1999-02-103912REPS228301999-02-10Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills2283r7262283Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.228309:32:002283Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Commonwealth's financial legislation to facilitate the introduction of a full accrual financial framework from 1 July 1999. Under an accrual financial framework the government will budget, manage and report on all of the Commonwealth's revenues and expenses, including those that have accrued, its assets and liabilities and its cash flows. This contrasts with the present framework, where the accounting focus has been on cash transactions and cash balances with minimal emphasis on the transparency of other resource transactions and their underlying assets and liabilities.At a macro level, accrual information will make more transparent whether, over time, the Commonwealth is operating at a sustainable level, how its financial position is changing and how it is financing its operations. Greater transparency of government financial operations has been an important and continuing commitment of this government. We have already put in place legislation dealing with budget honesty. The accrual framework builds on this initiative and ensures that government operations will at least match those of private sector entities operating under the Corporations Law. The move to an accrual framework was strongly supported by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its reports Nos 338 and 341 of August and November 1995 respectively, and the National Commission of Audit in its report of June 1996. As the National Commission of Audit stated, a full accrual accounting framework is an essential complement to the structural and cultural change the government is seeking by way of a more competitive, efficient and effective public sector. It is also essential if the accountability requirements of the parliament and the taxpayer, and the government's commitment to a charter of budget honesty, are to be met.In the lead-up to the 1999-2000 financial year, the government's May budget will, for the first time, be presented on the basis of accrual principles. The budget and forward estimates will therefore show the full effects of the Commonwealth's revenues and expenses, as well as changes in its assets and liabilities and how they were financed. At the same time, coverage of the budget will be extended to the general government sector. That is, full details will be included for budget funded Commonwealth authorities as well as for government departments.The appropriation bills will also reflect accrual principles and will be structured to show how key budget appropriations are intended to contribute to `outcomes' sought by the government. Ministers' portfolio budget statements will show the full cost of the `outputs'—goods and services—needed to achieve those outcomes, providing a clear read across the budget documents.In order to show performance against the budget estimates, the government's monthly financial statements will be prepared on an accrual basis, consistent with the budget documents. Transitional arrangements are provided in the bill for the accrual based monthly statements to be phased in from 1 July 1999, starting with quarterly statements, then moving to monthly as soon as systems are fine-tuned.Coupled with these reforms, it is intended to devolve central accounting and banking arrangements to agencies. This is to encourage better cash management by agencies while still enabling central coordination of cash and consolidation of financial data. In future, agencies will have their own bank accounts and will process and account for all receipts and payments in their own financial systems rather than a central system.Under the new arrangements, the government and its agencies will have a more complete picture of their performance and finances for decision making and accountability. Overall, the reforms will bring public sector resource management into line with the best of private sector business practice.I will now turn to the principal amendments in the bill, which are aimed at facilitating the reforms I have outlined. The primary change made by the act is to repeal the provisions dealing with `fund accounting' while retaining the essential feature of the funds—the ability to hypothecate money for specified purposes—through provisions to establish `special accounts' within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or CRF.Fund accounting was introduced by the Audit Act 1901 and is based on the notion that financial management and accountability can be supported by a simple system that requires the setting aside of separate pools of money designated for particular purposes. However, such accounting has been overtaken by more sophisticated financial management systems suited to the complexities of a modern businesslike environment.The modern systems, which are being implemented by agencies, are not designed to perform fund accounting, and its continuation would therefore require dual accounting systems to be kept. Clearly this would serve no useful purpose and be wasteful of resources. Further, the complexity of such an arrangement would frustrate the efficient and effective operation of the accrual framework that will operate from 1 July 1999.The current amendments will have the effect of merging the Loan Fund, Reserved Money Fund and Commercial Activities Fund with the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This will eliminate the need to maintain a multiple fund accounting system, including the inefficient legal requirement of daily transferring of moneys back and forth among the funds to keep them in positive balance. The current requirement does not assist financial management. The effect will be to give the CRF the central role envisaged by the founders of the constitution rather than the diluted role that has emerged with the creation of additional funds outside the CRF.The amendments will also remove present unnecessary requirements for debiting and crediting various transactions to the CRF. The fund is `self-executing' under the constitution. That is, moneys paid to the Commonwealth form part of the CRF whether or not the Commonwealth has credited those moneys to a fund which is designated as the CRF. The finance minister will be required to cause proper accounts and records to be kept in relation to the receipt and expenditure of public money.One of the consequences of the repeal of the Reserved Money Fund is to remove the need for the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Act 1955. The bill repeals the LCIR Act and provides the Treasurer with more appropriate powers for the purpose of managing the public debt of the Commonwealth.The repeal of the Reserved Money Fund also had to be tested against the new accrual appropriation regime which will require carryover of appropriations for unspent accrued costs. These appropriations will cover the full price of goods and services produced by agencies as well as the full cost of subsidies, benefits and grants—including accrued costs. Since some accrued costs may not need to be paid until future years—for example, long service leave payments and payments for the replacement of assets from depreciation provisions—appropriations will need to remain valid, without lapsing, until all such costs are fully met over time.The Solicitor-General has advised that the new accrual appropriation arrangements can operate exclusively within the CRF and do not require moneys for accrued costs to be paid into another fund to avoid lapsing. The appropriation bills will be amended to reflect these arrangements.In outlining the accrual framework that will operate from 1 July 1999, I mentioned that, in order to show performance against the budget estimates, the government's monthly financial statement will be prepared on an accrual basis. The bill will therefore repeal the present requirement for monthly reporting of the cash transactions of the funds. This will be replaced with one that will require the preparation of accrual financial statements.The bill will globally change the effect of references in other acts to the repealed Loan Fund, Reserved Money Fund and Commercial Activities Fund to mean the Consolidated Revenue Fund. References to the old funds will still appear in those acts for the time being. However, in consultation with ministers, I propose, in due course, to introduce a consequential amendments bill that will ensure that terminology in other acts is consistent with the amended FMA Act.This proposed law will be a catalyst for change to sharpen and strengthen the framework of Commonwealth financial administration. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills2285r7232285Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.228509:42:002285Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989 to implement key elements of the government's arrangements for the Australian shipbuilding industry by extending the shipbuilding bounty at the rate of three per cent until 31 December 2000; introduction of a three-year phase-out period for the production bounty; and establishment of an industry specific bounty scheme for eligible research and development expenditure, to be called the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme, SIS, which will come into effect on 1 July 1999.In doing so, the bill gives effect to the framework of assistance for the shipbuilding industry announced on 8 September 1998 and 16 December 1998.Under the terms of the present legislation, prescribed shipbuilding activities are eligible for bounty payments at the rate of five per cent until 30 June 1999. These arrangements were introduced in 1997, pending a review of the industry. This was in response to concerns that the termination of the production bounty could erode the competitive position of Australian shipbuilders while their main overseas competitors continued to be heavily subsidised.In January 1998, the government established the Shipbuilding Review Panel to undertake an independent review of the industry. The aim of the review was to examine the long-term strategic direction of the industry. It also assessed the assistance arrangements of competing nations and progress in implementing the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement.During consultations leading up to the establishment of the review, the Australian shipbuilding industry publicly acknowledged that the bounty should terminate when an effective OECD Shipbuilding Agreement came into effect. Such an agreement would remove measures and eliminate practices which distort competition in the international market for commercial shipbuilding and ship repair. The Shipbuilding Review Panel reported in June 1998. The legislative amendments introduced today respond