route capable of double stacked container movements. This length of haul is best suited to rail. Yet as noted by the National Transport Planning Task Force in 1995:. . . rail only carries 21 per cent of the long-distance freight. Rail traffic has to pass over more difficult terrain than road, through Sydney, and over a distance 24 per cent longer than road. Road traffic travels along the Newell Highway, covering the door-to-door distance in 22 hours, compared with rail, which requires 37 hours from terminal to terminal.In 1998, the government conducted a study of the use of road trains on the Newell Highway, and in 1997 our committee, when examining our road system, was bombarded with calls to upgrade the Goulburn Valley Highway. This could cost $500 million, and I have no doubt that planning is under way for this right now. An earlier report found that $1 billion would be warranted for the Seymour-Brisbane highways. What we need to do, and do quickly, is to seek the best advice possible and compare the national benefits of spending $1,000 million on facilitating road trains on the Newell and Goulburn Valley Highways, or to spend about the same amount in developing a basic inland standard gauge railway from Melbourne to Brisbane via Parkes that would be capable of carrying double stacked containers. For my part, I would prefer to see trains on tracks rather than road trains on our national highway system in the eastern states.There are often suggestions made that the states, or the private sector, should invest in our interstate rail links. For the states, investing in interstate rail tracks is as reasonable as expecting the states to invest in the national highway system. The states' failure to invest in the interstate roads in the 1950s and 1960s was the reason that 25 years ago the Whitlam government formed the national highway system. To date, some $18 billion has been spent, in today's dollars, on the national highway system, whilst the federal outlay on rail capital works on interstate links is of the order of $1 billion. The committee in 1998, as per its roads report in 1997, like the National Transport Planning Task Force in 1994 and the Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Party on Transport in 1991, urged a more balanced approach to federal outlays in road and rail investment. Until we do this and get a much better balance between rail track access fees for trains and road pricing for heavy trucks, it is pointless expecting the private sector to make significant rail investments.In the lead-up to the centenary of Federation, it is relevant to note that our intercapital rail links played a vital part in the formation of the Commonwealth. The constitution gives the Commonwealth ample provision to not only operate railways but also build and improve railways. The present government saw fit to effectively disband Australian National, and still wishes to sell National Rail. The least the government can now do is recognise the need for urgent investment in the national rail network. (Time expired)12:51:002016McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to support the motion before the House in this new era of railways in Australia. I commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform report Tracking Australia , produced under the outstanding chairmanship of the member for Hinkler, and I commend all those members who participated in producing that report. It is a landmark report. Other members have referred to the changing attitudes towards railways in governments and also in the private sector.As members would be aware, passenger railways and their operation have dominated the thinking and policies of governments and those people using railways around Australia. There is a change taking place in the way in which those railways operate; we have only to look at the Homebush Olympic Games site where the new railway will service that venue with 50,000 people per hour and a train every two minutes. That will bring about a change of attitude towards urban rail in Sydney and around Australia.The committee report and the motion really refer to freight. That is the problem that we face in Australia: moving freight by sea, road or rail. In the mid-1990s that was divided at about one-third each, with road dominating in terms of tonnes carried and value. Road always had an advantage because it was a fast, short-haul, door-to-door, flexible service, whereas rail was not beating the competition. Rail freight, fundamentally, was interstate. The intrastate was lacking because of state rivalries—and all members would be aware of that. The National Rail Corporation now carries 16 per cent of the national freight.Railways have been in decline over many years because of inconsistent operating systems, different regulations state by state, difficulty in gaining access to the state track systems, unreliability of the operations, poor customer responsiveness and the 19th century alignments of the tracks. Roads enjoyed new highways that were straight and multilaned.However, there is emerging support for rail, as this report indicates, especially for long-haul rail movement. Queensland Rail is a shining light of the ability to invest capital on new tracks, especially for mineral exports. Road accidents cost an estimated $6 billion a year; rail is comparatively safe and it is environmentally friendly. With the introduction of new technologies that other speakers have mentioned, as has happened in Europe, as well as deregulation and road congestion, there is a move back to railways.The state transport ministers met in 1997, and the states and the Commonwealth unusually agreed to a course of action to set up interstate rail arrangements, where there would be investment access to one track from Brisbane to Perth. As other speakers have mentioned, the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics have suggested that if we only spent $3.2 billion on a 20-year rail program we could bring the track up to scratch. I commend the previous Labor government for their One Nation program where $443 million was spent on upgrading interstate tracks and terminals. The Hilmer competition policy has ensured that there will be more genuine competition between road, rail and the private sector.The real problem that rail faces is the old formations: the ballast drainage, old sleepers and gradients. This brings about speed restrictions which make rail uncompetitive with road. The Melbourne-Adelaide section, which other members have alluded to and which goes through part of the electorate of Corangamite, is very good evidence of the poor standard of laying of the track between Pura Pura and the South Australia border: replacing of standard gauge track on poor ballast with new concrete sleepers, which was unbelievable; using life expired rail; the appalling conditions of the standard gauge, which the committee inspected between Gheringhap and Ararat; and using old sleepers so much so that that becomes a major problem.Finally, there is an example of good railway practice in the Pilbara region. It is world's best practice and it gives a lead to railways throughout Australia. Trains in that region are 2½ kilometres long and carry 28,000 tonnes in one run. They are world's best practice, so that proves that we can do it here in Australia if we are prepared to invest the money in the track and provide new rolling stock. Contrary to some of the expectations of the new projects, like the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, I would advocate to members of this House that we get our current railway system in order. Let us make the investment. Let us make the rolling stock better. Let us get the track in order. Then we can start looking at new investments such as Alice Springs-Darwin.12:56:002017Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—We have not been very clever in the development of transport systems in this country, particularly over the last 40 years. In fact, you could say that our collective brain on transport systems has largely been disengaged. We have allowed one of our great resources—an extensive rail network spanning much of the continent—to deteriorate and become increasingly uncompetitive against road transport. It seems that the prevailing view in government for 40 years has been that rail is an outdated, 19th century form of transport, intrinsically uncompetitive against modern road transport and destined to die out.I do not believe this is the case, nor do I think that the members for Throsby or Corangamite or Hinkler believe that either. I believe that rail does have a future in a balanced national transport plan and that the main problem for rail has been the failure of successive governments, both state and federal, to acknowledge that future and to fund it appropriately. It is a proper role for government to provide the transport infrastructure needed for the efficient operation of the national economy.The problem is that almost all of the money has gone into road infrastructure. Rail infrastructure and indeed shipping have not been similarly supported by government. On this the facts speak for themselves. Government spending on roads is almost 10 times that spent on rail transport. If the hidden subsidies for road trauma and compensation are taken into account, it is probably 20 times.The result of this differential funding is that, compared to rail, road transport has become a very competitive form of haulage. That is all very well and good—especially for trucking companies, oil companies and so on—but the role of government in creating a national transport infrastructure is much wider than that. That role involves providing balanced transport infrastructure according to a proper national plan—and that means appropriate funding for rail as well. Given the current state of our rail infrastructure, as outlined in the report Tracking Australia, if that does not happen soon, the road transport industry will be without competition from rail altogether—something which cannot be good for either consumers or the economy generally. The unbalanced focus on road transport is also responsible for additional costs which are not generally taken into account when comparing the efficiency of the different modes of transport. For example, the high and escalating cost in both human and dollar terms of the road toll, both in road trauma and compensation payments, is at least in part the result of the heavy increase in road transport.What this country needs is a diverse transport infrastructure. It is a mistake to put all our eggs in one basket. Infrastructure for road, rail and shipping transport must be properly funded by government for the economy to operate with the efficiency needed to grow. I believe that if governments had, over the years, maintained a reasonable level of expenditure to allow for continual and appropriate upgrading of the rail infrastructure then rail would be a much more competitive transport alternative today.Such expenditure would have enabled those aspects of the tracks which cause inefficiencies—timber sleepers, tight curves, steep gradients, and low and narrow tunnels and bridges—to be progressively eliminated. This would have enabled the industry to grow and to effectively utilise the new rail technologies. But because of decades of neglect, a massive injection of funding is needed to rebuild the infrastructure and win the confidence of potential investors.As the members for Hinkler, Throsby and Corangamite have pointed out, the track between Adelaide and Melbourne is one of the most neglected sections of the national network and is in desperate need of repair. In fact, sometimes it takes longer to transport freight along this track than it did 100 years ago. The problem is not confined to just this track. According to the Tracking Australia report, failure to provide substantial infrastructure investment may mean that major sections of the national rail network will be irretrievably neglected within ten years.However, the injection of funds needed to revive the rail industry will require a display of will and vision on the part of government, and the Howard government's offer so far of $250 million over four years is a miserly and wholly inadequate response. What is needed at the very least can be found in the recommendation of the Tracking Australia report: $750 million over three years to remove the critical deficiencies on a declared national track, and $2 billion over ten years from 2001.It is vital for the efficient running of our economy that we have a first-class transport system. But that means more than first-class roads. Rail has a future and a place in any planning for a national transport system. The current rail network is in dire need of substantive investment in both infrastructure and personnel. Road freight transport will undoubtedly continue to grow, and rail will not again in the foreseeable future reclaim the mantle of being the premier form of national freight transport. The national roads program is therefore very important. (Time expired)13:02:002017Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—It is very pleasing to stand and support the excellent motion on rail infrastructure moved by the member for Hinkler, and also to endorse the remarks made by the previous speakers, the members for Throsby, Corangamite and Port Adelaide. As someone who knows a bit about transport I am not all that forthcoming when I talk about the Australian rail system to engineering colleagues of mine. Unfortunately, we have the legacy—which should prove to be an example to us as a nation that aspires to great things—of lack of vision.The dilemma we face is the lack of a comprehensive national rail system. Although we owe a lot to our founding fathers, they did not think very far ahead when they deliberately decided to have different gauges in each state. Of course each state is based on the colonial system at the time, radially into the state capitals, and that does not suit the needs of a modern nation now—the need to transport from west to east and from north to south. The absence of a nationally coordinated grid system is another deficiency. This has been the reason for a lack of infrastructure investment. It is a sad reflection that road transport is more efficient. This has occurred because the transport system has not been up to the modern needs of our nation.I am a little embarrassed also, because the members for Hinkler and Port Adelaide have both made reference to some very poor standard gauge track in Victoria that happens to run right through my electorate, right through the spine of the Wimmera. It is the source of many complaints from my constituents, who like to use the various railways stations along there as passenger ports but make the decision, as many trucking operators do, that it is better to go by car.I think the member's motion is a timely one for the parliament to make sure that the momentum that is being gathered continues. The member for Corangamite paid credit to the previous Keating government. I was very pleased to see those initiatives. I now at least have two standard gauge rail tracks running north to Yaapeet and Hopetoun in my electorate, which is very important in order to get grain down to both the Melbourne and Portland ports. Mallee being a very strong grain area, that is where the freight should stay—on the rail system and not on the road.I have a reflection on the lack of vision by our founding fathers from the 1995 report referred to by the member for Port Adelaide. In it I found a quote regarding Earl Grey at the time:With broad gauge equipment already ordered, the irritated Victorians asked London to veto the New South Wales' about-turn. But Earl Grey was in the process of giving the colonies more freedom to make their own mistakes. . . It is what looks in hindsight like a simple mistake which is having profound effects on our rail system. From my further reading I thought I might offer some light-hearted reference to the standard gauge. It is actually a standard which is four feet, 8.5 inches, which is an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that is the way they built them in England, and many of our engineers at that time were English expatriates.Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built on the same principle as the tramway system, and that is the gauge they used. Why did they use that gauge? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building the wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Why did the wagons use that spacing? Well, they tried to use the same spacing as the wagons, which corresponded to the same distance as the wheel ruts at the time.Where did the long distance roads in Europe come from—and why were there ruts? They were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. They were the roads used to expand the great Roman Empire. The roads were that width, because that was the width of the chariots. Thus we have an answer to our question. The standard gauge distance of four feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for the width of an original Roman chariot.It proves that we should stick to the original specification, not divert from it. So the next time we are tempted to wonder what horse's backside came up with this odd gauge we will be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back end of two horses. It just proves that we should not divert from an original specification. (Time expired)13:07:002018Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I understand that the issues raised by the member for Hinkler arise out of an inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Micro Economic Reform into the role of rail in the national transport network. My predecessor the Hon. Peter Morris was deputy chair of that committee and he has emphasised to me the importance of upgrading our rail infrastructure. It is of vital importance not only to Australia as a whole, but also to the Hunter and Central Coast regions within my electorate. My predecessor also mentioned to me that the member for Hinkler has a great interest in rail and is very committed to seeing that we get the national rail network, as was my predecessor.The current national rail network is not meeting the needs of Australia. It is creating a problem for regional areas like the ones I represent. It is inhibiting the transfer of goods to and from the regions and impacting on the economic viability of the industries operating in the regions. Its inadequacies are forcing companies to transport their goods by road, which in turn is forcing government to invest more money in upgrading road infrastructure. It is essential that this government act now to upgrade the track between Sydney and Melbourne. This section of track needs straightening and all sections of the track must be upgraded to a dual tracking system.Another major problem area is Sydney where there is a bottleneck that causes major problems for goods travelling from Newcastle to Melbourne. Trains are regularly delayed for up to six hours. Sydney is a major problem as far as a seamless rail system is concerned. These problems must be addressed as a priority. There needs to be a major investment into this infrastructure because the delays are currently a major disincentive to the use of rail.While this government has committed $250 million to rail infrastructure Australia wide over four years, this does little to solve the bottleneck at Sydney where in the vicinity of $600 million is required to be spent to ensure the smooth transit of freight. The commitment to rail infrastructure must be expanded. I can understand the member for Hinkler calling for the $250 million to be extended—$250 million is only a drop in the bucket. If our national rail infrastructure is to be upgraded, then the government must show some leadership. It must make a substantial financial commitment to the upgrade. If it does not show this leadership and does not make a more substantial commitment, our national road infrastructure will collapse.The Tracking Australia report recommended that in addition to the $250 million committed to the national rail infrastructure there should be a further $750 million over three years. I can understand why the member for Hinkler is encouraging this money to be committed. It is essential that we have this investment. The $750 million would be spent on priorities developed between the state and Commonwealth government. There would be a further $2 billion over 10 years from the year 2001. It is very evident that an enormous financial commitment is needed and it is beholden on this government to ensure the future viability of our national rail infrastructure by making this substantial commitment to the upgrading of the rail network. It is quite obvious that $250 million will do little to upgrade our national rail infrastructure. It is essential that the government address the need for a standard gauge, as has already been mentioned, from Brisbane to Perth. There is a chronic deficiency that needs to be addressed to stop the irretrievable deterioration of the system.As the member for Hinkler would agree, the current investment is totally inadequate, even with the $250 million. The government needs to do much more in terms of effective investment in Australia's public rail infrastructure. It is essential that the government show leadership and assist in the development of an integrated, funded transport plan with a strategy to address the needs of the nation's rail. If this does not happen, it will collapse. The government must show leadership and address the imbalance that exists between road and rail funding. (Time expired)13:12:002019Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—There is no doubt that rail infrastructure in this country is in a parlous state, but at least this government is addressing that problem. With proper planning and coordination, and the $250 million that has been allocated, a start has been made. In the motion before us today, the member for Hinkler, in his wisdom and commitment to a good outcome, encourages the cabinet in particular to look more closely at ways to further enhance the $250 million that has already been allocated. In the last parliament, the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Micro Economic Reform did a lot of work and spoke to a lot of people about the problems associated with rail transport in this country.I think what the member for Hinkler has put forward today is worthy of support. In some ways—and I have said this to the member privately—I would like to amend the motion and add just about any form of infrastructure because what is true for rail is true for almost every bit of infrastructure in this country. More money needs to be spent after proper planning and consideration.The problem with rail is not the making of this government but is something that has happened over the last 120 years. All infrastructure in this country has basically been an area of responsibility for government since 1788. Rail has been the victim of competing interests between state and federal governments and the pro-road and pro-rail lobbies for far too long. As different transport ministers and different departmental heads have come and gone, and as the pro and anti rail forces come and go, we have seen the current mess develop.What we have at stake, after almost 100 years of federation, is not much of a change from what we had 100 years ago. Those competing interests are still there and some of the inadequacies and inconsistencies of the rail system from 100 years ago are still here today. For instance, the Commonwealth government puts money into rail infrastructure into Sydney. The standard gauge, conveniently for the New South Wales government, is also the gauge in New South Wales. The first thing that happens when more rail is laid to the port of Botany or ports around Sydney is that the New South Wales government decides that the Sydney suburban rail lines should access that rail and freight is left sitting outside Sydney for six or 12 hours waiting for a slot to get in. So Sydney is an absolute basket case.The national track between Brisbane and Newcastle is an absolute disgrace. Yet north of that, in Queensland, is the best laid track in Australia. And why? Because, deliberately, over the last eight years there has been a concerted effort to put real money into the infrastructure. For instance, between Brisbane and Rockhampton—through the electorate of the honourable member for Hinkler—the curves, inclines and gradients have all been relaid with the future in sight. And more recently, plans have been announced to continue that through to Cairns. This is the sort of thing that needs to be done across Australia.You cannot help but wonder if, in fact, given the problem in Sydney, it might be better to put the Queensland gauge through as the standard gauge; it might prevent the Sydney city trains from using it as a way of right. The previous efforts from the Keating government—their One Nation rail moneys—in practice, were a farce. For instance, the committee found during its deliberations that some infrastructure that was bought was not properly laid—that concrete sleepers were left lying beside railway lines. The sleepers were bought with the One Nation moneys and in rural Victoria they were not installed.In my own electorate the Port of Brisbane rail link, which commences from the National Rail freight terminal partly in my electorate and partly in the electorate of the member for Rankin—I see him here in the chamber—sat idle for a couple of years while there were arguments over signalling.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.202013:16:002020Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I move:That the House:(1) reverts to the previous sitting arrangements introduced in 1994, which were abandoned by this Government in 1996, to allow for a more family-friendly workplace;(2) notes the increased number of Members since the election, on both sides of the House, who have young families and/or recently formed partnerships;(3) also notes the hundreds of Members' staff who are required to be here to work while the House sits until 11 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday evenings and the effect that these absurd working hours has on their families and private lives; and(4) also notes that if it were to revert to the previous sitting pattern which includes sitting from the day's commencement through until adjournment at 8 p.m. there will be a loss of only three sitting hours per week in the House of Representatives chamber.This private member's motion specifically asks the House to revert to the previous sitting arrangements that were introduced in 1994 and abandoned following the election of this government in 1996. This reversion would allow for a more family friendly workplace for all of us required to be here, including our staff and the parliamentary staff. This motion also raises for debate and discussion the health issues related to late night working hours.Before I speak in detail on this motion, I would like to thank the other members of the opposition who have agreed to speak in favour of it. I thank the member for Rankin, Dr Craig Emerson, for seconding the motion. The member for Rankin, like me, is a parent of young children and more than understands the need for us to achieve an appropriate balance between our work and our families—a balance which often finds work and family overlapping.I also thank the member for Paterson, Bob Horne, who is the only speaker from this side who has had the opportunity to work under the current sitting arrangements as well as the more civilised arrangements that were introduced in 1994 by the previous Labor government. I thank the member for Capricornia, Kirsten Livermore, for agreeing to speak on this motion. Many members would be aware of the athletic ability of the member for Capricornia. As a young, energetic new member, she would be very much aware that no amount of physical fitness can overcome the fatigue which is experienced by all members towards the end of a sitting period after being up until midnight and back early the next morning to work for days at a time.I will be very interested to hear the contribution to this debate by government members. It is interesting to note that the government speakers do not include any member who supported the previous sitting hours, either by making a submission to the original inquiry, About time , or by speaking in this chamber during the tabling of the Time for review report, the 1995 review of the sitting hours that were implemented in 1994.I am pleased to raise this issue once again in this chamber. This is the fourth occasion since 1993 that the sitting hours of this chamber have been debated. The first debate in 1993 was on the tabling of the report of the Procedure Committee About time . This was the report which recommended against late night sittings and for more reasonable adjournment times. It also recommended the establishment of the Main Committee to deal with less contentious legislation.The second debate was after the implementation of those recommendations during the tabling of the Time for review report, which recommended no changes to the altered sitting pattern. The third occasion followed the 1996 election and the change in government when the government, and in particular the Leader of the House, unilaterally decided to revert once again to late night sittings. Some of the possible reasons for this I will explore later.I thank the Selection Committee for the opportunity to raise this matter for debate once again, to give the new members here some insight into the reasoning behind the sitting hours and maybe provide some of the more assertive government members with the opportunity to express their displeasure at the detrimental effects which these working hours have on family and health.The first area I will address, and the area to which this motion alludes, is the detrimental effect that late night sittings have on our families. As we all know, the life of a member of parliament does include long working hours. If we are in the electorate, it includes evening functions and meetings, work on the weekends, community work to fit in with community groups and community leaders and, of course, our constituent work. However, when we are at home, it is possible to allocate some time to spend with our families. Whether this is taking the kids to school or picking them up, helping them with their homework, sitting down together for a meal or spending some quality time with our partners, this time is absolutely essential if we are to maintain near normal family relationships.So what happens when we bring our children or our partners to Canberra during the parliamentary sittings? This government expects them to sit around the office watching mum or dad or their partner work. The corridors of this place, although the kids would love to tear down them, are hardly places where they can make much noise. The cafe closes at 8 p.m. and even the library is not open if they want to look around there. So for two nights out of four when we could have our families spending some time with us, we expect them to look after themselves.During previous debates on this issue there have been some supporters of late night sittings who say that when we do not have any family members with us, `We are here in Canberra so we may as well work.' That is well and good if you are one of the few people who do not need much sleep. But for many of us who still require a regular, normal sleep pattern, the effects on our families can be significant.After a week's work in parliament with late night sittings, members usually return to their electorates on Friday morning for electorate business appointments and other constituent matters. By the time we arrive home, we are tired. It certainly impacts unfavourably on our relations with family and others. I know my children and partner would like me to be relaxed during the couple of days at home before I drive back here on Sunday for another week of parliament. By the end of the second week the position is worse still, and it can take some time to return to some semblance of normality.This debate is about the detrimental effects that late working hours can have on family life, but there are also detrimental effects on our health. If our physical and mental health is adversely affected, this also impacts adversely on our families. During the previous debates on this issue, one of the strongest submissions put forward was that of Senator Herron—a member of the government and a qualified medical practitioner. Other members in this chamber have also referred to his submission. He examined the detrimental effects that extended late night working hours have on a person's health. Working during night-time impinges on a person's ability to function well, to absorb information and to maintain the level of productivity achieved when working during the daylight hours. The medical evidence proves this.I am sure these statements would be endorsed by the other medical practitioners on the government benches—people who, in their previous lives as medical practitioners, would have displayed compassion and sensitivity when it came to the physical and mental wellbeing of others. Some of those members occasionally display those qualities in this place, particularly the member for Bradfield. I am sure the new member for Moore, Dr Washer, will take the opportunity in the future to display those qualities. The members for Casey, Boothby and Bradfield were noticeably silent during the 1996 debate on this issue. I urge those medical practitioners in this House to join their colleagues, the members for Fisher, Adelaide and Moncrieff, who supported the 8 p.m. rising times when they were initially proposed.I want to examine the possible reasoning behind the Leader of the House changing the times to late nights with no consultation. As I mentioned, the 8 p.m. rises on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and 6 p.m. rise on Thursday, along with the setting up of the Main Committee, were implemented after an extensive inquiry which was supported by a subsequent review. Why then would the Leader of the House want to throw that away? Maybe he was concerned about discipline—that he did not have control over government members once they left this place at 8 p.m. Maybe it was to enable the Hyatt catering service to increase its profits by establishing set dinner breaks for members. It certainly was not to enable us to undertake research in the Library, because the Library is closed.It has been suggested in some quarters that it was to appease the Prime Minister, who thought that this workplace required some mateship—some bonding over a few drinks in the dinner break, a chance to mix with colleagues. I am sure if the Prime Minister observed this place more closely, he would see that this does not happen. I know we on the opposition benches do not need dinner breaks to forge friendships or renew acquaintances.I know this motion will be ably debated and supported by speakers from this side. I find it disappointing that none of the medical practitioners on the government benches or even some of the newer members, some of the younger members or some of the female members have been able to participate in this debate here today. I hope the government members who are speaking will support this motion. I commend it to the House.10000Hoare, Kelly, MPMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time.13:26:002021Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I thank the member for Charlton for her motion, but unfortunately I do not find myself able to support it. Believe it or not, this is not a 9 to 5 job. The reality is that, like most workplaces, parliament is not particularly family friendly—I will give you that point, and I agree with you absolutely. This is not a family friendly place, but I do not know many workplaces that are family friendly places. We go to work to do a job, and we are expected to perform our duties during the time we are at work. Perhaps some day in the dim future, we will see workplaces that integrate home and work. I do note that there have been studies in my own area recently on how many small businesses have started and are operating from family homes. There has been a very dramatic increase, particularly with the increased use of information technology which has allowed that to occur.I can tell you that 24 or 25 years ago I started a business and operated it from my own home. It sounds great—I was there with the kids; you can bond with the kids; you are there with momma. I remember one day when there was one estimator upstairs in the mezzanine with an apprentice working with him, my wife was in the kitchen on a typewriter, the secretary was in the office reception area on a typewriter, I was in the dining room taking off plans for another job, and we had something like 54 representatives of companies who were either tendering on projects for us or who were there to potentially supply goods, and I flipped. So I moved the business out of the house and built a separate workplace which was no longer family friendly.When they come to visit us in Parliament House, there is space for our families and for the children. There is a swimming pool, a gymnasium, gardens and places to eat. So we are not totally unfriendly. In fact, I would say that we probably have more opportunity for our families here than most average workplaces.The fact is that we are away from home and we are away from our families when we are here, and we are here to work. There is only one item in our job description—if you read the Constitution—and that is to attend parliament. It does not say one dot about what our responsibilities are, except to attend parliament. As I recall, it says two things we must be—we must be 18 and we must be Australian citizens—and it says four things we must not be, such as bankrupt and subservient to a foreign government.My staff argue that, as they are already here and away from home, if the House were to rise at 8 p.m. they would have go back to an empty motel room, so they may as well stay here and work. I accept that. This motion makes it sound like we are sitting until 11 o'clock for five nights in a row. You and I know that is not true. It is for only two nights out of the week, and it is only a partial week. We are gone on most of the Fridays, which gives us the opportunity to be in our electorate offices and not have to do all of the electorate work on the weekend, notwithstanding all the rest of our responsibilities. My staff are quite happy to be here working until the House finishes with its business.When the House does rise at 8 o'clock on a Wednesday night, there is no dinner break. I maintain that, on health grounds, it is far better to be eating dinner between 6.30 p.m and 8 p.m. than it is to start dinner after 8 o'clock. It is true that, when we had the old system, there were fewer people in the Members' Dining Room. More and more people went out to eat, and I have to say to you that I think that some members wound up using that time less constructively than they might otherwise have done.The honourable member is a new member. We all have to be new some time or other—I accept that; that is good. The Senate sits a lot more hours than we do. If you reckon sitting until 11 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday is tough, try being in that other place and see the hours they sit sometimes—until 3 a.m, 4 a.m, or 5 a.m. It is not just on one night but night after night at times when they are trying to get through very detailed examination of bills. They go on and on and on.You talked about the dinner break and the parliamentary dining room. Your problem seems to be that members do not go to the parliamentary dining room and that senators do not come and mix with you, giving you an opportunity to talk, which, otherwise, you might not have had. I have found this place to be a very unfriendly workplace, quite frankly. People with experience from Old Parliament House have talked to me about what the atmosphere was like there. They acknowledge—and, I am certain, rightly—that the accommodation was shocking. It was cramped, it was crowded, and there was very little in the way of facilities. Here we have computers coming out of ears. We have faxes, photocopiers and all the electronic gadgetry you could ask for to process more information, but we do not have that closeness in this House.This House, in my view, is a very poor debating chamber. I understand that it was built for the future, and I know it looks lovely from up there in the gallery—there are some people there at the moment. Very good. Very well done—but, for me, this House is too big. We are too far away. I almost need to shout to talk to my colleague over there, the honour able member for Charlton, who proposed this motion. It is not conducive to debate.The rest of the place is so ginormous that you could hide in your office—I reckon you could just about die and nobody would find you for a couple of days. The parliamentary dining room does give us an opportunity, that many members and senators take, to sit with colleagues that they might not otherwise see during a working day in this place and chat about the issues that are on the go at the moment. I think that is important. We really could do with more opportunities to make this place like a community—adversarial as it is but, nonetheless, a community.In order for the parliament to deal with a legislative program, it is necessary for us to work long hours. The hours are not unreasonable considering that they are concentrated in only two out of the first four days of the 20 weeks or so that parliament sits. Committee work continues both before and after normal sitting hours. Quorums and divisions can interrupt lunchtimes as there is no designated lunch break, so at least we have a designated dinner break. On Wednesday night, the parliamentary dining room is still available. Many of us go out for dinner on Wednesday night.The parliamentary sitting hours, I maintain, are really no different than those worked when out and about in the electorate. It is not unusual for us as parliamentarians to participate in community activities in our own electorate, at least three or four nights a week, until after 11 p.m. The difference is that you may have the opportunity to go home for dinner and you may not, but I can tell you that there is many a night when my night-time commitments in the electorate are so onerous that I am lucky to have some McDonalds in the car between one engagement and the next. I do not think that is very good for my health.A return to the Keating sitting hours is a return to the time when ministers were rostered on in question time, reducing their accountability to the parliament. I doubt that the member for Charlton is really asking us to go back to rostered question times and those days, but perhaps she is. Perhaps what the member wants is less accountable government.This government was elected on a platform of full-time members of parliament who would work hard for the people of Australia. We are the parliamentarians who work here and we have to make it work. If we sit fewer hours, then we will sit more days and you and I will be away from our families for more days than we would otherwise. The motion was given in good faith, but also in good faith, I cannot support it. (Time expired)13:36:002022Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I would like to thank the member for Charlton for proposing that I be involved in this debate and giving me the opportunity to say a few words about the motion, which I seconded and fully support. The member for Charlton and I have a number of things in common. Firstly, we are new members, so we are quite prepared to have a fresh look at these issues. Secondly, we are members of parliament with families—young families at that. Together, we bring that sort of perspective to the debate. The parliamentary sitting program has been the subject of an extensive review by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, and a major report, dated October 1993, was produced as a result of that review. That report led to the sitting hours that were decided upon and applied by the previous government.I think an important point in relation to that report is that it enjoyed a very considerable measure of bipartisan support. It was not from one political perspective or another; people on both sides of politics supported the sitting hours that were implemented. I think—and I am sure the member for Charlton agrees—that those sitting hours were appropriate, and that is why we have come together to support this motion.What happened was that, in effectively a unilateral decision, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House changed those arrangements to the ones that we now face. Therefore, I think that we need a reconsideration of that unilateral decision, and we need to return to the arrangements that were in place before the election of the Howard government. I noted comments a moment ago that members of parliament may be subjected to the trauma of going back to their hotel rooms if we reverted to these hours. Perhaps that reflects more the personalities of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, that they should be worried that they do not enjoy the company of their colleagues and would have to go back and mope in their hotel rooms, but I am sure there would be no such concerns on this side of the House.I think an objective of the sitting hours should be a proper amount of time for the debate of important bills before the Parliament. In the 1900s there were 25 sitting hours per act passed. That is a lot of debating time, particularly compared with the average time allotted in the 1990s, which is only 2.2 sitting hours per act passed. We saw an example in the last week of sittings last year when vitally important legislation, in the form of the GST legislation, was guillotined. I was gagged on two occasions, and we found it very disap pointing that such an extensive bill was to be debated in such a short time.There should be no question, for those who are speaking to the motion, of our capacity for hard work. It is not a matter of our feeling that, `We have to get off at 8 o'clock because we cannot endure any more.' Quite the contrary. I can assure members of this parliament that the member for Charlton and all the people on this side of the House worked very hard and long to get here in the first place, and we are very content to continue to work hard and long to represent our people.Balanced against a reasonable amount of time for debate, we must have a reasonable amount of time for contact with the electorate. We need to represent the people. It is after all the House of Representatives. We also need a reasonable amount of time with our families, because they nurture us and help us keep our perspective so that we can be truly representative of the people of our electorates who are, by and large, families. I think that is a vitally important point.My last major point is that we need to continue to encourage more women into the parliament. The sitting hours should not be decided by men, for men, and that is what has happened on this occasion. Of course, the longer we sit on a given day the more time we have in the electorate, but we may be less effective in the electorate and we cannot take time out with our families. It could be that part of the solution lies in the Main Committee. (Time expired)13:41:002023Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I thank the member for Charlton for bringing forward this motion on sitting hours and, in the brief time allocated, I will make three or four relevant points. It is much debated in the party rooms, around the corridors, in the House of Representatives committees and again here today, and I certainly agree with the member for La Trobe when he says that this place is not designed to be particularly family friendly. The issue of the workplace and how family friendly it is receives a lot of attention, but there is a job to be done and the practicalities do not allow us to do much better than we are currently doing.Concerning occupational health and safety, I believe the hours that we currently sit—particularly the first two days when we sit until 11 p.m.—are excessive, and I would favour an earlier adjournment of something like 9 p.m. The point that the old house had a more intimate atmosphere is a fair point, but today's technology allows us to hear what is going on. The intimacy and feeling of camaraderie in debate is not as intimate as it could be, but that is a design issue; it has nothing to do with sitting hours.The previous member mentioned that in the 1900s there were 25 hours per bill passed and 2.2 hours per bill in the 1990s. I think this is relevant, and I think it shows the enormous amount of legislation we are increasingly putting through this place. As far as the overall hours of sitting are concerned, I would personally support the reduction of hours from 11 p.m. to 9 p.m. for three days—that is, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. For the regional members, I put in the plug that I find it difficult to understand why we have to go to the bell at 6 p.m. Many of us live in distant parts of this country and, if we were to rise at 5 p.m., many of us would be able to get to our electorates and to our families and fulfil our electorate duties in a much more efficient and effective manner.The issue of the dinner break always seems to arise in this debate. I believe it is a matter for both sides of parliament to not indulge in the calling of quorums and frivolous divisions. It is within the power of all of us not to call quorums when it is a useless waste of time. We could be much more efficient in the way we use our time if we did not indulge in these practices.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The member for Grey will have an opportunity to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Statements by Members202420242024Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I feel compelled to make members of this House aware of the dilemma facing many families around Australia who have children suffering from cystic fibrosis. I was staggered to learn cystic fibrosis has been removed from the eligibility list of recognised disabilities which qualify for the full child disability allowance. Cystic fibrosis is the most common chronic genetic illness in Australia, yet newly diagnosed cases have been excluded from receiving automatic assistance. From 2003, families will no longer automatically qualify for the $75.10 fortnightly allowance. The impact on these families will be enormous and, without doubt, will impinge on the quality of life of sufferers.There is no cure for cystic fibrosis. It is a life-limiting condition. Children with this illness require daily medical treatment and supervision. They need constant care and attention, every day of their lives. These children spend hours each day with parents doing routine physiotherapy and exercise, to make the most of their short time with family and friends. As if the stress and emotional impact this places on families was not enough, the financial hardship many of these families face is a serious burden. It is imperative cystic fibrosis be reinstated to the child disability allowance list. We must show we care and we must support families who are experiencing real hardship. I will soon be calling on members of this House to reinstate the full child disability allowance for cystic fibrosis.20242024Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I would like to mention the achievements of two young Western Sydney athletes who received recognition for their achievements at the recent Blacktown Australia Day Awards. The Citizen of the Year was Debbie Sosimenko, who is the 1998 Commonwealth Games gold medallist and a record holder in her sport of hammer throwing. The Young Citizen of the Year award went to Melissa Wilson, who is a World Paralympic swimming medallist and a national record holder.Debbie Sosimenko is a local athlete who commenced her career at the age of 10 as a member of the Doonside Little Athletics Club. In 1992, while only 18, Debbie became the first woman in Australia to throw a hammer more than 50 metres. Debbie set a new Australian record of 57.16 metres at the recent Commonwealth Games trial.Melissa Wilson received her award for outstanding performance at last year's World Paralympics Swimming Championships where she claimed five medals and set four Australian records. Melissa now holds the world record for the Paralympic 100 metres backstroke and is in the Sydney 2000 Olympic training squad. Melissa is also a member of the Motor Acci dent Authority Paralympic team visiting schools to encourage school children in road safety.My personal congratulations and the congratulations of all citizens of Greenway go to these two outstanding ambassadors from Western Sydney.20242024Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—During the Christmas break, like many other members, I spent most of the time in my electorate. As we heard in an earlier speech, most members spend a lot of time in parliament and away from their electorates, so it was good to catch up with my friends and with the electorate—to talk to constituents and to do normal, everyday things; to go shopping and to walk around talking to people.What I found all the time was the increased amount of optimism in the community. When you speak to people in the streets, there is optimism among small business people and among families. The improvement that I have seen over the last few months and have enjoyed over the Christmas break is something that, I believe, is good for Australia.There is confidence in the government. There is confidence in the future. The falling interest rates and levels of unemployment that we have seen mean that battling families are starting to get ahead. It might be only a small thing such as buying a slightly better Christ mas present for their children or a new second-hand car—but there is improvement in the economy; there is improvement in the quality of life for Australians. That is what government is all about.We lose touch sometimes here in Canberra and it is good to get back into our communities and talk to the people in our electorates every day—to get a feeling for what they are thinking about and what we are trying to achieve.YK6WILTONMr Wilton—This is stirring stuff!IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYD—Thank you. It is what government is all about. (Time expired)20242024Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I was dismayed to hear that this government intends to have the Aboriginal tent embassy removed. It is an action that will lead to further conflict with Aboriginal people and an act that shows the Howard government's contempt for the Aboriginal people and their culture. The Aboriginal tent embassy has been of great symbolic importance to the Aboriginal people of Australia. It is a symbol of unity and hope. As Keith Gleeson, the President of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, said:It is like a candle, a candle whose flame glimmers and signifies hope for the future and hope for reconciliation.The embassy has assumed an important place in Aboriginal culture. It is a constant reminder that the Aboriginal people are the traditional owners of Australia. It has enormous symbolic importance to them.And what does this government do? It sets itself to destroy something which has become a focal point and a symbol of equality for Aboriginal people, who are striving for equality. It is a symbol of the struggle that Aboriginals have had within Australia to gain recognition in their own country. It is a struggle that started with white settlement and it is a struggle that continues today. This Howard government will be remembered for the division it has caused within our society. It will be remembered for its attacks on ordinary Australian people. The government thrives on conflict and it is now set to escalate the conflict within our society by demolishing the embassy. (Time expired)20252025McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I wish to refer to the RFA process in the Otways, in the heartland of Corangamite, where a very big debate is going on between the loggers and people on the conservation side as to the validity of logging that part of the forest. As honourable members would be aware, the RFA process is something that has been agreed to by both sides of the House. It is a scientifically based process whereby state and federal governments come to an agreement that certain coup by coup areas of a forest can be harvested for hardwood, based on sustainability—that that forest will regrow and return to its former state.In the Otways at this moment there is a very big debate between those people who have a strong view about conservation values and those people who depend on forests for their livelihoods as loggers, as forestry workers and as timber mill workers. I put to members of the House that this is an important debate, that balance needs to be taken into account by both sides—by both the loggers and the conservationists—and that the process will reach fruition by November-December this year and that all sides will abide by the umpires decision so that a sustainable logging industry can be maintained in that very important part of the electorate of Corangamite.20252025Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I wish to draw the House's attention to the unfair treatment of several veterans in my electorate who have been overlooked by this government in its eligibility criteria for the veterans' gold card. I refer in particular to Mr George Blythe, Mr Max McKelvie, Bill Anderson, Arthur Lane, Allan Kelly, Phillip Underwood, Albert Ingram and Allan Rowe. Most, if not all, of these ex-servicemen were involved in hazardous occupations as a result of World War II.Mr Blythe served on a minesweeper shortly after the conclusion of the war, at the age of 17. The mines did not know the war was over, and there were many accidents resulting in loss of life. Obviously mine sweeping in 1946 was an extremely dangerous task, even though the war was officially over. The others I have mentioned have also served in various and dangerous military capacities, including occupational forces overseas.I have no doubt, the RSL has no doubt and the people of Australia have no doubt that each of these men are World War II veterans in every sense of the word. I am sure there are many others who have been disadvantaged by the unfair and sometimes cruel criteria established by this government. I am equally sure that honourable members from both sides of this House will have many such examples from all over this nation. I call on this government to reassess this unfair criteria and implement changes that will allow all those who have voluntarily served this country in difficult circumstances to receive their rightful entitlement at a time in their lives when they need and deserve our support. (Time expired)20252025Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am very pleased today to speak about an opening that I attended on Wednesday and Thursday of last week.Mr Wilton interjecting—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—You would be very interested in this. I refer to the Area Consultative Committee that met in Redcliffe city. This particular Area Consultative Committee has been put together to cover a number of regions—the Caboolture region, the Kilcoy region, Redcliffe region and Pine Rivers. Previously, a portion of Brisbane was included as well—the North Brisbane area. That meant that the needs of the local area were not carefully considered and that it needed its own separate ACC, and this is clearly what has happened. Last Thursday the Redcliffe City Council at Sunset Blue, one of the function centres in my electorate, launched the program. The great deal of work that has gone into it is absolutely astounding.I must mention here today a computer program called REBIS. This will enable prospective employers in the area to provide information in the form of very highly sophisticated qualitative research into the number of employees they have, particular products that they sell and the types of work and skills that they require in their businesses. The region will be able to heavily consult other regions about their demands. (Time expired)20252025Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—It is with great pleasure that I advise the House that I will be attending my old primary school, Edithvale Primary—the same school that my young kids will be attending in a year or two—in a couple of weeks to present the school captaincy badges. I will be doing that not by the usual way of school assembly but by way of their internal closed-circuit TV, a studio within the school run by the students for the students. I will be pleased to present badges to the two school captains, Perry Waterland and Natalie Culross, and to the house captains also—for Cook house, Jesse Dyamond and Becky Finemore; for Murray, Brendan Vos and Laura Wapling; for Tasman, Jake Parkinson and Stacey Fisher; and for Flinders, Dylan Bird and Paula Van Bruggen.These are students whom I am sure will represent their houses and their school with great dignity and great leadership, and I wish them all the best in their elected positions throughout the course of this school year. Indeed, I wish all the best to the school itself, a school that I know and I love and a school which underpins the wonderful community of Edithvale.20252026Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—It is with great disappointment that I rise today with the unhappy news that, when this government is taking practical—indeed, inspired—initiatives to provide employment opportunities and new skills for young Australians looking for jobs through the Work for the Dole Program, the program has not received the universal endorsement that it really warrants and deserves in my own electorate of Parramatta. I refer in particular to the public comments made by the Lord Mayor of Parramatta specifically disparaging the program.It just seems to me that there are few things in life as important as giving young people the opportunity and the confidence to work. This government has taken practical steps to achieve that outcome. Members on this side of the chamber have no hesitation in warmly endorsing and strongly supporting the implementation of the Work for the Dole schemes in their electorates around the country. Councillor Paul Garrard, the Lord Mayor of Parramatta City Council, is in other respects not a bad bloke, but he just has this blind spot on this issue, a hangover of historical class hatreds—in particular, a kind of deference to the trade union movement who see anything they do not control as being a threat to their hegemony and power base. I encourage the trade union movement, the ACTU and the Parramatta City Council to take a bigger view of the future for young Australians. (Time expired)20262026Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work and community spirit of the people of Acacia Ridge, a suburb within the electorate of Oxley. The Acacia Ridge Technology and Information Centre, ARTIC, has been born out of a community need and a desire for local people to have access to library and information services within easy reach. Following the closure last year of the Acacia Ridge library, the community, led by Anne McNamara and Robyn Wooster, embarked on a project to establish a new library and information centre. This has now become a reality. While ARTIC is still in its infancy, this project has demonstrated what can be done through community action and determination. Many people have been involved in the development of the centre, including local representatives. ARTIC is staffed by volunteers and has gained all of its materials and resources from local donors and through the assistance of the Brisbane City Council in donating computers, bookshelves and other items.