1999-02-093912REPS217901999-02-09Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice217921792179Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, can you confirm Treasury's evidence to the Senate GST committee that Treasury has done no modelling of the employment effects of the GST?2179Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I have said on a number of occasions, the Treasury has modelled all sorts of effects of the tax package, including prices, household expenditures and all sorts of other things. In relation to their modelling, they assumed, for the purposes of their modelling, no change in employment, not because they did not think that employment would be increased, as their evidence was that they believe it will be increased for a number of reasons, but because, if there was an assumption about an increase in employment in the figures, it would make the modelling even better—the advantages would be even greater. As the evidence showed, they took cautious assumptions, which could not be challenged on any basis, for all of the modelling work they did.I would venture to say that if you actually put in the benefits to employment which follow from the following things: a more productive tax system; increased GDP growth; personal income tax cuts; the fiscal stimulus from the overall package—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was very specific. It was: has the Treasury done any modelling on this? He confirmed that they have not, and so anything else is irrelevant to the answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is in order and will continue.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If you factor in the undoubted employment increases which follow from a more productive tax system, the better allocation of resources, an increase in GDP, cuts in personal income tax, the simplified business taxation system and a fiscal stimulus, then the benefits become even greater. This is a new tax system which was put to the Australian people, which they openly voted for, and which the Labor Party cannot bring itself to support.21792179Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is to the Prime Minister. I draw the Prime Minister's attention to recent record seizures of illegal narcotics by the Australian Federal Police, state authorities, Customs and the National Crime Authority. Do these recent results reflect the early success of his government's Tough on Drugs strategy?2179Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his question. Can I say to the House at the outset that there are few issues in this country that cause more ongoing alarm and concern to parents, community organisations and political parties on both sides of politics than the continuing menace of drug addiction, particularly for the young people of Australia. In answering the honourable member's question, I do not claim any particular monopoly of wisdom and I do not claim to have all of the answers to this problem, but I certainly do not believe that you will solve the problem by glib calls for a simplistic solution.The only way that we can hope to make a difference as governments at either a federal or a state level is to follow a strategy in three areas: we need to tighten and make more effective law enforcement; we need to educate people against the perils of drug addiction; and we also need to have effective programs of rehabilitation and detoxification for people who want to break the drug habit. I remain personally of the view that such glib solutions as heroin trials are not the long-term answer to the drug problem.Let me say something about the government's Tough on Drugs strategy, which I believe the evidence suggests has been very effective, as evidenced by the record seizures of illegal narcotics that have taken place in recent months. Federal agencies have seized 565 kilograms of heroin in the first seven months of 1998-99, and this compares with an average of only 113 kilograms in the period 1990 to 1996. That is a fivefold increase. Federal agencies have seized over 274 kilograms of cocaine in the first seven months of 1998-99, compared with an average of 127 kilograms for each full year from 1990 to 1996.These successes have been possible because of the resources that have been made available to law enforcement agencies. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service. I also thank and congratulate the state police forces around Australia for the cooperation that those federal agencies have received. Only through an integrated approach will it be possible to achieve greater results in this area.The government has allocated $215 million over four years already to the Tough on Drugs strategy. That includes $35 million to help Customs protect our borders, more than $75 million to attack the illegal drug trade, $95 million for treatment programs and around $8 million to develop a new school drug education strategy based on a goal of zero tolerance of drugs in school—a goal that I believe the overwhelming majority of Australian parents support and subscribe to very strongly.In August 1998 the government announced a $30 million first instalment of the Tough on Drugs grants to 24 communities and 60 non-government organisations to fund education and treatment. During the 1998 election campaign, I announced a further $75 million to strengthen the fight against illicit drugs. This will involve more money for treatment and education, three extra mobile strike teams and state-of-the-art border protection facilities. This will bring to almost $300 million the government's commitment to fighting illicit drug use in this country.Finally, I want to thank the members of the Australian National Council on Drugs, under the skilful chairmanship of Major Brian Watters of the Salvation Army. This is a very broadly based community organisation led by a man who understands far more than many of the other commentators on this issue the human cost of drugs, and who has a far deeper understanding of the right policies needed to fight them.21802180Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. How does the Treasurer explain his repeated claims that the GST will create jobs when world renowned modeller Professor Peter Dixon has told the Senate inquiry the GST will cost up to 100,000 jobs—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call and is entitled to be heard in silence.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer to standing order 142, and House of Representatives Practice at page 511, which says:It has . . . been held to be out of order to ask a question . . . which refers to proceedings in committee, including select committees, not reported to the House.This is the second question of this nature. The Senate select committee is entitled to conduct its inquiries unmolested by the opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is entirely in order and is consistent with questions that have been asked on this subject in the last session and this session of parliament.DT4Mr CREAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know why they do not want it reported. But how does the Treasurer explain his repeated claims that the GST will create jobs when world renowned modeller Professor Peter Dixon has told the Senate inquiry the GST will cost up to 100,000 jobs in the long run and when the government's modeller of choice, Chris Murphy, told the inquiry that the GST is `not about creating jobs' and when your own department, Treasurer, has admitted it has not modelled the GST job impact?2180Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am very pleased to talk about Peter Dixon's report; I have it here. It is called The government's tax package: further analysis based on the Monash model . Let me read it out:Employment will be stimulated in the short run by 30,000 jobs.Their big point is that they are opposing a policy which will only create 30,000 jobs. Oh, what a terrible policy! So do you know what the Senate committee said? It said to Peter Dixon—DT4CREANMr Crean—Read the full report.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Look, I will read you the full report if you have got time for 50 pages.DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will read it for both of us.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The same courtesy I expected government members to extend to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition it is reasonable to expect opposition members to extend to the Treasurer. He is entitled to be heard in silence.CT4Mr COSTELLO—After the Labor Party appointed modeller Professor Dixon said that the government's tax package would stimulate in the short run 30,000 jobs, the Senate then said, `We do not like that. We want you to make another assumption.' The Senate committee said, `Why don't you assume that there is a wage break-out?' In other words, `Why don't you assume that, notwithstanding the fact that everybody gets personal income tax cuts and has higher after tax take home pay, the first thing they do, once they get higher after tax take home pay, is they go for a wage increase? Why don't you assume that?' If you do assume that, you can feed it into his model and say a wages break-out costs jobs. Is that telling us anything we do not know? We learned under Labor how a wages break-out costs jobs. All that illustrates again is the importance of the government holding the line on wages, which is what we have been doing. As Senator George Campbell said of the wages break-out in 1981, `A hundred thousand dead men hanging off the belts of the ACTU'. Who are the former ACTU presidents in this House?WI4REITHMr Reith—There they are.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We now have Mark Latham publishing his book Civilising Global Capital —DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: the Treasurer said he was going to read Professor Dixon's report. Professor Dixon's report says that 30,000 jobs could be got without the GST. Why don't you be honest, Treasurer?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot expect the protection of the chair if he abuses the forms of the House.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have been doing some interesting reading recently. I have been reading Civilising Global Capital by Mark Latham. I have been reading Out of the Rut , which has got a chapter by Lindsay Tanner. There is another book coming out on Friday which I am awaiting very, very eagerly. This is not a shadow ministry, this front bench; this is a book club! They are writing books to each other, and the book I am really waiting for is the one from the shadow Treasurer entitled, `Why Mark and Lindsay are Wrong, by S. Crean'—stop the clock, back to the future.21812181Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I direct my question to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer advise the House how our present tax system acts as a disincentive for women with children to participate in paid employment? What does the government's tax reform plan do to address this?2181Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question and acknowledge her fine victory on tax reform in the October election. Of course it is important to understand tax reform in its entirety. Not only does the government propose to reform the indirect tax base—and I think that is pretty well known—the government proposes to cut personal income taxes in this country by $13 billion. The Australian public have not had a tax cut since the Labor Party stole the l-a-w tax cuts after the 1993 election. That was not a policy; that was l-a-w.As part of the government's proposal, which is to reduce personal income taxes, we are also proposing to double the $1,000 tax-free threshold for each dependent child. What that means is that each child in each family gets an extra $140 tax cut. If you happen to be a single income family with one child under five, we are going to double the additional tax-free threshold of $2,500. So, for a family with one child under five, you get a tax-free threshold in total of $5,000 so that you get a tax cut to help with the costs involved in raising that child, and that is an increase of $350 a year per family.In addition, we are increasing the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families by seven per cent. That is another part of the government's tax plan. Allied to all of this, of course, are income tax cuts which, for a woman in the work force, means that every single rate of marginal income tax is cut—the 20 per cent rate comes down to 17 per cent, the 34 goes down to 30 per cent, the 43 goes down to 40 per cent and the thresholds are extended.So for mothers in paid work the tax reform package offers the following benefits: the tax-free threshold is increased from $5,400 to $6,000 dollars; every single one of their marginal income tax rates is cut; there is a new family tax benefit, higher than the current family tax benefit; there is an easing in the income test for family assistance; and there is provision of increased child care. For mothers at home, the package offers the following: an increase in the threshold for the mother at home looking after a child under five, which doubles to $5,000 dollars; an increase in family assistance; an easing of the income test and an easing of the taper test so that no longer do you have 50c taken out for each additional dollar that you earn—that is cut down to 30 per cent, getting rid of poverty traps; and a reduction in the penalty for making the transition from staying at home to entering or re-entering the work force.This is a tax plan which not only is good for Australia's economy; this is a tax plan which is great for Australia's families. This is a tax plan that looks after the family that has the mother who is looking after children, that looks after the family that has the mother in the work force, that gives tax relief and makes sure that our tax and welfare systems come together. It is the kind of tax plan which Australia has long demanded, which Australia voted for and which this government wants to ensure Australians can have.21822182Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Has the minister seen projections by the Tourism Task Force that the GST will cause the loss of 60,000 jobs in the tourism industry? Has she also seen comments by the Prime Minister's modeller of choice Chris Murphy that inbound tourism packages should be GST free? Minister, what representations have you made to the Treasurer to protect tourism jobs from the impact of the GST?2182Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—One could be forgiven for thinking that the honourable member had not listened to the answer that the Treasurer just gave on our tax package. It is a whole tax package. It is about delivering $13 billion worth of tax cuts to the families of Australia. And that $13 billion of tax cuts will be spent on things like holidays, things like tourism packages, things like trips away for the family—things that the community of Australia has not experienced since the 1991-92 recession we had to have when people dared not go on holidays in case they came back and their job was gone. This government is doing something about reinstating tourism in this country. We have dedicated $8 million to a domestic tourism campaign which looks like stimulating our domestic tourism economy which the opposition left in absolute tatters.21822182Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Is the Minister aware of any alternative policy proposals regarding the privatisation of Telstra? What is the minister's response to these proposals?2182Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am aware of some alternative policy proposals with regard to the privatisation of Telstra. Those alternative proposals are in stark contrast to the official Labor policy which opposes any further privatisation of Telstra. Those proposals come from none other than the Labor spokesman on privatisation.Last night on the 7.30 Report the honourable member for Melbourne made some very interesting comments. He declared that Labor was not democratic enough. He said it was not inclusive enough. He said that the Labor Party was full of branch stacking. He went on to endorse the British tories' practice of direct election from the rank and file members of leaders of the party.10000Mr SPEAKER—Order! I draw the minister's attention to the question and ask him to direct his answer to the point of the question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—He went on to make a very strong and persuasive case for the full privatisation of Telstra. He said:If it is left partly privatised and we have a situation where you've got this vast amount of public money that is tied up with control of nothing, vast amounts of money tied up with little practical benefit being delivered to the community. . .I agree with that. The only thing I would add to it is that the control of Telstra and various other corporatised bodies ceased when the member's leader corporatised Telstra in the early 1990s. The honourable member for Melbourne went on to say:When you only have majority public ownership, your ability to use that ownership for social and community outcomes is very constrained.I agree again, Mr Speaker. The alternative is the government's policy for the full privatisation, which supports the honourable member for Melbourne. If we had that full privatisation we would be able to get rid of servicing Labor's debt that is taking billions of dollars each year, which should be channelled into welfare, hospitals and education.The government welcomes this enlightened and modern thinking from the honourable member for Melbourne. It endorses the views previously expressed by the honourable member for Werriwa. If only this enlightened and modern thinking could spread along the ranks of the Labor Party we might see an opposition in this country that is not stuck in the groove of the 1950s—yesterday's Labor with yesterday's policies—instead of having a modern thinking approach that is relevant to a modern Australia and a modern world.21832183O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware that the Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia has warned the Senate GST committee that country areas and smaller states will suffer most from GST-related price increases and that, according to the organisation's spokesman, Andrew Burnes:. . . regional destinations and states like Tasmania and South Australia will be the first to be dropped from tour programs.10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Bass will come to her question.84SMs O'BYRNE—Will the minister take up these concerns for regional Australia and smaller states like Tasmania with the Treasurer?2183Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—A busy appointment book, that is right! I thank the honourable member for her question. I have not yet been to a region of Australia where people are anything other than insistent that we get the tax package up and quickly. Given the enormous cuts in transport costs, including in air transport, I can only say there is very good reason for strong support in regional Australia for wanting the tax package. It will generate a lot more economic activity and a lot better economic outcomes for everyone.21832183Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of media reports advocating further reforms to workplace practices and industrial awards? How do these proposals compare with other policy positions which are currently being advocated?2183Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Forde for her question. There are some very interesting things being said about workplace relations. I might start by quoting these few words to the House, as I am sure you will be interested in them. This is what one single voice had to say about industrial relations and, in particular, about the award system. The words are as follows:The Australian award system of the 1980s reflected the workplace and production process of the 1950s. Awards contain detailed prescription covering most issues in the employment contract down to matters such as bicycle allowances and the provision of boiling water. In the one dimensional world of the industrial age, this comprehensive prescription was sustainable. Now the diversity, flexibility and changing skill requirements of the new economy are undermining the award system, the corporatist strategies of the 1980s are no longer viable in the new environment.I could have said it myself. In fact, that is a rationale for our policy. But who said it? It was the member for Melbourne. What a contrast! What did the Leader of the Opposition have to say? In respect of our award simplification and the 20 allowable matters—so that you can remove the bicycle allowance and the like—he told the union movement back in July, `We do not believe in telling Australian workers which 20 things they are allowed to worry about in their workplace.' He was attacking the very proposition that we put and the member for Melbourne, in his own quiet but penetrating way, is attacking the position of the Leader of the Opposition.They talk about policy revival for the Labor Party, but when it comes to industrial relations, what did the Leader of the Opposition tell the ACTU council? He said—and it was quoted in the Financial Review—that he would not be changing it one jot or tittle. He absolutely stuck with the position which they had back in the 1980s. Now we have the member for Melbourne making a rational case to overthrow the policy position being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition.Even on absolutely essential elements, particularly from Labor's point of view about the collective nature of bargaining, the member for Melbourne says, `Greater choice within the award system would reduce the burden of bureaucratic formalities associated with enterprise bargaining.' We know what this is. This is code for undermining the policy position of your colleagues on the front bench. There is no question whatsoever about it. Just to cap it off, there you were on television last night making the parallel with Gough Whitlam back in 1966-67. The parallel was, `If you are going to take this party into the future, you first have to reform the internal organisation of the party. You have to have the leadership to address the problems.' Read Graham Freudenberg's book on the Whitlam years. He said that in 1966 those reformists within Labor took a simple view to put some coherence into Labor's strategy—first year, reform the party; second year, reform the policies; and third year, go to the people. It was a penetrating attack on a weak leader, and we will look forward to reminding you of it.21842184Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—That comes from a party that has to pay its campaign workers—there are so few of them! My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the evidence of the Housing Industry Association to the Senate GST inquiry that the GST will cost the industry 20,000 jobs, increase housing costs by five per cent to eight per cent, increase rents by three per cent, permanently cut 2.4 per cent off residential building activity and make new houses smaller and of poorer quality? Is he aware that this evidence is based on the work of Chris Murphy, the Prime Minister's modeller of choice? Does the Prime Minister agree with Chris Murphy that housing industry workers will lose their jobs as a result of the GST?2184Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question about housing because in the last three years housing has become more affordable in this country than it has been at any time in the last 30 years. If there is one group of Australians that every one of us who sits on the Liberal and National side of parliament can look in the eye without any fear of contradiction and say to them that we have made their financial situation much better, it is the home buyers of Australia. This government has delivered the lowest interest rates for Australian home buyers in 30 years.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of relevance. This question was devoted entirely to the impact of the GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is dealing with the question of GST, and the Speaker was making the fair presumption that he was proceeding to the matter of employment and jobs in the housing industry. The Prime Minister will continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The policies of the coalition government over the last three years not only have reduced interest rates, they have put the average home within the reach of the Australian home buyer to a far greater extent than at any time during the last 30 years. If you look at our record in relation to housing, you will see that it is the best record of any Australian government since the 1960s. That is the starting point of any rational discussion of the impact of policy on housing.We have structured our tax package so that, first and foremost, we will deliver massive personal tax cuts to all Australians. Whenever a question is asked about tax in this country, the person asking the question ought to be able to explain why it is that he leads a party that is trying to deny $13 billion of personal tax cuts to Australia. The man who asked me that question is the man who wants to take tax cuts away from the average Australian battler.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order and I go to the point of relevance. Whatever claims there are for tax cuts related to this from the surplus, this is modelling based on the totality of their tax package. Your so-called cuts—20,000 jobs out of the housing industry—10000Mr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will address the question of jobs in the housing industry.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The employment impact of the taxation package will be overwhelmingly beneficial because it will produce increases in gross domestic product. It will be overwhelmingly beneficial because it will deliver disposable income into the hands of the Australian taxpayer. The government which has reduced interest rates for Australian home buyers is now the government that wants to implement the wish of the Australian people to endow those home buyers with greater disposable income via personal in come tax cuts. There is only one group of people that stands in the way of the achievement of that objective.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order. All his so-called tax cuts are there in the modelling that has been handled by Murphy's office. I asked him specifically a question about the relationship of the GST to jobs. He has no answer.10000Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is obliged—you are right—to deal with the question of jobs in the housing industry and the way in which the GST impacts on it. He has not, as far as I have noted, concluded his answer, and I invite him to do so.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I simply say to the House that the employment impact of the tax package is overwhelmingly beneficial. The government does not believe that the tax package will have a detrimental effect on employment in the housing industry.21852185Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Minister, can you inform the House what action the government is taking to secure Australia's trade interests in the face of continued economic weakness in Asia?2185Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I thank the honourable member for Mallee for his question. I acknowledge his work, most recently in South America and elsewhere, particularly with the citrus industry and getting that industry on to the front foot with exports. Indeed some citrus growers in his electorate now are securing sales of $60,000 a hectare with citrus exports to the USA, and I commend that. The government has a strategic approach to further diversify our export effort to deal with the East Asian situation. I want to point out to the House that there are still three-quarters of a million jobs—750,000 jobs—in the Australian economy facilitated by those exports to East Asia. We have put a real effort into boosting the bilateral Market Development Taskforce activity—examples are Fuji apples into Japan for the first time and further beef into Taiwan. Our wine exports to Japan in 1998—including from your own electorate, Mr Speaker—were up 135 per cent in the difficult trading circumstances of Japan last year. Our wine exporters deserve a gold medal; indeed, all our exporters deserve a gold medal for pushing ahead.I have just this day completed chairing the Australia-Vietnam fifth meeting of JTECC with the Minister for Planning and Environment from Vietnam. It is interesting to record that, for 1998, two-way trade between Australia and Vietnam, against the odds, has increased 39 per cent on the previous year. That is again an outstanding effort by our exporters. That trade now exceeds $1 billion and is a win-win situation for both Australia and Vietnam. Tomorrow the government will produce the Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement—yet another book, but a book that counts, and one which will show very clearly the extent of trade diversification which is helping—and it is a pretty sharp contrast. The only thing produced by the shadow minister for trade has been one press release yesterday. He, of course, is your Senate chairman of choice with regard to the GST.DT4CREANMr Crean—He is doing a fantastic job.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Is he doing a fantastic job? Yesterday in his press release he made two bad mistakes. Firstly, he said TOOS will be down on Thursday; in fact it will be tomorrow—Wednesday. We will let him off for that, but try this for size. I quote from the press release:When the budget deficit for calendar year 1998 topped $10 billion . . . There was no budget deficit either this financial year or last financial year. You had better get yourselves a new Senate chairman of choice.21862186Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, are you aware that the effect of the Treasurer's letter circulated only to coalition MPs on Friday night will allow site operators to decide whether or not to apply the GST to caravan and mobile home site fees? Are you aware that 43 per cent of mobile home and caravan park residents survive on less than $300 per week? Given that it is in the commercial interests of operators to charge a GST, when will you represent the interests of residents by calling upon the Treasurer to guarantee residents are not subject to the whim of park owners and treated much more harshly than residents in other types of accommodation?2186Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I provided an answer on this matter to the honourable member for Lilley yesterday, when I pointed out very strongly that all renters will be better off under the government's new tax package because they will receive increased pensions and benefits, including increased rent assistance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order as to relevance. This was absolutely specific—related specifically to the question of charges and caravan parks.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no way that any Speaker could rule on relevance within 15 seconds of the minister starting to answer his question.GT4Mr TRUSS—The clear facts are that those who are renting, whether they be in caravan parks, in units or in any other form of accommodation, will have access to increased rent assistance as a part of the government's package. So renters will be significantly better off. Indeed, as a result of the announcements made by the Treasurer over the weekend, there is significant flexibility provided in the package, which will provide the opportunity for rental facilities to be offered in the most effective way to those who need them. So there will be increases in benefits available to all, to ensure that they are able to meet their rental requirements.I am rather interested that the member for Lilley, of all people, would be raising this matter. I was just looking through some old documents and, in 1993, when the honourable member was last in this place and was described at the time as `an influential member of the Caucus economics committee', he actually advocated increased taxes on accommodation. He actually advocated increased taxes on accommodation on World at Noon on the ABC. He said:Labor's progressive taxation philosophy fitted well with increased taxes on tourist accommodation and the like.So a little while ago he was an advocate of increased taxes on accommodation.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That's not caravan parks.GT4Mr TRUSS—What are caravan parks if they are not tourist accommodation as well?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order.2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order as to relevance. The minister is talking about luxury accommodation, not mobile homes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Community Services.GT4Mr TRUSS—The honourable member for Lilley does not have a book—he has not got around to that—but I understand he does have a web site, referred to, I think, as `Wayne's World', which crashes from time to time and has all the intellectual power of a Mickey Mouse comic. The reality is that the people he seeks to denigrate are amongst those who will be extremely well served and will benefit greatly from this government's tax package.21872187Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of a strike engineered by the New South Wales Teachers Federation today? What funding support is the government providing to schools in New South Wales? What will be the impact of today's industrial action?2187Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am aware of the strike that the New South Wales Teachers Federation is bringing about in New South Wales today. This is the same union which has opposed the national literacy plan, which has opposed a proactive role for schools in getting jobs for school leavers; it is the same union which has set out to sabotage efforts to improve school accountability, and it is the same union which has consistently misrepresented the Commonwealth government's contribution to government schools in New South Wales.Members of this House will be interested to know that government schools in New South Wales this year will be receiving some $78 million more than they received in the last year of the Labor government, and that government schools across Australia this year will be receiving some $235 million more than they received from the Labor Party in its last year in government. This strike will do nothing to improve the quality of education in New South Wales or to lift public esteem for public education. The union does not care about public education, because no-one who opposes proper standards and accountability can be said to support public education.You would think this would be a very obvious point. Unfortunately, on the other side of the House, it is only obvious apparently to the member for Melbourne. In his book, Open Australia, the member for Melbourne makes the point, and I think he makes it very well:The quid pro quo which the government is entitled to demand is a fully accountable and transparent system. Testing of schools and students to ensure that standards are being attained and parents properly informed about their child's progress are essential ingredients in rebuilding public faith in the education system.This is totally different, of course, from the policies of the New South Wales Teachers Federation; it is totally different from the policies of the Carr government; and it is totally different from the policies of the Labor Party. The invisible shadow minister has made not a squeak about this strike.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Who is he?BT4Dr KEMP—The member for Dobell. The point has been made very clearly and it shows the structural problem with the union party—the Labor Party. This has been made very clear by the member for Werriwa.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of relevance and the question that was asked. It is a teachers strike against a Labor government; I would have thought that would have been blatantly obvious to him. The second point is that the question asked specifically about the issues of the strike, not about a general discussion on the Labor Party.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I am waiting for members of the government to come to order. The question linked the issue of the New South Wales teachers strike with the question of Commonwealth funding, and to that degree I believe the minister was relevant. I invite him to conclude his answer.BT4Dr KEMP—This strike is occurring because of the capitulation, time after time, of the Labor government in New South Wales. That is why this strike is occurring, and that is why public education in New South Wales is being damaged. This point has been made perfectly clear by the member for Werriwa who said, `Labor needs to avoid repeating the mistakes of Bob Carr in New South Wales.'MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the minister is defying your ruling. You requested the minister to conclude his answer and he is defying your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. I call the minister and invite him to bring his answer to a conclusion.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, let me just complete this very correct statement by the member for Werriwa that `The Labor Party needs to avoid'—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will conclude his answer by referring to the question on the specific issue of the New South Wales strike and Commonwealth funding.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, I am addressing the reasons why this strike is occurring.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—`The Labor Party needs to avoid repeating the mistakes of Bob Carr in New South Wales'—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I am the Speaker. Neither members of the opposition nor the government have a licence to tell me how to rule on issues. The minister is not at liberty to conclude that statement. He is at liberty to conclude his answer to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—My point is simply that what we are seeing in New South Wales—damaging parents, damaging children and damaging the reputation of government schools in that state—is a result of the weakness of the Labor government in that state, revealing that the union party is unable to maintain a decent education policy and standards which will satisfy parents that public schools are delivering what they want. The teachers themselves in New South Wales, as a majority, do not support this strike. The union is defying the majority of teachers, and the result of its strike is only counterproductive for government schooling, which this government supports.21882188Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you agree with the statement made on last night's 7.30 Report by Mr Dick Smith that CASA, its board and its director were `pretty well ineffective'? If you do agree, what action will you take to restore CASA's effectiveness, and will you widen your inquiry into BASI to include CASA?2188Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I note that since I indicated yesterday that the government would be calling a review into BASI—a review which I think is probably timely, because there has not been one for nine years, and I think it is healthy just to ensure that it is operating as it ought, that it is meeting the expectations of the travelling population in Australia and that it is enjoying satisfactory levels of independence—the member for Dickson promptly responded by saying that we ought to have an inquiry into CASA as well. It is worth noting that there has been one inquiry into BASI over the last nine years; in that period of time there have been 14 into CASA and its predecessor.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—And where are the complaints about BASI?4K4Mr ANDERSON—The member for Dickson would like to make it 15. The fact of the matter is that CASA has been inquired into unto the point of death and utter fatigue. We know what is wrong. We have been informed, if I can say so, by the chairman of CASA and others of some of the things that need to be addressed. The point is that this government acknowledges that and has given CASA an effective board made up of people who understand aviation safety issues. That board has the capacity and power to address the issues that they say are of concern within their own organisation. I have had several meetings not only with the chairman but with the board as well. They are putting in place the mechanisms and the responses that they need and that are appropriate to ensure that CASA is able to maximise the level of its performance.I conclude by saying that it is very unfortunate indeed that the shadow spokesman for aviation in this place seems to be determined to cast doubt on the arrangements we have in place in this country in relation to aviation safety. Our record is amongst the most outstanding in the world. We ought to be proud of that. It is not at risk.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on relevance. A question was asked about Smith's views, not hers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will determine whether an answer is relevant. Obviously, under the standing orders you are perfectly at liberty to draw my attention to the matter. The minister was entirely relevant and, I believe, has concluded his answer.21892189Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports calling on the government to break up its tax package? Is it possible to deliver certain parts of the tax package and not others?2189Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question clearly seeks an expression of opinion from the Treasurer and is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I rule the question in order and I invite the Treasurer to answer it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question and the honourable member for Calwell for his interjection. We are old friends, my old university tutor and I—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members— What!CT4Mr COSTELLO—He taught me everything I know.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Grateful as I am for the Treasurer's bonhomie with the member for Calwell, I invite him to return to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He taught me a subject called `the morality of power'. Can you believe that?I saw some reports on the AAP wire from Australian Democrats Leader, Meg Lees, who today challenged the government to separate tax cuts for lower and middle income earners from the rest of the tax package. The government has a bill in the Senate which reduces marginal tax rates. It is a bill which reduces the 20 per cent rate to 17 per cent, the 34 per cent rate to 30, the 43 per cent rate to 30, and the 47 rate to 40. When you reduce income tax rates you reduce them for all levels of income up to the threshold. You cannot reduce a marginal income tax rate for certain categories of taxpayer. It applies to income as it is earned through those ranges. You cannot say that there is a 17 per cent rate for one class of persons on their first $20,000 of income and there is a different rate for another class of persons on their first $20,000 of income. It is the law that sets the rate, and you cannot change the rates for certain classes of taxpayer—and that is for obvious reasons.As a way of example, I refer the House to the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act, No. 197 of 1992. This is the famous l-a-w. This is the act which, I believe, is still on the statute books. It has never been repealed and, as we know, was never proclaimed by the Labor Party once they were re-elected in 1993.A cursory look at the l-a-w—which Labor passed before the election and then withdrew after the election—shows that it actually specified the rates, not for a certain class of taxpayer but for a certain class of income. It is instructive to look at the l-a-w. If it had been proclaimed for one day—remember it was passed by both houses of parliament but never proclaimed; these were the tax cuts for 1996-97—income tax rates would have been reduced. The 34c rate would have gone down to 30c and the 43c rate would have gone down to 40c. But the l-a-w income tax cuts did not cut rates for low income earners. This is a very important point. The people who never got a tax cut under the l-a-w were the people who were earning up to $20,700.This government wants to cut income tax rates for low income earners by reducing that rate from 20c to 17c. It is a little bit rich to hear the Labor Party talking today about the fact that it does not think we should be cutting rates for upper and middle income earners when that was what the Labor Party's law said.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was specifically about whether you could cull out pieces of the tax package. It was not about whether the Labor Party, as it did, cut that bottom rate from 30c to 20c.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer has the call. The Treasurer's answer is in order. The Treasurer was asked to comment on the impact of splitting any arranged tax cuts.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The point I was making is, when the law cuts marginal tax rates, it cuts it for classes of income; it does not do it for classes of taxpayer. So you cannot say that one class of taxpayer has one rate and another taxpayer on the same income has another. A law that cuts tax rates does it across income levels. That is why you cannot separate it out. That is why the government has its bill in the Senate to cut income tax rates. It was as a result of the fraud of the Labor Party in never proclaiming that act, not for one day, that this government decided it would introduce income tax cuts, and it will not deviate from the income tax cuts which it promised the Australian people.We want to make sure that we deliver in full on the income tax cuts that the Australian people were promised. We want to restore faith with the Australian people who were so fraudulently deceived by the Labor Party which never, not for one day, made this law operative. 