to the recommendations of the review.The bill gives effect to the extension of the bounty for registered shipbuilders at the rate of 3 per cent of eligible costs from 1 July 1999 until 31 December 2000. The bill also introduces phase-out provisions which will operate over the period January 2001 to 31 December 2003. The present phase-out provisions will be extinguished, with effect from 1 January 1998.The bill contains transitional provisions to allow shipbuilders to be registered and claim a benefit within 30 days of the bill receiving the Royal Assent. This will cover the period from 1 January 1998 to June 1999.The phase-out arrangements for the new bounty will cover the eligible construction costs for a bountiable vessel that is contracted for sale before 31 December 2000 and delivered on or by 31 December 2003. Australian shipbuilders will then enjoy phase-out arrangements which are comparable with those being adopted in the European Union. This should minimise the risk of distortions unfairly impeding Australian shipbuilders' ability to compete in global markets.The bill provides for the establishment of an industry specific bounty scheme for eligible research and development. This scheme will be called the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme. The Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme will entitle shipbuilders registered under the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989 to the payment of a benefit at the rate of 50 per cent of expenditure in eligible R&D activities, up to an amount equal to two per cent of eligible production costs of a bountiable vessel.The bill contains provisions to prevent firms which elect to claim benefits, where they have received a benefit under other Commonwealth innovation support schemes, from also receiving a benefit under the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme for the same eligible activity. There are also provisions to limit the amount of offshore R&D expenditure eligible for benefits under the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme to not more than 20 per cent of the eligible R&D expenditure undertaken in Australia.These measures continue to provide transitional support for Australia's lightweight shipbuilding industry which has been a successful competitor in global markets. They are designed to sustain the industry through a period of uncertainty pending the introduction of effective measures to eliminate subsidies and other market distorting practices in the international marketplace. The new emphasis on innovation will help underpin the long-term competitiveness of the Australian industry. The package will provide certainty for the shipbuilding industry and secure investment. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills2286r6522286Debate resumed from 9 February, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.09:48:002286Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—If ever there was a piece of legislation that should not be before the parliament it is this Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 that we are now debating. There is already in place in the existing legislation a continuation of youth wages through until the middle of next year. An Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into this issue is under way as we speak. The inconsistency in the approach of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to this matter is something I will return to shortly.Given that background, it is important to understand the context in which this debate is being held today and to understand a little of the history of our wage fixing system, and in particular the way in which junior rates of pay have come to be included in our system of wage determination. The basis of the Industrial Relations Commission's wage determination goes back to the Harvester judgment in 1907, which determined for the first time the minimum level of income that was needed for ordinary Australian people of the day to survive. The test applied at the time was the amount of money required for a male adult to support—as it was then commonly termed—the wife and three children. That was seen as the minimum wage that was required. That formula was adopted and largely followed for most of this century.As part of that determination it followed that if you were not in that situation—if you were not of an age where you might be supporting a wife and three children—you would receive a junior rate of pay. That junior rate of pay has flowed through since 1907, effectively from that decision. The decision was very much influenced by the thinking of the day and a view on what was then required to support the then typical family unit. That has been entrenched in many awards and agreements since that time. To this date, people under 18 or under 21 are variously identified as juniors.This raises an interesting point: what constitutes a junior? In the course of this debate the minister might like to define for us the intent of his act in relation to whether it is intended to identify an 18-year-old person as an adult entitled to a full adult wage or whether he wishes the age to remain at 21 years.The present situation is that the junior rates of pay are covered in existing legislation through until 22 June 2000. The 1996 act, which this government introduced and which the minister proclaimed as a great advance and one which he was very happy with, provided that junior rates of pay would continue and that there would be an inquiry conducted by the full bench. At the time you might recall that the coalition and the Democrats agreed to a statement to support that 1996 legislation. In part, they referred to junior rates in these terms:. . . junior wage rates will be exempted from the anti age discrimination requirements of the act for a further three years from 22 June 1997.Section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 then established that the full bench of the commission would conduct an inquiry into the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives. That is a comprehensive inquiry which is undertaking its work as this parliament is discussing this bill.That raises the question as to why this bill is here at all. The simple fact is that this bill has been placed before us in an act by this minister and this government to intimidate the commission and those people appearing before it. It is an effort by this government to very publicly strongarm the operation of that inquiry and to effectively say to the inquiry and to all who appear before it, `Frankly, we don't care what goes on in the commission's investigation, we don't care what evidence is put before it, because we intend, if we have the numbers, to railroad through a change in the legislation that will make absolutely redundant the inquiry that is presently being conducted by the commission.'It is worth noting that this inquiry by the commission is not something it is conducting of its own motion. It did not ask to do this. The industrial commission is conducting this inquiry for one reason and one reason alone: this minister and this government voted for a piece of legislation that as a matter of law required the commission to do it. This government requires the commission to conduct an inquiry and, literally weeks into the inquiry, then does its best to steamroll it out of the way. That is the basic situation that we are presented with in this parliament. It is totally improper for us to be in this position and it is wrong that the commission and those appearing before it should be subjected to the sort of intimidation that this minister and this government have sought to bring to bear upon them.The inquiry is intended to be a very comprehensive one. The government has required that the inquiry look at whether it is in fact desirable to replace junior rates of pay with a non-discriminatory alternative, to look at the consequences for youth employment if junior rates of pay were to be abolished, and to look at the usefulness of junior rates of pay for different types of employment or in different industries and in the school-to-work transition. The act requires that the commission conduct its inquiry and report back to the minister by 22 June 1999. That means that the government, and soon after that the parliament, will have available the findings of the commission, along with the evidence that has been put before it, one year before the existing legislation would see an end to junior rates of pay.If the government was fair dinkum about this issue and wanted to conduct its affairs with some propriety, it would wait until after 22 June, it would allow the parliament and the public to consider the evidence before the commission's inquiry and to consider the findings of the AIRC, and if it then wanted to pursue the bill it would introduce whatever bill it chose to after 22 June—a full year before it has to worry about the current provisions running out. There is absolutely no doubt that the motivation behind this tactic is one of intimidation upon those people who are involved in the inquiry. In spite of the efforts of the government to intimidate the inquiry and those appearing before it, it has in fact attracted a lot of very good, high quality submissions.It also produced, just before Christmas, on 22 December last year, a comprehensive issues paper so that people wishing to participate in this debate can have some framework to follow. That issues paper is about 111 pages long. It is not a small document; it is a comprehensive analysis of the issues that should be considered. These are issues, I might say, that I doubt will be considered by those opposite in the debate in this parliament. They certainly have not been considered by the government, because they introduced the bill before the issues paper was out. So, even before the issues paper was presented for consideration, this government and this minister decide they want to steamroll the matter through. I invite the members of the government who are going to speak to talk about the issues paper, the 111 pages that are there, and discuss some of the items in it. I doubt very much whether any of the members of the government even know that the issues paper exists, much less have bothered to go through it.It is important to get some idea of where we are at in this debate on junior rates of pay. At the moment there are a mixture of awards, agreements and heads of power dealing with conditions of employment that cover the full range. For example, there are awards and agreements that make no reference to age restrictions and yet employ people who would be defined as juniors, that is, under 21 or under 18. Examples are the plumbing industry awards in Queensland and Western Australia and the Ford Motor Company vehicle industry consolidated award. There are awards