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 106A. The time for members' statements has concluded.Condolences2026202614:00:002026Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on Wednesday, 3 February 1999, of the Honourable James Francis Cope, Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1973 to 1975; Member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Sydney, New South Wales, from 1969 to 1975, for the Division of Watson, New South Wales, from 1956 to 1969 and for the Division of Cook, New South Wales, from 1955 to 1956; places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Mr Speaker, there are probably now only three members of this House who sat in the parliament with Jim Cope: me, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the member for Mitchell. I remember Jim Cope with a genuine personal regard. I thought he represented the very best of the traditions of his party and was a faithful reflection of the origins of the Australian Labor Party. I thought his life revealed the best of that party. He was a great advocate for the cause of working people. When he was elected Speaker he was referred to as the `battler' from Sydney who had lived in a small terrace house in a tiny street in Redfern for the previous 44 years. He always defended his Redfern origins, saying once, `I am proud to be one of them and would hazard a guess that people in more affluent areas would like to have such friends and neighbours in times of stress.'Before entering politics, he was Federal Treasurer of the Australian Glassworkers Union from 1952 and an alderman of the Redfern Municipal Council before its amalgamation with the Sydney City Council. He did experience in his own life genuine deprivation, and this was his motivation for entering parliament. He spoke of his experiences before and during the Depression. He once said, `I remember how we looked for work—50 or 60 men lined up outside this place at Camperdown each day, like a line of cattle, waiting for a job.' When he was elected to parliament he spoke very powerfully and emotionally in his maiden speech of his working background.He had the distinction, which a number of people have enjoyed, of being the representative of three electorates in the federal parliament. He is, of course, best known for having been the Speaker of the parliament from 1973 to 1975. The circumstances of his ceasing to be Speaker are well known and I do not intend to canvass those in any way today. The stories have been written about them and views have been formed about them. I see no particular purpose to be gained by going over those details today.But there is one aspect of that rather dramatic day which has not been recalled in some of the stories that have been written over the past few days, and it illustrates the marvellous sense of humour that I remember Jim Cope had. As all honourable members will know, when there is a vacancy in the Speakership you have to meet and elect a new Speaker. You do not do it by a division or a show of hands; you actually write the name out. We, then being the opposition, had absolutely no chance of having our nominee elected. In the time honoured tradition, however, we nevertheless nominated the late Geoffrey O'Halloran Giles, who was then the federal Liberal member for the now abolished seat of Angus in South Australia. It was a fairly dramatic sort of day and everybody was a little bit tense. We were all gathered in that raucous. The Labor Party nominee and subsequent Speaker—and I think a very fine Speaker—Gordon Scholes was nominated by the then govern ment. Geoff Giles was nominated by the opposition. With his absolutely unmistakable voice Jim Cope pierced the silence and called out very loudly and undeniably, `How do you spell Giles?'Given the circumstances, it illustrated the great sense of humour that he had. Of course, as a loyal Labor man he voted for Scholes. It is to his very great credit that, although he would have felt a degree of personal hurt because of those circumstances, he never publicly bore any grudges against his party.His politics were like the politics of many people of that generation on both sides. They were moulded by the searing experiences of the Great Depression. He came to parliament with the simple desire to improve the lot of everyday working Australians. His priorities were their priorities and he spoke passionately about them in his maiden speech and during his years in parliament.On behalf of the government I want to record my respect for Jim Cope. I remember him as a very friendly, decent man for a relatively new member of the parliament to deal with. I certainly remember those dramatic days and months of 1975—and we will be saying something in a moment about another player in the events of 1975, the late Jim McClelland. On behalf of myself, the Liberal Party and the government, I record my respect for Jim Cope. I am sad at his passing, but he lived to the great age of 91. He and his wife, Myrtle, were together for 67 years, which in anybody's language is an astonishing partnership. It was a 67-year period that embraced not only the First War but the Second War and the years of the Great Depression and the postwar revival and reconstruction of Australia.On behalf of the government, I extend to Myrtle, their family and all of their many friends our sorrow at Jim's passing and record our respects for his contribution to his party, the Australian parliament and the Australian people.14:07:002027Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I would like to support the remarks made by the Prime Minister, on this very sad occasion, in recognition of the long service to this parliament in Australia by Jim Cope. The Prime Minister, as he says, is one of the few members of this parliament who can remember serving with Jim Cope as a member of parliament. I as a small boy can remember being introduced to him from time to time by my father, as he was one of my father's friends in successive parliaments for a very lengthy time.It is a great country where it is possible for somebody who is a glassblower by trade to rise to the senior position of this chamber. Jim Cope did that. He did it in his own time. One of the things that you can note about Jim Cope is that he was never in a hurry for any particular thing that he wanted to achieve with this life. Nor did he have unrealistic expectations about what that life would produce for him or necessarily even unrealistic expectations about what government would do for the people. In fact, it was quite late in life that he came to parliament, but he served here for a very long time. Given the quiet temper of the passage of years for Jim Cope, it is quite surprising he did not make it to the next century, despite the fact that he was born in 1907.He was a servant of this House for a long time. When he came into this parliament he was not unique, but he probably would have been almost unique in this chamber in that he believed the first thing that he ought to do was to sit down and study standing orders to make himself as knowledgeable on standing orders as he was in any aspect of political policy or in any aspect of political endeavour in general. It was a view on his part that there was an absolute obligation on members of parliament to understand the standing orders, if not necessarily to assist the Speaker to at least be able to participate in any of the discussions that went on in parliament in an orderly—if disorderly from time to time—fashion.He became as a member of parliament an expert on standing orders and also one who added to the lightness of the place. He was a great humorist. The Prime Minister had one example of that in the remarks that he made. There were another couple of examples that my father drew to my attention. Once when the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, was in full flight about the extent to which the Australian people loved him, he regaled the parliament with a story of a truck driver moving alongside him at the traffic lights, leaning out of the cabin and shouting to the Prime Minister, `Good on you, Bob. You're doing a terrific job.' In the midst of the quiet titters of recognition from at least the government side at that stage, Jim's distinctive voice could be heard coming out with, `And did they pinch him for drunken driving?'On another occasion, and I do not think it would be appropriate to go through the full extent of this particular story, there was a debate in this chamber at one time about three locations for where we are now and one member of parliament had failed to obtain Mr Speaker's attention, despite repeated efforts to get on his scrapers to opine his views. On the way out of the chamber, the Speaker drew attention to the fact that he was exiting in a huff in a slightly disorderly manner, at which point he turned and said to the Speaker precisely where he ought to place his particular call. Instantly, Jim Cope jumped up and said, `I think we have a fourth site.' It is indeed fortunate that site was not chosen and this one was. That site, however, was a mobile site and was unlikely to be.He was a man who had a great sense of humour but also had a great sense of honour. He had a great sense of the role of Speaker. The Prime Minister did not allude to the circumstances of his termination but I will. He was wrongly treated. There is no question in my mind that that was the case. He was wrongly treated.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Your father said that too.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—My father was one of a number of Labor members who absented themselves from the vote when that occurred. From time to time it may be necessary to remove a Speaker; that was not the way for a Speaker to be removed. But he bore no bitterness for it. He had no rancour at all and was enormously supportive of the subsequent Labor Speaker, Gordon Scholes, who also joined my father in exiting the chamber at that point. So he was a man without rancour, a man of very great decency and a man of great humour.He was an example of a style of Australian who, I suppose, to some degree is disappearing certainly from public life and perhaps from Australian life—a person who was essentially self-educated but with an absolute determination to know as much as he could to do his fellow man and woman in Australia as much good as he conceivably could in this place.He was not in any sense a careerist. He was a person who took the view that he was he here for a purpose and that he would perform that purpose and conduct his activities as effectively as he could. He was an ordinary bloke. One of the things he did on coming to office was to continue a habit of Labor speakers prior to that of dispensing with the gown and wig and, given the lengthy period of time that there had been between Labor speakers, that appeared to be something of an innovation at the time.I could be wrong about this but I think he was the first Speaker appointed by Labor in the postwar era—I think it was a continuing Speaker after World War II—so he would have been the first to actually obtain that office when he did, and it was a very long time between drinks as far as Labor Speakers were concerned. He brought great credit to that office. He brought great credit to this parliament. Our condolences go to his family, of whom he was a loving and proud head.14:15:002028Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I would like to build on the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and particularly refer to that day in 1975. In support of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, it was good to see Clyde Cameron reiterate the apology he subsequently tendered to former Speaker Cope in respect of his conduct on that particular day. In fact, history records that there were four people who absented themselves from the Labor government on the subsequent division when the member for New England, then Leader of Opposition Business, moved for the suspension of Mr Cameron. I learned today, inter alia, that one of those was Mr Beazley Sr.These were momentous times in the history of Australian politics. That was at the start of 1975, and it was an intense period of activity in the federal parliament. Two days before, the former federal Leader of the National Party, Doug Anthony, had been suspended and there was a further set of altercations. There was some brilliant thinking by Mr Sinclair at the time in moving that motion in support of the Speaker's position. Of course, the motion was defeated and the Speaker tendered his resignation. It was a class act and a courageous act. It was the best of the Westminster tradition a la the Australian parliament's interpretation thereof. In saluting the life and times and work of former Speaker Cope, I particularly salute his stepping out of the Speaker's chair in the circumstances, very difficult as they were, immediately following that particular incident and the non-carriage of that particular motion.I single out in his maiden speech his strong link with wide groupings of workers, including the Glassworkers Union and also the pensioners. I will quote briefly. He said:Recently the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) announced a surplus of more than £70,000,000 for the financial year 1954-55.He went on to argue that that surplus should be used variously, and said:It is a responsibility of this Government or, for that matter, of any government, to see that age and invalid pensioners are decently housed and fed in keeping with Australian standards of living. Those people are the pioneers of this country. They built it to what it is to-day. I remind honorable members that the vast majority of them had to raise their families without the assistance of child endowment payments, and in so doing they nullified their prospects of saving for their years of retirement.Those are very interesting words uttered in 1955 by the member who subsequently became the member for Sydney. He gave great service to his beloved Labor Party but also to the state and to the nation, especially in his role for that critical period as Speaker of the House. On behalf of the National Party, I extend sympathy to members of the Cope family.14:17:002028Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I join with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Prime Minister in expressing my condolences and joining in this motion on the passing of Jim Cope. I, like the Leader of the Opposition, knew Jim Cope not as a parliamentarian but as a regular visitor here as part of family visits. Jim Cope was one of those people who in many ways instilled into me the importance of the parliament and subsequently the role of the Speaker and, significantly, the importance of the standing orders. Whether it was a brilliant tactic by the member for New England, I think all of us who have studied the standing orders would have moved precisely that way—including Jim Cope, had he been in that position. But I join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying that there were many on our side of the parliament who thought that Jim Cope in those circumstances had been harshly dealt with.Whilst reference has been made to the fact that he was a glassworker and a trade unionist, it is also true to say that before he came to parliament Jim Cope experienced several years of unemployment, and that experience shaped him as a staunch defender of lower income and unemployed people throughout his parliamentary career. In his first speech in the House he gave a glimpse of that. He said:I have been through the mill. I know what it is to go without a meal . . . But I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister or the Treasurer would know what it is to go without a meal. It is only by seeing these people, it is only by "going through the mill" that one can speak with sincerity on these matters.In his first speech he also advocated the need for government to care more for aged and invalid pensioners. In a statement of renewed significance in the current debate over the GST, he noted very forcefully that the high prices of food `do not affect the tables of the rich; but they place pensioners in the semi-starvation class'.Reference has been made to the dry wit of Jim Cope in the anecdote that Kim Beazley told. I think it is also important to place on record that he was a very dedicated local member of parliament. He believed in the importance of representation and of constituency. Whilst he did rise to the significant position of Speaker of the House, he never forgot the roots from which he came. I think it is a testament to this democracy and this institution that someone of Jim Cope's background could rise to become Speaker of the parliament. He served the parliament and he served the people of his electorate with great distinction. I join in expressing my condolences to his wife of 67 years, Myrtle, to their daughter, Bonnie, and to their family and friends.2029Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I seek the indulgence of the House. As the person currently honoured to occupy the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives, I would like to say a few words about my distinguished predecessor, the late James Francis Cope. As we have heard this afternoon, he was clearly a man committed to the principles of the party he served so well, to the parliament he loved and to the people he represented. Those of us who did not know Mr Cope personally have had portrayed for us in this condolence motion a man with a sense of humour and a sense of justice and a man whose disposition did this office honour. I extend my condolences to his family, and thank them for his service to the nation.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.202914:22:002029Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on Saturday, 16 January 1999, of the Honourable James Robert McClelland, Chairman of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Weapons Tests in Australia from 1984 to 1985; Chief Justice of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales from 1980 to 1985; Judge of the New South Wales Industrial Court from 1978 to 1980; Minister for Labour and Immigration and Minister assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service from June until November 1975; Minister for Manufacturing Industry from February until June 1975; and Senator for New South Wales from 1971 until 1978; places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.It is ironic that, on this very first day that parliament has resumed, we should be involved in condolence motions concerning two people who were very heavily and directly involved in the very active and dramatic political events of 1975.Jim McClelland, I know, would want to be remembered for many things, but he would not want to be remembered as somebody who indulged in humbug or hypocritical utterances when it came to people in public life or people in political positions. It is indeed interesting, when one thinks of the character, the attitudes and the disposition of Jim Cope and Jim McClelland, how very different they were as people. They may have had some origins in common, but in style, demeanour, attitude and deportment I cannot think of two people in the Australian Labor Party, or indeed in any political party, more dramatical ly different than the late Jim Cope and the late Jim McClelland.Jim McClelland was a great hater. He was a passionate believer in the things that he supported and he was a passionate and vitriolic opponent and critic of any philosophy or person with whom he disagreed. I read his column in the Sydney Morning Herald from time to time. He was absolutely consistent in his unrelenting criticism of the Liberal Party, of me and of just about all of the positions that I held in political life. Let me say that the compliment, whilst he was alive, was robustly returned. Jim was not a person whose views I shared on just about anything, and I make no bones about it. I do not think—and I know he does not think for a moment that he is listening to me—he would respect me for saying otherwise or pretending otherwise.He was, of course, somebody who had a very long association with some of the most vigorous and significant battles within the trade union movement of Australia, such as his fights with the Stalinists within the Federated Iron Workers Association. His animosity for many years with the late B.A. Santamaria after the Labor Party split of 1955 was I think marvellously reconciled in life, you might say, in that very interesting interview both of them conducted on Lateline a couple of years ago.The most legendary of his hostilities was his bitterness towards his former ally in trade union fights, the last Sir John Kerr. That has been very heavily rehearsed over the years. I simply record for the House a personal exchange that took place between me, Jim McClelland and Bob Ellicott, the former Liberal member for Wentworth and Attorney-General in the Fraser government, on the night of 11 November in King's Hall in the old Parliament House. The passion and the character of the exchange indicated the depth of feeling that he had on that particular issue.He fell out with his long-time friend Neville Wran, even though Neville had appointed him to the Land and Environment Court. Not wanting us to think we were alone, he expressed great disappointment in Bob Hawke and his government. He held very passionately to his abandonment of Catholicism and his embrace of atheism. He was a person who believed very strongly in the role of the arts within the Australian community. I think it is fair to say that even his fiercest critics would acknowledge the contribution he made in the years since he left politics towards assisting the arts, particularly in Sydney.Jim McClelland was born in Richmond, Victoria, on 3 June 1915, the son of a painter employed by the Victorian railways. He was a conscientious student and he earned scholarships to study at St Kevin's College with the Christian Brothers and, later, at Melbourne University. He completed a Bachelor of Arts degree while being active in the Melbourne University Labor Club and working as a builder's labourer and, later, as an ironworker. He served Australia during World War II, from 1943, in the Royal Australian Air Force as a radio operator. After he was discharged from the Air Force in 1946 he completed a law degree at Sydney University.I first met Jim McClelland not in parliament but in 1966 at a hearing of appeals into a redistribution of electoral boundaries in New South Wales, presided over by a late judge and two other members. Jim McClelland was representing the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party and he was instructing an up-and-coming QC by the name of N.K. Wran. I was representing the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party. I had the opportunity, during a period of about 10 days, of exchanging political ideas and arguments about the rightness and wrongness of electoral boundaries and how outrageous it was that lines should be drawn in particular areas. I saw a person who was very meticulous and very committed to his client and the Labor Party cause.Jim McClelland played a very significant role in two very important policy issues: the introduction of FM radio and Lionel Murphy's Family Law Bill, of which he was a passionate supporter. I might say that I voted against a lot of that too in 1975. The support that Lionel Murphy and Jim McClelland gave to the Family Law Bill invoked enormous and passionate opposition from within the Australian Labor Party. It was one of the few issues that I can remember in 25 years on which the Labor Party was allowed a completely free vote on an issue of great significance. Being liberated from the caucus constraint, I can assure you that many of the opponents of Murphy and McClelland gave very strong vent to their feelings.He was a significant figure within the Labor Party. As I said earlier, on many subjects he held views that I totally disagreed with, but I respected the passion with which he held those views. I thought he had a very interesting and productive post-political life serving as a judge, as a royal commissioner, as a part-time columnist and as somebody who involved himself very heavily in the art scene in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney.On behalf of the government I extend to his wife Gillian and his family our very sincere sympathy on the loss of Jim McClelland.14:30:002030Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I would like to add my remarks in support of the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister for the late Hon. Jim McClelland. It is sometimes said that, in a very long life, at the end of the day all your enemies become your friends. In the case of Jim McClelland's very long life, many did not quite make it. As the Prime Minister said, Jim was a man of great passion, and many of us annoyed him. The Prime Minister did not feel particularly upset about the fact that he was from time to time—or I should say quite frequently—the butt of his columns.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Persistently.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Persistently the butt of his columns. I have to inform the Prime Minister—as I am sure he is aware, because I suspect that is why he read them—that we on this side of the House were almost as frequently and persistently attacked in the same columns.But we have to say that, whether we were attacked or not, never for one instance did those columns lack erudition or elegance. He was a very good writer. His works are collected in his autobiography Stirring the Possum, a collection of essays An Angel Bit the Bride, and a collection of journalism Conversations in Cabs. For those who want to collect or read them it was the Sydney Morning Herald that ran his regular column.He was educated at St Kevin's College and then Melbourne University. He worked as a builders labourer and ironworker, and served in the RAAF in a radar unit in New Guinea. He completed a law degree at the University of Sydney and became an industrial solicitor. It was at that point that he engaged most heavily in the political debates of this nation.Firstly he engaged them as a passionate Trotskyite in support of a removal of the communist leadership of the ironworkers at the time. As his position shifted rightwards towards the centre he became actively involved in Laurie Short's campaigns to turn over the leadership of the ironworkers. It was during those activities that he briefed John Kerr in the case which ultimately enabled Laurie Short to win control of that operation.Though these are now in dim, dark memory for most Australians, the struggles between those who were devotees of the communist cause, neutral in it, regarded it as irrelevant or were passionately anti-communist were the defining debates of the nation. Jim McClelland cut his political teeth in hard ideological discourse, in hard political argument. There was nothing sloppy and sentimental about the debates in which the found himself engaged, and he carried that forensic skill and that discipline of mind into subsequent careers in politics and also in the ministry.He served only briefly in the Whitlam ministry between 1972 and 1975, though he held two important portfolios in the short time that he was in that ministry. When he was added to the ministry, he was seen as giving that ministry a bit of new life, as giving it a bit of forensic skill, a bit of toughness of mind, as he operated in the Senate chamber at the time. He was a skilled debater and a skilled partisan.When he left politics—and left it probably with more bitterness and rancour then most, understandable bitterness and rancour, particularly directed at the then Governor-General—he continued a career of public service, as the Prime Minister has indicated, as a judge of the New South Wales Industrial Commission and Chief Judge of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Subsequently for the Labor government of Bob Hawke he was the royal commissioner into nuclear testing in Australia. We were confident, when we appointed Jim McClelland as the royal commissioner to examine the issue of nuclear testing, that he would approach it without any particular sentimental regard for the circumstances which may have seen those tests take place in the first instance and that he would bring to it a hard-nosed view about where liabilities lay and what ought to be done. And we were not disappointed in the results that he came up with.In old-fashioned terms he would be known as a controversialist. He was a person who never saw a fight that he did not want to be in, and always found himself an opportunity to engage. His views were manifold on many subjects. He was also distinctly of the view that there was no virtue at all in not pursuing a cultural interest and using the offices that he held or using the power of government to advance the culture of the nation. He had a very distinct view about the role of arts in the community and, in his latter years, it was his activities in that regard that probably gave him most joy from life. We on this side of the House join the Prime Minister in extending our condolences to Jim McClelland's family. A real character has passed from our midst.14:37:002031Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I wish to add to the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition regarding Diamond Jim McClelland. I have to confess that I once voted for Jim McClelland to enter the Senate.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Oh?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—Let me explain, Prime Minister.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—You had better.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—The occasion was somewhere between the ides of March and Saint Patrick's Day 1971. The location was the Legislative Council of the New South Wales parliament. The nomination was on the behest of the then Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, and it was to fill a vacancy that had been created by the death of Senator Ormonde. For a few months Senator McClelland filled out that part of the term and he then took his seat in his own right, having been elected for a term commencing 1 July 1971. It was a unanimous vote on that occasion in that hallowed first chamber of parliaments in this country.One thing that Jim McClelland made clear was that he hated political waffle and political cant. His `stirring the possum' approach to life, as manifested by his autobiography, is I think a good challenge to all of us. It was to not be driven by the paradigms of the day but to push the envelope, to head down a path of particular belief, to make his stand—in that regard, he was on the opposite side of politics from the Liberal and National parties—and to provide intellectual rigour in respect of that stand. That flowed through from his days as a senator and a minister to heading up the New South Wales Land and Environment Court during particularly turbulent times with regard to the design and high rise dimensions associated with the city of Sydney.I also salute his RAAF service during World War II in Papua New Guinea. I guess as time passes there will not be too many more motions referring to those who served in World War II, but we should never forget that they gave service at an extraordinarily difficult time in the history of this country, at the height of World War II, in one of the theatres of war which meant so much directly to the freedom of this country, and to the non-occupation of this country by enemy forces, most notably the Axis and Japanese forces who came so close—indeed, as close as Papua New Guinea. He was one of so many who made a very big contribution of courage, dedication and determination in those circumstances as a member of the Royal Australian Air Force.One thing he might have shared in common with the Prime Minister was an abiding interest in cricket. I did meet him after a test at the SCG one very hot Sydney day. In fact, we had a drink together in that little pub just outside the Paddington gate to the SCG back in the late 1970s.I acknowledge the contribution he made to the Australian parliament, to the state of New South Wales and to the nation. I extend sympathy to members of the McClelland family.14:40:002031Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I join in recognising the distinguished career of Jim McClelland, not only as a politician but also as a lawyer, a judge, a royal commissioner, a journalist and an all-round activist. I came to know Jim over many years, firstly when he assumed both of the ministerial positions that have been referred to and when I was just embarking on a career as a research officer with the then Storemen and Packers Union.Reference has been made to the fact that Jim was born in Richmond. He asked for a meeting to be convened of unions involved in the manufacturing sector because he wanted to talk about this new notion of job enrichment and I think half the audience thought he was talking about getting jobs back in Richmond. They were scratching their heads because all of these places had been closed down.There was also Jim's involvement with the trade union movement in trying to then convince them of the need for wage restraint. He believed he had this wonderfully articulated case, as only he could put it. The story, which I saw referred to again by John Button in his piece, was that when he was asked by John Button how he went, he said, `I was cut to pieces by Norm Gallagher.' John Button said, `What do you mean?' Jim said Norm just looked at him with those dreary eyes and said, `That's a wonderful story, Jim. I think I'll tell it to me mother.' This sunk the whole push for wage restraint back in 1975.I had occasion as well to draw on not only the findings but to get the advice of Jim in relation to the compensation for the victims of the British nuclear tests at Maralinga when, together with Gareth Evans, I was responsible for negotiating the settlement with the UK government.Jim McClelland was a colourful character. You could not help but be affected by his style. He was a true wordsmith and he had great style. Whether or not you agreed with him, I think it is a great craft to be able to articulate and write as well as he did, and I think there are important lessons there.He was a great friend of Lionel Murphy. Indeed, it was Lionel Murphy's position in the cabinet that Jim filled when Lionel was appointed to the High Court. Theirs was a friendship that went back over many years. He served with distinction in the ministry, although for a short period of time. He resigned from the Senate on 21 July 1978. He continued to express his views in the way that only he could. There were many quotes attributed to Jim McClelland, but the one which I identified with most was his saying, `You've got to have a go, don't you.' In many senses, Jim had many goes. The Australian nation is richer for it and the labour movement has certainly benefited from it.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.203214:45:002032Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on Friday, 5 February 1999, of Neville Thomas Bonner, AO, Senator for the State of Queensland from 1971 to 1983; places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Neville Thomas Bonner was born on 28 March 1922 on Ukerebagh Island, in the mouth of the Tweed River, in New South Wales. He was born under a tree as his mother, being Aboriginal, had to be out of the town before sunset and could not return until sunrise the next day. He never knew his father, an Englishman, who, although married to his mother, returned to England before he was born. Orphaned at the age of nine, Neville was raised by his grandmother in what he referred to as `a blacks' camp under lantana bushes'.Neville first worked as a dairy hand, stockman and carpenter, mainly in the western part of Queensland. A Jagera elder, he was devoted to Australia and to the cause of the indigenous people. As is very well known, Neville Bonner was the first indigenous person to be elected to the national parliament and, until 1 July this year, the only indigenous person to have served in the national parliament. He was a Liberal Party senator for the state of Queensland between 1971 and 1983. He was elected on three occasions and, being the first indigenous person to serve in the national parliament, he was of course something of a role model to many Australians. He did not see his role as only representing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this country, although he was very conscious of the responsibility he carried as the first indigenous person to come into the national parliament.I served with Neville Bonner between 1974 and 1983. I found him, without exception, to be a person who took his representative obligations to the whole of the people of Queensland very seriously. He would always defend and promote an indigenous point of view. He would always remind us, who were less conscious of the experience of the indigenous people, of what was expected of us, but he would never seek to set the indigenous people of Australia apart from the rest of their fellow Australians.He argued long and hard with many other indigenous leaders. They often criticised him; they often questioned his loyalty to his chosen political party. He always managed, I think quite remarkably, to achieve a balance. It was a source of disappointment to me, and I know to many other people, that he did not secure a winnable position on the Liberal Party Senate ticket for the 1983 election. But it was not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that a political organisation has made an error in relation to preselection. The Liberal Party is no exception, nor is it the only offender.He ran as an Independent in the 1983 election but did not secure re-election; over the years he put that behind him. One of the more emotional moments I have had as Prime Minister was to confer upon him at the national convention of the Liberal Party in Queensland last year life membership of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, an honour that he accepted very warmly. I know from the reaction of those present at that gathering that it was seen very much as a public reconciliation between our party and Neville Bonner.Neville had a great sense of humour and he had tremendous courage. I was very privileged to visit him at the Ipswich hospice just over a week ago and to spend an hour with him, his wife, Heather, and a number of members of their family. We talked about the politics we had shared together. We talked about current issues. He gave me some lively, humorous advice about politics. He did not seek to hector; he did not seek to indulge in any recriminations. He was happy to see me as a friend and former colleague. He was very appreciative of all the people from all political persuasions who had been to see him in the time he had been ill.He was diagnosed with cancer more than a year ago, and those of us who attended the constitutional convention will remember the passion of his address. We marvelled at the strength that he displayed, despite his great illness. He, along with George Mai, demonstrated the diversity of views in all sections of the Australian community on the issue of our constitutional future. He opted very passionately for a rejection of an Australian republic.Neville was, I think, very deeply loved and respected throughout the entire Australian community. I do not want anybody to misunderstand how I put this, but I think he made a lot of Australians, whatever their views are in relation to indigenous issues, whatever stance they may take and whatever response they might want to give in relation to the undoubted disadvantage of indigenous people within our community, feel that something had been achieved when he became elected in his own right as a senator for all of the people of Queensland.He conducted himself with immense dignity. Perhaps his greatest and most dignified achievement was that he did not seek, to my knowledge, to in any way exaggerate the reasons behind his not being placed in such an advantaged position on his party's Senate ticket in 1983. The way in which he was willing to retain an association with so many of his colleagues and proudly proclaim to the rest of the world that he was a Liberal, I think, brought great credit upon him.I want to say that I was very touched by his courage. He suffered a great deal of family sadness in his later years. His wife, Heather, was a magnificent support to him throughout their 27 years of married life. She displayed wonderful spirit, compas sion and understanding in the final moments of his life.He was a very special Australian to have overcome those difficulties. Today we have spoken of the difficult early life of somebody like Jim Cope, and that was undoubted. On both sides of parliament some of us are born in more fortunate circumstances; some of us are born in less fortunate circumstances. I do not think there is any doubt that, if you are an indigenous person of Neville Bonner's age, you were born in very difficult circumstances. Of that there can be no argument. He overcame those difficult circumstances. He progressed to what I still regard, and I believe all of us regard, as a very wonderful thing, and that is to be a representative of the people of Australia in the national parliament. He did it in a way that brought great credit to his Aboriginal origins. He did it in a way that brought great credit to him as a man and as a contributor to the Australian community.I want to quote one thing that he said in his maiden speech. It summed up his attitude towards indigenous issues and what he saw as his role as the first indigenous person to sit as an elected person in the Australian parliament. He said:Aborigines of Australia are most certainly not looking for handouts. They have suffered enough from the stigma of paternalism however well-intentioned it may have been. I am sure that they will respond to efforts being made to enhance their self-esteem, particularly through the programs of social development and vocational and general education.Those words were spoken in 1971. They have a timeless relevance and a timeless quality about them. I think they speak volumes for somebody who spoke as an Aborigine for the Aboriginal people of Australia and also as a member of the great Australian family which he distinguished.On behalf of the government, the Liberal Party and the wider Liberal Party organisation, I thank Neville Bonner for what he represented. I thank him for his contribution to Australian public life. He lived a very full life. He displayed character, he displayed courage and he displayed immense personal decency. As I said earlier, I felt it a privilege to have spent time with him so shortly before his death. To Heather and their children, I extend our love and our sympathy. As I have already announced, Neville Bonner will be honoured with a state funeral, which I think will be taking place in Ipswich on Friday of this week.14:55:002033Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Again I rise to support the remarks of the Prime Minister, on this occasion on a motion of condolence in honour of Neville Bonner, Jagera elder, former Liberal senator, who died on Friday, 5 February.Along with the Prime Minister and I think many other members of this House, we were deeply moved last year by the contribution that Neville Bonner made to the Constitutional Convention. If ever there was any doubt about the deep spirituality of the man, his deep conception of the land and his relationship to it and his feeling for the life of the nation, you would have had all those doubts removed, even if you did not necessarily agree with the conclusion, in listening to his remarks at that convention. You could have heard a pin drop as he spoke, because everybody really understood where he came from, what sort of person he represented and the sort of trial and tribulation in the record of his people he represented and had infused in his own personality.There is no person who has come to this chamber who has lived as hard a youth as Neville Bonner—none. Not a single member of parliament since 1901 has had the tough life, the tough experiences of Neville Bonner prior to entering this place. He has that status basically because of the fact that he has been the only Aboriginal member of this parliament. Therefore, he carried through his life the events that have scoured the soul of our indigenous inhabitants in often the most appalling of ways, as we have from time to time come to learn by reports which have been made to this chamber.The circumstances of his birth began that life—the exclusion from the boundaries of the town so that he was obliged to be born under a tree. There is no Australian who has experienced that start to life who has ever served in this chamber. He experienced all the deprivation and discrimination of an Aboriginal person growing up in Australia in the 1920s and 1930s. His early jobs were those of a dairy hand, stockman and carpenter. He joined the Liberal Party in Queensland in 1967. He was appointed to fill a Senate vacancy and served for the next 12 years. The Prime Minister has already referred to the circumstances of his dropping to an unwinnable position on the Liberal Party Senate ticket. He darn near got back here in the subsequent election. He just missed out when he ran as an Independent. That emphasises the fact that he had found his way into the hearts of a lot of his fellow Queenslanders, probably precisely because of the sorts of attributes of his personality that the Prime Minister described. He had an inclusive view of all of us.It also ought to be said that one of the reasons why he experienced that level of political difficulty is that, despite the fact that criticism was offered of him by some of his fellow Aboriginals at the time he stood in the Liberal interests back in 1971, he did not take a backward step in his defence of the needs and concerns of the Aboriginal community in Australia. He did not take a backward step, be it in land rights, be it in the concerns in the community for Aboriginal health and education, be it in the need for the Aboriginal community to find opportunities to advance themselves politically. Not an excuse, not a backward step. He expressed himself vigorously and repeatedly on those matters in the Senate and attached to that vigour his vote from time to time when those were issues in the Senate. He was true to everything in the way in which he conducted himself in his public life.His public life did not end with his defeat in the Senate election. He was appointed by the Hawke government in 1983 to the board of the ABC, and he served until 1991. He served on the council of Griffith University from 1992 to 1996 and was the senior official visitor to Queensland prisons from 1990 to 1997. He never let go of that requirement he saw upon himself to look after and to advance the cause of the needy, underprivileged and oppressed in our community. He lived a full public life until his final days.Last year, in an historic first he was invited by the Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, to address the opening of the state parliament as a Jagera elder, because the Jagera people are the traditional owners of the land on which Brisbane's Parliament House is built. Just a few weeks ago, the Queensland state government honoured him by having a government building named after him.If you look at the record of his public life from 1967 onwards, you can see that he did, in a bipartisan way, find his way into the hearts of all of us in Australian political life. He had a view that all Australians needed to be advanced as a people. He had a the view that the Aboriginal community was part of a broader Australian community. Having said that, I add that he never lost his aboriginality, and he never lost the respect of or concern for his tribal circumstances. He never lost the sense of obligation that he had a first and prior duty to deal with the sorts of problems which gave him such an exceptionally hard life in his youth. We in the opposition join the Prime Minister and the members of the government in extending our sincerest condolences to his family.15:02:002034Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—As Leader of the National Party, I am honoured to speak on this condolence motion about a truly great Australian. Neville Bonner was a trailblazer whose contribution to Australian political life was unique and extraordinary.The former stockman and carpenter became Australia's first Aboriginal senator in 1971, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition pointed out. He served through a change of government in 1975 with people like Cleaver Bunton from Albury, whom we will honour shortly and who also passed away during the summer recess. He went on to serve and help bridge division, often in the face of criticism even from his own people. He was an Australian who was fiercely proud of his aboriginality. We did see that during the Constitutional Convention held in the Old Parliament House about this time last year.I would like to add to the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition by quoting a brief part from that remarkable and humbling address to delegates, which concluded with his singing an Aboriginal chant. In that address, he said:From the bottom of my heart, I pray to you: stop this senseless division. Let us work together on the real issues. Let us solve those problems which haunt my people—the problems of land, of health, of unemployment, of the despair and hopelessness which leads even to suicide. Let us unite this country, not divide it ever—that toy of those who already have too much: mere symbolism.That was followed by another delegate well known in this House, Sir James Killen, who described himself as `a former jackaroo from the outer Barcoo'. In response, Jim Killen said of Neville Bonner:He said he was not a rich man. For myself, I take the view it is not what a man or woman has in his or her house that counts; it is what the man or woman has in his or her heart that counts.Indeed, that giant-hearted Neville Bonner contributed so much to the richness of the Australian way of life and the Australian democracy with its diversity of participants. Long may that diversity be maintained. I extend sympathy to his wife Heather and to members of the Bonner family.I will close by reflecting that the work of Neville Bonner has not been in vain. A manifestation of that work is in Warburton in the centre of Western Australia. In the second week of January, Minister John Herron and Parliamentary Secretary Grant Tambling and I visited Warburton, which is one of those very isolated communities west of Ayers Rock, just across the Western Australian border. Warburton is an Aboriginal community which has elected to be a dry community. It is an Aboriginal community which has elected to proceed with a particular dental and health program, which is making real progress. It is an Aboriginal community which has, by its own effort, provided a swimming pool that helps to bind that community together. More recently, with some assistance, it has provided a set of sealed roads. It has developed a commercial Aboriginal art product—through its glass work—which I am sure former speaker Jim Cope would have been proud of. It is one of the most extraordinary, attractive and valuable products I have ever seen in my rounds of outback Australia. In the community of Warburton—wonderful Warburton which works so well—there is so much that Neville Bonner and his descendants can be very, very proud of, because that is what he was striving for and that, bit by bit, is what is being achieved.It has been a privilege to know Neville Bonner, albeit only briefly. To have been in Brisbane to see him receive life membership of the Liberal Party was a very moving moment. He can walk tall. All of us who knew him have been enhanced by knowing that great former senator and great Australian.15:06:002034Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Neville Bonner was a distinguished and dignified Australian. He was as much a representative in the Australian parliament of the Aboriginal people as he was of the Liberal Party. He was a person who sought bipartisan support in addressing the problems of Aboriginal people. He was a person who did much to lay the basis for a just reconciliation with them.It has been mentioned that he was the first Aboriginal to sit in the federal parliament. I think it is worth while reflecting the disappointment that more have not followed in his footsteps. But he did know and he did understand the myriad of challenges that had to be surmounted by the Aboriginal people in the modern Australian context, and he devoted much of his time to facing those challenges. He was also a dedicated senator for his home state of Queensland. He said, `As a senator, my responsibility was to the people of Queensland . . . Interwoven with that was my love of my race and my all-consuming desire to help my own people . . . But my responsibility was for the whole of Queensland.'He was a statesman in the fullest sense of the word—both for Queensland and for Aboriginal people. He experienced first-hand the discrimination faced by Aborigines across Australia every day, but he rose above it, becoming a champion for them and showing many non-indigenous people that to hold fast to your convictions, to advocate your beliefs with passion and to stare injustice down are the only ways to fight for a cause.Neville Bonner was a leader in the quest for equality amongst indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. It is the duty of this parliament, and of all the people we represent, to ensure that Neville Bonner's name is long remembered as that quest continues.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.203515:08:002035Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House records its deep regret at the death on Sunday, 7 February 1999 of His Majesty King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, and expresses its deep sympathy to Queen Noor and their family and to the people of Jordan in their bereavement and requests that this motion be conveyed by the Speaker on behalf of the Australian Parliament to the Government of Jordan.The death yesterday of King Hussein came after a very long struggle against cancer. Although there is a vast distance between Jordan and Australia, and although our bilateral relations with a number of other countries in the Middle East are perhaps deeper and more intricate, that does not diminish the very considerable respect that all of us who have studied the affairs of the Middle East feel towards the late king and the regard in which he is rightly held throughout the world for the contribution he has made to the peace process involving Israel and the Arab states.I have sent a message expressing condolence on behalf of the people and the government. Many Australians will remember King Hussein's visit to Australia in 1976. He led his country for almost half a century, during particularly turbulent times. When he was a teenager he witnessed the assassination of his grandfather, and he himself subsequently survived many challenges, including coup and assassination attempts. In a volatile region with many Arab leaders resenting his pro-Western policies, and faced with complex pressures created by a large refugee population, he worked very hard to put his poor and new state on a more secure and prosperous footing. I think it is fair to say that he enjoyed very widespread and genuine support from the people of Jordan. He certainly played a role in the governance of that country not normally assumed by monarchs in the modern world. The fact that he was able to do it with growing public support and public esteem was a demonstration of his innate understanding of the needs of his people.In 1994, King Hussein became only the second Arab leader to formalise a peace treaty with Israel. After that, he dedicated himself to the Middle East peace process which had grown out of the 1991 conference in Madrid. All of us will remember the great courage he demonstrated last year when, despite the obvious ravages of cancer, he responded to calls from President Clinton to help hasten the effective conclusion of the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians at the Wye River summit. The images of his involvement in that are some of the most evocative of recent years.His death is a significant loss to his own country and to the region, and anyone who has been closely following the events of the Middle East will recognise that. His successor, his son King Abdullah, inherits a very proud and substantial legacy. I convey to him the best wishes of the Australian people and a profound expression of hope that he will continue his father's good efforts to maintain and promote a greater level of peace and understanding in the Middle East.The late King Hussein led his country through an extraordinary period in the history of the Middle East. Unlike others who have led governments in the Middle East, he leaves behind a positive legacy. He took risks for peace, he was willing to reconcile old enemies, he was willing to put old hatreds behind him, and he deserves our credit and our respect for that.15:13:002035Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I join the Prime Minister in extending condolences to the family of King Hussein and the people of Jordan on the death of King Hussein.None of us who have watched television news services over the last couple of days can fail to be impressed with the genuine expres sions of grief and sorrow from the subjects of King Hussein that have been evident on the streets of Amman and elsewhere in Jordan. There has been an extraordinary outpouring of love and affection for their dying monarch from all elements of the Jordanian community. Nor can we fail to be impressed by the remarks that have come from a multiplicity of world leaders about the stands that he has taken in international affairs and how critical he was in dealing with one of the most—if not the most—substantial international problems of our times.There is no question at all that the passing of King Hussein leaves a critical hole in the diplomacy of Middle East peace. So genuinely trusted did King Hussein become that the supporters of the Palestinian cause, the broader Arab community, the people of Israel and external powers like the United States are interlocutors from time to time with the peace process in that part of the Middle East.In the capitals concerned with a decent and long-lasting outcome, there will be more than a little fear over the consequences of the passing of the king. We should not underestimate the significance of this man. You cannot underestimate it when you see the role he played only a few months ago, off his sickbed, to keep the peace process going. There is a profound view in the United States and elsewhere that without his intervention it will be very difficult to keep this difficult process on track. That King Hussein should have reached this position is really quite extraordinary. When you look at his background and at what he has had to fight against, you form an impression of what an extraordinary man he must have been.As the Prime Minister said, he came to power after the assassination of his grandfather and the abdication of his father. Few gave much chance to an 18-year-old monarch of a tiny kingdom—then known as Trans-Jordan—which was the arbitrary creation of imperial cartographers, wedged between Israel on one side and powerful Arab neighbours on the other side. He came to know a great deal of adversity as he cemented his authority. His reign was punctuated by war and political turmoil. He survived numerous assassination and coup attempts. He survived repeated loss of territory during conflicts which occurred in the course of his reign and, after the events of the Six-Day War, he only narrowly prevailed in a bloody struggle with the PLO for control of his own capital.As folk now look at the role that he played, with forces that not only were hostile to him but were seeking his reign and his life in the course of his history, they will get the impression of what an extraordinary survivor he was and what an extraordinary contributor he has been both to his own country and to the wider interests of peace in the Middle East.He was a passionate nationalist. Despite the situation in which he found himself with very shaky rule, at a very young age he insisted upon the standing down of his senior British military adviser, Sir John Glubb—a move which at the time appeared to put at risk the relationship of one of the protectors of Trans-Jordan in the Middle East at that point. He took risks for his authority. Then he took risks for peace. In 1988 he opened up secret negotiations with the Israelis, and he forswore any claims on the West Bank in 1989. Largely because of the way in which he conducted himself, his country has always been perceived as something of a linchpin for an ultimate settlement, an ultimate peace, in the region.There is now an enormous challenge before King Abdullah. It will be an extraordinarily difficult challenge for him to meet. But, largely as a result of the way in which his father conducted his affairs both domestically and internationally, he takes office with the best of goodwill—not only from this country but from countries around the region and around the globe. We join the government in extending our deepest condolences to his family and our prayers and good wishes for King Abdullah as he takes up his mantle.15:18:002036Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—It is a privilege to add to the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, because King Hussein of Jordan served in that position for nearly half a century during one of the most turbulent and difficult periods in the history of the Middle East and in the history of Jordan.It is a privilege to visit the modern, magnificent city of Amman. It is, in itself, a salute to the modernity of King Hussein, to his leadership of Jordan and to the opening up of its economy. Australia enjoys rather modest trade—around $100 million—with Jordan, but it is a relationship that is growing, and I salute the further links being made almost every month between Australia and Jordan.First and foremost, however, King Hussein will be remembered as the architect and protector of his nation and as an open leader whose priority was always the welfare of his people. He visited Australia in 1976, and his interest in a bilateral relationship has continued to grow and strengthen from that time.It has been often enough said in this last fortnight that he made a massive contribution to peace in the Middle East. What has not been stressed is the particularity of his contribution to peace in the Middle East. It was not just the signing of instruments between Jordan and Israel; it was something a whole lot more than that. It was cutting right through to build trade, investment, tourism between Jordan and Israel, to provide a glue—an onward momentum—rather than just the formality of peace, and so build confidence in the linkages.Today you can travel direct from Masada in Israel to Petra in Jordan whereas, until the leadership provided by the King of Jordan and his opposite numbers at the time in Israel, you often had to backtrack as far as Athens or even London, to cross over and come back through, to make that linkage—which is almost within sight—between Masada and Petra.I especially salute the warm peace that he created and the efforts he made to see that peace in the Middle East and peace between Jordan and Israel had real momentum attaching to it—a momentum which created benefits and betterment for the people of the Middle East.I wish the new King of Jordan, King Abdullah, every success for a smooth transition to power, and with his workload as he takes up the cudgels filling the big footsteps of his father. I particularly join with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in extending sympathy on this very sad occasion to the people of Jordan. I am very confident that the links between Australia and Jordan will continue to expand and build at the start of the new millennium.15:21:002036Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—There are not too many real heroes in international politics. In King Hussein of Jordan, we have lost such a hero. The king, of course, was a soldier, a monarch who emerged through war and conflict to stand as a world statesman and as a peacemaker. He was a reformer who brought parliamentary democracy to his country in a region where respect for human rights and democratic freedoms are, sadly, often abused. Like Yitzhak Rabin, he came to recognise that war brings no joy and no solutions, and he pursued the course of peace with immense determination and very great courage.Only last October we watched in awe as, in circumstances of great difficulty, he broke off from his cancer treatment and brought all his commitment, all his persuasion, to help stave off the collapse of the Wye River accord. All members will recall his immense dignity and his good humour at the press conference following the conclusion of that agreement.We have all seen the grief of the Jordanian people at the loss of a revered monarch, a monarch who led his nation for more than 45 years. I experienced that enormous respect and affection for the king when I visited Jordan last year. Other speakers have today spoken of King Hussein's career and achievements, but I do not think any of us can speak as eloquently as many of the ordinary Jordanians we have seen and heard in the past 48 hours. Today all our sympathy and support goes out to Queen Noor, to his family—especially his son King Abdullah, who has taken on a most onerous burden—and of course to the Jordanian people.King Hussein's great task, the task of finding peace and security in the Middle East, remains unfinished. The Wye River agreement is in a state of suspended animation, and we await the outcome of Israel's election campaign. It is to be hoped that all sides—Israel, Palestine, the Arab states—will take inspiration from King Hussein's life and press on to cover the last few hard yards to an enduring peace, with security, with dignity. Nothing would be a more fitting memorial for the king than the early conclusion of a just and lasting Middle East peace settlement. All members of the international community should lend every effort to secure such an outcome.Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned.20372037Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House of the death on Wednesday, 20 January 1999 of Cleaver Ernest Bunton AO, OBE, a former senator. Cleaver Bunton represented the State of New South Wales from 27 February to 11 November 1975. As a mark of respect to the memory of Cleaver Bunton, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.20372037Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House of the death on Saturday, 6 February 1999 of the Hon. Donald Allan Dunstan AC, a former Premier of South Australia.15:26:002037Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, could I have the indulgence of the House to say just a few words about the late Premier of South Australia?10000Howard, John, MPMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Don Dunstan, by any measure, made a major impact on the politics of South Australia. He was a very polished, articulate advocate for the causes in which he believed. His public presentation skills were amongst the finest that I have seen in any politician on either side of politics. It will be no secret that I did not agree with everything that Mr Dunstan did in his long premiership of South Australia, but I do recognise that he made a major impact with many of the reforms that he introduced.He succeeded Frank Walsh as Premier of South Australia, who in turn had ended the very long period of Liberal government largely presided over by Sir Thomas Playford. Dunstan was responsible for many changes in the social area—equal opportunity, electoral reform, consumer protection. He was also a very conspicuous and successful patron of the arts in South Australia. The construction of the Adelaide Festival Centre complex and the creation of the State Theatre Company are impressive monuments to his contribution in that particular area.He resigned as Premier of South Australia in 1979. He endured a great number of illnesses, and he had a great degree of ill-health over the last year in particular. He contributed a great deal to his community, particularly through Community Aid Abroad and Freedom from Hunger. He was a fairly prolific writer, and in later years he involved himself in a number of business ventures. I want to extend to those left behind by him—his family and his close friends—the sympathy of the government, and I want to record the respect that I have for the passion with which he held his views and the contribution he made to his side of politics.15:28:002037Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wonder whether I can have indulgence to speak on the same matter.10000Beazley, Kim, MPMr SPEAKER—Yes, of course.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I thank the House, and I thank the Prime Minister for the generous remarks that he made about Don Dunstan. Don Dunstan is one of the people who made me enormously proud to join the Labor Party back in the mid-1960s. He was, by any measure, a great Australian. It is appropriate that, though he has never served in this chamber, we should recognise here in this chamber the passing of a genuinely great Australian political figure. He was one of those—if I may speak in an internal partisan way—who defined the modern Labor Party, on this occasion from the perspective of how one ought to conduct a state government, what one ought to do with the powers and authorities that the constitution provides for state administrations. That task at the federal level, of course, was performed by Gough Whitlam, but at the state level it was performed by Don Dunstan. They were allies in many of the changes that were made in the structure of the Labor Party in the 1960s and in the 1970s.But, of course, it is not in that regard that he achieved his fame; it is in regard to the way in which he ran the state of South Australia and the possibilities that he opened up—some of which from time to time have been taken up by other state governments elsewhere—for genuinely new and innovative ways for state governments to operate. The list of his social reforms is truly extraordinary—starting with Aboriginal land rights and the first Aboriginal land right agreements arrived at by his government. He made changes in parliamentary processes by virtue of his long struggle and the long struggle of the Labor Party to achieve democratic reforms in the structure of the South Australian parliament. That was the electoral reform.There was equal opportunity legislation—the most advanced equal opportunity legislation by any state government to that time. There was consumer protection legislation and law and education reform. There was virtually no area of society in South Australia where he did not see an opportunity to provide an advance in reforming terms and an openness. He was not one who sneered at an interest on the part of political leadership in support for the arts community and for culture. He saw a direct state government role there and he advanced the interests of his state as he did so.It is no exaggeration to say that, by the end of the 1970s, most state governments—certainly most state Labor parties—looked to what was in South Australia as an indication of best practice in state government, as an indication of what you could achieve in public office in advancing a democratic interest, in advancing a reforming interest and in advancing opportunities for people via the processes of state government. Up to that time, in many ways state government had been seen to be effectively subsumed in many of these matters by federal parliaments and to be something of a backwater in the structure of the Australian political system. He changed that in relation to South Australia.Of course, since that time he has not had an inactive public life. He decided that he would try to do for Victoria what he had done to make South Australia so attractive, and he served with the Victorian Tourism Commission from 1982 until 1986. He was National President of Australian Freedom From Hunger and a national chair of Community Aid Abroad at different points of time. He became a restaurateur and an author in his later years and broadened his reputation as a genuine political Renaissance man.We in the Labor Party feel enormously keenly his loss—72 is not a particularly old age these days. We feel very much that he still had a contribution to make were it not for the fact illness took him. So we on this side of the House are very much in mourning and will be this week until we have the opportunity to pay our final regards to Don Dunstan at a commemoration occasion which will be held on Friday. It is our South Australian colleagues who feel the loss the most, but this was a man known to us all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As a mark of respect to the memory of Don Dunstan, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Distinguished Visitors203810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Senator Sergio Bitar, former Minister of Mining and Leader of the Party for Democracy in Chile. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice203820382038Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement on 5 August last year that, under the tax package, `I don't believe anybody, when you look at the generality of the package, will be worse off except tax cheats'? If so, how does the Prime Minister explain the evidence of his modeller of choice, Chris Murphy, that it will cause long-term net job losses in Queensland and Tasmania, it will result in people living in smaller, poorer quality housing and it will have a significant negative impact on surf lifesaving and the work of St John's Ambulance and the Royal Lifesaving Society of Australia?2038Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not read all the evidence that has been presented to the Senate. But I do know this, and the Australian people know this: the man who has just asked me that question is somebody who is trying to deny to the Australian people $13 billion worth of personal tax cuts. The Labor Party and those parties in the Senate who are opposed to our tax package are saying to the Australian people, `Although you voted so that 81 per cent of Australian taxpayers would have a top marginal rate of 30 cents in the dollar, we are going to do our damnedest to stop the Australian people getting it.'Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition: now that the parliament has resumed, our commitment to giving personal tax relief to the battlers of Australia, the family men and women of Australia, remains undiminished. Our commitment to reforming the Australian taxation system is as strong now as it has ever been and your attempts to sabotage long-term reform of the Australian taxation system will do you immense political damage.20382038Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the recent report of his youth homelessness task force titled Putting families in the picture . Could the Prime Minister advise the House of the government's response to the report?2038Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the honourable member for Bradfield, that report grew out of the establishment of a task force which took place within two or three weeks of the election of the coalition government in March 1996. Because the report of the task force was tabled after the parliament had risen in December of last year, I want to record my thanks in particular to the chairman of that task force, a very remarkable man, Captain David Eldridge of the Salvation Army.The task force tested and evaluated the early intervention strategies of 26 pilot projects right around Australia. When I launched the report at St John's in Darlinghurst in Sydney in December, the groups that had been visited by the task force and the groups that had been touched by the various pilots represented a very wide spectrum of the Australian community. When I launched the task force report, I was very pleased to announce that the government would immediately implement its principal recommendation, and that was continuation of the early intervention strategies which had been proved to be so successful and which had been the subject of the pilot schemes that had been conducted as a result of the initiative in March 1996.We are going to provide a new $60 million, four-year program. The new program will provide 100 services of the type piloted, and this will assist 12,000 cases a year involving about 7,000 young people and 7,000 parents. I have asked officials to advise me by mid-1999 on options for implementing other key task force recommendations. I do take this opportunity to thank the members of the task force and to remind the House that they have piloted and trialled methods of early intervention which, on the basis of those pilots, have encouraged the government to invest further resources in what I believe will be an extremely successful approach.The report of the task force shows that young people and their parents are keen to get help before problems become crises. One third of young people living away from home before intervention, as a result of the experience of the task force's work, returned to live with one or both of their parents. This emphasis on early intervention is not only useful in relation to strategies combating youth homelessness but, of course, is also undeniably useful in relation to strategies combating drug abuse.I take the opportunity to say again how much the government appreciates the work in so many of these areas of the great welfare sector organisations like the Salvation Army, whose practical hands-on, real life experience is superior to that of any people involved in this area anywhere in Australia. It will be, with appropriate help, the continuing policy of my government to involve them even more in giving advice and making judgments on the adequate delivery of welfare services in Australia.20392039Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall being asked on Radio 4QR last September:Is it possible. . . in the next six years to have an unemployment rate of 5 per cent?Does he recall his answer? It was:Of course not.Treasurer, do you stand by that statement? Are you the same Treasurer who told the Sydney Morning Herald last week that a five per cent unemployment rate was achievable? Which Treasurer should we believe in the future, the one with the target or the one without?2039Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Can I inform the House there is only one shadow Treasurer that you should never believe on every occasion. It is the member for Hotham. Let me make the point that in the last three years under the government's policy, which has seen Australia become one of the strongest economies in the world, 400,000 new jobs were created.RI4PROSSERMr Prosser—How many?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Four hundred thousand new jobs were created, and the unemployment rate is as low now as it has been since Labor and Keating put Australia into recession.The point I make is that we can do better in relation to unemployment if we do all of the things that I have set out, if we continue the strong economic growth that this government has put in place. We can do better if we deregulate the labour market, which is something Labor opposes. You will never improve labour market deregulation, and therefore you will not get benefits in increased jobs, while you have got Labor being obstructionist in the Senate.The third thing that we can do is reform the Australian taxation system. But I make the point that you will never get a better tax system and you will never get the increased jobs whilst you have got Labor being obstructionist in the Senate. The fourth thing you can do is improve the interaction between the welfare and the tax systems.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Our tax package in other words.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That will create jobs and get a lower unemployment rate in Australia.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have a point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, it is on relevance. When between September and February did the Treasurer come to this conclusion? Just when did you come to this conclusion, Treasurer?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The answer has been entirely relevant to the question, and I invite the Treasurer to continue.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There are four elements of government policy that will create jobs for Australia, four elements that are opposed by the Australian Labor Party, the party of high unemployment.20392039Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer outline recent economic indicators on the present state of the Australian economy? In light of the recent economic data, what are the future prospects for continued strong growth?2039Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Against a backdrop of international economic turmoil, particularly in a region which is now nearly totally in recession if not depression, the Australian economy continues to grow, according to the last September quarter national accounts, at a rate of five per cent. This makes Australia probably the fastest growing developed economy in the world. The Chief Economist of the National Australia Bank, no known optimist, described the result recently as `stunning'. The IMF Deputy Managing Director, Stanley Fischer, described it as `having done remarkably well' and Paul Krugman, in a recent edition of Fortune magazine, said Australia was the `miracle economy' of the world financial crisis.Since this government has come to office, inflation has averaged one per cent per annum. Under the Labor Party, inflation averaged 5.2 per cent per annum. Under this government, real wages have grown around 2½ per cent per annum. Under the Labor Party, they grew 0.5 per cent per annum. Employment grew 2.1 per cent in 1998 and the unemployment rate fell to a decade long low. There are nearly 400,000 more Australians employed today than when the government came to office in March 1996. In its living wage submission to the national wage case, the ACTU says this:Total employment growth has surged over recent months. Labour market data exhibits considerable volatility from month to month. However, the apparent strength of the labour market is not a flukey result.The ACTU says that the apparent strength of the labour market is not a flukey result. No, it is not. You had to put a budget back into balance to get it. You had to bring down inflation and interest rates. You had to start paying back Labor debt.Mortgage interest rates are now at their lowest levels in a generation, small business overdraft indicator rates are the lowest in 30 years, the budget is in surplus and we are on track to halve Labor's debt. We had the opportunity to wipe out Labor's debt with the privatisation of Telstra. In an area with an Asian economy which is now totally in recession, if not depression, this is a remarkable performance by the Australian economy. To quote the ACTU, this is not a flukey result. This is the result of good policy—good policy opposed all the way by the Labor Party in this parliament.20402040Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct a question again to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall being asked at the Press Club about whether he had modelled the employment impact of the tax package and his answer, `Look, we've done a lot of modelling'? Treasurer, what employment modelling were you referring to? Isn't it true that, according to evidence given by Treasury, they have done no modelling on employment? 2040Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I refer to the tax package itself and the researches and modellings that we published and put out in the tax package. Salomon Smith Barney predicted that tax reform would lift GDP by 2.3 per cent. That is not bad, is it? Econotech, using MM 303, indicated a long run GDP gain, with the replacement of a WST with a VAT, of around two per cent. Murphy final analysis of the package is indicating an effect of an increase in GDP, I believe, of 1.8 per cent. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research model was used and adopted by ACOSS. In its submission to the Senate, ACOSS could prove no class of person was worse off. The Melbourne Institute, using ORANI, indicated that indirect tax reform could lift GDP by 3.8 per cent. Access Economics said that the tax package would lift GDP by 2.5 per cent and create 190,000 new jobs. Why would the Labor Party sit there and say, `We are against increased GDP as found by Salomon's, increased GDP as found by Econotech, increased GDP as found by the Melbourne Institute, increased GDP as found by Access—DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question was not about modelling on the GDP but modelling on the employment impact, Treasurer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader will resume his seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—What modelling have you done? If you have done it, produce it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ignores the call from the chair to return to his seat. The Treasurer is in order and is referring to economic modelling.DT4CREANMr Crean—He is not in order. He is not answering the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What effect do you think a growth in GDP would have: a negative effect on employment? Is that the Labor Party's argument now? With all of these increases in the GDP, what effect do you think that would have? As Access Economics said, 190,000 new jobs. Isn't it a great thing to be cutting people's personal income taxes? Isn't it a great thing, after all of these years, to get a new tax system, and won't it be a great thing for Australia to have a stronger economy under tax reform?20402040Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, can you inform the House of the efforts the government is undertaking to create employment opportunities for Australia's unemployed? What are the obstacles preventing the government from implementing its jobs program?2040Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. He asked what we have been doing to help create jobs. I am pleased to inform the honourable member that immediately after the election we started to implement the policies which were endorsed by the Australian people at the last election and which were aimed at starting to resolve some of the problems created by our predecessors, whose policies cost this country a lot of jobs. One of the things we did was to introduce and use the regulation power. This is a power available to this government, as it was used five times by my predecessor, the member for Kingsford-Smith, in respect of unfair dismissals. Why did we introduce that? Because we said to the Australian people, `If you elect us, we will do all within our power to provide a fair go for small business. If you give small business a fair go then we believe there are 50,000 jobs to be created.'It was very interesting last week that the Senate committee heard some people running small business give evidence about the impact of the unfair dismissal laws on their business and their intentions of creating jobs. A Mr Tonkin of Tonkin's Car Audio told the committee:Yes, we would certainly put on more people. At the moment every person you put on now is a potential litigation waiting to happen.A Mr Maloney said:This year I was planning to hire two people full time. Those people will now not have jobs.He went on to say:This is real. It is hurting people. It is putting people out of business and breaking up families. It is costing Australia and it is costing the economy.What do the Labor Party say when they are confronted by the reality of their own policies? They have the cheek to say, `This is a political stunt. The real people should come up and tell us what is really happening in our businesses.' The fact is that Labor created this problem. They are now the barriers, standing in the way of a sensible solution.It is exactly the same with youth employment. We have a problem with youth employment and, as a government, we are working to fix that. We are again fixing up the problems created by Labor. They of course think that a lot of these young people's jobs are jobs not worth having. I at least pay tribute to the member for Melbourne, who said in his book:The ridiculous notion that some jobs are not real jobs but merely theme park jobs or McJobs must be abandoned. Many of the jobs in the old economy are no more fulfilling or better paid than such new jobs, and they are often dirtier and more dangerous.We reckon a job at McDonald's is a job worth having. We are prepared to support those employers prepared to give young people a job. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you have a few dissentient voices on your own backbench and frontbench. It is about time we saw some real leadership to actually create jobs in this country.20412041Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Minister, having visited the Age of Fishes Museum project at Canowindra last Saturday and heard world palaeontological experts describe the fossils as being of world importance for science, education and tourism, what can you do to ensure the problems encountered in qualifying for regional tourism program assistance are sorted out and that this project will receive the further assistance it requires?2041Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I did indeed have the great delight of being present at the dedication of the building in Canowindra for the Age of Fishes Museum. That building has been constructed with the assistance of a $200,000 grant from the government's Regional Tourism Development Program. That is a very interesting program in that it provides an opportunity for jobs growth, and for communities to get behind finds in their area and to do something of great importance for our nation.That whole museum is built on a 10 square metre pond in which, 360 million years ago, 3,000 fish died simultaneously. The area silted up and created some excellent fossils from which eight species have been found. We have international experts coming to look at Australia, taking into account their experience overseas, and contributing to the scientific knowledge of how our world was formed and where life came from. One of the professors there, Dr Alex Ritchie, is a very interesting and learned fellow who has been naming a number of the fish found after a number of their benefactors and after a number of the towns in the area. This project has been supported by the Cabonne Shire, the Parkes Shire and the Cowra Shire councils and by the federal government.We have seen a move towards regional tourism in the form of events, gardens and museums. You have motor racing at Bathurst, you have the Cowra japanese gardens, and you have a number of festivals and tourism attractions in regional Australia. All of these contribute—Opposition members interjecting— Mr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Calare has asked a serious question that deserves to be answered. The members on my left are doing the entire parliament a disservice with their present conduct. GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—It is a very exceptional project, worthy of support. It has a number of the towns' support. It is something that I support for the future of Australia—for our regional tourism as well as for its scientific value. It is something that the government is giving serious consideration to.20412041Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Is the minister aware of recent public statements supportive of the sale of the government's shareholding in Telstra? What is the government's response to these statements?2041Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. The government's partial sale of Telstra has been an outstanding success. It has enjoyed widespread support from the Australian community, has allowed the government to retire a significant proportion of Labor debt and has led to the establishment of the nation's biggest environmental repair program, the Natural Heritage Trust.The shares in Telstra that are held now by 1.3 million Australians are very much prized. But, despite this success, Labor has steadfastly opposed this sale of Telstra and the future sale of Telstra. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has staked his reputation on this opposition. So I was surprised at the weekend to read that the opposition's position seems to have changed on this issue. The man who is touted as a future potential Leader of the Opposition, the member for Melbourne, has spoken out against his leader. He said:Part private ownership of Telstra creates internal tensions and contradictions and inhibits the extent to which social value can be obtained from a huge investment of public capital. If the balance of Telstra is not sold, it may be desirable to restructure its core infrastructure functions into complete public ownership and fully privatise some of its service provision's functions.That quote comes from the manifesto called Open Australia , which I believe is to be launched later this week. Now we see the honourable member for Melbourne supporting the honourable member for Werriwa, who has said similar things in the past. What the honourable member for Melbourne recognises is that his party's position on the sale of Telstra is indefensible. It is particularly indefensible when you look at it alongside Labor's sale of the Commonwealth Bank and Labor's sale of Qantas.We also learnt about six weeks ago from an article in the Business Review Weekly that what the former Labor government proposed to do with Telstra was not to sell it to the mums and dads of Australia. The former Labor Prime Minister had a proposal to sell Telstra to BHP—not the mums and dads of Australia. I congratulate the future Leader of the Opposition on the stand that he has taken on the hypocrisy of Labor over the sale and I welcome his support for the sale of Telstra.20422042Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that funeral directors are already charging the GST on prepaid funerals; and that in one case in my electorate 10.1 per cent was added to the price, there was no discount for removal of other taxes, and the GST was charged on the religious part of the service? Is it fair and is it legal that people are required to pay the GST now?2042Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I must preface any answer I give by saying that they are unsubstantiated statements that are being made in the House today. I do not know the truth or otherwise of them. I would be pleased to see the details if you chose—FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the unsubstantiation claim is an inhibition, I can produce the contract, so the minister should be aware—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Newcastle will resume his seat. He has been in this chamber for the same period of time as the Speaker and he knows that his point of order must refer to a specific standing order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on the point he is making, which is the substantiation requirements of standing orders in relation to the asking of questions, where there is a requirement by the standing orders to be able to substantiate questions or the source from which they have come. In her answer the minister immediately stated that it was an unsubstantiated claim, and from that point she was effectively challenging the propriety of the question in relation to standing orders. The member then stood prepared to produce the documentation for the minister. He was appropriately substantiating the question; therefore, the minister should answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Speaker has not at any stage prevented the minister from answering the question; he has merely sought to ask the member for Newcastle under which standing order he was raising his point of order.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—If the member had bothered to listen to the rest of the answer, he would have been spared this waste of time. I was about to say that if he would choose to send me the documentation I will refer it to the Treasurer and we will give you a written answer.20422042Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the current state of Australia's relations with Indonesia? Is the minister aware of any developments over the past week that could have an adverse effect on this important relationship?2042Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I appreciate the interest that the member for Moreton shows in foreign affairs issues and in particular in the important relationship between Australia and Indonesia. In answer to the first part of the question I think it would be fair to say that Indonesians generally know that Australia is a good friend during this period which could only be described as a crossroads in Indonesian history. We are helping Indonesia very considerably with the recovery of its economy. We are helping Indonesia in the lead-up to the crucial elections on 7 June, and we are working with Indonesia over the fraught and longstanding issue of East Timor.The honourable member also asked me whether I was aware of any developments over the past week that could have an adverse impact on this important relationship. What I am aware of is the quite extraordinary behaviour of none other than the member for Kingsford-Smith. Of course the House is aware of the really quite bizarre attacks by the member for Kingsford-Smith on his own party, on the long-suffering member for Holt. The man the Leader of the Opposition said was the greatest foreign minister in history has yet again been savaged by the member for Kingsford-Smith.The member for Kingsford-Smith attacked the Whitlam government and Mr Whitlam personally, whom he described on this issue of East Timor as `dangerously ambiguous'. He attacked Mr Hawke and Mr Keating, who on the issue of East Timor presided over `profound foreign policy failures'. You would think that the member for Kingsford-Smith had operated over all those years in a complete vacuum. He was not a member of the Labor Party? He was not a member of parliament? He was not a member of the cabinet? He never sat in a cabinet meeting and discussed the issue of East Timor or relations with Indonesia? Of course he did. We all know that what he is really about is cheapskate populism without any consultation with the backbench committee. It has not been discussed in detail with the caucus committee—we know that—or indeed with the Leader of the Opposition. This extraordinary speech was not run past the office of the Leader of the Opposition; it just happened.In conclusion, let me make this point. The member for Kingsford-Smith can play politics within the Labor Party, left and right, attacking the record of Labor. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, you can hack each other to death, we do not care. In fact, we quite enjoy it. I would not be answering this question if we did not. The member for Kingsford-Smith did something that you should not do; that is, when the Indonesian ambassador wrote a letter to him the other day, that private correspondence miraculously appeared in the newspapers. I cannot tell you how that happened, but I can tell you that the Indonesian ambassador took a very dim view of this and spoke to the media complaining about the member for Kingsford-Smith leaking private correspondence which gave his view.Mr Speaker, that sort of thing is what does damage to Australia's standing. The Leader of the Opposition should show some leadership and find a new spokesman on foreign affairs who knows something about the history of these issues and over whom he might like to try to exercise some leadership.20432043Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, do you agree with the Treasurer's proposal that accommodation providers should be able to decide whether to apply a GST directly to 50 per cent of the site fee paid by long-term residents of mobile homes and caravan parks? What option will Australia's 100,000-plus residents of mobile homes and caravan parks have to demand that their provider applies the GST in the same way as for other renters? Minister, is it not also a fact that accommodation providers will be able to change their minds and use a different tax treatment every 12 months, denying long-term residents any security or certainty?2043Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Mr Speaker, as is usual when the member for Lilley asks a question, most of his facts are at best tainted and, in many instances, completely inaccurate. Of course I agree with the Treasurer in his comments in relation to the issues that have been raised. He drafted the legislation and naturally he will interpret it in accordance with the government's wishes in that regard. This tax package offers enormous benefits for renters and for all low income earners and the honourable member for Lilley knows that.5K6ELLISMs Ellis—Where? Tell us where.GT4Mr TRUSS—Substantial welfare increases, to start off with, and increases in pensions and benefits to all Australians. All those paying tax will pay less tax.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order is as to relevance, Mr Speaker. The minister was asked a very specific question related to the application of a GST directly to 50 per cent of the site fee and directly related to the fact that this is not in the legislation, as has subsequently been revealed. Some 100,000 long-term residents—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is now arguing the case. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat, if only because I am on my feet.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Quite unintentionally, the Leader of the Opposition was addressing the House without having received the call. The minister is being relevant to the question and has the call.GT4Mr TRUSS—As I was saying, the new tax package provides enormous benefits to all Australians, including renters. Under these arrangements—2V5SWANMr Swan—On a point of order as to relevance, Mr Speaker: the question does not relate to the tax package. It relates to changes that the Treasurer has made subsequent to the legislation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The question is entirely relevant to the tax package and the minister is answering the question relevant to those who rent accommodation.GT4Mr TRUSS—This issue is clearly about the tax package and the legislation is about the tax package. The legislation makes it clear that proprietors are able to choose the system that best suits their circumstances and renters will be in a position to respond because of the increased benefits that this tax package provides to them.20432043Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House how its plans to reduce the marginal tax rates will benefit average income earners and what impediments are there to average income earners enjoying lower personal income tax?2043Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I know that there are millions of Australians on middle incomes who are looking forward to cuts in personal income tax. That is what they voted for in the election last year and, as far as we are concerned, that is what we are going to deliver for them. This government is determined to deliver in full the package which it was given a mandate from the Australian people to implement at the last election.On the Liberal and National Party side of the House, we believe that middle income earners should be paying lower income tax. We believe that under our plan 81 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than a top marginal income tax rate of 30 per cent. Only the Labor Party stands in the way of 81 per cent of taxpayers getting a tax cut down to those levels. Under the government's plan, 95 per cent of Australian taxpayers get a cut in their marginal income tax rate. If Labor has its way and defeats income tax cuts, which is Labor's policy—let us make this clear; Labor's policy is to defeat income tax cuts—a taxpayer on 1.2 times average earnings will be paying a top marginal rate of 47 per cent or 48½ per cent with the Medicare levy. Under Labor's plan, if you are earning 1-2 times average weekly earnings, you will be paying half to the tax office. Under the coalition plan, the average earner will be kicked down to a rate of 30c in the dollar.Let us also remember that, under the tax plan in the Senate, the government is trying to increase family benefits by increasing tax-free thresholds for each child—that is, an additional $1,000 increase in the tax-free threshold. There will be an increase of $2,500 in the tax-free threshold for families that have a child under 5 years of age. There is an increase in the taper rate, which is currently at 50 per cent, down to 30 per cent, to take out those poverty traps that are currently in the tax systemAt the last election the Labor Party had three big tax ideas. The first was to put a capital gains tax on all pre-1985 assets, and after the election they said that that policy was wrong. The second policy they had was to increase the tariff on all four-wheel drive vehicles.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is choosing to defy the chair. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Hotham said he was going to `drive out the Toorak tractors'—don't we remember that? The Leader of the Opposition came out and said, `We were wrong about that policy as well.' Their third policy was to oppose the government's tax plan. They were wrong on capital gains, and they admit it; they were wrong on four-wheel drives, and they admit it; and they are wrong on the GST, and they might as well admit it. You might as well accept that the people of Australia voted for tax reform. They want lower income taxes, and we want to give them lower income taxes. Pass the tax package.20442044Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Does the minister recall saying in relation to water safety that `we can learn from key stakeholders such as the lifesavers'? Minister, has your attention been drawn to a submission made to the community affairs Senate committee expressing the fears of Surf Life Saving Australia that the GST will:. . . reduce the capacity to provide cost effective first-aid training, water safety and lifesaving services . . . disadvantage the whole Australian community and lead directly to the loss of lives.Minister, given your commitment to listen and learn from the lifesavers, why will you not act on their concerns about the GST?2044Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the honourable member for her question. It is timely because tomorrow morning I am opening a conference of all state officials to discuss where we are going with water safety in Australia. Currently, $76 million is being spent on the issue of water safety in Australia and how to save Australian lives. It is quite unusual in that this is the most amount of money ever spent in the history of Australia, yet we are still losing lives. So it is imperative, before we put any more money on the wall, that we look at how we are currently spending the money and where future money should be spent in order to save lives. I am quite encouraged that the Treasurer has got it absolutely right as far as non-profit organisations are concerned, and this government will continue to assist our remarkable agencies such as the Surf Life Saving Association, the Royal Life Saving Society Australia and Austswim in their efforts to help Australians and save them from deaths by drowning.20442044Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House of the significance of the visit to Australia last year of President Scalfaro to the one million Australians of Italian descent? Can he inform the House of the current state of relations with the Republic of Italy?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—The minister is going to declare war.2044Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—You are renowned for your extraordinary wit.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Maribyrnong; I merely wanted to inquire as to whether or not the minister had heard the question as a result of the interjections.4G4Mr DOWNER—I did hear the question; it was about the visit of President Scalfaro. I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his unexpected question! Since our two electorates are adjacent to each other, I know that there are a large number of Australians of Italian origin in the honourable member's electorate, as there are in my electorate, and that the honourable member for Sturt is a very enthusiastic advocate of their cause.The visit by President Scalfaro was, I think, as all members of the House would recognise, a very great success and was symbolic of the extraordinary improvements there have been in Australia's relationship with Italy over recent years. We have said as a government that of course we focus first and foremost on our own region, as all countries do, in our foreign policy, but we have global interests. One of our global interests is with the European Union, and one of the key countries in the European Union is Italy. We have upgraded our relationship with Italy. We have established an economic and cultural council, which the Deputy Prime Minister has presided over on one occasion, and we have had quite a number of interactions between Australian and Italian ministers.I think the success of our strategy with Italy is demonstrated by the significant growth in our exports to Italy over recent times and the growing people-to-people contacts between our two countries, so it was a great honour to have the President of Italy visit Australia last year. All of us on this side of the House, and I am sure some on the other side of the House, too, were delighted to have had the opportunity to meet him. I also enjoyed extensive discussions with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who travelled with the President on that occasion.20442044Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you have full and complete confidence in Mr Dick Smith's chairmanship of the board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority? Do you support Mr Smith's continuing attacks, repeated as recently as this morning in estimates hearings, on the Bureau of Air Safety Investigations? If not, have you called Mr Smith in and instructed that he cease these public attacks? Do you publicly endorse Mr Smith's approach to the carrying out of CASA's functions and powers?2044Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I am sure she, like all members of this House, and in common with the Australian travelling community, believes that it is appropriate that we place an enormous emphasis on aviation safety in this country. I believe that my predecessors in this role and the government have given CASA an outstanding board, which is headed up by a competent and enthusiastic chairman, who understands aviation safety and is absolutely committed to it. So, of course, I and the government have confidence in CASA's board and its chairman.In relation to the chairman's concerns, expressed publicly about BASI, I have met and talked at length with the chairman and the board, as was revealed by Senator Ian Macdonald this morning. I have for some time been working on the terms of reference for a broad and, I stress, independent inquiry into BASI. I think it is appropriate and timely that we do so. Very shortly, I will be announcing both the terms of reference and the names of those who will be undertaking that considerable responsibility.The overall comment that needs to be made here is that you had a very long time indeed when you were in government to get aviation safety in Australia up to the highest and most satisfactory levels possible. You, only in your latter days in office, restructured the thing and gave a broad canvass, with which the government broadly concurs. But we were the people who sought very hard to put an effective board in charge of that organisation. I have every confidence that Australia maintains and continues to maintain nothing but the highest standards in aviation safety.20452045Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister inform the House of the latest developments concerning the conflict in Kosovo? What is the Australian government doing to aid those who are caught in the conflict?2045Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question as well, and for the interest he shows in the appalling humanitarian crisis of Kosovo.First of all, the Australian government has given what diplomatic support we can to the contact group. When I was in Europe during the course of the last week I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak with, amongst others, the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, and other officials in Europe about the crisis in Kosovo. I think the efforts that have been made, particularly by Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and his French counterpart, Mr Vedrine, is quite a considerable achievement. I very much hope that the talks at Rambouillet in France, which are scheduled to get under way today, will be successful and that we see some substantial progress at last in terms of achieving the autonomy package that is being proposed by the contact group.As I mentioned earlier, we have also been very concerned about the humanitarian consequences of the political disaster of Kosovo. We recently provided $100,000 to help with the problem there, but I know that other countries are doing a great deal to assist as well. We judge that the best contribution overall that Australia can make to this issue is for us to provide as strong a diplomatic support as we can for the contact group for the negotiations between the Yugoslav government and the secessionists in Kosovo and to hope that those negotiations can produce a constructive autonomy package which will help to bring peace to that troubled part of the Balkans.20452045Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you support a new preamble to the Australian constitution which, amongst other things, would recognise prior ownership of this land by Australia's indigenous people? Will you put the question of a new preamble to the people as a separate question in a referendum? If so, will you give an unambiguous commitment to support that question?2045Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me an opportunity to say something about this. About a year ago, when we had the Constitutional Convention, I gave a number of undertakings to the Australian people through that convention. The first of those undertakings was that, if a clear view about a republican model came from the convention, I would put it. The second undertaking I gave was that, on matters relating to the republic, the coalition parties would have an open vote.I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I have now been involved in two elections as leader of the coalition, and on both of those occasions I have been completely frank and open about my own personal view.MG4LEEMr Lee—How many, John?ZD4Mr HOWARD—In the context of the debate on the republic.MG4LEEMr Lee—He's forgotten.ZD4Mr HOWARD—If the opposition wants to score a little point, okay, score one to the boy wonder from Dobell. But let us return to a serious subject, because I think the Leader of the Opposition asked this as a serious question. I have been completely open with the Australian people. I do not think the constitution ought to be changed to create an Australian republic, and nothing that I have heard in the debate over the past few months has altered my view on that. There will be a completely open vote amongst my colleagues in relation to that. Some of my colleagues agree with me, some of them differ from me.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What choice did you have in that?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would say to those opposite that, if you really want to get an affirmative vote for your majority proposition, you will not politicise this issue. You will do enormous damage to your own cause if you try to score a lot of political points off us on this issue.Let me tell you my view on the preamble. I think that, as we approach the Centenary of Federation, there are a growing number of Australians—Liberal and Labor, republican and anti-republican alike—who would like to see embedded in the basic document of this country some recognition of the prior occupation of the landmass of Australia by the indigenous people. That is my view. As I go around Australia, I find a greater unanimity of support for that than I do on the issue of the republic.Over the last three months, I have perceived quavering views about the republic. I do not know what is going to happen in the referendum on the republic. I really do not. I think people who get up and say, `Oh, it's in trouble' are deluding themselves—I do not know that it is. But people who run around saying that it has 60 per cent or 70 per cent support are deluding themselves too. I think there are a large number of people in the Australian community who genuinely have not made up their minds on this issue. There are a lot of direct-election republicans who want to have a direct election for the president, a stance which I am personally far more strongly opposed to than I am to the mainstream model that is being put at the referendum, although I am strongly opposed to both.I think we ought to talk rather openly about this issue. I think it is an issue which challenges the political maturity of both sides of Australian politics. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the preamble. I have given you my personal view about it. Then, in typical political style—which is fair enough for a Leader of the Opposition—he asked me for some kind of unequivocal guarantee. I am not going to give an unequ ivocal guarantee, because I have already told my party and the National Party that they can have a free vote on matters related to this issue. The unequivocal guarantee that I will give to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Australian people is that, at all times, I will be completely open and direct with the Australian people.I have been twice elected as Prime Minister of this country as an anti-republican. I remain an anti-republican, but, as Prime Minister of this country, I think that the national unity of this country would be enhanced—and I think this parliament would be ennobled and enhanced—if we could find a workable way to recognise in the basic document of our country the prior occupation of the landmass of this country by the indigenous people.20462046Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. The Work for the Dole scheme has been very well received by the community at large in my electorate of Parramatta. There are, however, one or two organisations that stubbornly resist cooperation with the scheme. Is the minister aware of any such opposition? What impact is it having on the opportunities for young Australian job seekers?2046Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the Prime Minister and the fine answer that he has given. Work for the Dole is one of the signature programs of this Howard government. Already more than 400 Work for the Dole projects have commenced and more than 18,000 young Australians have gained work experience through this program. Before Christmas I announced a further 300 projects involving another 13,000 young Australians, including, I am happy to say, three projects in the electorate of Parramatta involving 168 people.Numerous community organisations throughout Australia have been very, very happy to work with the government on this program. Many, many organisations, including local councils, have been happy to work with the government on this program but, unfortunately, the New South Wales Labor government has instructed its agencies and instrumentalities not to cooperate without first securing union approval. The New South Wales Labor government has given unions a veto over these programs designed to benefit young Australians.The latest Labor politician to leap to the Sussex Street command is the Labor Mayor of Parramatta, who has just come out and attacked the Work for the Dole programs in Parramatta, despite the fact that they involve the construction of new community facilities, despite the fact that they involve work experience with neighbourhood centres and migrant resource centres and despite the fact that they are run by that great Australian organisation Mission Australia.Modern Labor might be what the Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about. He might like to say that they support reciprocal obligation but only in so far as it suits Labor's union mates. You have to ask the question: why is it that the ALP is punishing the unemployed to protect the unions? The answer is not very hard to find. Of the 24 new members of this parliament following the last election, 12 of them—or 50 per cent—were union officials before entering this place. Of the 34 ALP frontbenchers, 18 of them—or 52 per cent—were union officials before they entered this place.The Leader of the Opposition is paralysed with indecision in coping with the kinds of reform pressures that he is getting from the member for Melbourne and the member for Werriwa, and it is quite easy to see why—because too many of his own team believe in a government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions, and Labor will stay in the wilderness until that changes.20462046Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Has the minister read the report in yesterday's Sun-Herald which states that investigations by the Health Insurance Commission and other bodies have failed to turn up any trace of the doctor which he has alleged made 747 claims in one calendar year for a single patient? Can the minister now verify whether he has been referring to an actual Australian case? If so, will he indicate in which year it is alleged to have happened?2046Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The shadow minister is utterly predictable. The case she refers to first came up in debate in 1996 as a result of the government's attempt to remove a blatant rort that had existed for many years. I was informed at the time that the previous government had attempted to do something but had not been able to do something. At the time, I was informed that it was a genuine case, and I answered a question on notice to that effect. I did today ask for it to be checked again. The advice I am given is that it was a real case. The psychiatrist was counselled by the Health Insurance Commission's medical adviser. The case was discussed with the Royal Australasian College of Psychiatrists.Further, with respect to the way the article was written, I will read my brief and I am happy to table it afterwards. In relation to the newspaper article stating that the Health Insurance Commission official did not have knowledge of Dr 747, I can say that the official was not involved in the case and therefore had no knowledge of the particular practitioner. I am advised also that the journalist did not provide sufficient information to enable officers to validate the information. It would seem to me that it is quite impossible to come to the conclusions the journalist did from the information that the Health Insurance Commission advises me that it provided.The final thing I will say is that the article finishes by saying:National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP) president Gil Anaf said NAPP had tried repeatedly and in vain to obtain the details of Dr 747's case from the Government.I have never heard of Dr Anaf and, until today, I had never heard of the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists. I presume they exist. I note their executive officer is one Stephen Milgate, who acts for a number of groups that would be considered to have hard, right-wing views. What he is doing here is making a political point—nothing else. We would not deal with the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists. They are a political organisation. We deal with the Royal Australasian College of Psychiatrists, which is a professional organisation.Finally, this initiative in the 1996 budget—an initiative, I might say, that the Labor Party opposed—has meant that in the last 12 months the number of Australians who have been able to see a psychiatrist has increased 10 per cent, which is a dramatic improvement. I table the document.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was: in which calendar year did this take place?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is not making a point of order and will resume her seat.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I request that the minister table the document.UNKNOWNGovernment members interjectingGovernment members interjecting—He did.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I think that is an appropriate time to ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker204720472047Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question to you, Mr Speaker, relates to a question asked by the member for Newcastle, Mr Morris, who was challenged by the minister as to the substance of a question. The implication was put forward that he knew nothing about it. The question was simply not answered by the minister. He had documentation to substantiate it, and the docu ment is here. It says: `Evans Funerals' and it shows a total amount of $3,300, including GST, as the contract that they have there. I would ask you, Mr Speaker: when there is a question raised by a member of parliament and a minister challenges the substance of it, the opportunity ought to be opened immediately for the member asking the question to substantiate the claim—a position which Mr Morris wanted to assume but was not able to. As there is clear reference in standing orders to the requirement to be able to substantiate the basis of any question, I would ask you consider whether you would in future oblige ministers to agree to presentation of the documentation to them during the course of question time.2047Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In response to the Leader of the Opposition, obviously I will give consideration to his reasonable request. I would, however, point out that I was not affronted by anything that happened, because the minister undertook to take the evidence that the member for Newcastle had and to respond to it.MG4LEEMr Lee—Through you, Mr Speaker, could I call on the Leader of the Opposition to substantiate the claim he has just made about the contents of the contract by tabling the document?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no facility for that, as the member for Dobell is aware.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I seek leave to table the contract.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is not granted.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Newcastle is being denied the call by the interjections of his colleagues.Personal Explanations204716:42:002047Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You may proceed.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—At question time, the Minister for Aged Care remarked on a question of mine that it was unsubstantiated. The matter I raised had been reported in the Newcastle Herald last week on Prime News and the Sun-Herald yesterday. All of those reporters—and I—had access to contracts and documentation, and their integrity and mine were impugned quite seriously and misrepresented by the minister when she suggested that I could not substantiate the question I asked. I find that not just a misrepresentation but extremely offensive.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Aged Care already offered, at the conclusion of the question, to take up the issue.Mr Allan Morris interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Newcastle is not being heard, because he does not have the call. If he would like to rise and wait, he will get the call. It is only common courtesy.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Mr Speaker, I was hoping you would require her to withdraw the inference she made to both me and to the media which reported the matter. All of us had access to a contract and details.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Newcastle has made his point that he has been misrepresented, and that is as much as is necessary in the present context of this question.Questions to the Speaker204820482048Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 3 December 1998, questions Nos 296, 299 and 300, addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services first appeared on the Notice Paper in my name. As it is now 68 days since the questions first appeared, I ask that, in accordance with standing order 150, you write to the minister concerned seeking reasons for delay in answering those questions.2048Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Under standing order 150, I will undertake to do that.20482048Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, under the same standing order 150, I would request that you also seek replies to question 50 on the Notice Paper that I raised with the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on 11 November; question 56 to the Minister of Family and Community Services that I raised on 11 November; question 57 on the Notice Paper , as well as question 81, which I raised on 23 November; question 61 to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs raised with him on 11 November; question 77 addressed to the Prime Minister on 12 November; questions 82 and 83 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care raised on 23 November; and question 84 that I put on notice to the Attorney-General on 23 November. I too would like the courtesy of a reply from those ministers.2048Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I assure the member for Prospect that I will follow that up. The Clerk has pointed out to me—and this is no reflection on the member for Prospect—that two of them have recently been answered, but I accept the fact that you have not received them.Privilege204816:45:002048Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I rise on a matter of privilege. I was served with a subpoena dated 9 January 1999 issued by the Family Court seeking the production of all my files, notes and records concerning a case my office handled, returnable on 18 January 1999. Family Law rules provide that failure to obey the subpoena: a warrant may issue for one's arrest and, if you so fail without reasonable cause or excuse, you commit an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000.The matter referred to concerned two children who were the alleged victims of sexual abuse overseas and in Australia. The matter was referred to my office by a local primary school principal and involved the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I am pleased to say my representations were successful and my records had been archived.I have always resisted releasing my files in the belief that my constituents have the right to approach me as their federal member and that I have the responsibility and duty to take up matters on their behalf without fear or favour. Further, that which passes between my constituents and me should at all times be confidential. As the legal representative of the children—the same children for whom I had made representations—instigated this subpoena, I was faced with a dilemma. In order to resolve my dilemma, I did speak with the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission in an attempt to understand the proper forensic purpose of the subpoena. However, my discussion was fruitless. I therefore wrote to the court outlining my reasons for refusing to produce the records and established that the court received my letter. I did, however, offer to appear in person. I am happy to table both the letter and the subpoena, but I have removed all information which may identify the children. I table that correspondence.I have to this day not received the courtesy of a reply. I can only assume that no warrant has been issued, nor fine imposed. If my assumption is wrong, I undertake to communicate with you with a degree of urgency.Mr Speaker, the privileges of members in relation to the parliament and its committees are comparatively clear and well defined. For constituents, their priority concerns the work a member may undertake in their electorate, and particularly in representations they may make on constituents' behalf. In this regard, parliamentary privilege is less clear and settled. I am sure members would agree that some, if not most, information disclosed to members by constituents is provided on the assumption that it will be either treated as confidential or not subject to disclosure or both.As well as the grave concerns I have for the privacy of constituents, I believe that disclosure of records held by members could have longer term negative implications for the performance of members of their duties. It could well lead to concerns by constituents about the status and confidentiality of the information they provide in seeking assistance of members. As a result, in some cases constituents needing assistance might be deterred from seeking it—I trust you would agree, Mr Speaker, a most unfortunate outcome.For policy making to be effective and in exercising our legislative role, members of parliament must be able to communicate freely with their constituents in order to address concerns, shortcomings and anomalies in legislation and to ensure that public policy in legislation meets the needs of the people. Anything that deterred constituents from approaching their member of parliament would be an interference to that member in the performance of his duty as a member. I understand that your predecessor, Speaker Sinclair, wrote to the Attorney-General regarding the matter of members' records.The matter I handled was an immigration one. There are many solicitors who act as immigration agents and, although I understand not tested, the likelihood is that legal privilege would attach to the solicitors' records. Mr Speaker, if nothing else con vinces you, then surely this anomalous situation should.While section 49 of the Australian constitution provides the head of power for parliamentary privilege, it is hard to imagine that the founding fathers would have been able to envisage today's modern, staffed electorate offices and the degree to which constituents, quite rightly, approach their members of parliament seeking help.I am not aware that either the Senate or House committees have had the opportunity to examine the role and duty of members of parliament in their electorates and electorate offices and whether or not privilege should attach to files, correspondence, memoranda and any other documents. Therefore, Mr Speaker, you may wish to entertain a wider motion to enable the Standing Committee of Privileges to examine the role of members in their electorates and whether there needs to be appropriate amendments to the Parliamentary Privileges Act or, alternatively, a more narrow motion to examine the status of members' records and whether or not any privilege should attach to them.2049Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Chifley. The member for Chifley raises a complex matter which is of concern to all members of the House. He implied there may have been a little reticence on my part. I have to reassure him that is not the case. I undertake to look in detail at the issue he has raised and, if necessary and appropriate, to raise it with an appropriate committee. I am happy to consult with the member for Chifley before I so do.Miscellaneous20492049Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I should raise a matter somewhat related to that mentioned by the member for Chifley. I wish to advise the House that since the last sitting I have considered a request that the Hansard record of two speeches made by Mr Mack MP in 1993 and 1994 be produced in court. The particular case is an action by a Mr Carney and others against Mr Mack and Radio 2UE. Because of the timing of the case, it was not practicable to wait until the House itself could consider the request.Accordingly, and in accordance with practice, I approved the production of the Hansard record. Under the provisions of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, as amplified by the Parliamentary Privileges Act, proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in court. Agreement for the record to be produced will allow the fact that Mr Mack made these speeches to be established, but the provisions preventing the proceedings from being impeached or questioned must still be observed.Miscellaneous20492049Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—There is another matter of which I would like to acquaint the House. Members would be aware that the minute record of the House's activities, Votes and Proceedings , and the report of debates in the House, Hansard , have until now been produced as separate documents. From today's sitting the proof editions of these two publications will be incorporated and published as one document in hard copy and electronic format.This single document will give users a comprehensive publication which will allow them access to all information related to each day's sittings. The Votes will be at the front of the combined publication, and it will be followed by the Hansard report. Members would appreciate that combining material which presently appears in separate documents not only is more efficient but will allow readers easy access to information and will also assist greater awareness of all aspects of the House's activities. The combined document will be published in A4 format. A final bound volume of the Votes will continue to be published in B5 format.204910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:20496283N FI4Hall Jill MP; Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the undersigned deplores the failure of the Government to appoint a judge, from the Newcastle legal profession, to replace Justice Renaud in the Family Court in Newcastle. We are deeply concerned about the delay in dealing with custody and access cases that this will cause.We believe that the profession in Newcastle has lawyers of the calibre required to fill this position and the inference, by the failure to appoint, is extremely insulting.Your petitioners request the House to strongly support the replacement of the judge at the Newcastle Family Court.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 42 citizens)Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 20 citizens)20497583Y FI4Hoare Kelly MP; Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we have serious concerns about the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). Fresh food is a necessity for healthy living and should not be subjected to a new and unfair tax.The majority of Australians oppose a GST on food items. Your petitioners request that the House does not proceed with legislation for a Goods and Services Tax.Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare(from 25 citizens)Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 50 citizens)20499883NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We, the undersigned petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas, are deeply concerned at the prospect of the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST).A GST is unfair since everyone pays the same tax on goods and services, regardless of their ability to pay. A GST would also tax essential everyday items such as bread, fruit and vegetables, milk and eggs, making life more difficult for struggling Australians.Under a GST, big business benefits and will pay less tax because the full tax burden is passed to consumers, particularly people on lower incomes. Such a tax would be detrimental to Australian families, small business operators and people on lower incomes.We therefore call on the House to reject any plans to introduce an expensive, inefficient and unfair system of taxation such as a Goods and Services Tax, and to ensure that our tax system is just, fair and enforceable with everyone—big business, small business, high income earners and low income earners alike—paying their fair share of tax.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 98 citizens)20506083NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the Government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 60 citizens)20503254GK6Kelly Jackie MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House their concern at the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek and give notice that we are totally opposed to the construction of the Badgerys Creek Airport or any other airport in the Sydney Basin, as we believe that these airports would compromise our safety health and financial security as well as add to the already high levels of pollution (noise, air, water and soil) and in the area.