21902190Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, did Mr Dick Smith, the Chairman of CASA, make you aware, prior to yesterday, of his allegations that Ansett sought to pressure CASA and BASI into a particular course of action on the class G airspace trial? If so, when did this happen? Is it your view that Ansett's expression of its concerns about the trial to BASI, to CASA or to your department was in any way improper? Will your inquiry into BASI cover these allegations?2190Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The short answer is that a number of concerns have been raised by the Chairman of CASA and by the board. I do not have any intention of publicly canvassing the discussions which I have had with the Chairman of CASA or with the board of CASA—I see no reason to do so. The essential response to your question is this: the terms of the inquiry will allow those who have concerns along these lines to have them properly canvassed.21902190Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister confirm to the parliament the government's commitment to the Summerland Way as a road of national importance? Has the minister finally received a works program from the New South Wales government covering the $20 million promised for federal funding? Is this program acceptable to the federal government?2190Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I can confirm that the Summerland Way was declared a road of national importance. I can advise him that we are still awaiting the completion of negotiations with New South Wales over a work plan and I have indicated to my department that I want that hurried up over the next day or so.21902190Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that concerns have been raised with the Department of Health and Aged Care that some people had inside knowledge of the 1998 budget decision to extend Medicare rebates for diagnostic services provided using magnetic resonance imaging equipment? Is the minister also aware that the Health Insurance Commission is investigating 15 contracts for new MRI units that are claimed to have been entered into in binding form prior to budget night 1998? Can the minister advise how many of these contracts being investigated are dated in the three weeks leading up to the 1998 budget?2191Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I am aware of the allegations. In fact, there was moderately widespread knowledge of the proposal, given that we worked with the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists on it and had made no secret of that. In terms of contracts being entered into in three weeks, I do not know the number. Concerning investigation, I do not feel I should interfere with that in any way. I am aware of the procedures being gone through because they were at my—Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I am trying to answer the question seriously. I just cannot cope with the idiotic psychobabble from Jabba the Hutt over there. The final thing is that the investigation is at my suggestion and requires radiology practices to sign statutory declarations. That is being adequately followed up by the HIC and I see no reason to do anything further.21912191Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House how the coalition's aged care reforms are benefiting individual older Australians living in residential care facilities?2191Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I know the great concern that he has for people in residential care in his electorate—as indeed does this government. When we took over, we discovered that the previous Labor government had left 10 years of mess. We found that we were 10,000 places short and that their own benchmarking had not been met. But, by putting in the reforms, by the year 2000 we will reach the 100 places per 1,000 people over the age of 70 years. We will meet that target and there will be sufficient accommodation and CACP packages for those people who need them.I have found that empirical evidence is always a good way to get a point across. I would like to read three points from a letter received from Terry Healey, the Chief Executive Officer of Eldercare, a major religious and charitable provider in South Australia. I use these excerpts with his permission. He says:Few can complain about the changes that have resulted from the process of aged care reform. The outcomes for Eldercare have been significant and we are now in the best financial position we have been in for several years.He goes on to say:Many employee representative bodies claimed aged care reform would result in fewer and less qualified staff. Eldercare's outcome, not perception or guess, is that we have received more, spent more on staff and recruited staff of higher skill categories.Thirdly, he says:The certainty of capital funds has allowed us to proceed with the confidence to build a new facility providing high and low care for 101 residents. This facility with a completed cost of over $10m will replace a facility in Rose Park.I can simply say that it was the Prime Minister who put in place those additional plans for capital funding. They have been highly successful, Prime Minister. This is a testimonial from a very successful operative. The bottom line is very simply that the Labor Party left a mess; we are cleaning it up. Indeed, this is the sort of testimonial we are now receiving.21912191Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Has the minister noted that his department has now revealed that the decision to extend Medicare benefits for MRI services to include those units with contracts entered into before 12 May 1998 was a ministerial decision—not a departmental decision—taken after the budget papers had been printed but before budget night? Can the minister explain with whom he discussed this decision? Were any of the people involved with the contracts under investigation involved in the discussions with the minister in the week preceding the budget?2192Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I am not aware of who is under investigation, so I cannot answer the question in that respect, except to say that the decision was one of fairness—that people who had placed a genuine order should be able to have it arrive in Australia. The audit system we have put in place is completely robust. Anyone who perjures themselves by signing a statutory declaration will be dealt with by the full effect of the law.21922192Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what the impact of the death of King Hussein will be on the Middle East peace process?2192Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question. He shows a constant interest in important international issues as an active member of the coalition in the foreign affairs, trade and defence area.As many members of the House made clear by their contributions to the condolence motion yesterday, King Hussein's death is a tragic loss not only to his people, who held him in the highest regard and with genuine affection, but also to the international community as a whole. He enjoyed an extraordinary reputation as a tireless and courageous champion of peace in the Middle East. His successor, King Abdullah, has also committed himself to the path of peace and has made it clear that he will carry on the work of his father.The member for Aston asked about the Middle East peace process. I can inform the House that, in the Australian government's view, that peace process is at the moment very delicately balanced. There will be an election in Israel on 17 May and subsequently there will be an election for the Prime Minister of Israel. Once those elections are concluded we very much hope that the peace process will resume its momentum. The Australian government was delighted with the Wye River agreement. We would like to see the full implementation by all sides of the commitments made in the Wye River negotiations. As I have said, once the Israeli elections are out of the way—and I think it is realistic to expect the process to be stalled until they are out of the way—then we would urge the Israeli government as well as the Palestinian authorities not only to resume the implementation of the Wye River agreement but to move forward along with the Syrians, Lebanese and others with the full negotiations to conclude the Middle East peace process.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker219221922192McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, yesterday I raised under standing order 321 a request for the Minister for Health and Aged Services to table a document from which he acknowledged he had quoted. The minister claimed to have tabled the document. I asked the question because I believed at the time he had only tabled part of the document. I have since consulted the Hansard record and the video. It is clear from that record that the minister during the course of the answer offered to table the brief. He said:I will read my brief and I am happy to table it afterwards.The minister claimed to have complied with the standing order but tabled a single sheet of paper, for which he did not claim confidentiality. The video makes clear that the minister was quoting from at least a two-page document and also makes it clear that he returned to his seat with at least one other sheet in his hand.WI4REITHMr Reith—Horror!Mr Beazley interjecting—5I4Mr McMULLAN—I actually think that people ought to comply with the standing orders, but I do not suppose you do, you are the Leader of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I presume your remarks are addressed through the chair.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Through the chair, yes, to him. Just in case there was any doubt, the page which he tabled finishes in mid-sentence, which suggests there might at least have been a second.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—We're going to give up—5I4Mr McMULLAN—I hope you are. The standing order makes it clear that the full document has to be tabled. I am asking you to require the minister to comply with standing order 321 and table the whole document.2193Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Are you seeking indulgence? I am happy to respond to the question. But I am also perfectly happy to call the Minister for Health and Aged Care on indulgence.15:17:002193Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—On indulgence, Mr Speaker: the shadow minister is right. I did take two pages up to the table. The second page was from the Sun-Herald of 7 February 1999. I am happy to table it. And you are a complete dope!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. I ask the minister to withdraw the latter three words that he used.8E4WOOLDRIDGEDr Wooldridge—I withdraw.2193McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Can I follow up on that question, Mr Speaker? We have a clear situation here where the minister has tabled a document which finishes `110 psychiatrists may be engaged in'. That is obviously a very comprehensive brief, but why it finished there nobody could understand. We are quite sure that page 2 of that document does exist. I ask you at the very least to consult the video and read the Hansard and it will be very clear to you that he is not complying with the standing orders yesterday or today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I allowed the minister on indulgence to make a comment and I said I would respond to the question from the Manager of Opposition Business to me and, as I recall, not to the Leader of the House, although one may have been forgiven for thinking so during what was being said. There is no obligation to table one page, four pages or an entire book. There is an obligation to table the page from which you are reading, if you are prepared to do so, and indicate that in fact it is not confidential. The minister has met that requirement.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on that. It goes to the comments just made by the minister at the table when he got up to speak here. He said that he had before him yesterday two pages. In fact, there were more pages than that. He had a page which was clearly additionally associated with his brief and he commented from both sections yesterday. When you see his performance, you will agree. You have made a perfectly correct ruling when you say that there is an ability, if a person so chooses, to table part or all of a brief. The point is that that is not what he said. He has compounded it by coming in here today and being blatantly misleading on what he had in his hands. He got up here today, being a bit of a smart Alec, saying, `I have these two pages here and the second page is all there was.' Clearly that was not all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and I have ruled. The Minister for Health and Aged Care indicates that a comment he wishes to make would help the House. I am happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition or he may prefer to defer to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.15:20:002193Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: it is true that I had a two-page brief in my folder. When I chose to come up, I brought two pages with me, the reason being that the second page contained information about the professional services review into psychiatrists that I considered to be confidential. So I did not bring both pages of the brief with me. I brought the first page with me, and the second page that I brought with me, which is still in my folder, is the one I have just tabled. So I only had one page of a two-page brief with me and I tabled that document.219310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition, I presume, on indulgence.2193Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—It is a question to you, Mr Speaker. Will you review the tape of the proceedings the minister referred to from yesterday? We have seen the tape, and that last statement in the chamber is simply untrue.WI4REITHMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are conventions and practices about these questions to a Speaker after question time. This matter seems to be a matter of great controversy in the minds of the opposition, but all the material has been put to you and you have ruled. This is just a question to keep, quite frankly, a pathetic and trivial matter going. On that basis, my point of order is that his so-called question is out of order and should not be responded to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have responded to the whole controversy by indicating that any minister is at liberty to table whatever portion of a document they feel is fitting. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has given a lengthy explanation as to the series of events. I am content with the explanation and consider the matter closed.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise the point of order again with you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not believe we actually technically have a point of order, but I am prepared to hear the Leader of the Opposition on indulgence.15:22:002194Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The simple fact of the matter is that this is part of an accountability process. The particular question asked of the minister the other day was not the sort of political argy-bargy which regularly gets engaged in on both sides of the House. It was at that point of time when question time, as it occasionally becomes used for its traditional purposes, was being used for its traditional purposes, and that is to hold a minister accountable on a detail of public administration.I remember distinctly and we have reviewed the tape. We saw the minister standing with the totality of his brief. As was indicated by the Manager of Opposition Business, when he stood there were at least two pages. The minister got up in this place and his first answer here was that he quoted from only one. It is an important point in a process of accountability: if a minister comes to the table with a departmental brief defending himself, is invited to table the brief and agrees to table it, I would agree that if the man had only the one page of his brief and the newspaper clipping that would be fine and you could make a judgment about that, but if he in fact brought to this table the totality of that brief and did not indicate to you or this chamber when invited to table it—as he is required to table it if he refuses to take protection under the arrangements associated with confidentiality at the time—then the entire brief should be tabled. If it also turns out, when you review that particular tape, that the minister concerned, coming in today saying that he only had those two pages with him and then elaborating on that point, in fact was not telling the truth, then I am afraid to say there is a serious problem resulting from that. So I would ask, Mr Speaker, that you review that tape.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is that indulgence was provided, as is in your discretion to do so, to allow the Leader of the Opposition to make his point, but he is not entitled to use that as an opportunity to make unreasonable and inaccurate statements about a member of the government. He lost question time yesterday. He needs to get a reminder by watching the tapes. It is quite a pathetic effort, and the fact that the minister has been open and transparent ought to be the end of the matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not intend to make any other comment on the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition for this moment because, as he may not be aware, the member for Newcastle is seeking the call and I presume it is on the same matter.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is on a remark you made. I refer you to standing order 321.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry, I must interrupt you. Is it on the same matter?FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—It is an associated matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the member for Newcastle.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—You stated to the House a moment ago that the minister could table the page. Standing order 321 says `a document' not `a page'. I would like to suggest that the standing orders have always been about a document.WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the member for Newcastle has neither raised a point of order nor put a question to you. On that basis, he is just babbling on and he is not entitled to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Newcastle has made a point about whether or not a page or a document is the appropriate thing to table. I will grant him indulgence if he wishes to make any further comment.15:26:002195Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The point I make, Mr Speaker, is that 321 says:A document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister or an Assistant Minister, unless stated to be of a confidential nature or such as should more properly be obtained by address, shall, if required by any Member, be laid on the Table.Mr Speaker, it says `a document'. A document may be one page or a hundred pages. I would suggest that it is very clear. As for what was being said by you earlier, I thought you said `a page'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—So far as I am concerned, this matter is concluded. In the time that I have spent in this parliament, ministers have been at liberty to table whatever they wish or whatever they choose not to, and all that the Speaker seeks from them is an indication as to whether or not the document from which they are quoting is confidential. The Minister for Health and Aged Care indicated that that from which he was quoting he was prepared to table, and he did so. He has subsequently indicated the sequence of events that meant that he did not choose to table the attached other sheet of paper. I am satisfied that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has acted responsibly and I do not intend to take this matter any further.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider one more thing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that he will not be heard until he has the call and I will grant him indulgence out of respect for his office.15:28:002195Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I will not abuse it any more beyond just making this point for your further consideration before we subsequently take the matter further. This is what the minister said:I will read my brief and I am happy to table it afterwards.It was later requested by our side of the House that he table the brief, to which he got up and said, `You dopes, I have tabled the brief.' There was no suggestion that he was tabling part of it at any point of time, and in our witnessing of it—and we will take this matter further tomorrow—there was no suggestion that he only had two pieces of paper in front of him.21952195Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, would you write to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services requesting that he reply to my question No. 79, placed on the Notice Paper on 23 November?21952195Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I have a similar question to you, and it is particularly timely given the Prime Minister's self-congratulatory but pretty factually vacuous answer at question time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the member for Denison to come straight to his question or he will resume his seat.RH4Mr KERR—I will, and it is that perhaps you could give a very timely reminder to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs to answer question 72 on the Notice Paper , which was tabled on 12 November, which relates to the criteria the government is using to judge the success or failure of its law enforcement strategy, the market for illicit drugs and the price of those drugs.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I interrupt the member for Denison only to point out to him that the Clerk has indicated that the matter has been answered, though it may not have reached the member for Denison.RH4Mr KERR—It certainly has not reached me.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—But it has been answered. And, because the member for Lilley was rising and caught my eye, I did not respond to the member for Greenway to say that, of course, I will take that matter up.Personal Explanations219615:30:002196Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—During question time, the Minister for Community Services purported to quote from The World at Noon claiming that I had supported a GST on accommodation. I did not, I never have and there is no way that he can quote from any document that says that I did.Auditor-General's Reports219621962196Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 1998-99: No. 22—Performance audit—Getting over the line—Selected Commonwealth bodies management of the Year 2000 problem; No. 23—Performance audit—Accountability and oversight arrangements for statutory bodies in the former Primary Industries and Energy portfolio; Nos 24, 25, 26 and 27—Performance audit—DAS Business Unit sales—Sales management; DASFLEET sale; Works Australia; DAS Interiors Australia; No. 28—Performance audit—Sale of SA Rail, Tasrail and Pax Rail; No. 29—Performance audit—Provision of Migrant Settlement Services by DIMA and No. 30—Performance audit—The use and operation of performance information in the service level agreements—Department of Social Security; Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Centrelink .Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents21962196Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Mid-year Economic and fiscal Outlook;Commissioner of Taxation—Data-matching Program report; andA Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance2196219610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damaging effect of the GST on Australia's capacity to reach the now bipartisan five per cent unemployment target.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:32:002196Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—One thing that we can absolutely guarantee is that, when they do not have the advantage of the immediate reply in question time, neither the Treasurer nor the Prime Minister is prepared to be in this place to defend their wonderful tax package—wonderful according to their definition. Well they might not be because, while they are pretty good in the coward's castle of question time, they are pretty ill placed when it comes to a debate where both sides have a reasonably even opportunity for a lengthy and detailed presentation.We saw a very interesting thing last week. Last week, before the Senate GST committee, the facade of the argument of the government that it has attempted to use to protect its tax package cracked. It cracked decisively and it cracked at that point where there is a last element of preparedness amongst a minority of the Australian public to give a degree of credibility to its tax package, and that is the government's constant assertion that it was good for the economy.Everybody knows that as far as their personal situation is concerned, they are likely to be worse off under it unless they are high income earners. Everybody knows that if they are a family they will almost certainly be worse off. Everybody knows that if they are a pensioner they will be worse off. However, constant assertions by governments from time to time that a particular action on their part is important for the economy and the nation will be given a degree of credibility by the credulous. But that last element of any form of support in the community had its position fundamentally undermined last week.Yesterday in the media, and in question time yesterday and today, we saw an extraordinary effort by the government and their supporters to do a repair job on that cracked wall. Their effort to get away from people looking at this tax package in a way that affects them, their jobs and their livelihood by discussing a set of taxation benefits, the substantial proportion of which are paid for from the surplus and therefore are open to any particular government for any particular purpose to offer to people around the country, ought to be stripped away for what it is—an escape from the consequences of the undermining of the argument that they have put forward.It has to be said that the Monash Centre has not been a friend of the Labor Party as the years have gone by. That centre has been a sea-green incorruptible group in favour of what has been termed from time to time `economic rationalism'. But the best that Professor Dixon, one of the pre-eminent economic modellers of this nation, could do for the government's tax package was to say, `Well, why would you bother?' So it ranges from this: the best you could say for the tax package is, `Why would you bother with it?' and the worst is, `It will cost you 100,000 jobs and will stultify job growth in all the principal areas of job growth now in the community.'What has the Treasury had to say about this? On our side of the House, I was the principal participant in debate in the last election campaign. I would love a dollar for every occasion on which the Prime Minister came out with the Treasurer and said, `This package of ours is going to create employment opportunities in this country.' I would love a dollar for every time they said that. And when the press actually pinned the Treasurer down in the course of the election campaign and said, `On what do you base this simple assertion? Is it an act of faith?' he said, `Oh, no, we have done a stack of modelling.'What happened last week before the goods and services committee of the Senate? A Treasury official, Mr Smith, said:A critical fact here is that the government has not provided, and we have not given to the government, specific modelled predictions of most of these macro-economic effects. That is a deliberate decision . . . He is then asked:So which macro-economic figures are you saying you did not supply to the government?Mr Smith —For example, we have not estimated precise impacts on employment and those types of variables.It came as some surprise to Senator Conroy when this statement was made, as a person who has at least got a tenuous belief in the ability of the Treasurer to at least face some point adjacent to the truth on the activities of his own department. It goes on:Senator CONROY —So you have never supplied the government with an estimate of employment growth?Mr Smith —We have not sought to provide specific point estimates of the tax package on those sorts of figures.Senator Conroy thought he would try something else:Senator CONROY —What about employment or GDP growth?Mr Smith —Not even GDP growth . . . So what we have here is the Treasury, which have had a tax package for 18 months, which at least have a capacity to model every conceivable aspect of endeavour by government, be it on the outlays side or the tax side and the likely effect of it on the economy—you can disagree with their models, you can argue with them, and sometimes Treasury have been right and sometimes Treasury have been wrong, but they have a capacity to model that is more substantially funded than any other capacity in the Australian community—having had the package for 18 months and there has been no modelling. Why?The reason there has been no modelling is simply this: we all intuitively know that not only is it right that, if you mount a tax on jobs, jobs will be lost but also it will be statistically right when placed in the hands of anyone with any degree of competence in regard to modelling the economy. And, of course, that is precisely what has happened.Professor Dixon when he presented his `Why would you bother' argument to the Senate committee on the goods and services tax said that in the short term there might be 30,000 jobs. I heard the Treasurer quote it today in one of his usual misleading efforts in question time. What did he say about that 30,000? If they had read on, they would have discovered that he said it would be 30,000 because a portion of the surplus is spent. Yes, it is true, if you spend your surplus when you have got a surplus there is a very good chance you will create jobs. Governments have discovered over the years that these things occur. And when you spend the surplus and jobs are created I suppose you can then get up there and say that for that part of the package it creates jobs.But when he got round to the GST and said that if anybody went out there and tried to claim it back by the wage process or whatever—and remember we are talking about a package, the price effects of which have been absolutely slaughtered as far as the Treasury estimates have been concerned by every single analyst of the price impact of a GST—in those circumstances you can absolutely guarantee that employees will make an attempt to get it back. Professor Dixon has said that it would cost 100,000 jobs in our economy. Then we move over to Econtech and the preferred modeller of this government. The Treasury ought to be their preferred modeller. A taxpayer spends vast amounts of money to keep the Treasury in a position where they can model, but the government chooses not to use them. We move across to Murphy. Murphy offers the Housing Industry Association advice: `You are going to lose 20,000 jobs.' That is what he says to them. When really pushed about whether or not it will have any decent effect on the economy, perhaps 0.004 growth might actually occur as a result of this package is the best effort. Mr Murphy might well have said, along with Professor Dixon, `Why would you bother?'When you actually get into the detail of it and you can see the cries from the heart of the charities like the Lifesaving Association and the St Vincent de Paul Society and the cries from the heart from the Housing Industry Association and, above all, the tourism industry, as they bring out their own models since the government will not bother with theirs, you know darn well that this is going to be a very bad tax for the Australian economy.Another reason why Professor Dixon would say, `Why would you bother with this?' is the origins of this particular tax. In no country has it been introduced as a job generator. The tax was invented at a time when people thought you did not have to bother about it. It was in the midst of the postwar boom when job growth appeared to be going on forever. It was in the midst of the postwar boom when the big job generators were the large companies, not small business. Large companies, irrespective of taxation arrangements, these days choose labour saving production exercises and will constantly be reducing their work forces. Only small businesses create jobs now, by and large, as far as the private sector is concerned.But, in a time when there were giant bureaucracies in the private sector and giant bureaucracies in the public sector, you could afford a giant bureaucratic tax. But, in circumstances where there are smaller numbers in the public sector, the one job growth area will be—which we concede—another 4,000 tax inspectors for this tax. That will be the job growth area. When you have got limited resources in the public sector and a raft of small businesses with no accounting capabilities at all, at least in-house, then you are in a very different situation from the introduction of this tax.Professor Dixon goes a point further in his logic. He says there are swings and roundabouts as far as jobs are concerned. In the older areas of the economy and the traditional areas of production, he says there is a possibility that there will be some job growth as a result of the taxation changes that are being put in place but this will be more than offset by the massive job losses that there will be in the growth sectors of jobs in the economy. In the service industry in particular there will be massive job losses as a result of the propositions that are to be put in place here. So it is a policy which is exceptionally bad for jobs in the same way as it is a policy which is exceptionally bad for growth and for fairness and equity in the taxation system.Because he is a bit of a smart alec, because he likes to rabbit on and because he likes to intellectually test himself out there in the community when he knows that nobody is going to test him, the Treasurer got himself trapped the other day when he talked about getting us to a five per cent unemployment target. Having copped a beating from Howard and from Costello on the campaign trail about setting quite a reasonable target in that regard, we have got the Treasurer coming up and saying, `Oh no, it is quite possible.' `I have made a mistake,' he said. You could see it come across his eyes when he made that announcement—Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for the Northern Territory, have your heart attack outside.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—`How am I going to explain that to the rest of the world?' How he chose to explain it to the rest of the world was, `It is the tax package that creates it.' What in the tax package specifically creates it? He says, `The movement from welfare into work.' Where in the tax package is there an incentive to leave the welfare system and to go into work? Where is there in the tax package for low and middle income earners an incentive to do additional work? There is none at all. Where is there the incentive for families? In fact, for single supporting mothers there is a positive disincentive to go into the work force in the tax package because what they will find if they choose to do so is a massive loss of benefits. That is the only impact it has.It is the height of hypocrisy for the Treasurer to stand up in this place and somehow say that this is going to occur as another article of faith. First article of faith: no modelling, there will be job growth. Second article of faith: no modelling and no argument, people will be encouraged to move from welfare to work. Why would he say that? Because he knows that the only tax packages on offer in the course of the last campaign were those which stressed they would produce jobs, were those which stressed positive incentives to get off the welfare system and to get into the work force and in the work force to work a bit of overtime. Those are the only tax packages which could be legitimately argued to improve the position of employment in this country. Guess who had that one? That was us. Prophets in Australian politics are honoured only after the elections if they come from the Labor side of the House, just as the only good Labor leaders are dead ones.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—With one exception, I hope, Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—In this particular instance, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have had a parade of models, a parade of economists, coming out telling the Australian people that the really decent, innovative, interesting proposition was the Labor Party tax credit proposal. A lot of water is going to flow under the bridge during this debate about tax reform in this country, and there are going to be a lot of opportunities for us to present real reform that encourages people into the work force, because we are getting none of that from this government. (Time expired)15:47:002199Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Today I think we have witnessed the beginning of the end for the Leader of the Opposition. I only had to sit here today and witness the morbid faces sitting behind the Leader of the Opposition as most of them drifted into a deeper sleep. Some sat there chatting amongst themselves as he attempted in vain to inspire the lonely lot who are now wandering out of the chamber. There is only one member of this parliament, there is only one party in this parliament, who has overseen unemployment above 10 per cent—that is Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, and those opposite in the Labor Party.Before commenting on the pathetic attempt that he made to put asunder the GST, let us have a look at the Labor Party's record in government. It is a pitiful record which unfortunately saw so many great Australians, so many hardworking Australians, thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment for the first time. Labor left Australia with a legacy of high unemployment, peaking at 11.2 per cent. I remind those opposite that today it stands at 7.5 per cent and is on the way down. That was over one million people unemployed under the stewardship of Kim Beazley as the minister for employment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Indeed. He was also the Minister for Finance that oversaw the financial position of this nation as it deteriorated to one of the worst states it has ever been in, where we became so dependent upon other nations simply to be able to pay our way. These things are what created the need for a major change in our employment strategy. The Leader of the Opposition in his first year increased long-term unemployed by 95,000 people. He has spoken here today about 100,000 people perhaps becoming unemployed as a result of the GST. What is fact, what cannot be disputed, what is now a sad part of Australian history, is that 95,000 people were thrown onto the long-term unemployed list as a direct result of the policies that he oversaw as our employment minister under the Keating government.Labor's Working Nation program failed the unemployed. They churned the unemployed through short-term labour market programs. Much has been said about this over the last three years, but we should never forget the failure that it was—billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. That is very relevant because this government is going to return some of that money back to the people who actually earned it in the first place—the workers. Thirteen billion dollars of that is going to be returned to the workers of Australia, and not put into short-term labour market programs so the opposition in government can make their unemployment figures look that much better. Labor's $500 million New Work Opportunities Program was a real doozey. Let us recall that one. Simon, you will remember this one well; you oversaw it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Address your remarks through the chair, please.DT4CREANMr Crean—I like being called Simon.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Not in here, you don't.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Point taken, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I guess, really looked upon New Work Opportunities as one of his ways of lowering the unemployment figures not through legitimate job creation but simply by being able to manipulate the figures. The fact is that it had a dismal success rate of a four per cent net result.DT4CREANMr Crean—Long-term unemployed figures.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—`Long-term unemployed figures,' we hear him say. Long-term unemployed became short-term unemployed who went back to being long-term unemployed. That was a great network, it was a great churning through of people. Of course, that cost the taxpayer on average $144,000 net per job. I do not think there is a person in the gallery here today or anyone listening on the broadcast who could not create jobs at much less expense to the taxpayer.The Leader of the Opposition also spoke here today about a surplus. I am surprised that he would even know what a surplus is since it was only in this term of the coalition government that this country has seen a surplus in this decade. In this decade this is the first time that the government has not had to borrow in order to pay its way. It is not something that the opposition would be aware of. What they were good at, though, was spending other people's money, spending the money of future Australians, spending the money of young Australians who are now working, because we are going to be paying the debt that the opposition ran up over the last seven years for many, many years to come.Mr Crean interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader will have his turn.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Employment is so important to so many people's outlook on life and their ability to feel responsible for themselves. Who creates jobs? It is not us, the parliamentarians. It is not the government of the day. We create the framework which allows business to create real jobs. Under Paul Keating all we ever heard was, `This government has created X amount of jobs.' No government creates jobs. We create the framework, the macro- and micro-economic conditions, to allow employment to flourish. It does not flourish with business interest rates of 22 to 25 per cent. That kills small business, the biggest single employer in Australia.That was the Leader of the Opposition's record in government. What has been his record in opposition? Let us look at industrial relations reforms. The government went to the people in 1996 with a comprehensive range of reforms to industrial relations to help employment. These were opposed every step of the way by the opposition and by the Democrats, whose then leader is now on the frontbench of the Labor Party.When they were finally passed, Australia achieved one of its lowest levels of industrial disputes since Federation. That was on the back of comments by Bill Kelty that we would have World War III with industrial relations. Where today is Bill Kelty and where is Jennie George? Maybe they are on their way in here. Maybe another former ACTU boss is to take a cosy seat on the frontbench. The bottom line is that the industrial relations reforms of this government, opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, have done a lot to reduce unemployment.Today the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade outlined some of the pluses and improvements in Australia's exports, and some very great achievements they are. But how much worse would they have been had we not had the reform on the waterfront, reform which, once again, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition chuckles about. He does so because he has to protect the arcane position that he has always had.A balanced budget has been one of the great achievements of the Treasurer and this government. We took the $10 billion Beazley black hole and turned it into a surplus within three years. A balanced budget equals a stronger economy. A stronger economy equals low inflation and low interest rates. All of those together equal more jobs. These measures were, once again, condemned and opposed at every step by those opposite.Unfair dismissal legislation—and probably this will be brought up again this year—has been rejected time and again by those opposite, when those that create the jobs in this nation, the business community, have said time and again that there are 50,000 new jobs available if we can simply reform that piece of legislation. But no. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—who knows for how much longer—are sitting there condemning those people on the unemployment list because they will not assist—(Quorum formed) It is quite obvious that those opposite do not want to hear the truth of the matter. Other methods of reducing unemployment, such as youth wages, Work for the Dole and the Job Network, have all been opposed by those opposite.I now turn to tax reform. It is no wonder that Labor oppose it. Thus far they have a 100 per cent success rate in opposing everything that this government has done that has been successful. Those opposite must be looking for a clear, new direction—a new direction as proposed by the member for Melbourne. Last night he said:. . . we have to do two things to return to Government. One is to build the positive new agenda for the future of our country and the other thing which is equally important is to reform ourselves, we are not democratic enough— a bit like One Nation is not democratic enough—we are not inclusive enough, our membership is too small and we can no longer afford that because our union base is shrinking and the loyal voter base, the people who always voted Labor no matter what is also shrinking . . . It is no wonder it is shrinking, when you look back upon their record both in opposition and in government. Why are they opposing the GST? Why are they opposing tax reform? I refer to Labor policy and Mark Latham on 8 October as quoted by the Australian :Our intellectual stocks have run down. Our think-tanks are mostly faction ridden and unproductive. Our recent Plan for the Nation was simply a way of allocating more money to more programs of the old kind.The same member for Werriwa said:I can't remember the last time shadow cabinet had a serious policy debate.As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you are part of that. You have not had a serious policy debate. Then we go to Lindsay Tanner, the member for Melbourne, once again, on Labor policy:The Labor Party cannot afford to indulge in the politics of nostalgia. Strident denunciations of economic rationalism and broad hints that we can return to the good old days of high tariffs and pork-barrelling may produce short term political benefits, but will only engender disillusionment in the long run.And on tax policy:Labor should not be frightened to thoroughly re-examine Australia's tax system with two primary objectives:—I wonder if one of them was to increase capital gains tax—reinforcing the burden on lower and middle income earners. Labor should commit itself to a comprehensive inquiry into the tax system to enable these objectives to be pursued.But what did Mark Latham, the member for Werriwa, say about Labor's tax plan? The Leader of the Opposition said earlier that there was only one real tax plan, and that is what they took to the people. This is what the member for Werriwa had to say:What sort of respect was there for the team when Gareth delivers his tax package and tells us that it is on the way to the printers and `You didn't really expect the shadow ministry would make any changes to it, did you?'Maybe that is because they did not have any intellectual clout about them, or maybe it is simply because they are a one-man band.I suggest that there is one target in this parliament at the moment, and that target is fairly on the back of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a big target and there are a lot of people taking a shot at it right now. One of them is sitting directly opposite with a big grin on his face.Now we turn to the fact that they say there is bipartisanship on the five per cent target. The Treasurer said there were four things needed to get to a five per cent target: strong economic growth, improved industrial relations, better interaction between tax and the welfare system, and a welfare system that encourages people to seek jobs. We are delivering strong economic growth and will continue to deliver. Improved industrial relations will only be done with the opposition opposing it every step of the way. The new tax system delivers to families and to low income earners real benefits through $13 billion in tax cuts.The Labor Party would do well to learn something about giving incentive back to those people that give us, the government, the money to spend on social programs. If they do that, they may have some chance of rebuilding their party and their branches, but they will not do it under this Leader of the Opposition because his days are very much numbered. He will see himself out on his ear as the member for Werriwa and the member for Melbourne lead the charge to ensure that the Labor Party does not go back to way it was in the 1950s and 1960s but goes forward into the future. This is a good government leading to a better—(Time expired)16:02:002202Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The government has had 15 minutes and there has not been one defence of the GST. Why? Because the GST is a job destroying tax. Right from the outset, Labor said it was totally opposed to the GST. We campaigned on that basis, and we obtained 51 per cent of the vote. We said we would oppose it because, try as you might, you simply cannot make this tax fair. We tried in 1985 and we could not do it, just as John Hewson could not do it and just as Peter Costello and John Howard cannot do it now.In addition to its unfairness, the GST is bad for the economy. It is bad for jobs, it is unfair for families and communities. You can have effective tax reform in this nation without a GST. We have set ourselves the task of proving those issues through the Senate GST inquiry—an inquiry which the Treasurer at first said would never happen. He then said it should be limited, and he then conceded an inquiry even broader than Labor had first proposed. In just two full weeks of this inquiry's sittings—and there are many more sittings to come—we have proven each of the points that I have outlined but none more emphatically than the fact that the GST is a job destroyer. We are no longer faced with a question of whether the GST will destroy jobs. The question is: how many.Let us look at the evidence. First of all, let us take the Treasurer's assertion at the Press Club during the election campaign, where he said, `We've done lots of modelling on the jobs.' It is all very well his talking about our book club, but at least we have books in it. This is the Treasurer who says, `We've got lots of models in our modelling shop,' and when you open the door, the cupboard is bare. Not one model have they been able to produce—not one model to prove their case. The Treasurer has not been able to produce one piece of evidence because they have not done it. And who says that they have not done it? The Treasurer's own department. The Treasury, in evidence to the Senate inquiry, said, `We have not done any modelling.' We have tried to get the Treasurer over the days to admit that very fact, and, of course, he avoids the question every time.It beggars belief that the Treasurer, who is saying that this is the most significant tax reform of the century, would not have his department model its employment effects and the effects on the economy. But, believe it or not, that is precisely what they have done—no modelling; mere assertion. This is a Treasurer who has not done his homework. If he has tried to go down this path, he probably knows what the answers are. This is a tax which is bad for jobs and bad for the economy.It is not just the Treasurer who should be doing the modelling. Remember when the Prime Minister established his employment committee of cabinet? He promised that the unemployment committee of cabinet would apply a test to every new policy proposal—how many jobs will it create? And here you have the greatest tax reform of the century, and they do not even get their own department to tell them how many jobs it will create. This government is a disgrace, and the tax package is a fraud on the Australian public.Let us look at what the models—where people have actually done them—demonstrate in relation to jobs. Professor Dixon is an internationally respected modeller. They are not just our words. We heard the government guffawing about the world-renowned modeller, Professor Dixon, but that is how he is regarded, on evidence to the Senate committee by Professor Ken Wallis, a British econometrics professor whose life work has been to evaluate economic models around the world. He says the Monash unit is world famous. And the government's own representative sitting on the tax inquiry, Senator Ferguson, said that he—Professor Dixon—is a very credible modeller. So let us have no argument that this person is just a blow-in and making it up. This is what Professor Dixon said in evidence before the Senate inquiry:Up to 100,000 jobs could be lost in the early years of the tax package if wages rise in response to the higher cost of living of the GST.That is 100,000 jobs negative. The Treasurer today tried to say that Professor Dixon actually said there would be an increase of 30,000 jobs. But the interesting thing is that what he did not go on to say was that Professor Dixon said that the 30,000 would come not from the GST but because of the fiscal stimulus—treat that as tax cuts—in the government's package. So what is that really saying to people—to get the message across to the other side? It is really saying: you can have the jobs growth without a GST. It is also saying that the GST itself will be responsible for job losses.He went on to say that any jobs that are created in the early years will be due entirely to the income tax cuts and not to the GST; that a delay of just one year in passing on the full savings from reducing some indirect taxes will lead to job losses; and any economic efficiency gains from the tax package will be negligible; the package will cause a small decline in average Australian living standards; and the existing tax system will collect revenue faster than growth in GDP. So the system isn't broke.So what have we got? A tax package that is going to cost jobs; a tax package that is going to produce a decline in Australian living standards; a tax package that is going to produce less revenue—and we are told it is the greatest revolutionary tax reform of the century. Some reform! God help us with any other that they are going to bring forward. This is a misguided tax. It is a misguided tax, the evidence around which has been held back from the Australian public.But that was Professor Dixon. Let me go on to what Mr Chris Murphy had to say, and he is the government's preferred modeller. The Prime Minister has held this man up as being their preferred modeller. Mr Murphy found that the GST would not create any jobs. He, too, said the job increase, if any, will come from the fiscal stimulus. In other words, you can get job increases without the GST if you are prepared to inject into the economy. That is effectively what he is saying, and that is what we are saying—that we can get the jobs growth and we can get tax reform without a GST.Mr Murphy, the preferred modeller of the government—and the government will not get any more work done; we are having to get it done by courtesy of the Senate—also said that it will lead to a permanent reduction in housing industry employment. And what did we hear the Prime Minister say today when he was hammered on this question? He did not think there would be any job losses in the housing industry as a result of the GST. He did not think there would be. But Chris Murphy—his preferred modeller—says there will be. There is evidence, not just before the parliament but writ large, and the Prime Minister chooses to ignore it.What sort of madness is it that sees us embark on a tax reform that will not produce more revenue, will not produce any jobs—in fact it will cost jobs—and will lead, in turn, to a decline in the welfare of the Australian public? It is all very well for people to sit up there and think, in terms of presenting these tax cuts, that this will be a tax that eventually will gain favour. Those tax cuts are illusory, and it was interesting that the Treasurer today did not categorically say that all tax cuts promised would be delivered. The reason for that is this: their compensation package is deficient.We have also found from the evidence before the Senate inquiry that the inflation effect is not 1.9 per cent in the first year but, by Treasury's own assessment, 3.1 per cent. That is assuming no wage breakout and full pass-on of the benefits of the abolition of the other taxes. Not one witness before the Senate inquiry believes there will be full pass-on of those taxes being abolished. Not one. So what we will end up having is not an inflation impact of 1.9 per cent but something approaching five per cent. By the time the Senate inquiry is finished, we will have demonstrated the inflationary impact closer to five per cent. The compensation package is illusory. This tax should be defeated. (Time expired)16:12:002204Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I noticed that the last speaker said he will not hear a defence of the GST. Well I will certainly give him one, but first I want to refer to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. With regard to the Dixon and Rimmer study from Monash University, he said, `Why bother? Why would you bother creating 30,000 jobs, or perhaps even more?' I will tell you why you would bother—because there would be 30,000 more jobs in the economy. They did not bother.Let me tell you about some of the things that they did not bother about. First of all, before the 1996 election, Labor left us with an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent—the highest since the Depression. They did not bother. In the last six years of Labor, only 16,000 full-time jobs were created. That is right—they did not bother. Since we took government, 300,000 new jobs have been created—209,200 since August 1997. That is because we bother. `Why bother?' I think will be on the political tombstone of the Leader of the Opposition. Why bother? Well, we care.I now want to move to the comments of the shadow Treasurer in defence of the GST. Morgan Stockbroking Ltd tells the real story in its document headed `How the Tax Package Adds 220,000 Jobs', dated 19 August 1998. I quote directly from it:Most of the comment on the tax package appears to have neglected that the purpose of a consumption tax is to tax consumption. In net terms, the GST pushes up the price of goods to consumers by 1.9% (or 2.2% if you are a smoker). The money raised goes to make business costs fall. Because there are more consumers than businesses, the money raised from consumers results in a 3.2 per cent fall in business costs.The document continues:Business costs fall because of the abolition of the wholesale sales tax,I will just add here that the Labor Party voted to retain that—the ability to claim GST rebates for inputs and the direction of GST revenue to the States so that they can abolish other business charges. Consumers are compensated for the increase in prices by income tax cuts. The tax cuts provide after GST a single person on $35,000 a year with a 2% rise in disposable income. A sole parent with two children on the same income gains an 11.6% rise. A single income couple with two children gains a 9.7% rise. A dual income couple with two children gains a 7.9% rise.That was from Morgan Stockbroking Ltd. (Quorum formed) I continue—Government members interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—They can dish it out, but they can't take it, can they. Morgan goes on to say:A 3.2% increase in Australia GDP thus derived would add 223,000 new jobs to the Australian economy.Access Economics said:The GST raise prices some 2.5%. Adding in the large personal income tax cuts at that time gives a total price effect as the extra demand pushes up prices and drags in some extra imports. In the long run the impact of the tax package raises total national output by 2.5% and there is an additional 190,000 jobs.Let us talk about some of the strategies that we have bothered to do—and I notice again that the Leader of the Opposition says, `Why bother?' We think it matters. It does matter. It matters to create jobs. It matters to be able to insulate Australia against the uncertainties in the world international economy. It matters. Lower tax rates for all Australians, reform of family assistance and increased social security payments all locked together will create jobs in Australia. The experts argue between 220,000 and 230,000—something well worth bothering about in our opinion.After the interruptions from the opposition who, as I said, can dish it out but they certainly can't take it, I would like to refer a little to the problems in their camp. We have the ALP book club—Civilising Global Capital. It reminds me of an American joke I heard some years ago, and comedy always comes to mind when you think about the ALP. This fellow was talking about the books his children gave him at Christmas. The first Christmas they gave him a book, Winning at Golf; the second Christmas the book was Improving Your Golf Handicap; the third Christmas the book was Cheating at Golf. It reminds me a little bit of the ALP. We now have Civilising Global Capital. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is going to bring out `Civilising the ALP backbench'. We have got Out of the Rut. What can we expect next year—`Living in the rut'; and then the third year, `Redecorating the rut'? The ALP book club has no solutions. Writing books to each other is not the way to deliver a better outcome for this country.We have a plan. It includes a GST; it includes overall tax reform. If Morgan is right and it is 220,000 jobs, then terrific, but it is still worth bothering about—as the Leader of the Opposition would say—for 30,000 jobs.We are going to create real jobs in this country. We are going to cut income tax rates for average Australians, such that 80 per cent of Australians will have a tax rate of less than 30 cents in the dollar. We are going to reform family assistance. For them, assistance is being increased; there are work incentives for low and middle income families being improved; and the structure and administration of family assistance is being revamped to simplify it, with increased social security payments to ensure the gains of tax reform are shared widely amongst all Australians. Pensions and benefits are being increased in real terms, and the pension income test is being eased to improve work and savings incentives.So we have a plan. It includes a goods and services tax. It does not include statements like `Why bother?' from the Leader of the Opposition—a disgraceful comment for any proposed leader of this country to make. `Why bother?' We do bother. We do care. We have a plan, and it is going to be implemented.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.Committees2206220622062206Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private member's business on Monday, 15 February 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The committee has determined that a number of notices given by one member be called on, moved and debated together. These notices all relate to proposed amendments to the standing orders and the committee believes it would be appropriate to have a cognate debate. It will be necessary for standing and sessional orders to be suspended to allow this course of action, and I indicate that tomorrow I will seek leave to move the necessary motion.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 15 February 1999Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 15 February 1999. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mrs Crosio to present a bill for an act to provide for the establishment and administration of a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and certain other liabilities owed to employees in the event of employer insolvency and for related purposes.2Mr Schultz to move:That this House:(1) places on record concern about the lack of sufficient funding for clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of breast cancer;(2) notes that over 8000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998 and that over 2700 women will die of breast cancer in that year; and(3) calls on the Government to consider infrastructure funding which will give the foundation and security for planning and completion of quality, evidence-based research.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Laurie Ferguson to move:That this House:(1) notes that the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia concluded that the 1983 Survey of Health of Former Atomic Test Personnel cannot be regarded as an adequate epidemiological study;(2) expresses concern that there has been no further official study into the health and mortality of Australian personnel who participated in British nuclear tests and subsequent clean-up operations;(3) acknowledges that the USA accepts as radiogenic a range of cancers and other conditions experienced by military personnel who were exposed to ionising radiation;(4) notes that studies of British nuclear veterans have been conducted by the UK National Radiological Protection Board in 1988 and 1993 and, more recently, through Dundee University for the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association;(5) calls on the Minister for Defence to commission as a matter of urgency a rigorous health and mortality study of Australian atomic ex-service personnel and their children and grandchildren; and(6) supports the involvement of independent researchers and representatives of the ex-service community in the design and conduct of such a study.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Ms Bailey to move:That this House:(1) recognises that food is a growth industry;(2) acknowledges that the `food industry' comprises primary industry production, processing and manufacturing, retail and catering; and(3) calls on the Government to ensure a national uniform food regulatory system.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5Mr Price to move:(1) That a Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing be appointed to inquire into: (a) proposals for the annual estimates and the additional estimates for the House of Representatives; (b) proposals to vary the staff structure of the House of Representatives, and staffing and recruitment policies; and (c) such other matters as are referred to it by the House;(2) That the committee shall: (a) in relation to estimates— (i) determine the amounts for inclusion in the parliamentary appropriation bills for the annual and the additional appropriations; and (ii) report to the House upon its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill; and (b) in relation to staffing— (i) make recommendations to the Speaker; and (ii) report to the House on any matter its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill;(3) That the committee consist of the Speaker and 11 other members, 6 members to be nominated by the Chief Government Whip or Whips and 5 members to be nominated by the Chief Opposition Whip or Whips or any independent Member;(4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair;(5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting;(6) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;(7) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;(8) That the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the members of that subcommittee;(9) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;(10) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records;(11) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place;(12) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House;(13) That the committee have leave to report from time to time; and (14) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.6Mr Price to move:(1) That standing order 28B be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (b): (ba ) annual and additional estimates contained in the appropriation bills presented to the House shall stand referred for consideration by Members of the relevant committee (as determined in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) for the consideration of annual reports), and, for the purposes of this consideration: (i) six Members of each committee, determined by the committee in each case, shall consider the estimates; (ii) the Members of the committee selected to consider the estimates shall meet with Members of the relevant Senate legislation committee so that the Members and Senators may meet together for the purposes of considering the estimates; (iii) members of the relevant House and Senate committees, when meeting together to consider estimates, shall choose a Member or a Senator to chair the joint meetings; (iv) the provisions of Senate standing order 26 shall, to the extent that they are applicable, apply to the consideration of estimates under this paragraph, and (v) that, upon the completion of joint meetings at which evidence is received or written answers or additional information considered, it shall then be a matter for the Members of the relevant committee to consider the terms of any report to the House on the estimates.(2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.7Mr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by amending standing order 94 to read as follows: Closure of Member94 A motion may be made that a Member who is speaking, except a Member giving a notice of motion or formally moving the terms of a motion allowed under the standing orders or speaking to a motion of dissent (from any ruling of the Speaker under standing order 100), "be not further heard", and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.8Mr Price to move:That standing order 129 be omitted and the following standing order substituted: Presentation of petitions129 At the time provided for the presentation of petitions, the following arrangements shall apply to the presentation of petitions certified to be in conformity with the standing orders:(a ) in respect of each petition, the petitioner, or one of the petitioners, may present the petition to the House by standing at the Bar of the House and reading to the House the prayer of the petition, and(b ) where a petitioner is not able to present the petition in accordance with paragraph (a) of this standing order, the Member who has lodged the petition may present it to the House by reading to the House the prayer of the petition.9Mr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by inserting the following standing order after standing order 143: Questions to committee chairs143A Questions may be put to a Member in his or her capacity as Chair of a committee of the House, or of a joint committee, in connection with the work or duties of the committee in question.10Mr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by inserting the following standing order after standing order 145: Questions without notice—Time limits145A During question time: (a ) the asking of each question may not exceed 1 minute and the answering of each question may not exceed 4 minutes; (b ) the asking of each supplementary question may not exceed 1 minute and the answering of each supplementary question may not exceed 1 minute; and (c ) the time taken to make and determine points of order is not to be regarded as part of the time for questions and answers.11Mr Price to move:That standing order 275A be omitted and the following standing order be substituted: Statements by Members275A Notwithstanding standing order 275, when the Main Committee meets on a Thursday, the business before the Com mittee shall be interrupted at 1 p.m. and the Chair shall call for statements by Members. A Member, other than a Minister, may be called by the Chair to make a statement for a period not exceeding 3 minutes. The period for Members' statements may continue for a maximum of 1 hour. Any business under discussion at 1 p.m. and interrupted under the provisions of this standing order shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting.Notices 5 to 11 to be moved and debated together.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motions—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of these matters should continue on a future day.2209220910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Committee.Motion (by Mr Entsch)—by leave—agreed to.That Mr Jenkins and Mr Fitzgibbon be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector.Bills2209r6742209Debate resumed from 8 February, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.16:24:002209Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise, albeit with some immediacy and short notice, to commend the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 . As a government we are not only convinced of the necessity for this bill but we believe it is in the interest of all Australia. We have many bills passed by this parliament, and the sad situation is that many Australians, who are in the long term affected by legislation passed by this House, are unaware of the good deed and hard work that is done on their behalf. This parliament is given the responsibility of passing legislation for the betterment of all Australia. It is therefore with huge pride that I rise to speak on this bill. I congratulate the House on formulating legislation for the betterment of all Australians.16:26:002209Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I am responding to the second reading debate on behalf of the Attorney-General. It is a lengthy response, which the Attorney-General wishes to place on the record, so I propose to read it on his behalf.In closing the debate I thank the honourable members for Barton, Curtin and Calare for their contributions. I want to respond in detail to the contribution by the honourable member for Barton. Regrettably, his speech contained a large number of fallacies and factual errors. But, even more importantly, it missed the whole point of the reforms we are making. It is precisely because we believe passionately in the availability of high quality and cost-effective client focused legal service for the AGS that we are creating this new framework.The bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor as a statutory authority separate from the Attorney-General's Department. It will provide the AGS with the independence and flexibility it requires in serving the important legal needs of the Commonwealth and its agencies. The bill also gives the Attorney-General the power to issue legal service directions in relation to Commonwealth legal work.The first point I need to respond to is the statement by the honourable member for Barton that `the government has failed to sufficiently justify the course of action that it has taken'. He also stated that the government's course of action would `disarm to a degree one of our armouries of government'. If we do not act now there is a danger that an uncompetitive AGS will lose the support of its clients and fail to respond appropriately to the needs of the Commonwealth. The bill provides the framework for the discipline necessary to prevent this happening.As the honourable member for Curtin pointed out, the government's actions in reforming the AGS and introducing this bill follow a comprehensive review of the delivery of legal services to the Commonwealth. The Logan review was established by the Attor ney-General to give effect to a coalition election promise. The Logan report, which was handed down in March 1997 after extensive consultations, contained a detailed analysis of the options it had examined. It is completely wrong to suggest, as the honourable member for Barton did, that the terms of reference for the Logan review were `skewed heavily' in favour of privatisation of the AGS. It is also completely wrong to suggest that the government's reforms are not implementing the recommendations of the Logan report.The Attorney-General will say something shortly in this address that I am reading on his behalf about why the government does not favour privatisation. The point that needs to be made here—and made very firmly—is that the government's reforms for the AGS and the Commonwealth legal market generally are entirely consistent with what was recommended in the Logan report. That report was released publicly, and I invite honourable members to study its conclusions and its reasoning, which provide detailed justification for the course of action the government is taking.The report noted the steps that had been taken by the previous government to open up most Commonwealth legal work to competition from the private sector. Indeed, as the previous Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, proudly proclaimed in a media release back in 1994:From 1 July 1995 . . . almost 75 per cent of the nonpolicy legal services provided to federal departments and agencies by the Attorney-General's legal practice will be open to competition.Mr Lavarch was right when he said in the same media release: . . . introducing competition for the supply of government legal services is an important part of the reform agenda for the legal profession as a whole.Logan concluded that the Attorney-General's legal practice had made considerable improvements, since Labor began the reform process, in both its efficiency and the quality of its services. However, it also concluded that significant further improvement was possible and desirable, particularly if the Government Solicitor were to continue to provide high quality, cost-effective legal services in an increasingly competitive environment. This point needs to be stressed. The reforms that the Logan report recommended are designed to enhance the position of the AGS. They are designed to ensure that it has the flexibility and independence necessary to compete with the private sector. It was the previous government's reforms to the AGS that set it on this course. However, those reforms had left it in no-man's-land'. They had left the AGS in a position where the majority of its work was open to competition, but it did not have the necessary tools to compete as effectively as it should.That remains the position. As a commercial enterprise, the AGS is subject to the competitive neutrality principles which apply generally to government business enterprises. As a consequence, the AGS is required to make payments by way of a dividend and by way of tax equivalent payments as if it were a private law firm.Although the bill provides a mechanism for formalising the arrangements for these payments, the reality is that the AGS is already required administratively to pay these amounts. What the opposition is seeking to do in blocking this bill is precisely what it is accusing the government of doing, namely, seeking to `disarm' an important government agency.The Logan report concluded that the AGS would be able to operate more efficiently than at present if it had `significant employment flexibility' that is not available under the current or even the proposed public service regime. Consistent with the Logan report, the bill would give the AGS the flexibility to employ staff without the limitations of the current public service regime. The capacity to pay higher salaries will give AGS the capacity to compete with the private sector on a level playing field. It will also help the AGS to keep some of the very best people whom they now have practising in field of government law. We are not suggesting, as the honourable member for Barton said we were, that these lawyers were motivated solely by money.Quite clearly, one of the major attractions for lawyers working in the AGS is the high level of interesting legal work that is available. However, not a thing said by the hon ourable member for Barton provides any justification for denying the AGS the kind of employment flexibility that the bill provides. If the AGS is going to operate commercially and return a profit, as it has been required to do since the Labor government implemented its reforms, then it must be allowed the freedom to make commercial judgments about employment of its staff.The next point made by the member for Barton was that, in effect, departments and agencies were going to have to pay more for their legal services. He referred, in particular, to a rise in hourly rates implemented by the AGS last year. Again, the point is misconceived. The increase of around five per cent is the first for three years. It has been offset by very significant increases in productivity and reductions in the cost of property and other support services made in the last year. As a result, AGS has been able to confine the increase to modest levels.The conclusion of the Logan report was that the high level of contestability of the Commonwealth legal market would lead to greater competition and thus improved efficiency in the provision of legal services to the Commonwealth. AGS's anticipation of the new regime demonstrates fully the force of Logan's advice to us on contestability.In essence, client departments and agencies should achieve better value for their money by making better decisions about their use of resources, based on their recognition of real costs, whether they be with AGS, in-house lawyers or the private sector. There is no evidence to suggest that departments and agencies will be paying more for the same level of services. Of course, it is possible that, with the benefit of a better service, departments and agencies may choose to purchase more legal services from AGS or elsewhere than before—in particular, rather than having them performed in-house. They may also recognise the value of legal services to their work and choose to spend more of their running costs on them.Given the critical importance of proper legal services in so many areas of government operations, I would be most concerned, as first law officer, if departments and agencies were not obtaining legal services to the full extent necessary. It would be extremely short-sighted, given the adverse financial and other consequences that can follow. I am not not aware of any evidence to suggest that the ongoing and proposed reforms are having, or will have, the impact on costs that is suggested. However, the situation will be kept under review.It is yet another error to suggest that the government has not considered the possibility of departments and agencies engaging in-house lawyers as a result of the proposed reforms. Again, this was a matter that was considered in some detail in the Logan report. The introduction of recent budgetary reforms including accrual accounting requires departments and agencies to take into account the true cost of in-house lawyers and to ensure that they are operating in a manner which gives proper value for money when compared with the commercial services available from private law firms and the AGS.One of the recommendations of the Logan report, which examined the position of in-house lawyers in some detail, was that departments and agencies should review their use of in-house lawyers in light of the government's policies on competitive tendering and contracting and competitive neutrality. The overall message given by the honourable member for Barton is one of doom and gloom for the AGS if the bill were enacted. Let me reject that completely. (Quorum formed)As I have previously mentioned, most of the reforms that the honourable member for Barton complains of are already in place. In particular, the AGS is operating as an administratively separate unit from the Attorney-General's Department. It makes tax equivalent payments and it is making a profit from which dividends are payable. Contrary to the statement by the honourable member for Barton, the government is not placing an unrealistic burden on the AGS to make profits. As I mentioned before, the AGS has had this obligation since the adoption of the reforms by the former government.In November 1994 the then Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, and the then Minister for Finance, Mr Kim Beazley, signed the memorandum of understanding which required the then legal practice to prepare an annual business plan that included targets for rates of return. The MOU required the legal practice to pay a dividend based on the 10-year Treasury bond rate plus two percentage points for risk on the equity invested by the Commonwealth in the practice. In short, the financial arrangements under which the AGS is now operating are in essence no different from those which have operated since the 1993-94 financial year.As I have said, the AGS is meeting its obligation to return a profit and I am confident that it will continue to do so. It is a strong, viable organisation and provides high quality essential legal advice, litigation and other important services to government and its agencies. The government is determined to ensure that this continues.As the honourable member for Curtin rightly pointed out, the Logan report concluded that there was an important and continuing role for the government to retain its own solicitors. Government ownership is in the public interest. There are strong reasons why the sale of AGS assets would not be justified. The government therefore accepted the recommendation of the Logan report that privatisation not occur.Another aspect of the doom and gloom prediction from the opposition arises from the limited client base which is permitted by the bill. As has always been the case, the AGS is limited by constitutional requirements and by its functions as the government solicitor to acting for government bodies and persons and bodies having a close connection with government. In fact, the bill expands somewhat on the persons and bodies for whom the AGS can act and makes it easier for it to do so.However, the more important point is to reject any suggestion that this restriction will prevent the AGS from competing effectively with private law firms. The Logan report estimated that the size of the Commonwealth legal market is around $200 million per annum. The AGS has a large slice of this market and, given their expertise in the field, there is no reason to believe they will not continue to be a dominant force. Furthermore, the constitutional, cabinet, national security and international law work that is tied up in the AGS in view of their importance in a `whole of government' sense, provides some balance for the restricted field of clients available to the AGS. However, the point that has to be made again is that the restrictions on available clients applies regardless of the bill's enactment and the measures in the bill will assist the AGS.Yet another opposition fallacy was evident when they spoke about the mechanism under the bill to enable me to issue legal service directions. In addition, they had not done their homework in stating that the Office of Legal Services Coordination in the Attorney-General's Department, which is responsible for the administration of these directions, is staffed by three people. When the Office of Legal Services Coordination was first established it was staffed by two lawyers and an administrative assistant. The honourable member for Barton is, however, badly out of date. (Quorum formed)(Extension of time granted)I had just made the point, on behalf of the Attorney-General, that the restrictions on the availability of clients to the AGS, regardless of the bill's enactment and the measures in the bill, will be to assist the AGS. Since the Office of Legal Services Coordination establishment was first made, in light of a further assessment of its current and expected future work the number of positions for lawyers has been increased from two to six. Apart from the director's position, the next most senior position will be filled with the return to the department in March of this year by an experienced SES band 1 officer.The fact that the department has found these extra resources for the OLSC in a period of very tight funding is indicative of the very high priority accorded to that office's functions. Furthermore, the level of resources provided for these functions will be kept under review. The Attorney-General takes his role as first law officer very seriously and can assure the House that he will not allow this role to suffer because of the lack of resources for the OLSC. Since the office was established in 1997, it has established a good working relationship with government departments and agencies. It has also been active in monitoring compliance with the existing legal services policies and guidelines. It has also publicised these policies and guidelines on its web site and has become the first port of call for departments' and agencies' queries about legal services.Two additional points should be made in relation to the enforcement of legal services directions. First, the establishment of OLSC has meant that AGS is no longer responsible for enforcement of legal services policies and guidelines. OLSC is better placed to carry out this function because it does not have to be concerned with the possible damage to a commercial relationship which AGS faced when it told clients that they were not allowed to take action inconsistent with these policies and guidelines. Secondly, and most importantly, the passage of the Judiciary Amendment Bill will greatly enhance OLSC's position in enforcing the legal services directions because of the statutory force given to the directions. The need for this power was very effectively explained by the honourable member for Curtin.Once again, in seeking to block this bill the opposition is doing exactly the opposite of what they are saying when they complain about the very few teeth that are given to enforce the directions. Enforcement of the directions will be a very important part of the Attorney-General's role as the first law officer. In the debate on the bill the arguments from both the honourable member for Calare and the honourable member for Barton reveal that they had misunderstood fundamental aspects of the thinking behind the bill. In particular, the member for Calare stated that the AGS will not be able to compete effectively because of its public interest responsibilities. The public interest responsibilities relevant to the current debate are not those of the AGS but rather of the Attorney-General. The AGS does not have public interest responsibilities of its own but rather performs these functions in its capacity as the government's solicitor.It is the Attorney-General's responsibilities as first law officer which in effect necessitate the AGS behaving in a manner consistent with the Attorney's public interest responsibilities. The Attorney-General's public interest responsibilities stem from his primary role as first law officer. This encompasses general responsibility for Commonwealth laws, the legal system and the Commonwealth's role within the system. In particular, the Attorney-General has an adviser role as the principal legal adviser to the cabinet and to the Commonwealth government. The Attorney-General is also the final arbiter of legal advice within the executive branch of government, and it is part of this role to ensure that the Commonwealth takes a consistent view in relation to key legal issues.The Attorney-General is responsible for ensuring that a whole of government approach is taken in relation to legal advice. This means that legal advice to the government must be consistent and take account of the whole of government's interests. Cabinet should not therefore make decisions on the basis of narrow advice obtained by one agency for its own purposes. Another facet of the Attorney-General's first law officer responsibilities is his role in the conduct of litigation involving the Commonwealth. Suits involving the Commonwealth are handled in the name of the Attorney-General and cases involving constitutional issues are brought to his attention under the provisions of the Judiciary Act.The Attorney-General's role in litigation also includes a whole of government interest, in particular where litigation raises sensitive political or policy issues for the government or where litigation is likely to have a flow-on effect on government activities. The Attorney-General also has a particular role where litigation affects or involves a range of departments or agencies and they need to be coordinated.The Attorney-General's interest in more general matters concerning Commonwealth litigation includes establishing policy on the pleading of statutes of limitation and the regulation of counsel fees. The maintenance of the model litigant policy is also one of his particular responsibilities. In performing these responsibilities, the Attorney-General has established policies and guidelines for the conduct of Commonwealth litigation. These policies and guidelines must be adhered to by all Commonwealth departments and agencies when they are involved in litigation.The identity of particular legal service providers, whether AGS or private law firms, is irrelevant. The policies and guidelines established apply to the conduct of all Commonwealth legal work. It should be clear from these comments that it would be entirely inconsistent with the purpose of the legal services directions for them to be enforceable by private litigants, as the honourable member for Barton proposed.Let me conclude by emphasising the two key points as to why the reforms in the bill are not only desirable but essential to achieve the same objectives that the opposition seeks to achieve. Firstly, the reforms will strengthen the position of the AGS by enabling it to operate more efficiently and effectively in providing legal services to the Commonwealth. The bill will enable the AGS to compete on a level playing field with private law firms and introduce efficiencies to the benefit of departments and agencies. Secondly, the power to issue legal services directions will strengthen the position of the Attorney-General in achieving a comprehensive set of directions and policies to govern the delivery of legal services throughout the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2214Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) read a third time.Bills2214r650Billsr643Bills2214Debate resumed from 25 November 1998, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.16:56:002214McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The position of the opposition is essentially to oppose the publications, films and computer games classification bills although, in some respects, we will be agreeing to items in the amendment bill. As a parent, as many members are, I am concerned like them with issues concerning the classification of publications—films, books, video games, magazines and the like. The classification of publications is essential to the whole regime of censorship and to warning and notifying parents of the material contained in a particular publication, video or game. It is an essential process particularly when children are involved.We are looking at a situation where there is a clear public interest in having the classification regime operating properly and it being easily accessible and not too burdensome for those people who seek to have their particular publication published. This is where we come to the point of clash with what the government has done. The government is attempting in these bills to introduce a system of full cost recovery for the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the OFLC. It is going far beyond the user pays principle and actually charging not only for the time of sitting down to review a book, film or whatever it may but also the costs of the OFLC in undertaking such things as research, policy development, ministerial support, education and payments to the states and territories for enforcement and related purposes.The government's explanatory memorandum says that in the first