where adult age is identified as 18 and there are awards that identify adult age as between 18 and 21. Of course, there are those awards that include junior rates of pay as a standard feature.The people of Australia could rightly ask, `Why won't Peter Reith wait? What is it that forces him to pursue this matter?' The Democrats, not surprisingly, are pretty distressed about this, and the public comments that have been made by their spokespeople identify that. So they should be. They actually had an agreement with this government, signed by the minister for workplace relations, in which he gave a commitment to this inquiry and gave a commitment to the process I have just described. He has now reneged on that. He has now doublecrossed the Democrats. But why should they be any different? He has a practice of doing that to a whole lot of other people in the community, and I do not see why the Democrats should be spared a doublecross by Peter Reith. Everyone else has to cop it. The simple fact of life is that this minister and this government have gone back on their word and have reneged on the undertakings they made with the Democrats.It is interesting to reflect on what the minister said at the time he made the agreement with the Democrats. Speaking in the press conference at Parliament House at the time, he said:We are pleased to have a written agreement with the Democrats on this matter.He said he was pleased that the legislation would pass the Senate and acknowledged that he had always anticipated changes. As reported in the Canberra Times of 28 October 1996, he said:In some respects the legislation has been made more effective.He also said on the previous day:We wanted to ensure it was a fair deal in the end.So the minister painted the decision in 1996 in his agreement with the Democrats as a fair and reasonable outcome, one which in some respects he said actually improved on the government's bill. Yet here in a key aspect of it he decides to doublecross the Democrats, to doublecross the undertakings he has given to the Australian people and the statements he made in this parliament, and now to try and railroad through a piece of legislation to make redundant the inquiry which he in fact voted to establish. I thought it was interesting to note that as a result of all of that Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja was reported as saying on 18 November last year, after this bill was introduced, that there will be no more deals between her party and industrial relations minister Peter Reith. He may well find his activities are very counterproductive.Let me turn now to what this bill proposes to do. Most people understand that it proposes to remove the sunset clause that presently exists until 22 June 2000. That will mean that awards and provisions for junior rates of pay will be allowed to continue ad infinitum, without restriction. Most people understand that that is what it is about. What a lot do not understand is that there is a far more insidious aspect to this bill.In typical Peter Reith style of Balaclava led industrial relations, he decided to go one bridge too far and send in the savage dogs again. What he has decided to do is include in the bill a requirement that the Industrial Relations Commission not just maintain junior rates of pay clauses in awards that exist at the moment but also that it must—not may—insert into every single industrial award and agreement in this country a junior rates of pay clause, even if it is not there, even if it has never been there. He will legislate to require that a junior rates of pay provision be inserted into all of those awards if it is possible for a person who is a junior to do that work. That does not mean if they are currently doing it, just that if one day someone under 21 is employed to do that work, then this bill will require the commission to place in that award an obligation that there be junior rates of pay. That has some very serious consequences.Junior rates of pay vary from award to award, but typically you can classify them in this way: full wage at age 21; 90 per cent of salary at age 20; 80 per cent of salary at age 19; 70 per cent of salary at age 18; 60 per cent of salary at age 17; and 50 per cent of salary at age 16. Obviously that is not universally applied; some awards provide full adult wage at age 18, and some do not have junior rates of pay whatsoever. But typically where 21 years of age applies for the adult rate of pay you will find that sort of formula commonly applied. What does that mean when you translate the effect of this piece of legislation? Government members had better understand this, because they will be bound by their party discipline to vote for it.For example, take people who work in distribution centres for the retail industry, covered by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Award. At present that award contains no junior rates of pay. A 19-year-old person working in that distribution centre will be paid according to their work value, according to their skill. At present under that award an 18-year-old person starts out being paid $412.60 per week. If the standard junior rates formula were to apply to them, they would find that their new salary would be $288.80. That is a wages cut of $123.80 per week.The commission will have no choice in this matter. The legislation which this government has before the parliament will require the commission to insert a junior rates scale into that award. Who wants to kid themselves into believing that there will not be employers out there who will not then pay the junior rate? That is what the award says is the legal minimum. There may be those in the government who want to argue, `They can put it in the award, but the employers will not use it. Even though the law says they do not have to, the employers will gladly pay another $120 per week for those 18-year-olds.' Anyone who argues that is kidding themselves. I invite the members of the government who want to propose that line of defence to please use it.There is not a soul out there in the work force who actually has had to confront this on a daily basis, who is 18 years of age and has gone to a job and been told when they walked in the door, `You work here for three or four days and after that we will decide how much you get paid. But for the first three or four days there is no pay while we have a look at you.' There is not a soul out there who has been employed as an 18- or 19-year-old student and has not found themselves in the position where they are being paid below minimum legal rates. That is the standard practice. If you do not believe that, go and spend an hour at a university and talk to any students who walk past. They will tell you that. My own children have encountered that. That is the standard situation that unemployed 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds face when they go out into the work force today, made worse by your industrial relations legislation.Let me give some other examples. I cited the situation that would apply to an 18-year-old worker in a distribution centre. If you happen to be 20 years of age and you have been working in that distribution centre for a couple of years, you would currently be paid $433.40. Under the junior rates of pay scale, you would get $390, a cut of $43 a week. That is going to be the effect of this piece of legislation.I cite another example which also demonstrates the point. Under the Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award, there are no junior rates of pay. An 18-year-old in that environment would be earning $434.60. Under the junior rates of pay, their pay would be reduced to $296.83, a cut of $137 per week. We are talking here about massive cuts. We are talking here about a piece of legislation that gives the commission not one shred of discretion. It will require the commission to insert those junior rates of pay into awards.There is an interesting double standard which this minister wants to apply in this debate. I am reminded of the minister's view about paid rates awards. The minister very warmly welcomed the decision of the commission to remove paid rates awards. So public servants, teachers, police, nurses—although at the end of the day the nurses were saved the heavy brunt of the decision, no thanks to this government—now get paid according to what is referred to as a paid rates award and there are typically annual increments in those award structures, usually with some assessment of performance.The minister welcomed the decision that they could no longer be paid like that; those people had to be paid only according to their skill and increasing productivity, the value of the work they were doing. The only people in our society that the minister thinks should not be paid according to their skill are people under 21. With this government, the only thing that matters if you are under 21 is your date of birth, and that decides how much you should get paid. That is a disgrace.I mentioned that there is a commission inquiry being conducted at the moment. In typical fashion, the minister wants to have it both ways, so he comes in here endeavouring to intimidate them, steamroll them, and push them out of the way with a piece of legislation. But only last week his department wrote to the commission setting out their views on what they think the commission should do. There is an interesting line in the letter which the department wrote to the inquiry on 1 February this year. They said:The fact is that it is the translation to practical models which has consistently stalled the efforts of industrial parties to develop a feasible, non-discriminatory alternative for over a decade.I just want to repeat the last few words:. . . to develop a feasible, non-discriminatory alternative for over a decade.This government's own submission acknowledges that the current system is discriminatory. They do not dispute the fact that there is an unfair discriminatory system—that is, you can be 18 and get paid 20 per cent or 30 per cent less than someone who is 21 and do exactly the same job with the same responsibilities. That is unfair discrimination, and that much is not disputed. But the government would have us believe that in 1999 we do not as a nation possess the intellect and the wit to produce an alternative system that fairly compensates someone who is 18, 19, 20 or 21. We cannot work that out. Mind you, the minister gladly embraces the view that we can work it out for every teacher, policeman, public servant, fireman and ambulance officer in the land. It is very easy to do it for those people, but if you happen to be a 20-year-old storeman working for Woolworths in a distributive centre somewhere in Australia it cannot be done. So he actually wants to reduce the pay of the young person who is currently being paid according to their