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take such action as will enable their concerns to be recognised and the said airports not to be built in the Sydney Basin.Miss Jackie KellyGK6Miss Jackie Kelly(from 3,254 citizens)2050324XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembledThe Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia points out to the House:That we, the undersigned, object to the mining of uranium at Jabiluka, in World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. Uranium mining and nuclear energy are damaging to the environment for hundreds of thousands of years, and we believe that these industries are unethical and not in the national interest, nor in the interest of the global community.The Jabiluka site is being developed against the wishes of the Mirrar people, the traditional owners of the land. We support them in their opposition to the Jabiluka Mine.Our petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives to call on the Federal Government to: Act responsibly. Stop Jabiluka Uranium Mine. Save Kakadu.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 324 citizens)2050348583CMcFarlane Jann MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the state of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that approximately 8,000 bears are being kept in cages in China for the purpose of extracting bile for medical purposes and that the cages are so small the bears cannot move, which results in some of them going mad. It is further brought to the attention of the House that the Chinese plan to increase the number of bears for these purposes to 40,000.Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask the House of Representatives to object most strongly to this horrendous and tragic practice and ask that steps be taken to stop it immediately.Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane(from 3,485 citizens)205080783CMcFarlane Jann MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the House the importance of preserving Medicare services for Innaloo and Mirrabooka residents.Your petitioners therefore request that the House views with concern the current program of closures to Medicare offices; the unnecessary attack on those Australians who are among the most vulnerable in our community, the sick and injured.Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane(from 807 citizens)205031FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows that: the Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable; fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet the extra costs; the Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs; the Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk.Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament: make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 31 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business20502050Debate resumed.16:56:002050Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to support the member for Charlton's private member's motion which attempts to get more reasonable sitting times into this place. The debate was adjourned approximately 3¼ hours ago, during which time we have heard a variety of condolence motions and had question time, and is now being resumed to allow three five-minute additions to the debate. It epitomises the problems we have in this House in arrangements for debate—the lack of continuity, the allocation of specific amounts of time.I could not help but notice during the condolence motions—and I am sure that members of both sides also noticed—that members took the opportunity to catch up on some much needed sleep, or should I say `reflection' or `contemplation'. Whatever it was, it certainly was a statement about the management of time and its usage in this House. I have some notes prepared about my experience between 1993 and 1996 as a member of this chamber when a different time arrangement existed. I remember that time arrangement being implemented, and I also remember the way in which it was greeted by members on both sides of the House. However, previous speakers from the other side particularly have referred to the time arrangements that were introduced in 1994 as being put there by then Prime Minister Paul Keating and supporting his views on and attitudes of the management of the House of Representatives.I believe that the way this chamber should operate relates to the concept of how parliament operates. To purely see this chamber as an adversarial place where arguments are put, for and against, is not a concept that I think is enjoyed or shared by most people who come here. I would like to think the majority of elected representatives see this as a place where they can discuss problems, where they can work together constructively and, through places such as committee rooms, come to a result that enjoys the support of both sides.If, on the other hand, we intend to restrict debate on major pieces of legislation—such as we saw before Christmas, before the adjournment for the summer break, when the guillotine was used and when members who wished to support their electors were denied the right to contribute to the debate—then this will be a pure adversarial chamber; it will not come to the conclusion or have the support of the community that we deserve, that we should have. I believe that the time management skills of our chamber, as the law-making organisation or proponent in our nation, could be far better.I support the member for Charlton. I believe that an earlier adjournment of an evening will allow for social interchange and for members of both Houses to meet to exchange opinions and to talk about common problems. That is certainly not taking place in the chamber when we sit to 11 o'clock. It was certainly evident, as I said, that even on the first day of this week's sittings members from both sides promptly nodded off during what they probably regarded as debate not of particular interest to them. That is something that we could do without; it is something that I believe indicates we should much better manage our time in this House. I support the member for Charlton.17:01:002051Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I note that there are four speakers from the opposition on this motion, and three of them are first termers. In fact, they have been in parliament for a little over four months. The member for Paterson has served a term here before. On this side we have two speakers who have served four terms and one who has served three terms. I cannot guess how many terms the honourable member for Mitchell has served, but we are very experienced in parliamentary procedure and the procedures of this House.I take at face value what the honourable member for Charlton has proposed in this motion. If I recall correctly, her predecessor in her seat, her father, was also a great advocate for shortening the actual sitting hours from 11 p.m. back to 8 p.m.The reasons given by the honourable member for Charlton—family reasons, relationships—are quite valid. The effect of parliamentary life on both those things is very onerous and debilitating in many ways. But there is a simple fact: everybody is different. A procedure that may suit one person may not suit another person. That crosses party lines. Even on this side of the House it crosses over people from different states and regions. The honourable member for Mitchell and his colleagues from Sydney and people from Melbourne can get to Parliament House in Canberra from their homes in a couple of hours. It may not even take that long. If they live close to the airport they have only a 40- to 50-minute flight to get to Canberra. People from Western Australia who fly to this parliament on Sunday night leave on a plane at 1 a.m. and get to Canberra at 9 a.m. The impact of an 11 p.m. sitting night means a lot more to those people than somebody whose journey started in Sydney or Melbourne.Having said that, people have different circumstances. Those examples I gave cross party lines and state boundaries. The further you live from Parliament House, the more remote an area you come from, the more difficult it is to get to Canberra and work those long hours.We should not think of only ourselves, the members. This motion also affects staff members—the people who run this institution: both houses, the committees and our own personal staff. We do not seem to measure the effect on the health of those people when we are looking at ourselves. The reasons the member for Charlton moved this motion are quite valid, but there are other circumstances on both sides of the House which are not valid.There are occupational health and safety factors—and I can speak from personal experience on these—that we have to be very careful of. We have to allow members of parliament to maintain their health and lifestyle. It can be a very debilitating experience to suffer some of the traumas that disability and bad health can cause. All you have to do is take a good look around the House and remember Senator Panizza from Western Australia, Gordon Bilney from that side of the House, Ian Sinclair, who had heart bypass surgery, Ian Macdonald, David Connolly and me.In summing up, this question is not about the executive forcing its will on the backbench or the opposition; it is about coming to a sensible solution to suit most members, while at the same time not compromising the capacity of the parliament to be an effective debating chamber. (Time expired)17:06:002052Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I am more than happy to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Charlton this afternoon. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need to look at ways to bring the operation of parliament into line with the realities of our obligations as both elected representatives and normal human beings with family lives.Quite correctly, for much of the time our priorities are given to our constituents, but that should not mean we have to ignore the obligations we also have to our families. I do not think it is being too selfish of us to include some consideration for our own health and general wellbeing when we look at the work arrangements in Parliament House. It would be a very good start to return to a finishing time each day in the chamber of 8 p.m., as previously adopted by this House.Of course politicians would not be the only beneficiaries of changes to sitting hours. Our staff as well as the staff responsible for the running of Parliament House face the same difficulties as we do when the hours of sitting run into the late evenings.One of my main objections to the current sitting hours is the apparent disregard shown for those members with families. I do not yet have the same level of family responsibilities as many other representatives here, such as the member for Charlton. I can nonetheless appreciate the extra pressure that must come with trying to accommodate those responsibilities alongside the job of being an MP, away from home for so much of the year.I suppose that, in taking up this issue, I am looking ahead to a time when I will be wanting to include young children in my parliamentary lifestyle. The entitlements available for bringing a family to Canberra are quite reasonable but they are also pretty meaningless when you look at the hours that we are expected to actually be in Parliament House and the hours that our families are left to amuse themselves, even when they are in town with us. Surely a sitting day that made more use of the early part of the day and finished at a reasonable hour, such as 8.00 p.m., could allow for more family time in Canberra than is possible under the current sitting arrangements.I understand perfectly well that nobody forced me to enter parliament, so I have to take some personal responsibility for arranging my life to suit the obligations that come with this job, such as the amount of time that has to be spent away from home. For me, though, that still leaves the legitimate question of how to maximise the effectiveness of MPs when they are in Canberra. We have to start by being realistic and accepting that we are human and we cannot be expected to work at peak performance when beset by fatigue and feelings of isolation from our families. It is certainly not that any of us are scared of hard work. Campaigns are very effective at smash ing any illusions of life as a politician being an easy wicket.Like everyone here, I have entered this parliament to work hard for my electorate and to provide the best representation possible. My concern is that the hours that we sit here, as they currently stand, do not allow for that to happen. It is very hard to put in 100 per cent effort for your constituents when you are constantly fighting to stay alert or negotiating with your partner to wait around for just two more hours so you can see him to talk about important family issues when parliament rises for the night.Of course, the question of finding sitting hours that are both adequate and sensible is an old one. The About Time inquiry in 1993 was a comprehensive examination of the issues associated with late night sitting hours and produced recommendations that attracted broad endorsement in a subsequent review of those changes. It was interesting for me to read the submissions members made to the previous inquiries into and reviews of this issue. Naturally, I have been wondering whether my struggle with the hours of sitting was just a case of a trap for young players, a bit of a rite of passage that came as a new member and that I was yet to come to terms with. But, as I saw the names of those people who challenged the effectiveness of late sitting hours back in 1993, I realised that they included some long-term and experienced members of Parliament.It appears that there is no magic formula that turns you into a machine capable of superhuman performance just because you have entered parliament. And why do we really expect there to be? It has certainly not been discovered in any other profession. I spent some time working in the legal profession before entering parliament so I am no stranger to long working hours that often verged on the ridiculous. When a matter was going to trial, all stops were out to get every scrap of evidence prepared and witnesses coordinated. But I think it is very significant to note that, when it came down to the real business end of things—the trial, where every word is crucial and lives hang in the balance—the hours were kept to a sensible limit.Obviously, that was done in recognition that the work being carried out was extremely important. The players involved—solicitors, barristers and judges—had to be functioning at their peak capacity in the best interests of the particular parties involved, as well as the overall perception of the justice system in the wider community. I think it is reasonable to draw the analogy with what goes on in this place. The issues at stake and the decisions to be made are every bit as important as the determinations made in our nation's courts. If our legal system and the workers in it deem their work as deserving of the highest standards of concentration and intellectual application, surely the parliamentary system should apply similar standards. (Time expired)17:11:002052Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The mover of this motion has chosen only one element of the Blewett report and that is the hours of sitting. There were many recommendations in the Blewett report, so by adopting this proposal or a similar one the House would not in fact be dealing with the totality of what the Procedure Committee submitted to the House in 1994. There were many other matters.Members who are new to this place come into a much enlightened chamber compared with that operated by Paul Keating. Question time was limited. Members of his own party received only limited opportunity to ask questions. Members of the opposition were not encouraged to ask questions of the Prime Minister or other ministers because they mostly deigned not to come into this place. If the Prime Minister came near the place, it was often for one day a week only.Are the Australian Labor Party members—because they seem to be in agreement on this—proposing that they want to return to that control of this House by the executive as Keating ran it? Limited hours? Shorter hours? If you shorten the hours of the parliament and not sit additional days, you immediately put the control of the parliament into the hands of the executive. You need to think that through.If you are proposing setting additional hours, you are proposing that many members spend more time away from their families, because their families have school commit ments and their children need a continuity of ability to attend school. Surely we are not thinking that members and their families are going to spend part of their time as a total family in Canberra and then part of their time in an electorate somewhere else, because—in reality and in practicality—if the children of members' families attend a primary school, they need continuity and that means that they are usually in the electorate. If the members of a family attend a high school, it is more important that there be continuity and they are more likely to be in the electorate.Does that mean that somehow or other we arrange babysitters to look after our youngsters while our spouses or partners come to Canberra? That is not realistic either, so it is a matter of trying to find a balance between the competing features while doing the work that we must do, and that means sitting an appropriate number of days. The parliament is now sitting more days than it did under Paul Keating. That is because there is more work and more debate is needed. There is more need for us to apply ourselves to the matters of state and to the reasons why we were elected. On the other hand, we have the problems of our families being elsewhere.We need to strike that balance—there is no doubt about it—but the proposal that Neal Blewett came up with, which people like Kathy Sullivan and Paul Filing from our side disagreed with, does not really meet the proposals that this House would like to see. The member for Fairfax, in his comments to me, said, `Extended hours at the end of the session are the biggest bane in a member's life. You sit for long hours, often through the night.' All political parties are guilty of that process. That is the gut crunching stuff that wears you down and makes it extremely difficult to perform well in the electorate or here.But to raise occupational health and safety factors is just incredible when you consider that you are going to encourage people, including staff, to work at their desk without a break from 9.30 in the morning to 8 o'clock or from 2 o'clock in the afternoon to eight. The honourable member shakes her head, but there is no provision for a break time. It is a matter of agreement between a member and his staff or between the member and the whip if you can get away for a meal. That is not a realistic approach either. What Keating and the Labor Party did with those changes in standing orders in 1994 was in fact to rule out meal breaks, and that was a great loss to the staff and to us. It was an opportunity to sit down. I have got here amongst a collection of speeches a speech made by the current Chief Government Whip, Michael Ronaldson, who said that the introduction of these changed sitting hours had produced a barrenness in the parliamentary dining room. Nobody was going there, following the change, to meet and talk about the day's work. At 8 o'clock people left this building and went out to Canberra or went home after working solidly. They went out and had a dinner they really did not need, a large dinner at 8 o'clock at night. It would be far better for them to have a light meal at 6.30 and then go back to work at 8 o'clock than have a large meal late in the evening. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.205317:16:002053Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I 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.At the outset, I would just like to give a bit of an understanding of what prostate cancer is. I guess it is not something that had bothered me as a young man, and I still consider myself very young. However, a good friend of mind is a welfare officer in a voluntary position with the RSL. Part of his job is an unfortunate one in that he oversees the burial of many of his RSL members and looks after the welfare of the families. It started to occur to him just how many of them had been diagnosed and subsequently had died from prostate cancer. He subsequently had a test himself and, much to his horror, found that he also had this disease. He said to me that there is very little information available. There is so much on breast cancer and on so many other illnesses, but he could find nothing on this disease. He encouraged me to try and do something about it. That is the reason I am standing here today.It has prompted me to learn a little bit more about it and has perhaps given me an insight into what this disease means to us. The prostate is the golf ball sized gland situated below a man's bladder and surrounding the urethra. The primary function of the prostate is the manufacture of semen. Prostate cancer is a malignant enlargement of the prostate gland. Until the ages of 45 to 50 years, the prostate remains fairly constant in size. After this age, the gland can enlarge and affect the normal process of passing urine. In most cases this enlargement is not cancerous, but in some cases it is malignant. Prostate cancer is relatively slow growing. Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of death amongst Australian men after lung cancer. In 1994 some 2,590 Australian men died of prostate cancer.That is what the disease is all about. Unfortunately, the medical profession cannot agree as to the best way in which to deal with it. There has been a lot of talk about testing and whether or not any one particular style of screening is better than any other or whether screening itself has any benefit at all. We all know the successes that have come from breast cancer screening and how that has saved many women's lives in Australia. From my reading and understanding of this particular subject, it is not as simple as that for prostate cancer. It is not a case of identifying this particular cancer and then curing it. Some of the medical profession tend to believe that screening is beneficial and others do not hold that view.The big difference, and what I wanted to point out as part of my motion today, is that, whilst the medical profession are still divided on the issue, the one thing they do agree on is that there is a lack of information and a lack of awareness. If we can heighten awareness, we can in fact make the situation so much better for those unfortunate people who do find themselves afflicted with this disease.National health campaigns such as that run by this government on immunisation were incredibly successful. It involved of course the electronic media, a lot of public comment and support from community groups and health professionals. It ensured that immunisation levels in this country were elevated to world's best. I have already mentioned breast cancer and the awareness campaigns that go on there. The thing that both these campaigns have in common is that annually there is a time set aside in which everybody then concentrates on those particular ailments. That means that the electronic media can for a time focus the nation's attention on these issues. Hence, the third part of my motion calls on the government to support the designation of one day or one week per year as National Prostate Cancer Day or Week as a means of heightening this awareness. I am not advocating telling doctors how we should or should not screen and what is right or what is wrong but simply providing factual information which is so critical to the men that suffer from this, their families and also the health professionals.The information that is required at the moment will go a long way to putting at rest the minds of not only those afflicted with the disease but also those who believe they are at risk. The choice on whether to take any remedial action once you have been diagnosed with this disease is not an easy one. In some cases the patient is just as well not to undergo treatment. As I said earlier, this is a slow growing malignant cancer and the life expectancy might not be decreased that much, particularly as about 40 per cent of cases of prostate cancer in fact occur in men aged over 80. So it is not an easy choice for the families of particularly those in earlier life who find themselves with prostate cancer. However, if they have available to them worthwhile information which is authoritative and balanced and allows them to make a choice for their own life, it makes that unfortunate condition that they have that much easier to bear.I would like to bring to the parliament's attention the recommendations set out by the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee when discussing this. They recommend the introduction of a comprehensive education program on the risks and benefits of testing for prostate cancer. They said this education program should: (1) have three components addressing the needs of the individual patient, the medical profession and the community at large; (2) be managed under the umbrella of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and should include the key stakeholders, with the NHMRC playing a pivotal role; (3) be funded in a way that ensures an effective and consistent national approach; (4) include a mechanism to ensure an ongoing review of its appropriateness and effectiveness; and (5) have management and funding viewed in the context of a potential long-term series of such programs.I believe this can and should be pulled together by this government in the form of a national day—a day of awareness—so that we can take a national approach to this problem and so that those people who find themselves in this situation can easily gain access to information which is balanced and accurate so that they can put their own minds at rest as to where to go. If we were able to achieve this, we may not necessarily reduce or increase the life expectancy of these people but we could ensure that their quality of life and the decisions they made were the best possible.A very important point in relation to this is that, as we all know, breast cancer kills a lot of women. Some 2,602 females died of breast cancer in 1997; some 17 males also died of breast cancer. At the same time, 2,448 men died of prostate cancer. But the incidence of these diseases is quite startling. There are 101 cases of breast cancer per 100,000 head of population whereas there are 158 cases of prostate cancer incidences per 100,000. That is an increase of over 60 per cent.Those figures indicate that there is an overwhelming need in the community for people to be able to access information and to be aware of what this disease can do. Awareness and knowledge are power. Empowering a person who has an unfortunate disease is something that this government and the wider community should be mindful of. We should work together with community groups, health professionals and those who are at risk of one day actually getting prostate cancer to ensure that they have the information available to them and that it is provided in a timely manner and in an ongoing fashion—not just once but continually so that progression in the understanding of this disease comes about and is put forward to the public. I commend this motion to this House and I encourage this government to institute a National Prostate Cancer Day.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.17:26:002055Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Longman regarding the issue of prostate cancer. I note there are three points to his motion with regard to this issue: (1) placing on record concern about the lack of awareness in the community about prostate cancer; (2) noting that the number of deaths per year ascribed to prostate cancer has nearly doubled, rising from 1,355 in 1982 to 2,669 in 1996; and (3) calling 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.This is a fairly complex issue and in some respects a confusing one, as I think the previous speaker mentioned. There is a range of information around the issue of prostate cancer, but there is also a range of information that is not around. That in itself creates difficulties in terms of any proper or reasoned consideration of what to do. We find ourselves, in a matter such as this, in a situation where there are a number of things that could be done around the question of prostate cancer, but there are real concerns as to the efficacy of what might be done.I think all of us would support increased community awareness in relation to what is a major health problem for men today. But, when we look at the history of this issue, we can say that it has probably been a major health risk for a long time. Part of the problem has been that it has only been in recent years that there has been more awareness from the medical profession's point of view about the actual details of prostate cancer. In fact, with the increased incidence of recognition of prostate cancer, it has been shown that most people who have prostate cancer do not actually die from it. I think the term that has been used is that people often live with prostate cancer rather than die from prostate cancer. Nonetheless, it is still a very serious issue and it is still a situation which is of major concern, particularly to men over the age of 60, although there has also been some incidence in people of a younger age.One of the problems is that lack of awareness within the medical profession in terms of research. There are a number of research projects on at the moment that are looking at the detail around prostate cancer—for example, risk factors. The question of age appears to be a pretty clear risk factor, that is true, but there are also issues of diet, location, exercise, et cetera. Those sorts of issues are being looked at where it is thought that they may require some consideration with regard to the likelihood of developing prostate cancer. At this stage, the studies still are not firm.Another problem is one we often find with medical research issues. Proper studies using proper samples that allow for the consideration of the issue in some detail and that give you results that are clinically capable of being utilised can sometimes take a long time, and it can be number of years before those results are known. There are at least two studies on prostate cancer being conducted overseas at the moment from which results are yet to come. It may take several years more before they give us those results.That raises questions about what you then do. For example, there is the question of the types of treatment. With prostate cancer there are three principal treatments that are talked about: surgery or radical prostatectomy, which is the actual removal of the prostate gland; radiation therapy; and also one called watchful waiting (expectant management).There is real argument and debate within the medical community about the best way to go if diagnosed with prostate cancer. Some surgeons will argue that removal is the best means to tackle the issue. That can have some bad side-effects for the individuals involved, in the form of incontinence and impotence. It is not the result for everybody, but we are still waiting for clinical tests to be done to give us a firm view. Some specialists swear by that approach, but we still do not know for sure what is the best way to go. Radiation therapy has similar problems. The watchful waiting approach is to monitor over time—once the cancer is diagnosed—look for evidence that there is an inflammation or a development into a further stage of the cancer and then act, although there is an argument that on occasions that can be too late.On the question of awareness and of promoting awareness in the community, one of the key aspects that needs to be addressed is that of ensuring that patients, particularly people over the age of 50 who may be in danger of getting prostate cancer, are aware of the dangers involved and are aware of the circumstances around what they might do. A number of articles and reports that I have read in recent days on this issue suggest that a lot of doctors have not really informed their patients properly about whether the right treatment for them is screening for prostate cancer. Although it is only one part of the awareness campaign, obviously if you work on an awareness campaign to make people aware of the symptoms and of the dangers associated with prostate cancer, you then come to the issue of screening, because that is an obvious logical next step. And when there are concerns about screening and how it would operate, I think we have to think about it very carefully. I would like to quote from article in the Sydney Morning Herald on this issue headed `Warning on Prostate Test Harm':Doctors are testing healthy men for prostate cancer without explaining the possible harmful consequences, experts warned.There are also reports of the prostate cancer screening test being performed without men's knowledge or as part of a series of blood tests during check-ups.The warnings accompany new research suggesting hundreds of thousands of men have been screened for the cancer, though it has never been proven to be of benefit.It also has the potential to do ill as it could lead to men having treatments with high rates of complications—such as impotence and incontinence—for cancers which may not have caused harm if left untreated. From 1995 to 1996, one-third of Australian men age 60-69 had at least one prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test, which is used both to diagnose and monitor prostate cancer, as did 27 per cent of men over 50.NSW Cancer Council researchers said some of these tests would have been done as part of cancer management, but that most were probably done to screen healthy men.That in itself is not a problem, but when there are concerns about the reliability of the PSA tests initially and also the alternative test, which is the DRE—digital rectum examination, as the two main tests, that can raise concerns about symptoms which, following further testing, are found not to be indicative of cancer. If we go down this track, it is important—and on the awareness point that the member for Longman has raised—that patients are very clearly made to understand that the tests can have some implications for them in terms of what might result and that, if diagnosed, there are issues to be addressed about what you do about the cancer that has been spotted.Several studies have included surveys which have shown that people who have been tested may not have had a great awareness of the reasons why. I suppose it gets back to that issue of men's health—that it is well known that men have an a aversion to going to doctors and are more likely than not to not seek a remedy to a health problem as it develops until it is too late. I suppose this is just part of a widening circle of these sorts of issues.Awareness needs to be part of an overall program of awareness in relation to men's health. I would certainly encourage the government to look at the national men's health strategy which the previous government had in place and to look at developing an approach right across the issues of men's health. Certainly, if anyone finds themselves in a situation where they are showing symptoms of prostate cancer, they should seek medical attention, get tested to see whether it is the case, and move forward to try to deal with the disease. It is important to put in context that the overall majority of men who have prostate cancer in fact live with it, live long lives with it, and in most cases it does not affect their longevity. I would also note that in recent years we have all heard of people who have died of prostate cancer. It is a major men's health issue. On the question of awareness I support the thrust of the motion. I am not sure about having a day or a week of action, but I think it is something that ought to be explored. What we need is more research and more involvement in getting evidence to decide on what the correct sort of treatment is, what the best form of testing is, how we can identify what form of cancer is more likely to be malignant in the context of people who have prostate cancer, and in that way try and target what is done to ensure that people get the help they need for what is a serious health risk. (Time expired)17:36:002056Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I congratulate the honourable member for Longman on introducing this motion on prostate cancer. It follows closely on the motion I brought before this House on 27 February 1995, which called for more research and money to be allocated for a major education program. So we are on the same track. The only thing I would say is that it should be not a day, not a week, not a year, but a continuing campaign.We have to realise that every male in this parliament, every male listening to this broadcast or reading it in Hansard, will have a prostate problem if they live long enough. Fifty per cent of all males aged 50 have a prostate problem. Sixty per cent of all males in their 60s have a prostate problem—not cancer but a problem. And so it goes. Men in their 80s: 80 per cent have a prostate problem—not necessarily cancer. This is the significance of it, and it is not understood. The ignorance is abysmal. Most men do not even know they have a prostate, let alone where it is. This is true. And this is a very important factor for women as well, because it affects the whole quality of life of couples and families.In my speech in February 1995, one of the things I said was, `Australian males have a one in 23 chance of developing prostate cancer in their lifetime.' That has changed: it is now one in eight. This emphasises the need to take some spirited action on this. In my1995 speech, I said that there was a one in 70 chance of dying from it before the age of 75. There is now a one in 66 chance. It is worth noting that in the publication National Trends in Cancer: Incidence in Mortality there are two graphs which I seek leave to incorporate.Leave granted.The graphs read as follows—AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—These graphs compare cancer of the prostate and cancer of the breast. Without going into the detail, what becomes very clear is that the incidence of prostate cancer for males is far higher than the incidence of breast cancer in women. The mortality rate for males from prostate cancer is greater than the mortality rate for women with breast cancer. This is not to denigrate the problem associated with breast cancer, but it is to accentuate the need for equality of expenditure, research and education on prostate cancer.I note the publication National Health Priority Areas Report: Cancer Control 1997 says, `More than $10 million was spent on PSA and prostate acid phosphatase tests in 1996 through Medicare alone.' To put that in perspective, between 1991-92 and 1994 we spent $322 million on breast cancer screening. Again, I do not begrudge one cent of that money, but I am seeking equality for males in this particular area because it is something that is going to affect almost every male. It is interesting that the member for Longman mentioned that diet is a possible factor. In the World Health Organisation's 1995 World Health Statistics Annual, published in 1997, the age-standardised death rate—per 100,000 males—from prostate cancer in Australia was 27.1, in Japan it was 6.3, in Hong Kong it was 4.8 and in Korea it was two. At the other end of the scale, Norway was 35.1, Switzerland was 33.8 and New Zealand was 29.6. So diet is certainly one thing we should be looking at a little more closely.I would like to remind everybody that if you are an Australian male and you live long enough you will get a prostate problem. In a normal healthy male, the prostate is the size of a walnut which grows and enlarges with age to the size of a lemon. This has very dramatic effects on the urinary problems of males. Therefore, I totally support the motion and I call for more funding on education and more research and screening.17:41:002058Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to add my support to the issues which have already been raised by the member for Longman in relation to the private member's bill and to add some further comments. As the member for Bruce has already noted, we are supportive of the concept of an awareness campaign. In fact, it is part of Labor's platform to implement a national policy on men's health, recognising specific men's health problems such as prostate cancer and the generally poorer health outcomes of Australian men. The high incidence of prostate cancer and the relatively low incidence of detection are mainly due to the reluctance of many men to seek medical attention.This attitude also leads to the development of other diseases and conditions in men, most notably lung cancer which remains the number one killer of males in Australia. However, before an awareness campaign can commence, further research into this illness must be undertaken. I will briefly add to the comments already made. In Australia, one in every 18 men will be found to have prostate cancer. Of all the men with prostate cancer, two-thirds will not die from it. Generally, prostate cancer occurs in men over the age of 65. The majority of prostate cancers are not life threatening. Beyond these established facts, as the member for Bruce has already touched upon, there appears to be a substantial gulf between the conflicting beliefs about the many issues surrounding the cancer.It would therefore be quite difficult to begin an awareness campaign without first establishing what basic facts and recommendations should be reinforced during the campaign. Some of these issues concern controversy over the treatment. There is a range of unpleasant side effects from prostate surgery—which my male counterparts can appreciate more than I—which need to be weighed up carefully before a man consents to the procedure. It is also acknowledged that there is no conclusive evidence in relation to whether or not early detection and treatment will improve a person's chance of survival.A man may have high levels of PSA, yet he may not have prostate cancer. The PSA blood test cannot detect the difference between a slow-growing cancer which rarely kills and those that may prove fatal. All these outstanding issues make an awareness campaign a worthwhile initiative, but first there is a need to further commit resources to research the causes and alternative treatments of the illness. This may involve a study that examines the general health of men who have undergone prostate removal surgery compared to those with their prostate still intact.Research should also ensure doctors are constantly updated on the evolving nature of prostate cancer and on how to advise their patients on the best approach to the problem. Of course it goes without saying that research needs to be undertaken to assist those who have prostate problems and investigate the most effective techniques of treating the cancer and relieving the symptoms.Any awareness campaign should focus on men's health problems in a holistic manner with special reference to prostate cancer. This will help overcome one of the critical problems in the treatment of men's illnesses, most notably men's aversion to seeing a doctor. Accordingly, we should not lose sight of the need to promote a broad health message among men.The recent ABC series on men's health, hosted by John Clarke, clearly articulated the problem: most men fail to take care of their wellbeing and most would rather visit their mother-in-law than see a doctor. Men need to be encouraged to take better care of their health, to be aware of dangerous changes occurring in their bodies and to consult doctors when problems or irregularities arise. Allied to this is the crucial need to promote the merits of a healthy lifestyle, beginning with a balanced diet and exercise. As lung cancer kills more men than any other cancer, it is important to reinforce the benefits of giving up smoking and, for the other health problems, reducing alcohol intake.A soon to be published Victorian Department of Human Services report into awareness campaigns targeting prostate cancer has suggested that there needs to be an investigation into alternative ways of communication. The present campaigns for breast and lung cancer would not translate for prostate cancer. Before an awareness campaign is launched, the Victorian Department of Human Services report encourages debate on how to deliver the message rather than simply reinforce existing beliefs in health communication. It is therefore clear that not only the substance of the message but also the style of presenting that information requires research.The motion to establish a prostate cancer awareness week should be welcomed. However, there must be research into both the nature of the illness and available treatments, and this should occur in tandem with assessing the best way to communicate the campaign before it can begin. In conclusion, I believe that any campaign should target a broad health message to men that will hopefully assist in not only reducing the spread of prostate cancer but also improving the general health of Australian men.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate2058Question proposed:That grievances be noted.205817:46:002058Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I raise today the government's failure to commission a comprehensive and independent health and mortality study of Australians who participated in the British atomic tests and associated clean-up operations.With the connivance of the Menzies government, the British government conducted 12 major, and hundreds of minor, atomic tests at Maralinga, Emu, and the Monte Bellos Islands between 1952 and 1963. The full extent of these tests was not revealed to the Australian public until the election of the Hawke Labor government, and the scandalous nature of their conduct was not properly examined until the McClelland royal commission, which commenced in July 1984 and reported in November the following year.On the day on which the parliament paused to remember the life of the late Jim McClelland, it is appropriate to recall the work of the royal commission that he chaired, and particularly its recommendations that:. Britain should fund a major clean up at Maralinga and Emu,. the traditional Aboriginal owners should be compensated for the loss of the use and enjoyment of their lands, and. a national register should be compiled of people exposed to radiation from the tests.In response to the royal commission, the former Labor government initiated a $104 million clean-up of the Maralinga site and a $13.5 million compensation package for the traditional Aboriginal owners encompassing new outstations, improved health services, roads, water supplies and employment programs. Britain has contributed £20 million towards these two measures.Some 15,000 Australian military and, I stress, civilian personnel were involved in some way in the British tests, and the local Aboriginal population was also severely affected. It is the situation of these personnel and local Aboriginals that I wish to highlight today. It is notable that Australia has devoted less attention to monitoring the health of its nuclear personnel than the British and has been less generous in providing compensation than the United States or New Zealand, who both provide repatriation benefits to defence personnel who were involved in nuclear tests.A mortality study of 22,000 British nuclear veterans was first examined by the National Radiological Protection Board and reported in the British Medical Journal. More recently there has been a further study for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association by the Australian researcher Sue Rabbitt Roff of Dundee University in Scotland. By contrast, the only Australian study ever made of nuclear personnel was the Donovan report by the Commonwealth Department of Health, which was conducted some 16 years ago. It was severely criticised by the McClelland royal commission which stated:. . . the conclusions of the survey—that is, the Donovan survey—should have been more balanced . . . accepting that it was not possible to say that there was no radiation-induced illness or mortality.The royal commission further concluded:. . . because of the paucity of relevant information on which it is based, the Donovan Report cannot be regarded as an adequate epidemiological study.The official UK study, published in 1988, found little difference between the overall death or cancer rates of nuclear veterans compared with a control group of veterans who were not involved in the tests. When specific cancers were considered, however, the atomic test participants had higher death and incidence rates of leukaemia—other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia—and multiple myeloma. This finding was consistent with earlier scientific work linking these cancers to radiation exposure.In December 1993 the results of a follow-up investigation of the 1988 UK study were published. In the follow-up period there was no apparent difference in the death rate for nuclear participants compared with the control group. Mortality from leukaemia in the follow-up period was actually less in the participant group than for the control group. The study team concluded that the 1988 results were most likely the result of chance but that `the possibility that participation in the tests may have caused a small risk of leukaemia cannot be ruled out'. Following this study, both the UK, and later Australia, decided to no longer accept compensation claims for multiple myeloma as being linked to participation in the nuclear tests.An Australian researcher, Sue Rabbitt Roff, was subsequently commissioned to study the mortality and morbidity of members of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association. This study was funded by the late Dame Catherine Cookson under the auspices of the Centre for Medical Education at Dundee University. Ms Rabbitt Roff's study involved a sample of approximately 12 per cent of all British nuclear veterans. To date the main output of the Dundee study has been a retrospective analysis of deaths reported to the BNTVA between 1983 and 1997. Whilst there is some dispute about the methodology employed, this study appears to show that these BNTVA members had double the expected death rate compared with the control group of working men.The New Scientist of 4 April last year also reported her claim that up to 40 per cent of British nuclear veterans suffer from a rare and debilitating skin and bone syndrome called SAPHO.More recently, in a media release issued on 13 December 1998, Ms Rabbitt Roff drew attention to an apparent anomaly in the number of cases of multiple myeloma reported in the official UK studies. Her data revealed twice as many cases as had been reported by the National Radiological Protection Board. She found evidence of 45 cases of multiple myeloma amongst British nuclear veterans, 32 of whom had died, whereas the NRPB had reported only 22 cases up to December 1990, nine of whom had died. Two-thirds of the cases among members of the organisation appeared to have been diag nosed after the December 1990 cut-off date for the NRPB follow-up study.The British Ministry of Defence announced on 10 January this year that the NRPB had been commissioned to investigate these findings regarding multiple myeloma. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence was quoted as saying, `The investigation would be carried out to reassure people that the disease is not linked to the tests.' I think most people would express concern about such rigid riding instructions to the investigation. Within a few hours of the British announcement, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Scott, promised that an Australian researcher would be appointed to:. . . examine Dundee University researcher Sue Rabbitt Roff's methodology, the scientific standard of her report, its relevance to Australian servicemen exposed to the same blasts and whether there is need for further investigation.That is a quote from the AAP report of 11 January. I am critical of the government's response on two main grounds. Firstly, whilst there may be some value in commissioning an expert review of the Dundee findings about British veterans, this still does not give us any factual data on the health and mortality of Australian personnel and their families. To do this, we need to commission a rigorous and objective study of our own personnel. This is something that I have been advocating for over a year—with the endorsement of the ALP National Conference and as promised in Labor's defence policy statement at the last federal election. The specifics of the ALP National Conference resolution of January 1998 were as follows:1. the establishment of a nominal roll of ADF personnel—and, I would add, civilians and local Aborigines—who had a demonstrable role in the conduct of the British tests and associated clean-up operations and were exposed to radiation as a result;2. the conduct of a rigorous health and mortality study of all veterans included on the nominal roll and of their children and grandchildren. Independent researchers—and I stress `independent'—and representatives of the ex-service community must be extensively involved in the design and the conduct of the study; and3. the establishment of a suitable mechanism to assist veterans to access government records on the atomic testing program and on their personal military service and associated medical treatment.It further said that:. . . on the basis of the outcome of the health and mortality study, Labor will examine whether the current schemes of Comcare, military compensation, special administrative scheme and act of grace are satisfactory mechanisms to solve their problems.Secondly, there is no reason to be confident that the coalition proposes to actually do anything about the issue. On numerous occasions over the past 14 months, we have heard sympathetic noises from the coalition on the issue, but absolutely nothing has been done.We first had the Deputy Prime Minister reported in the Australian of 29 December 1997 as promising that the government would closely consider Ms Roff's report. A spokesman for the then defence minister made a similar commitment in the Courier-Mail of 30 December—that is, way back in 1997—in relation to Dundee findings regarding veterans' children. Further, on 5 March 1998—almost a year ago now—the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Scott, wrote to the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council stating:. . . the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel . . . will be co-ordinating the Government's examination of the Dundee study once it is completed. I can assure you that the Government will give this matter careful consideration.(Time expired)206017:56:002060Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise this afternoon to speak about a growing social problem in this country, reported on in recent times by a number of our newspapers, in particular in an article in last Saturday's Advertiser by Nadine Williams. I refer to the phenomenon by which many single people are taking longer to find their partners in life and, in particular, men who are unemployed or in low-skilled occupations are remaining single well into their 30s and beyond.This phenomenon would appear to reflect the fact that these young men, with diminished job opportunities and an uncertain future, are finding themselves financially unable to marry and plan for their future. It is not hard to see why this has happened. It has generally been the case that men and women have tended to want to establish themselves in life before making a commitment to each other. In previous generations, this might have been expected to have happened when they were in their early 20s. Now, people well into their 30s have often still not established themselves in a career path, let alone life plans that employment would facilitate.The economic roots of the problem are clear enough. There have unquestionably been marked changes in the labour market over the past few generations not only here in Australia but also elsewhere in the developed world. People are much more likely to move between jobs than they were a generation ago. Education and training are central to job prospects and tend to delay entry into the job market. Rapid technological change has meant that modern labour markets must be more flexible to keep pace with changes in the marketplace.We have seen the results of the previous government's failure to embrace greater labour market flexibility. Thankfully, unemployment is now trending downwards from the disastrously high levels to which Labor led us in the past. Unfortunately, Labor has not learned from its mistakes and continues to oppose the kinds of reforms which today's experiences tell us are sorely needed. Lest anyone should say that seven or eight per cent unemployment is only to be expected in a modern market, there are countries which point the way to much lower levels, most notably the United States of America. Commentators have argued over the importance of the various factors that have contributed to America's success, but most agree that two factors in particular have made a substantial contribution: firstly, a high degree of labour market flexibility; and, secondly, the embrace of information technology based industries and the job creation that these industries have generated. There are lessons for Australia to learn in both these factors, but I want to speak briefly on the subject of labour market flexibility. I do not wish to enter into the debate about the desirability or otherwise of downward flexibility of wages which has been one contributor to the success of the United States. There is a trade-off between this kind of flexibility and low living standards and their attendant social problems.Australia has chosen wisely in opting for a reasonably generous system of wage maintenance and social security. However, there is another area of labour market reform in which Australia has clearly, and to its detriment, lagged behind comparable countries, including America. I speak here about the failure so far of this parliament to reform the infamous unfair dismissal laws brought in by the member for Kingsford-Smith and the Labor Party.The government has stated very clearly what needs to be done. We presented legislation to the Senate and, when the Senate failed to pass this legislation, we made provision for the necessary changes by regulation. Sadly, the threats by some senators to disallow these regulations have not given business the certainty it needs to proceed. Members in this place will know that I am passionate in my belief in the need for reform to our unfair dismissal laws. By comparison with other OECD countries, our laws in this regard are arcane and anachronistic. At a time when most countries saw the error of unnecessarily restrictive unfair dismissal laws and began to liberalise them, the Australian Labor Party, in its dubious wisdom, made our laws even more restrictive, leading to a plethora of patently ridiculous outcomes which even representatives of the then government were forced to acknowledge.These problems were foretold by those who knew something about the operation of modern labour markets. In a nutshell, overly restrictive unfair dismissal laws will lead to higher unemployment. The reason for this can be illustrated very simply. If a business faces the possibility of fines or court proceedings after terminating an employee for unsatisfactory performance, this expectation is built into the cost of hiring employees in the first place. This is a cost that the business must take into account, one way or another. For example, a business may have to build in an expectation that its proprietor or senior manager will have to spend some time in court dealing with unfair dismissal suits brought against the business. To avoid this, the business may have to spend money on out-of-court settlements with disgruntled former employees or, alternatively, invest in more rigorous employment selection procedures than would otherwise be necessary in order to avoid vexatious law suits in the future. It may simply manifest itself in the cost of retaining an unsatisfactory employee in an effort to avoid one of the above situations.However an employee chooses to account for these costs, the bottom line is that if it costs more to hire employees as a result of these unnecessary restrictions, then unemployment will be higher than would otherwise be necessary. While the roots of this phenomenon would appear to be firmly economic, it is a problem which has potentially profound social consequences. The most vulnerable to such restrictions are those who are already unemployed and, amongst those, the relatively low skilled. These are the people who are now finding that their very lives are being put on hold. The uncertainty of their economic future means that they cannot look forward to having children, taking on a mortgage or doing any of the things that previous generations at their age were able to do.It must be a singular source of frustration or perhaps bewilderment to many of these people that, in a climate of low interest rates and relatively easy affordability of housing, they remain locked out of such opportunities by their still uncertain prospects. These are the people who would benefit most from a more flexible labour market and more liberal unfair dismissal laws in particular. Once given an initial opportunity, most people are able to go on from strength to strength. We would acknowledge from our own working lives that one opportunity, however meagre, so often leads to other more fruitful ones.How frustrating then that the initial opportunity remains elusive for many people in their twenties and even beyond because employers have not been given the freedom and confidence that they need to hire new employees. Those who might be tempted to disallow the government's regulations should first spare a thought for these young people who remain locked out—not just out of employment but of marriage, home ownership and a future—because of an inflexible system that has unnecessarily excluded them.206118:04:002061Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In rising on the grievance debate, I want to refer to the following famous statement:Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.John F. Kennedy uttered those famous words more than one-quarter of a century ago. In the early 1960s, in an era of low unemployment and booming economies, those words inspired a generation. In the late 1990s, the debate about what exactly are the obligations of nations to citizens and citizens to nations continues, but, quite rightly, there are new formulations being suggested in response to a different era.It is the first day of the new parliamentary year—a day that we all look forward to. It is therefore opportune today to begin a discussion about the obligations of the nation to its citizens and the obligations of our citizens to the nation. I do not propose in this short time to give a definitive answer. I am more interested in kick-starting a real debate.In recent weeks we have seen some rather cheap rhetoric on this issue. Personally, I am a great believer in reciprocal obligation—to my way of thinking, it is not only the way I was brought up; it is the Labor way. The Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement have never been about freeloading. They have always been about the concept of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. The Australian working people have always pulled their weight.It is in that vein—dare I say it—that the concept of the obligations of nation to citizen and citizen to nation should perhaps be enshrined in the preamble to a constitution. What is the relationship between the nation and its citizens? What should citizens expect as a right from the nation? What should the nation expect as of right from its citizens?We have just celebrated 50 years of the Australian Citizenship Act. As part of this debate about reciprocal obligations, is there something special we should expect of our new citizens? Should that be in the preamble? The preamble defining reciprocal obligation should, I am convinced, include mention of our special obligations to the first peoples of our nation: the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. I personally believe that is a must, and I also believe very clearly that is the view of the majority of Australians as we move towards a new century. It is something that we as a nation are going to have to consider as a matter of urgency because it is about our nation's responsibility to our citizens.I suggest that we seriously consider a preamble which talks honestly about the reciprocal obligations between government and citizens, government and the first peoples and government and our newest citizens. In the preamble we need to define reciprocal obligation using words that can inspire the many generations to come, in the same way John F. Kennedy in the 1960s inspired the American nation—and citizens of many nations throughout the world—when he said:Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.As a modern democratic socialist, I believe that the nation—especially as represented by governments in this House—should be burdened with more responsibilities and obligations to its citizens than the citizens are burdened with obligations to help out the nation. John F. Kennedy's words were inspiring, but they were written for a particular people and a particular nation—America. America is a nation of different social and political traditions, especially in the roles and obligations government has in the lives of its citizenry.Australia's history and political traditions put on our government a hell of a lot more obligations towards its citizenry. So, in any discussion about reciprocal obligation, we should look towards our own political history and traditions to define these obligations. We should look to our own traditions to find inspiring words to define reciprocal obligation for the 21st century. Unfortunately, the Howard government looks to the American tradition of the obligation of citizen to nation, and he reinterprets that tradition in a measly, miserly and mealy-mouthed manner. There is nothing inspiring in the way John Howard, with his idea of reciprocal obligation, wants to use the stick to bash the unemployed. He may want to break with Australian tradition and adopt American values about the role of government, but he does it without any sense of inspiration.I am open to a debate on reciprocal obligation in 1999 because that is the Labor way, and that is what modern Labor has always been about. That is what we took into government and acted on during the period 1983 to 1996. Let us do it in a manner that will inspire our people, especially the young who are so turned off by the current political language.I raise these issues this evening because I believe that the Australian community understands and accepts the concept of reciprocal obligation—the obligation of nation to citizen and citizen to nation. That is far from the approach that has been adopted by the Prime Minister since his election in 1996 and that was most recently evidenced by his latest political stunt, which goes to the question of citizenry and the obligations of the unemployed to accept a reasonable offer of training in literacy.The problem with the Prime Minister's approach to reciprocal obligation is that he is all too often concerned with skipping on his government's obligation whilst pointing the finger at the most disadvantaged in the community. If he were actually concerned about assisting the unemployed who have difficulties with reading and writing, then the statement of last week would have been less about reciprocal obligation and the need for the young unemployed to accept their side of the bargain and more on how the government is going to fulfil its side of the bargain. I would have thought the Prime Minister would have spoken about the ongoing weaknesses in the Job Network, which is supposedly about getting the unemployed back to work. With respect to the most disadvantaged in the Job Network, there