year of introduction the government will make savings of $2.15 million as a result of these changes. That is not an inconsiderable amount that the government will be recovering from industry. The impact on individual publishers will be quite significant. In the schedule of charges one can see, for instance, the amount charged in respect of a film of 0-15 minutes. This would apply to many films in the niche market or experimental films or films made as part of competitions of aspiring film-makers. The charge for classifying that category is $1,210, going up $3,210 for a film of more than 300 minutes. That is not inconsiderable.In the case of a video game, the charges will go from $590 to $930, almost a doubling. Again, that is not inconsiderable. Many are trying to get into the computer software game market by producing these games, so it is a disincentive if they know it is an expense that they have to incur irrespective of the success of the distribution of the publication.In effect, because the government is imposing full cost recovery of the operations of the OFLC, it must introduce this legislation as a tax. The mere fact that it is beyond the actual cost of undertaking the work, according to the High Court case of Air Caledonie International v. Commonwealth, means that the government must introduce this bill as a tax—as, indeed, it has. That in itself is an admission that the government is going quite significantly beyond simply cost recovery of the costs involved in classifying these publications, films and videos.That is a concern, particularly when you look at the inequity of the application. I mentioned earlier the lower end of the classification cost of a film of 0 to 15 minutes and the upper end of 300 minutes, but they apply irrespective of the distribution or the print run of the particular publication or video. Again, that point is admitted in the explanatory memorandum. It says:Businesses producing or importing products in small volumes for niche or specialist markets will pay proportionately more per unit than those producing or importing products in larger volumes for a mass market.That is of concern because it is a disincentive for people trying to break into the market. For instance, a young film producer seeking to develop a reputation or organisations that produce small runs of publications, such as religious or educational publications, will pay exactly the same as the larger distributors, whether they be Village Roadshow, Hoyts, MGM or whatever it may be. There is a significant inequity in the way this tax is imposed. In effect, it is regressive, but it is regressive in a way that could significantly prejudice a potential source of success for Australian businesses. That is an important and significant concern of the opposition.The second issue is that the amount by which these charges have been increased will increase the trend of lack of compliance. There is at least anecdotal evidence that since 1977, when the government increased its fees for the classification of these publications and videos, there has been quite a significant decrease in the level of compliance. That is an extremely worrying trend. As parents, we have a right to know that anything that is on sale that our children might come into contact with has been properly classified so that, when they purchase it, bring it home or we purchase it for them, we know that the publication, film or video game has been properly classified.It is a concern that there are operators circling the legitimate industry who are benefiting from not incurring the cost of classifying their publications. Indeed, it is in the interests of the industry as a whole that that situation does not increase because the legitimate publishers in the industry clearly have a right to compete on the same playing field as everyone involved. If these bills are passed, we will have a ridiculous situation where the reputable businesses which are actually paying for the operation of having their films classified—and, going further, as this bill requires, paying the totality of the cost of the OFLC—are effectively subsidising the operations of the OFLC to catch the non-complying businesses.If you like, they are suffering the double whammy of having done the right thing but then having to pay for the enforcement against the fly-by-nighters. Our view is that it is fair and reasonable to charge publishers and producers for the actual time taken to review their particular publication, film or video, but it is going beyond the pale to charge them for the totality of the operations of the OFLC. In other words, a significant public interest function is being performed by the OFLC, and this government has ignored that by seeking to charge and penalise the legitimate and honourable producers and publishers through this additional burden.The other point we have a concern about is that the bill is in the nature of a tax, but it is in the nature of a schedule which can be varied by regulation. Granted, it is a disallowable regulation, but it makes it all too easy in our opinion for the tax to be further increased and notched up to a situation where it could become a revenue raiser in this important public interest area. The government says that the capacity to increase that tax is necessary because of additional areas that the OFLC might enter into. But we say that this system of varying regulations is far too flexible and avoids the appropriate scrutiny of the parliament in this important public interest area.One aspect of the bill that we do support is amendments to simplify the investigation and prosecution of offences. The bill will make the application procedure for classifying a film before a prosecution is launched more simplified. That results from two prosecutions which failed on technicalities in 1997. We say that the bill, in so far as it addresses those technical defects that were discovered, is appropriate and we will be supporting items 1 to 11 of the amendment bill.We will also be supporting a special interest waiver provision which enables the Director of the OFLC to waive in whole or in part the classification charges for limited distribution special interest material which is in the nature of a documentary record of an event or which is of a cultural or like manner. That provision has extensive industry support and it is also supported by the opposition. I should point out, however, that that waiver will not go so far as exempting smaller producers, whether they be religious organisations or for educational purposes. On our reading of the bill they do not appear to be included within the definition that encompasses those documentary records of events or cultural or like manner. So there will still be a significant burden placed on those organisations which themselves perform a public interest function.In conclusion, consistent with our stance on the 1997 bills which were before the House but did not progress when the House was prorogued, Labor will continue to oppose the charges bills. As I have indicated, we will support the special interest waiver provisions and we will also support the tightening up of the application procedures prior to enforcement. I will address that when we come to the consideration in detail stage of the bill.Debate (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) adjourned.Bills2216r6462216Debate resumed from 26 November 1998, on motion by Mr Tuckey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:09:002216Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The Regional Forest Agreements Bill gives legislative backing to regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states. An identical bill was passed last July but lapsed when the government called an early election. As shadow minister, I indicate from the outset that the opposition will not oppose the bill. We do, however, have significant concerns with the government's approach and I hope that they will seriously address these concerns before the Senate considers the bill.For decades, forest policy in Australia has involved frequent and at times bitter conflict between key stakeholders. Sometimes this has spilled over into public disputes between federal ministers. There have been ongoing tensions between the Commonwealth and the states, and endemic conflict between competing state agencies on occasion.Labor's historic National Forest Policy Statement of 1992 sought to resolve this impasse. The statement was agreed between Commonwealth, state and territory governments and details broad conservation and industry goals for the management and protection of this country's forests. The agreement provides for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system that aims for, amongst other aspects, 15 per cent of the distribution of each forest ecosystem that existed prior to European settlement, 60 per cent of existing old growth forest or more if rare or depleted, 90 per cent or more of high quality wilderness and remaining occurrences of rare and endangered forest ecosystems including old growth.An initial interim protection stage, whereby significant areas of forest were excluded from logging, has involved declaring as `deferred forest areas' about six million hectares across Australia. The next stage involves undertaking comprehensive regional assessments of environmental, heritage, economic and social values of the forests to provide the necessary information on which to base long-term plans. The Commonwealth has provided significant funding towards this process.The final stage involves the negotiation of a Commonwealth-state Regional Forest Agreement, RFA, covering the long-term management and use of our major forests. Three RFAs have been signed covering East Gippsland in February 1997, Tasmania in November 1997 and Victoria's Central Highlands in March of last year. A further nine are proposed, in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The bill seeks to give legislative backing to all 12.While the bill has just eight clauses and is only five pages long, it merits careful consideration. As John Dargavel of the ANU has noted, the RFA process is our most expensive and comprehensive resource and environmental planning exercise. The bill thus warrants careful consideration by the parliament and the community.The key provisions are the definitions, the exemption of RFA operations from certain Commonwealth controls and the issue of compensation for Commonwealth actions. It also raises major industry policy issues and questions of proper parliamentary oversight of the executive's actions. At the end of my contribution I will formally move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional community and industry development objectives for two decades;(2) notes that the securing of such objectives is dependent upon the policy certainty which can only come from long term bipartisan support, and in this context regrets the failure of the Government to consult on detail during the drafting process;(3) notes that the Opposition has consistently given in principle support for the legislative enactment of the objectives of the National Forest Policy Statement and reaffirmed such support on introduction of the original Bill on 30 June 1998;(4) believes that it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this Bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the Bill, but which in fact does not do so, and expresses concern in this context that the Bill provides no adequate mechanism to allow for the Parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA;(5) notes that the RFA process and underpinning legislation is inextricably interwoven with the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, and as a consequence regrets that the Government has failed to progress the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy; and(6) condemns the Government for its failure to introduce complementary industry policy measures to ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by Government and industry commitments to investment, exports, jobs, value adding and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources".Our amendment makes clear that Labor, having initiated the National Forest Policy Statement, is fully committed to its implementation. I am happy to restate that for the record. We also recognise that the RFA process must address the full gamut of issues in a balanced way and must provide a way forward for an extended period of time.A bipartisan framework is the only sound foundation on which the RFA process can be constructed. Clearly the longer-term benefits will not be achievable if all aspects of the forests debate are constantly up for grabs. Bipartisanship is, however, not the same as giving the government a blank cheque; it requires an adequate flow of information to the opposition, a balanced and equitable treatment of the states and a genuine willingness to consult and compromise. Regrettably, this has not happened to date. On two occasions, the government has sought to rush this bill through without making any concrete response to the concerns that have been expressed.Point (4) of our amendment highlights that the bill provides no adequate mechanism to enable the parliament, representing the people of this country, to review the adequacy of future RFAs. As I indicated earlier, three agreements have already been signed. The texts of these are publicly available, and they can be assessed against the requirements of the National Forest Policy Statement. Despite a range of valid criticisms, the opposition considers these existing agreements to be broadly reasonable outcomes. I stress that nothing we propose is designed to bring them into question. We are very mindful of the need for certainty. Indeed, the only changes that will need to be made to these agreements arise from the government's proposals regarding compensation and termination arrangements.The second reading speech of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation claimed the bill imposes `legislative rigour' on these arrangements, implying criticism of the agreements already signed with Victoria. With the other nine proposed RFAs, however, the coalition is essentially seeking a legislative blank cheque. No draft agreements are available for examination—some are at relatively early stages of development; others have been widely criticised by responsible experts and have generated much public anxiety amongst broad stratas of their various state populations. Yet sight unseen we are being asked to give legislative backing to them all.We well understand that these proposed agreements need to go through a difficult negotiation process. They will not necessarily exactly mirror the existing ones. We cannot, however, be expected to take everything on trust.The bill removes key Commonwealth controls over forestry operations in RFA regions, including export controls on woodchips and other wood products and provisions of the Heritage Commission Act covering areas listed in the Register of the National Estate. It also seeks to remove Commonwealth environmental impact assessment requirements and aspects of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act.A related bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, seeks to exempt RFA forest operations from virtually the full gamut of Commonwealth environmental controls. The current bill also requires the Commonwealth to pay compensation to industry, through the states, if it exercises its powers in breach of the provisions of a signed RFA.Sensitive forest regions should not be exempted from Commonwealth controls simply as a matter of course. These controls were instituted because past performance was deficient. It is thus a big ask to exempt nine regions on the basis of foreshadowed agreements that we have not seen, even in draft form.To make matters worse, the bill imposes relatively permissive requirements for agreements. Whilst the minister claims that they must meet in full `comprehensive and stringent definitions', this does not explicitly require them to meet the provisions of the National Forest Policy Statement. It is true that an agreement must provide for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and for the ecologically sustainable management of forested areas. However, it only has to have `regard to assessments of' environmental, indigenous heritage, economic and social needs and ecologically sustainable management principles and values. In other words, the requirement is not very stringent at all.Worryingly, it is simply up to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, to determine if an agreement meets the requirements. We have been advised that the gazettal provisions in the bill are for information purposes only and are quite separate from the minister's determination. It is difficult to imagine a future Commonwealth-state agreement on forestry management in an agreed region being drafted in a way that would not meet the bill's technical and definitional requirements. Without necessary improvements to the bill, Commonwealth environmental controls could thus be removed with out proper regard to the quality of a particular agreement.The minister's recent public statements regarding RFA negotiations with the states have heightened the opposition's concerns. In his media release of 4 December, for example, he announced:I do not favour the use of World Heritage listing as a forest management tool . . . I also stand by my view—that is, the minister's view—that it is time for the forest debate to rethink conventional wisdom through a reserve system that restricts or denies normal processes of ecological forest development . . . Furthermore, he stated:A forest is as much threatened by exotic and feral species as by mankind.His advocacy of a `whole-of-forest management' approach clearly entails logging and mining in national parks and nature reserves. Few Australians would sleep soundly at night knowing that Minister Tuckey is responsible for protecting our forests and for upholding the National Forest Policy Statement.The government is also adopting an inconsistent and unbalanced approach to its negotiations with different states. It has issued strident media releases about some proposed RFAs, including, on 4 September of last year, the headline, `Coalition won't back down in New South Wales'; on 10 September, `Coalition does not support Beattie Government's bid to close down native forest industry'; and on 14 October, `NSW arrogant and cavalier on forest policy'. On 12 November it was on the attack again, noting, `Disappointment at Carr's "sham" forest "agreement"'. Finally—and when I say `finally' it is a matter of time; I cannot quote them all—`Yeadon's comments further trivialise the already farcical NSW forest issue'.This barrage of attacks culminated in the suspension of Commonwealth exit assistance funding to New South Wales timber companies. The Minister's approach placed him at loggerheads with both the timber industry in New South Wales and his state coalition colleagues, who voted for the Carr Govern ment's forestry legislation despite his dire warnings and advice.In marked contrast to this treatment of New South Wales, the Minister has stoutly defended the Western Australian RFA process. This is remarkable, given the strong concern that has been expressed by groups such as the AMA, the Western Australian Municipal Association, the Western Australian Nationals, AFL coach Mick Malthouse and even Liberal Senator Ross Lightfoot. Two recent official reports, and a statement by the Nationals, highlight the Western Australian situation.Last August a standing committee of the state's Legislative Council issued a report critical of the RFA process. This report highlighted contradictory statements about an environmental impact assessment of the draft RFA, aspromised in the 1995 Commonwealth-state scoping agreement. It further recommended that the Department of Conservation and Land Management, CALM, should cease being the lead agency in the process to overcome its perceived conflict of interest. Furthermore, it criticised CALM for insisting that forest that had been selectively logged in the past, or that was affected by dieback, should not be counted as old-growth. This is significant because the national forest policy statement requires the preservation of the majority of old-growth forest.That parliamentary special committee also described as `surprising' CALM's view that only 3,000 hectares of jarrah, and absolutely no karri, forest should be counted as old-growth. Finally, the report argued that a considerable degree of overharvesting was occurring, and noted that the RFA public consultation paper only considered impacts on the native forest timber industry. It ignored tourism, their interests and towns devoted to tourism, and other timber related industries; it appeared to contain misleading employment figures and it gave no consideration to structural adjustment measures to assist the industry in the event, as the Premier of Western Australia has made it clear in recent days—whether people want to run away from it or ignore it—that jobs have to go in Western Australia. Those discussions in Western Australia did not consider that possible outcome.In November Jamie Kronborg, the state director of the National Party, issued an unprecedented report demanding: firstly, that the draft RFA be released for public comment and assessment by the EPA; secondly, a reduction in annual jarrah sawlog volumes to 280,000 cubic metres; thirdly, protection for areas of high conservation value; fourthly, assistance to the timber industry to encourage greater value adding and the maintenance of employment levels; fifthly, encouragement for the further development of plantations; and, sixthly, a review of CALM's funding sources and requirements. The Nationals' paper included the following quotes:The matter of maintaining sustainable yield in perpetuity is central to the future of the forest estate's viability and the timber industry's economic growth. The public deserves comprehensive explanations before the RFA is concluded of the ways in which the RFA and the state government will ensure responsible management of this important community resource.That appears at page 5. Furthermore, at pages 7-8 the National Party response stated:It is also of concern to the timber industry that the size and quality of a standard first-grade jarrah sawing. . . has changed over time. This could lead the public to conclude that the jarrah forest is being over-cut, over a shorter rotation length, to ensure timber royalty income is maintained at optimum levels at the expense of sawlog quality.I could go on quoting the National Party and their response to the Western Australian process, which the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who is sitting opposite, thinks is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I have a final quote from the National Party which appears at pages 8-9:The agency's business structure, by which it (CALM) derives royalties from timber companies on behalf of the state and which are used to fund its forest—that is, CALM's—management and conservation operations, leaves open to question the possibility that timber companies may be contracted by CALM to purchase quantities of logs greater than the level of market demand.Finally, in December the Western Australian EPA issued its report on forest management in that state which concluded that current logging levels are not environmentally sustainable and should be reduced by half and argued that CALM made changes to approved plans without state government approval.I do not assert that all these criticisms are correct in every respect. There is always another story. What strikes me, however, is the widespread nature of the criticisms of Western Australia's position and the `shoot the messenger' response by the federal minister. The contrast with New South Wales, where he says the Commonwealth will consult with the Hunter community—for those that are unaware, the Hunter is a region of New South Wales—before signing a lower north coast agreement could not be greater. The contrast between his reactions in those two states could not be greater.Consider Minister Tuckey's reaction to the state EPA report in Western Australia. When it suits him, he pontificates that RFA negotiations should be driven by science, not politics. Yet he reacted to an expert report—somewhat more expert than himself—by his state's environmental watchdog, the EPA, by accusing them of trying to `hijack' the RFA process, saying they should `make a positive contribution or go away'. That was the response of the federal minister to the Western Australian government's EPA, that basically they should make a positive contribution—that is, one that he likes—or go away. On 16 December he issued a media release that said:The EPA can make any arrangement it likes with the Western Australian Government. . . I will not be asking for their assistance nor value their advice.His response to these official reports contrasted with those of the local media. The Sunday Times ran an editorial that stated:. . . the State Government must put more emphasis on the establishment and cutting of plantation timber—not devastating old forests. The State and Federal Governments should accept that most reasonable West Australians don't want any more old-growth forests cut down. Clear-felling of these magnificent trees, a wonderful tourist attraction in their own right, has been a disaster. . . Similarly, on 9 December 1998 the West Australian argued:The EPA report throws into doubt WA's ability to sign a meaningful Regional Forest Agreement with the Federal Government next year. A widespread suspicion that the present arrangements are deeply flawed and lack proper accountability measures tend to be confirmed by the EPA report.The critics have legitimate concerns about the Western Australian RFA process. As the lead agency, CALM has set the agenda, clearly seeking to maximise the extent of native forest logging. It has not ensured adequate community consultation and involvement. It has relied on dubious employment claims refuted in the Western Australia parliament in answers to questions on notice. It has overridden alternative proposals regarding tourism and other products and shrouded in secrecy the future of particular treasured forests to the extent of not providing maps.This suggests a rabidly anti-conservationist attitude that hurts attempts to achieve bipartisan approaches to these crucial matters. In the Australian Journal of Environmental Management in March 1998, John Dargavel aptly commented:The willingness of the states to share their information with the Commonwealth varied considerably—that is, the degree to which each state would give material to the Commonwealth—[with] Western Australia being notably secretive.The options released in Western Australia severely restricted the parameters of genuine debate, forcing constructive critics into a position of total opposition. The CRA report itself includes telling surveys of public opinion, with 66 per cent of respondents stating that they were not confident about the management of native forests in that state.The public consultation paper does not even mention the role of plantations or the concept of structural adjustment which was accepted by the conservative Tasmanian and Victorian governments of the time. The Western Australian Municipal Association hit the nail on the head when it stated:CALM is seen to have too vested an interest to successfully ensure that the original objectives of the 1992 Forest Policy Statement are delivered.I turn now to points 5 and 6 of the opposition's amendment concerning the question of a wood and paper products industry strategy and the need to secure commitments to investment, exports, value adding and down stream processing. It is remarkable that these vital aspects of the forest debate are completely ignored in the clauses of the bill, although the minister managed to talk about them in his speech.The wood and paper products industry contributes over $4.3 billion to Australia's GDP and employs some 84,000 people. Despite this, Australia has a chronic trade deficit in the value of wood based forest products. In contrast, the volume of trade in these products is reasonably balanced. The difference is due to the fact that we mainly export raw materials, particularly woodchips, but we import finished wood and paper products. This situation is both economically and environmentally unsustainable and active government intervention is urgently needed.In December 1995 the former Labor government announced a four-year $38 million strategy to, amongst other things, encourage greater innovation, value adding and downstreaming of woodchips; remove impediments to investment; open export markets and maximise import replacement; build the industry's skills and create regional job opportunities; encourage increased plantations—as I said, the Western Australian scheme doesn't even mention plantations—and farm forestry; and improve data on the resources available from plantations, farm forests and recycled materials.Labor established the Wood and Paper Industry Council to drive its strategy. It was chaired by the industry minister—we will talk about who is doing very much in a second. It included industry, unions, the states, local government, the scientific community and the conservation movement. Importantly, Labor envisaged that the council would have a dedicated secretariat to accomplish its ambitious work agenda. We are talking about activity.When the coalition government came to office, it proceeded to abolish the industry council. At that time, its ideological opposition to interventionist industry policy measures was in full swing. After much inertia, the then industry minister Mr Moore announced in October 1997 the establishment of a wood and paper industry forum, which has no Commonwealth members and merely consults on the implementation of the coalition's policies. Its chief purpose was clearly to give the appearance of activity and, as you noted, it took them quite a while to even give the appearance of activity. Inertia was the characteristic of that early period.The current minister, Mr Tuckey, has been understandably embarrassed by the legacy bequeathed to him by Ministers Anderson and Moore. With great fanfare, he has convened meetings to develop an action agenda for the industry. In part, he was clearly attempting to head off the opposition's anticipated amendment to this bill. Whilst welcoming his change of rhetoric—the change of wording by the government is interesting; there is the appearance of some activity at last—I have no confidence that a worthwhile industry development process is occurring. The coalition's proposed action agenda has no direct link to the RFA process and is therefore likely to be stillborn.The CFMEU, which is the industry union, has particularly emphasised that providing the industry with security of wood volumes over an extended period—and that is part of what the RFA attempts—will not, of itself, lead to more jobs, increased job security or an improvement in our terms of trade. Attaining those objectives requires a firm and explicit agenda of value adding and downstream processing accompanied by additional investment and skills development.Attempts to shift the industry towards greater downstream processing are complicated by Commonwealth-state roles and responsibilities. Through their harvesting contracts and land use planning powers, state and territory governments have traditionally had responsibility for regulating resource supply. Apart from its environmental powers, the Commonwealth's prime lever over the industry has been its power to control woodchip exports.Given that these export controls are being removed from RFA regions, it is interesting to reflect on the original rationale behind their introduction. The relevant Gorton government cabinet papers have recently become available under the 30-year rule and show that then Minister David Fairbairn in that Gorton government was concerned to prevent overseas companies exploiting our forest resources with little gain to Australia. David Fairbairn noted:All these developments are taking place in an atmosphere of competition between Australian companies and states which control the major proportion of timber strands to be exploited.That minister in a coalition government said:Because of this competition for contracts, it is most unlikely that the national interest will be considered, nor do the states appear to be prepared to confer on a confidential basis with the Commonwealth and with each other to ensure that prices are not eroded. Therefore the end result may see our forests being developed to meet Japanese rather than Australian objectives.While export controls were chiefly implemented to influence contract prices—and later to achieve environmental objectives—and not to directly expand downstream processing, these considerations remain relevant.In saying this, I readily acknowledge that the removal of export controls is a key component of the national forest policy statement. Labor remains committed to that framework. Equally, I recall that this statement did not entail a totally laissez faire approach, as shown in this government's period in office. In fact, RFAs were only ever envisaged to apply to `firm and specific value adding projects meeting guidelines agreed by the Commonwealth and the States.' The statement of 1992 said:In relation to pulpwood production from native forests, the Governments will ensure that domestic processors are given the first opportunity to purchase the resource at a price acceptable to the grower. This policy will come into effect when consideration is given to major changes or renewals to wood resource access.That statement also said that the Commonwealth would review the adequacy of existing mechanisms pertaining to transfer pricing in wood products and that the impact of removing export controls would be monitored by the industry council. It is imperative that these undertakings do not fall off the agenda due to government inertia and the major companies' natural preference for a deregulatory framework. The CFMEU recently suggested that export controls on woodchips should only be removed in the context of signed commitments by government and industry to a long-term industry strategy, and that downstream processing strategies must be incorporated in the RFA process. The opposition believes that a Commonwealth-state forest strategy that lacks a fully-fledged industry development strategy, driven at ministerial level, will fail. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional community and industry development objectives for two decades;(2) notes that the securing of such objectives is dependent upon the policy certainty which can only come from long term bipartisan support, and in this context regrets the failure of the Government to consult on detail during the drafting process;(3) notes that the Opposition has consistently given in principle support for the legislative enactment of the objectives of the National Forest Policy Statement and reaffirmed such support on introduction of the original Bill on 30 June 1998;(4) believes that it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this Bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the Bill, but which in fact does not do so, and expresses concern in this context that the Bill provides no adequate mechanism to allow for the Parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA;(5) notes that the RFA process and underpinning legislation is inextricably interwoven with the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, and as a consequence regrets that the Government has failed to progress the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy; and(6) condemns the Government for its failure to introduce complementary industry policy measures to ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by Government and industry commitments to investment, exports, jobs, value adding and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources".(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Is the amendment seconded?BV5ADAMSMr Adams—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Reid has moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.17:40:002223Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—It is a rare opportunity in this place to get to speak twice on one piece of legislation, and I am very pleased to have that opportunity. I did get to speak, albeit for a very short period of time, in the previous parliament.I am particularly pleased to be able to speak to this very important piece of legislation because, now that I have a little more time, I would like to reflect on some of the comments made by the shadow minister, the member for Reid, in this debate. In particular, I noted that one of the first things the shadow minister said when he got to his feet was that there was a need for a bipartisan approach to such an important issue. I thoroughly agree with that approach, but I noted that the shadow minister then proceeded to engage in this debate in a most partisan manner.As I was listening to his comments, I could not help but think that the tactics he has employed in engaging in this debate really reflect a lot of the tactics that have been employed by the timber industry and the environment movement for more than the past decade. I am sure that the others speaking in this debate would remember from their own areas that they represent the sort of debate that has gone on between the timber industry and the environment movement, resulting in those two sectors being at odds with each other over a very long period of time.The net result of such a partisan and very political approach to the timber industry over that time is that there has been no security, there has not been the level of investment that has been needed and there have been enormous job losses—especially in the electorates of many of those following me in this debate. I think that has been a tragedy. Those listening to this debate—and I am sure that there are many out there—would also know the tragedy that has occurred in this country.I was here when the national forest policy statement was tabled in this place in October 1992. Many of us breathed a sigh of relief because we thought that, at long last, we had a report based on science. We thought we would be able to get the political rhetoric and a lot of the emotion out of this debate and that we would be able to achieve a balance. Many of us regarded that statement as a very comprehensive and scientific assessment. It looked at all of the environmental aspects, it looked at heritage and it looked at the economic and social values of communities dependent on the timber industry. Thus began the regional forest agreement process.The reason I am so pleased to be able to speak again in this debate is that this legislation is vital in underpinning all of the processes I have just described. It is vital because it will provide, at long last, the security that is needed for the timber industry and for maintaining areas of conservation.I would have thought that the shadow minister—representing, as he does, an electorate in New South Wales—would have readily acknowledged the security aspect of this legislation. I say to the member for Reid that, for a comparison, we only have to look at what has happened in New South Wales and Victoria over the last 15 years. Compare New South Wales, where you have had your annual allocations of timber, to Victoria, where they have at least had the 15-year licences and have, in fact, had a degree of security that those in New South Wales, of course, have never had. I would have expected that the shadow minister would have at least spoken about the security that was going to come directly to industry and to those important communities, and looked at all those other aspects of the comprehensive and scientific assessment that brought about the whole RFA process.Throughout the whole process, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I know that you have a very keen interest in this debate—the government has at all times wanted to achieve a balance between the timber industry and the environment and that, in fact, is exactly what has been achieved. That is exactly why this legislation is so vital to underpin that balance that has been achieved and will be achieved for at least the next 20 years.I want to highlight a couple of important aspects of this legislation that I think are absolutely vital. The legislation ensures that the RFAs are legally enforceable and legally binding on the Commonwealth and ensures that future governments cannot renege on any agreements. (Quorum formed) I will continue highlighting some of those very important aspects of this legislation. The three existing and nine future RFAs can only be terminated by mutual consent of all the parties and, further, 12 months notice of intention must be given to enable a full review of the RFA. Most importantly, this legislation ensures that the Commonwealth will not be able to deny industry access to timber resources in breach of the RFA without paying compensation and, importantly, ensures that the Export Control Act cannot be used to prevent the export of resource from an RFA.There has been much said already by the shadow minister in this debate, but I want to highlight for my own state of Victoria, my own electorate of the Central Highlands region and also East Gippsland that we, as a government, have been saying all along that this RFA legislation is important to underpin security for future investment, employment growth and value added production.Already, for example, within the Central Highlands district, a study of eight small to medium family owned sawmills in the area, undertaken as part of the RFA process, has revealed that these companies have already invested over $60 million in new processing facilities and that employment levels increased by nearly 70 per cent—from 235 to 394—with a further 90 jobs expected to be created by 2005-06. The Victorian Association of Forest Industries conducted a study that revealed that industry in the Central Highlands plans to invest a further $150 million over the next 10 years, with 1,500 new jobs created as a result.They are most impressive figures, and this can only come about if there is security for the resource. And this legislation importantly underpins that security. I have noted that the member for McMillan is in the chamber. At this point I place on record that two people, Mr Chris Miles and Mr Russell Broadbent, the former member for Braddon in Tasmania and the former member for McMillan respectively, worked tirelessly within the government to achieve this legislation. They are sadly missed today. I put the current member for McMillan on notice that with the timber industry in his area he has very big shoes to fill and a very big job to do.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You're the one that was tossed out.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—I am actually here—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You're the one who lost the election. I would be careful pointing the finger.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—There is no pointing the finger here, except at you people who are whingeing—as I noticed the shadow minister doing—about lack of consultation. Those listening to this debate would be astounded to hear the shadow minister talk about lack of consultation, when we know that we had 13 years when nothing could be achieved. For those 13 years this whole debate was politicised, with the environment on one side and the timber industry on the other. Shadow minister, you and your party wasted years and years when you could have achieved a result for the people in those small towns who depend on the timber industry and who run small businesses that are developing ecotourism.While I am on the subject of the opposition opposing sound and rational debate, we do know that you are opposing the introduction of our new tax policy. The National Transport Forum has already provided some important figures. You can imagine how many trucks go in and out of the forest per day and what that is costing the drivers. These are small business people—people that your party forgot for 13 years.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—What would they know about small business? What would Laurie know about small business?JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—He obviously knows precious little. I remind the House that the government's tax reform package will reduce forestry costs by over $500 million per year. Shadow minister, we will be very interested to see what you and the current member for McMillan have to say about that issue, because these are important issues on which those working in the forest industry need answers from you.I also bring to the House's attention that the opposition have been making much of the wood and paper industry. The minister at the table has already introduced an action agenda, but we need this legislation to enshrine the security of the regional forest agreements. We need this legislative underpinning.I remind those opposite that we have a $1.5 billion trade deficit in wood and forest products. Once again, you had 13 years to do something about this and you have the audacity to stand up in this place today and whinge that there is not enough being done for the wood and paper industry. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. This government has already put $31 million into the wood and paper strategy. This government is about promoting growth and investment. Already an extra $1.9 million has been put into plantation strategies—all areas that you, the now opposition and former government, chose to ignore. You turned your back on the timber industry. You turned your back on growth. You turned your back on investment. You turned your back on jobs in regional Australia. This legislation is going to provide the security to restore employment growth and investment opportunities in regional areas. Those opportunities will not exist unless there is the security that this legislation will give in underpinning the whole RFA process.In closing I note that the shadow minister kept talking about a bipartisan approach. I think it is about time that not only the shadow minister but all the members of the opposition who are going to speak in this debate—all of them representing electorates that have significant timber industries and significant numbers of ecotourism small businesses—had the courage to stand up in this place, put their own political preferences aside, and for just once in their lives be prepared to say where they stand in relation to this debate, where they stand for growth and for local employment in their regional areas. That would be a very worthwhile contribution to this debate. I certainly hope that that can be achieved.17:59:002226Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—In rising to speak on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , I want to make plain that the forest and forest products industry is an important employer in my electorate and that, unlike Liberal and National Party members opposite, I am committed to securing a long-term future for the workers in the industry and for the companies that employ them.The ALP has consistently given support for the enactment of legislation which is consistent with the objectives of the national forest policy statement. We reaffirmed this support when this bill was introduced in June last year. Despite these efforts on our part, the government still chooses to take the partisan political line. It refuses to work with Labor to find a bipartisan and co-operative solution. It does the industry and the workers employed in the industry a huge disservice in taking this approach. There can be no better example of this than the rantings of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation which we were subjected to during the last few weeks of the last sittings of 1998. At every opportunity, instead of trying to find a bipartisan agreement, he goes for the cheap shots and attacks Labor state governments which he finds politically expedient to target. Walk away if you want to, Minister, but this is an important issue which confronts everyone in this community.What is advanced by the minister doing this? How many forest industry workers are better off as a result of these rantings? How many sawmillers are better off? How many loggers and carters have improved conditions as a result of his behaviour? How many new jobs has he created in struggling timber towns?The truth is that these partisan political attacks serve only the Liberal Party and the minister's ego. It reflects very badly indeed on this government that it has entrusted such important portfolio responsibilities to someone who is clearly not a respected figure in this place and someone who is obviously unable to think above party politics.In all of the shrill rantings we have heard from the government with regard to the forest and forest products sector, we have yet to hear anything about a strategy for the future sustainability of the sector. Why is it that we have heard nothing about the wood and paper industry strategy? Where is the government's plan for the industry's future? While the RFA process is intended to provide the industry with resource security, the RFA process by itself does not create jobs or guarantee job security. The government cannot simply point to the RFA legislation as though it were a cure-all for all aspects of the industry because that is simply not what it is.In order for the industry to have a secure future, there needs to be agreement between the government, industry and unions relating to the level of investment, export activities, value adding and downstream processing in the sector. This will not occur while this government continues to take a partisan political position. The government must support this important industry with more than just shrill rantings made at the dispatch box. It must act to improve opportunities for investment and job security in the forest and forest products sector,This government is pretty heavy on rhetoric when it comes to jobs and supposedly being pro industry. You always hear government members giving speeches about how they are all for jobs. They say they are going create jobs by making it easier for bosses to sack people. There is no logic in this approach of course, and everyone knows it. And there is not one job in it. You guys opposite are pretty predictable and pretty pathetic. Similarly, simply giving companies free access to forests does not create jobs despite the government's rhetoric.The government's ad hoc and often hysterical approach to this important sector should be condemned. It does not create jobs and it does not create certainty. What we on this side of the house are most interested in is jobs. We see job security in the forest and forest products sector as being linked directly to resource security.The Liberal and National parties want to give over forest areas to companies without any commitments on jobs. What they are obviously most interested in doing is ensuring that companies make big profits. There is nothing wrong with a company making a quid. But the other consideration, which is even more important and which this government deliberately ignores, is the impact that this legislation has on jobs. As far as I can see, there is no point in allowing companies access to our forests if all they are going to do is sack workers and not invest in the future of the industry.My colleague the honourable member for Braddon is better placed than I am to detail to this House what has happened in his electorate where Amcor shut down the Burnie pulp mill and put 300 workers out of a job in a region with already massive unemployment. Amcor did not pull out because they did not have resource security. They closed the plant because they had not invested adequately and because there was no requirement placed upon the company by the government to invest in return for access to forests.What I am interested in doing is working constructively with workers, unions, companies and industry groups and determining what is required to ensure the sustainability and growth of this sector. This is what I will be doing in my electorate.It is worth reflecting on past efforts of the Liberal and National parties in this important policy area. Coalition MPs are always saying, `We're so pro industry—we're just so pro industry. Honestly. Just believe us.' They are not, of course. So when they get asked why unemployment is still so high in light of their claim to be so pro industry, the response is always the same, and we have just heard it again: `It's all the Labor Party's fault.' It does not matter that we are not in government, or that we have not been in government for a little while; it is still all the Labor Party's fault. You have to take responsibility for yourselves. You guys opposite have failed when it comes to unemployment and you are being held to account in timber communities.I am not quite sure how their logic works. In fact, I am quite sure that no-one knows how their logic works. I have noticed that coalition MPs get very paranoid when asked about their position on the forest and forest products industry and jobs in the sector. There is a good reason for this. The reason is this. The coalition has an appalling record when it comes to the forest and forest products sector. Only last year the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania wrote to the then shadow minister for resources and energy, the honourable member for Perth, with regard to concerns they had about the RFA process. The council wrote as follows:While this legislation was to be introduced by June 30, the lack of wide industry consultation with interested RFA stakeholders suggested to us that it had been delayed. Its introduction without this consultation meant that most groups have had no input into its contents in the event. This has suited some of these groups, but has raised problems for others.This from the Forest Industry Council of Tasmania!Similarly, the CFMEU, the principal union representing workers in the forest and forest products sector, had this to say about the government's RFA bill:. . . the Union does not support the Bill in its present form as it removes the Commonwealth from its responsibilities to fully implement the National Forest Policy Statement. That is, not only establishing a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve system and resource security, but also a world class ecologically sustainable value adding forest and forest products industry.The CFMEU went on to say:The Commonwealth by passing the Bill in its present form will walk away with the job, in the Union's view, only half done.This from the CFMEU—a union which has always fought hard to protect jobs in the industry and has always encouraged industry development.This government has shot itself in both feet when it comes to the forest and forest products sector. Those representing the interests of workers think it is incompetent and those representing the interests of industry think that it just does not know what it is talking about. So, while the coalition government tries to paint itself as being pro-industry and pro-jobs, both the industry and the union representing workers in the sector reject its policy positions and legislative actions.I am proud to say that I have been for a long time an advocate for the workers in the forest and forest products industry. Even when I was an activist in Young Labor, I always ensured that the view of the forestry workers in my electorate was heard and understood. Similarly, my family have had a long association with the industry. In fact, my dad told me only a few months ago that he had worked on the construction of the Australian Paper plant in Maryvale in the 1950s. My uncle worked at Australian Paper for decades and quite a few of my mates in Traralgon still work there.I am proud to say that I have a very good working relationship with the CFMEU, which is the principal union representing workers in the sector, and I have visited several of the timber mills in my electorate, including the Brown and Dureua mill in Morwell and the Cuthbertson and Richardson mill in Noojee—where I once took the then shadow minister for resources and energy, the honourable member for Perth, during a visit to my electorate.I have also been to the Australian Paper plant at Maryvale on several occasions and I have met on numerous occasions with the committee of the CFMEU Maryvale sub-branch as well as with the manager of the plant, Mr Jeff Landels. I want to share with the House my experience at the mill the last time I went there, which was around four or five months ago. I spent the whole day at the mill—starting at 8 o'clock and finishing a bit after 6 o'clock that night. I reckon I would have spoken to nearly 200 blokes on shift that day. What they told me in no uncertain terms was that they wanted resource security. But what they also made clear was that they were not much interested in resource security unless it led to improved job security. And in the Labor Party this is what we are about.At the time, Amcor had just made a statement basically saying that all assets would be required to make a certain return and that if those assets did not make that return they would be sold. Also, at about the same time, Amcor shut down its pulp mill at Burnie in Tasmania, sacking 300 workers in the process. Understandably there was a mood of uncertainty about the place and workers were concerned about their job security. The workers I spoke to that day understood clearly that resource security for the company alone did not deliver job security. They understood that a decent industrial relations system, strong industry policy, investment in downstream processing and the election of a government which was prepared to intervene to deliver job security to workers was the only way the industry would get a secure and sustainable future.The workers at the mill also told me that as well as resource security they were concerned about the cutbacks to services in their communities which the government was implementing. They were concerned about the closure of the CES offices in Moe, Morwell, Traralgon and Warragul. They were concerned about the loss of 100 jobs at Monash University's Gippsland campus in Churchill. And they were concerned about the loss of jobs at the DEETYA office in Morwell. They were concerned that these cutbacks would make Gippsland a region in decline—that the Howard government's agenda would make us a region with no future.The interests of workers in the industry are not just linked to RFA legislation. They are linked to all those other government policies which affect their communities, such as regional development policies and support for industry—not to mention industrial relations policy.What I found heartening as I spoke to the blokes there was that nearly all of them were concerned not only for themselves but also for the young people in their local communities who were unemployed. They wanted to know where the jobs for their sons, daughters, nephews and nieces were going to be. They wanted to know what we were going to do to create jobs locally. They understood that our community suffered enormous damage when 47 per cent of our young people are unemployed.Many of these blokes recounted stories to me of how they got their start in the industry. Often it was a case of them getting a job because their dad worked at the plant. Or, as a number of the old-timers there told me, in many cases there was such a shortage of labour at the time that they were basically employed on the spot by one of the site foremen. These men accept, as do their families, that these days are gone. But they also understand that, because of the cutbacks in services to regional areas and because of the failure of this government to create jobs in regions, their kids will find it hard to get a job—and their kids will not get the same opportunity to get a job or get into training as a kid the same age based in one of the capital cities will.This is something which this government should be ashamed of. Forcing a 17- or 18-year-old kid away from their families to look for work with little support from Centrelink or the Job Network is poor public policy and is very hard on families who already have enough to worry about.There has been an attempt by some in the media to try to portray workers in the forest and forest products industry as some sort of redneck breed of men who do not care about the environment. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. Theses blokes—and overwhelmingly they are blokes—are people just like the rest of us. They are concerned about the environment and want to see our native flora and fauna preserved for future generations. These are the people who always contribute to activities in their local communities, whether it be by coaching at the local footy club or helping out on a working bee at the local school. These are the people who hold their communities together in the face of declining services in regional Australia and job cuts. These people make an enormous contribution which we should acknowledge.I want to give just one example of the decency of the working men and women in the forest and forest products industry. Whilst the company I am about to mention is not in my electorate, it is less than an hour's drive from the McMillan electoral boundary and is well known to forestry workers in my electorate. The Dormit company in Dandenong employs around 45 workers, of whom around 12 workers are disabled. A number of them are in supervisory roles. The company won the Prime Minister's prize last year for companies encouraging people with disabilities, and it plans to increase its work force to around 60 this July. This is a company which is interested in value adding. It utilises low grade wood, which would have been previously chipped or burnt, to produce components used to make wooden pallets. All waste products are further utilised into woodchips, sawdust, garden mulch, undersurfacing for playgrounds and firewood.The company has been operating for nine years and in the last five years has doubled productivity. This is a great success story which those involved can be justifiably proud of. Their success reflects the hard work and decency of their work force and demonstrates the rewards that come from working in partnership with your work force. I think everyone in this place would join with me in recognising the achievement of this company and its outstanding and gifted employees.My colleague the honourable member for Perth, when he was shadow minister for resources, summed up the key difference between the Labor members in this place and those opposite. He said:We are absolutely committed to the full implementation of the wood and paper industry strategy and the national forest policy statement. Those on the other side are not. That is the key point of difference here, and that pervades everything in the differences between us.The member for Perth is right. Those opposite are only interested in making it easier for employers in the forest and forest products industry to sack workers; they are not interested in jobs or job security. Those opposite just do not grasp how important industry policy and the encouragement of downstream processing are to the future of the sector.Worst of all, the Liberal and National parties have demonstrated that they are not capable of being bipartisan in their approach to the forest and forest products sector, which, as I have mentioned, has become one of the most important employers in regional Australia. The minister's crass and partisan behaviour in his handling of his portfolio demonstrates the contempt with which he clearly holds workers in the sector. It demonstrates exactly why this government cannot be taken seriously when they say they are pro-industry and pro-jobs.18:17:002230Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—The current member for McMillan was not in this parliament prior to October last year when his colleagues voted against this legislation—legislation which could only have been brought forward by a coalition government. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 has come about purely and simply as a result of a decade or more of double-crossing by federal and state governments on the native forest hardwood timber industry.This legislation is absolutely necessary for companies, small, medium and large, to even consider investing in new technology in this industry. There are many companies still hurting badly as a result of the political decisions that were made, particularly during the 13 years of the former federal Labor government. They made political decisions rather than scientific decisions. In fact, the hardwood timber industry has been attacked so many times I often wonder why companies involved hang in there. But, for many small communities throughout my electorate, it is just as well that they have. Although they suffered attacks from radical urban greenies on the one side and Labor politicians on the other side, they have hung on and they have remained, and they are a crucial part of those communities' economies. They are a smaller part in many cases, I might add, but nonetheless crucial.After all the political decisions made by the previous federal Labor government which have decimated the industry in my electorate, that government had an awakening on the road to Damascus. After they had paid their debt to the extreme Greens, they decided that further decisions should be scientific decisions, not political ones. Hallelujah, one might say. So we had the National Forest Policy Statement and Regional Forest Agreement. Those sagas continue, and in many cases it has been an absolute battle to ensure that it is a scientific process rather than a political one.In New South Wales, the Labor government there has been playing the politics to the nth degree, as you would expect. They pre-empted the whole process in my electorate by declaring many areas of national parks when the process had hardly progressed at all. How you can make scientific decisions before the data collection and analysis has been done is beyond me. The New South Wales Labor government probably thought that by making the types of scientific decisions that they did that it was really scientific—it is just that it was political science, not real science.As part of the big sell that they did in the region, Bob Carr promised all sorts of jobs. For that matter, the previous Labor member for Eden-Monaro prior to 1996 also made plenty of promises. In fact, I think he announced the same project, which was a state government controlled project, three times in the campaign in 1996. It was going to create about 400 jobs, and we still have not seen one of those jobs. They talked about all these wonderful jobs that would appear out of national parks and places like that. We have been waiting with bated breath for all of these jobs that were going to replace the many hundreds of jobs that have been lost out of the timber industry. The other day, there it came, here were these great new jobs coming from national parks—14 new positions. Wow! That will have a great impact on the many hundreds that have been lost with the premature locking up of the forest areas before the scientific process was completed.Even when you look through the jobs that were being advertised, these 14 wonderful positions, the saviour of the south-east, you read through some of the positions like field officer and then you get down to the bottom and it says, `Note. Temporary position under section 33, 34 or 38 of the Public Sector Management Act 1988 for a period of up to 12 months, with possible extension.'So they crowed and put out press releases and got it to run that all of these things were going to be wonderful—and they are not even real jobs; they are temporary jobs. And we all know the extent to which the national parks were created before the scientific process was barely halfway through, let alone finished. They have not got the resources to even look after these national parks. I know the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who is at the table, is very concerned that forests have been locked up prematurely and that there is not the proper management to look after them.This whole process, which has been going on for some time, has certainly made a number of companies very cynical. Harris Daishowa in Eden, which have contributed enormously in that region, have proudly on their wall an agreement that was signed by the Labor Prime Minister of the day and the Liberal Premier of New South Wales for certain agreements that would provide certain levels of timber all the way up to the year 2006—or 2009, I can't recall. But it is immaterial because it is a long way in the future. That agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on.When you have investors from overseas saying, `I've got an agreement which is signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier,' the two most senior people in the country, you would think that was worth something and that you could do some long-term planning. But that particular agreement, as we all know, is not worth anything. That is why this legislation has become so important. Those companies have been through that exercise, they have tried to make decisions on investment and they have been stung every time by political processes.The way in which the Labor Party ran forestry policy for so long was totally political, with no science in the making of decisions. How you lock up national parks before you gather the data, in a process which is supposed to be totally scientific, still has not been explained to me to this day. That is why we need this legislation, which will give security to those companies so that, if further political decisions are made in the future that are detrimental to what those companies have invested in, they will have some comeback, which they did not have in that previous way.The debate is very timely particularly for my area, given the New South Wales state election. It would be very interesting to know just where some of the people who are running around the countryside at the moment really stand on this issue. I know that we have had a deafening silence from the Labor candidate in Monaro, who is clearly embarrassed about the number of jobs that have been lost as a result of the New South Wales government pre-empting this process and not allowing the RFA to be completed and so locking up those jobs. I do not know how the Labor candidate in Monaro can even go down and doorknock in an area like Eden when it is his mates in Macquarie Street who have thrown those jobs out the window.In addition to the Labor candidate, we also have an Independent who is standing for Monaro. He is also not saying too much at all, because we all know that at the end of the day his preferences will go to the Labor Party. There is a nice little deal going on there. It is a real challenge for these people to say where they stand, because it is very important that this RFA is completed. Nothing will probably happen until after that New South Wales election. It is extremely important that it is completed as soon after the New South Wales election as possible.I know the coalition will not accept what the state government has done. There is some room for movement, even though the New South Wales government unilaterally went off and declared national parks before the process was completed. There is some movement in that area to get some of those jobs back, but that does not get away from the fact that this legislation is needed to provide that ultimate security.As for some of the other things have been raised in this debate about value adding, I am just staggered that the member for McMillan can stand there and talk about downstream processing and accuse us of doing something wrong in relation to Burnie. I am not sure what class at school he was in at the time, but it was probably a junior class when Wesley Vale was closed down by the Labor Party. I would encourage him to go back and read some history about the stopping of Wesley Vale by a Labor government. Then we will see if he can stand up and talk about downstream processing.Opposition members interjecting—OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—We have a coalition government that has specifically appointed a minister for forestry. That is what the industry has wanted. We have highlighted the importance that we have placed on this industry by specifically appointing a minister for forestry, who has announced $40 million assistance in Tumut.This is a major project in Tumut for processing, not only to get that plant going down there but also for new technology. Some new technology will come out of this project down there which will be very interesting for those in many other parts of the country, particularly in my area of Bombala, where we have a very large pine forest. In fact, Bombala and its pine forest is the area where the state Labor government has announced many projects over and over again which have never materialised. But the new technology which will come out of Tumut will give an opportunity for the smaller downstream processing of pulp and paper to be put into places where there are substantial amounts of that sort of timber. That is an aspect that has to be dealt with fairly smartly in an area like Bombala because there is a major asset sitting there on which the New South Wales government continues to lose an enormous amount of money year after year. In fact, it is an asset that is deteriorating.I note the high priority we have placed on this industry over the last couple of years and also the RFAs that we have battled for and have managed to secure in Tasmania and Victoria, where there are governments that understand the industry and have not been subject to the blackmailing by the extreme Greens. We have had difficulty in New South Wales. We hope that, after the state election on 27 March, we will be able to negotiate a good end to the Regional Forest Agreement. The security in this legislation is vital to add to those RFAs.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. 20:00:002232Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I have spoken on a number of occasions on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . I feel like an old gramophone record in which the needle is stuck and so I keep coming back to this piece of legislation. Tasmania has already signed the Regional Forest Agreement, with support from all the major players in the community and, I believe, with a reasonable relationship between the current Minister for Forestry and Conservation and our state parliament which will enable us to get on with developing the industry. This was demonstrated through a document signed in Hobart this year by the federal Ministers for Forestry and Conservation and for Environment and Heritage, and the state Ministers of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources and of Primary Industries, Water and the Environment.The document talked about sustainable forest management in Tasmania and the fact that there is a commitment to implement ISO 14001 compatible environmental management systems and processes for production forests. Tasmania now has the mechanism for achieving the goals of the national forest policy statement, which includes the objectives of facilitating development of an internationally competitive wood and wood products industry.However, this does not let the federal government off the hook to ensure that the best is done for all the states and not just Tasmania. I have some basic problems with the bill as it is currently drafted. I believe that the amendments need to be considered. These amendments relate to the specific commitments to downstream processing and value adding. On this side of the parliament, we believe that the forest agreements are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional, community and industry development objectives for two decades. If we are to do that, we must have some security in the legislation. We need to know that the process will not be derailed by the government going back on its commitments because it has not put it in writing.We need to secure such objectives, but this is only possible through long-term bipartisan support. As I commented before, little consultation has occurred in the drafting processes of this bill. Some has occurred since the last presentation, and there has been an inquiry in the Senate, but it has been under protest and because so many people have had problems with the bill.The opposition has constantly given in-principle support for the legislation, enactment of the objectives of the national forest policy statement and it has continued to reaffirm such support. However, I believe it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the bill but in fact does not do so. This bill does not provide an adequate mechanism to allow parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA. The RFA process in the enabling legislation is interwoven with the full implementation of the national forest policy statement and the wood and paper industry strategy and it cannot be considered in isolation.Although the minister has made some verbal suggestions that give me the feeling that he would like to have some commitment in the legislation, I think his colleagues have been letting him down. I know what it is like in the party room when we are trying to get some agreement in difficult situations. Believe me, I have had a number of years of it now.Forestry should be off the agenda, but it still lingers on. The reason seems to be because too many people are frightened of making a commitment to getting the industry moving. We need some sort of legislation so that we can ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by government and industry commitments to investment, export jobs, value adding and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources. If we do not have it now, how can we ensure that the capital and jobs do not go offshore with the raw materials?It is too easy at the moment to say that the global market sets the conditions for the ongoing use of our resources, but if Australia is going to continue to be at the forefront of change and improvement in the forest industries, we have to put our foot down on the continued pillaging of our country's resources. Government has a role to play and that role is vital.I have mentioned before how important forestry is to this country and what value it is to us. Forestry has been part of our culture for generations, yet we import $2.5 billion worth of forest products per year. That is not good enough. We have to value add in Australia. It is not good that woodchips flow out of the country, passing shiploads of pulp coming in. We are losing in the process. All this government is interested in is the supply side of forestry. What is happening to developing a demand for our superior product?The RFA can be a lever to encourage the states and industry to get involved in developing the industry. It is the only way to develop new jobs, new opportunities and new products. I think the minister, the honourable member for O'Connor, was sincere in what he said in Tasmania about wanting to ensure that there is a commitment to developing the industry. He said he would be prepared to fight in his party room for a good bipartisan decision on this. But he also said that he thought he could do it through agreements outside the RFAs, but it is too difficult to ensure resource security for industry in each stage because of the difficult pressures on the state governments. It would be a better move to incorporate some commitment to an industry strategy in the enabling legislation.This has been going backwards and forwards through the parliament, and I know that I have spoken twice, or perhaps three times, so this must be the fourth time and we still have no legislation that has been passed by the parliament. We cannot sit down around the table and sort out a position that everyone can agree on. We need the industry development strategy. As I said before, we want to move away from the `harvest and sell' Australia syndrome and put in place a `harvest and make in Australia' strategy.If we do not do something today, we will not have a wood and paper industry in Australia in 10 years time. There will be nothing left. Too many people have put years of their lives into this industry to throw it away now. They have come from all political complex ions too. Let us get down to putting an industry strategy into place at the same time as providing security to the industry with the Regional Forest Agreement. This is what the long and tortuous process that Tasmania went through was all about. We did not do it for our own entertainment. We wanted a viable and vital industry developing and providing jobs for those who currently work in the industry.People are still being laid off; contractors are going. Only two weeks ago, announcements were made of many contractors in the north-west losing their jobs. These are people who have been in the industry for 20 or 25 years. The only job they have known has been contracting in the forests. Jobs like that are disappearing, because there is nothing in place to ensure a commitment to providing new employment as the industry restructures itself. We have to start thinking about the Australians that could be working in these areas, instead of putting people on the dole queues and trying to reskill them into jobs which are light years away from their traditional roots and capabilities. Can you imagine a middle aged timber harvester taking a job in a telephone call centre? Let's get real! Are we going to put these forest workers into a numeracy and literacy course for three weeks, a month, two months and then say to them, `Here is a job—in a call centre'? Of course not.Jobs do not come out of thin air. The market is not going to look down and say, `Golly gosh, there aren't many jobs left in the timber industry. We had better start up a new manufacturing process.' Government has to intervene earlier in the piece and put in place some guidelines on the development of our raw resources. This is what the strategy is all about—letting other countries know that we can compete in developing the best paper, the most sought after veneer and crafted furniture, the most hard-wearing timber floors, et cetera. This is the task that we have to face. This is the task for government and for the minister at the table, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. We have to help move this course along. This requires a strategy and a lot of hard work by those who seek markets for our products. They need some help. That is where good government comes in.We need a wood and paper industry strategy. I challenge the government to say how they are going to get one going without including it, or at least some reference to it, in the legislation. If they can come up with something half reasonable, I am sure the opposition would not oppose it. The test for the government is to do so.20:11:002234Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I am very pleased and proud to support the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in this legislation. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 was actually introduced in the previous parliament and it has been reintroduced recently, after the election, by the new minister. I congratulate him for his work and wish him well.The legislation deserves robust and full support. It will give certainty to the industry, the community and all those involved in the management of our forest resource. That is something that is sorely needed in this country. The significance of the legislation is basically twofold. Firstly, it ensures that the key requirements of the Commonwealth's environmental legislation are satisfied by the signing of an RFA. Secondly, it provides a framework for industry to be compensated in the event of resource reduction during the currency of the RFA. Sadly, over the years, the industry and those working in it—the workers, the employers and the community around them—have been dealt very severe and harsh blows by governments of all political colours. (Quorum formed)It is quite interesting to note the opposition's tactics to frustrate this debate. I would have thought it was in their interest to allow the legislation to go through speedily, because the constituents that they have lost and the union members that talk to me that I know very well in the timber industry are absolutely irate at the mismanagement of the industry in Australia during the 13 years of Labor.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—It is very hard to hear. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! Could I ask the honourable member to just stop for a moment. Can we inquire at the box? We cannot hear the honourable member speaking. Thank you. Try again.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—I will try again. I hope that is better. In fact, one of my friends in the union told me the other day that on a stocktake of the last decade of Labor they felt that they had been seriously let down. This friend of mine in fact was a Labor voter and a very active member of the union. So they have lost a lot, and that is why I think that they should be supporting the excellent minister in the table in allowing this legislation to go through. They should not be calling quorums to interrupt the debate because, after all, this legislation is urgently needed in Australia. It gives teeth, effect and legal enforceability to the RFA. The Labor Party postures around Australia and says it supports the need for a RFA process and the benefits that flow from it, yet it is trying to interrupt this debate. That is a shame. However, we will press on.I was very pleased to read the other day the Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Federation of Australia report of statistics indicating that fixed capital investment in the forestry, pulp and paper, timber products and related sectors increased by four per cent to nearly $4 billion last financial year. Sales by the pulp and paper sector were static at just over $3 billion and imports—and I emphasise this particularly—exceeded exports by $1.4 billion, with the trade deficit increasing slightly on the previous year.It is obvious from those figures alone that we have a very great industry and a large industry in Australia. But, notwithstanding that, we have the remarkable situation where we actually have a trade deficit—that is, we import into Australia to supply our domestic needs a substantial amount of timber each year exceeding the amount that we export. You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that it is rather strange to be going into the new millennium—not too long off at all—when our country has not yet reached the stage where it can sustain enough timber production for its own domestic needs and, of course, continue to win markets overseas and become an export provider, bringing income and wealth back to Australia as well as jobs for our people, including our young people, supporting our country communities.I commend the approach of the minister at the table in providing what I think is probably the most innovative, pragmatic and open-door approach from the federal government to dealing with the hard issues in the timber industry—and there are hard ones. The government is fundamentally dedicated to ensuring that Australia addresses the deficit—that is, becomes a country which can produce on a sustainable and environmentally responsible basis its requirements and can win export dollars at the same time.I thank the minister for releasing the document Australia's state of the forests report 1998. All members would have received it, and I commend it because it does provide data and information to educate people on both sides of the fence—those that are against the industry, for whatever reason, and those that are for it—and those that have to make policy decisions about its resource potential and the sensitive sides of it as well. I also appreciate the minister's open-door policy where he has said that he will be available to visit and to meet people who wish to make a contribution for or against the development of the industry or to address its needs.In my own electorate of Indi, the timber industry has a long history. In north-east Victoria we have over many, many years gone through the process of the Land Conservation Council under the Victorian legislation developing extensive national parks, forest reserves and the like. That has been a painful process in many ways. Nevertheless, the industry and the community at large have worked hard together to identify resources and to try to give certainty to the industry so that investments can be made that the community believes are sound and so that people can plan their futures and get on with the job.The other day I visited Mount Beauty Timbers in the beautiful Kiewa Valley at the foot of Falls Creek. It is a family company—the Addinsall family—which is well known and respected by both sides of politics and by conservationists and many others for its contribution to the timber industry. On the day that I visited, it had been visited by a large contingent of bureaucrats who were involved, at state and federal levels, in the RFA process. North-east Victoria, as my colleagues will know, is currently going through the RFA process.I thank those public servants who were there for obviously listening very carefully and taking note on the ground, which is the best way to do it—kicking the tyres on the ground and not relying on all the research data that comes forward, although that is valuable too. They were listening to the people who work in the industry, the owners—the Addinsall family—their workers, the townspeople and others, all of whom have a great love of the environment, a respect for it and also a belief in their own skills and what they can achieve.One member of the Addinsall family was explaining that they were very excited because they believed they were on the verge of winning a large export order to America. That is fantastic because, in the Mount Beauty area, we have gone through huge social and economic change. It used to be a large State Electricity Commission community where the big hydro-electric scheme was constructed but, with the passage of time, hundreds of workers have left that industry and the town and the community are looking for a new direction and certainty. Tourism is one of the areas in which they are moving.These people want to keep their timber industry because they believe it can contribute to Australia's future and they can provide sustainable, responsible delivery of timber supplies. They believe they can win export markets and provide jobs at the local level. Sadly, in that community alone there has been long-term unemployment and young unemployed people. In the last couple of years there have been two youth suicides.When I consider this bill and any other legislation that I come into contact with, I look at not only the sensible use of our resources and achieving sustainable timber production and export markets—all those things which, to my mind, we can do very well—but also how we can help the community adjust to the social and economic changes occurring in our country and globally and how, in particular, we can find careers, opportunities and work for our people and constituents in country areas, especially our young people. We know that the problem of youth suicide is linked in many ways to despair and the lack of belief that they have in the future due to the lack of employment opportunities.I have a fair bit of fire in my belly about such legislation. I think this is the sort of thing on which the national parliament should come together and work hard to get the legislation through the Senate. I understand that once it is passed by the House tonight, it will go to a Senate inquiry. One of the Labor senators proposes an inquiry with extensive terms of reference by a Senate committee. I do not mind the Senate being a house of review and doing a check and balance—that is fine—but I do object to legislation that this country needs urgently being delayed unnecessarily.I do not want to prejudge the senator too much, but I hope that when he reads what has been said in this place in the debate he will know in his heart and mind, every minute of the day in the Senate where he delays unnecessarily and unfairly legislation which has been tested—let us face it, both sides of politics in Australia have been involved in this process—that it should be enacted quickly and not delayed. I hope that he will heed that message and facilitate this minister's legislation and get it through.These are the sorts of issues that we should be quite pragmatic about. We should insist on this, because the legislation and the ideas of RFA have been tested many times and are embraced by most responsible people in Australia as a sensible framework for working with the states, using Commonwealth environmental requirements and policies to produce a good outcome. Of course, along the way there are people on various sides of the fence who will say, `It is not working well. I'm not happy.' I have some letters from people in Tasmania saying, `The Tasmanian one is not working well.'That is not an excuse to delay the basic core legislation in this parliament. If you have scientific evidence that shows that the RFA process in one particular area of Australia, in your view, is not working, make it available to the minister and to the people involved. Deal with it at the level where it should be dealt with and not at a rhetorical level that attempts to delay the whole process.There have been too many lost opportunities in this country because we have not had that sense of purpose. It is like the tax reform package. No current member of the Australian parliament could surely justify delaying the passage of this major comprehensive tax reform. Of course there are differences of opinion as to parts of it and there is a fair bit of political bastardry amongst some politicians in this parliament to frustrate and bring it down for other agendas. The point I make is that that is on their heads.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Of course it is.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—You cannot sustain, as your leader has foolishly committed your party, the opposition, to doing, total opposition to the tax package. I mention it in the context of this debate because those people in the regions of Australia trying to get employment and trying to build industries that are sustainable, such as the timber industry, know full well that the tax reform package is part of the process. It will, for example, take off business about $10 billion worth of tax.It will reduce the cost of transportation, which is a big cost in the timber industry. The value added timber from the Addinsall family's Mount Beauty Timber Industries helps Italy deliver the finest quality parquetry floors in the world. Do you not realise the nexus between sound taxation reform—RDA legislation like this—proper strategic management and stimulating investment and encouraging people to get on and create jobs?The longer that the Labor Party and their representatives in this parliament delay totally and comprehensively the tax reform package, the more they are striking a blow against a sustainable timber industry. They are striking a blow against the efforts of many hardworking Australians—employees, employers and union members—who are trying to build value added timber products, create exports for this country, reduce the trade deficit in timber and reduce the amount of timber that we have to import into this country.