performance and require the commission to insert a new clause that would have that effect. This is a very duplicitous approach that this minister and this government have adopted.It is important to appreciate just how many people are covered by junior rates of pay at the moment and how many are covered by awards and agreements in which there is no provision for junior rates of pay. According to the commission's issues paper, some 56 per cent of all people in the work force aged under 21 are currently employed on a junior rate of pay. The question that the other half have to answer, the question that the 44 per cent of Australians under 21 have to ask themselves is: how many of those are going to be able to remain on a full rate of pay, and how many of that 44 per cent of young Australians are going to be forced to accept junior rates of pay?The inquiry has actually had a look at some 196 awards. Of those 196 awards, 118 contain junior rates of pay, 78 did not. The great bulk of those 78 awards will be forced by this piece of legislation to insert new lower junior rates of pay. Of the 274 enterprise agreements that have been considered by this inquiry, 43 per cent contained junior rates—that is, most do not. Most of the enterprise agreements considered by the AIRC inquiry actually have no junior rates of pay clause. This bill will force the commission to include a junior rates of pay clause in those enterprise agreements.We all recall that they were commitments that this government gave prior to various elections—1996 and the last one. I guess the most memorable of them, though, was the commitment that was given by the Prime Minister himself when he said:Under those circumstances will a Howard government create a wager system which causes the wages of Australian workers to be cut.Under a Howard government you cannot be worse off but you can be better off. I give you this rock solid guarantee. Our policy will not cut your take-home pay.So said the Prime Minister to the Young Liberals Conference in January of 1996. He did not tell them the truth, because 44 per cent of young people—and this is the Young Liberals Conference, I might add, that he was talking to—if they are typical Australians working in an award situation, are about to have a junior rates clause inserted into their awards if this government has its way. And you are living in fairyland at the bottom of the garden with the tooth fairy if you think employers are gladly going to pay $100 more than the award says they have to. So we have a duplicitous government that has not only sought to steamroll the commission and the inquiry that is under way but also sought to deceive the public and particularly young Australians.Something more needs to be said about the definition of an adult because, if there is a definition in the bill, I certainly have not come across it. And given that the government is going to require the commission to insert junior rates of pay, they should at least define, for the commission and the rest of us, when you cease to be a junior. Do you cease to be a junior at 18 or 21? As I said before, a number of awards include 21 years of age; some include 18. But that raises some other anomalies. The junior rates of pay provision goes back to 1907. It was a different world, a totally different world. And since 1973 we have had an environment in which full adult suffrage accrues at age 18.At the age of 18, you can decide whether you want this government at all, you can vote for them, you can be held criminally liable for your actions and sentenced in a court as an adult. Obviously you can participate in all legal activities, you can consume alcohol, you can freely join the military, you can wear the Australian military uniform and go overseas and die for your country but, as far as this government is concerned, when it comes to your civilian life you are still a junior and should be paid as a junior. And how is that defensible? How is anyone in this House, how is the minister, how is anyone on the government benches going to defend a proposition that says that as an 18-year-old or 19-year-old or 20 year-old you can die for your country and you can vote to determine the policies of your nation but the day you go and get yourself a job we think you are a junior and you are not worth full rates of pay? It does not matter what the job is, it does not matter what the skill level is, it does not matter what your training is, it does not matter what the productivity is, you will be paid according to the date of your birth, if John Howard and Peter Reith have their way. There is no equity in that.In their submission last week to the Industrial Relations Commission inquiry, their only defence of that was to say, `It is too hard to figure it out. It is too hard to work out an alternative system.' It is not too hard to work out an alternative system and, as the minister and this government well know, alternative systems are in place elsewhere in the world. They are in place here. We make judgments every day in determining conditions of employment—not based on age but based on skill, competency and things like that. Is there some magical barrier to applying skill and competency for someone who is under 21? What absolute nonsense.Given that the inquiry is under some threat from this government, I want to turn to some of the submissions that are in it. I would recommend to those opposite and to those interested in this debate that they have a look at submissions from the Queensland government, the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, a whole range of union submissions—including the shoppies union, which the minister totally misrepresented in this place and he was the subject of rebuke here and elsewhere for that—the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales and the Youth Affairs Network of Queensland. All of them have put in thoughtful, genuine submissions that address the inequity and look at alternatives that work.The Queensland government submission proposes, as its preferred model, a competency based system by progression. It quite sensibly proposes the gradual introduction of competency based wages for those under 21, introduced on an industry by industry basis, and that those competency wages should be initially based on the junior rates of pay. Until we have that industry by industry, we do not move away from the existing system in that particular industry; that is, you do not have to turn the switch off overnight. There are smarter ways of doing this. It is possible to progressively go through these issues—industry by industry, agreement by agreement—and work through a fair, non-discriminatory basis for paying young Australians what they are due, given their work contribution.All this humbug is from a government and a minister who do not mind seeing a 40 per cent wage increase for the senior public servants they have appointed to do their political bidding. Some of it—the bonuses—is actually going to be paid according to how well they do the political bidding. It is okay to do that, and it is okay for the minister to get a $43,000 discount on his penthouse in Melbourne by picking up the phone and ringing up his mates. I might say that the $43,000 discount that Minister Reith picked up on his unit happens to be three times the annual salary of an 18-year-old in the metal award. The 18-year-old has to work for three years just to get the equivalent of the discount Mr Reith thinks it is fair enough to get on his new unit—just by picking up the phone and ordering it. They are the double standards that are being applied.So we have a government and a minister saying to the young workers of Australia: `Trust me. I am Peter Reith. I am from the government and I am here to help you.' I have to tell you that the people out there do not believe it—especially from him—and they sure as hell do not believe it when they have a look at what this government is doing to young people. There is a long list of cuts to services for young Australians which I do not have time to go into, but I hope others will during the course of this debate. We will oppose this legislation. It is unfair and it is intimidating. (Time expired)10:18:002292Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—The purpose of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is to protect jobs and to provide young Australians not only with the opportunities to enter the work force but also with the security to retain their jobs once there.As at December 1998 the seasonally adjusted figure for total unemployment was 7.7 per cent. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for people aged between 15 and 19 years looking for full-time work was 24.8 per cent—as opposed to 29.2 per cent at March 1996 under the previous government. That is a vast difference.We need jobs for our young people. We do not need a few highly paid young people who are employed while the rest of the people are out of work. We need more and more jobs. As a child develops, getting a job becomes one of the most significant factors in his or her life. It signifies independence and is a rite of passage from childhood into adulthood. To begin with, a job might be a means to an end—anything from a new skateboard to a new car. Alternatively, it could be the beginning of a lifelong career. Young people may take on an apprenticeship or become trainees and be paid accordingly, or they might be paid as juniors or, in some cases, as adults. Whatever their classification, pay is one of the fundamental aspects of their working life.Another aspect is job security. They got out there and got the job—now they have to keep it. Without the job security that junior wages could bring, they are in a tenuous position. If employers are forced to pay adult rates to young people, why not employ the adult? That way the employer gets a mature employee who brings experience to the job. But in employing that adult, we would be denying our young people the opportunity to develop their skills in order to take their place as trained and experienced adults in years to come.I invite Labor to put forward a policy that would explain just how a young person would gain experience if they had no job. It just does not make sense. Junior wages help keep the workplace cost effective and recognise the cost and necessity of training young people to develop their skills, which in turn keeps the country moving forward. According to statistics, members of the Australian Retailers Association employ 386,000 staff, 330,000 of whom are aged 15 to 20 years. This is a fact; it is not fiction.In a recent survey, members were asked to estimate the impact of abolishing junior wage rates. The survey showed that 16.8 per cent would lay off some junior staff, 18.4 per cent would lay off most junior staff and 50.6 per cent said that in future they