is no accountability on network providers to spend money on training, including literacy programs for the young unemployed and the long-term unemployed.In the context of literacy—which is a major barrier to employment, and the whole Australian community accepts that—I would have thought that the Prime Minister would refer to the need for governments at state and federal levels to do more to provide decent, quality programs. Unfortunately, there was a lot of rhetoric but not much substance.I conclude that the Prime Minister wants a debate on reciprocal obligation, on his narrow terms. The Australian Labor Party welcomes a debate on reciprocal obligation, but it is a two-way street. It is about the obligation of citizen to nation and, importantly, nation to citizen. It is about the obligation of the Prime Minister to engage in a comprehensive debate which produces results and opportunities for the disadvantaged in the community. It is about suggesting to the Prime Minister that if he wants that debate, let us ensure that it is a debate about substance; not a debate about political point scoring and rhetoric and not an effort to blame the unemployed for a difficult job market, which governments contribute to.Bring on the debate, but let us ensure it is not about political stunts. Let us ensure it is a real debate about the obligations of nation to citizen and citizen to nation.206218:14:002062Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise this evening to speak on a matter that is of great importance to all Australians—their health system. Over the past few months, honourable members have heard the opposition argue that the funds the government is putting into the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate scheme would be better spent on the public health system. As most battling Australians recognise, this is just pure nonsense.I want to highlight just how bankrupt this proposition is. As Hansard will show, in late November last year I spoke about the track record of the Labor Party in health administration. As I pointed out to honourable members, Labor's policy position is so stricken by blind adherence to ideology that it jeopardises the health of average Australians. Recent evidence has emerged from my home state and my own electorate to prove this.It was with great sadness that I read last week that waiting times for surgery have increased at Redcliffe Hospital over the last year. Even more saddening was the fact that any person familiar with the Labor Party's track record on health administration would have anticipated this. It is a tragedy of modern Australian governance—and you do not need a degree in public health administration to know this—that waiting lists always get longer under a Labor government, and that is what they have been doing. After five months in office, the state Labor health minister in Queensland publicly admits that waiting lists are going to lengthen. I think it is fair to say that Labor is again distinguishing itself by ruining a vital social service.But fancy the indignation felt by the community when it became public knowledge last week that Labor and the unions are doing a sweetheart deal which will effectively give the unions the run of Queensland's public health system. The Queensland Labor government and the unions have put forward a proposed workplace agreement that will absolutely decimate the Queensland health system.Let us look at what this agreement is going to do. Take, for instance, the issue of contracting out for services. The member for Jagajaga might be interested to know this. If she had the time to be here she would hear that the fine art of blowing out a health budget can be learned very easily from her Labor mates in Queensland. This is what this agreement is proposing to do, and I would like to quote section 3.3 of the government's proposed enterprise bargaining agreement which begins with the following statement:It is the clear policy of the employer not to contract out.However, in instances where it is necessary for the public system to contract out, this can only be done with agreement from the union. This is, of course, after the union has had every chance to put the mockers on the use of the private contractor's services. Nevertheless, if contracting out is to take place, it is up to the health department to try to get union members jobs with the private firm. So much for the private firm's employees, their families and their sustenance! So much for the role of small business as the engine of jobs growth in this country!The effect of this agreement on the Queensland public health system will be diabolical. This agreement not only creates a closed shop—a thing of the industrial dark ages—but also gives Queenslanders longer waiting lists, bad management and budget blow-outs. What this agreement will do is hand control of the operation of Queensland's hospitals to Beattie and his union mates. Resources that should be going to patients and doctors will be diverted to inefficient ancillary services like cleaning and laundry services. These services will not be subjected to competitive pressures. The cost of providing these services will therefore increase and they will eat into the real aim of the health budget, which is to cure the ill and look after the infirm. That is what it is all about. But Labor's track record shows that they are not interested in this at all. Money will not be going into beds for patients or into more procedures. It will be going into services that can be better provided by outside operators at a lower cost. It is no wonder that, despite the Beattie government's claim to record spending in the health budget, waiting lists continue to rise.Labor cannot run the public health system responsibly. All they are interested in is more jobs for the boys. But the irony of the situation is that unions have sold their members short on pay increases. Workers in these protected services will get a 3.3 per cent per annum increase under this agreement. The previous coalition government was offering 4.25 per cent per annum. So they are selling them short as well. But, unlike Labor's offer, ours was made on the basis of productivity improvements, not backroom deals to stitch up union control of the public health system.This is just more evidence of the flawed logic that is used to formulate Labor's health policy: throw more money into inefficient ancillary services and ignore the patients; throw more money into inefficient ancillary services so that their union mates can protect their patch but deny battling Australians the opportunity to save on their private health insurance; discriminate against small businesses and stop them from putting people into work. What a perverse situation.I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: does the Labor Party have the interests of battling Australians at heart or are they more interested in featherbedding for their union mates? On the basis of this agreement and the federal party's opposition to the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate scheme, it would seem the latter applies. To my mind, it shows just how contemptuous the modern Labor Party is of average Australians who are battling to stay in private health insurance.I am sure the people of Redcliffe and the people of Brisbane's north will realise this as they continue to wait for surgery while their state health dollar is being eaten up by union deals. To give you an idea of these increased waiting lists, the figures released by Queensland Health show that 2,168 people were waiting for surgery at the hospital on 1 January compared with 2,034 people on 1 January last year. And so it goes on, increasing and increasing. The people of Redcliffe are being short-changed. In fact, I am sure that the people in the Petrie electorate already have a whiff of what is going on in the hospital system and what it is going to mean for them. My office has been inundated with support for and requests about the government's 30 per cent rebate scheme. The message for Labor in Queensland is a simple one and it is this: it is about time they listened to the concerns of battling Australians instead of their union mates.206418:22:002064Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, a week ago if you had asked me to predict one political certainty for 1999 I would have said it would be the announcement by the federal government of its intention to proceed or not to proceed with the construction of Sydney's second international airport at Badgerys Creek. That was until I read last weekend's news. The Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, 6 February stated:Sydney electors will vote on March 27 without knowing the fate of the proposal to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek.. . . . . . . . .It was revealed yesterday that the long-awaited environmental impact statement into the controversial proposal had been delayed by at least six months.The government is now saying that the people should have an answer by May—if we are lucky. Didn't the previous Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the member for Lyne, say we would have a result by Christmas of 1998? Obviously a non-core promise?I must admit I found the weekend's press took a decidedly city-centric angle in reporting this story. They said the delay would be felt keenly by the people of the inner city and inner western suburbs. If the outer western suburbs were mentioned at all, it was to cynically describe the pleasure that anti-Badgerys Creek groups in the region must have been feeling after being given another `stay of execution'. What rubbish! The people of Western Sydney also want to see this issue resolved as soon as possible. They have had it up to the back teeth living with the prospect of having a 24-hour, giant international airport built on their doorstep.Seldom has an EIS report been so eagerly anticipated and its contents so feared. On this document hangs the quality of life of 1.4 million Western Sydney residents. Many are living in limbo in regard to selling or buying a house or choosing an area to raise their families or even to send their kids to school—decisions that in no small way depend on whether or not the government decides to go ahead with the airport.When that decision comes—and, believe me, like most other Sydneysiders, we would like it to be sooner rather than later—Western Sydney residents know what it should be. Plans for Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek should be thrown out once and for all. But how much better would the people of Western Sydney cope with this additional delay if they actually had confidence in the processes and research behind the EIS—which, of course, they don't have?The weaknesses in the Badgerys Creek EIS process have been well documented. The New South Wales government's Environment Protection Agency's report into Badgerys Creek has found that Badgerys Creek will have `a disproportionate impact on photochemical smog' in our area and would be a major source of the air pollutant nitrogen dioxide. It also said that the noise levels generated by the airport would expose many people to significant noise levels which would `exceed Australian standards'. The Independent Auditor's report on the EIS confirmed the EPA's reservations, and it said the EIS was very `deficient', `limited' and `ambiguous'. The Independent Auditor's report is an indictment of the EIS process. The report further states:As a result of . . . time and cost constraints imposed by the Department of Transport and Regional Development, the draft EIS generally does not go into the degree of detail that could reasonably be expected for such a major proposal.The report said the EIS had failed to examine the environmental effect of not building a new airport; failed to provide an adequate economic analysis of the development; failed to build community confidence in the EIS; failed to identify how Kingsford Smith airport and a new airport at Badgerys Creek would operate together; and failed to satisfactorily examine the impact that noise generated by the airport would have on Sydney's population, especially those living in Sydney's west. Knowing the inconsistencies and the weaknesses in the EIS, Western Sydney residents are therefore not confident about the Howard government making the right decision on Badgerys Creek.They are even less confident now that the member for Lindsay has suddenly cooled in her opposition to the airport following her elevation to the ministry. Like almost all of Western Sydney's MPs at both state and federal levels, the member for Lindsay had come out in opposition to an airport at Badgerys Creek. For some members, this position was arrived at after years of supporting the airport—and that's fine by me; it is better late than never. However, what we are now seeing with the Minister for Sport and Tourism is a reversal of that phenomenon. The member, formerly against the planned airport, is now moving towards giving the project her implicit approval. She is certainly not vocalising her opposition to it any more in this House. As a backbencher, the member for Lindsay made numerous statements opposing Badgerys Creek and campaigned heavily against the development during the last election. In March 1998 she said:Badgerys Creek should be kicked into touch as an option for an airport.The member for Lindsay signed a statement during the election campaign that she would `cross the floor' to vote against Badgerys Creek airport. She also claimed at a candidate's forum on 29 September last year that she `had the numbers in cabinet' to stop Badgerys Creek airport from ever going ahead—all admirable stuff, I can tell you.Then there was the member for Lindsay's plan for building an offshore `mega' airport on pylons outside of Botany Bay. This is the project for which she, in her own words, has `actively campaigned'. She said in this House in March 1998 in relation to this proposal:. . . it is a concept which I have researched quite thoroughly. I am quite convinced it can be built. The engineering technology is there today. With her position on the Badgerys Creek airport proposal on the public record, I looked forward to receiving the new minister's answer to my question on notice on the same subject late last year. What a shock when the answer I received offered nothing in the way of opposition to Badgerys Creek I had expected. If anything, it gave tacit support for the project if and when the government decided to proceed with it. I had asked point blank if she supported Badgerys Creek. I expected a direct answer—`No'. This is the answer I received:No decisions about the second airport will be made until the EIS process has been completed. As a Minister of the Government, I support this position.Without even a hint of her previous objection! It seems that the member has now decided that she likes the feel of that ministerial leather too much to start rocking the boat. As for whether she still believed in building an offshore mega airport, the member for Lindsay appeared to have gone soft on that proposal as well. Again in answer to my question, she stated:The construction of an offshore airport would need to be considered in light of detailed feasibility studies which consider the engineering, environmental and commercial viability of such a proposal.So much for the member's conviction that the project could begin construction today. So much for the member who said in one of her election pamphlets:When it comes right down to actually doing something constructive about the airport, I . . . proudly follow in the tradition of western Sydney women Liberals who did not change their views when it was expedient to do so, but dealt simply with the facts.I am very disappointed that the member for Lindsay appears to have started to go soft on opposing Badgerys Creek airport, breaking ranks with virtually every other state and federal MP and local council in Western Sydney in the process. If anything, now that she is a minister she should take her colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration's example and come out even more strongly against Badgerys Creek airport and not give wishy-washy `bob each way' answers to questions that seek a direct, unambiguous response.Following the delay over the EIS announced on the weekend, the people of Western Sydney have enough uncertainties to live with regarding Badgerys Creek airport without the member for Lindsay adding to their problems. She cannot tell her constituents one thing and try to get away with saying another thing in this House. After her answers to my questions on notice, the member for Lindsay only has herself to blame for any criticism that she has changed her mind on Badgerys Creek airport. The onus is now on her to stand up and unequivocally state her opposition to Badgerys Creek airport not only as a Western Sydney MP but also as a minister of the Howard government, and I call upon her to do so.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.206520:00:002065Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Last week's announcement by the Prime Minister extending the mutual obligation principle, that is, requiring illiterate and innumerate young unemployed to under take remedial courses, has brought some interesting responses. The reaction has been varied, but generally fitted into two groups. Firstly, there are those with an open mind who support the need to try to do whatever we can to remove the barriers to unemployment. Secondly, and unfortunately, there are those on the other side, the knee-jerk negatives, motivated by naivety, political headline grabbing or vested interests.This issue really has two parts to it. The first is this: how can we best help the unemployed? Unemployment, as we all recognise, is a multidimensional problem requiring a range of policy measures. Tackling literacy and numeracy barriers is one such measure—an appropriate and very necessary measure. Many studies over recent years have shown the essential links between levels of literacy and numeracy problems and unemployment outcomes.A study by the Australian Council for Educational Research released in 1997 showed that males with poor literacy and numeracy levels were twice as likely to be unemployed in their late teens as those with average skills or better. A study by Miller and Chiswell for the ABS in 1996 showed, firstly, that the work force participation rate for those tested with poor literacy skills was less than 40 per cent, whereas for those with good or better literacy skills the participation rate was actually over 85 per cent. Secondly, it showed that unemployment levels were 3.6 per cent for those with excellent literacy skills, five per cent for those with good skill levels and close to 18 per cent for those with poor literacy skills. Thirdly, the same study showed that the length of time spent unemployed is considerably greater for those with poor literacy and numeracy skills than for those with adequate skills.A third study, the national study on adult literacy classes—called quite appropriately `Skilling me softly'—found, according to Patrick Griffin of the University of Melbourne's Assessment Research Centre, that between 23 per cent and 26 per cent of participants in literacy courses became employed within a year of commencing training—more than double the success rate of the long-term unemployed under the old CES Special Intervention program.The studies reinforce what our commonsense tells us—that it is appropriate and necessary for governments to tackle literacy and numeracy barriers as one essential weapon in the assault on unemployment. The federal government is determined to do this. This government has led the way in developing a national literacy plan in the country's schools, aimed at ensuring that all children can read and write by the time they leave primary school. The plan included significantly increased funding for early intervention programs, with $176 million of Commonwealth money in this year alone and $680 million over four years.But there are many people who, through one reason or another, have missed out in their years of schooling, who leave school still partly illiterate and partly innumerate and therefore suffering severe disadvantage when it comes to the employment market. The government is determined to try to assist these people. Last year the government committed $143 million to a national program to help the unemployed lift their literacy and numeracy levels. Some 69 educational and community organisations across the country have been contracted to provide basic literacy and numeracy training for 36,000 young people over the next three years. Admittedly, the take-up rate for these courses has been low. Thus, the need to increase the incentive—precisely the aim of last week's announcement.A very interesting article appeared in Sunday's Daily Telegraph—the story of a 22 year-old who left school at the age of 14 and has never held a full-time job. This young lady says this of the government's approach to requiring literacy for young unemployed:I think the new literacy policy is good for everyone. It makes you do something for yourself.She had actually involved herself in one of the voluntary programs. She said this:I was really scared about coming in for the assessment, but I know a lot of my friends in the same situation have just given up and I did not want to do that.This is the point: motivation, assistance, incentive, encouragement and, in some cases, even a degree of compulsion can be positive in bringing unemployed and illiterate young people into literacy and remedial courses.The negative responses from the doomsaying minority about these proposals are as ill-founded as they were when this government introduced the Work for the Dole program. The Work for the Dole program has been a great boost to the motivation, self-confidence and employability of many young people. One of the Work for the Dole programs in my electorate, run by Hawkesbury Skills, has helped a large number of young people over the past two years. At this Work for the Dole program they have a board called the `victory board'. On that victory board they list the names of unemployed Work for the Dole people who came in, became motivated, became skilled and went on to further training or real employment. They not only filled one of those victory boards but filled two and have almost filled the third board with names of young people who have gone on to employment and training as a result of the Work for the Dole program. This sort of motivation is essential, is positive and is productive.The second issue associated with requiring unemployed people to do literacy programs is the broader one of reciprocal or mutual obligation. It is right to expect that part of accepting the privileges, protection and assistance offered by society is a commitment to contributing in whatever way we can. It is right in this context that those who receive unemployment benefits do what they can to find employment. Most fair-minded Australians would agree with this. Equally, most fair-minded Australians would have been appalled, as I was, to read these comments by Senator Stott Despoja in last Monday's Sydney Morning Herald. The senator said this:The whole concept of mutual or reciprocal obligation should be rejected.How appalling! Apart from the dishonest and misleading statements in some of the article, how appalling to suggest that there ought not be mutual obligation from those benefiting from society. How appalling to suggest that responsibility is not a two-way street, for suggesting that those who expect to receive should also not be expected to contribute where possible. How appalling to suggest that recipients of welfare should have no obligation to strive to overcome the cause of their dependency, that they should bear no responsibility for their own futures.This is akin to the same muddle-headed, muddle-minded thinking that over much of the past 25 years has created a debilitating and destructive welfare dependency in Australia. This denial of mutual obligation and the obsessive elevation of rights over responsibilities, combined with an unrealistic faith in the omniscience and infallibility of government welfare programs funded by fiscal extravagance, has created a number of problems from which we are just beginning to emerge.It has created a tragic loss of motivation and an attitude of dependence rather than a desire for independence. It has created an alienation and a loss of self-esteem which come with welfare dependence, and it has at least been a contributing factor to a range of social and personal problems that come with it. This mentality has created in fact a mood of resentment amongst hardworking, tax paying citizens. It is not a resentment of assistance to the genuinely needy but a resentment of those willing to take but not willing to have a go, not willing to strive for self-sufficiency—a resentment that was, I suspect, one of the seeds that led to the rise of Hansonism.This muddle-headed thinking has contributed to the economic problems created by a growing number of welfare dependants and a shrinking number of taxpayers. This has brought higher dependency ratios and, with them, higher tax rates, a growing squeeze on middle Australia, reduced incentives, lower productivity growth, growing budget deficits and government debt. Sadly, the genuinely disadvantaged and low income earners have often suffered as a result because the welfare dollar has been spread further than it ought to have been or because taxation levels were higher than they ought to have been.Last week's announcements are practical, sensible, appropriate measures to remove one of the barriers to employment and they provide the young with the opportunity and the motivation to take a significant step on the path to independence.206620:10:002066Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—There can be no sector of manufacturing industry that has suffered such overwhelming change as the textile, clothing and footwear sector has faced over several decades. The challenges that have confronted that industry have only been confronted and beaten by the cooperation between the trade unions involved and the employers as individual companies and their representative bodies. Therefore, it saddens me that today we actually saw the finish of a dispute that lasted some 67 days in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Workers, members of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, were locked out from their place of employment, the Australian Dyeing Company, on 1 December. They were locked out of their place of work in Clifton Hill.My interest in this dispute is at two levels. One is that it exemplifies the type of industrial relations hostilities that have been encouraged by Minister Reith's policies. My second level of interest in the dispute is, of course, that most of the workers at ADC lived in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Many of them were constituents of mine. They are predominantly migrants. They are people that have come to Australia in each of the waves of migration. The 80 workers that were taking industrial action come from about a dozen different ethnicities. They are a diverse and varied lot, but they were solid in their support of each other and in the action that they were taking.One of the elements of this dispute, whether it was a direct element of the dispute or not, was that an employer was trying to crush the ability of workers to come together as a collective and have their union act on their behalf. Therefore, early in the dispute it was important that those workers had an understanding that there were others outside of their own workplace that were taking an interest in what was happening. Theirs was an important struggle on behalf of the wider, organised labour movement and for the migrants that came from typically southern European countries of the postwar migration—migrants from Greece, migrants from Macedonia, including a migrant that had worked in one case for 37 years for this one firm. Many had worked more than 20 or 30 years for this firm. The firm's very existence to this date, as it confronted the challenges that confront all companies in the TCF industry, was based on the hard work and toil of this work force.Of course there are other elements that a company uses to ensure that it continues to be able to trade in the last few years of this century, whether they be technological change, better work methods or whatever. But at the end of the day, without the cooperation of the work force, these things cannot be achieved. It is interesting to note that this company, the Australian Dyeing Company, was a recipient of funding under the TCF Best Practice Program. As part of this program, it sat down with its work force to try to get a better understanding of how the work force viewed management. One of the owners—the Managing Director, Ian Fayman—is quoted on an Internet site of the AusIndustry TCF Best Practice Program as saying:We committed ourselves early in 1998 to a best practice project aimed at improving how we operate and increasing our chances of surviving and growing into the next century. The main aim is to extend business planning to involve staff on the factory floor.Why then did it go so tragically wrong on 1 December last year when this work force was locked out? They were locked out and not back at work for 67 days until an agreement was reached last Friday. Why was it that the workers were not in a position to be able to go back to work, as they have done today with their heads held high, with their preparedness to cooperate to ensure that their employer, the Australian Dyeing Company, does have a future? Why has this group of workers been subjected to all sorts of com ments that in fact all they were doing was trying to demonstrate the power of unions? Why can't people who make those comments try to put themselves in the position of those workers who found themselves out of their workplace for that 67 days? Why can't those critics try to imagine what it was like for those workers and their families? Why do they belittle the sincerity of those workers in taking action? This was one of those proud struggles that we see and have heard about in the history of the organised labour movement in Australia. It was something that perhaps in the late 1990s we thought we had gone past. But, sadly, as I grieve today, I grieve because of the actions of Minister Reith and the Howard government in causing this type of hostility.I was proud to visit the picket. I am not ashamed to say that I visited it, for those people who were taking a courageous stance in defence of their pay and conditions deserve the support they can be given by the wider public. The processes that the company, the Australian Dyeing Company, use involve the use of chemicals, some very dangerous and potent. The workers therefore got great support from the local community. Clifton Hill is a traditional Labor working-class suburb. At one stage, when James Henry Scullin was a member of the House of Representatives, Clifton Hill and the suburbs alongside it were the outer urban fringe of Melbourne. Of course, that seems now quite a long time ago, as the outer urban fringe is in electorates like Scullin, some 15 kilometres further out. But those people who live in areas like Clifton Hill know what it is like to ensure that a skilled work force is in place in factories like ADC's. They know that when these workers were locked out on 1 December and in the run-up to Christmas replaced for that three to four weeks by university students, an untrained work force, they were in some form of danger. Therefore, they showed not only their support because they believed in the industrial action that was being taken but also their belief in the work force, because they understood that it was basically a skilled work force.There we have a group of 80 workers from diverse and varied backgrounds, a group of workers that have migrated here from Europe, from Asia and some more recently even from the African continent, who came together and were able to stand tall, to stand solid as a collective for 67 days so that this morning representatives of that work force as the first shift were able to hold their heads high and return to work. This work force will cooperate with their employers and management, notwithstanding the two months of the struggle that they have had, because they know that through this cooperation ADC, like other companies in the textile, clothing and footwear industry in Australia, will survive because of the types of skills and processes we are able to see in Australia that will enable those companies to compete against their competitors from overseas.206720:19:002067St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise today not only to wish everyone a happy and prosperous year but also to raise a subject that is dear to my heart. Coming as I do from the beautiful New England region of New South Wales, I take every opportunity, as I am sure all my National Party colleagues do, of driving extensively about my electorate listening to and speaking with my constituents wherever they may be. In doing so I continue to have drawn to my attention the fact that our rural and regional road network is steadily but surely declining in its level of maintenance.I know that road funding for local government, particularly local government in rural and regional areas, does not always receive the importance that it should. I know that the demands being placed on the bucket of money for roads are well and truly outstripping the funds available. I am also aware that the demands being placed on the total bucket as a nation are far in excess of what we have. However, we must address this issue before the road assets that the nation has built up return us to a Third World status. It is vital that, as our Australian manufacturers and producers become more and more competitive on the world market, they are able to actually get their products to the markets. They must be able to get those export dollar earning products to those markets efficiently, effectively and at the lowest cost. Equally, those who live in country Australia should have a road network that is able to enhance their quality of life.Within the national debate on issues generally, funding for country roads seems to have been lost in the paperwork; left in the too hard basket. Every member in this place whose electorate covers regional and remote Australia knows that the road assets within their shires are deteriorating and, if allowed to continue to do so, will affect the very viability of not only country Australia but the nation as a whole.In the past, local government has received much of its local road funding direct from the federal government, and this funding was identifiable as part of the financial assistance grants made to local government. I believe that it is the role of this federal government to show some leadership and to work with all levels of government to ensure that our local road network will be able to meet the needs of regional and country Australia well into the 21st century. It may be that we have to look outside of the square, so to speak, to find a solution that will deliver real increases in the funding and, therefore, the level of maintenance of these valuable assets.The problem of funding national assets is a global problem, and there are some countries and regions that are addressing the problems in a very positive but certainly different way. I would like to give you an example, as follows:The extensive road networks of Latin America and the Caribbean, valued at over 350 billion US$, show alarming signs of neglect and decay . . .Sounds familiar. It continues:More than 16 billion US $ are being wasted annually due to the absence of adequate road maintenance. Individual countries in the region are losing between 1% and 3% of their annual GNP due to an unnecessary increase in vehicle operating costs and loss of road asset value alone. This devastating situation is not only true for Latin American countries, but can be found in other developing countries and some developed nations as well—including, of course, Australia. It continues:The prevailing financial and institution system of road maintenance has been clearly identified to be at the root of the problem. In most of these countries an adequate flow of funds cannot be secured by the general budgeting financing procedure. In addition, the rules and regulations of the public administrative system do not allow for an effective and efficient management of road maintenance. As it is unlikely that under the prevailing system substantial and sustainable improvements can be made a new approach is necessary to eradicate this problem.A new public-private partnership in financing and managing road maintenance can provide an adequate solution. The two basic principles of such an approach are to put road maintenance on a fee-for-service basis and to transfer road maintenance management from a `government ministry environment' to a `company environment'.The article provides a guideline for such a reform—radical as it may be. It continues:Various alternatives are being discussed for securing sufficient and stable flow of funds for road conservation, for providing an adequate institutional framework to manage road maintenance on a national, state and local level, and for physically managing whole road networks in an effective and efficient manner.Interesting. In New England one local government closer to home, Guyra Shire Council, together with the University of New England, has been developing a research proposal to investigate ways in which road funding priorities can be better identified and serviced within that region and obviously for other regions. The project is worthy of being pursued because the sort of integrated strategic approach that is being proposed is absolutely critical to the future development of that region and, I am sure, other regions in country Australia.This research will address the issue of declining roads and road infrastructure as a problem of particular relevance to not only the New England region but others. It will consider the degree to which the overall sustainability of the road network might be improved through strategic coordination at the local and regional levels and through improving the coordination of road funding arrangements across all levels of government.The research will combine state-of-the-art analysis and participative planning methods to identify, document and assess alternative management and policy options to influence an overall improvement in the standard of local and regional road networks. It will also examine the most strategic opportunities for improving that network to best service the sustainable development of the region's environmental, human and cultural resources. The project will proceed on the basis of active participation by stakeholders representing community, local government and all other relevant empowered agencies. It is very much about the development of effective working partnerships that will remain to support the implementation of ensuing initiatives.These are just two examples of almost desperation in looking at new ways to maintain and improve our local networks. Forget about building new roads in country Australia; let us concentrate on maintaining the roads assets that we already have. Local government, and particularly local government in country Australia, desperately needs a dramatic increase in local road funding. It is important that there is funding for all of the other things that we have in our communities, such as schools, child-care centres, hospitals and all of those sorts of things. But if we do not look after the road network, no-one will be able to use them.2069Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2069Messages received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Bill 1998 Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 Aged Care Amendment (Accreditation Agency) Bill 1998 Private Health Insurance Incentives Amendment Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 1998 Wool International Amendment Bill 1998 Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1998 Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Bill 1998 National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Bill 1998 National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1998 National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Space Activities Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998 Committees2069206920692069Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received advice from the Prime Minister nominating members to be members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly—by leave—agreed to:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, Mr Jull, Mr McArthur, Mr Nehl and Mr McLeay be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.206920692069Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—agreed to.That Mr Baird, Mrs Elson, and Mr Nairn be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector.Condolences20692069Debate resumed.20:32:002069McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I have great sorrow tonight in standing here to speak on the condolence motion for Jim Cope, who was a person who represented an electorate called Watson for many years, as I have for a few years. Jim served as the member for Watson from 1955 until 1968 when that seat was abolished in that form and became the electorate of Sydney. He then served from 1968 to 1975 as the member for Sydney. The electorate of Watson that was served so ably by Jim Cope was a very different electorate from the electorate of Watson that I represent today. There is an interesting parallel in that Jim was the member for Watson and became the Speaker of the House, and I was the Speaker of the House when I became the member for Watson, having been the member for Grayndler prior to a redistribution. So there are some similarities.Jim Cope was a very decent man whom I had known as a young man in the Labor Party. When I became the Speaker of this parliament his were the first congratulations I got. From time to time he would ring up with a bit of advice, but mainly he would ring after there had been a rather hectic day. You would have gone back to your office—as I am sure you will, Mr Speaker—and thought, `It can't get much worse than that,' and Copey would ring up and say, `I listened to question time today, and you didn't do too badly. At least they haven't done to you what they did to me.' He would have a laugh about that. Sometimes when you had had those bad days Jim would give you a ring, and it made you feel a bit better. I think Jim Cope learnt what a lot of people learn being Speaker of the House of Representatives, which is that it is really a pretty lonely position, as you have no doubt thought from time to time, Mr Speaker, and I certainly thought from time to time.The electorate that Jim represented was a lot different from the electorate that I represent now. The seat of Watson in those days covered the suburbs of Alexandria, Banksmeadow, Daceyville, Kensington West, Mascot, Pagewood, Rosebery, St Peters, Tempe and Waterloo. And of course the centre of it, as far as Jim Cope was concerned, was Redfern, because Jim Cope was a person from Redfern and of Redfern, and he really was one of those great Labor characters that that suburb has thrown up. He lived in the same street in Redfern throughout his parliamentary career, which is something that probably not too many of us here can say.I said originally that there were some parallels between his career and mine. All of us think that issues here move on, but some issues never move on. Another parallel between Jim Cope and me was that in 1968, 31 years ago, he served on the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, and he was concerned for his constituents who were then being subjected to noise from Sydney airport. So the member for Watson in 1968 was pretty concerned about aircraft noise in the same way that the member for Watson in 1999 is concerned about aircraft noise. I have no doubt that whoever represents Watson in another 30 years will probably still be concerned about aircraft noise. So I have often found that there were interesting little parallels in my life and that of Jim Cope.Another parallel is that Jim Cope was a tradesman. Jim was a glassworker, the honorary treasurer of the New South Wales branch of the Glassworkers Union and the federal treasurer of that union. He came into the parliament as a glassworker. I came into the parliament as a telephone technician. In those days there were a lot of tradesmen representing the Labor Party; nowadays there are not too many tradesmen—or there are not enough tradesmen, in my view—representing the Labor Party.He had a long career in both the industrial and political movement before he got into parliament. He was an alderman on Redfern council in 1947 and 1948. He joined the Labor Party in 1930. He was a secretary of his local branch and a president of the Cook Electorate Council. He served the people of Redfern, the people of Watson and subsequently Sydney very well.Unfortunately, I think people will remember Jim Cope more for what happened on 27 February 1975 rather than for what he brought to the role of Speaker. Those who remember Jim well—like Gordon Scholes, who was his deputy at the time, Kim Beazley's father, who served with him, and Frank Stewart, who was my predecessor as the member for Grayndler and had told me from time to time about Jim—know that he was the sort of person who had a great number of friends in the parliamentary Labor Party, including the father of the current member for Barton. Part of his round of friendship was that he was very good at the game of billiards. From what is left of the memorabilia from the old billiard room in the Old Parliament House you will see that Jim Cope was a very prolific billiard player. Those who served with him at the time recall that he was also a very generous host as a Speaker and that people used to call by his office in the Old Parliament House of an evening for a drink and a reminisce.He was well liked by his colleagues and that is the reason he was elected to the position of Speaker. He put a lot of effort into understanding the standing orders. He had a very good sense of humour, which is necessary in your job, Mr Speaker, as it was for him. Unfortunately, the events of that one day—27 February 1975—overrode a lot of the other things that people will think about Jim Cope. But a measure of Cope was that, even on that day, Peter Nixon, who was one of the people who brought him down—the troika of Sinclair, Nixon and Anthony were orchestrating the upheaval in the House in 1975—said of him that Jim Cope was a man. Nowadays, in these gender neutral times, that is not the most terrific compliment to throw around but, for a person of Jim Cope's generation, to be called a man by your opponent was a great compliment. Cope was that sort of person. He was a very honourable person.When he lost the vote for the suspension of Clyde Cameron, he took it on the chin. There were plenty of precedents that he could have grabbed hold of and still held the job. Archie Cameron, when he was the Speaker, I think probably lost more votes in the House against his decisions than he won. Cope could always have found something in Cameron's history that would have allowed him to say, `The Prime Minister might have decided that he didn't want to uphold the Speaker's ruling, but that is not going to break my heart.' But, because Cope was an honourable person, he resigned. For him, that was a terribly sad thing to have to do because he was part of the generation of Labor people who had spent all their life in opposition.He came to parliament in 1955 and it was not until 1972 that his party got into government. So he had only a couple of years in the job of Speaker, which meant so much to him. He was not brought down so much by the opposition but by what was, to put it at its most generous, just pent-up passion on both sides of the parliament which blew up that day and caused something to happen which has not happened since and I doubt ever will again.So in some ways what Jim Cope did was to be a great help to Speakers in the future because, after that event of hubris which overtook the government that day, I think all other governments have been always a little bit careful not to put a Speaker into such a position. So what happened to Jim probably saved me and some of my predecessors and maybe you, Mr Speaker, and may save some of your successors. I think that Cope was a person whom we could all look up to. He had very much a sense of humour.In those days, there was a predominance of Catholics representing the Labor Party in this parliament from New South Wales. In 1955, there were not many Catholics who represented the Labor Party from some of the other states because many of them had been purged from the party. On 11 September 1975, Cope said in a explanation:I claim to have been misreported in a booklet entitled `A Biographical Register of Commonwealth Parliament 1901-1972' by Joan Ryden. The booklet states that I am an RC. I am not an RC. I am an unfinancial Anglican.That was the sort of joke that Cope would have had with people. Tomorrow we will farewell him from Christ Church Saint Lawrence in Sydney, which is where most unfinancial Anglicans should properly be farewelled from. What we have seen with the passing of Jim Cope is the passing of another link with the past of the Labor Party, another link with those people who went through a lot of the trauma that there was in the Labor Party in the mid-1950s. More particularly, what we have seen with the death of Jim Cope is the death of a very decent, honourable man who put his party's interests above his own interests. Not only will he be sorely missed by Myrtle and his daughter Bonnie, but he will be sorely missed by all of us.Tomorrow, I think we should celebrate the life of Jim Cope, celebrate the life of a person who was a great member for Watson and subsequently Sydney, the life of a fellow who was a great trade unionist and the life of a man who did what his constituents wanted him to do and was a person who truly represented the ethos of Redfern and of the Labor Party.20:43:002071Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Over the past few days, many people have spoken and written about the Hon. James Francis Cope, who was my predecessor as the member for Sydney. They have called him a modest man. He and his wife Myrtle lived in their Redfern terrace for 44 years. Even after many years in parliament, Mr Cope continued to record his occupation as `glassblower'. He was a staunch unionist and an ALP member for about 70 years and also an alderman on the former Redfern Council. He was a particularly proud resident of Redfern, which is a suburb at the heart of my electorate of Sydney.After author Don Whitington had declared that Redfern was `almost a dirty word in Sydney' and peopled by `thugs and thieves, pimps and prostitutes, gunmen and gangsters and decent hardworking artisans and unskilled labourers too poor to live anywhere else,' Mr Cope replied that he would not claim that every person in Redfern was the perfect citizen. He said:In some ways they may seem rough and ready, but I am proud to be one of them and would hazard a guess that people in many of the more affluent areas would like to have such friends and neighbours in times of stress.He told one newspaper, `We're no angels, but you've got to stick up for a place that has produced one Governor-General—Bill McKell—and three state Premiers,' and, indeed, a Speaker of the House of Representatives.Upon election to the federal parliament, Mr Cope's first speech called upon the Menzies government to increase pensions by £1 per week rather than the 10s per week that was proposed. He said:Instead of their having to depend on charitable organisations for left-off clothing and a bowl of soup, some money could be taken out of the defence vote and used to assist them, because my policy is not one of guns before butter . . . Let me emphasise that what I say about the pensioners I mean. I have been through the mill. I know what it is to go without a meal. In the 1930s I was unemployed. I had a wife and a young baby and I was on the dole. But I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister or the Treasurer would know what it is to go without a meal. He told a newspaper on his ascension to the speakership:I was out of work for three years—I was on the dole and I got precisely 14 shillings and tuppence a week. Six shillings of that went on rent for a little room in Redfern where I lived with my wife, Myrtle, and baby daughter Bonnie. I remember how we looked for work—50 or 60 men lined up outside this place in Camperdown each day, like a line of cattle, waiting for a job. And the boss would come out and say `you, you and you'. You couldn't afford fruit and vegies—yet you could go out to Sydney Heads and see them dumping the fruit and vegetables they couldn't sell into the sea. I thought there was something terribly wrong with this sort of system, and that's when I got interested in politics.Mr Cope was a proud Australian who believed that the Governor-General should be an Australian, not a member of the British aristocracy. His arguments resonate with the current arguments for a republic and an Australian head of state. He said:The present policy of the Government of appointing a member of the British nobility as Governor-General gives to people of other countries the impression that we are still in the antiquated days of traditional colonialism. It also creates the thought that Australians are an inferior race—that none of them possess the capacity, intellect and dignity required for the office of Governor-General.Having been made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George under the imperial honours system, Jim Cope later wanted to convert his honour to an Officer of the Order of Australia. Unfortunately, that was not possible.As the honourable member for Watson has said, Jim Cope warned many years ago of the problems of aircraft noise. In 1966 Mr Cope wrote to the Australian warning that the `proposed supersonic airliners of the near future' would place a further burden on residents living near the airport. So, over 30 years ago, Jim Cope said:We have now reached the stage when we must consider which is the most important, the speed and comfort of air travellers, or the health and welfare of residents living near major airports.I believe residents in the electorate of Sydney would still find a lot to agree with in those words.I have a particular reason to be grateful to the late Jim Cope. It is a reason that I share with colleagues such as the member for Swan, the member for Isaacs and the member for McMillan, amongst others. Mr Cope was an advocate throughout his parliamentary career of non-alphabetical listing of candidates on ballot papers for the House of Representatives. The donkey vote, he believed, accounted for up to four per cent of the vote in any seat.He gave many examples to prove this, with many complicated calculations about the vote of the Democratic Labor Party and the Communist Party, but one particular example he gave related to a candidate who stood in a Queensland election. The candidate stood in order to make sure that the ALP candidate was not at the head of the ballot paper and immediately withdrew from the election. Despite withdrawing and despite newspaper reports at the time that this man was no longer a candidate, he still received 150 votes. Despite this move away from alphabetical listing first being proposed in relation to the Senate ballot paper in 1939, it was not until 1983 that this anomaly was finally rectified.Mr Cope was a witty interjector and many people have spoken today about some of his more famous quips, including his suggestion for a fourth site for the new parliament and his comments to Sir Robert Menzies, the then Prime Minister, about the truck driver. But he is probably best known for his role as Speaker and the way that he left that position. As Mungo MacCallum describes it:Coalition members saw their transition to Opposition as an aberration to be remedied as soon as possible and by any means possible. To achieve this they were prepared to push the parliamentary process to its limits and beyond.On one day Mr Cope, as Speaker, was forced to suspend three former Liberal ministers, including former Prime Minister Gorton. Today, and during the last few days, the story of Mr Cope's resignation has frequently been retold, but I have it on good authority, indeed from one of the members of the Paddington branch of the ALP who was Prime Minister at the time, that the story really begins much earlier than the day of the resignation.Former Prime Minister Whitlam's refusal to allow the Leader of the House to move Mr Clyde Cameron's suspension followed a similar scenario several years earlier when Prime Minister Menzies refused to support Speaker Archie Cameron in similar circumstances, according to Mr Whitlam. There was a chance that the situation might have been defused, except that Ian Sinclair, in what the Deputy Prime Minister today described as a `brilliant move' and a `class act', jumped to his feet to move Mr Cameron's suspension. Nevertheless, Mr Cameron was quoted in the Australian as saying that Mr Cope was `an honest and decent bloke' who had been absolutely right to name him. `Jim Forbes,' he said, `made me too angry to be sane, and when Cope asked me to apologise and withdraw, I was just temporarily insane with anger.'Whatever the historical reasons for the events of that day, it seems that Mr Cope never bore a grudge, always putting party unity before any personal disappointments he may have felt about the events leading to his resignation. He made his peace with Clyde Cameron and former Prime Minister Whitlam, who helped with the arrangement for Mr Cope's state funeral. I join with other honourable members in offering my condolences to Mr Cope's wife, Myrtle, their daughter and other family members.20:52:002072McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—It is with honour, but with some considerable sadness, of course, that I rise in memory of my friend Jim Cope. Jim was a member of my electorate for some 20 years. Indeed, until the last three years, he was an active member of the Ramsgate branch of the Labor Party, which is my branch and my father's. For quite a while, that branch was honoured with a former Speaker of the House of Representatives and the former President of the Senate, so very few members got away with anything on the rules. Jim always added that same colour and that same sense of professional interjection for which he was famous at those meetings. Whereas all political meetings, I suppose, on both sides of the fence, can be pretty dull affairs, ones attended by Jim were really a pleasure.Until the last three years, Jim kept pretty good health and an active life. In the last three years, bad problems he had with his legs and his vision were such that it was impossible for him to be cared for at home, and hence he went into a nursing home, which was actually in the electorate of the member for Watson. I visited him on a number of occasions there. Indeed, the last occasion I visited him was last Monday evening—a week ago today. He was clearly in a bad way and in a lot of discomfort, but even then he was more concerned with asking me how my wife was and how my children were and was clearly interested in them. He was able to account for the friends who had visited him. He mentioned that Joe Riordan, Les McMahon and Les Johnson, all former members, had all frequently visited him. Indeed, my father took great pleasure in going to visit Jim to go through some of the old stories.Right up until the end he was very fortunate indeed and, if we can have that blessing, we will all be grateful to keep our faculties to the end. Jim once told me that, after retiring from parliament, he had made a practice of reciting to himself the American states in alphabetical order just for the mental agility. Apparently he did that on a daily basis. So if that is a recipe for keeping alertness, it is perhaps not a bad one. I have to say that I would fail the test today. But that is an interesting insight into him.He kept an interest in affairs outside the parliament. We have heard of his interest in snooker. He was a life member of City Tattersalls where he was, I understand, highly respected as a snooker player until his vision started to deteriorate. He was a very active and keen member of the St George Leagues Club. He was a participant in all kinds of activities. I only knew Jim as a man of a small frame, but he would frequently boast to me of his cricketing achievements. In particular, he mentioned some famous bowler—whose name escapes me—who he hit a century against. He was proud of that, and I understand he was a New South Wales schoolboy cricketer.Fundamentally, he was a real gentleman. People have said repeatedly that he was a very decent man, and that was something that came across in his manner. For instance, he persisted in telling me last Monday night what an asset I had in my wife Michelle and my family, which is true, but he was taking an interest in circumstances where he quite clearly knew that he was in a bad way.It is with sadness—and is very much heartfelt—that we convey our sympathy to his wife of 67 years, Myrtle; his only daughter, Bonnie; his grandchildren, Leanne and James; and his great grandson, about whom he spoke with great fondness, Cameron Price. So it is with great honour but sadness that we pass on our condolences, but praise the memory of Jim Cope.20:56:002072Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will keep my remarks relatively brief, given the number of comments that have already been made by members on both sides of the House earlier today and this evening.I first heard Jim Cope when I was a young whippersnapper out there listening to the parliamentary debates on ABC radio in the days when ABC broadcasts used to interrupt the mainstream ABC metropolitan radio networks and parliament had one or two more listeners. Jim Cope was, I suppose, the first Speaker I remember listening to in parliament. He had a very tough job during the days of the Whitlam government. It was, I suppose, part of the nature of a reforming government such as that headed by Gough Whitlam that there was a lot of controversy about decisions that were taken by the government. The then opposition used every mechanism at its disposal to take the debate up to the government of the day, and that made Jim Cope's job very difficult during the time that he had the honour of being Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives.I first met Jim Cope a number of years later after he had retired from the Australian parliament. I got to know two Labor Party members who lived at The Entrance, Joyce Buckley and her husband, Ken, who passed away in recent years. Jim Cope was Joyce Buckley's brother-in-law. I first met Jim Cope when Ken and Joyce were kind enough to invite me around for afternoon tea one day. Mr Speaker, I can tell you, you have not seen an afternoon tea until you have seen an afternoon tea put on at the home of Joyce and Ken Buckley—scones and jam and cream and biscuits and cakes.It was a real honour to meet Jim Cope. He was a real gentleman, very quietly spoken and a very generous person. As others have mentioned, he was very proud of his origins—very proud of having been a long-term resident of Redfern, and very proud of the cohesion and the tough community support that exists in a community such as Redfern.Gordon Scholes once said to me that if you go to Old Parliament House and visit what used to be the snooker room—I think perhaps even in the new snooker room—there is a plaque that lists the Australian parliamentary snooker champions. There was a competition that used to be run each year, and Gordon Scholes said to me that the reason the competition stopped was that Jim Cope kept winning year after year after year, and there was no competition at all because he was such a good snooker player.His electorate of Sydney also covered Lord Howe Island and included a few of my relatives. I know that he was very keen to raise issues that affected that small group of constituents, who lived quite a long distance away from Redfern. He was a member who represented his community with great distinction.I know that he was very proud of his family. As my colleague the member for Barton has already mentioned, his wife of 67 years, Myrtle, is very proud of not only Jim's achievements but the contribution that her family has made over many years. I am sure that all members would like to place on record the great distinction with which Jim Cope performed his duties over many years. His daughter Bonnie, her two children, Leanne and James and his great-grandson, Cameron, are very proud of the great things that he did during the time that he had the honour of repre senting his electorate in the Australian House of Representatives and the time that he represented the House of Representatives during his two years as Speaker of the Australian parliament.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.2073Debate resumed.