(Time expired)20:31:002237Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—If there is any place in Australia where a Regional Forest Agreement is under the microscope, it is in my electorate of Braddon on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Mr Ken McKenzie and friends from my electorate are visiting today. I had no idea they were here, so it is nice to recognise them.For well over a decade, Tasmanians have been divided over the question of resource security, environmental protection, the preservation of social and cultural practices and sustainable forest management. It has been a torturous path to consensus. My electorate has felt every blow. Not everyone is happy and they never will be. On the one hand it is important to protect the environment, guarantee a resource and nurture an economically viable and sustainable industry, but there is also a clear expectation that this process will attract investment and, most importantly, secure and grow jobs in the wood and paper industries. I call it mutual obligation: where a resource is secured, there will be jobs; there will be value adding and there will be downstream processing. It is simple—local resource, local jobs.Today, however, security of resource, world's best forest practices and preservation of conservation areas has not led to real job security in the bush; it is more a case of job insecurity. In my electorate it is a classic catch-22 situation. Resource security to date has been accompanied by a sense of job insecurity within the industry itself. Burnie lost its pulp mill and hundreds of jobs. Why? Because Amcor decided not to invest in jobs. It simply did not want to, and it did not have to. Only last week came the sombre news from within the industry that North Forest Products' decision to cut harvesting and haulage contracts could cost some 120 direct and indirect jobs in my electorate. Again there is no sense of mutual obligation between gaining security of Tasmania's valuable timber resource and job creation through value adding.This government talks loud and long about mutual or reciprocal obligation between people on the dole and society, people on benefits and society, and young people who cannot read or write and society, but we do not hear much about corporate responsibility to the community, particularly multinationals, transnationals and the very rich. That said, I appreciate the commercial reality of doing business. But what of social responsibility and good corporate citizenship? Historically, where I come from the forest industry has been built around access to the people's resource. If timber companies want the public's resource, then not only must it be adequately paid for, it has to be earned.While it is impossible to legislate for investment in downstream processing, the loss of jobs highlights why we must strive for some form of mutual obligation in the RFA process. Because of the absence of a true Commonwealth sponsored industry development policy, I have reservations about legislation which removes export controls and gives a blank cheque to future RFAs without scrutiny by this parliament. Those controls have been seen—and still are by some—as an industry development lever. An industry which is environmentally responsible and economically sustainable with jobs is the key to the success of Regional Forest Agreements at state and federal levels. Any RFA must be accompanied by a comprehensive industry policy that grows jobs, not just trees and profits.Make no mistake. Tasmania's forests and forest industries are a crucial part of my state's economy. The industry generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year and is the lifeblood of thousands of jobs. It has been estimated that forest industries in Tassie are six times more important to the state's economy than they are anywhere else in Australia. In my electorate, they are vital. For example, two large sawmills in the Circular Head area each employ over 100 people and collectively a further 50 timber harvesters and logging contractors. More than 20 sawmills are scattered throughout the region, many in country towns and hamlets that survive on the timber industry.There is also a string of processing industries from furniture makers and specialist timber manufacturers to pallet makers. There are downstream processing success stories like the Smithton sawmills of Britton Brothers and Gunns' Timbers who are tapping into national and international markets. The north-west coast of Tasmania is synonymous with paper making and is also a significant player in the woodchipping industry.Braddon is steeped in the history of the Tasmanian forest industry. Only recently the new Tasmanian Labor government has introduced the RFA (Land Classification Bill) 1998. This has been accompanied by the state government's industry growth plan. It is a 20-year plan focusing on establishing a world-scale forest resource, new harvesting techniques and developing new sunrise processing industries in the state. It is a long term strategy based on maximising our valuable forest resource and the economic and social benefits that should flow.This plan is in line with the intention of the 1995 Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, developed by the previous federal Labor government, which set the wheels in motion for regional forest agreements now being taken up around Australia. The federal Australian Labor Party has consistently given in-principle support to the legislative enactment of the objectives of the National Forest Policy Statement and has reaffirmed such support on the introduction of the original bill in this House on 30 June 1998. Before this, the Australian Labor Party had clearly affirmed its support for the wood and paper industry, as demonstrated in its current national platform.Not only does this principle endorse the RFA process of balancing the economic, environmental, heritage and cultural factors involved but it clearly incorporates within the RFA a commitment to industry development, a commitment to downstream processing and a commitment to value adding—in short, mutual obligation. The amendments proposed by the Labor Party ensure that out of an RFA—be it in Tasmania, East Gippsland, the Central Highlands of Victoria or anywhere else—a commitment is made to implementing an industry policy that will provide job security for the current work force and grow more jobs by value adding the resource and not see it go out as woodchips or unprocessed whole logs.Who would have imagined in 1995 that woodchips from Tasmanian forests, used to make pulp at the Burnie paper mill, would be exported and the pulp to make the paper imported. But that is exactly what is happening. The challenge is to re-establish confidence, investment and jobs in forest based industries—a challenge this government seems to be neglecting. If we are seen to be increasing imports of processed forest products, whether they be pulp, paper or enhanced timbers—as we have constantly heard in this House—only to see the export of woodchips or unprocessed logs, then people will question the real worth of a Regional Forest Agreement.The best way—in fact the only way—to encourage value adding is not through resource security alone but through an industry policy attached to it. We need RFAs, we need a comprehensive industry policy and we need them complementing each other. Only then will we see resource security, environmental protection and a viable, sustainable industry delivering jobs.The Burnie pulp mill closure and the recent threat to ordinary forest workers' jobs in my electorate underscore the lack of an industry policy by this government. These tragic events starkly expose this government's lack of industry policy, and no amount of trumpeting about the recent Tumut mill incentive package changes this fact. The Burnie workers and their combined unions sought to save their pulp mill in the face of no coherent industry policy. They met with the Prime Minister, but what happened? There was no response from John Howard to their pleas for help, nothing from the then Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism—because he had nothing to offer—and ditto from the then minister for regional development.So what did the government do in the wake of this policy vacuum? Ominously, they sent the ministers responsible for social security and finance—the mortician and the bagman! The former member for Braddon declared, `One can't interfere with commercial decisions.' Well, I have news for him and those of his ilk. We can affect commercial decision making by underpinning such decisions with a coherent, comprehensive wood and paper industry strategy and complementary industry policy measures. Isn't that exactly what Minister Wilson Tuckey boasted when announcing the Tumut pulp mill so-called incentive package? No subtlety there, Minister, about affecting commercial decisions, particularly in marginal coalition seats. I suppose Braddon had been written off electorally by the time the former member got onto the issue.The recent events in Burnie are an example of what will happen when resource guarantee is not matched by an industry policy which works towards downstream processing and value adding and when it is not complemented by government and industry commitments to investment and jobs—in short, mutual obligation.What was this government's attitude to these objectives when they came to power in 1996? They talk as if it were just yesterday. It was 1996! How much more time do you need? A letter dated 17 July 1996 from the then Minister for Science, Industry and Tourism, Mr Moore, confirmed an endorsement of the strategy. It states:The Government has endorsed the strategy, which includes a $38 million package to promote development of internationally competitive wood and paper industries based on ecologically sustainable management practices. The strategy is complementary to the development of RFAs and the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package, which create resource security for the industry and facilitate restructuring. It will help create a stable policy environment, allowing industry to confidently plan and invest in value added activities.What has happened in the light of this 1996 post-election endorsement? As far as the industry is concerned, the only thing this government has succeeded in achieving is a 40 per cent increase in export woodchips. How many jobs have been created? The executive summary of the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy of 1995 says:The Wood and Paper Industry Strategy is a four-year Commonwealth initiative to encourage investment, value adding and jobs growth.Investments of between $4 billion and $66 billion are at present under consideration. Industry and unions predict between 15,000 and 25,000 jobs over the next decade.But what in reality has happened since? There is no Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, no council and precious few jobs. The original terms of reference for the Wood and Paper Industry Council, I remind you, were:a) to advise the Government on the implementation and further development of the Wood and Paper Strategyb) to promote job creation, industry development, value adding opportunities and investment initiatives, including at the enterprise levelc) to act as an agent of change in the industry until RFAs are finalised and implemented.What has this government done in relation to these terms of reference? It has set up, under pressure, the largely ineffectual Wood and Paper Industry Forum, and little else. Where is the Wood and Paper Industry Council, properly constituted, empowered and resourced? What does it tell people about the recent decision of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to convene meetings of stakeholders to develop a wood and paper industry action agenda? Even the most optimistic assessment of this decision would conclude that the existing industry forum is ineffective and that whatever strategy exists presently is not working.When it was established, the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy was widely acknowledged as the blueprint for achieving further downstream processing and value adding in Australia's forest products industry. It also was committed to ecologically sustainable native forest management practices in Australia and internationally.The RFA is about not only resource security and environmental protection but also world best practices in sustainable forestry management. To foster the growth of our forest industries, all countries must be encouraged to adopt similar ecologically sustainable forest practices. The world must recognise that Australia will not tolerate the importation of wood products from sources which are not sustainably managed and do not live up to the high standards of forest management demanded here. I call on this government to exert maximum pressure to ensure the World Trade Organisation adopts environmental certification for ecologically sustainable forestry and, in the meantime, to apply measures to ensure wood, pulp and paper products imported to Australia come from sources which meet international environment standards for forest management.For many years, uncertainty over access to our forest resources and the environmental wars waged on the battlefields of our forests—many of these in Tasmania—have discouraged investment in value adding and downstream processing. But I believe that with regional forest agreements that live up to the expectations of investors, industry workers and their families and, importantly, the owners of the resource—that is, the public—there should be no excuses. In short, there should be mutual obligation.20:46:002240Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—Right at the outset, I would just like to say to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation that I am delighted that he has that portfolio and I am delighted with the way he is handling it, because he is attacking a major problem with decisiveness and a degree of fortitude that we absolutely need. It will come as no surprise to some of the people in the chamber that I intend to concentrate my remarks on the RFA that is currently going through hard labour in the north-east area of northern New South Wales where, of course, the electorate of Cowper is located.When one hears some of the contributions from the other side, one cannot help but be a little bemused and think perhaps that they are living on a different planet to where I am. We have a situation in New South Wales—particularly in the north-east which takes in my electorate, the electorates of the members for Page and Richmond and some of the electorate of the member for Lyne—where the New South Wales government has just been prevaricating and has been a walking disaster.I see the whole forestry issue as a very simple one. I know there is an enormous amount of rhetoric that goes on about it, but what we have are forests in northern New South Wales that have been sustainably harvested decade after decade which could go on being harvested sustainably for umpty bumpty more decades, but the Carr Labor government in New South Wales has gone feral and is so influenced by green fanatic environmentalists.I say to everybody who may be listening to this broadcast: we must conserve our forests; we must have a balanced, rational, reasonable approach to our forestry. We have a situation where we are never going to satisfy the obsessive green, the obsessive conservationist. Every time you give a concession, every time you make a change and say, `Okay, we'll go along with that,' what do they do? They shift the goalposts. If we were to allow them to go on forever shifting the goalposts, we would have no timber industry whatsoever, particularly in New South Wales because the Carr Labor government is completely and totally under the heel of the environmental movement. There was an article in the Coffs Harbour Advocate this morning from NEFA criticising the government, but boy, it has given in to almost every demand that the environmental movement has made. (Quorum formed)Before I was interrupted by my friend the member for Maribyrnong, I was making the point that in northern New South Wales the forestry industry has been virtually destroyed by the Carr Labor government. What they have done has meant that jobs have been destroyed, mills have closed, logging contractors have gone broke, logging hauliers have gone broke, and the benefit has mainly gone to the large companies. What the Labor government in New South Wales did with its forest policy was unilaterally, without consultation and without discussion, just out of the blue create new national parks here, new national parks there, and wilderness areas all over the place. Mind you, these so-called wilderness areas very often have been logged again and again and again.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—One was a potato patch.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—As my friend says, one was actually a potato patch which was declared a wilderness. There has been no consideration of the people. I say continually that the `p' in politics stands for people. It has been evident from all of the activities of the Carr Labor government that they have shown no concern. It is heartbreaking to see the number of jobs that have been lost in my electorate in little towns like Dorrigo, for instance, and to see mills close and people lose their jobs.It is really important to recall that in terms of our approach to this issue the Prime Minister, John Howard, back in 1995 on 30 November, made the point that the socioeconomic factors would be given absolute consideration by this government. And that is what the present minister is doing, and I applaud him for it. You cannot just look at it in isolation. You cannot just say, `We are going to lock up all forests', because the way they are doing it is so stupid. There are logs from Nambucca Heads in the middle of my electorate being shipped up to Casino and Woodenbong to be sawed when the logs up there are not being harvested. And there is good timber, sawlogs, up there, so they are paying—actually we are paying or were paying before we withdrew some of the money from it—up to $300 and $400 extra per trip to take logs from Nambucca Heads up to Woodenbong, Bonalbo or Casino. And that is absolutely crazy.What they are doing is locking up the forests which would have continued as sustainable forests. And the other side of that coin, which is absolutely disastrous and is going to destroy the forest industry in the next 10 or 20 years, is that they are now cutting out what are virtually saplings that should not be cut for another 20 years. So they have locked up the good forests containing the sawlogs which could be logged, as has been done for decades—and they have put people out of work, destroyed families, destroyed employment and closed down businesses. At the same time they are now saying, `Cut this immature forest and use that.' Of course, if the people on the other side had any knowledge at all about sawmilling and about logging, they would know that the younger tree is totally immature compared to the strength of a larger log. So they are not getting the timber out of it, and it is a very foolish scheme, because it is creating problems further down the track.I say again that I cannot for the life of me understand the alleged sense of the Carr Labor government in just continually creating more wilderness areas which have very often been logged before. The whole way they have approached this RFA is quite devastating. It is absolutely imperative that this legislation pass through both houses. For years the timber industry has battled to survive continual onslaughts from the conservationists, and on every occasion the end result has been to the detriment of the industry and the loss of jobs.The RFA process has been working in Victoria and in Tasmania. All states, with the exception of New South Wales, have participated in the RFA process in a mature and sensible way, and many an agreement has been made throughout Australia in relation to the forest industry and very few have lasted. What we have to do is get to the point where the New South Wales government actually gets on with the job of trying to run a proper forestry industry with a resource that can be logged sustainably. After all, timber is a crop. It is the only renewable resource we have. Dig the coal out of the ground, take the oil, take the iron; once it is gone, it is gone. But we can regrow trees, and this is what we should be doing.I know that the focus of this minister at the table is to try in the long run to see us improve and increase our forest areas. What we should be doing is enlarging our forests. The reality is, in spite of all the hoo-ha, we now have more areas of forest than we had at Federation. Right now there are more areas under forestry than we have ever had. What we should be doing is planting much more.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—The gentleman at the table might laugh and shake his head but he just displays his ignorance on this particular subject. I know he is very knowledgeable on other things, but I do not think he can see the wood for the trees. He knows nothing about forestry. Perhaps he should concentrate on other things.In New South Wales, we have national parks and wilderness areas created by Mr Carr. In northern New South Wales, we are very concerned that the government is going to start the grab for private and leasehold land. In fact, it has done that already. People who have had grazing rights for their cattle in forests for 60 years are now being tossed out on their ears. The reality is that even though the cattle have been grazing there for 60 years, the forests have still grown well and have been sustainable and producing the timber that we need. It is unacceptable that we should import billions of dollars of wood products into this country when you see the size of the land we occupy and the resources we have. We are just not doing the job right.Mr Schultz interjecting—AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—Indeed. I applaud our silviculturists and our forestry people—it used to be State Forests of New South Wales. The way they managed the forests was incredibly professional. Now we have the New South Wales government. I hope to high heaven, for the sake of our forests and for the sake of the people who depend on them, that there will be a change of government on 27 March so that we can start to get our forests under control again. The productive area has been cut back again and again because of the declaration of new national parks and wilderness areas.One of the things I have been totally distressed about is that there has been aerial mapping done in north-eastern New South Wales because they are going to try to indicate what should be locked up and what should not. Perhaps the photography during the aerial mapping has been great, but the interpretation has been shocking.Mr Schultz interjecting—AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—As my colleague says, 60 per cent of it has been demonstrated to be incorrect. They actually say, `Here's this bit of forest; that's rainforest.' when it is open sclerophyll! It is absolutely shocking that they should do this. They have already locked up an additional 850,000 hectares in wilderness and national parks. We have to come back to the very simple point that trees keep on growing and, when they are harvested, you replant and they come back again. (Quorum formed) I have to say again that the Carr Labor government has destroyed the timber industry of northern New South Wales. There must be a change of government for the salvation of the forests and the jobs of the people.21:06:002243Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—This debate tonight seems to be bringing on the Olympics in political posturing and role reversals. We have just had the extraordinary spectacle of the member for Cowper berating the New South Wales Carr government for taking a position with respect to forestry which his own National and Liberal Party state colleagues voted to support in the New South Wales state parliament. We have had the extraordinary perspective of member after member standing up and saying, `Legislation such as this could never have been brought in. We couldn't have had legislation to protect resources securities. It is an outrage that Labor has any concerns about this matter, or would take any steps in the Senate.' Yet in 1991, when Labor brought in resource security legislation, the Liberal coalition parties in the Senate prevented its passage and did so notwithstanding the extreme concern of the forest industries and forest unions.The final irony is that we have this claim that Labor is in some manner acting in an irresponsible way for pursuing in a consistent manner the very strategy that it created when it was in government, which it still maintains is appropriate for the interests of this nation. Why do we say that there are important issues that we still need to pursue? It is because without there being a follow-up on the industry side, all these rhetorical flourishes—the importance that flows from resource security; that there will be investment, employment and the like—will not necessarily come to pass.I have gone through an extraordinary history at a personal level in Tasmania in debates about the environment. I came here at a time when I had become aware of the significance of this issue. My first involvement was when an inquiry was conducted by Merv Everett, a former state minister and later a Federal Court judge. He conducted, I think, the first major inquiry into Tasmanian forestry. He found that the then rate of removal of forests was so high it was unsustainable. It had to be cut back. And that had costs—it meant people were forced out of the industry. For the first time some reserves were secured. There were then passionate debates about Helsham, and about the area to be preserved and the like.I came into that debate essentially holding to the view that we have greater values than simply economic ones—that there are some things that matter. Just as arts and culture matter, just as values matter, just as love and other kindnesses matter, so too does a concern for the environment matter. But in that debate I had to recognise that there were balances, and part of the balances were that it was important to secure the livelihood of those who depended on forest industries. To devise appropriate measures we had to say, `Yes, we will protect certain areas so that they are available for resource extraction' notwithstanding that they also had some environmental significance.There is no doubt that we have made major steps forward in Tasmania in preserving large areas of great environmental sensitivity. But anyone who goes to Tasmania and says that all the areas that are now available for forestry have no environmental significance is completely off this planet. There are some very significant areas of quite high conservation value which will be available for resource allocation as part of the balances that came through that RFA. That being so, you cannot keep aboard those who recognise that there needs to be that balance—which includes the trade union movement—if government does not keep a firm hand to ensure that the industry outcomes are actually achieved.People like Dr Bain came to me when I was shadow minister for the environment and said, `Don't press the case that you have to have an enforceable arm of industry policy mandated in legislation. Leave it to us.' I said to him, `You are in danger of finding that you are bringing together as allies the conservation movement and the trade union movement for the reason that neither will support your position.' The trade union movement was committed to the resource security legislation and the RFAs because it believed that industry strategies associated with those measures would generate jobs and investment in those industries. The reason some of the more moderate of the Green movement understood it was that they saw that it protected, under the JANIS criteria, significant areas which would otherwise have been potentially at risk. But why should either side accept a balance if at the end you are not getting those sustained employment outcomes?And that is the problem in Tasmania now. We are finding that, despite there having been a settled allocation of resource for industry, and despite the Forestry Commission developing substantial plans for upgrading and developing plantations so that more resources will be available for pulp wood than ever before, we are at the same time having disinvestment from those forest industries.So it rings completely false when members from the government side say, `Just pass this legislation and she'll be right.' We know that in Tasmania, where we have that legislation now at state level—we have had an RFA put in place—the proof of the pudding has not come through. In fact, it has actually proved everything that the Greens were saying. If that is the case it is hardly surprising that there is a fair degree of cynicism.I heard the member for Indi saying earlier, `I have heard all these union people bagging the Labor Party because they are opposing this legislation.' Where the hell has he been? I do not know which union people he has been talking to, because when I was shadow minister all of the trade union members that I was hearing representations from in my own state and nationally were saying, `Unless you have an industry strategy with teeth built into it you should not pass this legislation. Unless you have a serious industry strategy so that there will be jobs, downstream processing and investment then reject this legislation—do not pass it.'I think it is the case that there is a significant view within the mainstream trade union movement that we should bring back export controls as a lever to ensure that there is a commitment to downstream industry processing. Some organisations have fronted around this place, largely for the coalition parties and of course as a voicepiece for North Forest Products. There have been people like Barry Chipman, a very affable man. That is an extraordinarily appropriate name in the circumstances. Barry is an extraordinarily affable man and he does a very good job. Until recently many who were workers within the industry thought that their interests and his coincided. Despite the cheek of calling it the Forest Protection Society as if it were an environmental organisation, Barry purported to represent an independent view of those autonomously employed within the industry.But that front seems to be falling away, because at the moment the large employers in Tasmania, the North Forest Products and the like, are acting in ways which are completely incompatible with labour interests—the interests of working members in the community. So it seems increasingly that those who are urging the passage of this legislation unamended are completely isolated. They are being exposed as fronts for the major transnational resource companies that essentially want to be able to access forest resources in native forests to extract from them pulp resources without a commitment to an industry strategy and without any national obligation whatsoever. Labor is not going to facilitate that. If people want to criticise us for standing up for a strategy which would insist that the valuable natural resources of this country, such as are available after the scientific assessment, are not squandered, are not wasted, do not just go off in whole logs or in chips, then we will plead guilty to that.We have heard a cry from the member for Cowper about the New South Wales RFA, a suggestion that in some ways that had gone off the rails. Again, I draw attention to the oddity that his own state colleagues in the New South Wales parliament supported it.Let us go to Western Australia. This legislation, if passed in the present form, would mean that, when the Western Australian RFA ultimately is signed, put together by the West Australian coalition government and signed off by the extremely environmentally sensitive Wilson Tuckey, who is sitting at the table, once that groundbreaking environmental scheme had come to pass, there will be nothing for this parliament to do for 20 years other than to compensate anybody who has interests in exploiting the resources so made available should a future government regard this as perhaps not quite as environmentally sensitive as those opposite might have it. The problem for those who wish this to occur is that almost across the board there is nobody in Western Australia who thinks that this so-called benign, environmentally positive outcome is worth a cracker.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—Cheryl Edwards still does.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Cheryl Edwards apparently believes in it. Wilson has still got one true believer, but that must be all. The Nats in Western Australia walked away from the Western Australian RFA months and months ago. There is enormous unease right across the whole of the community.I had the opportunity when I was shadow minister to go to regional areas where forestry is an important industry. I went to those townships and met with the local government representatives and met with various people who in some circumstances might be thought to be protagonists for the industry. They were not. I met with a whole range of people who told me the difficulties that had emerged because of the process that existed as a special arrangement between this Commonwealth government and the West Australian government. It is the only RFA signed after the defeat of the former Labor government, and in terms which facilitated CALM, the resource manager, also being the project manager for the RFA. There is no independence in that process. It is not like the process that occurred in other jurisdictions. Everyone in Western Australia is aware of the diminishing resource for karri and jarrah. It is an extraordinary situation. Here, of course, we have a member from Western Australia who, with Cheryl Edwards, is probably the only one who thinks that chopping all this down and sending it off as charcoal or as woodchips is a you-beaut utilisation of those resources.This whole approach that the government has comes down to the fact that you cannot seem to value anything that does not have a dollar hanging off it. If it does not seem to have a dollar hanging off it, it is not worth a bumper. That means that there are a whole range of things that matter to our community that get overlooked in this narrowness of vision. At the macro level, it starts out with those fundamental tenets that go to human rights, that go to concern about indigenous Australians and that go to the place we all have in a future republic, and the narrowness of the debate that has occurred in those areas. Then you come down to things like the arts, where there really has been a cheapness in the debate, including advertising during the last election campaign which criticised Labor as pandering to elites, as if music, the theatre and literature are in some way unknown to those who wear blue collars or who live in the bush. What absolute nonsense.Then it comes down to the environment and things like Jabiluka, where there could be no possible economic reason for preferring a development there when there are many other uranium mines potentially open for exploitation that do not have those kinds of immense sensitivities. We saw it as a sine qua non of this government's commitment to economic ballsiness that we had the Prime Minister stand up and wave his fists about the kind of economic vandalism that he asserted the Labor Party was playing into. It was a disgraceful performance. Then there was the complicity in the Hanson resurgence—all these kinds of things where we were treated as a community as if those higher values commensurate with commitment and soul did not matter. XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been listening in my office to the member for Denison now for some two minutes and I do not think he has referred to timber or forests for at least two minutes. You might like to ask him to come back to the matter on which he should be speaking. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Adams)—I ask the honourable member to speak to the matters before us. I think the honourable member was tying in most of his comments to the bill, and I think he will get there.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Thank you. I am chastened. This evening I have been very patient, though, in relation to other contributions. The member for Cowper took us through a dissertation about the evils of the New South Wales government. Perhaps I could suggest that the member for Cowper could blame the New South Wales Nationals' errors on their recently dumped leader, Mr Armstrong.Whatever the reason, Labor has been consistent. We recognised a balance had to be struck. We stood firmly as the party that actually put the environment on the national agenda. Without Labor in government the world heritage nominations of much of Tasmania would not have proceeded. The necessary recognition that our community does value these things was inherent in what we did. But we also said that we wanted to have an industry strategy that would build jobs. We want to have a plantation based structure that will mean that we move away from native forest exploitation so that our pulp wood comes mainly from plantations and we use that which is available in old-growth forest principally for sawlogs, for veneer timbers and high quality furniture. Those are perfectly rational strategies to pursue and to advocate.I think this legislation needs more. It needs reporting obligations included in it. What do states have to do to prove that they are meeting the JANIS criteria, that the undertakings they make in that agreement are actually being met year by year? Where are those reporting agreements? Are they public? We do not know, and certainly there is no undertaking that they be made public or that they be annual or that there be any accountability. We want to know what is being done in terms of the obligations that this government said it accepted when it undertook and signed some RFAs, for example.Going back to Tasmania, part of the RFA negotiations in my state was to recognise that you could not meet the JANIS criteria without substantial reservations being obtained on private land. Funds were to be made available in order to secure the preservation and release of areas so that they could be maintained in perpetuity, so you would get the whole diversity that is necessary for those JANIS criteria to be met. We have not had any accounting of that. We know that there has been a fiddling of the funds under the Natural Heritage Trust. We know that there has been a rorting of those processes, but we still do not know that the outcome will meet the objectives that the government said it was going to obtain when it signed that agreement.There is no obligation, not just there but in every state where these agreements come into operation, to show that future actions will match the commitments that the states enter into. Why should we buy pigs in a poke? Why should we sign up, as if we would give legislative, legal effect to agreements without having actually sighted them?We know that in Western Australia even the Nationals regard with doubt the likely outcome that will come forward for signing by this benevolent, green minister for forestry, who is at the table—Wilson Tuckey, the master environmentalist, the carer of our forests. I have to tell you: I am pretty cynical that this parliament would regard that as a good deal. We would want to reserve the right to have a look at it in this parliament before it came into effect as a piece of legislation which would bind this parliament to compensation for any deficiency in it for the next 20 years. And I do not think that, if push came to shove and we were on the other side of the House, the then opposition would do anything else but say the same. (Time expired)21:26:002246Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—It always give me a lot of pleasure to follow someone whom I consider to be an academic speaking on a subject in this parliament. (Quorum formed) I noted earlier that the opposition, through the member for Reid, said that they were not going to oppose this legislation in the lower house but in fact would move some amendments. I listened with interest to the member for Denison. As the member for Denison comes from the state of Tasmania, I am just wondering whether he is having two bob each way. It seems to me that there could be a suggestion that, while the Labor Party will not vote against the legislation in the lower house, they might change their strategy in the Senate to let the members from Tasmania off the hook, because this is fairly embarrassing for those members in this particular instance.I am amazed at the petty politics that is often displayed in parliaments. My presence in parliaments goes back quite a long time—over 12 years. I probably came into politics with the naive belief that whether you were in opposition or government, you were basically there to better the state or to better the country. I think far too much petty politics is played in terms of some of these issues in the parliaments.This particular debate, as far as I am concerned, has gone completely off the track. I would like to go back to a little bit of the basics in forestry. I spent a lot of my youth around forestry and quite a considerable time as the minister for forests in New South Wales. There is no basic reason why forests cannot be managed on an ecologically sustainable basis. There is no obvious reason why they cannot also be very sustainable for the environment, both flora and fauna.In fact, I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that with the science and the standard of the foresters that we have in Australia—and there are not many left in New South Wales, but they were very competent people—they have the ability to manage forests in such a way that the ecological values can be perfectly preserved. Quite frankly, I can draw your attention to many examples in New South Wales where national parks are destroying the environment.With areas that were multi-use areas in the past, once the management of national parks takes over and these places are completely locked up with an overburdening of growth, I have seen national parks in my electorate, such as Yuraygir and Bundjalung on the coast, where savage fires in recent years have destroyed the koalas and the ground parrots. That fauna existed quite comfortably there in years gone by with the type of management that our grandfathers used in those areas. In fact, what was used was a controlled burning in autumn and spring to control the fuel, and that protected the area. We are now going back in a reverse cycle, if you like, to way back before the Aborigines, because the Aborigines controlled the environment in Australia with fire.I think a book was written in New South Wales which said that the firestick never went out, and that is a very true example of the way the Aborigines looked after the environment of this country. We look back now and say that they were better managers of the country than we are. So I think we have to take a very close look at ourselves in this particular instance. We are importing into Australia $3 billion worth of forest products a year.Members of the Labor Party are crying crocodile tears about the loss of some jobs in this particular industry. These jobs need not have been lost in the first place. Do not kid yourself about this particular exercise, which was brought in in good faith by the previous government, I believe, to try to get an agreement between the Greens and the industry so that at least you could have some security in investment. I do not believe for a minute that this is going to succeed because you are dealing with single-minded, narrow-minded zealots.It does not matter what you put forward, they will not accept anything less than the total destruction of the native forest industry in Australia. That is their objective, and we are kowtowing to them. No government has been game enough to stand up to these people. Industry is disgusted with all sides of politics at the present time because they will not support investment and employment in this particular industry. I think we should all hang our heads in shame that we will not stand up and protect this industry.Even after the New South Wales government has gone through the process—even though we disagree with the process—and has put forward what I believe is a totally unsustainable amount of timber for the industry, the Greens are not satisfied. The North East Forest Alliance and other groups on the north coast are complaining and asking for an inquiry. They are still not satisfied.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—They will never be satisfied.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—They will never be satisfied, as the member for Cowper says, and I think we have to come to terms with that. Quite frankly, I would like to say to the executive of our government that I believe that when these people turn up at protests—and they are professional protesters who turn up at every protest—once they have been seen there more than three times, they should be taken off the dole.