would recruit only adult employees. This is not just us making claims; it is in fact a genuine, legitimate industry survey. It means that 85.8 per cent of these employers are saying that abolishing the junior wage rates would have a direct impact on their employment strategies for young people, and that impact would be fewer young people being offered a job.As you may know, I was—and to a degree still am—involved in the tourism and hospitality industries. Our business employs 30 people, eight of whom were employed as juniors and have stayed with us, and another four of whom are currently juniors. Contrary to Labor's beliefs, we do not get rid of them when they become adults.We all lead busy lives, and I am sure I do not need to tell any of you how that feels. Time is precious. Why would anyone give up some of that precious commodity to train juniors if they had to pay them adult wages? It would be far easier to employ adults who are fully trained and experienced. Without junior rates of pay, business would employ adults—and they would employ fewer adults than juniors. Not only that, they would have to work harder. It is an extremely competitive marketplace out there, and I have been active in it for many years. I know its strengths and I know its capabilities. Business could not afford the same number of adult staff as juniors. It is as simple as that.During the 35 years that I have been in business, I have employed many young people. Many have come and gone—passing through and onto something else, equipped with a reference and some very hard experience. I would not support a youth wage if I felt it would take advantage of their age and it was to their detriment and to my benefit. Anyone who has been in business would understand that good employees are a valuable commodity. Good business people will protect their valuable staff and encourage them to stay. But let us face it—at the end of the day we have to ensure that the business survives. I have spoken to many businesses in Gilmore, both large and small, and employers have said the same thing—that without junior rates of pay juniors would lose their competitive edge in the market and be replaced with adults. Young people would lose their opportunity not only to earn but also to learn. Youth wages have been criticised as being discriminatory. Why penalise someone who is doing a good job simply because of his or her age?Junior wages are not set to disempower or to discriminate. Rather, they reflect age and job experience, workplace skills and the time and effort it takes to groom a young person into a skilled senior. Junior rates encourage employment while affording the young employee important workplace skills that he or she will take through life. I believe that retaining the age based junior wage rate is the best way to continue to assist young people into the work force. Junior wage rates not only help protect their positions but also encourage employers to offer work opportunities to young people.Much has been said about a move to a competency based wage system. Large numbers of young people start their working lives in relatively low skilled areas—for example, within the retail and fast food and hospitality industries. In these positions, the measurable competencies are easily acquired and do not encompass the other attributes intrinsic to maturity on the job. This learning takes time, repetition and analysis, which an employer can afford if junior rates apply.In its report into factors influencing the employment of young people, Youth Employment—A Working Solution, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, of which I was a member, highlights the lack of support for the competency based wage rates. McDonalds Australia Ltd and its franchises employ more than 40,000 young people. They say that, while young employees can learn quite quickly the skills related to the tasks that they perform, the more general work skills such as teamwork, organisation, planning, responsibility, customer awareness, initiative, self-confidence and healthy work ethics take a lot longer. These attributes are not easily measured but young people are generally less proficient in them than older more experienced and more mature workers.Coles Myer Ltd and Woolworths Ltd are major Australian retailers which employ more than 110,000 people under the age of 21 years. They too submitted that a competency based wage structure cannot adequately measure competencies such as maturity and life experience, which are required and valued by employers. Young people employed in the retail and fast food industries receive a sig nificant non-monetary benefit by developing the intangible personal qualities mentioned above. Putting the jobs of young people at risk by overpricing their labour will also risk the personal skills development and future prospects of thousands of young people. Without age based junior wages, young people will be priced out of the marketplace. I do not believe that junior wages discriminate against the young. I would not support junior wages if this were so.Age based wages have worked successfully for more than 90 years under all political parties. Many of us here would have participated in this payment scheme at the beginning of our working lives. I know that I did. I do not believe that I was discriminated against and neither do I believe that I was disadvantaged. On the contrary. I gained workplace skills and was given the opportunity to learn and to train as were my children.Today's youth deserve the same opportunities that we had. Let's not price them out of the market by making them unaffordable and unattractive. They need our support and our encouragement as they embark on their working lives. The age based youth wage system works for the employers and for the employees. It offers opportunity and experience for the young while making an attractive proposition for businesses. It is a win-win situation for all sides, and one which I support wholeheartedly.10:27:002294Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak in what I regard as an important debate. The debate on the question of junior rates is part of a broader debate about how we achieve more in our endeavours to reduce unemployment in Australia, which, potentially, is the most difficult problem that Australia confronts and one that has plagued both sides of the House for a considerable period.Having said that, as important as the issue of youth unemployment is, the biggest problem confronting Australia is not so much youth unemployment but middle age unemployment, especially those over 45 years of age. In that context, the Labor Party welcomes the statement by the Treasurer last week, which endorsed the proposition ad vanced by the Labor Party in the course of the last election, that we as a nation can achieve an unemployment rate of four per cent to five per cent as an important first point in an ongoing struggle to reduce unemployment.In welcoming that statement by the Treasurer, I compliment the shadow Treasurer, the member for Hotham. In replying he did not seek to simply score political points. He stated that the unemployment problem is such a challenge to the Australian nation that the time has now come for a bipartisan approach, and that we should pool our resources and our respective ideas and work together to reduce unemployment. That was the first time in many years that such a statement had been made from the Labor Party's perspective.In raising the issue of a bipartisan approach, the shadow Treasurer laid out, from the Labor Party's point of view, a range of ideas that could actually contribute to reducing unemployment. On that basis, he also suggested that the time has come for all political parties in Australia to stop searching for scapegoats. Unfortunately, I suggest, the bill before the House is partly an endeavour by the current government to create a scapegoat, to potentially even create an excuse for its ongoing failure to make major inroads into reducing youth unemployment and into reducing unemployment from an overall point of view since it was elected.The issues that the shadow Treasurer raised were across a range of suggestions. Obviously we embrace the Treasurer's commitment to an ongoing jobs target of four per cent to five per cent. I wonder where the Prime Minister stands on that commitment by the Treasurer today, because it was the Prime Minister who so readily ridiculed such an objective during the recent election campaign.In addition to an achievable jobs target, we also acknowledge—and I think this is a bipartisan approach—the fact that if we are to make any real inroads into reducing unemployment, we need to achieve a level of strong economic growth and a continuing evolution of the labour market when it comes to the issue of flexibility. I am pleased to say as a former President of the ACTU that the changes we achieved when it came to improvements in productivity, based on changes in work practices and a commitment by workers to higher productivity, are second to none. It is also interesting to note that during the 13-year period of the accord we also achieved fairly significant levels of employment growth, against a major jump in the participation rate in Australia.The Treasurer also raised potential barriers in the social security and tax systems that discourage workers from returning to work, and we acknowledge that there are difficulties. That is why we put forward a major proposition during the last election campaign that was aimed at overcoming some of those barriers. It was basically about creating incentives in the tax system that encourage people to go back to work and overcoming some of the poverty traps and disincentives that discourage some so that they actually walk away from potential job opportunities, and it was in the form of a tax credit. That was the centrepiece of the Labor Party's alternative tax plan at the last election.We also believe that, rather than cutting expenditure on training and labour market adjustment programs, there is an obligation on government to invest in skills development, innovation, education and infrastructure. I raise those issues today because I think Australia has the capacity to create more jobs, provided we come to terms with some of those disincentives—and they range across a range of government policies.In the end, the government cannot sit on its hands and say that the solution to unemployment rests in the market alone. The government can make a major contribution to reducing unemployment in Australia through paying attention to some of the government policies that currently exist. So it really comes back to whether or not we can actually develop a bipartisan approach and commence to walk away from setting up the excuses, the scapegoats, for non-performance. That is why I am rather concerned about the bill before the