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.2073Debate resumed.21:02:002073Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I rise today to join in the condolence motion for former Senator Neville Bonner. Neville Bonner hailed from the Ipswich area, a city whose north-western suburbs I represent. I intend to keep my remarks short because I am not of the political generation of former Senator Bonner, and I did not know him very well. But I did have some knowledge of him, and many people whom I associate with in my Liberal Party branch, the Bremer branch of the Liberal Party, knew and associated with Mr Bonner when he was a senator and also when he was chairman of the Liberal Party's Oxley area between 1969 and 1970.Neville Bonner was most proud of his aboriginality. He was an elder of the Jagera people. In 1983, in the last year that Mr Bonner was a senator representing the people of Queensland, I remember witnessing him in King George Square speaking to a large crowd. He did so in a very dignified and uplifting manner, I thought. At the time, being a young ABC reporter, I thought it was quite a moving experience to see the senator make his point. It was an occasion when there was quite some heated debate going on, and I thought he put his point very well. I think people always respected the very refined way in which the former senator made his point and went about it on behalf of the people he was speaking for.The main feature of the former Senator Bonner's performance was his strong adherence to his culture. I remind the House that Neville Bonner, apart from being the first Aboriginal member of parliament, was also the first Aboriginal member to put into practice through the House the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1979. I think I should read the first and last things that the senator said at that time, because I think it reflected something of his view:The government, in introducing the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill, is taking steps to put into effect what I have been saying for a number of years—the placing into Aboriginal hands of the control of Aboriginal affairs. I have said on many occasions in the past that the Aboriginal people have come of age. It has now been accepted by the government that this proposition is undeniably true, and this bill confirms their belief in that view.In closing, in the same debate he said:It is not too many years ago that I was degraded by being obliged to have a permit in order to leave the Palm Island Aboriginal Reserve. As a contrast, it is a source of great pride to me as an Aboriginal senator to stand here today and be able to commend to honourable senators this bill, which represents a significant step forward for my people—a step which I am absolutely confident they will unhesitatingly take. I commend the bill to honourable senators.After making that point, I also want to recall a couple of recent tributes to Neville Bonner. I was present recently on Australia Day when Neville Bonner was awarded the Ipswich Citizen of the Year award—in his absence, unfortunately. The former senator was in the Ipswich Hospice at the time. He was very ill at the time, and his wife, Heather, appeared. There was a very strong reaction on that occasion to his receiving the Citizen of the Year award because, apart from his aboriginality, the former senator was very proud of his background in the Ipswich area and of the people that he came to know and love in that area. His wife spoke on his behalf and accepted the award, and she spoke with the same quiet dignity that we have seen over the years from Neville Bonner.I was also present on another occasion, which the Prime Minister referred to this morning, when the Prime Minister awarded Neville Bonner life membership of the Liberal Party. That was at the National Convention of the Liberal Party in Brisbane early last year. It was fantastic because Neville Bonner was present in person for the award. It was a very emotional experience and there was a standing ovation from the entire room. It was a political reconciliation which was, I suspect, long overdue. Many members remarked on it afterwards, and it was something that made a special mark on the whole convention.Neville Bonner is survived by his wife of 27 years, Heather, five sons, three stepsons and 28 grandchildren. On behalf of all Blair residents, I express my condolences to them.In closing, I would like members to note that Mr Bonner spent his last couple of weeks in the care of staff and volunteers at the Ipswich Hospice. The hospice is a unique facility. Only in Ipswich, I suspect, could you have this standard of community care being delivered by volunteers. The volunteers provide a unique service—one that is appreciated by the families and by the people who go there for palliative care in the last days of their lives.It is a very sad occasion. There is to be a state funeral. The Prime Minister announced this morning that it will be on Friday at 1 o'clock. I know that all Ipswichians will be marking that occasion with great solemnity. They will be sad and very sorry to mark his passing.21:09:002074Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I rise on this occasion to mark the passing of former Senator Bonner. I cannot claim to have known him, nor can I claim to have served in this parliament when he served. He was an outstanding Australian and has made an outstanding contribution.Mention has been made of the fact that he was a Liberal senator from Queensland and the first Aboriginal member of either house. I find it ironic that the Labor Party, which unhesitatingly champions the causes of Aboriginals, has yet to have an Aboriginal member of this parliament. That is not to say that there have not been outstanding conservative ministers for Aboriginal affairs. I note that in the new Senate to be formed in July this year, the Democrats will have an Aboriginal senator from my state, New South Wales.For those like me who did not personally know former Senator Bonner, there was a documentary about his life that screened last year. I must say that, having watched it, you could not but warm to the senator and all that he achieved in his lifetime. I should also say that we have a Chifley reconciliation committee in my electorate, and I have been saddled with the position of secretary. I know I can speak on behalf of all members of that committee in wanting to express our sadness at the passing of former Senator Bonner.As we come to grapple with reconciliation and what it means for the people of Australia and for this parliament, perhaps we can be inspired by the contribution former Senator Bonner made to all Australians in his lifetime.21:11:002074Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I wish to be associated with this condolence motion. I had the great privilege of serving in the parliament with Neville Bonner from the time I was elected—he was elected in 1971 and I was elected in 1973—until he left the parliament in 1983. In that time I regarded Neville Bonner as one of my friends. He was a person whom I came to know well, whom I had in my home and with whom I travelled abroad. He was a member of the parliamentary delegation to Pakistan and India in 1981, which I had the great privilege of leading.He served with me as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory, a committee that I had the opportunity of chairing for a time. Of course, when you travel in committee service you have unique opportunities to know people well, to know their personalities and to pick up some of their foibles in one way or another. You would find few foibles with Neville Bonner. He was a very modest man, a very unassuming man and a person with great personal dignity and pride in his Aboriginality.It is funny, when you look back. I remember when we were with the delegation to Pakistan we were being ushered to catch an aircraft and, as is often the case, we were being swept off into a VIP room to be appropriately looked after. As we were being ushered through, the officials—the very officious officials—wanted to exclude Neville Bonner from joining us. They made all sorts of assumptions about the nature of a delegation from Australia. I do not think our multicultural character or the proud place that our indigenous people have was well known abroad.I know that in the context of my own family it was brought home to me that race is something that perhaps sometimes is learned. I can remember somebody asking my youngest daughter, after we had met Neville Bonner in the King's Hall at Old Parliament House, whether she could distinguish him from others. They asked young Caitlin whether she saw anything different in Neville Bonner and she said, `Oh, yes, he's got a stash.' I thought that it said something at least about her mother's training at home.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How old was she?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I think she was about three at the time. With all of that—which, in part, shows the frailty of human nature—Neville Bonner was still a very kind, gracious and understanding person. He contributed very significantly to the development within the coalition of a far broader understanding of Aboriginal issues than I think is sometimes given credit within the coalition. His role was mentioned earlier today, in pushing the early resolutions that were carried in the Senate and later, as I recall, in this place which acknowledged the very special place of our indigenous people.He was not a radical in terms of pushing at the margins, but I think he was nevertheless very proudly ensuring that the very special place of his race—of his people, the indigenous people of Australia—was appropriately recognised in Australia. He was, in a sense, a man before his time and always courageous. Those of us who serve in a party room know what it is to have to stand out sometimes to put a point of view. Neville Bonner was never afraid to do that.I can remember that he was proud of some of the involvements that he had after politics. One that I remember, in particular, was the leadership role that he was playing in the support of the World Vision organisation. It was a measure of Neville Bonner that not only here within Australia where they undertake important work but internationally he was at the forefront of ensuring that their work was well progressed.I do not wish to detain the House. I regret very much that because other commitments will keep me in Melbourne on Friday that I will not be able to be at the state funeral for Neville; I would very much have liked to have been there. But I hope, in speaking in this condolence motion and extending to his wife, Heather, and family, my family's personal commiserations, we can be associated with them in this special way and to say of Neville: `Thank you—for a job well done, a life well lived by a courageous man.'21:18:002075Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I too would like to be associated with this motion, because tonight we pay tribute to a very great man. I first met Neville Bonner in the mid-1960s as a young television reporter. I interviewed him at a time when he had just taken over as the head of the One People for Australia League, OPAL, which I suppose in many respects was the emergence of Neville Bonner into public life. Following that, I interviewed him on several other occasions in terms of his relationship with the Liberal Party and his endorsement for the Senate.But it was not really until I first stood for election in the seat of Bowman in 1974 that the friendship between myself and Neville Bonner really developed. Neville Bonner was a tremendous help. The seat of Bowman in those days had been held by the Labor Party for two or three terms. I think they had a majority in excess of 6,000—it may have been 8,000—and there were very few people who gave us very much hope of winning the seat. As people on both sides of this House will know, when you have not got a marginal seat, the heavies of the party do not necessarily come near you to give you much of a hand, although I must say that in the 1974 election Billy Snedden, Andrew Peacock and Don Chipp made appearances. But one of the great stalwarts along with Sir James Killen in that campaign was Senator Neville Bonner. He worked very hard, and I suppose to a degree the rest is history. We missed out in 1974 by about 600 votes. The seat became very marginal and we campaigned for about 15 months leading up to the 1975 election, with Neville Bonner very much at the fore.Reference was made this afternoon in this motion to the humour of Neville Bonner. I do not think that that has been emphasised enough. He really did have an incredible sense of humour; his sparkling eyes and that great grin that he had were really very comforting. I will never forget one occasion which he thought was hilarious. At the time I do not know if I was very much impressed. Because it is the House, I will clean up the story but, if you want to read the actual transcript, perhaps you could check it out in Barry Cohen's book.In those days, around south-east Queensland, the way of campaigning was usually on the back of a truck, with speakers that had been butchered up to give you about a kilometre radius, belting out I don't know how many kilowatts out of each channel and generally deafening the neighbours. It was part of the ritual on Saturdays to go around shopping centres. All the parties were there and it was always a race between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party as to who got the best street corner.I will never forget at the Big Top, Mount Gravatt, on this particular Saturday morning, we had arrived first and we had set up our truck with the speakers on the back. Len Keogh, who was then the sitting member for Bowman, arrived in the car park and was parked down at the other gate with his speakers ready to go as soon as I was finished. With Neville Bonner as my guest, I got up and made a great and powerful speech and Neville Bonner got up and made a great and powerful speech. There was a gentleman standing over on the wall of this shopping centre and he was getting quite excited about it all. When the speeches were finished, he literally came sprinting across the car park. I thought, `Here is a vote that I have got,' and held out my hand to shake his. I will clean up what he said to me but, loosely translated, it was: Buzz off, you Tory so-and-so. Gidday Neville, how are you? You are a good bloke. I am going to vote for you. Bonner thought this was absolutely hilarious.Another occasion was at a time when we were all sharing the parliamentary offices at 295 Ann Street. I had employed a young graduate by the name of Greg Goebel as my research officer. More recently, he was the state director of the Liberal Party in Queensland. It was rather good, because all the parties were represented on that floor and there was a great deal of interaction not only between the members but between the staff.Neville Bonner came around one day and Greg Goebel was making a cup of coffee, and he said to Neville, `Senator, would you like a cup of coffee,' to which Neville replied, `I would love one.' He looked up and said, `Senator, are you white or black?' Greg realised what he said and sort of collapsed through the floor. I think I looked very embarrassed. Neville Bonner rolled around laughing; he thought it was the funniest thing he had ever heard. I guess that was fairly typical of him.In those days there was a great sense of camaraderie between the Queensland members, and the camaraderie I think really developed in the back room of the airlines when we were waiting to get those dreadful early morning flights to Canberra. The gang was usually Sir James Killen, the then Senator Martin and now member for Moncrieff, me and sometimes John Hodges, who was the member for Petrie. I think that if anybody had the television rights to some of the conversations that went on in the back room of Ansett in those days they would made a fortune because the interaction, particularly between Sir James Killen and Neville Bonner, was really quite legendary and very funny. But it was a great sense of camaraderie, and I think it translated very well to Canberra.I was very pleased that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs mentioned the strength of Neville Bonner and some of the things he did in the party room. As a young member after the 1975 election, finding my way around this place and really trying to learn how the place worked, I was terribly impressed when the government decided they were going to get rid of a subsidy on funerals for pensioners and Neville Bonner and then Senator Martin, I think, led the fight. Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister was a fairly impressive sight, and to see Neville Bonner stand up to Malcolm Fraser was really quite magnificent. He was a man of very great strength, and it is true that some of the issues that he took up and led in the party room showed him to have great strength of character.There have been literally hundreds of column inches written about the history of Neville Bonner, and there have been some magnificent tributes to him on television and radio. I do not want to go into that any further, but can I just say that in a personal sense he was a very great friend. While he did help me out in election campaigns and really did show me the ropes around this place, I think it was probably at the time of the death of my father that Neville Bonner really came home to me as a very true friend.My late father was a clergyman, and not long before he died he was awarded the Order of the British Empire. I did not know exactly why he had received this, but the citation that he received stated that it was for his contribution to Aboriginal reform and the reform of the penal system in Queensland. My father never spoke much about these things. Neville Bonner came up to me and he knew the whole history. Apparently, my father had been a bit of a firebrand at the Cherbourg Aboriginal settlement—he had never mentioned it to me; my father very rarely spoke about it—and he told the history of what my father had done. He was very comforting, and I really did appreciate that.In those days, in my early days in the parliament, Neville Bonner was always there to help. He was always there to advise. He was a very good friend. He was a great Australian. He did serve his state with great distinction. He did serve his own people. But, most importantly, he served all of Queensland. I think it is fair to say that Neville Bonner served this country with neither fear nor favour.21:26:002076Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I wish to associate myself with the motion moved by the Prime Minister. I cannot pretend to have known the late Neville Bonner as well as my colleagues the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs or the member for Fadden, but as a young person growing up in Ipswich I did get to know Neville Bonner and I understood fully the very great respect our local community had for him.He was someone who managed to forge a sense of reconciliation between black and white Australians before it became popular, before it became fashionable. He is someone who today was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition as a person who may have had the hardest upbringing of any person in the parliament.When I planned to say a few words in this condolence motion I went to some of the obituaries which have been published and which outline the sterling service that Neville Bonner has given to this nation. While I felt I knew a lot about the former senator, I was shocked when I saw that his first home was a shanty built by his grandfather out of kerosene tins on the banks of the Richmond River near Lismore.I was also surprised to read that Aborigines at that time had to attend segregated schools. It is incredible in 1999 to think that ever in Australia there would have been segregated schools. He achieved only a grade 3 standard, but worked very hard and developed a passion for reading.In the Second World War Australians of all races sought to make a contribution to their nation. I was shocked to read that former Senator Bonner and his Aboriginal friends sought to enlist in the Australian army but were rejected apparently on the grounds that the European climate would be unsuitable for them.Despite the fact that life dealt to Neville Bonner very many disadvantages, despite the fact that he came from circumstances which were very difficult, he was a person who rose to greatness, a person who sought to and succeeded in serving his community, in serving his state and in serving his nation, acting as he did so as a focus of unity. I would like to express my condolences to his wife, Heather, and to his family and to place on record my respect for his very many achievements and, indeed, for what he stood for.21:29:002076Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I will speak only very briefly on this condolence motion, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to do so. I, like virtually everybody in this parliament at the present time, over the years have heard and learned a great deal about Neville Bonner. I did not know him well. I had the opportunity of meeting him on only three occasions, but each one was memorable. I just wanted to say that Australia is a poorer place for his passing, that the Aboriginal people of Australia and, indeed, all Australians are the richer for having had him in this parliament. Listening to the debate since it started this afternoon, I think there is one theme that runs right through it, and that is the dignity, the warmth and the sense of humour of the man. I would also like to extend my condolences to his family.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.2077Debate resumed.21:30:002077McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—It is with sadness that tonight I join in the condolences for the late King Hussein of Jordan. I have been interested in Middle East politics since before I joined this House. Over the years the peace process in the Middle East has been tortuous, to say the least. It would have appeared to all of us who were watching it to be two steps forward and one-and-a-half steps backwards. But in that process in the Middle East—since just after the Second World War and the creation of the state of Israel—there has always been one constant, King Hussein of Jordan, who has worked constantly for peace. He represented the people, and he was the embodiment of the people of Jordan.Jordan was a country that was at the cutting edge of what was happening in the conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbours. It was always seen that the only way the Arab forces could beat Israel was to catch Israel in a pincer movement with Egypt on one side and the Syrians and the Jordanians on the other. In all these conflicts, Jordan was the middle of the sandwich.Jordan, unlike some of the other countries in the Middle East, was a country that had few natural resources. Indeed its only natural resource is its people. King Hussein was very conscious of that. The winds that blew through Arab politics were winds that often caused Jordan to trim her sails in one direction or another, which often may not have been something that he may have wanted to do because he always had the best interests of his country uppermost in his mind. However, he never forgot the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who had fled to Jordan during the many wars with Israel and in the face of Israeli aggression.I was touched, as I am sure we were all touched, to witness his `finest hour' just a few months ago when he was pivotal in getting the Israeli Prime Minister to get down to business and negotiate with the Palestinian leader—Yasser Arafat—to finalise the Wye River accord. He came out of hospital, where he was dying, to add his prestige and to put on the line all his years of negotiation in that area. He achieved what others had not been able to achieve up until that time.King Hussein is tonight being buried in Amman surrounded by his family—the people of Jordan—who, as we have seen on the television, regarded him as a father. They have lost a father and a person whom they have identified with for most of their lives. There is no greater accolade for a man than it be said that he was an instrument of peace. King Hussein was certainly that. The finalisation of the process of engagement between Israel and all her neighbours will be harder to achieve in his absence. I think the world has lost someone who has added a great deal and I am sure that we all mourn his passing.21:34:002077Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I also wish to add my condolences in relation to the death of King Hussein. I think it is an index of the man that so many world leaders are going to Jordan for his funeral. This is extraordinary for a small country like Jordan. But, as the member for Watson has said, it is a very important tribute to him and his wonderful—one might say magnificent—role in the Middle East peace process.His role was not one of trying to be up-front and to tout himself in this process. His role was more trying to ensure that whenever difficulties occurred—even when they seemed insurmountable—his country and his own personal prestige were used to keep going, to keep pushing for peace.Years ago I led a delegation to the Middle East. We went to Jordan. This was at a time when it was not clear whether the peace process would go forward or not. In Jordan we found that there was tremendous activity involving the other nations of the Arab world—especially Egypt, but the other countries as well—in trying to get past a problem that had occurred in terms of the recognition of Mr Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. At that time, rather than condemnatory statements from King Hussein, we had statements which suggested that with patience things could be done.We then went from Jordan to Israel and we met a number of representatives of both parties in Israel—Labor and Likud—and they had a very high opinion of the role of Jordan and what King Hussein had been doing. He persisted and continued with that right through for many years, even until the last days.It is only a few months ago that we had the agreement that had to be carried out with the presence of President Clinton. But who was there to push it along, to overcome bottlenecks and to try to ensure that the two peoples, the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, could come together in some sort of peace agreement? It was again King Hussein. His role in history, in terms of the Middle East and indeed more broadly, will be recorded as a tremendous one.I am the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The chairman is in the Senate. But I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the members of the House and the Senate when I say that we express our condolences to his family and to the people of Jordan on the loss of their much beloved king. We are sure that his spirit will continue in the future with the commitment of his son to the peace process. I am sure that Jordan will continue to play a critical role in that process.21:39:002078Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—Very briefly, I would like to join in the sentiments expressed by the members for Watson and Calwell. Obviously, as he was the Middle East's longest serving leader of 46 years—I think that is how long it was from recollection—it is entirely appropriate that this parliament pays tribute to a man of extraordinary strength and to his endeavours for peace in the Middle East, which really translated to world peace.In finalising these short comments, I think it is also entirely appropriate that this parliament and the members of this parliament pass on to the new King Abdullah our best wishes as well for the trials, tribulations and challenges that lie ahead. He is a young man who until recently, one presumes, was not set on a course of being king. His arrival was a late and a recent one. From what we have seen so far, this young man has proved that he has the stuff that his father had. I know that all members would join me in wishing the new king our very best. He has a difficult path ahead of him but I believe, from what I have seen and heard, that he is a young man who will be able to do that. He certainly has the best wishes of the members of this Australian parliament.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.Bills2078r6742078Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.21:41:002078McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I am replying to the second reading speech on the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 on behalf of the opposition. The bill reintroduces a bill that was previously before the House before it was prorogued.The position of the opposition is continuing concern with the bill. In particular, my review of the previous debate has firmly formed in my mind the view that the government has failed to sufficiently justify the course of action that it is taking. It is a course of action to, if you like, disarm to a degree one of our armoury of government—that is, the Australian Government Solicitor, which represents the legal interests of the Commonwealth. It is not an insignificant act that the government is taking, and one would think that before it takes that act it would justify the reasons for it.My reading of the previous speeches has failed to identify any revelation as to where there will be a costs benefit to the Commonwealth or indeed where there will be enhancement or improvement in the quality of legal services provided by the Australian Government Solicitor. Indeed, to the contrary, the indications are that costs will go up and the already respected Australian Government Solicitor will be under considerable pressure. So these things have to be put before us before we are prepared to accept such a significant disarming of the resources available to government.There was an endeavour to portray our opposition as some sort of a throwback to a previous philosophy on the part of Labor. It is not that at all. It is simply a case of the government failing to justify its actions.The government will say that its reasons are that it is implementing the recommendations of the Logan committee. The government will also say that this action is necessary because we need to change the employing base of the Australian Government Solicitor; it needs a mechanism to attract top quality lawyers and to pay them commercial rates. This formation of a statutory corporation, as the bill intends to do with the Australian Government Solicitor, is a means of freeing up the AGS—the Australian Government Solicitor—from the regimes of public sector employment.But if you look at those justifications and at the terms of reference of the Logan committee, you see that they were specifically requested to consider the privatisation of the AGS. Indeed, it is somewhat reassuring when you look at the recommendations because the Logan committee itself, with the terms of reference skewed heavily to privatisation, came back and recommended against privatisation because of `the strong and necessary public interest in maintaining a central legal service for government'.We are firmly of that view. There is indeed a very solid public interest in maintaining a competent, accessible, professional and objective legal service for government. The Logan committee effectively put forward this option which the government has taken as an alternative to privatisation of the AGS, but it is a gross overstatement to say that the Logan committee actually recommended this particular course of action.In terms of the other rationale of the government, that is, to free up its ability to negotiate higher salaries and better terms and conditions of employment to retain its existing employees, to prevent them being poached by private firms, the way the government has elected to go is this formation of the statutory corporation. But there were other mechanisms involved, whether it be a schedule to the Public Service provisions dealing with the AGS or other forms of negotiation. There were certainly alternatives to this action that they have taken.Even the rationale that higher salaries is the be-all and end-all from the point of view of lawyers currently employed by the Australian Government Solicitor is a bit presumptuous. Many whom I know and whom I have dealt with have chosen to go to the AGS because of the wide variety of work that they are able to undertake in moving through the various elements of the office, whether it is advice work to government, litigation work or whatever it might be. That has been a great source of attraction. Indeed, the fact that they are giving a valuable public service is another motivating factor. So to say that these lawyers are motivated purely by money is presumptuous in the extreme.Assuming that the rationale is correct, that you are going to be in a position to attract more experienced lawyers or to retain experienced lawyers, is that rationale a valid basis for taking the particular action which the government has taken? Again, you have got a fallacy here. There is talk of paying salaries on commercial partner rates, whether it is $250,000, $200,000 or $300,000, to engage someone who has had experience as a partner of a substantial private firm. The fallacy in reasoning is that quite often those partners of those private firms are paid the salaries they are paid not necessarily from any great legal expertise but because of their ability to attract work, to attract clientele, as a result of their commercial contacts or as a result simply of their public relations skills or skills as hosts. While these people might be on substantial salary packages as a result of those qualities or indeed their marketing qualities, those qualities may be quite irrelevant to working with the Australian Government Solicitor. There is obviously a limited clientele that the Australian Government Solicitor can attract—essentially government agencies. So those qualities that are often sought from high income earning partners in private firms may not necessarily be the desirable qualities that enhance the service of the Australian Government Solicitor.The extent to which the ability to pay these large salaries will enhance the quality of the AGS is questionable, particularly in circumstances where already the solicitors at the AGS are quite free to obtain the advice of experienced council if they have a complex legal issue or if they need to engage council to represent them in court. So the extent to which there is justification in paying these big salaries is questionable.What have we got? The ability to pay higher salaries, potentially enabling the AGS to attract more experienced lawyers, is one point of questionable benefit to the AGS. What is the downside, as against that one and only possible benefit, as I can see it? The downside is significant. As a result of the imposition of the competitive neutrality principle on the AGS, the government's litigation services have been opened up to commercial tendering. This competitive neutrality principle has brought about a situation where the government will impose on this new statutory corporation, the AGS, the same taxation regime as applies to private firms, and other costs that are part of the on-costs of those private firms. That is estimated, on my research, to be in the vicinity of $5 million. Also, the government has the ability to impose a dividend equivalent to a private sector profit that otherwise would go to the partners of the private legal firms. That too is in the vicinity of $5 million.Those costs will be, if you like, artificially imposed on the AGS because those costs are deemed costs that the AGS will face. Those deemed costs become actual costs because they will come out of the AGS budget. In addition to that cost burden, there will be a $20 million to $29 million fee for this transition to the statutory corporation arrangement and the redundancy payments that will be necessary, together with some other restructuring costs. So there is a significant cost involved in the action that the government is taking. Who will be paying for these costs? It will be government departments and agencies that will be paying for these costs. But the government has not seen fit to give any additional allowance or subsidy to the departments to enable them to meet these additional legal costs.Faced with that scenario, the departments are going to have three options. With regard to the first two, either they could pay more for legal fees by decreasing other areas of activity or they could reduce the services that they obtain from the Australian Government Solicitor. But who benefits from our departments not being able to access appropriate advice when they so require it? Ultimately, any errors that they make are errors that affect Australian people, whether they be individuals or businesses. So if there is reduced ability to access legal services, that is going to have a detrimental effect on the operations of government in general.The third option they will have will be to engage their own in-house lawyers. This is a scenario that is happening in many private companies now, whether they be BHP or other moderate size companies. They are actually engaging their own in-house lawyers rather than meeting the cost of private practice. Increasingly, the rules differentiating solicitors and barristers are becoming blurred and more flexible, so quite often these in-house lawyers will brief counsel directly, bypassing any firms of solicitors at all. It is quite possible that government departments, faced with the greater cost burden, may take that particular course of action.Who benefits from that course instead of advice being given to the departments from a central pool—a highly qualified and experienced pool—in matters affecting the government, with an extensive library and extensive corporate knowledge? Who benefits from taking that resource away from departments? Who benefits from the fact that departments will be getting advice from in-house lawyers rather than objective advice from another government instrumentality and an independent source—the Australian Government Solicitor?The government has not examined the possibility of government departments engaging in-house lawyers as a result of opening up this competition and taking away from the services provided by the Australian Government Solicitor. But that is one scenario that is quite possible and, I would go so far as to say, is quite likely to occur. It is quite astounding indeed that the government has not thought of that potential.What is going to happen as a result of these increased charges? In many ways the proof of the pie is in the eating, or in what has already happened. In a Senate estimates hearing today, the government admitted that in September last year the AGS increased its fees by five per cent, partly in anticipation of this corporatised structure and the imposition of the competitive neutrality principle. The government was unable to provide an undertaking that the fees would not further increase as this system was implemented. So it is quite false to suggest that this competition—and I will address the fallacy of competition shortly—is going to decrease fees. In fact the evidence is—and the facts speak for themselves—that fees charged by the AGS have already gone up in anticipation. Commonsense suggests that they will go up further when these actual artificial burdens are imposed on the AGS.What has happened to this supposed competition that is going to be generated by what the government has done? The first thing to note is that the baseline of the competitors has already been increased by five per cent and is likely to go higher. Who benefits from that? It is likely that the private firms will actually increase the amount that they are charging the government. So who suffers? The departments and the Australian people will suffer as a result of that competitive playing field being elevated.Let us look at this concept of competition. The government says there will be competition for the services of the government, therefore prices will come down. The private firms are competing, yes, but they are competing in an environment where they are already getting a wide range of commercial work. Bear in mind that we are usually talking about firms that are capable of doing government work—quite substantial firms, indeed, with well over 100 solicitors. They are quite big businesses. They are already in a marketplace where they are being paid commercial rates by other enterprises. If the price of doing government work is too low, they will simply say, `We are not interested. We would prefer to keep ourselves available to do this more highly paid commercial work. It is simply not economical to do the government work.' They are competing for government work, yes, but in an area in which they already have a substantial revenue source to sustain their firms.On the other hand, what will be the ability of the Australian Government Solicitor to compete? It cannot. Constitutional advice to the government suggests that the Australian Government Solicitor cannot compete for private work. The best it can compete for in the legislation is perhaps state government work or local government work. Let us look at that. There is so much state government litigation against the Commonwealth that they would be crazy to retain the Australian Government Solicitor; it simply will not happen.Let us look at local government work. While I suppose it is an expertise that could be obtained, it has never been part of the expertise of the Australian Government Solicitor to obtain intricate knowledge of local planning laws or of environment court procedures. It is just not something that they get involved in. Moreover, obtaining local government work would involve going out to meet local councillors and lobbying quite hard to get these institutions. No-one is suggesting that that has ever been done by anyone on behalf of the Australian Government Solicitor, nor would it be appropriate for it to be done.The reality is that the Australian Government Solicitor has only one source of work, and that is from Commonwealth government agencies, departments and instrumentalities. The Australian Government Solicitor is locked in; it cannot go and compete for other work. So this concept of the ability to compete on behalf of the Australian Government Solicitor is a complete and utter fallacy.The whole premise behind this government's legislation is flawed. The only competition that the Australian Government Solicitor is in is perhaps the competition for staff. It is not in the competition for clientele. So it is wrong to portray this legislation as bringing some massive benefit as a result of competition. That will not occur in a commercial sense. Indeed, the government's expectation that the AGS will profit as a result of that competition is entirely unrealistic.The burden that the government is placing on the AGS to make profits is unrealistic. Private firms make their profits for a whole range of reasons. Yes, skill comes into it, but so does a lot of lobbying—to get a commercial client, a local council or trade union—whether it is wining, dining or cocktail parties. All these commercial firms of note are experts at that and have been able to develop substantial practices because of engaging in that activity. That, as much as the quality of their legal work, determines their profitability. It is all part of their marketing, all part of their system of operation.It would be most inappropriate if the Australian Government Solicitor started engaging in that sort of activity, if it started wining and dining and holding cocktail parties for department heads, with a view to wooing their work. On the other hand, there is nothing at all to stop private firms from engaging in the activity and inviting those from government departments who control the allocation of legal work to such events—be they lunches, cocktail parties or just rubbing shoulders with the general clientele the commercial firm has. That will inevitably occur, so the AGS is going to be at a significant disadvantage in competing for this commercial work. One would like to think that our public servants are beyond that sort of thing, but I dare say they will be given a direction to make this system work or appear to work, by throwing at least initial briefs out to the private sector.There is a concern that the quality of legal services will be affected, and that is a significant concern as a result of this contracting out of litigation services. Again, we are not talking about advice work; no-one would cavil at the idea that the Australian public is entitled to the very best advice available. And if there is a particular expert in a commercial firm or at the bar, it is quite appropriate that the Australian Government Solicitor or a department have access to that advice.But we are actually talking about the litigation work of the Commonwealth—the champions of the cause of the Commonwealth, if you like—being tendered out to private organisations. There is a concern, and the government has acknowledged that concern by providing in this bill for the capacity to give legal service directions, where the Attorney can give directions as to how he would like work to be conducted, either generally or in specific cases. But when you look at that model, there are very few teeth to enforce those directions. Indeed, one would think that most of the complaints about breaches of the model litigant principle that the Commonwealth has adopted will come from opposing litigants, but those opposing litigants do not have standing to evoke any remedy against the legal services directions. That can be done only by a Commonwealth agency, but they will be the ones benefiting from the performance of the legal work, so there is a substantial question about whether the mechanism available through the legal service directions is appropriate. The other concern we have in the same context is that the office to supervise and coordinate Commonwealth legal services will be staffed by only three people. They will be responsible for supervising the adherence to these legal service directions in what is in the vicinity of 15,000 pieces of litigation a year. That is just too much to humanly ask anyone. At the same time, they are responsible for coordinating these legal services now that they are going to be contracted out to a wide variety of private firms. That itself is a position of great responsibility, because one of the real strengths of the Australian Government Solicitor, as I have indicated, has been the corporate knowledge that it has had.It has had years of representing the Commonwealth. It knows every twist and turn that has occurred over the last 100 years. All are noted, all are indexed, and all are catalogued in their library. Indeed, we see from the publications that the Australian Government Solicitor currently distributes that it provides an excellent educative function for government department as to developments in the law. That is under threat. And the government at least appears to acknowledge that. So these three people have the responsibility of supervising or enforcing these directions as to how cases should properly be conducted as well as trying to coordinate this provision of legal services and build some method into retention of that knowledge.The government just has not delivered the goods on what is required to properly undertake that role. I have spoken of my concerns at the loss of that corporate knowledge, and the significance of that just cannot be underestimated. That is something that the Commonwealth owns on behalf of the Australian people to protect their interests, and I think this bill will make significant incursions into that.The point that I would like to conclude on is that the establishing of the statutory corporation will result quite clearly in changed employment circumstances. While I have referred to the situation of perhaps a lawyer with greater experience being able to command more money, that will not be the case for the bulk of employees. So the government would be short-sighted in the extreme if it were to simply unilaterally vary the existing terms and conditions of employment of existing staff of the Australian Government Solicitor.Many people have elected to obtain employment in the AGS because of the perception that they are going to be employed by a fair employer. If the government does not behave as a fair employer and properly protect its existing employees during this transitional arrangement, it will lose a lot of goodwill which currently exists in the Australian Government Solicitor and which is under threat as a result of actions such as this. So the government really needs to assure existing employees that their terms and conditions of employment will not be diminished as a result of the course of action it is undertaking. Others who may not feel comfortable with the new structure need to be assured that there are appropriate redundancy and redeployment provisions in place, and we have not seen that.In conclusion, the position of the Labor Party, as previously, will be to oppose the bill. We are doing so because the government has not sufficiently identified the benefit that will be obtained in terms of either the reduction of the cost of litigation services or the enhancement of quality of litigation services. Indeed, indications are, from the actuality of increased costs, that the government has not been prepared to supplement the budgets of departments and instrumentalities to cope with these additional costs. So they are going to suffer in their ability to access the same extent of legal advice that they have become accustomed to.The other concern which I have outlined is our concern that the government has not properly resourced the Office of Legal Service Coordination, which is essential if services are not to diminish. And finally, the government, from our point of view and indeed from the point of view of the union representing the employees, has not properly addressed the transitional arrangements for the existing staff. Unless and until those concerns are addressed, the opposition will continue to oppose this bill, as it has done previously.22:09:002081Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 is one of significance and of necessity in the interests of maintaining the unique role of the Australian Government Solicitor and in the interests of enhancing the delivery of legal services available to the Commonwealth by introducing competition with the private sector. This bill provides opportunities for the new statutory authority, the Australian Government Solicitor, separate from the Attorney-General's Department, to carry out its work as provider of legal services to the Commonwealth and Commonwealth bodies and agencies—an extensive client base, I note—in a manner which will ensure that it can provide first-class, high quality cost-effective legal services in this increasingly demanding, complex and competitive legal marketplace.This bill has had a long gestation period. It is the result of an extensive process of consultation, analysis and review. It has its origins back in 1995 when the then government commenced the process of providing choice to government clients. It is a response to an exercise required under national competition policy for examination of government enterprises and the provision of government services in the context of national competition principles.Further, the bill is a response to a report commissioned by the Attorney-General in November 1996 to review the Commonwealth's needs for legal services and how best to meet those needs. This report—the Logan report—was delivered in March 1997. Its review was extensive and the well-qualified committee consulted widely within government agencies and departments, with the Australian Government Solicitor, with the legal practice and its clients. It consulted with private sector lawyers. It conducted a survey of legal practice clients. It invited and received submissions from the public, from private law firms and from within government.As a result of the extensive inquiry, analysis and examination, as well as consultation with all affected parties, the Logan report made 16 recommendations to improve the provision of legal services to the government, its department and agencies. The coalition government accepted the main themes of the Logan report and, in response to its recommendations, this bill was first introduced into the House in November 1997.The passage of time has not diminished the importance of this bill, nor its potential impact in enabling this separate statutory authority—the AGS—to provide legal services on a competitive and cost-effective basis to the Commonwealth. I am yet not able to understand why we are continuing to debate this bill and I lament the fact that the opposition continues to oppose it. It is a bill that ensures the viability, continuity and competitiveness of the AGS, the government's own law firm.The opposition should be embracing this proposed structure to make the AGS a more efficient organisation. There are many fine lawyers within the AGS, dedicated and hard working lawyers who deserve the opportunity to be able to compete effectively with the private sector—dare I say, on a level playing field—and who will benefit in terms of the intellectual challenges as well as the increased employment opportunities and conditions which the restructure offers.The Logan review did consider a number of options for the proposed restructure and the one selected was defined as a `public sector provider, separated from the department with greater contestability and transparency'. The committee found that there is a strong and necessary public interest in maintaining a central legal service provider. However, a separate, central legal service provider should be established so as to ensure competitive neutrality, to enable it to compete effectively with the private sector, and to be transparent and accountable.No, the bill does not amount to a privatisation of the AGS. The Logan report—an independent review—determined that there is an important and continuing role for the government's own solicitors in providing legal advice, and determined that privatisation would not be in the Commonwealth's best interests. Heed was taken of the recommendation.The AGS is already given statutory recognition as a body corporate by the Judiciary Act 1903, but it does not have currently a separate structure from the Attorney-General's Department. This bill establishes the AGS as a statutory authority separate from the Attorney-General's Department to give it the necessary transparency in its organisation and structure. It will operate as a government business enterprise. Government ownership will be maintained. This is in the public interest. There are sound and cogent reasons why the assets of the legal practice should not be sold. It would be difficult to convert the major assets of the legal practice into a saleable form and so these assets will be maintained. They include the intangibles such as the practice's management and people, its historical performance, the high regard held for it by its clients, its goodwill and its irreplaceable corporate memory.It must be recognised that the AGS has expertise in providing core legal services which public interest considerations demand be carried out exclusively by government lawyers—matters relating to cabinet, constitutional advice, national security and public international issues. The AGS can provide a `whole of government' approach.So all legal work deemed to be non-core can be carried out either by the AGS or by private sector law firms and lawyers. Litigation is one of the major components of the legal work that will be contestable other than in core areas. The AGS will be well placed to compete upon the passage of this bill. The Commonwealth agencies will have the freedom of choice of using the AGS or private sector firms, enabling the government to access the best available representation. Maintaining the legal practice but opening it up to greater competition will result not only in increased efficiencies for the AGS but also in a more efficient legal service delivery from the public and private sectors.Although the AGS will be a government business enterprise, it will not be a corporation like other government business enterprises because current state and territory laws, which place restrictions on lawyers incorporating their practices, mean that it would not be possible to make the AGS a legal practitioner corporation—that is, lawfully able to practice in all jurisdictions under state and territory laws. The government does not consider it appropriate to legislate to shield the AGS from the operation of these state and territory laws and allow it to operate as a limited liability company. Further, establishing the AGS as a company, with directors having separate obligations under the Corporations Law, could impair the ability of the Attorney to properly supervise the AGS. As a statutory authority, the AGS will have a transparent organisational structure and enable it to focus on the provision of legal services to government.The bill also contains measures to ensure that the AGS will not enjoy net competitive advantages over private law firms by virtue of its government ownership. In particular, the bill establishes the mechanism to require the AGS to pay to the Commonwealth amounts equivalent to any Commonwealth, state or territory taxes which do not otherwise apply to the AGS. It will therefore not enjoy any competitive tax advantage over private law firms.We acknowledge that the AGS has been operating successfully on an administratively separate basis from the Attorney-General's Department since July 1997, but this bill is still necessary. Other factors need to be addressed before it can be said that the AGS is operating on a fully competitively neutral basis. First, the AGS is not currently able to employ its staff on a competitive basis with private sector law firms because of the inflexibility of the current remuneration regime under the Public Service Act. If the AGS is not given greater flexibility, it will be operating at a significant disadvantage.The difficulty in attracting staff is one concern. The employment conditions on offer to AGS lawyers will not be comparable to those available in the private sector. The Logan committee recognised that the AGS would need this flexibility to reward its staff and to provide incentives equivalent to those in the private sector. It was a recommendation of this independent review that the AGS be conferred with significant employment flexibility. This does not mean that there will be a wages bonanza for the AGS staff. Their salaries and benefits need to be funded, along with the other business expenses, including the payment to the government of the dividend and the tax equivalent payment—out of AGS income—in the same way as other businesses. Market and business principles will apply.The restructured AGS will be managed by a chief executive officer. Under the bill, staff will be employed on terms and conditions determined by the CEO. Like all other business enterprises, it is not proposed that AGS staff be employed under the Public Service Act, and I reiterate that this is crucial to its long-term viability, as the AGS faces strong and healthy competition from the private sector.In another life I was the managing partner of the Perth office of a national law firm. Incidentally, I have a current practising certificate, but I am not practising law. I am well aware of the salaries, benefits and conditions offered to legal practitioners in the private sector. I am also well aware that many government lawyers are attracted to the private sector for a variety of reasons. But from my experience and my knowledge of the legal profession, both the public and private sectors, it is apparent that in order for the AGS to be able to compete with the private sector it must be free to negotiate wages and conditions with its staff. It must be able to compete to retain, or to attract, the best and most able and competent legal practitioners to carry out the government's work, as the private sector does. After all, the government, its departments and agencies and, through them, the members of the public for whom the agencies operate deserve no less.The AGS will seek to employ people with the qualities and abilities that suit the needs of the AGS. If they are not in the market for an urbane rainmaker, they will not pay the salary necessary to attract one to the public sector. Under this bill, client departments and agencies should achieve better value for their money. It will give Commonwealth agencies greater freedom of choice, will ensure accountability in relation to their legal services and will deliver significant savings to expenditure on legal services. There is no evidence to suggest that departments will be paying more for the same level of services.This bill contains provisions to enable the Attorney the ability to issue legal services directions. This is another reason why the passage of this bill is neces sary. Until this bill is in place, the Attorney is not able to issue legal service directions. The full untying of Commonwealth litigation will not occur until these directions are in place, because these legal services directions will provide the comprehensive framework for protecting the Commonwealth's legal and policy interests and will enable the Attorney to exercise his role as first law officer in Commonwealth litigation conducted by private law firms. So, whilst it is possible for Commonwealth litigation to be untied under guidelines issued by the Attorney-General, it is essential that we have the legislative framework in place before litigation is untied on any large scale.The legal services directions are essential to ensure the Attorney-General is in a position to maintain proper standards, particularly in litigation. The Commonwealth, as a model litigant, is required to act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards. The legal services directions will ensure that that responsibility will be maintained. The power to issue directions will ensure that the Attorney-General will be in a position to manage risks that could arise from the provision of services that are inconsistent and will be able to ensure the necessary level of coordination.This bill heralds a new age for the AGS. It should provide a challenging, vibrant and competitive environment for its practitioners and will result in the more efficient and cost effective provision of legal services to the Commonwealth. Obtaining the best legal advice and representation in court—advice that will be expert, extensive, diverse, coordinated, consistent and accountable and, after all, that is why at the end of the day legal service providers are chosen, cocktail parties notwithstanding—will enable the government, its departments and its agencies to act in a way that is designed to comprehend and carry out the relevant duties and powers conferred by legislation.The opposition should have taken a constructive approach in this debate and recognised the very positive reforms this bill would deliver. I commend this bill to the House.22:23:002083Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Basically, the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 aims to introduce competition into the provision of government legal services. It will do this by corporatising the Australian Government Solicitor and making it compete with the private sector for government work. The AGS will be headed by a CEO and will pay a dividend to its shareholder—the government.The arguments for and against the proposal were well documented in the contributions by the Attorney-General and his shadow minister, and they make interesting reading. The government's rationale for the changes are the same old pro-competition ones: increased efficiency, greater choice and reduced costs. However, the government does recognise the fundamental difference between the role of the AGS and private companies. As the Attorney-General said in his speech:The AGS is not, and cannot be, the same as privately owned law firms. Its unique value to government is based on its government ownership and its expertise in delivering consistent and coordinated legal services to government clients.For these reasons, the changes will reserve some core areas of work solely for the AGS, and these include cabinet, constitutional, national security and public international law matters. The bill also gives the Attorney-General the power to direct the corporatised AGS to undertake specific legal work in other areas. It is in that split-up of roles that I believe the government is heading down an incorrect path in this legislation.The opposition's view was set out clearly by the member for Banks, and his speech is worth reading again to gauge the reasons why the opposition and I oppose this bill. He goes though his experience as a lawyer in the public system and basically concludes that privatisation here will not enhance service to the government or to the people of Australia but simply line the pockets of partners in the top law firms. His conclusions include that the removal of staff at the AGS from employment under the Public Service Act will lead to vastly increased salaries at the top end and reductions at the bottom. From his experience in the public legal sector in New South Wales, he does not think competition has ever introduced benefits to the legal system. He says that the notion of public service is essential to the public legal system—I believe that as well—and the people who work there often do so to serve rather than to earn, which may seem something foreign in the sort of climate that exists in this competition-mad environment. The member for Banks also says that he expects the costs to actually rise, not to fall, with these changes and he says that the proposals do not provide sufficient safeguards for the public interest. I believe they are very convincing arguments.As the member for Barton appeared to point out, the market is far more likely to force prices up in the lucrative legal area. As it stands, the AGS now acts as something of a break. One has only to look at the insurance privatisation in the state arena and the green slips debacle for competition delivering the reverse of the government's claimed intention.From the advice I have received on the private legal system and from what I have observed myself, opening government work up to competition will not necessarily reduce costs or provide better services to the government. If the motivation for providing legal services is simply revenue and not the notion of public service or public interest, then I cannot see how these changes will lead to better services. Also, it seems hypocritical to, on the one hand, open the system up to competition but, on the other hand, ensure that the AGS has a public interest responsibility not shared by its competitors. How can the AGS compete effectively on that basis? It looks like a permanent, semipregnancy. For these reasons I cannot accept this as sound policy.Debate (on motion by Dr Nelson) adjourned.Adjournment2084Motion (by Mr Entsch) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.208422:27:002084Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House tonight to report to members of a quite exciting project that occurred in Canberra over the January holidays. Over the four days of 16, 17, 18 and 19 January of this year, ACT Scouts held their fifth Cuboree at Camp Cottermouth here in Canberra.The Cuboree caters for cub scouts—girls and boys—between the ages of eight and 11 and, as I said, this was their fifth. They conduct these fairly enormous projects once every three years. The first Cuboree had 350 participants, and it was an attempt to run an adventure camp for cub scouts. The success has been the reason for its growth. This year, the fifth occasion for the Cuboree to be held, 1,628 participants were involved—approximately 1,200 cub scouts plus their leaders, parents, venturers and so on. This year the participants came from Canberra as well as New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania.The thing of note about these Cuborees is not only the age group to which they cater but also the incredible amount of trouble that the organisers go to to adopt particularly definite themes. Concentrating very heavily on an integration of activities is the major aim. In other words, the activities are not just for the working day, so to speak, of the Cuboree but in fact targeted 24 hours of the day with things like camps mysteriously being moved in the dark of night so that when the youngsters wake up in the morning they have a whole new set of parameters facing them.The first theme was a celebration of the 70th anniversary of cub scouting. Subsequent themes included Operation Earth Rescue, where the participants played the roles of visitors from other planets, checking out what we on earth had done to our soil, our water and our environment generally. Another theme was Lost Civilisations, where they built villages representing the Incas and Ancient Egypt as well as some of the civilisations in our current world that are under threat. The fourth Cuboree, Shaping our Future, attempted to look 10 years into the future. Time capsules were compiled and buried, and they are going to be dug up again at the Cuboree in 2005 by the youngsters of that time.This year's theme, Worlds Apart—Something in Common, was a theme to learn about tolerance, understanding, and recognising and celebrating the differences that we see in each other. This is a very successful attempt to bring together young people in the age group of eight to 11, who can have a marvellous experience of learning, sharing, understanding, learning tolerance, as well as some of the more hands on lessons of survival, and learning to live with others.Talking about survival, the day I visited the Cuboree, it was 37 degrees, with every single participant housed in tents of one sort or another out at Camp Cottermouth, just out in the west here. Water trucks were going around ensuring that people were surviving, so living skills were a very big part of the four-day experience for them.Commissioner Pat Boling of the ACT Scouts, Peter Harris, who is the ACT Arts Commissioner with the ACT Scouts, and all of those who have worked so hard in getting this amazing initiative to the point that it has got to now, deserve every accolade that we can give them. This is a really good example of teaching our young people and getting them at an early age to become enthusiastic about a whole range of challenging yet enjoyable experiences. The Cuboree is now so big that some of the interstate participants bring parts of the programs with them. This time, they successfully transported very large wooden cows, which were built in Victoria and trucked up to be part of one of the exhibitions. It has come to the point now where the Cuboree crosses all state and territory bounds.As I said, hot, dusty, water trucks, enthusiasm and a wonderful atmosphere of learning, sharing and experiencing. Pat Boling, Peter Harris and everyone concerned with ACT Scouts and the Cuboree deserve every accolade that we can give them and every encouragement to continue this sort of innovation in the scout movement for the young people in our communities to continue to enjoy.208522:32:002085Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The Parliamentary Secretary and I would probably say after two months of being back in paradise, `Gosh, it's cold down here at the moment.'I rise on behalf of Mrs Joanna Whittaker, who has spoken to me about concerns that