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—They should be shot!4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The member for Reid suggests that they should be shot. That is not our philosophy; maybe it is your philosophy. I believe they should be taken off the dole because they are professional protesters. Not only that, but I have anecdotal evidence that they are skiting about the fact that they are paid daily to go to these particular protests. Not only are they on welfare, and bludging off the rest of society, but the very workers who they are trying to put out of a job are fairly low paid workers who, if they were on the dole with three children, would be better off than they are working, but these people have pride and they want to work. And yet the Labor Party says that it is not prepared to stand up and support something like this that gives a chance to get some security back into the industry.Let me talk about the New South Wales position, because it was raised by members—I think it was the member for Denison and the member for Reid. They said that the New South Wales coalition agreed with the government on this particular issue. Let me take you back through this because this is a typical exercise by a union based government. They have divided and conquered the industry in New South Wales. They have picked out favourites, and they have said to certain people in the industry, `We will give you some of this FISAP money'—up to $1 million of taxpayers' money in some instances—`but you have to borrow $2 million or $3 million of your own to put into value adding.' I will come back to that value adding. They have effectively locked these people in, because if they do not support the government they do not get the quota, and if they do not get the quota they go broke.The New South Wales government has already broken hundreds of little people with no compensation. I would like you to have a close look at the FISAP process in New South Wales and at how flawed it is. I had a timber worker in my office only last week. He was a man who had worked for 20 years in the timber industry and, through no fault of his own, the business that he worked for took a payout because it was forced out with no quota. This man had worked for 20 years in the hardwood industry and, under the FISAP process, he should have been compensated but he did not belong to a union and, because he did not belong to a union, he is getting absolutely nothing.I would like to take the member for Reid up to a little village in my electorate called Woodenbong—or even Urbenville next door—that depends entirely upon the timber industry and the grazing industry. And I would like him to tell timber workers who have worked there all their lives how they are going to be compensated. These are people who have been on very low incomes and who have bought a home for themselves—probably not of great value but it is a home—in a little country town. You tell me how you compensate those people when you take their jobs away from them. There is no reason why their jobs should have been taken from them because these forests have been well managed.The argument put forward by the New South Wales government that they are overcut is spurious for this reason: they do not look at it until they have cut off certain areas. They have declared national parks and wilderness areas and reduced the area available to forestry. Then they say, `It is unsustainable.' Of course it is unsustainable, because of what they have done.They are kowtowing to the chattering classes in the city. I suspect some of my National Party colleagues in Western Australia are doing exactly the same thing. I do not take much confidence from the fact that I hear the AMA being brought up as one of the opponents of a forest policy in Western Australia. For goodness sake, what would doctors know about forestry? I hope they would know more about medicine, otherwise they should not be practising. It is high time that these chattering classes in the city started to understand what goes on in regional Australia.I notice that the member for Fremantle is going to speak next. I point out to her that I have seen her signature on the 1992 Forest Policy Statement. Let me tell you about the Forest Policy Statement, which you are reneging on at the present time. The Forest Policy Statement was a very good attempt to try to get some peace in this industry.But what did the New South Wales government do? Instead of looking at the broad area of New South Wales with similar species—which can go from Wauchope practically up to southern Queensland—to preserve 15 per cent of that area, they chopped it up into little bits. They chopped it up in such a way that they are probably getting about 60 per cent of the resource that is available.This process has been absolutely distorted to the detriment of workers, to the detriment of small business who have been kicked out on their ear with no compensation and to the detriment of Australia. I think the member for Reid and his particular supporters should hang their heads in shame, because we are not here acting as we should as Australians.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—You promised to explain why Armstrong voted with the government.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I will explain to you anything you need, because I think I know a fair bit about forestry; I doubt that you know very much about it, from the electorate that you come from.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I will tell you the reason why the National Party and Liberal Party voted with Carr in this particular instance. It is that Col Dorber went down to the parliament on behalf of the Forest Products Association and badgered people to vote for this. Why? Because, again, the FISAP process has been corrupted and the only people to get any support from the FISAP process are those from the Forest Products Association and the CMFEU. That is what it comes down to and it has been absolutely corrupted.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Maybe you can tell me why some of this money has filtered its way into the CMFEU and the FPA. Why didn't it go to those people who needed the compensation? Why didn't it go to the businesses that have been forced out? Why didn't it go to the workers who have lost their jobs?Because this process has been corrupted. It is a process aided and abetted by the New South Wales government.I will come to the pulp mill situation and value adding. I know my Whip is getting excited, but I want to make a few comments about value adding. The little union representative in New South Wales—the minister who was, Mr Yeadon—says that it was all about value adding. Let me tell you about the value adding that is going on on the North Coast. Nothing new has come out of this. There are new processes about, but no-one has brought up any new process. All we are getting is more of the same—mouldings, flooring, which people were doing anyway. Can you tell me how that is new?We had this ridiculous situation in Grafton where one mill put off 36 men. The minister came and paraded in the town, saying, `Isn't it great? We are going to provide up to 24 new jobs.' Thirty-six had disappeared! How ridiculous is this? We can go back to the rainforest decision when former Senator Richardson walked around North Queensland saying, `Oh, look, don't worry about it. We are going to compensate you.' What did they get?HX4KATTERMr Katter—Nothing.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Nothing. These are the promises that we get out of the Labor Party. The minister was attacked about the pulp mill at Tumut. This is something good as far as I am concerned, because this is new technology in a smaller type mill, and if that proves itself it will make a lot of opportunities across Australia. I want to make a couple more comments. Plantations are not the panacea for the forest industries. They are a political ploy to try and assuage the chattering classes in the city. They are told you do not have to harvest native forest, that you can grow them. It is not correct. It cannot be done in the volumes that are necessary.In 1991 I tried to get a world class pulp mill on the North Coast of New South Wales. The availability of resources were there at the time. But the Labor Party came up there campaigning against it. The former member for Page, Harry Woods, tramped the streets with the greenies with placards proclaiming `No pulp mill'. Now he is parading around New South Wales—supposedly as the Minister for Regional Development. He sold them out. It is all rhetoric and there is nothing behind it.We had our opportunities, but the Labor Party would not allow us to do it. For goodness sake, get behind this. Give us the opportunity to put some security in this industry so that we can have a long-term, viable forest industry in Australia, so that we do not have to spend our money overseas importing these products. We cannot even guarantee where they are coming from. If we can get some cooperation, we might have some chance of getting a decent forest industry in Australia. It is the greatest decentralised industry in this country—and we have destroyed it. I believe, basically, that the Labor Party have destroyed it.21:45:002250Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—There are, as we have already heard, a number of problems with this Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and I do want to outline them and underline some of the key points from the point of view of my own state. The effect of this legislation is that in the future regional forest agreements will be exempt from Commonwealth legislative controls. There is no requirement that such agreements actually meet the conditions that were laid down in the original National Forest Policy agreed to between the states and the Commonwealth. And, perhaps even more important than that, there will be no oppor tunity for the parliament to determine if this legislative exemption is warranted.Such abandonment of Commonwealth responsibilities, I must say, was not envisaged in the original National Forest Policy to which I was signatory—was not envisaged; is not in the document—nor was it agreed to in any of the subsequent RFA documents produced while Labor was in office. It is a very unreasonable request of the government too that we should simply trust their judgment, given their environmental credentials. You only have to look at Kakadu and their general approach to forest protection—for instance, in the appointment of the current minister.In addition, the circumstances in which future compensation will be payable is very broadly defined. It is very favourable to the forest industries and, I must say, hostile to taxpayer interests. There is a huge disincentive for future governments to redress any deficiencies in practice. It is of particular concern to me as a Western Australian because our state government seems determined to proceed with what is clearly a highly defective Regional Forest Agreement. The current forest management is not even consistent with the agreements that were entered into under the deferred forest agreement—it falls short even of that!Of course, as many have pointed out, we still have no decent industry policy in this area. And this legislation does not help it. There is no attention to the need for investment. There is no attention to more advanced processing and higher returns that are needed from this very precious resource. There are no incentives to develop alternative sources of timber from plantations or agroforestry.I do want to draw special attention to the continuing problems in Western Australia which have led state and federal Labor oppositions to express deep concern about the RFA process in WA, including before the last election, and to warn both governments, state and federal, that the process has been derailed. I made my own reservations clear when this bill was last before us, and the situation is now worse. Since these agreements will determine the fate of the forests for the next 20 years, it is critical that the outcome meet proper conservation standards—I am sure even the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, at the table, would agree with that—and it should guarantee that any deviations should be remedied. But there is in Western Australia serious doubt among both scientists and conservationists that current and proposed rates of exploitation are sustainable, and I include there the Environment Protection Authority.In Western Australia the comprehensive regional assessment, the document released last year, is supposed to provide the scientific, social and economic foundation for the entire RFA process. But it is deficient in very many respects. We are not going to be allowed to see a draft agreement; we will be stuck with the final version. For example, Dr Leonie van der Maesen, a visiting research geomorphologist, criticised the report—and she is like many—on a number of grounds. The minister purports to be interested in science; I recommend that he looks at her submission, amongst others.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Who is that—Judy Carroll?XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—No, Dr Leonie van der Maesen. She is a geomorphologist visiting this country. The report is heavily biased toward providing arguments and evidence for continued exploitation of old-growth forest and it avoids any inconvenient evidence supportive of improved conservation and reduced exploitation; it is simply not canvassed in the report to any extent. Instead of commencing with the maintenance of biodiversity, which was clearly one of our objectives when we signed this document, it concentrates on the extractive industries of logging and mining—wrong focus; it should be a balance.It includes assumptions too that are contentious—for instance, that the community agrees with large-scale logging of native forest and that the community supports the claim that logging has to continue to provide jobs and income for people of the south-west in this industry, and in this industry alone. In reality, as the minister will know, recent polling from a number of sources in Western Australia shows very clearly that community opinion is in the opposite direction, that a substantial majority of Western Australians do not want any further clear felling of old and remaining growth forests.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—What polling agency is that?XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—The West poll in the West Australian ; the AMR Quantum Harris polling. The same agency used by the state government shows that 87 per cent of Western Australians are against clear felling of old-growth forests. This report, which underpins the RFA process, also assumes that the Department of Conservation and Land Management actually does what it claims in policy documents. Again, this is not supported by the evidence. For instance, in the WA Supreme Court recently CALM, as is known, actually claimed that it considers it is not bound by the acts of parliament or its own forest management plans. It won a case on that basis—an extraordinary position for it to adopt.And, of course, as I mentioned earlier, CALM's handling of state forests was severely criticised in a recent review by the Environment Protection Authority of their environmental performance and compliance with the current agreed forest management plan since 1994. How can we trust them for the future? The EPA found that CALM had not only failed to comply with the legally binding conditions set down by the state government—the current state government, I might say to the minister—but made changes without the approval of the minister or the government and had adopted unsustainable regimes of logging. It is a pretty damning criticism, Minister, however you look at it.Mr Tuckey interjecting—XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—The EPA recommended that the limit of 490,000 cubic metres a year of jarrah saw logs should be reduced by half as a matter of urgency. Of course, CALM, as it invariably does—Mr Tuckey interjecting—XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—and the minister obviously only wants to listen to them—counterattacked, questioning, as the minister is doing, the competence of the EPA members, staff and consultants, causing the government to appoint a former Common wealth official, Mr Codd, to umpire the dispute. His report recommends that the RFA should in fact be reviewed by a body which at least includes representation from the Environment Protection Authority. That is something the government had initially agreed—a full review by the EPA—but then reneged on.The federal minister, as we have heard, expresses the view that none of this concerns him. He said that he was not fussed about the Codd report since, as he puts it, he is `only interested in the science'. Apparently some science is more equal than others; he does not want to hear some of it.When we look at the same document, we find that the definition of old-growth forest used is not at all consistent with the national forests policy or the JANIS definition. Both define `old-growth forest' as substantially unmodified by forest harvesting. I will give some examples: forests may have been cut over in historical times but not intensively harvested, so old-growth values would have persisted; by `old-growth values', we mean the presence of large, mature to overmature trees, the presence of tree hollows, the presence of well-developed understoreys, the lack but not necessarily the complete absence of soil disturbance and compaction, the presence of lichens and so on. That has been totally ignored in the current proposals.Some statements in the document are false. It is claimed, for instance, that all stream reserves on CALM land have remained undisturbed; it is undisturbed vegetation. Anyone who has travelled through that area knows that is not true. I urge the minister to go into the CALM management areas and have a look—Mr Tuckey interjecting—XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—You are saying that the RFA should be given a blank slate, that Commonwealth oversight will be abolished. I am pointing out to you that at the moment forest management in WA deserves to be criticised on a number of grounds and the report that is coming forward to underpin the RFA process is deficient. It claims that all stream reserves on CALM land have retained undisturbed vegetation. That is absolute nonsense. The winter streams are often breached and thinned by contractors. The one river in Western Australia, Deep River, which is not saline runs the risk of becoming so because of these practices.The scientific and background reports referred to in the report are not available for public scrutiny. CALM is a great censor. It does not like its scientists to speak out. The open process the minister is fond of quoting is not happening inside CALM. Independent and dissenting reports are ignored or censored. The maps that are given to all of us to examine the RFA in development underestimate very clearly the area of old-growth forest. It appears that CALM, for instance, does not regard marri, a whole category of timber, as old-growth at all. The RFA documentation itself is also misleading. Some of what is declared as formal reserves allow mining in the reserve purpose and this clearly does not satisfy the IUCN reserve categories I-V as required. Again, in this document to which I was signatory, it is a clear breach.These are typical of the criticisms, and reasonable criticisms, that have been advanced by many interested scientists and conservationists familiar with the areas examined. Their views have been ignored by this government, by this minister and, to date—although they seem to be softening up a bit—by the state government in Western Australia. They are softening up because the community as a whole is turning against them. Their own heartland is starting to make life difficult for them. These are not the chattering classes that we heard about earlier—unless he wants to call the good citizens of Nedlands the chattering classes—but the good citizens of the electorates represented by many of the conservative members here. If he wants to insult them, that is fine. But the wider community are clearly opposed to this process in Western Australia and they are being ignored by this government and this minister.In addition, I think it needs to be said that information on employment in native forest industries, which we are often quoted, is misleading, including, as it does, both part-time and indirect employment. The reality in Western Australia is that, because of woodchipping, which is highly capital intensive, the number of people directly employed in the industry is around 1,600 maximumThere are no adequate comparisons of employment in tourism in this document. We are supposed to simply accept that we need to protect the jobs in this industry at the cost of all others—so ecotourism can disappear, the local communities that depend on tourism can hang. Of course, there needs to be structural adjustment. There needs to be additional funding provided in these communities. We were the first to indicate that this must be so in any reasonable regional forest agreement. It is what this government is not doing. It is not looking after these workers. It is misleading them and alarming them.I also want to raise a few current problems in the RFA process in WA that have come to light in very recent times. The WA RFA scoping agreement, which was signed by both the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments—it precedes this whole process—requires an environmental impact assessment of the draft RFA to be conducted by the Environmental Protection Authority.The Western Australian minister, until recently at least, repeatedly stated that there would no draft RFA available for public inspection—yet we are invited in this legislation to give it a tick—and no EPA assessment. As I say, that has been modified slightly, but what did the original agreement say? This is the agreement between the current federal government and the current state government. That agreement states:The decision of the Commonwealth to engage in a process leading to a RFA with Western Australia will require an environmental impact assessment under the [Commonwealth EPIP Act] and Western Australia's Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Commonwealth and WA agree to define a joint or cooperative environmental impact assessment of the draft RFA which is in accordance with the principles of the draft national agreement on EIA and meets the statutory requirements of both Governments.What has happened? There has been no draft and no assessment. We are being asked to tick off on that process. I think you can forgive Western Australians for being very cynical about this, Minister. This is despite the fact that the Western Australian minister told the Western Australian parliament, when she was pushed, in June 1997:The Commonwealth and Western Australia have agreed—as I have just indicated—to define a cooperative environment impact assessment of the draft Regional Forest Agreement, which meets the statutory requirements of both governments.In other words, there would be assessment at a Commonwealth level and assessment at state level by the EPA. Yet the minister now says that there is no way that a draft will be produced—she is still saying that, as far as I know—for any scrutiny by the public at large. There will be a little scrutiny by the EPA. The Codd report means that someone will sneak in from the EPA. But she has been forced to make these concessions.We have heard from this minister a number of times railing against the New South Wales government. We have just heard some of the members from New South Wales shouting and yelling about the process there as well. But we do not hear the minister railing against the flagrant breaches I have just outlined. They have breached a signed scoping agreement. They have breached it front and centre.I would be keen to hear from the minister responsible. He has complained at length about the New South Wales government's actions but is silent about his own state. He is more interested in what is happening in New South Wales. Does he propose to insist that the original agreement be honoured? A draft RFA, open for public scrutiny and reviewed by the EPA? Are you happy for that agreement to be breached?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Yes.XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—The minister at the table says that he is happy for that agreement to be breached. Does he propose to insist it be honoured?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—No.XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—He says, `No.' Do we hear his indignation about the failure to honour agreements, or does he just restrict it to those governments not of his political persuasion? I think it is pretty obvious, Minister. I think it is very obvious indeed. You are not interested in your own state. You are just interested in scoring political points, particularly in the lead-up to an election in New South Wales. Very transparent! You must think that members of this parliament are absolute dopes.I want to draw attention too to the particular problem of the current logging regimes in WA, particularly in a number of forest blocks that have been subject to interim heritage listing. Despite very clear public objection, logging has been carried out in a number of these blocks. The state minister has, in several cases, indicated that such logging would not be carried out until the RFA process was complete, but it is happening now. That is why the people of Western Australia are so angry. They have been given assurance after assurance—and those assurances have all been breached—that these heritage listed blocks on the interim list would not be logged. Yet, during the summer I went to Wattle Block—one of the ones where there are protesters at the moment—and young people, students and retired people were trying to protect the forests against Conservation And Land Management and the current state government logging against their own prescriptions.Despite public objection, logging has been carried out in Wattle Block. This is one of those heritage listed areas which was supposed to be protected during the RFA process, so how can we have any confidence in handing over all these powers to the state governments? They have some other blocks lined up, having more or less completed the demolition of Wattle Block. The Commonwealth RFA officials, I understand, have protested to their counterparts in Western Australia about this, but their concerns have been dismissed—thrown aside. They would not be getting any help from this minister. He would be encouraging them. He would be sending in the bulldozers.What has the minister done to address this breach of process and to back up his officials? Nothing. He is not prepared to enforce agreements. He is not prepared to listen to his officials. Like many others, including a member of this parliament from New South Wales, I visited the site and met with protesters during the parliamentary break. For anyone who looks, that destruction is vivid and evident, and it is not being defended by the CALM officials, who stand there and watch the protesters.Do not worry about the Western Australia government; do not worry about the environmental departments. ABARE's own research shows that, of the 384,000 cubic metres of Karri logs taken per year from WA forests, over half went for woodchip, 22 per cent for construction and other purposes—which could use plantation timbers—22 per cent ended up as firewood, sawdust and waste, and only 1.7 per cent was turned into `appearance grade seasoned timber'. This is a unique timber. It occurs nowhere else in the world. It should be suitable for high value added products—not for most of it to go to woodchip and waste.The wholesale destruction of WA's old-growth forests, which is opposed by 87 per cent of Western Australians, is proceeding. This is the great disgrace. It is not changed by this legislation. It is for a very modest economic gain, and probably net cost to government, in one industry at the expense of the rapidly growing tourist industry and against the views of the majority of Western Australians.As Pemberton businessman and member of the South-West Regional Tourism Association, Mr Murray Johnson, recently put it, along with many others from shires in the region:There's been a radical shift in the value of the forest resource. It's now worth more to preserve than it is to cut it down.It is time this minister recognised it and threw this legislation out.22:04:002254McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted that the shadow minister, the member for Reid, is indicating that the opposition are now supporting the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 by moving their amendments. I hope that Labor senators will follow that lead and support the amendments in the Senate because of the indication of the shadow minister.I invite the shadow minister to come down to the Otways, get hold of his Stihl chainsaw and participate with his fellow workers from the CFMEU. Have a little talk to them about the jobs in the Otways and see whether the Labor Party's point of view on the whole process stands up. Certainly those union members are very keen to get the process concluded and to maintain their jobs in the Otways.I would be interested to know the conversation between the member for Denison, who gave us a long dissertation—we know his interest in these matters—and the member for Lyons. What would the trade union members gain from those two conversations, and where would the member for Lyons stand on this issue? I am sure he supports the RFA that might maintain jobs in Tasmania.As members would be aware, the RFA process has been concluded in Tasmania—satisfactorily to all parties—and also in East Gippsland, Victoria. Now the focal argument is in the Otways, in the seat of Corangamite. In that process, there are cultural and heritage workshops taking place. Discussion and public meetings are being undertaken. The objective in that area is to get a sustainable yield of 40,000 cubic metres each year. So there will be consultation among the environmentalists, the industry groups and Minister Tuckey, who is at the table, who I know has had his own chainsaw. He understands the issues, unlike the shadow spokesman. They are discussing the Victorian RFA process. There will be a social assessment at workshops taking place at the end of April.The situation in Corangamite and in the Otways is that all groups are discussing these matters and trying to come to a reasonable, sensible outcome. Unfortunately, as things hot up in that area, conservationists have taken matters into their own hands, taken a public stance and prevented loggers—members of the CFMEU—from undertaking their daily tasks.A letter in the Colac Herald, dated 20 January put this thing in stark contrast. Members of the unions are seeking to undertake their daily tasks and are being frustrated. This letter is from Councillor Alan Billing, Colac Otway Shire's representative and executive member of Timber Towns Victoria. He is a very sensible, understanding person who has a long association with the industry. He writes:Enough is enough. The current situation in the Otways has gone too far.The blockading and disruption of legal sustainable timber harvesting by a small group of misguided and ill formed economic terrorists is not supported by the majority of this community.The timber harvesting operations in the Otways are in line with State Government policy.It is managed under a strict code.It is economically and environmentally sustainable.It takes place in only a small percentage of native forest in the Otways.It provides the broader community with the wood based products it requires.The current illegal disruption is having a severe impact on contractors who are only seeking to do an honest day's work and provide the resource the community needs, and in doing that provide for their families.That indicates the strength of feeling in the Otways at the moment, as the debate takes place on the RFA. I think all of us in the Otways and the electorate of Corangamite are looking to get the RFA in position, because it will provide certainty for both sides of the argument. It will provide for a small percentage of the Otways to be used for logging purposes.As members would be aware, the RFA's outcomes reduce the uncertainty and they emerge—as members opposite have conceded—from the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement under a Labor government. Their position was to try to bring about some coordination between state and federal governments so that a final decision could be reached in a coordinated way.It is worth putting on the record the main provisions of the RFAs and some of the issues that are incorporated in the agreement. The agreement was entered into having regard to assessments on the following matters: environmental values, including old growth wilderness, endangered species, National Estate values and world heritage values; indigenous heritage values; economic values of forested areas and forest industries; social values—that is an interesting one; that includes jobs and how the local community might be affected—and principles of ecologically sustainable management. The agreement provides for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. That incorporates a major understanding of forest matters, and there has been a lot of debate about that important aspect. The agreement provides for long-term stability of forests and forest industries.As members would be aware, this agreement is reached using the JANIS report, which incorporates a benchmark of 15 per cent of the pre-1750s distribution in each forest community of protected species within the reserves and retention of reserves of at least 60 per cent of old-growth forest. All the conservation groups could not disagree with that. It also incorporates protection of 90 per cent or more of high quality wilderness and social and economic considerations. So the aims of the RFA are to provide for future forest management and an ecologically sustainable forest products industry. Who in this House could argue with that?The legislation, which was before the House at an earlier stage, requires that Commonwealth compensation be paid if it intervenes in the RFA area. This compensation stands in its own right just in case a future government starts to challenge the legality of the RFA. This ensures that there is a security of the product—something that Tasmanians, people in East Gippsland and all foresters are very keen to see. If they make the investment, they want a security of product, and this part of the bill will ensure that future Commonwealth governments will not interfere with the process.The removal of export control has always been a vexed issue. Commonwealth governments have used export control, particularly in relation to woodchips, to bring about control of forestry operations that are the purview of state governments. So the RFA is a genuine situation that will ensure a long-term position. So much so that the RFA that is agreed to by all sides of the debate is a final authority because the government has agreed to remove the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection Act 1974 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. No longer will we have a backdoor approach by people who represent the conservationists, using legal processes to overturn an agreed RFA.The process gives legitimacy to all players and, once this has been agreed to, will make sure that this whole process is not an ad hoc arrangement. Those of us who were here at that time saw the Keating government under considerable political pressure with the blockade because they adopted an ad hoc process. They identified coups that were on quarries and coups that were in Bass Strait. That was their approach.The RFA process in the Otways in Victoria will ensure that it is a consultative process. It is a legitimate process, that will stand up in legislation both at the federal level and the state level. It will provide certainty for the loggers. It will provide certainty for the conservationists that their point of view has been taken into consideration. More importantly, as the minister at the table has advocated, it has a scientific basis. Science will be the basis of the argument by both sides, and that has been canvassed over the last 15 years or so.When the agreement has been reached, it will be balanced and will ensure that there will be a sustainable timber industry in the Otways, in East Gippsland, in the Central Highlands and, hopefully, in New South Wales as the process continues. It will maintain the biodiversity and, finally, it will be a 20-year agreement so that the timber industry at long last will have some certainty and loggers will be able to invest in new equipment and union members will be ensured that their jobs are reasonably safe and that they can proceed with some certainty.By November 1999, we in the electorate of Corangamite and the Otways would hope that the RFA will be signed. It will be agreed to by Minister Tuckey and it will even be agreed to by the member for Reid, who is sitting at the table. The agreement will be signed by Premier Kennett and by the federal government, and it will be a landmark decision of an RFA in Victoria which will ensure that the next process in Western Australia or Queensland can proceed.I am delighted to support the bill and to say that this House will proceed to support it, and hopefully the Senate will see the sense of the shadow minister in supporting the broad thrust of the bill. I move:That the question be now put.Question put.The House divided. [10.19 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Details of voting will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Laurie Ferguson's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [10.26 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Details of voting will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2257Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey) read a third time.Adjournment2257Motion (by Mr Tuckey) proposed:That the House do now adjourn. 225722:28:002257Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I have been approached in recent weeks—as I am sure many members have—by constituents complaining particularly about the advertising surrounding the private health insurance rebate. We understand that the Commonwealth government has spent or will spend approximately $8 million on advertising and up to $20 million on associated costs. They see in both the print and television advertisements—very clearly, very simply, and unequivocally—that private health cover will now be 30 per cent cheaper for all Australians. There are no ifs or buts. In the fine print of the advertisements they give three ways in which you can do that: by premium reduction, a tax rebate, or a cash payment from a Medicare office. Private health will now be 30 per cent cheaper for all Australians—no exceptions, no different figures depending on your category.Similarly, the biggest private health insurance fund in Western Australia advertised in the following terms in the West Australian of 6 January 1999: `HBF health premiums are down by 30 per cent.' Again, there are no qualifications. Of course, a great many people believed the Commonwealth government and the big health funds of which they have been members for many years. Indeed, HBF started advertising in these terms before the legislation was passed. I thought that was more than a bit cheeky, Mr Speaker.One constituent who approached me is a long-term member of the HBF. He was very annoyed indeed, when he approached the fund to get his 30 per cent reduction in premium, to be informed that they were experiencing administration difficulties—this was toward the end of January—and, as a result, that he would not be receiving his 30 per cent rebate. When he inquired further, he was told that instead they would extend the term of his insurance. In fact, they cut him off from the other two options available to him—either the tax rebate or the cash payment from the Medicare office. In their generosity, they said no, they would not reduce his premium; they would extend the term of his insurance premium. He did not want that. He actually wanted to have reduced cost or he wanted to get the cash payment, but because of their `administrative difficulties', they were not able to do that.When we approached the organisation they told us that they were having such difficulties and that they were not able to oblige. I think by now they may have changed their tune. But this was not how the rebate was advertised and, as my constituent argues, he was being penalised both ways. His insurance company would not pay the 30 per cent rebate and as he wishes to remain privately insured, he has to continue to pay the higher premiums which are deducted from his pay. He is a loser all round.This manipulation of the rebate scheme by the private health insurance company has, not surprisingly, left my constituent feeling very unhappy and cheated, both by this company and by the government. These changes were certainly not outlined in any recent advertising, nor was he given notification by HBF, or the Commonwealth government for that matter, that changes would be made to the scheme that effectively would deny him this 30 per cent rebate.However, this constituent was not alone and I have complained to, amongst others, the trade practices people under the act. I will also be complaining on behalf of another constituent who was, like this one, under the impression that he would get a 30 per cent rebate. As it says, `Private health cover will now be 30 per cent cheaper for all Australians,' and the associated ad, `HBF health premiums are down by 30 per cent.' There are no qualifications in any of that. He was under the impression, along with a lot of others, that he would automatically be entitled to a 30 per cent reduction in his premiums. No such luck.This constituent assumed that that 30 per cent reduction would apply to his current premium payments. Instead, he was advised that his premiums would revert to their former level under the old scheme and then the 30 per cent would be calculated on that. In due course, the HBF sent him a note in those terms. But that is not what the advertising says. It is misleading in every respect. Taxpayers' money is being used to mislead the very people to whom this scheme is directed. I think they have every reason to be very angry indeed. As my constituent put it to me, this was certainly not advertised in either the HBF or government campaigns promoting the scheme and he, like many other Australians, is very unhappy indeed at being cheated in this way.225822:33:002258Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—This year, 1999, is a significant year in Western Australia's political and social history for this year we celebrate 100 years since Western Australia granted women the right to vote. It is interesting to note that the first state to grant women the vote was South Australia in 1896, with its traditions of liberalism and religious non-conformity, and then Western Australia in 1899. It seems that Sir John Forrest, the then Premier, was a pragmatic conservative who could welcome and facilitate change.It has often been suggested that women in Australia had no part in the formation of the Constitution. That is only partly true. Women were not present at the constitutional convention debates of the 1890s. However, women in South Australia were able to vote to elect their representatives for the 1897 convention, and of course women in both South Australia and Western Australia were able to vote in the referenda that ratified the Federation and the Constitution. Contrary to some current commentary, Australian women were not passive spectators in the process that gave us a balanced democratic and federal constitution. They were very much involved in the grassroots campaigning through the Women's Christian Temperance Union and later the Women's Federal League. They were involved in a constructive, commonsense way, which is possibly why the feminists of a century ago are not household words in Australia today.This was the beginning of the process of female enfranchisement which eventually swept across the country. This act of enfranchisement in 1899 added to Australia's international reputation as a pioneer of women's political rights. In this year, the centenary of women's suffrage in Western Australia, we should not forget that when Australian women achieved the right to vote in federal parliament in 1902, there was no other country in the world where women could both vote and stand for the national parliament.I raise this topic tonight for last Wednesday I had the pleasure of opening a display to launch the centenary of women's suffrage in my electorate of Curtin. The display was funded by the Office of Women's Interests in the Western Australian government and was a joint initiative of the town of Claremont, the Nedlands Library Service and the Claremont Museum. It was a celebration, not only of our courageous and astute female political pioneers, but a recognition of the achievements of women towards equality since the granting of the vote. Most appropriately the display recognised the achievements of women in our local community.There is a tendency for us to focus on the achievements of charismatic or powerful women in politics, in business and in sport, women who have received deserving recognition for their energy, drive and ambition. We focus on the women who are considered to be trailblazers, those who achieve the status of being the first woman appointed to this or that position. Yet there are many women across Australia who have made significant achievements by their commitment and contribution to their local community.At the launch I attended last Wednesday we had a shining example of a deserving citizen when Dorothy Bennett was named the City of Nedlands Citizen of the Year for her uncompromising commitment to her local community. Dorothy has lived in Nedlands for 56 years, and for the past 30 years has run the Dalkeith preschool. As well as her loyal devotion to the preschool, Dorothy has contributed to the community in a variety of ways by doing voluntary work for children: running a church school, a summer holiday program, netball coaching and youth leadership training. She expressed her delight that she is now teaching sons and daughters of the children she first taught at the Dalkeith preschool. Dorothy was quoted in the Post newspaper, one of our most widely read and respected community newspapers, as saying that her motto had always been, `It is better to build children than repair men.' She is an example of the many women who are prepared to make generous sacrifices of their time and efforts for the betterment of their community.Last Wednesday's display launch is but one of the many ways in which the Centenary of Women's Suffrage will be celebrated in Western Australia throughout this year.225922:38:002259Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I add my condolences to the views expressed by many members in this place on the death of King Hussein. Members from both sides of this House have remarked on his positive role since the murder 50 years ago of his father, King Abdullah.During the recess I had the opportunity to visit that part of the world. A delegation of the Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group, led by the honourable member for Sturt, Chris Pyne, and consisting of Senator Marise Payne, Senator-elect Aden Ridgeway and me, visited Israel from 12 to 16 January. The wider issues of the conflict canvassed by the delegation with a spectrum of opinion, both Israeli and Palestinian, were fascinating. All members of the delegation appreciated the thoughtful program organised by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, who hosted us whilst we were in Israel. The wider issues of the impending Israeli election due on 21 May I will leave to another time.Having just experienced an election campaign in this country, many in this place and many Australian voters will have sympathy for the Israelis who are experiencing a five-month election campaign. This long election period exacerbates what is an already fractured political system. Israel's proportional representation system lacks the cold reality of constituency based politics. The system has been made worse by a recent change to Israeli democracy.In the Knesset elections before last, for the first time, a direct election of Prime Minister was held at the same time as the parliamentary elections. This change was introduced in order to strengthen the executive. The proportional representation system as it existed was delivering increasingly unstable coalitions. The unintended consequence of this change, however, has a salutary lesson for Australia: the direct election of the Israeli Prime Minister has had exactly the opposite result of its stated purpose.At the last Israeli election and in opinion polls since, Israelis voted for their main party of choice in the election for Prime Minister, but in the Knesset election, conducted at the same time, voters have felt even freer than before to vote for minor parties. This has