House today, especially when we are debating it against the backdrop of the independent workplace relations commission's current inquiry into the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives.I personally am prepared to wait and consider the commission's report, and consider it on merit in an objective way. In making that statement, I must say that I have a fairly open mind about what the commission might come up with and what its recommendations might be. The recommendations might even make for tough decisions for the Australian Labor Party in trying to develop a bipartisan approach to the issue of junior rates. But we as a nation should not rule out the right of an independent commission to actually consider the issue of junior rates and their relationship to employment and the difficult issue of youth unemployment in an objective, constructive way rather than in the political way in which the bill before the House is currently being pursued by the Howard government.I suppose, especially when I consider the performance of the current minister, from a political point of view and one of point scoring, one should not be surprised. We can almost imagine the minister, his associates on the frontbench and their flunkies roaming up and down the country looking into nooks and crannies for people to blame. We saw evidence of that only a week or so ago when it came to a question of a debate about the reciprocal obligation. I personally am a major supporter of the reciprocal obligation. I had to confront those issues through 13 years of Labor in government.Not only in 1991, for example, did we commence to pilot the reciprocal obligation in labour market training in a major way; we also, in the development of Working Nation, accepted that those who had been unemployed for an extensive period of time were not necessarily at the same level of employment skill and capacity as those who had been in employment. In developing Working Nation, and some of the more comprehensive labour market programs associated with it, we actually accepted a training wage, a lower wage, for those who were returning to work after an extensive period of unemployment.That was about the nation coming to terms with the fact that when unemployment benefits were first developed in 1945 they were regarded as being something that we paid for a period that was short in duration, because it was basically paid to a person who would soon find another job. But through the 1970s and 1980s, the nature of the labour market changed considerably. We developed special pockets of long-term unemployment, and we also had to come to terms with, for example, the fact that single mums who had been unemployed for long periods should no longer be allowed to remain at home and just draw what was then regarded as the `widow B pension'. We brought in schemes such as JET—jobs, education and training—which was about making sure that we got people back into the work force, which also created hurdles for us because it helped to increase the participation rate. But I suppose that is the difference between facing up to reality and scapegoating.What worries me is that late last year we saw legislative suggestions on changes to unfair dismissals and now we have this legislation on junior rates. The truth of the matter is: there is no magic bullet, there is no magic pudding, when it comes to a determination to reduce unemployment in Australia. It is a major challenge, it is a major difficulty irrespective of who is in government. We should not be putting up suggestions such as making it easier to sack people or a determination that young people should be exploited, as potential solutions—though, I dare suggest, more so excuses—for the government's non-performance on the jobs front if it fails with respect to this legislation.I suggest that the facts speak for themselves. The government has failed when it comes to industrial relations and unemployment. The workplace relations bill is a dud when it comes to the question of unemployment, especially for young people. I can remember the rhetoric when it was introduced. The rhetoric about reform, I dare suggest, has proven to be overblown. It is way off mark when it comes to an examination of the real facts on the jobs front.For example, in December 1996, when the bill came into operation, there were 6,400,100 people in full-time employment in Australia. In December 1998, there were 6,540,800 people in full-time employment. So after two years of this so-called magic bullet, full-time employment in Australia jumped by 140,700. I then go to the issue of part-time employment. In December 1996, there were 2,096,400 part-time jobs. In December 1998, there were 2,254,500. So after two years of the magic pudding in operation, we have created an additional 150,100 jobs.But what has happened for young people? In December 1996, there were 639,900 young people in work. In December 1998, there were 657,200 young people in work. So the number of young people who have actually got jobs out of these so-called major changes on the industrial relations front is 17,300. At the time of the election in March 1996, youth unemployment was 26.8 per cent. The Prime Minister then said that, if he wanted to achieve one major thing in his first term of parliament, it was a reduction in youth unemployment. In December 1998, he had got it down by two percentage points to 24.8 per cent. I might also say in passing that people ought to consider that against a backdrop of an overall drop in the participation rate in the Australian work force. The number of men and women actually looking for work in Australia has dropped since the Howard government was elected, because people have given up any hope of finding a job.But I go not only to the percentage of young people unemployed but also to the actual numbers. They show that this government has only been able to reduce the number of young unemployed in that period from 88,500 to 75,100—a reduction of 13,400. It is also a difficulty when you go around the states. Go to New South Wales and Victoria. We have actually got higher youth unemployment as at December of last year than at the time of the last election. The same applies in smaller states such as the state of Western Australia where we have the same pattern.Because of these consistent examples of failure, the government is now trying to push through these unfair dismissal laws and what we have before us today—the junior rates of pay legislation. The government has clearly failed young people, and now it wants to blame young people for the youth dilemma it has not solved—the issue of joblessness. In an attempt to try to clothe this attempt to discriminate against the young in some respectability, we even saw the minister recently misquote the Shop Assistants Union.I urge people to examine and read in detail the submission from the Shop Assistants Union to the Industrial Relations Commission inquiry. It is a very interesting submission because it does not actually argue for the total abolition of junior rates. It is about a proper debate about what is right and wrong when it comes to the question of getting young people back to work. It argues that there ought to be some changes but also suggests that there is a case for some young people to continue with youth rates in some industries—a proper, constructive proposition put before the commission for debate, not a black and white suggestion as is the suggestion before the House today.The Shop Assistants Union is one of the largest unions in Australia. It is also probably the biggest representative of young people in the workplace, and is a very effective representative of young people. The problem is that the minister is trying to ignore the fact that the Shop Assistants Union has put an effective case to show that his proposal to maintain junior rates of pay is a discriminatory practice. Whilst acknowledging that in some cases there is a need potentially for junior rates of pay—but not across industry in general—it argues that work of equal value is an important principle. If two people are standing side by side doing work of equal value, why should they be paid differently just because one is 18 and the other 28 or 38? That is the real issue before the chair today.The Australian award system has, over the last decade, quite correctly moved to one of paying people based on skill and competency, and the facts speak for themselves. It has been a huge success. There has been a huge jump in productivity which has, in turn, assisted in making Australia more productive and more competitive, and has increased, for example, the export of manufactured products. So what is wrong with competency and skill? We have achieved on the competitive front, not by seeking to rip off young people but by encouraging them to put their heads down, apply their minds to training at work and increase their skills and competency and make their workplace more competitive.I personally do not have a difficulty with a skills based payment system because I believe it has made an important contribution to the restructuring of Australian industry over the last decade and a half. But this government, for some strange reason, wants to discriminate against one group of workers and tell them that competency in the job should not be the basis of payment for them. But, strangely, it is just young people that they want to discriminate against. I am not prepared to stand by and allow employers to discriminate against young people when Australian society now says that employers should not be able to discriminate against women in the workplace or discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. Why should young people be any different from women or other people of different races and ethnicity in the workplace?We, the Australian community, have come a long way in a short period. A lot had to be achieved in the post-1983 period because of a failure of previous governments to modernise the Australian economy. I now suggest that we should not put in place an archaic system of employment for young people that discourages them from accepting additional responsibilities, from working harder at work, from achieving greater on the skills front and from improving their competency and their efficiency at work.For those very reasons, as we go into the 21st century we must really adopt a modern and consistent pay system based on skills and competency. I venture to suggest that anything else is out of date, antiquated and discriminatory. I also suggest to the House that we are being two-faced and dishonest if we continue to tell our young people, the future leadership of this nation, `Yes, we will pay for skills, we will pay for competency, but not if you are a junior.' Because that is the thrust of the bill before the House today. If you are a junior, this government will legislatively permit employers to discriminate against you, the end result of which is that you will be discouraged from accepting additional responsibilities at work, making a major contribution to your training and your skills development, and, in doing so, improving the competitive opportunities in your workplace at an industry level and at a national level.So I end on this point: the shadow Treasurer was right when he welcomed the Treasurer's commitment to a jobs target of four to five per cent. Stop the excuses; get on with a bipartisan approach. (Time expired)10:47:002298Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The Australian Labor Party is saying they do not want kids to have jobs—that is the bottom line; no other interpretation can be put onto it. The member for Batman talks about the government's constant failure. Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you, the House and the people of Australia that this country probably now, after three short years, has the best performing economy in the world. We have been able to make a lot of tough decisions, a lot of very difficult decisions, that have led this country out of the mire that we were in. We have been able to make landmark industrial relations changes, and we are going to continue. This is the reason for putting the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 up before the House again today.The thrust of the Labor Party's argument seems to be that the government in some way wants to exploit young people. I argue against that, and I argue against it on the basis of 25 years of being an employer and knowing what the real world, and not the technical world, is about. I see so many arguments about these theoretical issues. I hear the economists coming out talking about supply and demand mechanisms and I hear Keynesian economics being quoted. But I know, from 25 years, what it is like to have to make a decision about whom you are going to employ, how much you are going to pay them, whether you can afford in business to keep people on, the value of young people, the value of seniors—the ethic that has been built up in this country over so many years.So I am not a theoretical person; I am a practical person who can stand and tell the House exactly what it is like when you are making an employment decision. That is why I am telling you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the House and the people of Australia we have to retain age based rates for juniors. Why is that? We all know, and the Labor Party agree, that youth unemployment is far too high in this country. But the ALP cannot show in their contribution to this debate that their position will not damage youth employment. I put it to you that it will, and I put it to you from the long experience that I have had as an employer that, if I had to pay full rates of pay for a junior, I would not employ them. I would employ a more senior person if I had to pay the same amount of money. It is just the practical reality. It is how the world works, and it is how employers think. You do not think in terms of discriminating or otherwise about a young person; you think about your business and the fact that you need to survive.Paying young people full adult wages will damage youth employment. Why is that? Firstly, there is the high cost of employing youngsters or employment in general, particularly if you have to pay full rates of pay. Secondly, youngsters invariably have fewer skills and less experience. So, if you were an employer, why would you employ a person at a full rate of pay who does not have the skills, experience and maturity when in fact you could employ an older person who does have those skills, experience and maturity?In my time I have employed many young people. Whether it was as juniors or as trainees or apprentices was irrelevant to me. I have spent a lot of time training them and bringing them through the ethics of customer service. It does not matter which business you are talking about, everybody has a customer. I have put a lot of time into training young people and they have appreciated that fact and been prepared to accept that, because of my putting that time in, they cannot be paid a full adult wage. But, after they had gone through that process, I kept them employed as senior people, because they then had the skills, the experience and the maturity. Certainly, from an employer's point of view, you do not want to be changing staff regularly. It is a very costly process to continue to retrain and employ new people. If you have got a good person who has been through the system, who has come up from a junior to a senior, you keep them on, because it is the logical and sensible and rational thing to do.The other problem is that if you have got to pay full rates for every person that you employ the cost of your product—whatever it might be—must be increased to cover that. It results in higher prices to the consumers of your product, goods or services.What are the benefits of age based rates for juniors? Firstly, there is a propensity for employers to employ more juniors. I certainly found that in the business that I used to run. Secondly, those young people get an opportunity to get training and experience. How many of those who are listening to this broadcast in Australia today would relate to the fact that you can give very good training to young people? How many would relate to the young people that you hear saying that they just need an opportunity to get into a job? Once they get into a job, then they can build up the experience and progress their career. You hear it all the time. So this bill being presented to the House this morning is an opportunity to make sure we get as many youngsters as we can into employment to get that very vital experience—real experience and real training—that they need to further their careers.The next benefit is that that reduces youth unemployment in the country. I think there is no argument at this stage from either side of the House that we have got to make sure that we get as many of our young people employed as we can. The other argument is that prices are kept down and, by keeping business costs down, you can keep prices down.Finally, by being employed our youngsters are able to play a very valued part in our society. They are not at home watching the television or getting up to mischief in the back streets. They are doing valued and meaningful work which enriches their lives and their families.Basically, the industry sectors we are talking about here are the retail sector, the fast food sector and the service sector. Make no mistake about it, these sectors are the fastest growing sectors in the economy. We can have maximum impact on youth employment by making sure that employers have the opportunity to employ as many youngsters as possible.But what about the other recipients of junior rates of pay, that is, trainees and apprentices? I have employed a number of apprentices in my time who have gone through to be tradesmen and who have stayed employed. That has been in an industry where there has not been a lot of apprentices. In these technical vocations, you do have to put a lot of effort into making sure that their training is correct.You also have to face the situation in Queensland where the apprenticeship system works on a block release system. Apprentices have to go off for seven weeks a year to do their technical training at college. You find that, when you employ an apprentice, not only do you not have them for the statutory public holiday periods but you do not have them for the block release periods. So that is up to 12 weeks a year you do not have that young person in your employ. It is very difficult for an employer to manage his business when you do not have the person for 12 weeks. Surely that is a situation where you can expect a youngster to receive a lower rate of pay than the full adult wage while they are receiving that very valuable training and experience.This legislation directs the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's attention to the importance of protecting the competitive position of young persons. I think that is a very significant part of this bill. We have got to be mindful, as a community and as a country, about that competitive position of younger people. Who is going to employ an untrained junior when you can get a fully trained, mature adult? The practicality is that you are going to employ an adult before you would employ an untrained junior. I do not understand why the Australian Labor Party cannot see that point. It is as plain as the nose on your face that you would always employ a trained, mature and experienced person before an untrained person if you had to pay either of those people the same rates of pay. I would also put to the House and to Australia that this bill before us this morning is another signpost that the government has up very clearly in relation to employment and the country.We have seen as well some reference in the debate this morning to the government's unfair dismissal legislation. Similarly, that is a signpost as to how the government thinks in relation to trying to get fuller employment in this country. I am pleased to be able to support the government in that goal to reduce unemployment in the country because it is a social tragedy that our kids do not have jobs. For the mums and dads of this country, when their kids come out of high school and if they are not going on to further education, it is the thing that is uppermost in their minds. Is my child going to get a job? How can I help them get a job?They are not going to be helped with getting a job if the Australian Labor Party have their way. The Australian Labor Party say that a junior has to get the same rate of pay as a senior. The member for Batman argues that if a person is doing the same job as an adult then they should get the same rate of pay. Simplistically you could accept that, but in practice a young person in all sorts of ways—in terms of maturity, in terms of experience and in terms of the way they react to a particular unexpected situation—would not do the same job as a senior would.My message to the Australian Labor Party this morning is: get out of the way of opposing this legislation. Think practically. Try to understand how employers think when they employ people. Try to understand that we have to make sure we get as many youngsters into jobs as we can. My second message to the Australian Labor Party is that, if you knock this off in the Senate, we will keep putting it up. We will keep telling the people of Australia that we believe that youngsters should have the opportunity to be considered by employers for employment when they first come out of school. I certainly will strongly support that.My view on the current debate, from what I have heard, is that the