she has with the current Guardianship Act of New South Wales. She has provided me with this view for the information of honourable members. The current Guardianship Act of New South Wales is unacceptable in its present form, according to Mrs Whittaker. This is because its interpretation and application allows the total abrogation of basic human and consumer rights when determining the level of welfare assistance needed. The act has no mechanism for independent or effective scrutiny to ensure that the original purpose of benign advocacy is not abused.There is proof that this law is proving a threat to the health and welllbeing of one family. An elderly lady lives in fear in a nursing home under the guise of protecting her from unfounded elder abuse. Her mere existence she describes as being akin to a concentration camp, and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission cannot or will not help.Discrimination on any ground has been legislated as unacceptable by the Federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. In 1995 the New South Wales parliament amended their Guardianship Act and Regulations 1987 to ensure it reflected the arrangements used in four other states and two territories. All by the virtue of reciprocity have the hallmark of contravening the aforementioned act and, as such, are in conflict with the constitution under chapter V.109.In the case of Mrs D. Mallee, the current interpretation and application of the New South Wales Guardianship Act constitutes a licence to abrogate her basic human rights and, in fact, those of anyone subject to this form of guardianship. The National Mental Health Service Standards cites as guiding principles the recognition of the human rights of people with mental disorders, informed decision making by individuals, accountability to consumers, carers and staff, et cetera. These concepts are also covered in the Mental Health Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. There is no stated age limit anywhere in the documents.Further, the fact that the State Guardianship Board can consent to abortion and sterilisation of younger people has the potential for abuse if not monitored from an ethicolegal perspective. It is Mrs Mallee's case that exemplifies a worst case scenario for an aged consumer. Her guardian lives in Sydney and has deferred most of the daily decision making to the nursing home. Her son was denied visitation rights for a time and a co-resident witness to the alleged abuse of Mrs Mallee was, as a result, incorrectly labelled as suffering from dementia.As a health professional who has a duty of care to uphold the given laws and statutes of our states and federal bodies and who has a duty of care to ensure the rights and safety of the consumer, resolution of this ethicolegal dilemma is paramount. We are bombarded by the media with ageism issues and the impost it poses on our community, from an increasing burden on health and welfare budgets to the prejudicial attitude of uselessness.Mrs Malle's case may well prove to be the legal precedent needed to benchmark human rights for future services. How would any baby boomer like to be in Mrs Mallee's position, where a total stranger can give consent to the use of a treatment that has a high possibility of causing death, among other things? If no-one here would voluntarily take her place—trusting the guardian absolutely—we collectively have a duty to address this legal contravention of a constitutionally based human rights issue. Or, as Mrs Whittaker says, did George Orwell just have the wrong year?Thanks to Mrs Joanna Whittaker, who is a registered nurse, a Bachelor of Nursing Science and a JP, for her contribution to this debate. On her behalf, I hope that it will be heard in New South Wales.208522:37:002085Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise on this occasion to report a number of problems in my electorate of Swan. Like most new backbenchers, I tried early to embrace certain strategies that would satisfy the demands of my constituents. I had regular meetings with community groups, the seniors community and members of educational institutions, to mention a few. These liaisons, coupled with the hundreds of calls that we receive at our electorate office each week, all have some elements in common. That is, many of our communities are suffering under the present government.During the election campaign we identified a number of main concerns in the community through a series of surveys and local polls. These concerns were based on simple core issues. Amongst the most important were adequate provision of aged care, services to the unemployed, child care and the need for a well-funded health care system. A number of notable statistics stand out in Swan. Firstly, there is a high proportion of elderly in the electorate—in fact, almost 20 per cent of the population. Secondly, many in the area are on incomes below the national average. Fifty-five per cent earn less than $20,000. Thirdly, there is a high proportion of families living in Swan. Thirty-seven per cent are two-parent families and 12 per cent are single-parent families.I would like to illustrate the extent of the hardship being inflicted on members of my community by reductions in services. First, I would like to mention cuts to Centrelink offices. It is a matter of record that the reduction in services has led to extensive delays in access to services of Centrelink. That means simply that staff are overburdened, clients are not receiving the necessary service and opportunities for improving the lot of those most in need are deteriorating.When I indicate the particular components of my electorate, one thing is obvious: a high proportion of those living in the electorate are dependent on Centrelink. In fact, the agency's figures highlight that over 30,000 members of the Swan community use Centrelink, and the number is growing. Considering the size of these figures, I find it strange that the government has recently reduced the staff of these offices by 180 in Western Australia, at a cost of $3.5 million in redundancies. It is also a travesty that, locally, at least six of the most experienced casework officers have departed the service. Between them they had well over a century of community service experience to offer clients.The Howard government made a promise to the community during the election campaign regarding what they would be providing through Centrelink. This was `a much better standard of service delivery to the community'. I find this laughable. On 11 November during question time in this place, the Minister for Employment Services espoused the virtues of the 1300 number for inquiries to Centrelink. He said:. . . so I can report to the House that I personally called Centrelink's new start line, 132850. I was put on hold for three minutes before being answered by a real-life human being . . . He went on:I then called Centrelink's employer line, 131158. I am pleased to report to the House that I was immediately answered by a real-life human being.When the staff at my electorate office contacted the 132850 number on three separate occasions during business hours, on each occasion they waited for 35 minutes and no human voice was heard.We now know that in the middle of last year, in one month alone, over 1.2 million callers were not able to get through to Centrelink. Those who did suffered up to a 45-minute wait. I would prefer not to see my constituents forced to listen to Greensleeves while worrying about their pension not being paid, their benefits inadvertently reduced or wanting some simple query answered.Senior citizens in Swan suffer further indignities from the government. Not content with offering a poor level of service through Centrelink, seniors have been forced to endure a range of other service cuts. Remember the ill-fated nursing homes fiasco? You will recall that at one stage the Howard government demanded the payment of up to $36,000 in fees. Delighted with reductions in expenditure, the Treasurer indicated in his budget speech that the government would save $479 million over four years. Strange, considering that the 1994 Gregory report indicated that, if adequate services were to continue in nursing homes, there would need to be an annual $125 million allocated in additional funding. I find this situation quite appalling.I recently received a delegation from nursing home providers in Perth who found that, because of a shortfall in funding formulas used in Western Australia, they actually have a $4.39 per day, per client shortfall in the money they need to operate their centres. I do not believe that they can operate for much longer without further assistance. (Time expired)208622:42:002086Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to speak about an area of my electorate of Cook which has been subject to a number of constraints, particularly of aircraft noise, and that is the area of Kurnell. Kurnell has been subjected to extensive aircraft noise ever since the changes were made in the configuration of aircraft take-off with the construction and completion of the third runway.A local group is concerned with the extent of noise in the area, the Kurnell Flight Path Action Committee—headed by Kevin Hill, who is the chairperson—and they have been working hard. There is a lot of concern within the community. They believe the area has received inadequate compensation for the noise levels. While other areas in Sydney have received compensation for noise, very little has been given to the community of Kurnell. It is said that they are outside of the noise ban required for compensation; nevertheless, they receive 60 per cent of take-offs and landings at Kingsford Smith airport, which of course receives 67 per cent of all international landings and take-offs and more domestic flights than any other airport in Sydney. That is one of the issues facing Kurnell.The second issue is the historical aspect of Kurnell. Here we have the birthplace of modern Australia and the site for the landing of Captain Cook in 1770. If we go there today, we find an area that is pretty much neglected. There is an obelisk and a cleared area to which visitors can come, but in general terms it is a sorry disgrace that we have not done more for this founding place of modern Australia.Dorothy Wheeler, who is chairperson of the Progress and Precinct Committee for Kurnell, and Margo Lagos who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Sutherland Shire Tourism Association, have been putting forward to the government the need for some centre there, as we go into the centenary of federation, which recognises that this is the birthplace of modern Australia and is a symbol of reconciliation within the Australian community. What better place to establish a symbol, a monument, a museum of reconciliation and, at the same time, to recognise the long history of the indigenous people in Australia, than the birthplace of modern Australia which brought to Australia vast numbers of Europeans and new Asian residentsAt this time of the centenary of federation, it is important that we bring together the two streams—the indigenous population and also the European settlers who came to this country—and, in the birthplace of modern Australia, recognise them through an appropriate symbol or museum, and through the telling of the history of European settlement and indigenous settlement in this great country.I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this area of Kurnell, so important in the history of Australia, has two major problems. Firstly, there is the flight path and its impact because of noise and, secondly, the need for recognition in the centenary of federation celebrations.208722:46:002087Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise to speak on this year's referendum on an Australian republic.If this referendum is lost, it will be lost for two reasons. The first reason is disunity within the republican cause. The second, however, lies in the failure to provide sufficient and high-level bipartisan support in arguing the republican cause to the people of Australia. The challenge I would like to issue to the Liberal Party of Australia this evening is to rise to the national challenge which lies before it in this the last and great debate of the century. But instead of rising to this challenge, what we have instead is a dog's breakfast.We have, on the one hand, ministers such as the Minister for Employment Services who seems to be arguing, still, for some 21st century notion of the divine right of kings. We have ministers such as the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who now seems to be championing the cause of direct election—one suspects because that is a course of action which has some support in the community and which, of course, in the view of that minister, would augment his future interests in the leadership of his party.But we might also ask, `Where, on this important question, does the Treasurer of the Commonwealth lie?' I regret to report to the House that the Treasurer's position on this issue seems to be one of `missing in action'. We cannot find him anywhere. He seems, in fact, to have disappeared from the debate altogether. He said in Melbourne recently that the question which was agreed at the Constitutional Convention to be put to the people needed `further refinement'. He went on to say, however, that because he is the Treasurer of the Commonwealth he is a very busy person and he would not be in a position to contribute further to this discussion until the second half of this year—as we approach the referendum itself.Further, we have the proposal put by Andrew Robb, the former director of the Liberal Party of Australia, which contains a list of eminent conservative Australians in support of a republic. However, I would report to the House that, from where we sit in Brisbane, this list of eminent conservative Australians is about as well known as the executive of the Wagga Wagga Free Masonic Lodge. It is simply not known at all.Collectively, what we have, in fact, is the emerging cop-out of the century, on the part of the Liberal Party, on this profound debate affecting our future constitutional arrangements. The bottom line is that the Constitutional Convention, which met over a year ago, was a construction put together by the government. It was a body of which a large number of delegates were appointed by the government, and it was that Constitutional Convention which met and decided on the particular model which was to be put to the people.The Prime Minister said of that appointed presidency model that it reflected the outcome of the convention. Yet today we have the Treasurer saying to the nation that he does not quite accept that. He would like to do some more work on it. It needs further refinement.The question I would ask the Treasurer is simply this: under what power does he believe that he acts on this question? I do not believe there is any addendum to the resolution of the Constitutional Convention which says, `Here is the outcome—subject to what the Treasurer of the Commonwealth thinks should be added to it at some later stage.' Or does he actually believe that there is some broader magisterium involved in the role of the central policy agency of the Treasury which even extends so far as to touch on our future constitutional arrangements? I fear that what we have on this question is less Citizen Costello than a sense of Costello acting a bit like Louis XIV: L'Etat, c'est moi.The Treasurer has argued for the McGarvie model. The McGarvie model, however, is oligarchic. It represents some council of eminent Australians appointed by some indescribable mechanism and is, in fact, fundamentally un-Australian. What we require is something far more fundamentally democratic than that, rather than a reincarnation of some College of Cardinals.This is a challenge for the new century. It requires courage and commitment. It does not require fence-sitting. It does not require equivocation. If we reflect back on the fathers of this country, the people who put the Federation together—the Griffiths of this world, the Deakins of this world, the Forrests of this world—got together a century ago to build a modern Australia against the challenges, against the heritage of their colonial past. They looked beyond that and, instead, grasped a new Australia. If they were here amongst us today, I am confident they would be supporting the republican cause and arguing forcibly for this new Australia—a new republic for a new century. (Time expired)208822:51:002088Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise to make some comments in relation to the death of Neville Bonner and also to offer a suggestion to the House.Whilst I was privileged to meet Mr Bonner only once, I was growing up at a time when Senator Bonner—as he was then—had an enormous influence on Australian society and, indeed, on the way in which our country has been governed. He was a man, as far as I am concerned, who personified the sort of ideals to which we in the parliament all should strive. He was a person of humility who seemed not to make himself the centre of his own life. He was also a person who character ised dignity in the way that he went about arguing for the causes in which he believed.Despite his very limited formal education, he was a man who was intelligent and clearly gifted. He was articulate. He was able to inspire others, whether they be indigenous or non-indigenous Australians. And he was respected by Australians from all walks of life, all kinds of socioeconomic backgrounds and different political affiliations. There are not many Australians—and certainly not many people who come into the parliament—who are able to achieve that.He suffered criticism at times and, like all people who effect change, he had to demonstrate moral courage. He had to stand up for the things in which he believed in representing the people of Queensland and also in being an advocate for Aboriginal Australians. Like all people who do good things and make a difference, he paid a personal price at times for what he achieved. He put the interests of his country and his people ahead of his own, not in any way making himself, as I said, the centre of his own life nor, indeed, showing any kind of selfishness throughout his long period of public service. He inspired both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians to address the injustices of the past within the framework of helping others to help themselves.I believe that in Australia we are not particularly good at recognising special people. Every now and again in life and, I think, every now and again in politics you meet people who make an extraordinary contribution. They are not necessarily people who become the leaders of their respective parties. They are not always the people who serve in the cabinets of governments. But, by their very presence and participation, they make the political service and the lives of the rest of us that much better—indeed, they make the lives of Australians that much better—and give us greater confidence in the political process and the sorts of values that underwrite these individuals.Neville Bonner, in my opinion, is one such person and is worthy of special recognition. I propose that the parliament and the joint standing committee, for example, commission a bust of Neville Bonner for the parliament, or perhaps even a statue or a monument somewhere in the grounds of the parliament. In my view, that would do much more to achieve what those, for example, behind the Aboriginal tent embassy are trying to achieve than anything else they might wish to do. A bust, a statue or some sort of memorial of Neville Bonner would do much, much more for reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians than the thousands of words that have been and that will be said over the next decade or two.Apart from bringing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians together in recognising the first Aboriginal person to be elected to and serve in the federal parliament, I also believe that Neville Bonner is the kind of model of political participation and parliamentary behaviour to which we all ought to aspire. For that reason I certainly will be putting forward—and I would like the House to give some consideration to this—that there should be some kind of special recognition for this very special man and special individual.208822:56:002088Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—In the limited time available to me this evening, I would like to pay tribute to Don Dunstan, a former Premier of South Australia. As a member of the generation that spent their politically formative years with Don Dunstan as our Premier, I can say that that was a very special period in all of our lives. I joined the Australian Labor Party at the time that he was at his political height, and for anyone in that era he was an inspirational figure.It would be easy to trivialise his legacy by referring just to some of those lifestyle issues that I think are often first and foremost in people's minds when they think of the Dunstan era. It is hard to ignore the images of Don Dunstan the chef, of Don Dunstan dressed in his own unique style or of Don Dunstan promoting al fresco dining in Adelaide with its special Mediterranean climate—promoting the virtues of those things. Indeed, those were very important changes to the lifestyles of South Australia.But I think his most endearing and special legacy is the change which he brought about in South Australia's political and legal climate. Don Dunstan was central to the issue of electoral reform. While we take a fair and modern electoral system for granted now, in South Australia in the late 1960s and early 1970s electoral reform was a very real issue. Members of parliament from both sides of politics understood the significance of that and fought for it, but it was Don Dunstan who led that cause, who championed it publicly and who, indeed, was ultimately successful in bringing about very real and substantial electoral reform in South Australia, which of course was the bedrock on which many of the other changes to the political climate of that state were subsequently based.I refer there, of course, to issues like land rights for indigenous people, to credit law reform, to tenancy reform—to a whole gamut of areas which Don Dunstan promoted, both in his capacity originally as Attorney-General and then, subsequently, as Premier. The fact is that he provided the framework and the inspiration for many of the wide-ranging political legal reforms which took place in South Australia and subsequently in other states of Australia during that emotionally and politically charged period of the 1970s.Dunstan had the special ability in those days to inspire and to make otherwise dry topics like lawyers law reform—something which now is often consigned to dry and dusty reports which are acted upon from time to time but which excites little public imagination—interesting and inspirational and ensured that the parliament and the public were able to take them up in a way which wehave not seen subsequently. He defined the way in which reformist state governments throughout Australia were to act and ensured that state government would never be the same again.He placed on the record of the politics of South Australia and, I think, on the politics of Australia an indelible stamp which ensured that people of that generation would never treat politics in the same way. He changed South Australia irrevocably and for the better and in a way which inspired a generation to follow his example. The changes which he put in place were vital to the future of South Australia and, indeed, it has never been the same since. I know it will not be the same without Don Dunstan as a figure in our state.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices2089The following notices were given:Mr Bevis to move:That the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1998, Nos. 338 and 353, made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , be disallowed.Mr Pyne to move:That the House:(1) condemns the inappropriate use of resources by some student unions;(2) opposes students being forced to fund student union political activity as a prerequisite for entry to university;(3) acknowledges that all citizens, including students, should be free to choose whether or not they want to belong to a union; and(4) notes the contribution that responsive and responsible student unions can make to university campuses.Answers to Questions in Writing2090The following answers to questions were circulated:2090(Question No. 2)22090McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Will the Government act to curb the number of bank closures in regional and suburban centres; if so, how.2090Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:While the Government appreciates the potential impact of bank branch closures on the residents, and indeed the economies, of many smaller communities, it is important to recognise that the Government does not determine the policies or guidelines banks adopt in closing a bank branch—they are a commercial decision for bank management. This is the same approach the honourable member's party took when it was in Government.In determining how the Government might appropriately respond to such closures, account must be taken of the fact that branches are only one possible channel for providing financial services. There is a range of different mechanisms for delivering financial services, including technology-based methods, mobile financial advisers and alternative agency-style structures through the more traditional `human interface'. Facilities such as GiroPost at post offices and franchise concepts promoted by some banks provide smaller communities with `face-to-face' banking. Likewise, facilities such as EFTPOS, ATMs, telephone and internet banking increasingly provide a suitable electronic alternative for many customers. The acceptance of these electronic banking channels has risen markedly in recent years, with well over half of all customer transactions now conducted outside the branch.The Government is addressing the matter in other ways. Continued support has been given to the CreditCare initiative, a joint venture with the credit union movement, to help residents in rural and remote communities left without banking support regain convenient access to basic financial services.During the election campaign, the Government announced the Rural Transaction Centres program aimed at providing services, including personal banking, to rural areas. The initiative will be sufficiently flexible to ensure that rural centres complement, but do not duplicate, existing services or discourage the introduction of alternate services in a town.2090(Question No. 3)32090McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2249 (Hansard , 30 October 1997, page 10431), has more comprehensive data been made available by the Atlanta authorities regarding passenger and aircraft movements during and after the Atlanta Olympics; if so,(a) is he able to provide estimated passenger and aircraft movements at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport during and immediately after the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and (b) has he or his Department prepared a draft schedule to accommodate additional flights without breaching the hourly cap or night curfew; if not, will he ensure that a schedule is prepared urgently.(2) If the comprehensive data referred to in part (1) has not been made available by the Atlanta authorities, will he pursue the matter.2090Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Some additional data has become available on the Atlanta Olympics. It shows that Atlanta Airport experienced an increase of almost 3% and more than 6% in passenger movements during July and August 1996, when the Games were held, compared to the same periods in 1995. The number of aircraft movements at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport actually decreased during the period of the Games due to the grounding of its second largest carrier, Valujet, and the sharply reduced operation of its fifth largest carrier, Kiwi.(a) Yes. Forecasts prepared early in 1998 by the Department of Transport and Regional Services indicate that international arrivals and domestic passenger arrivals are expected to peak at more than 22,000 and 30,000 respectively on the day before the Opening Ceremony. They also show that international and domestic passenger departures are expected to peak at about 60,000 and 45,000 respectively on the day after the Closing Ceremony. By comparison, the average daily arrivals for 1996/97 were 9,000 international and 19,400 domestic passengers and the average daily departures were 9,500 international and 18,800 domestic passengers. These forecasts are being continually reviewed in the lead up to the Games to take into account new information and developments.(b) The Sydney 2000 Games will be held during the year 2000 Northern Summer scheduling season (last Sunday in March to the last Saturday in October). Initial slot allocations for this season will be made around November 1999 in accordance with normal international practice and final allocations will occur in February 2000 prior to the start of the scheduling season in March 2000. Forecasts of aircraft movements prepared by the Department of Transport and Regional Services for the Sydney 2000 Games show that these movements can be accommodated at Sydney Airport under normal operating conditions without breaching the hourly cap of 80 movements/hour and the current curfew arrangements.(2) No. Sufficient data is available.2090(Question No. 7)72090McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What are the voting rights of prisoners in Australia.(2) Is the Minister able to say whether the Supreme Court of Canada has found the disenfranchisement of prisoners to be unconstitutional; if so, is the Minister able to say what was the basis of the finding.2090Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Section 93(8)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides that a person who is serving a sentence of 5 years or longer for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of Australia is not entitled to enrol or vote at federal elections.(2) Section 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act (the Act) disqualifies a person serving a sentence of two years or more from voting in a federal election. The most authoritative Canadian case on the issue of a prisoner's right to vote is Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (1996) 1 F.C. 857 . On 27 December 1995 the Trial Division of the Canadian Federal Court held that section 51(e) of the Act violates section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). The Charter forms part of the Constitution of Canada, and section 3 of the Charter provides that every citizen shall have the right to vote.During proceedings in this case, the Canadian Government conceded that section 51(e) of the Act prima facie breaches section 3 of the Charter, but argued that having regard to the objectives of the legislation, section 51(e) could be justified as a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter. Section 1 permits certain limitations on rights and freedoms as can be justified in a free and democratic society. The objectives of section 51(e) were stated to be, first, the enhancement of civic responsibility and respect for rule of law, and second, the enhancement of the general purpose of the criminal sanction.The Court did not accept the arguments put by the Canadian Government and found the law restricting the right to vote of prisoners to be unconstitutional. The Court held that the proportionality between the effects of the impugned legislation and its objectives, and the proportionality between the salutary effects and its deleterious effects, were not satisfied. The Court took the view that section 51(e) of the Act hinders the rehabilitation of offenders and their successful reintegration into the community and was incapable of producing salutary effects. The Court also found that the provision failed to meet the minimum impairment test, on the grounds that it did not distinguish between different types of offenders, and that Parliament could have adopted a less intrusive but equally effective means of infringing the right to vote.For example, the Canadian Parliament could have legislated to enable a sentencing judge to order an offender's disenfranchisement having taken into account the nature of the crime and the personal circumstances of the accused in conjunction with principles of sentencing. The Court therefore concluded that section 51(e) of the Act infringes section 3 of the Canadian Charter and is not justified under section 1 of the Charter.The Canadian Government was unsuccessful in its application to stay the order of the Federal Court pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently all prisoners were able to vote in the Canadian general election held in 1997. The Canadian Government advises that the appeal of the substantive issues in the Sauve case will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal starting on 16 February 1999. This matter may eventually go before the Supreme Court, but it is likely to be many years before it does so.The previous version of section 51(e) of the Act provided that "every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution for the commission of any offence" was disqualified from voting in a federal election. On 27 May 1993 the Supreme Court of Canada found that this provision contravened section 3 of the Charter in an earlier case involving the same plaintiff, Sauve v Canada (Attorney-General) [1993] 2 S.C.R. 438 .2091(Question No. 11)112091Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Did the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) act early on 8 April 1998 to garnishee child support payments from the redundancy payments to Patrick Stevedores employees dismissed on 7 April 1998; if so, did the (a) action accord with the Child Support Charter and (b) ATO adhere to normal procedures with respect to the operation of section 72A notices to recover arrears from redundancy payments.(2) When were (a) he and (b) the ATO advised of Patrick Stevedores' intention to dismiss its employees.(3) Was the ATO consulted concerning the dismissal of the employees and the associated tax treatment of their redundancy payments.(4) Does the ATO usually act within 12 to 24 hours to seek recovery from redundancy payments of arrears in accordance with section 72A notices.2091Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) In accordance with the secrecy provisions of Section 16 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, as well as the Information Privacy Principles contained in the Privacy Act 1988, I am unable to specifically answer this aspect of the honourable member's question.(2) (a) The Assistant Treasurer was not advised of Patrick Stevedores intention to dismiss its employees(2) (b) The Child Support Agency was not advised of Patrick Stevedores intention to dismiss its employees.(3) No.(4) Yes, if the Child Support Agency is aware of redundancy payments.2091(Question No. 16)162091Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Has a telephone hot line been established in his, or his immediate predecessor's office or Department since the inception of the work-for-the-dole scheme; if so, were complaints received on the hotline about the scheme or its projects; if so, (a) how many complaints have been registered about (i) the scheme and (ii) its projects and (b) will he provide details of the nature and extent of the complaints.2091Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs established an information line in July 1997, which is still in operation, to provide information on the Work for the Dole scheme. The main purpose of the line is to provide information to prospective sponsors of projects. No records were maintained of issues or complaints made. Matters raised by callers were dealt with as they were raised.2091(Question No. 21)212091Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case. 2092Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Department of Transport and Regional Services has no positive discrimination programs. It does not set targets based on personal characteristics. The Department values diversity in its workforce and actively promotes the importance of developing a flexible and diverse workplace.2092(Question No. 22)222092Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case.2092Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Department of the Environment and Heritage undertakes and/or participates in the following programs:Indigenous Protected Areas ProgramThe Indigenous Protected Areas Program provides incentives for indigenous people to participate in the National Reserve System through voluntary declaration of Protected Areas on their land, and support for greater involvement of indigenous people in the management of existing statutory protected areas.The estimated cost is $9.55 million over five years.Indigenous Land Management Facilitators Network ProjectTo address a relatively low participation rate by indigenous people to the Government's major environment initiative, the Natural Heritage Trust, a national network of 12 Indigenous Land Management Facilitators has been established to promote sustainable natural resource management and nature conservation activities by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.The estimated cost is $4 million over four years.APS Indigenous Cadetship ProgramThis program allows indigenous people the opportunity to develop professional qualifications leading to employment with the agency on successful completion of their study.The Department currently has one Indigenous Cadet, who completed her degree in November 1998 and will join the agency in the new yearThe estimated cost in 1998/99 is $10,000.Increasing Work Effectiveness ProgramThis is an ongoing series of information and education sessions designed specifically for Senior Officer women in the Bureau of Meteorology. Individual sessions are between one to one and a half hours in durationThe estimated cost in 1998/99 is $1,000.Springboard Graduate ProgramSpringboard is administered by the Bureau of Meteorology and is a self development programdesigned for women at the ASO1-4 (and equivalent) levels.The estimated cost in 1998/99 is $1,000.2092(Question No. 37)372092Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to proposals by prominent Australian economists to reduce Australia's unemployment rate by freezing minimum wage movements; if so, does he support their proposal.(2) Is his Department able to advise as to when earned income tax credits were first introduced in the USA; if so, what movements have there been in the minimum wage rate in the USA since that date.2092Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the proposal. I refer the Member to public statements by Government Ministers on the proposal.(2) Earned income tax credits were introduced in the United States in 1975. In 1975 the minimum wage was US$2.10 per hour and has been increased on numerous occasions since then. In March 1998, legislation was introduced containing President Clinton's proposal to increase the minimum wage by US$1.00 to US$6.15 per hour in two instalments in the period up to 1 January 2000.2092(Question No. 39)392092Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:What funding has the Government provided to the Macarthur Business Enterprise Centre since 1996 and what programs were involved.2092Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Funding provided to the Macarthur Business Enterprise Centre under programs administered by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is set out in the following table.Programs1 Jan-30 Jun 19961996-971997-981998-99$$$$New Enterprise Incentive Scheme 267,273314,684304,3256,769Regional and Employer Assistance023,40000Regional Assistance Program00302,6000Total267,273338,084606,9256,7692093(Question No. 44)442093Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What was the value of (a) current asset investments, (b) non-current asset investments, (c) equity reserves and (d) investment income for each Australian university in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997.(2) What type of commercial holdings constitute the definition of university investments referred to in part (1).2093Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Attachment A provides the value of each institution's current and non-current asset investments, equity reserves and investment income for 1996 and 1997. This data has been derived from institutions' 1996 and 1997 annual financial reports.(2) Attachment B lists the types of investments which Australian universities include, in their annual financial statements, as university investments.ATTACHMENT AInstitutionCurrent Asset InvestmentsNon-current Asset InvestmentsEquity ReservesInvestment Income19961997199619971996199719961997ActualActualActualActualActualActualActualActual$m$m$m$m$m$m$m$mCharles Sturt University23.60031.0007.0007.00040.29840.2981.8922.324Macquarie University76.42438.9500.00022.2260.01618.4585.7374.053Southern Cross University12.94020.8040.0500.2100.00022.0760.7160.925University of New England9.07618.3260.2650.2752.1335.8660.9120.964University of New South Wales67.336147.659233.603199.305177.362181.93917.78034.931University of Newcastle42.78833.97327.51935.20511.49213.1615.6185.246University of Sydney228.624211.140302.232330.2541,966.0372,013.67154.16355.916University of Technology Sydney34.99953.6650.0000.0000.000101.4912.5592.700University of Western Sydney59.10846.24410.88212.22884.80186.9714.4203.123University of Wollongong40.44735.3080.0000.00043.67243.6733.3432.724Deakin University7.41621.9259.29511.159265.682266.9222.7612.754La Trobe University52.30856.2231.0584.421291.267289.1265.1713.936Monash University31.04346.16972.02391.988511.114486.1879.9668.425Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology44.02428.06111.8066.337456.300456.3004.8603.862Swinburne University of Technology0.7810.1100.3120.3145.4387.1041.7931.327University of Ballarat8.6918.2940.0040.00054.34658.0700.3780.395University of Melbourne183.681202.668230.089238.4931,635.2201,540.07330.78629.305Victoria University of Technology30.14729.5730.4402.240101.345101.3452.0082.131Central Queensland University21.66126.5400.3610.3999.9644.9961.7981.815Griffith University54.74058.4670.2550.82948.352247.9054.2123.360 James Cook University6.20512.9199.98511.12638.46049.7431.5251.510Queensland University of Technology67.968100.1450.0050.29284.390117.4044.6024.612Sunshine Coast University College2.7051.5000.0000.0000.3000.4000.3960.291University of Queensland45.57983.95353.53660.945856.355840.6637.3469.463University of Southern Queensland37.44929.4930.0000.00072.81972.4192.7871.959Curtin University of Technology1.777112.6770.0440.2113.0543.0208.5826.042Edith Cowan University0.0000.0000.0110.000120.187120.1873.0302.941Murdoch University15.88012.7140.0000.000114.170114.2321.2420.955University of Western Australia0.0000.000414.443437.93964.98072.88447.94745.109Flinders University of South Australia10.08815.9578.49012.62614.56714.5031.3011.735University of Adelaide65.95766.16949.50856.905376.072387.1624.0283.402University of South Australia19.73926.6970.2850.29640.50736.8030.6010.777Australian Maritime College12.44212.4510.0000.00035.52334.1610.9240.795University of Tasmania34.42446.24423.24730.466280.084283.9401.9695.560Batchelor College0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0040.000Northern Territory University12.57510.4520.1010.10120.66727.2061.3260.608Australian National University11.90720.855412.690421.998515.558536.44550.90372.574University of Canberra15.41413.5610.0000.00084.487114.2271.2570.934Australian Catholic University0.0000.2990.5250.25679.93786.5080.8320.765Total1,389.9431,681.1851,880.0641,996.0448,506.9568,897.539301.475330.248ATTACHMENT BUniversity investment as referred to in each institution's financial statements includes:. bank bills (including bank accepted bills);. bank bonds;. bank deposits (term and call);. cash on deposits;. certificates of deposit;. overnight cash deposits;. money market deposits on call;. transferable certificates of deposit;. bank securities;. bills of exchange accepted or endorsed by banks;. bonds (including government);. capital contributed to controlled entity;. commercial bills;. convertible notes. debentures;. unsecured notes and debentures;. domestic equities;. foreign equities;. property equities;. floating rate note;. government and semi government securities. government or government guarantee stock;. international securities;. investment in controlled entity;. loans to associated organisations;. managed investment funds;. managed investment portfolio;. mortgages. other fixed interest securities;. promissory notes;. property—direct;. property—trusts;. research and development;. shares in listed companies;. shares in other companies;. shares in private companies;. stapled securities.. stocks;. unit trusts.2094(Question No. 45)452094Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Was the conference of Arab universities held in Beirut from 2 to 5 March 1998 the last in a series of regional meetings to prepare the groundwork for the World Conference on Higher Education on the theme "Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century" which was to be held in Paris in October 1998. (2) When and where have the regional conferences been held since the conference which was held in Tokyo from 8 to 10 July 1997.(3) Did Australia participate in any regional conferences other than the Tokyo conference.(4) Who represented Australia at the world conference in Paris.2094Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Arab Regional Conference on Higher Education held in Beirut from 2—5 March 1998 was the final regional conference of five which were intended as a preparation for the World Conference on Higher Education, Higher Education in the 21st Century: Vision and Action, held in Paris from 5—9 October 1998.(2) There were two regional conferences after the Asia—Pacific Regional Conference held in Tokyo from 8—10 July 1997. The first was the Regional Conference on Higher Education in Europe held in Palermo, Italy, from 24—27 September 1997. The second was the Arab Regional Conference in Beirut.(3) There was no official Australian representation at any regional conference apart from the Tokyo conference. However, it is possible individual Australians attended these conferences independently.(4) The official Delegation representing Australia at the World Conference on Higher Education in Paris from 5—9 October 1998 was as follows:. Ms Jennifer Ledgar, Assistant Secretary, National Office of Skills Recognition, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra—Head of Delegation. Ms Shelagh Whittleston, Education Counsellor, Australian Embassy, Paris—Deputy Head of Delegation. Professor David Robinson, Vice-Chancellor, Monash University. Professor Lachlan Chipman, Vice-Chancellor, University of Central Queensland. Professor Zbys Klich, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Southern Cross University. Professor Chris Duke, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Western Sydney, Nepean. Dr Marion Myhill, University of Tasmania representing the Australian Federation of University Women. Mr Peter Shannon, Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO, Paris. Ms Anne Siwicki, Attache, Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO, Paris2095(Question No. 46)462095Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) For each Australian university, what proportion of students is drawn from the bottom 25 per cent of suburbs or towns, as measured by socioeconomic status.(2) What data other than that referred to in part (1) does his Department record for measuring the equity performance of universities and what are the details.2095Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are defined as those whose postcodes of home location fall within the lowest 25 per cent of a given catchment region (that is, Australia, State/Territory and major urban areas within each State) determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics Index of Education and Occupation.The following table shows the proportion of students at each university who come from:. the lowest 25 per cent of postcodes in major urban areas within the relevant State or Territory;. the lowest 25 per cent of postcodes in the relevant State or Territory; and. the lowest 25 per cent of postcodes in Australia.UniversityUrban (%)State (%)Australia (%)Australian Catholic Universityn/an/a10.6Australian Maritime College0.63.924.2Australian National University6.16.14.6Central Queensland University3.223.436.0Charles Sturt University5.515.614.2Curtin University of Technology12.412.620.8Deakin University8.511.610.1Edith Cowan University10.612.718.8Flinders University of South Australia8.08.914.6Griffith University15.811.122.6James Cook University of North Queensland0.911.121.3La Trobe University12.419.213.0Macquarie University7.86.04.5Monash University9.711.37.6Murdoch University15.617.924.5Northern Territory University0.60.72.4Queensland University of Technology10.413.519.9Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology15.315.612.2Southern Cross University6.120.218.3Swinburne University of Technology10.710.58.3University of Adelaide8.78.815.5University of Ballarat4.827.414.2University of Canberra6.16.24.3University of Melbourne9.211.28.0University of New England5.316.917.8University of New South Wales9.17.85.8University of Newcastle25.132.125.6University of Queensland8.011.518.7University of South Australia11.812.221.5University of Southern Queensland6.417.629.1University of Sydney10.28.76.9University of Tasmania4.011.528.7University of Technology Sydney13.59.36.4University of Western Australia7.28.412.4University of Western Sydney19.513.09.6University of Wollongong13.716.210.8Victoria University of Technology30.727.223.3(2) Other than the data referred to in part (1), the Department collects the following information:. access, participation, success and retention rates for students from low socio-economic status backgrounds. Information is collected for students aged under 25 and aged 25 or more;. access, participation, success and retention rates for Indigenous people, women in non-traditional fields of study or in higher degree courses, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people with disabilities, people from rural areas and people from isolated areas.Access is measured as a proportion of the numbers of commencing students from the equity target group to the numbers of students in the commencing student population as a whole.Participation is measured as the ratio of the percentage of each equity target group's total enrolment to the equity target group's percentage of the 15 to 64 year old population. This measure applies to all equity target groups except for:. participation of women in non-traditional fields of study which is measured as a percentage of total enrolments;. participation of women in higher degree research and coursework programmes which is measured as the ratio of the percentage of women in higher degree research and coursework programmes to the percentage of women in undergraduate programmes; and. participation of students from low SES backgrounds which is measured as a ratio of the number of students from low SES backgrounds to the number of students from high SES backgrounds (for these purposes the general population is considered to consist of 25 per cent high SES, 50 per cent medium SES and 25 per cent low SES).Success is defined as student progress rate, that is, the proportion of load passed within a year compared with the total certified load for that year. It is measured as the ratio of the student progress rate for each equity group to the student progress rate for all other students.Retention is defined as the number of students who re-enrol at an institution in a given year, as a proportion of the students who were enrolled in the previous year, less those who completed their course. It does not count as retained those students who defer or transfer successfully to another university, and is therefore a measure of apparent, rather than actual retention. It is measured as the ratio of each equity group's apparent retention rate to the apparent retention rate for all other students.The attached tables provide the information requested.ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDENTS 1997 BY ACCESS, PARTICIPATION, SUCCESS (1996) AND RETENTION*INSTITUTIONAccess %ParticipationSuccessRetentionCharles Sturt University1.80.950.840.84Macquarie University1.80.910.950.87Southern Cross University2.41.170.680.77University of New England1.10.680.810.84University of New South Wales0.50.300.800.77University of Newcastle1.41.140.830.85University of Sydney0.90.500.890.98University of Technology, Sydney1.30.710.800.97University of Western Sydney0.80.830.800.91University of Wollongong1.20.730.860.88Deakin University1.32.110.720.87La Trobe University0.30.480.970.88Monash University 0.71.340.900.82Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology0.10.320.850.89Swinburne University of Technology0.40.720.951.05University of Ballarat0.40.640.890.74University of Melbourne0.50.840.840.87Victoria University of Technology0.30.600.960.89Central Queensland University2.70.900.740.87Griffith University1.30.490.780.86James Cook University of North Queensland6.52.370.690.64Queensland University of Technology0.80.340.800.84University of Queensland0.70.320.880.88University of Southern Queensland1.90.520.360.50Curtin University of Technology4.00.930.820.76Edith Cowan University6.31.660.540.61Murdoch University 1.00.370.880.76University of Western Australia2.00.500.740.69Flinders University of South Australia0.70.430.810.94 University of Adelaide1.50.750.590.61University of South Australia1.71.220.780.75Australian Maritime College0.90.220.660.13University of Tasmania2.50.720.820.83Northern Territory University 6.00.210.650.67Australian National University0.91.090.980.84University of Canberra1.91.360.910.78Australian Catholic University1.91.270.950.98National**1.50.650.780.78Reference Values (proportion of equity group in populationNSW1.5Vic0.4Qld2.5WA2.5SA1.3Tas2.7NT22.6ACT0.8Aust1.7* Access is the proportion of commencing students belonging to the equity group.Participation is the proportion of equity group members in the student population relative to the representation of the group in the relevant State or Territory population.Success is the proportion of units passed by members of the equity group compared with the proportion passed by other students.Retention is the proportion of equity group students retained from one year to the next compared with the proportion of other students retained.The reference value for participation, success and retention is 1.** Batchelor College is not included in the national figures as it is an Indigenous institution with Indigenous students only, and therefore has no comparative data. If Batchelor College figures were added to the other statistical data, the national averages would be: Access—1.7 per cent; Participation—0.73; Success—0.79; Retention—0.78.PEOPLE FROM NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUNDS (NESB)*, 1997 BY ACCESS, PARTICIPATION, SUCCESS (1996) AND RETENTION**INSTITUTIONAccessParticipationSuccessRetentionCharles Sturt University0.10.030.860.78Macquarie University9.91.310.950.97Southern Cross University1.40.150.930.79University of New England2.00.250.930.94University of New South Wales16.52.290.971.03University of Newcastle1.60.220.890.86University of Sydney8.41.280.981.00University of Technology, Sydney12.31.580.970.97University of Western Sydney7.21.101.040.97 University of Wollongong3.40.480.950.94Deakin University2.20.440.951.05La Trobe University2.10.440.961.03Monash University7.91.350.971.06Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology7.81.250.921.01Swinburne University of Technology5.51.160.960.98University of Ballarat1.00.170.820.90University of Melbourne 5.70.990.981.16Victoria University of Technology9.81.920.920.96Central Queensland University1.90.780.911.05Griffith University4.81.581.001.09James Cook University of North Queensland1.30.321.040.92Queensland University of Technology3.61.441.001.06University of Queensland6.22.200.991.07University of Southern Queensland1.10.540.830.94Curtin University of Technology6.01.350.981.13Edith Cowan University3.40.790.911.00Murdoch University3.50.820.981.00University of Western Australia5.91.631.031.06Flinders University of South Australia2.30.790.940.97University of Adelaide3.41.401.031.03University of South Australia3.71.310.940.97Australian Maritime College3.03.150.820.97University of Tasmania1.71.270.950.99Northern Territory University2.71.201.031.18Australian National University2.40.590.900.99University of Canberra4.11.010.941.00Australian Catholic University2.60.430.950.95National**5.21.050.971.05Reference Values (Proportion of equity group in populationNSW6.7Vic5.5Qld2.6WA3.9SA2.5Tas1.0NT2.3ACT4.3Aust4.8* For the purposes of higher education equity statistics, this group is defined as those people who were born overseas, arrived in Australia within the previous ten years and speak a language other than English at home.** Access is the proportion of commencing students belonging to the equity group.Participation is the proportion of equity group members in the student population relative to the representation of the group in the relevant State or Territory population.Success is the proportion of units passed by members of the equity group compared with the proportion passed by other students.Retention is the proportion of equity group students retained from one year to the next compared with the proportion of other students retained.The reference value for participation, success and retention is 1. STUDENTS FROM RURAL BACKGROUNDS 1997 BY ACCESS, PARTICIPATION, SUCCESS (1996) AND RETENTION*INSTITUTIONAccessParticipationSuccessRetentionCharles Sturt University43.91.891.041.09Macquarie University3.30.161.011.02Southern Cross University53.82.401.051.13University of New England40.31.711.031.11University of New South Wales5.90.271.021.00University of Newcastle17.10.731.041.08University of Sydney8.40.351.010.97University of Technology, Sydney3.30.141.021.02University of Western Sydney3.90.160.991.04University of Wollongong17.20.681.031.03Deakin University16.80.741.001.04La Trobe University30.51.151.060.96Monash University13.30.540.970.98Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology10.00.411.031.04Swinburne University of Technology7.20.271.021.03University of Ballarat69.22.931.061.06University of Melbourne 13.80.510.990.83Victoria University of Technology8.00.291.071.00Central Queensland University68.61.841.071.13Griffith University12.50.341.001.00James Cook University of North Queensland42.71.141.011.04Queensland University of Technology20.00.480.991.00University of Queensland18.80.511.001.00University of Southern Queensland48.31.371.081.14Curtin University of Technology5.50.491.010.95Edith Cowan University10.60.900.990.98Murdoch University7.40.651.000.96University of Western Australia4.60.370.960.94Flinders University of South Australia10.60.461.050.99University of Adelaide10.90.481.010.98University of South Australia11.60.601.040.99Australian Maritime College32.00.611.021.06University of Tasmania42.00.761.000.99Northern Territory University3.1n.a.**1.000.91Australian National University14.9n.a.**1.041.11University of Canberra14.4n.a.**1.021.05 Australian Catholic University14.50.611.021.00National18.30.720.990.97Reference Values (proportion of equity group in population)NSW24.0Vic23.7Qld36.8WA11.1SA20.4Tas55.3NT0.0ACT0.0Aust24.3* Access is the proportion of commencing students belonging to the equity group.Participation is the proportion of equity group members in the student population relative to the representation of the group in the relevant State or Territory population.Success is the proportion of units passed by members of the equity group compared with the proportion passed by other students.Retention is the proportion of equity group students retained from one year to the next compared with the proportion of other students retained.The reference value for participation, success and retention is 1.** The percentage of population living in areas with rural postcodes is 0.STUDENTS FROM ISOLATED BACKGROUNDS 1997 BY ACCESS, PARTICIPATION, SUCCESS (1996) AND RETENTION*INSTITUTIONAccessParticipationSuccessRetentionCharles Sturt University2.61.800.980.96Macquarie University0.50.220.910.90Southern Cross University0.90.640.950.87University of New England3.42.441.000.96University of New South Wales0.30.230.970.89University of Newcastle0.40.190.921.03University of Sydney0.60.480.860.93University of Technology Sydney0.20.090.981.09University of Western Sydney0.20.150.950.93University of Wollongong0.20.191.070.80Deakin University1.03.200.910.90La Trobe University0.41.001.121.20Monash University0.51.690.950.82Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology0.10.471.060.97Swinburne University of Technology0.20.581.091.25University of Ballarat1.23.641.060.88University of Melbourne0.51.170.970.65Victoria University of Technology0.10.210.810.80 Central Queensland University5.51.000.961.00Griffith University1.10.170.970.96James Cook University of North QLD11.31.800.930.93Queensland University of Technology1.50.241.001.03University of Queensland2.30.350.990.99University of Southern Queensland5.10.920.970.99Curtin University of Technology7.60.420.970.91Edith Cowan University5.20.320.930.79Murdoch University6.10.370.980.93University of Western Australia4.60.230.990.95Flinders University of South Australia2.20.370.950.95University of Adelaide1.90.340.960.94University of South Australia3.30.640.970.93Australian Maritime College4.62.800.970.92University of Tasmania0.70.410.920.91Northern Territory University10.50.111.060.96Australian National University0.4n.a.**1.010.98University of Canberra0.4n.a.**0.791.02Australian Catholic University1.10.800.991.08National1.920.390.950.90Reference Values (proportion of equity group in population)NSW1.4Vic0.3Qld5.7WA16.3SA5.1Tas1.5NT96.1ACT0.0Aust4.5* Access is the proportion of commencing students belonging to the equity group.Participation is the proportion of equity group members in the student population relative to the representation of the group in the relevant State or Territory population.Success is the proportion of units passed by members of the equity group compared with the proportion passed by other students.Retention is the proportion of equity group students retained from one year to the next compared with the proportion of other students retained.The reference value for participation, success and retention is 1.** The percentage of population living in isolated areas is 0.PEOPLE FROM LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (Low SES) BACKGROUNDS: ACCESS* 1997AustraliaStateUrbanInstutitionunder 25%25+%under 25%25+%under 25%25+%Charles Sturt University16.413.424.519.313.714.5Macquarie University5.43.37.35.19.86.9Southern Cross University20.216.727.023.627.922.6University of New England23.416.033.920.420.514.2University of New South Wales5.94.89.47.110.810.1University of Newcastle26.525.734.633.031.133.6University of Sydney7.17.110.48.112.710.2University of Technology Sydney7.45.310.97.816.012.2University of Western Sydney8.17.415.612.622.919.0University of Wollongong11.68.818.216.017.517.4Deakin University10.58.514.69.812.57.9La Trobe University14.810.724.418.421.414.6Monash University9.57.314.710.514.211.2Royal Melbourne Institute of Technoloyg14.58.919.811.820.214.1Swinburne University of Technology9.06.312.88.112.610.2University of Ballarat14.212.329.626.018.115.1University of Melbourne8.96.613.49.611.610.3Victoria University of Technology22.518.628.823.033.929.2Central Queensland University40.034.729.027.722.917.4Griffith University25.221.313.310.320.720.2James Cook University of North Queensland25.514.314.76.71.71.1Queensland University of Technology22.718.015.913.414.211.7University of Queensland21.514.914.29.512.310.3University of Southern Queensland35.824.725.720.520.920.9Curtin University of Technology21.120.413.813.014.015.3Edith Cowan University19.420.313.615.613.914.9Murdoch University23.425.418.320.417.120.6University of Western Australia14.410.19.96.78.47.5Flinders University of South Australia16.915.411.410.09.510.8University of Adelaide17.713.511.57.311.010.2University of South Australia21.319.314.212.715.115.6Australian Maritime College30.319.517.722.50.014.3University of Tasmania31.826.812.512.89.68.6Northern Territory University2.82.70.91.30.41.7Australian National University5.52.28.411.78.411.9University of Canberra6.61.99.79.59.69.5Australian Catholic University10.111.8National16.013.516.313.615.613.7* Access is the proportion of commencing students belonging to the equity group.Reference value is 25 per cent.PEOPLE FROM LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (Low SES) BACKGROUNDS): PARTICIPATION* 1997AustraliaStateUrbanInstitutionunder 2525+under 2525+under 2525+Charles Sturt University0.830.501.630.870.330.56Macquarie University0.080.060.110.080.170.13Southern Cross University1.740.873.211.661.090.72University of New England1.030.441.550.560.750.42University of New South Wales0.110.090.180.130.230.22University of Newcastle1.801.742.562.392.643.72University of Sydney0.130.120.210.150.290.22University of Technology Sydney0.140.090.220.150.380.29University of Western Sydney0.430.320.660.501.250.92University of Wollongong0.430.421.031.322.382.33Deakin University0.270.210.430.290.410.25La Trobe University0.470.270.780.460.610.38Monash University0.170.150.300.230.300.25Royal Melbourne Institute of Technoloyg0.360.200.530.280.600.41Swinburne University of Technology0.200.130.290.160.350.24University of Ballarat1.411.194.904.971.380.91University of Melbourne0.150.130.240.200.210.24Victoria University of Technology1.050.721.501.062.191.75Central Queensland University9.923.544.492.050.800.57Griffith University1.380.980.300.200.540.50James Cook University of North Queensland7.333.341.370.331.190.50Queensland University of Technology0.830.660.300.230.310.27University of Queensland0.600.370.250.140.190.16University of Southern Queensland5.651.612.110.810.780.59Curtin University of Technology0.650.630.360.360.390.43Edith Cowan University0.670.740.360.430.420.44Murdoch University0.760.840.540.650.510.65University of Western Australia0.280.190.170.120.160.14Flinders University of South Australia0.360.280.210.170.210.20University of Adelaide0.360.250.210.130.230.21University of South Australia0.650.550.380.310.450.43Australian Maritime College1.210.740.550.450.200.60University of Tasmania0.810.610.240.200.160.13Northern Territory University0.030.050.010.020.010.05Australian National University0.080.040.200.260.190.26University of Canberra0.100.020.200.240.200.23Australian Catholic University0.260.31National0.420.350.390.320.390.36* The participation of students from low SES backgrounds is measured as a ratio of the number of students from low SES backgrounds to the number of students from high SES backgrounds. The reference value for participation is 1.PEOPLE FROM LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (LOW SES) BACKGROUNDS: SUCCESS* 1996AustraliaStateUrbanInstitutionunder 2525+under 2525+under 2525+Charles Sturt University1.020.981.030.990.960.95Macquarie University0.990.940.990.950.980.95Southern Cross University1.040.991.040.981.030.99University of New England0.990.991.000.990.950.98University of New South Wales0.990.930.980.940.960.94University of Newcastle0.990.990.990.990.980.99University of Sydney1.000.920.990.940.990.96University of Technology Sydney0.980.980.970.980.960.96University of Western Sydney0.950.940.960.950.960.94University of Wollongong1.021.031.011.031.001.01Deakin University0.960.950.980.960.960.94La Trobe University0.960.980.980.990.940.97Monash University0.960.950.970.940.960.95Royal Melbourne Institute of Technoloyg1.000.971.000.970.980.98Swinburne University of Technology0.950.980.960.980.940.98University of Ballarat0.981.011.021.030.921.02University of Melbourne0.980.970.990.970.990.98Victoria University of Technology0.950.960.950.960.940.96Central Queensland University1.011.021.011.020.930.99Griffith University1.000.981.000.951.000.98James Cook University of North Queensland1.040.961.060.920.960.97Queensland University of Technology1.000.980.990.970.990.97University of Queensland0.980.970.990.950.970.98University of Southern Queensland1.031.011.030.991.030.97Curtin University of Technology0.990.981.000.970.980.97Edith Cowan University0.990.950.990.940.980.96Murdoch University1.000.981.000.981.000.99University of Western Australia0.980.920.980.890.990.90Flinders University of South Australia0.980.950.980.960.950.94University of Adelaide0.980.940.990.930.990.92University of South Australia0.980.950.970.960.940.96Australian Maritime College1.010.980.960.960.831.21University of Tasmania0.980.980.980.960.921.03Northern Territory University1.020.981.380.930.801.15Australian National University1.021.080.961.020.961.02University of Canberra1.000.971.010.971.010.97Australian Catholic University1.010.99National0.970.960.970.960.970.96* Success is the proportion of units passed by members of the equity group compared with the proportion passed by other students. The reference value for success is 1.PEOPLE FROM LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (Low SES) BACKGROUNDS: RETENTION* 1997AustraliaStateUrbanInstitutionunder 2525+under 2525+under 2525+Charles Sturt University1.021.011.031.000.950.98Macquarie University0.950.980.990.940.990.93Southern Cross University1.090.981.090.981.091.03University of New England1.010.981.050.970.930.98University of New South Wales0.980.950.980.960.980.94University of Newcastle0.980.970.991.000.970.98University of Sydney1.000.931.000.950.991.00University of Technology Sydney1.011.021.011.001.010.99University of Western Sydney1.010.971.010.971.020.96University of Wollongong1.001.031.011.041.011.04Deakin University0.991.020.991.080.991.08La Trobe University1.021.030.991.001.021.02Monash University0.990.961.000.980.990.98Royal Melbourne Institute of Technoloyg1.010.971.010.961.020.97Swinburne University of Technology0.981.040.981.010.980.97University of Ballarat1.001.091.071.060.951.14University of Melbourne0.930.940.930.921.000.98Victoria University of Technology1.001.050.991.040.981.03Central Queensland University1.031.051.031.001.061.03Griffith University1.010.970.990.951.000.97James Cook University of North Queensland1.090.931.130.961.060.84Queensland University of Technology1.021.011.011.001.021.01University of Queensland0.971.010.970.990.941.05University of Southern Queensland1.081.031.060.991.140.99Curtin University of Technology1.000.960.990.941.001.00Edith Cowan University0.980.950.990.931.000.99Murdoch University1.011.011.011.001.001.04University of Western Australia0.980.890.970.901.000.89Flinders University of South Australia1.000.961.011.001.010.98University of Adelaide1.010.941.011.021.020.95University of South Australia0.990.971.001.000.971.01Australian Maritime College0.930.690.820.690.603.00University of Tasmania0.990.950.950.930.900.96Northern Territory University0.890.880.690.940.691.03Australian National University1.021.120.991.040.991.04University of Canberra0.991.010.961.030.961.03Australian Catholic University0.991.01National0.970.970.980.970.980.98* Retention is the proportion of equity group students retained from one year to the next compared with the proportion of other students retained. The reference value for retention is 1.WOMEN IN NON-TRADITIONAL AREAS: ACCESS* 1997INSTITUTIONAgricultureArchitectureEngineeringBus/EconScienceCharles Sturt University40.548.839.6Macquarie University20.040.334.4Southern Cross University42.942.930.4University of New England32.639.611.843.241.8University of New South Wales**50.617.737.944.2University of Newcastle20.89.845.440.0University of Sydney37.435.615.846.146.9University of Technology Sydney37.930.89.749.243.5University of Western Sydney38.232.17.448.238.5University of Wollongong11.736.150.2Deakin University19.413.741.843.5La Trobe University39.59.946.949.5Monash University12.846.540.1Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology44.216.549.543.5Swinburne University of Technology65.717.047.633.3University of Ballarat17.942.135.4University of Melbourne42.733.423.144.357.3Victoria University of Technology11.553.638.8Central Queensland University16.75.352.046.8Griffith University41.215.152.335.6James Cook University of North Queensland46.218.814.754.947.9Queensland University of Technology34.79.952.934.8University of Queensland41.931.419.045.648.6University of Southern Queensland10.543.764.9Curtin University of Technology36.240.310.849.633.8Edith Cowan University10.950.438.2Murdoch University19.049.142.8University of Western Australia53.357.022.245.648.5Flinders University of South Australia23.747.744.5University of Adelaide42.735.219.541.840.4University of South Australia43.141.311.449.230.5Australian Maritime College17.95.08.63.5University of Tasmania27.744.98.947.340.6Northern Territory University57.153.910.554.143.3Australian National University41.919.445.048.0University of Canberra23.15.351.047.3Australian Catholic University52.137.7National40.136.714.546.842.3* Figures show female commencing student enrolments as a percentage of all commencing student enrolments in each field of study. A blank cell denotes that the area of study is not offered at that university.