led to further atomisation of the political process. It is even possible that, at this next election, the voters will elect a Prime Minister of one view and a coalition of parties of another view—a parliamentary majority who might not support a just elected Prime Minister.Thankfully, Australia does not select its government by proportional representation. However, if we were to agree to the plans of the Reith-Cleary-Mack axis for a directly elected president, I believe that these developments in Israel might be at least partially replicated in Australia. Like the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed the Prime Minister, I believe that nothing worse could come out of the republic referendum than a fracturing of our current stable political process. As in Israel, a separate ballot for president and parliament would inevitably lead to the weakening of our Westminster system, our parliament and our unique political stability. Our seamless political transition at election time is one of the key reasons millions of people have come to this country. It is adventurous enough for many to have a symbolic change in the arrangement for our head of state. In my view, it would be a disaster to have a fracturing of our electoral process. It might lead to an inevitable conflict of power.I can understand why Phil Cleary would favour the break-up of the existing system. I find it extraordinary that a senior minister such as the member for Flinders should join him and others like him. Perhaps the employment minister's view is based on a theoretical commitment to ultra democracy. He has obviously not seen the classic comedy on the subject of citizen initiated referenda, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. Perhaps it is simply product differentiation from his leadership rival, the Treasurer.Just before the current convoluted Israeli election campaign, a majority of the members of the Knesset voted to throw out their current split system. Sixty-two members of the Knesset from all parties voted to re-establish the previous relatively workable parliamentary election system. Unfortunately for them, the early calling of this 21 May election means that this cannot be done until the Knesset elections after this. It would be a perilous journey if Australia listened to the sirens of simplicity and went down this populist path.226022:42:002260Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—Tonight I would like to express to the House the concern, anger and disgust felt by thousands of residents of my electorate and, indeed, of the Gold Coast area of Queensland at the recent actions of the Australian Broadcasting Authority in terminating the temporary licence of Radio Hope Island. A number of members of this House would be aware of some of the difficulties that face community radio stations in attaining a licence. They would be aware of some of the aspects of the particular bill pertaining to those licences that really should be reviewed.Radio Hope Island was granted a temporary licence some four years ago on the understanding that it would broadcast for broken periods of time until it was determined whether they were worthy to hold that licence. Four years later they are no closer to getting that answer from the Australian Broadcasting Authority.But the thing about Radio Hope Island is that they placed themselves very well in the Gold Coast market, which has the highest concentration of retirees of anywhere in Australia. That particular market is presently served by two head-banging FM stations, one innocuous ABC station, ABC Classic FM, one AM station that was originally based in the electorate of the member for Richmond— which does not quite know what its format is—and one Christian public radio station.MG4LEEMr Lee—What about Triple J?MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—Triple J goes in there—making three head-banging stations for the retirees of the Gold Coast. What has happened is that Radio Hope Island has concentrated on an audience of over 55 year-olds. Not only have they concentrated on that particular audience but they have managed to establish themselves as the foremost promoter of the Gold Coast art scene.They have met their obligations as a community station better than most other radio stations of this category to which I have ever listened. Of course, the difficulty that they have is that to maintain their broadcasting for four years on and off takes a lot of money and they are stretched financially at the moment. But let me say this: the people behind this radio station are some of the leading citizens of the Gold Coast. The chairman of the board is a judge and the general manager of the station has had an extensive career within the media industry, and they have been totally responsible.But, under the terms of the act, the Australian Broadcasting Authority had three other applications for test licences. They claim that they do not have enough frequencies to undertake these tests and therefore Radio Hope Island must come off the air. It would seem to me that, if you have got $20 and a bit of paper, you can go along to the Australian Broadcasting Authority and get yourself a test licence.Radio Hope Island came off the air on 1 February and they will be off for four months while these particular groups undertake their test broadcasts. All three of them are in fact headbanging stations, and one of them has a slightly different twist because it is denoted as a dance music station aimed specifically at a gay and lesbian audience. I have nothing against gays and lesbians but I do have some objection to the fact that this particular section of the community, and indeed the young section of the community of the Gold Coast, is over-catered for by radio stations now.Quite frankly, we do not know whether Radio Hope Island will be able to maintain its present status as a test broadcaster because of the financial implications. They have invested a great deal of money in the equipment and they have expert advice in terms of the quality of their signal. As I say, they have established a very loyal and a very large market, a market that stretches from as far south as Byron Bay to the northern suburbs of Brisbane, because this is the only radio station in this part of the world, and probably the only one in Australia, that plays this particular music format and provides the particular services aimed directly at an over-55-year-old audience.Under the act the minister has the right to intervene and direct the ABA. I sincerely hope that he does so, even though the minister has never picked up that authority before. There are frequencies available. I believe that the actions of the ABA are an absolute disgrace. I believe that the company that has been formed under their direction to run Radio Hope Island could well have been misled in the advice that they had got in the past. It is one unholy mess, and I would appeal to the minister to act, and to act now, on behalf of those thousands of loyal people over 55 who now are deprived of their radio entertainment because of the action of this particular part of the bureaucracy.226122:47:002261O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The lack of political maturity of this government was amply demonstrated by the government's action earlier on in gagging the debate on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . There were two members who were disadvantaged by the gagging of this debate: the member for Paterson, who has had a longstanding interest in the New South Wales timber industry; and me, who has some portfolio responsibility in this area. The puerile excuse given was that there were some quorums that were called in the course of the day. That was the reason for the government to gag this very important debate.The RFA Bill that we debated in this House today is a very important piece of legislation—to the workers and business persons who derive their livelihood from the forest products industry; to regional communities that are sustained by economic activity generated by this industry; for the environment movement, which has a legitimate interest in protecting conservation values in our great forests; and for the nation, which derives over a billion dollars in valuable export income from this industry.No-one in this parliament pretends that legislating in this area is an easy task. I entered the parliament in 1993 and I remember very well the enormous efforts that were put in by Labor ministers at the time to develop a policy framework that would provide policy certainty to an industry that previously did not have it, that would create a process where interested parties with differing aspirations and objectives had some chance of reaching agreement, that would provide security of employment to workers in the industry and, above all, that would provide the development of an industry strategy that would stimulate value adding investment in the forest products industry and create more jobs. The outcome of that process, the National Forest Policy Statement, set the blueprint for reconciling conflicting interests and developing the industry further.The opposition has in this debate set out amendments and we have put those amendments on the floor of the House. We have set out the markers. These markers were put in by Labor ministers when the RFA process was originally negotiated with stakeholders. They are markers that have been restated by Labor shadow ministers. They are markers that we restate now to ensure that our original objectives are met and that the integrity of the process is maintained.Firstly, the RFA process must be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Without this, there can be no community confidence in the integrity of the process. Secondly, there must be an adequate provision for this parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA. Not to provide this would be a betrayal of our commitment to achieve balance between competing interests and the objectives we set in the early 1990s for policy in this area. Thirdly, there can be no bipartisan agreement on this legislation where there is no demonstrable commitment by the government to the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy. There can be no agreement on this legislation until the government is prepared to implement a meaningful industry strategy for this particular industry. (Quorum formed)226222:54:002262Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I want to acknowledge the support of my colleagues who have joined me for this important contribution to the national debate. It was my great honour to represent this parliament in Japan for a tour hosted by the Japan Centre for International Exchange during the break, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous hospitality and generosity of that organisation. The tour brought into very clear focus for me the whole question of tax reform and the inspired leadership role that is being provided by this government which is allowing us to take a place of great esteem and leadership in the international community.I refer in particular to the great pleasure it was for me to attend a town meeting at a school in the prefecture of Tottori with my host, Mr Shigeru Ishiba, who is a member of the Diet, representing Tottori. As he addressed a group of about 200 of his compatriots, I felt a sense of deja vu and looked back to the last election. He explained to the gathered throng that Japan faced a crisis of demographics with a rapidly ageing population, a declining birthrate, increased life expectancy and the most rapidly ageing population in the world. In translation Mr Ishiba explained in Japanese to the 200 or so gathered in that school that Japan's tax system was simply groaning under the weight of these demographic changes.He said in particular that Japan's reliance on direct income tax and its neglect of building a broad based consumption tax system was going to create a fiscal crisis for Japan early in the next century, in the first decade of it. He urged on his constituents the need to move away from Japan's reliance on direct income tax towards what he recommended—a 10 per cent broad based goods and services tax. Then it was my great pleasure, at Mr Ishiba's invitation, to address the crowd and to be able to report what one nation in the Asia-Pacific region was doing to address precisely the same problems.When I had the opportunity in the following week to visit Washington DC, I spent a considerable amount of time with Congressman Steve Largent, who is a Republican from Oklahoma. Congressman Largent was one of the sponsors of a bill which, members will be interested to know, was entitled the Tax Code Termination Bill. It was introduced into the US House of Representatives last year. The logic of the bill was that the entire US tax code would be repealed a year after the next presidential election. The entire tax code would be wiped out in one bill.I asked Congressman Largent what the need was for that drastic reform and he said he wanted to turn the next presidential election into a referendum on various models of tax reform. He said there was a crying need for tax reform in the United States political system but it lacked the will and the leadership to tackle the problem, so the only way they could conceive of doing it was through this fairly drastic measure of wiping out the whole code and turning the next presidential race into a referendum on tax reform.That bill was introduced into the House of Representatives. It was passed in the House and was narrowly defeated in the Senate. It is about to be reintroduced under a different title, with slight modifications. Congressman Largent turned to me and said, `Where did you muster the resolve and the leadership totake a bold program of tax reform to the electorate in this open, transparent way? I'm not aware of any nation in the world, any government in the world, which has had the guts, the foresight, or the sort of leadership which has obviously been demonstrated down there in the Antipodes.'So can I report back to this House what a great pleasure it was for me, in a rare moment of leaving the boundaries of my electorate of Parramatta, to have an opportunity to visit our colleagues in the Pacific—in Japan and in the United States. I can report how my chest puffed out with that extra bit of pride with that sense of being able to stand in front of the political leadership of the world, of the two most powerful economies in the world, in the knowledge that here in Australia John Winston Howard was providing the kind of leadership which both Japan and the United States desperately wanted. We can stand proud on this side of the House. I urge the Senate to take up the challenge to respond to our leadership and our vision. Do something for the Australian people and support the goods and services tax.23:00:002263House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices2263The following notices were given:Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to Commonwealth financial management, and for related purposes.Mr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989, and for related purposes.Answers to Questions in Writing2264The following answers to questions were circulated:2264(Question No. 24)242264Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, 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.2264Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has been implementing workplace diversity, equal employment opportunity (EEO) and equity measures in line with Government policy and its commitments under the Public Service Act. The Public Service Act requires the department to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate a workplace diversity program, which includes aspects of the EEO and equity agendas. The department is aiming to implement a program that is fair and equitable, and values diversity and requires non-discriminatory treatment of employees.The merit principle underpins the department's policies in relation to recruitment, selection, promotion, and other employee-related processes and it aims to ensure that people are judged fairly and without bias or favouritism.The department has responsibility for Recruitment Services Australia (RSA) which administers the Indigenous Australian test for recruitment to designated positions and the Graduate Administra-tive Assistant Program for the Australian Public Service. The Indigenous Australian recruitment test is available to Indigenous Australians only. Indigenous Australians who successfully complete the test are recruited to designated positions through a merit-based selection process. This program is consistent with the Public Service Act—which allows the development of special programs to encourage the recruitment of Indigenous Australians.(2) Funding for the Indigenous Australians recruitment test is on a fee for service basis. Departments using the services of the RSA are charged a fee of $325 per placed applicant. The department is provided with a loan from the Department of Finance and Administration of approximately $870,000 to administer the centralised recruitment program, which includes the Indigenous Australian recruitment program.2264(Question No. 36)362264Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2166 (Hansard , 23 September 1997, page 8272), what are the details of the Export Market Development Grants paid in 1997-98 to companies in the (a) textile, clothing and footwear, (b) automobile, (c) music, (d) ship building, (e) book printing, (f) steel and metal fabrication, (g) pulp and paper, (h) food processing, (i) pharmaceuticals, (j) biotechnology, (k) mechanical and scientific instruments, (l) information technology, (m) building and construction, (n) environmental technology and (o) resource processing industries.2264Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question follows:$ Value of EMDG Grant paid in 1997-98Number of Recipients(a)Textile, clothing and footwear$5,211,645132(b)Automobile$1,834,66345(c)Music$323,49217(d)Ship building$8,7242(e)Book printing$617,52521 (f)Steel and metal fabrication$2,155,64752(g)Pulp and paper$341,2129(h)Food processing$7,213,473189(i)Pharmaceuticals$1,253,98030(j)Biotechnology$404,32111(k)Mechanical and Scientific instruments$14,283,571337(l)Information technology$11,254,357221(m)Building and construction$5,432,620165(n)Environmental technology$3,479,89492(o)Resource processing industries:*Base metal$1,370,20235Mining$786,89524* Austrade does not systematically categorise resource processing for EMDG purposes. However, the figures for the mining and base metal industries may cover this category and have been included above under resource processing industries.2265(Question No. 53)532265Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Did the 59th Labour Minister's Council (LMC) Meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, held on 1 May, 1998, consider the issue of protecting workers' entitlements in the event of their employer's insolvency; if so, (a) was it agreed to refer the matter to the Departments of Labour Standing Committee (DOLAC) for detailed consideration including consultation with all affected parties and the preparation of a report, (b) what is the current status of the report, (c) when will it be completed, (d) when will it be presented to the LMC, (e) is he able to say how long the LMC will deliberate on the report before making recommendations; if not, why not, and (f) will he provide an update on which individuals and groups have been consulted during the report's preparation; if not, why not.2265Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The 59th LMC on 1 May 1998 did consider the issue of protecting workers' entitlements in the event of their employer's insolvency.(a) Yes,(b) It has been completed,(c) See above,(d) It was presented on Friday, 27 November.(e) At the LMC meeting on Friday, 27 November 1998, the Ministers resolved that possible options arising under the Corporations Law, aimed at preventing corporations and directors from avoiding payment of employee entitlements, should be referred to the Ministerial Council for Corporations. It was noted that the New South Wales Minister will be forwarding additional suggestions to the Ministerial Council for Corporations. The Ministers from jurisdictions of all political persuasions agreed to further consider workplace relations policy issues arising within their own jurisdictions and report back to the next meeting, expected to be in May next year, on what actions might be pursued.(f) The Commonwealth consulted with: the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Law Council of Australia, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Commonwealth is not able to provide information on individuals or groups with whom the States and Territories consulted during the report's preparation.I note that even in the past week the ACTU has reaffirmed the fact that this issue involves joint responsibility of Commonwealth and State governments of all political persuasions. The ACTU Council resolution of 3 December 1998 provided under the heading `Job Security—A Role for State Labor Governments' that "the ACTU in conjunction with State Labor Councils should seek to pursue a common legislative approach for all labor States."2265(Question No. 69)692265Jull, David, MPMr JullMH4FaddenLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Will the Government amalgamate the Federal and Family Courts as a cost saving and streamlining of the administration of the existing system; if not, why not.2266Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government is not considering any proposal to amalgamate the Federal and Family Courts. The Government is looking at streamlined procedures for less complex matters by the establishment of a federal magistracy. This will provide a more efficient method of resolving disputes and will result in cheaper and speedier access to justice for all Australians.2266(Question No. 70)702266Jull, David, MPMr JullMH4FaddenLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Will federal magistrates appointed to the Family Court be properly selected from the ranks of experienced practitioners to quell fears expressed from some sections of the Family Court.2266Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Magistrates will be appointed to a separate independent federal magistracy not to existing federal courts. It is expected that the persons appointed as magistrates would have experience in federal matters, including some with specialist experience and expertise in family law matters.2266(Question No. 74)742266Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) How many personnel, by rank, have been (a) discharged and (b) advised they will be discharged under the Chief of Air Staff Directive on RAAF Fitness Policy to the date of answering this question.(2) How many personnel, by rank, have been (a) discharged and (b) advised they will be discharged under the Chief of the General Staff Directive on Army Individual Readiness to the date of answering this question.(3) What specific medical conditions led to the discharge of the personnel referred to in parts (1) and (2).(4) How many of the discharged personnel referred to in parts (1) and (2) (a) were members of the (i) Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (DFRDB) and (ii) Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS), (b) by class of benefit, have received invalidity benefits from the (i) DFRDB and (ii) MSBS and (c) are awaiting determination of their invalidity entitlements from the (i) DFRDB and (ii) MSBS.(5) What assistance does the ADF provide to personnel who are medically discharged to deal with the termination of their military career, relocate housing and families and, where applicable, obtain suitable civilian employment.2266Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b)—RankDischargedAdvised of DischargeAirmenAC/W115LAC/W6011CPL729SGT349FSGT92WOFF21OfficersOFFCDT12FLGOFF1-FLTLT84 SQNLDR42WGCDR2-GPCAPT1-ReserveFLTLT1-WOFF1-SGT11LAC/W2-AC/W1-(2) (a) and (b)—Other RanksDischargedAdvised of DischargeWO1-14WO2157SSGT232SGT8114CPL14206LCPL128PTE16156OfficersLTCOL-5MAJ322CAPT28LT-5(3) The specific medical conditions that led to the discharge of Air Force personnel referred to in part 1, are as follows;Asthma; Hepatitis C; Back conditions; Insulin dependant diabetes; Bowel disease; Lower limb injury; Brain clot/tumor; Motor vehicle accident injury; Complicated obesity; Multiple sclerosis; Epilepsy; Parkinson's diseaseEye disorders; Psychiatric illness; Fatigue syndrome; Skin cancer; Hearing loss; Upper limb injury;Heart conditionsDetails on specific individual medical conditions for Army personnel cannot be provided without the express approval of the individuals affected. However, in general, discharge has been directed as a result of a medical assessment which has graded one or a number of the following aspects as exhibiting markedly diminished functional capacity which severely restricts the member's capacity for combat duties:Physical stamina and general health; Functioning of upper limbs; Ability to walk, run and lift; Hearing; Combination of functioning of upper limbs, and ability to walk, run and lift; Combination of ability to walk, run and lift, and psychiatric stability; Combination of ability to walk, run and lift, and hearing; Combination of functioning of upper limbs, ability to walk, run and lift, and hearing; Combination of functioning of upper limbs, ability to walk, run and lift, and psychiatric stability.(4) (a) (i) and (ii)Air Force: Members of DFRDB—30; Members of MSBS—159.Army: Members of DFRBD—26; Members of MSBS—21. (b) (i) and (ii)Air Force:ClassDFRDBMSBSA322B1468C863Army:ClassDFRDBMSBSA2-B55C39(c) With regard to the Air Force, 19 cases are awaiting determination of invalidity entitlements; 4 of whom have recently discharged, the remaining 15 will discharge over the next few months. 10 were not entitled to benefits.The number of Army personnel awaiting determination of their invalidity entitlements from DFRDB is 16, 14 of which their records have not been received as yet and 2 waiting classification. The number awaiting determination of their invalidity entitlements from MSBS is 6, 5 of which their records have not been received as yet and 1 waiting classification.(5) Members discharging from the Australian Defence Force as Medically Unfit for Further Service are entitled to the following:Resettlement entitlements:- attendance at a resettlement seminar (3 days).- approved absence for job seeking (3 days).- training with a prospective employer for up to 20 days (may take the form of outplacement counselling, with a maximum reimbursement cost of $1721).- resume preparation with a maximum reimbursement cost of $176.Removal to discharge location of choice and travel expenses to that location for self and family.Subject to certain conditions and time limits, an allowance may be payable for costs associated with the sale of a private residence in the last long posting term locality of duty immediately before discharge.If a member has received the MSBS Retention Benefit and is discharged there is no requirement to repay the benefit. Rehabilitation after discharge is provided if the member has had a claim for compensation accepted. If so that member becomes the responsibility of the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service (MCRS).2268(Question No. 86)862268Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister assisting the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Is it a fact that a Senior Officer Grade A has been appointed to the Parliamentary Business Section of the Australian Taxation Office with effect from 14 December 1998; if so (a) was the position advertised; if so, where, (b) what were the selection criteria and where are they recorded and (c) who determined the salary and conditions of appointment.2268Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable minister's question:The answer to the above question is `No'.2268(Question No. 136)1362268McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Did the Minister's Department or an agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility, or their predecessors, let or make contracts, grants or secondments between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1998 to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia; if so, in each case, what are the details, including (a) the Department or agency involved and (b) the (i) purpose, (ii) date of approval and (iii) value or cost of the contract, grant or secondment.2269Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question follows:There were no Export Market Development Grants or secondments between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1998 to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia. There were two contracts made between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1998:Contract 1(a) Austrade(b) (i) Delivery of the Export Access Program in Western Australia(ii) Contract signed between Austrade and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia on 14/12/1995(iii) $392,000 p/aContract 2(1) Austrade(b) (i) Delivery of the Export Access Program in Western Australia(ii) Contract signed between Austrade and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia on 17/12/1996(iii) $300,000 p/a2269(Question No. 137)1372269McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Did the Minister's Department or an agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility, or their predecessors, let or make contracts, grants or secondments between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1998 to the Chamber of Commerce and IndustryWestern Australia; if so, in each case, what are the details, including (a) the Department or agency involved and (b) the (i) purpose , (ii) date of approval and (iii) value or cost of the contract, grant or secondment.2269Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was created on 21 October 1998. The response to be provided by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon Dr David Kemp MP, will cover any contracts, grants or secondments to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Western Australia relating to all functions of the former Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio.2269(Question No. 139)1392269McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources,upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Did the Minister's Department or an agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility, or their predecessors, let or make contracts, grants or secondments between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1998 to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia; if so, in each case, what are the details, including (a) the Department or agency involved and (b) the (i) purpose, (ii) date of approval and (iii) value or cost of the contract, grant or secondment.2269Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Yes(a) Department or AgencyDepartment of Industry, Science and Tourism (AusIndustry)(b) (i) PurposeHost organisation retainer fee for contract to facilitate the formation of business networks under the Business Networks Program.(ii) Date of Approval12 September 1997(iii) Value or Cost$20 000(a) Department or AgencyDepartment of Industry, Science and Tourism (AusIndustry)(b) (i) PurposeBusiness Networks Program—Feasibility studyStage 1—Travel, Business PlanStage 2—Implementation of Business Plan(ii) Date of Approval11 June 1998(iii) Value or Cost$10 0002270(Question No. 142)1422270McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Who are the members of the Productivity Commission inquiring into gambling.(2) What are their qualifications and from which State does each come.(3) What are the terms of reference of the inquiry.(4) How far has the inquiry advanced.(5) Will the inquiry conduct public hearings.(6)When is the final report expected to be presented.2270Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The inquiry is being undertaken by Gary Banks, Chairman of the Commission, and Robert Fitzgerald, Associate Commissioner. The Commissioners are supported by a team of researchers who are Commonwealth public servants from the Productivity Commission.(2) Gary Banks holds degrees in economics from Monash University and the Australian National University. He has worked with the World Bank, OECD and GATT Secretariat, and was Visiting Fellow at the Trade Policy Research Centre in London. Before being appointed Chairman of the Productivity Commission, he was Executive Commissioner of the Industry Commission, and presided over many inquiries on a variety of public policy matters. He was recently a member of the Commonwealth's Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy (`the West Review').Mr Banks lives in Canberra, but divides his working time between the Commission's Canberra and Melbourne offices.Robert Fitzgerald has law and commerce degrees from the University of New South Wales. He was President of the Australian Council of Social Services from 1993 to 1997. He has held senior honorary positions with Australian Catholic Relief, Job Futures and the St Vincent de Paul Society (New South Wales). He also practices as a commercial lawyer.Mr Fitzgerald lives in Sydney.(3) The terms of reference are as follows: I, Peter Costello, Treasurer, under Parts 2 and 3 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, hereby refer Australia's gambling industries for inquiry and the provision of an information report within twelve months of receiving this reference. The Commission is to hold hearings for the purpose of the inquiry. Background(2) There is a need for a better understanding of the performance of the gambling industries and their economic and social impacts across Australia, including their impact on the retail, tourism and entertainment industries and on Commonwealth and State/Territory Budgets. Little is known about the social impacts of the rapid growth in gambling.Scope of Inquiry(3) In particular, the Commission should examine and report on:(a) the nature and definition of gambling and the range of activities incorporated within this definition;(b) the participation profile of gambling;(c) the economic impacts of the gambling industries, including industry size, growth, employment, organisation and interrelationships with other industries such as tourism, leisure, other entertainment and retailing;(d) the social impacts of the gambling industries, the incidence of gambling abuse, the cost and nature of welfare support services of government and non-government organisations necessary to address it, the redistributional effects of gambling and the effects of gambling on community development and the provision of other services;(e) the effects of the regulatory structures—including licensing arrangements, entry and advertising restrictions, application of the mutuality principle and differing taxation arrangements—governing the gambling industries, including the implications of differing approaches for industry development and consumers;(f) the implications of new technologies (such as the Internet), including the effect on traditional government controls on the gambling industries;(g) the impact of gambling on Commonwealth, State and Territory Budgets; and(h) the adequacy of ABS statistics involving gambling.4. The Commission should take account of any recent relevant studies undertaken or underway and have regard to the economic, social, and regional development objectives of governments.(4) The inquiry has been underway since 26 August 1998. Meetings have been held with over 50 organisations, and roundtable discussions have been held in Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne, Goulburn and Port Augusta. Planning for a national survey of gambling and for other surveys is well advanced, and arrangements for undertaking modelling work are being put in place. A draft report is expected to be released in April 1999.Early in the inquiry, the Commission invited written public submissions, and by 22 December had received over 150, with more expected. Over 60 submissions were made at public hearings.(5) Yes. First round public hearings were held in November and December in Perth, Brisbane, Darwin, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Hobart. The hearings attracted considerable media attention and public interest.After the release of a draft report, another round of public hearings will be held to allow any interested people or organisations the opportunity to discuss the draft report with the Commissioners. Those hearings are likely to be held in June 1999.(6) The final report is expected to be completed by 26 August 1999. The date of public release is a matter for the Government.2271(Question No. 171)1712271McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of producing (a) A guide to employers' rights in relation to industrial action, freedom of association and right of entry and (b) the Guide for the building and construction industry.(2) Has the Government published booklets regarding employee entitlements; if so, (a) what booklets and (b) at what cost in each case.2271Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) $28 500 for 100 000 copies(b) $46 300 for 100 000 copies(2) Yes. A number of publications produced since 1996 cover employee entitlements.(a) A series of information materials have been produced since November 1996. Relevant documents are a leaflet on key features of the Workplace Relations Act, a legislative guide and fact sheets and user guides on various aspects of the Act. These materials include information on employee entitlements.The Office of Employment Advocate (OEA) has published an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) package. This includes an Information Statement for Employees for the reference of employees making AWAs. The Workplace Relations Act requires the Employment Advocate to prepare an information statement for employers to give to each employee offered an AWA.The OEA has also produced a leaflet on freedom of association for employees, along with a separate leaflet aimed at employers and industrial associations. A series of four leaflets on Women and Workplace Agreements have also been produced. These are: 1. What are workplace agreements?, 2. Understanding productivity and flexibility, 3. Consultation and 4. Discrimination.A series of leaflets and a handbook were produced for the Outworker Information Campaign. The leaflets are: 1. How to make your job better: a guide for outworkers in the clothing industry, 2. Contractors (makers) in the clothing industry: information about outworkers and 3. Occupational health and safety: outworkers in the clothing industry. A handbook Manufacturers in the clothing industry: a guide to your rights and responsibilities was also produced.(b) Production of the series of information materials produced since November 1996, including reprints, cost $64,000.Production of the original Information Statement for Employees and six reprints (180,000 copies in total) cost $50,578.Production of a revised Information Statement for Employees during 1998-99 (80,000 copies) cost $55,912.The revised Information Statement for Employees was also produced as an audio tape at a cost of $2,852 (500 copies). This has made this information more readily available to the print handicapped.The revised Information Statement for Employees has also been translated into Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic and Turkish at a cost of $15,479.Production (including one reprint) of the leaflet on freedom of association for employees (50,000 copies in total), along with the leaflet aimed at employers and industrial associations (30,000 copies in total), cost $7,807.The freedom of association leaflet for employees was also produced as a poster at a cost of $922 (500 copies).Production of all the Women and Workplace Agreements leaflets cost $8,600.The cost of producing 39,000 copies of the outworker information publications, including translation into six languages, was $41,626.These information materials are also available on the department's homepage athttp://www.dewrsb.gov.au.Information materials produced by the OEA are available on the OEA's website athttp://www.oea.gov.au.The translations are available on request. 2272(Question No. 206)2062272Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) Has his Department been made aware of an order by the Family Court on 28 October 1997, in the matter of ML6410 of 1989, that forthwith each party was to sign all documents and do such things as may be necessary, including the provision of certified photographs and a birth certificate, to obtain a passport and a visa for a child and until further order the passport was to be held by the child's father; if so, (a) when and by whom was his Department made aware of the order and (b) did it comply with the order; if not, why not.(2) Did Justice Fogarty determine on 12 December 1997 that his Department had failed to comply with the terms of the order.(3) Was the passport delivered to the child's father; if so, when.(4) After 28 October 1997, did an officer of his Department refuse to deliver the passport to the child's father; if so, why.2272Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, my Department was made aware of the Court Order on 4 December 1997 when the child's maternal grandparents submitted the passport application.The Court Order mentioned the child's father would collect the child in Australia on or about 19 December 1997. The father resides in the United Kingdom. The Family Court ordered by consent that an order dated 1 August 1989, giving sole custody of the child to the mother, be discharged as and from 19 December 1997. In view of this order, the father's anticipated arrival in Australia on or around 19 December 1997 and the mother's undertaking to hand the passport to the father at that time, my Department acted in good faith and handed the passport to the mother after issue. The passport was delivered to the father after his arrival.(2) My Department was advised by the child's father, in a letter dated 17 May 1998, that the Court had determined on 12 December 1997 that the Order had been breached. My Department does not hold a copy of the Court's determination.(3) My Department understands the child's mother on or before 19 December 1997 delivered the passport to the child's father. Delivery was made through the respective solicitors of each party.(4) My Department did not refuse to deliver the passport to the child's father, it was simply not in a position to do so as the mother held the passport at the time the father visited the Melbourne Passport Office on 11 December 1997.2272(Question No. 241)2412272Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) How many (a) permanent and (b) contract positions are to be filled in the 1998-99 Centrelink IT graduate intake.(2) Will all (a) permanent and (b) contract positions referred to in part (1) be located in (i) Canberra and (ii) the National Support Office in Tuggeranong, ACT.(3) Will normal Australian Public Service conditions apply to the contract positions; if not, what conditions will apply.(4) What will be the duration of the contract positions.2272Truss, 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) Centrelink is seeking to fill 50 IT Graduate positions. No distinction has been made as to how many of the positions are to be permanent or contract. This is being done to attract the best possible field of applicants.(2) All Centrelink IT graduate positions (permanent and contract) that are to be filled in the 1998—1999 intake are located in the ACT, specifically the National Support Office, with staff based at Tuggeranong and Woden.(3) Normal Government contract terms and conditions will apply to those IT graduates who decide to take a contract with Centrelink. Australian Public Service conditions will only apply to those taking up permanent positions.(4) The duration of the contract positions offered in the 1998-1999 intake will be for 12 months.2272(Question No. 253)2532272Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:What financial contribution has the Western Australian police service made to the National Crime Authority in each financial year since 1992-93. 2273Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs' answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The National Crime Authority received $15,000 in 1994-95 from the Western Australia Police Service. No other funds have been received in the financial years since 1992-93.The $15,000 received in 1994-95 constitute cost recovery in respect of WA Reference No 1.Funds were also received by the NCA from the Western Australia Police Service during 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 for its share of the costs of the Standing Committee on Organised Crime and Criminal Intelligence (SCOCCI) Secretariat. However, these are not contributions to the NCA itself.2273(Question No. 269)2692273McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998(1) What Commonwealth funding was provided in each financial year since 2 March 1996 directly to projects or programs for which he has portfolio responsibility operating in the electoral divisions of (a) Barton, (b) Watson, (c) Banks, (d) Hughes and (e) Cook which are aimed at (i) combating or (ii) preventing all facets of the illicit drug trade.(2) With respect to each project or program referred to in part ( 1 ), (a) what is its name, (b) who operates it, (c) what are its aims and objectives, (d) what funding has it received and (e) in what year did Commonwealth funding commence.2273Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No funding for specific projects has been provided in those electorates.The Commonwealth's law enforcement strategy in relation to illicit drugs has a national focus. Agency resources are aimed primarily at targeting major drug-related crime and preventing the importation and trafficking in illicit drugs.(2) Not applicable. See response to part 1.2274(Question No. 293)2932274McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:Did the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission present the Attorney General in July 1998 with a report recommending the enactment of a Federal Religious Freedom Act; if so, what is the timetable for the (a) consideration and (b) implementation of the recommendation.2274Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission presented me with a report recommending the enactment of a Federal Religious Freedom Act on 31 July 1998. In accordance with statutory requirements, I tabled the report on 11 November 1998.The Government has determined not to implement the recommendation that the Commonwealth Parliament should enact a Religious Freedom Act.2274(Question No. 333)3332274McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) Is he responsible for approving the granting of financial assistance in respect of proceedings under the Workplace Relations Act 1996.(2) Since 2 March 1996, has he approved financial assistance to a person, association, organisation or corporation in respect of proceedings under the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, (a) how many grants have been approved and (b) in each case, (i) what sections of the Act relate to the proceedings for which the assistance was approved, (ii) what sum was or will be paid and (iii) was an industrial organisation of employees a party to the proceedings; if so, which organisation.2274Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The Attorney-General administers Division 1 of Part XII of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which concerns financial assistance in respect of proceedings under the Act.(2) No.