** No figure is available.WOMEN IN NON-TRADITIONAL AREAS: PARTICIPATION* 1997INSTITUTIONAgricul-ture %Architec-ture %Engin- eering %Bus/ Econ%Science%Charles Sturt University38.846.332.9Macquarie University14.338.837.2Southern Cross University33.343.634.2University of New England36.037.012.742.140.9University of New South Wales46.949.017.842.743.9University of Newcastle16.79.644.038.2University of Sydney39.039.515.846.146.4University of Technology Sydney40.329.710.150.241.5University of Western Sydney34.431.47.644.640.5University of Wollongong12.239.248.3Deakin University25.013.242.044.9La Trobe University45.912.944.348.6Monash University13.145.138.4Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology44.318.447.843.0Swinburne University of Technology57.613.648.335.3University of Ballarat16.947.039.6University of Melbourne43.438.923.243.556.1Victoria University of Technology24.011.153.640.0Central Queensland University7.57.751.237.0Griffith University52.014.251.437.2James Cook University of North Queensland46.417.011.453.043.6Queensland University of Technology32.09.951.632.6University of Queensland41.139.716.545.745.9University of Southern Queensland9.043.870.0Curtin University of Technology37.035.110.346.030.4Edith Cowan University8.547.235.6Murdoch University18.948.045.3University of Western Australia45.552.818.344.446.9Flinders University of South Australia19.841.943.2University of Adelaide40.538.216.536.341.6University of South Australia46.137.710.548.429.2Australian Maritime College18.86.38.83.7University of Tasmania31.936.210.045.138.1Northern Territory University55.654.410.655.441.6Australian National University34.415.145.445.6University of Canberra25.16.550.447.6Australian Catholic University51.442.3National39.836.114.146.141.9* Figures show female enrolments as a percentage of total enrolments in each field of study. A blank denotes that the area of study is not offered at that university.WOMEN IN HIGHER DEGREE RESEARCH AND COURSEWORK RELATIVE TO UNDERGRADUATE ENROLMENT, BY INSTITUTION, 1997*InstitutionHigher degree by researchHigher degree by courseworkCharles Sturt University0.781.05Macquarie University0.860.77Southern Cross University0.760.56University of New England0.790.82University of New South Wales0.800.93University of Newcastle0.791.07University of Sydney0.840.98University of Technology, Sydney0.920.99University of Western Sydney0.860.96University of Wollongong0.801.09Deakin University 0.870.91La Trobe University0.891.21Monash University0.921.07Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology0.690.92Swinburne University of Technology0.820.60University of Ballarat0.721.18University of Melbourne0.900.90Victoria University of Technology0.740.79Central Queensland University0.860.81Griffith University0.831.03James Cook University of North Queensland0.751.02Queensland University of Technology0.891.05University of Queensland0.831.03University of Southern Queensland0.770.88Curtin University of Technology0.780.85Edith Cowan University0.870.90Murdoch University0.880.88University of Western Australia0.921.00Flinders University of South Australia0.811.21University of Adelaide0.870.97University of South Australia0.731.10Australian Maritime College2.350.80University of Tasmania0.821.15Northern Territory University0.850.94Australian National University0.800.96University of Canberra 0.960.88Australian Catholic University0.680.75National0.830.94* The participation of women in higher degree research and coursework programmes is measured as the ratio of the percentage of women in higher degree research and coursework programmes to the percentage of women in undergraduate programmes.STUDENTS WITH A DISABILITY 1997 BY ACCESS, PARTICIPATION, SUCCESS(1996) AND RETENTION*InstitutionAccess (%)ParticipationSuccessRetentionCharles Sturt University0.20.120.940.96Macquarie University2.80.800.911.04Southern Cross University9.11.470.900.86University of New England1.60.520.891.00University of New South Wales2.20.550.941.00University of Newcastle3.10.840.920.93University of Sydney0.80.330.930.96University of Technology Sydney2.10.420.910.95University of Western Sydney2.90.540.890.85University of Wollongong6.11.610.991.02Deakin University1.60.270.920.88La Trobe University1.90.471.011.01Monash University3.00.860.950.98Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology2.10.520.920.97Swinburne University of Technology1.00.210.930.94University of Ballarat3.20.880.960.95University of Melbourne3.10.820.981.07Victoria University of Technology2.30.621.031.02Central Queensland University3.30.960.921.00Griffith University3.00.750.931.01James Cook University of North Queensland3.30.861.011.00Queensland University of Technology2.10.540.930.93University of Queensland1.20.310.910.94University of Southern Queensland2.21.050.961.11Curtin University of Technology0.30.150.970.89Edith Cowan University2.30.360.930.91Murdoch University3.40.920.920.98University of Western Australia1.60.500.961.08Flinders University of South Australia5.01.230.951.00University of Adelaide3.00.780.901.00University of South Australia2.60.670.880.95Australian Maritime College1.40.531.020.90University of Tasmania2.50.51Northern Territory University2.80.870.950.92Australian National University0.60.05University of Canberra4.10.970.971.02Australian Catholic University2.60.780.960.95National2.400.610.940.99* Access is the proportion of commencing students belonging to the equity group.Participation is the proportion of equity group members in the student population relative to the representation of the group in the relevant State or Territory population.Success is the proportion of units passed by members of the equity group compared with the proportion passed by other students.Retention is the proportion of equity group students retained from one year to the next compared with the proportion of other students retained.The reference value for participation, success and retention is 1.For the purposes of this table, people with a disability were defined as those who answered in the affirmative the question, "Do you have a disability, impairment or long-term medical condition which may affect your studies?" on student enrolment forms. The reference value for access is 4 per cent. The reference value for participation, success and retention is 1.A blank denotes that figures were not supplied by the institution.2109(Question No. 47)472109Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Has the Government entered negotiations with the Ford Motor Company concerning the establishment of four-wheel drive manufacturing in Melbourne; if so, what are the details.2109Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Government has not entered negotiations with the Ford Motor Company concerning the establishment of four-wheel drive manufacturing in Melbourne. In the normal course of contact with the industry, the Government has received advice and representations both from Ford and other motor vehicle assemblers about the possible impact ofcurrent and future policy instruments on vehicle manufacturing in Australia. The Government would welcome any new developments in vehicle manufacturing in Australia and will consider the views of any company proposing such developments.2110(Question No. 49)492110Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:On the most recent data, how many Child Support Agency clients reside within the postcode areas of(a) 2145, (b) 2148, (c) 2149, (d) 2160, (e) 2161, (f) 2163, (g) 2164, (h) 2165, (i) 2166, (i) 2171, (k) 2176 and (1) 2766.2110Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Postcode#Payees#PayersTotal2145123612592495214813521508286021491481322802160662721138321615496801229216335343078321644615701031216585810551913216612511601285221714836111094217679272315152766310311621Total84559601180562110(Question No. 58)582110Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) On the most recent data, how many community based child care centres are there in the electoral division of Prospect.(2) What is the name and address of each centre.(3) How many children are enrolled at each centre.(4) What sum in Commonwealth finding did each centre receive in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98.(5) What sum will each centre receive in 1998-99.(6) On the most recent data, how many families residing within the postcode areas of(a) 2145, (b) 2148, (c) 2149, (d) 2160, (e) 2161, (0 2163, (g) 2164, (h) 2165, (i) 2166, (j) 2171, (k) 2176 and (l) 2766 receive some level of financial childcare support from the Commonwealth and which payments do families receive.2110Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable.Member's question:(1) There are 10 community based child care centres in the electoral division of Prospect.(2) The names and addresses of each centre are:Mamma Lena Child Care Centre, 4-6 Hampton Street, Fairfield 2165 Fairfield Nursery School, 17—19 York Street, Fairfield 2165Greystanes Uniting Church Child Care Centre, Cnr Cumberland and Eldridge Roads, Greystanes 2145Smithfield Child Care Centre, 71 Oxford Street, Smithfield 2164Tasman Parade Child Care Centre, Lot 263, 74 Tasman Parade, Fairfield West 2165Wetherill Park Child Care Centre, Stocklands Town Centre, Lot 2, Restwell Road, Wetherill Park 2164Janice Crosio Child Care Centre, 27 Belfield Road, Bossley Park 2176Wenty Child Care Centre, 98 Damien Avenue, Greystanes 2145Guildford West Child Care Centre, 50 Princes Street, Guildford West 2161Carramar Child Care Centre, 7 Karella Avenue, Villawood 2163(3) The numbers of children who attended services in the last week in October 1998 were:Mamma Lena Child Care Centre93Fairfield Nursery School60Greystanes Uniting Church Child Care Centre130Smithfield Child Care Centre77Tasman Parade Child Care Centre90Wetherill Park Child Care Centre72Janice Crosio Child Care Centre87Wenty Child Care Centre81Guildford West Child Care Centre74Carramar Child Care Centre49(4) and (5) The sum of Commonwealth funding each centre received in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 and the estimated sum each centre will receive in 1998-99 is:NAME95/9596/9797/98ESTIMATE 98/99Mamma Lena Child Care Centre$159,166$156,654$122,731$164,400Fairfield Nursery School$179,091$214,972$165,094$140,600Greystanes Uniting Church Child Care Centre$192,823$205,645$121,610$125,500Smithfield Child Care Centre$272,308$166,470$126,025$120,500Tasman Parade Child Care Centre$51,163$89,620$76,315$74,100Wetherill Park Child Care Centre$177,216$194,832$112,046$75,000Janice Crosio Child Care Centre$131,300$123,015$104,825$94,700Wenty Child Care Centre$131,190$173,976$151,541$141,300Guildford West Child Care Centre$140,307$188,619$114,392$106,000Carramar Child Care Centre$164,727$174,363$135,228$121,800Note: Commonwealth finding to services, including payments on behalf of families, included Childcare Assistance, Special Childcare Assistance, Operational Subsidy, Block Grant, JET Payment, Superannuation Guarantee and Special Needs.(6) Childcare Assistance is paid to services on behalf of eligible families. As at November 1998, the numbers of families in the following postcodes for whom Childcare Assistance (CA) was paid and to whom Childcare Rebate (CR) was paid, were:PostcodeCACR(a) 21451823931(b) 21481785785(c)214913990(d) 2160977376(e) 2161807285(f) 2163325106(g) 2164538219(h) 21651000315(i) 21661322389(j) 2171833311(k) 21761248666(l) 2766355159Note: CR payments for work related care include payments for care provided in formal and informal child care and preschool.2112(Question No. 59)592112Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) On the most recent data, how many participants in work-for-the-dole schemes reside within the postcode areas of (a) 2145, (b) 2148, (c) 2149, (d) 2160, (e) 2161, (f) 2163, (g) 2164, (h) 2165, (i) 2166, (j) 2171, (k) 2176, and (l) 2766.(2) Will the Minister also provide the name of each organisation running work-for-the-dole schemes which employ residents of each postcodearea together with (a) the objectives and (b) location of each scheme.(3) On the most recent data, how many recipients of (a) Austudy and (b) Abstudy reside within the postcode areas of (i) 2145, (ii) 2148, (iii) 2149, (iv) 2160, (v) 2161, (vi) 2163, (vii) 2164, (viii) 2165, (ix) 2166, (x) 2171, (xi) 2176, and (xii) 2766.2112Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As at November 1998, (a) 7, (b) 12, (c) 0, (d) 4, (e) 1, (f) 6, (g) 12, (h) 28, (i) 30, (j) 13, (k) 25, (l) 1.(2) The following are the objectives and location of work-for-the-dole sponsors that are employing participants from the above postcodes:NameObjectives (a)Location (b)Participants' PostcodesMission AustraliaPreservation of aircraft and restoration of historic hangerBankstown2166North St Mary's Neighbourhood CentreRenovation of the InterYouth premises and operation of a soup kitchen; and development of a youth directory for workers and young peoplePenrith, Hawkesbury2145, 2766Mission AustraliaRehabilitation of land and surroundings of a number of school areas; and development of a worm farmSmithfield, Fairfield2145, 2163, 2164, 2165, 2166, 2176 Mission AustraliaRehabilitation of land in Cabramatta Creek site, school and community centresCabramatta, Bonnyrigg2163, 2166CSA Training ServicesPreservation of vegetation in the Fairfield Indigenous Flora ParkFairfield2160, 2163, 2165, 2166, 2176CSA Training ServicesPreservation of endangered species and development of the site for recreational and learning purposesFairfield2164, 2165, 2176, 2160, 2166H & H Accredited TrainingRestoration of four heritage sites of historical significanceLiverpool2145, 2163, 2166, 2171, 2176Mission AustraliaConstruction of recreational facilities and preservation of artefacts and memorabilia on a range of local community and heritage sitesBlacktown, Parramatta2145, 2148Inner West Skills Centre IncCollation of interviews with elderly migrants in the Inner West and provision of this resource to local librariesAshfield, Burwood, Concord, Strathfield, Drummoyne, Marrickville, Leichhardt2160Hawkesbury Skills IncLandscaping, desktop publishing, community arts and community developmentPenrith2166Mission AustraliaPreservation of historical items and records, restoration of museum and landscapingFairfield2161, 2164, 2165, 2166, 2176Mission AustraliaDevelopment of a Lighthorse Park alongside the Georges RiverLiverpool2166, 2171(3) As at November 1998, (a)(i) 130, (ii) 117, (iii) 6, (iv) 78, (v) 51, (vi) 46, (vii) 19, (viii) 88, (ix) 141, (x) 20, (xi) 76, (xii) 12 and (b)(i) 30, (ii) 67, (iii) 5, (iv) 22, (v) 23, (vi) 7, (vii) 12, (viii) 12, (ix) 29, (x) 14, (xi) 28, (xii) 22.From 1 July 1998, the old Austudy ceased to exist and was replaced by Youth Allowance (students under 25 and unemployed under 21), Austudy (students 25 and over) and the Pensioner Education Supplement. 2112(Question No. 62)622112Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 11 November 1998 :Did he attend (a) the recent Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) awards in Sydney or (b) an event associated with the recent Pacific Circle Music Convention in Sydney; if not, (i) did the Minister send a representative, (ii) why did the Minister not attend and (iii) did the Minister receive an invitation to attend.2113McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Neither I nor a representative attended the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) awards nor the Pacific Circle Music Convention.(B) Neither I, nor any of my staff, received an invitation to either the ARIA Awards nor the Pacific Circle Music Convention.(i)—(iii) The Pacific Circle Music Convention took place on 15—18 October 1998 before the Prime Minister had announced portfolio responsibilities on 18 October 1998. The ARIA Awards ceremony took place on 20 October 1998. This was the day prior to which I was sworn in by the Governor General.2113(Question No. 75)752113Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) How many applications for the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 had been received at (a) 31 December 1997, (b) 31 March 1998, (c) 30 June 1998 and (d) 30 September 1998.(2) How many veterans had (a) been granted and (b) received the medal at (i) 31 December 1997, (ii) 31 March 1998, (iii) 30 June 1998 and (iv) 30 September 1998.(3) How many medals have been awarded for each war or conflict to the date of answering this question.(4) What is the average time taken to finalise an application.(5) When the medal was announced in September 1997, did his Department purchase sufficient medals to satisfy the number of eligible applicants; if not, (a) when were further medals ordered and (b) at what cost.(6) How many (a) civilian and (b) military staff were involved in processing medal applications by serving and former Defence personnel at (i) 31 December 1995, (ii) 31 December 1996 and (iii) 31 December 1997.(7) Is there a delay in processing applications for medals; if so, what action will be taken to address the delays.2113Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Accurate numbers of applications specifically for the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 have not been recorded, as many applicants request a number of medals on their application and others do not specify a medal on their application. However, an estimate of the number of applications for the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 received is:(a) 13950, (b) 25347, (c)35297, and (d)42608.(2) (a) (i) Nil, (ii)6880, (iii)17333, and (iv)26435.(b) (i) Nil, (ii) 1, (iii)12798, and (iv)22294.(3) As at 12 November 1998, the following medals have been issued to veterans:(a) Korean War—3303, (b)Malayan Emergency—1965, (c)Indonesian Confrontation—2965, and (d)Vietnam War—18097.(4) It is not possible to establish an average time for an application. Many applications involve the award of more than one medal, which are placed on separate schedules for the Governor-General's approval. The completed schedules are presented to the Governor-General for approval at different times. This time varies according to the number of applications received for a particular medal. Other applications are a mix of Imperial Honours System medals, which do not require the approval of the Governor-General, and Australian Honours System medals which do require approval. Most records are contained in paper form requiring lengthy manual searches, while records for Army personnel who have served since mid-1980s are contained on a computer data base.(5) Government House is responsible for the procurement of medals which are issued to Defence as they are approved for issue to applicants.(6) (a) and (b) (i) 27 civilian, 1 military, (ii) 29 civilian, 1 military, and (iii) 30 civilian, 1 military.(7) Yes. All processes involved in issuing medals have been reviewed and streamlined as far as possible. Staff of the Medals Sections are working overtime to satisfy the demand. In addition, one temporary staff is employed in the Medals Section Navy and four temporary staff are employed in the Medals Section Army. I have asked Defence for additional options to meet the extra workload in processing the large number of new applications.2113(Question No. 93)932113Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On the most recent data, how many Child Support Agency clients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) how many Child Support Agency in the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, and (x) 3752.2113Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:As at 2 December 1998# Payees# PayersTotalVictoria105705108463214168As at 2 December 1998Postcode#Payees#PayersTotal307454951410633075451520971307642353095330824546811135308337242679830872232504733088408496904308913620534130901372037527280153Total3101370968102114(Question No. 104)1042114Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:What sums were provided to (a) government and (b) non- government schools in (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1996-97 and (iii) 1997-98 in the postcode areas of (A) 3074, (B) 3075, (C) 3076, (D) 3082, (E) 3083, (F) 3087, (G) 3088, (H) 3089, (I) 3090 and (J) 3752 and what was the (I) expenditure on, (II) location of, and (III) purpose of, each grant.2114Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Commonwealth schools programs operate on annual calendar year funding arrange-ments. Details of grants provided to both government and non-government schools in the selected postcodes for years 1995-1997 are provided at Attachment A. At this time, payments for 1998 to individual schools are only known for non-systemic, non-government schools of which there are three in the total schools listed. Inclusion of the 1998 payment figures for these schools would misrepresent the funding situation and therefore have not been included.Commonwealth grants for government schools are paid as block grants to the State and Territory Governments. The Capital Grants program is the only government schools program under which the States and Territories are required to report expenditure on individual schools.POSTCODE 30741995 $(i) Government schoolsPeter Lalor Secondary College, ThomastownCapital Grants220,000 (ii) Non-government schoolsSt John's Primary, Thomastown EastGeneral Recurrent Grants384,320Students with Disabilities1,104Community Languages14,788TOTAL$400,212St Clare's, Thomastown WestGeneral Recurrent Grants798,114Students with Disabilities2,024Community Languages22,202TOTAL$822,340POSTCODE 3075(i) Government scboolsLalor North Primary, LalorCapital Grants29,000Lalor Primary, LalorCapital Grants9,000TOTAL$38,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Luke's Primary, LalorGeneral Recurrent Grants638,372Students with Disabilities874Community Languages20,288TOTAL$659,534St Catherine's Primary, Lalor WestGeneral Recurrent Grants403,302Students with Disabilities1,564Community Languages9,572TOTAL$414,438POSTCODE 3076(i) Government schoolsEpping Primary, EppingCapital Grants50,000 (ii) Non-government schoolsSt Peter's Parish Primary, EppingGeneral Recurrent Grants587,431Students with Disabilities1,794Community Languages8,704TOTAL$597,929St Monica's College, EppingGeneral Recurrent Grants2,917,653Students with Disabilities1,257TOTAL$2,918,910POSTCODE 3082(i) Government schoolsMill Park Secondary College, Mill ParkCapital Grants 200,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Francis of Assisi Primary, Mill ParkGeneral Recurrent Grants1,204,986Students with Disabilities1,564Community Languages36,319TOTAL$1,242,869POSTCODE 3083(i) Government schoolsGreenwood Secondary College, BundooraCapital Grants92,000Kingsbury Primary, KingsburyCapital Grants125,000TOTAL$217,000(ii) Non-government schoolsOur Lady of the Way, KingsburyGeneral Recurrent Grants285,407Students with Disabilities874Community Languages6,528TOTAL$292,809 St Damian's, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants727,424Students with Disabilities1,334Community Languages30,345TOTAL$759,103Northside Christian College, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants548,623Students with Disabilities494TOTAL$549,117Parade College, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants3,536,802Students with Disabilities1,257Community Languages1,200TOTAL$3,539,259POSTCODE 3087(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsLoyola College, WatsoniaGeneral Recurrent Grants2,304,430Students with Disabilities1,257TOTAL$2,305,687POSTCODE 3088(i) Government schoolsNil(i) Non-government schoolsSt Mary's, GreensboroughGeneral Recurrent Grants820,852Students with Disabilities4,405TOTAL$825,257St Thomas' Primary, GreensboroughGeneral Recurrent Grants685,317Students with Disabilities5,928Community Languages22,272TOTAL$713,517 POSTCODE 3089(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSacred Heart, Diamond CreekGeneral Recurrent Grants614,174Students with Disabilities1,104Community Languages22,708TOTAL$637,986Plenty Valley Montessori, Diamond CreekGeneral Recurrent Grants144,072Students with Disabilities584TOTAL$144,656POSTCODE 3090(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsNilPOSTCODE 3752(i) Government schoolsSouth Morang Primary, South MorangCapital Grants 1,450,000(ii) Non-government schoolsNilPOSTCODE 30741996 $(i) Government schoolsPeter Lalor Secondary College, ThomastownCapital Grants 332,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt John's Primary, Thomastown EastGeneral Recurrent Grants409,475Students with Disabilities1,548TOTAL$411,023St Clare's, Thomastown WestGeneral Recurrent Grants802,581Students with Disabilities1,600TOTAL$804,181 POSTCODE 3075(i) Government scboolsLalor North Primary, LalorCapital Grants29,000Lalor Primary, LalorCapital Grants65,000TOTAL$94,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Luke's Primary, LalorGeneral Recurrent Grants618,250Students with Disabilities1032TOTAL$619,282St Catherine's Primary, Lalor WestGeneral Recurrent Grants394,761Students with Disabilities2,657TOTAL$397,418POSTCODE 3076(i) Government schoolsEpping Secondary College, EppingCapital Grants65,000Epping Primary, EppingCapital Grants13,000TOTAL$78,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Peter's Parish Primary, EppingGeneral Recurrent Grants636,841Students with Disabilities2,064TOTAL$638,905St Monica's College, EppingGeneral Recurrent Grants3,309,540Students with Disabilities6,000TOTAL$3,315,540 POSTCODE 3082(i) Government schoolsMill Park Secondary College, Mill ParkCapital Grants1,280,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Francis of Assisi Primary, Mill ParkGeneral Recurrent Grants1,317,482Students with Disabilities2,631TOTAL$1,320,113POSTCODE 3083(i) Government schoolsGreenwood Primary, BundooraCapital Grants27,000Greenwood Secondary College, BundooraCapital Grants 92,000(ii) Non-government schoolsOur Lady of the Way, KingsburyGeneral Recurrent Grants279,494Students with Disabilities774TOTAL$280,268St Damian's, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants766,201Students with Disabilities1,290TOTAL$767,491Northside Christian College, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants568,911Students with Disabilities917Capital Grants47,900TOTAL$617,728Parade College, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants3,706,445Students with Disabilities1,500TOTAL$3,707,945 POSTCODE 3087(i) Government schoolsWatsonia North Primary, WatsoniaCapital Grants28,000(ii) Non-government schoolsLoyola College, WatsoniaGeneral Recurrent Grants2,410,458Students with Disabilities3,750TOTAL$2,414,208POSTCODE 3088(i) Government schoolsNil(i) Non-government schoolsSt Mary's, GreensboroughGeneral Recurrent Grants876,852Students with Disabilities2,322TOTAL$879,174St Thomas' Primary, GreensboroughGeneral Recurrent Grants764,993Students with Disabilities3,354Capital Grants257,672TOTAL$1,026,019POSTCODE 3089(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSacred Heart, Diamond CreekGeneral Recurrent Grants688,974Students with Disabilities1290TOTAL$690,264Plenty Valley Montessori, Diamond CreekGeneral Recurrent Grants154,744Students with Disabilities680TOTAL$155,424 POSTCODE 3090(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsNilPOSTCODE 3752(i) Government schoolsMorang South Primary, MorangCapital Grants680,000(ii) Non-government schoolsNilPOSTCODE 30741997 $(i) Government schoolsThomastown High, ThomastownCapital Grants370,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt John's Primary, Thomastown EastGeneral Recurrent Grants433,247St Clare's, Thomastown WestGeneral Recurrent Grants774,765POSTCODE 3075(i) Government scboolsLalor North Primary, LalorCapital Grants 210,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Luke's Primary, LalorGeneral Recurrent Grants678,615St Catherine's Primary, Lalor WestGeneral Recurrent Grants420,527POSTCODE 3076(i) Government schoolsNil (ii) Non-government schoolsSt Peter's Parish Primary, EppingGeneral Recurrent Grants735,335St Monica's College, EppingGeneral Recurrent Grants4,000,058POSTCODE 3082(i) Government schoolsMill Park Primary, Mill ParkCapital Grants 16,000Mill Park Secondary College, Mill ParkCapaital Grants1,215,000(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Francis of Assisi Primary, Mill ParkGeneral Recurrent Grants1,422,252POSTCODE 3083(i) Government schoolsGreenwood Primary, BundooraCapital Grants 190,000Bundoora Secondary College, BundooraCapital Grants Programme378,000(ii) Non-government schoolsOur Lady of the Way, KingsburyGeneral Recurrent Grants335,811St Damian's, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants911,714Northside Christian College, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants629,722Students with Disabilities430TOTAL$630,152Parade College, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants4,071,289Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, BundooraGeneral Recurrent Grants35,740POSTCODE 3087(i) Government schoolsWatsonia North Primary, WatsoniaCapital Grants 112,000(ii) Non-government schoolsLoyola College, WatsoniaGeneral Recurrent Grants2,740,274POSTCODE 3088(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Mary's, GreensboroughGeneral Recurrent Grants890,021St Thomas' Primary, GreensboroughGeneral Recurrent Grants723,873POSTCODE 3089(i) Government schoolsNil(i) Non-government schoolsSacred Heart, Diamond CreekGeneral Recurrent Grants724,470Plenty Valley Montessori, Diamond CreekGeneral Recurrent Grants164,082Students with Disabilities883T0TAL$164,965POSTCODE 3090(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schools-NilPOSTCODE 3752(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schools-Nil2125(Question No. 108)1082125Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LindsayHK6HerbertLP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On most recent data how many Child Support Agency clients reside in the postcode areas of (a) 4810, (b) 4811, (c) 4812, (d) 4814, (e) 4815, (f) 4816, (g) 4817, (h) 4818, (i) 4819.2125Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:As at 2 December 1998—Postcode#Payees#PayersTotal481010945901684481124928052948127146521366481410361239227548154547541208481627223650848174836441127481838334672948197576151Total4760481795772125(Question No. 127)1272125Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) How many staff were employed at the (a) Preston and (b) Northcote offices of the Department of Social Security on 2 March 1996.(2) How many staff were employed at the (a) Preston and (b) Northcote offices of the Department of Social Security (i) immediately before and (ii) following the restructuring of the offices into the Centrelink network.(3) How many staff were employed at the Preston office of Centrelink on 6 November 1998.(4) What changes to staffing numbers at the Preston Office of Centrelink will occur as a result of the Centrelink staffing announcement on 9 November 1998.2125Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 2 March 1996 the Preston Office had 71 staff and the Northcote Office had 44 staff.(2) The Preston and Northcote Offices were amalgamated in November 1996 to create the Darebin Office. In April 1997, before the Centrelink network, the Darebin Office had 108 staff and after the Centrelink network was created, in May 1997, Centrelink Darebin had 125 staff.(3) On 6 November 1998 Centrelink Darebin had 116 staff.(4) None immediately, but on current finding estimates it may be necessary to reduce staffing levels by up to eight immediately prior to or just after the commencement of the 1999-2000 financial year.2125(Question No. 134)1342125Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) When did the (a) Government and (b) Federal Office of Road Safety become aware that (i) many Hyundai Excels in Australia have a fault in the forward right-side wheel assembly which potentially threatens safety and (ii) Hyundai Excels with the same fault were recalled in the USA in 1996 because they were considered a safety risk.(2) What action did the (a) Government and (b) Federal Office of Road Safety take after learning of the fault's existence to ensure that the safety of Australian road users was protected.(3) What mechanisms does the Government employ to ensure that information about faults in vehicles detected in other countries is immediately available to relevant Australian authorities.(4) Did the Government order an immediate recall of Hyundai Excels upon learning of the fault's existence and the previous action of the US Government; if not, why not.(5) Did he or a Government representative ask Hyundai why they did not act on the matter as soon as the cars had been recalled in the USA; if so, (a) when and (b) what was the response.2125Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I am advised by the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) that a facsimile was received on 26 August 1998 regarding three Hyundai Excel vehicles that had an alleged problem with the front right hand sub-assembly that attaches the lower control arm to the vehicle. The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland provided this advice through the Australian Automobile Association (AAA).FORS was advised by Hyundai of the recall in Puerto Rico on 20 October 1998.The information provided by the AAA was forwarded to Hyundai Automotive Distributors Australia on the same day it was received, 26 August 1998, asking the company to investigate and advise any proposed rectification action. FORS contacted the Office of Defects Investigation at the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by electronic mail asking whether the vehicle was marketed in the USA and whether they had any reports of the failure of the spot welds at the front lower control arm mountings. FORS received no response to this first request and this was repeated on 22 September 1998. On 20 October 1998, a FORS officer on other business in Korea met with Hyundai officials in Seoul to discuss the issue. Hyundai provided a presentation that indicated that the front sub-assembly could not fail suddenly. The problem manifests itself gradually and results in progressively heavier steering and excessive front tyre wear. Audible warnings are evident prior to failure. FORS was subsequently able to contact NHTSA by telephone and was advised that a recall was conducted on the Hyundai Accent (the US model name) in Puerto Rico. The vehicle was not subject to a recall in mainland USA.(3) FORS has in place a recall information exchange program with its counterparts in Japan, United Kingdom, Canada and the USA. Because marketing names can be different in various countries, it can be difficult to ascertain whether any particular model is involved.(4) Discussions with NHTSA in the US indicated that the vehicle was recalled only in Puerto Rico because the abnormal road and driving conditions there contributed to the problem.NHTSA conducted investigations between November 1996 and October 1997 to determine whether the recall should be extended to mainland USA. The investigations included NHTSA personnel driving vehicles with the problem which were deemed to be controllable. NHTSA cited "a lack of a reasonable safety risk" for the closure of the investigation.(5) Discussions between FORS and Hyundai focused on resolving whether there was an inherent problem with Excels sold in Australia and how this might be resolved in the interests of owners and other road users. The experience in Puerto Rico was discussed at the meeting on 12 November 1998. On 18 November 1998, FORS advised that it agreed with Hyundai's proposal to conduct a field service campaign to rectify all 46,000 vehicles.2126(Question No. 153)1532126McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Is the Government aware of any independent studies which have been undertaken on the viability of the Long Term Operating Plan targets regarding flight paths over various areas of Sydney; if so, (a) what independent studies and (b) what did the studies reveal about the viability of the targets.2126Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.2126(Question No. 163)1632126McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:How many suburbs north of the Parramatta River suffer from aircraft noise above 70 decibels per noise event from aircraft flying to or from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.2126Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:It is estimated that many suburbs north of the Parramatta River experience single aircraft noise events associated with Sydney Airport above 70 dB(A) at some time. The most impacted suburbs are those lying under the flight paths for take-offs to the north-west off the main north-south runway and landings from the north on the parallel runways. 2126(Question No. 175)1752126McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 3048 (Hansard, 15 July 1998, page 6225) noting the Government's receipt of formal advice on 25 May 1998 of a complaint to the International Labour Organisation by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, is it a fact that the complaint was lodged on 7 May 1998 and the Government received notice foreshadowing the complaint; if so, when did the Government receive notice.2126Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:The complaint to the International Labour Organisation was lodged by the International Confederation of Trade Unions on 7 May 1998. The Government obtained a copy of the complaint from the International Labour Office through the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva on 8 May 1998 after being alerted by an article in the press. The Government received formal notice of the complaint on 25 May 1998 in a communication from the International Labour Office dated 12 May 1998.2126(Question No. 176)1762126McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Will the Government amend the Workplace Relations Act to reduce, diminish or restrict the remedy available to apprentices under the Act in respect of dismissal in harsh, unjust or unconscionable circumstances; if so, how.2126Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 currently before the Parliament would exclude both employees with less than six months' continuous service and those who are employed by a business with 15 or fewer employees from the unfair dismissal laws. However, apprentices and trainees would not be affected by those amendments.2126(Question No. 179)1792126McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Are directors of community employment services which have been awarded employment placement contracts by the Government personally liable if the services become insolvent.(2) Will the Government guarantee debts incurred by those services to ensure that their directors are not personally liable for the debts.2126Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The structure of an organisation determines whether or not directors can be held personally liable if their organisation becomes insolvent. This is a matter upon which each organisation should obtain their own legal advice. However I am advised that if the organisation is incorporated under the Corporations law, directors can be held personally liable. This occurs where the organisation involves itself in insolvent trading and the director/s allow the corporation to incur a debt even though there are reasonable grounds to believe the corporation is insolvent or the debt will render it insolvent.Those organisations which are incorporated under the various State/Territory incorporated associations legislation may find the liability provisions different as that legislation seeks to limit the liability of organisations and office holders.(2) No.2127(Question No. 182)1822127McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2622 (Hansard, 2 April 1998, page 2488), what issues or points of disagreement precluded the arrival at a consensus on the proposed joint venture between the Hurstville Council and the Australian Taxation Office to establish a childcare centre.2127Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:On 29 May 1995, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) wrote to Hurstville Council confirming it would commit to a 2 1 year agreement regarding the finding of the 20 child care places for ATO staff. These places would join the 40 places approved in 1991 for Hurstville Council under the 1988 National Child Care Strategy (NCCS).The Commonwealth Government's decision in August 1996 to remove operational subsidy for long day care centres reopened negotiations between Council and the ATO with Council seeking reassurances from the ATO on the previously agreed funding arrangements. Under these arrangements, the ATO had committed to a payment for 20 places which matched the Commonwealth's operational subsidy.On 23 April 1 997, the ATO wrote to Hurstville Council advising that they would be prepared to enter into a contract for a ten year term, with two five year options, and that they were unable to commit to a payment which matched the Commonwealth's operational subsidy as that would cease on I July 1997.Council advised the ATO that 21 year period of agreement was not negotiable and continued to seek recurrent finding from the ATO for its 20 child care places.On 29 January 1998 the ATO withdrew from further negotiations due the reluctance of Council to accept the ATO's position and the changed government policy.2127(Question No. 193)1932127McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 3084 (Hansard , 15 July 1998, page 6270), has a program for shipment of spent nuclear fuel from the operation of the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights, NSW, been developed; if so, under the program (a) how many rods will be transported, (b) how many shipments are contemplated, (c) what are the proposed dates of the shipments, (d) what will each shipment cost and (e) what is the destination of each shipment.2127Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Spent fuel rods currently stored at ANSTO are of either US or UK origin. ANSTO's program for the management of spent nuclear fuel is based on the repatriation of US-origin fuel rods and the reprocessing of UK-origin fuel rods.(a) ANSTO currently holds 449 HIFAR spent fuel elements of US origin which will be repatriated. It is anticipated that around 1300 HIFAR spent fuel rods of UK origin will also be shipped overseas for reprocessing. The precise number of fuel rods cannot be determined until the closure date for HIFAR is known.(b) It is anticipated that there will be two shipments to the United States and four shipments to a commercial nuclear fuel reprocessor.(c) The dates for individual shipments have yet to be determined, but the program is likely to commence around the end of 1999 and run for about eight years.(d) Costs of individual shipments cannot be determined at this stage.(e) US origin fuel will be shipped to Savannah River, South Carolina. The destination of the UK-origin spent fuel will be determined when a commercial reprocessor is engaged in the near future.2127(Question No. 203)2032127Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) Has the new Defence Long Service Medal been gazetted; if so, when; if not, why not.(2) How many (a) members of the full-time forces, (b) officers in the reserve forces and (c) members of the reserve forces are estimated to meet the eligibility requirements of the medal.(3) How many serving members will be ineligible for the medal because they have received the (a) Defence Force Service Medal, (b) Reserve Force Decoration or (c) Reserve Force Medal.2127Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. In the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 352 of 10 July 1998.(2) and (3) Without a complete review of all Service records, it is not possible to assess how many personnel will be eligible for the Defence Long Service Medal, or how many will not qualify because they hold a Defence Force Service Medal, Reserve Force Decoration or a Reserve Force Medal.2127(Question No. 204)2042127Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) How many training providers (a) were granted and (b) still retain a contract under the mutual obligation agreement.(2) How many persons nationally have been referred to services provided under the mutual obligation agreement.(3) How many training places have been allocated nationally under the mutual obligation agreement.2127Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) There were three training programs specifically contracted under Mutual Obligation, that is Literacy and Numeracy, Career Counselling and Job Placement, Employment and Training (JPET). There are 68 providers contracted for Literacy and Numeracy; 101 contracted for JPET and one national provider for Career Counselling.(b) These programs are administered by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs and I am advised by that Department that all 170 providers retain their contracts.(2) Young unemployed people can satisfy their Mutual Obligation by participating in a wide range of work, education or training related activities. Centrelink data show that at 27 November 1998, 11,649 had commenced one of these activities.(3) The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs has confirmed that 11,474 training places in Literacy and Numeracy, 8,792 in Career Counselling and 2,200 in Job Placement, Employment and Training have been contracted in 1998-99. In addition, a proportion of job seekers will choose other education and training options, funded under the normal arrangements for the provision of post-secondary education, as a means of satisfying their Mutual Obligation.2128(Question No. 217)2172128Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 October 1998 stating that he would review the federal politicians' superannuation scheme.(2) Will the Government review the superannuation scheme for members of the Commonwealth Parliament; if so, (a) when will the review commence, (b) which body will conduct it, (c) which aspects of the scheme will be reviewed and (d) when will the report be delivered.2128Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the report.(2) (a) to (d) The Government has not decided at this time on any review of the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme.2128(Question No. 226)2262128Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Does the Army keep accurate records of travel by Army personnel on civilian commercial flights at Commonwealth expense.(2) How are bookings on civilian commercial flights made for Army personnel travelling on official business.(3) If a centralised booking system is used, are preferences shown towards particular carriers.(4) Does the Army negotiate with various carriers for the least expensive service when approving travel on official business for Army personnel.(5) How many journeys did Army personnel travelling on official business make from (a) Canberra to Newcastle and (b) Newcastle to Canberra (i) in total, (ii) by direct route and (iii) through Sydney, (A) in 1995-96, (B) in 1996-97, (C) in 1997-98 and (D) from 1 July to 31 October 1998.(6) What was the (a) arrival time in and (b) departure time from Sydney for each flight by Army personnel travelling on official business from (i) Canberra to Newcastle and (ii) Newcastle to Canberra (A) in 1995-96, (B) in 1996-97, (C) in 1997-98 and (D) from 1 July to 31 October 1998.2128Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Bookings for Army personnel travelling on official business on civilian commercial flights are made through the Defence Travel Service with QANTAS Airways Limited. (3) QANTAS Airways Limited is contracted to provide Defence with a comprehensive domestic and international travel agency service including a centralised booking service.QANTAS guarantees to provide the Best Fare Available At The Time Of Booking, which is sourced from all discounted/advanced purchase fares available from the domestic and regional carriers and, where applicable, less the commercial-in-confidence discounts and rebates in the contract. The Best Fare is sourced having regard to the class of travel specified by Defence, the itinerary and flexibility required, the fare price and the attached conditions, and their suitability given the traveller's requirements. Where QANTAS and/or its affiliates are competitive in price, schedule, route and seat availability, Defence is contracted to travel on the QANTAS Group carrier.(4) No.(5) and (6) Information in respect to the matters referred to in parts 5 and 6 of the honourable member's question is not readily available. To provide a complete response would require considerable time and resources and in the interest of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort involved in obtaining the information.2128(Question No. 227)2272128Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 Nove-mber 1 998:(1) Does the RAAF keep accurate records of travel by RAAF personnel on civilian commercial flights at Commonwealth expense.(2) How are bookings on civilian commercial flights made for RAAF personnel travelling on official business.(3) If a centralised booking system is used, are preferences shown towards particular carriers.(4) Does the RAAF negotiate with various carriers for the least expensive service when approving travel on official business for RAAF personnel.(5) How many journeys did RAAF personnel travelling on official business make from (a) Canberra to Newcastle and (b) Newcastle to Canberra (i) in total, (ii) by direct route and (iii) through Sydney, (A) in 1995-96, (B) in 1996-97, (C) in 1997-98 and (D) from 1 July to 31 October 1998.(6) What was the (a) arrival time in and (b) departure time from Sydney for each flight by RAAF personnel travelling on official business from (i) Canberra to Newcastle and (ii) Newcastle to Canberra (A) in 1995-96, (B) in 1996-97, (C) in 1997-98 and (D) from 1 July to 31 October 1998.2128Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Bookings for RAAF personnel travelling on official business on civilian commercial flights are made through the Defence Travel Service with QANTAS Airways Limited.(3) QANTAS Airways Limited is contracted to provide Defence with a comprehensive domestic and international travel agency service including a centralised booking service.QANTAS guarantees to provide the Best Fare Available At The Time Of Booking, which is sourced from all discounted/advanced purchase fares available from the domestic and regional carriers and, where applicable, less the commercial-in-confidence discounts and rebates in the contract. The Best Fare is sourced having regard to the class of travel specified by Defence, the itinerary and flexibility required, the fare price and the attached conditions, and their suitability given the traveller's requirements.Where QANTAS and/or its affiliates are competitive in price, schedule, route and seat availability, Defence is contracted to travel on the QANTAS Group carrier.(4) No.(5) and (6) Information in respect to the matters referred to in parts 5 and 6 of the honourable member's question is not readily available. To provide a complete response would require considerable time and resources and in the interest of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort involved in obtaining the information.2129(Question No. 259)2592129McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:On the most recent data how many Child Support Agency clients reside within the postcode areas of (a) 2205, (b) 2207, (c) 2216, (d) 2217, (e) 2218, (f) 2219, (g) 2220, (h) 2221, (i) 2222 and (j) 2223.2129Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:As at 8 December 1998—Postcode#Payees#PayersTotal22053373526892207392364756 22164185419592917415469884221824122846922191682093772220370349719222117415633022221841843682223268267535Total2967311960862129(Question No. 261)2612129McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On the most recent data, how many recipients of (a) Job Search Allowance, (b) Newstart Allowance, (c) Mature Age Allowance, (d) age pension (e) wife pension, (f) disability support pension, (g) carer pension, (h) youth training allowance, (i) sole parent pension, (j) widow allowance, (k) partner allowance and (l) rent assistance reside within the postcode areas of (i) 2205, (ii) 2207, (iii) 2216, (iv) 2217, (v) 2218, (vi) 2219, (vii) 2220, (viii) 2221, (ix) 2222 and (x) 2223.(2) How many of the persons referred to in part (1)(1) were either on (a) disability support pension or (b) carer pension within each postcode area referred to.2130Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) There have been some changes in payments over the recent years:• Job Search Allowance has been incorporated into Newstart Allowance since September 1996;• Youth Allowance is a new payment and replaces a number of existing payments including Youth Training Allowance from July 1998;• Sole Parent Pension has been replaced by Parenting Payment Single from March 1998; and• Mature Age Allowance figures are listed separately as Newstart Mature Age Allowance and Mature Age Allowance. The true population is the sum of both payments.The number of recipients in the requested postcode areas are:PostcodesPayment Types2205220722162217221822192220222122222223TotalNewstart Allowance4135107465663392095511452022813962Newstart Mature Age All.1730362924114261323231Youth Allowance287369438304214954171551491812609Widow Allowance15383423271223121413211Partner Allowance511059578554490343734623The above numbers are at November 6 1998PostcodesPayment Types2205220722162217221822192220222122222223TotalMature Age Allowance112128235112781011155Age Pension142427372436256710601728195813001043185018103 Wife Pension10913113099635794423944808Disability Support Pen.4834946134542872644352021862653683Carer Pension2436322619202591418224Parenting Payment Single2783303433112051243311151521692359The above numbers are at December 4 1998Payment Types22052207221622172218221922022122222223TotalRent Assistance141717742348200212547632906611956105114272The above numbers are at November 20(2) The number of recipients of Rent Assistance in receipt of Carer and Disability Support Pensions in the requested postcode areas are:Payment Types2205220722162217221822192220222122222223TotalCarer Pension769375828762Disability Support Pen21318924919012211120985941241586The above numbers are at Nov 20 19982130(Question No. 310)3102130Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) How many persons did the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) employ on a casual basis during the 1998 federal general election.(2) How many persons referred to in part (1) were (a) already employed, (b) receiving Newstart or another welfare payment or (c) registered with Employment National or another job agency in the Job Network when they were offered work by the AEC.(3) Did the AEC follow a specific strategy during the 1998 federal general election campaign to offer job opportunities and provide appropriate skills training to the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed.2130Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The AEC employed 64584 people on a casual basis during the 1998 federal general election. (2) (a) The AEC is unable to provide figures on how many of the above persons were already employed. (b) The AEC does not request information on the receipt of Newstart or another welfare payment by such persons at the time of employment. (c) The AEC does not retain records on the number of persons employed on a casual basis who were registered with Employment National or another job agency in the Job Network.(3) The AEC did not follow a specific strategy to employ unemployed people during the 1998 federal general election. The AEC advertises regularly for people to register for temporary work and selects suitable people from that list according to staffing requirements. Employment agencies are approached to refer staff if there are no suitable people available from the AEC employment registers.2131(Question No. 319)3192131Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:Has the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) discussed projects involving any of the organisations or institutions identified in the answer to part (3) of question 3110 (Hansard , 15 July 1998, page 6277); if so, (a) which GMAC members are or were employed by those organisations, institutions or companies, (b) did those GMAC members attend the meetings at which the discussions took place, (c) did the GMAC members step aside from the meetings and (d) when did the meetings take place.2131Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Yes, GMAC has discussed projects involving CSIRO, the University of Adelaide and the University of Melbourne at its meetings.(a) Past and current GMAC members who are or were employed by organisations identified in the answer to part (3) of question 3110: Professor Randall Albury, Professor Angela Delves, Professor Ashley Dunn, Dr Wayne Gerlach, Professor Peter Hudson, Professor Staffan Kjelleberg, Professor Byron Lamont, Professor Peter Langridge, Dr John Manners, Professor Kevin Marshall, Mr David Martin, Professor Nancy Millis, Dr John Oakeshott, Professor Jim Pittard, Ms Rosemary Robins, Dr Margaret Roper, Associate Professor Richard Roush, Associate Professor Loane Skene, Dr Jan Tennent, Dr Robyn van Heeswijck, Dr John Watson, Dr Maxwell Whitten, and Professor Harold Woolhouse.(b) Yes, GMAC members employed by the above organisations have attended meetings at which projects involving their organisations were discussed.(c) GMAC members stand aside from Committee discussions only if there is a direct conflict of interest in a proposal. Such occasions occurred on 5 June 1991, when Dr Gerlach stepped aside from a GMAC meeting while his project was discussed, and on 17 November 1998 when Dr Oakeshott stepped aside for the same reason.(d) Meetings at which projects from CSIRO, the University of Adelaide or the University of Melbourne were discussed took place on 13 February, 16 March, 18 June and 17 December 1990; 5 June 1991; 2 July and 29-30 July 1992; 30 June, 29 July and 25 November 1993; 3 March, 24 March, 23 June, 14 July, 3 November and 24 November 1994; 10 March, 2 June, 4 August, 1 September and 24 November 1995; 2 February, 23 February, 7 May, 31 May, 9 August, 10 September, 25 October and 22 November 1996; 7 February, 7 March, 14 May, 30 May, 1 August, 29 August, 30 October and 28 November 1997; 30 January, 27 February, 17 April, 15 May, 26 June, 11 August, 4 September, 16 October and 17 November 1998. 2131(Question No. 330)3302131Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth provide to the States under the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program (FISAP) in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98.(2) What estimated sum will the Commonwealth provide to the States under FISAP in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000.(3) What sum has the Commonwealth provided under FISAP to (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria and (c) other States to the date of answering this question.(4) What matching funds did each State referred to in part (3) provide.(5) Who is eligible to receive FISAP funding and for what purposes may it be used.(6) Has the Government reduced the total sum allocated over 5 years to FISAP; if so, why.(7) Will Commonwealth FISAP funding to New South Wales be suspended; if so, what will be the impact on timber companies in New South Wales.2131Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) $4,375,681, (b) $5,737,625, (c) $6,894,054.(2) (a) $24,000,000, (b) $23,000,000.(3) (a) $15,620,155, (b) $1,305,564, (c) $317,587.(4) New South Wales has provided $15,427,540 to date. Other States have not provided matching funding to date.Note that the answers to parts (1) to (4) include payments made by the Commonwealth to State Governments and payments made by the Commonwealth directly to individuals or businesses in those States.(5) There are four categories of FISAP funding. Eligible recipients for each category and the purposes for which the funding may be used are as follows:Business Exit Assistance is available to native forest businesses which have been directly and adversely affected by Deferred Forest Assessment (DFA), Interim Forest Assessments (IFA) or Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) processes. An independent assessor is engaged to calculate the estimated future maintainable earnings of the business, less the net realisable tangible assets plus extraordinary expenses incurred in closing the business. There is no restriction on how the money may be spent, apart from a requirement that the recipient not re-enter the native forest industry for at least three years.Worker Assistance is available for workers, including the self-employed, who have been displaced from the native forest industry as a result of DFAs or RFAs. Assistance includes financial support for training, assistance with relocation expenses and assistance with fares when searching for new jobs. In addition, New South Wales pays Special Redundancy payments to eligible workers. A wage subsidy is also available for employees who employ displaced forest workers.Industry Development Assistance is available to businesses currently engaged in the native forest sector of the timber industry or new business proposing developments in the native forest sector of the timber industry that have the capacity to improve the long term sustainable economic activity of the industry.The assistance consists of interest rate subsidies on the purchase or lease of value-adding equipment or other investments. The New South Wales Government also provides capital grants to eligible businesses. Rescheduling Assistance has three elements:(i) State forest agencies may receive assistance with the planning and development of new roadworks which are required to facilitate access to coupes which have been rescheduled due to the development of DFAs, IFAs or RFAs.(ii) Native forest industry businesses which can demonstrate adverse financial impacts as a direct result of the outcomes of the RFA processes (including DFA and IFA processes) either through incurring additional transport or other costs in obtaining wood supplies from coupes beyond their normal economic transport distance or as a result of abnormal changes to the composition of log supplies due to rescheduling of logging operations, may receive reasonable assistance to compensate them for the additional costs.(iii) Private landowners engaged in the business of forestry may receive assistance if logging operations on their land have been substantially modified or prevented because the land has been identified in the DFA or IFA processes as possibly being required for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system.(6) The allocation to FISAP was reduced in July 1996 from $107 million to $101 million including running costs. This decision was made in the context of the 1996-97 Budget and the need to reduce Government expenditure.(7) I wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Forestry, Mr Yeadon, on 25 November 1998 advising that Commonwealth FISAP funding for New South Wales was suspended. This followed the unilateral announcement by the New South Wales Government of "forest agreements" for the Eden and North Coast regions contrary to the agreed RFA processes, the unilateral release by New South Wales of new FISAP guidelines contrary to the spirit of co-operation on which the joint FISAP is based, and the failure by New South Wales to agree to a response to the inquiry into allegations of corruption in the administration of FISAP in New South Wales. The impact on timber companies in NSW will depend on how soon these issues can be resolved and to that end I will be arranging discussions with the NSW Government.