Australian Labor Party do not want kids to have the maximum opportunity to get jobs in this country. I find that quite sad. I think that they are out of touch. They are back in the 1970s and 1980s; they are not with the real and modern world. I call on the Labor Party to change their view and to support the government and allow the passage of this bill in the Senate.11:03:002301Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . I listened with interest last year to the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I remember noting at the time that it was high on rhetoric and minimal on fact. I have now listened to the member for Herbert and I ask him: what if a junior has the ability or the experience? What is their appropriate rate of pay?We can talk about maturity and we can talk about age, but what if you can demonstrate that two people standing side by side are equally capable of performing the same duty, the only discrimination in terms of how they are paid being how old they are? That is totally unfair. It is anachronistic. Everything about this bill smacks of traditional conservative ideology. It is the same old viewpoint: slash youth wages—slash wages in fact—and you will have a ready-made recipe for solving the unemployment crisis. It is a same tired theory from the same tired party.The amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 contained within the youth employment bill seek to entrench the discriminatory wage structure known as junior rates. The bill seeks to insert into the act justification for its determination to support discounted wages rather than the concept of a rate for the job. There are three main criticisms I would like to make in relation to this bill.This bill attempts to reconstruct an outmoded, unfair and totally arbitrary system. Junior rates are an anachronism; they belong in earlier times—times when discrimination on the basis of sex, race and marital status was still considered acceptable. The past 30 years have seen a series of hard-fought gains, such as equal pay, modernise our industrial relations system. It is now time for the junior rates system to be updated to reflect the modern principles of equity and fairness.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has cited as a defence to this bill that juniors do not have the requisite maturity and experience to deserve an adult rate of pay. But how does one define junior? Is it a young person aged under 18 or 21? Or is it simply someone of any age who is experienced? There is no definition of junior in this bill or in the principal act.The term `minor' was historically used to describe someone who had not obtained the age of majority. Up until the early 1970s, the age of majority was 21. Since then, age of majority legislation in all states and territories has been amended to reduce the age of majority to 18. As members of the House are aware, 18 years of age is now the legal age when all entitlements and obligations are bestowed upon young people. At the age of 18, a young person is able to obtain their driver's licence—indeed in some states you can be even younger; cast a vote in local, state and federal elections; legally marry without parental permission; drink alcohol; be named an executor to a will; obtain a credit card; gamble—which is probably equivalent to obtaining a credit card—and even run for a seat in parliament. In fact, at age 18 you can do just about anything—that is, other than earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.Fair wage outcomes are a fundamental belief held by members on this side of the House, a principle obviously not shared by this government. Young workers aged between 15 and 20 years of age who are covered by awards that provide for junior rates receive only 50 to 90 per cent of the adult rate of pay. Yet they receive no corresponding discount to help them pay for their basic items such as accommodation, food, gas, electricity and transport. In the ACOSS submission to the junior rates inquiry, it was found that in 1994-95 the average wage of 15- to 19-year-olds was $290 per week—less than half of the average weekly earnings for adults.Even young people who still live at home with their families are required to meet their own living costs and can barely make ends meet on their discounted wages. Consider somebody who is living out of home and generally paying rent of $100 plus a week: I do not know how they make ends meet if they are only earning $290. The problem is even more acute with adult unemployment hovering around the eight per cent level, leaving many young people with no option but to contribute significantly to the finances of the family budget.What we need is a system that produces a fair outcome for both workers and business. This brings me to my second point. The globalisation of the economy demands that employers have a well-trained and multiskilled work force. Rather than regarding their low wage juniors as fodder, employers would be inclined to provide skills training and a proper career path for employees if they had to pay them a higher wage rate. Debate so far seems to have excluded the one group who will be most impacted by any change to this legislation, those persons currently under 21 who are employed on the basis of junior rates—young people. It will be even harder for those juniors who are currently under 21 years of age and are not on junior rates. How will the bill affect them?We have not heard from these people, who are currently being discriminated against on the basis of their age. Yes, we have had assertions that they will not thank us for the loss of job opportunities and we have had rhetoric about economic factors and the need for people of less maturity, experience and age to develop before they can earn a proper wage, but we have had nothing about the actual views of young people. I would like to right this wrong and tell you about an experience of mine when I was at the Finance Sector Union and was dealing with an ANZ bank employee, a customer service officer who was employed in Western Australia. This individual was 19 years of age, going on 20, and had been employed by the bank for three years. To put it into context, a customer service officer is not a junior entry point position into the bank and this person had actually progressed through the ranks to attain this role.As many of you have read in the papers recently, people in banks are subject to performance appraisals, which are predominantly driven by performance targets which are increasingly about sales and referrals. These appraisals are not just feelgood exercises for your manager to say, `Gee, you've done really well this year.' They actually determine your remuneration outcome. These appraisals are based on target driven figures, so you are given a score. You are told how many sales to refer, how many people to move on to phone banking and things like that.Each year this junior had to undergo this appraisal. Each year this junior received four out of a five-point scale for that appraisal. At the ANZ at the time, they had a system of a five-point scale based on the rate for the job and on a category base of `adequate', `competent', `commendable' and `outstanding'. This person was assessed as `commendable' three years out of three years for her appraisal. This is not just remarkable but extraordinary because, as you will know from anyone's experience, nobody gets `outstanding' in an appraisal assessment.She had not only done her job well but excelled in that position, so much so that she had actually been put in charge of training other staff. She had also been placed in a position of managing when her manager was not in the building. If anybody has been in a bank recently, you would know that managers are quite often not there. So, year in, year out, she had demonstrated she had the maturity, the ability and the experience to do that role well beyond the ability of the majority of her co-workers, the bulk of whom were over 21. But, because she was a junior, she was not entitled to any performance outcome. She sat the test and she did brilliantly but got no remuneration reward. All she received was a percentage of the base adult rate of pay. I ask the member for Herbert to tell me if that is fair, because obviously this junior had demonstrated her ability to do that role.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—What is she doing now?83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—I am getting to that. If the argument is about the need for young people to serve time to gain experience and maturity in a role, that is fine, but pay it on the basis of proven ability to do the job and not arbitrarily on age. This sort of predicament, in which many young people find themselves, acts as a disincentive to work harder and to strive to achieve. Why should a young person pursue excellence in the performance of their duties if they know they will never be remunerated for their efforts until they reach the supposed adult age?This story is not uncommon. It is a real situation faced by many young people like the woman I have spoken about today. However, her story has a happy ending, as I will explain in a moment. Encouragingly, many people have begun to see the light of day in relation to junior rates. It is now not unusual for employers to agree to adjust their wage regime by removing junior rates. This has occurred within the context of enterprise bargaining, with some collective agreements abolishing junior rates of pay and replacing them with competency based rates. This is another reason why the government's proposal to spread the application of junior rates is so onerous.We do not wish to see the clock turned back on enterprise agreements where advancements have been made towards eliminating wage discrimination. Worse still, in the commission issues paper it is estimated 56 per cent of all people in the work force aged less than 21 years are employed on junior rates. How many of the remaining 44 per cent will soon be forced to accept junior rates as well? The inquiry has examined 196 awards, of which 118 were found to contain junior rates and 78 did not. Of the 274 enterprise agreements examined, 43 per cent contained junior rates. This leaves a lot of scope for imposing junior rates of pay on many more young Australians, therefore raising the spectre that this bill could lead to many young people going backwards in their pay.I spoke earlier of the ANZ staff member who could not be recognised for her ability, only her age. This was addressed in the recent ANZ enterprise agreement, with the bank agreeing to phase-out junior rates between now and 2001. The bank realised that if it wanted to retain skilled, competent staff it had to pay the appropriate wage. It arrived freely at this decision—a decision based on sound business sense. If employers such as ANZ, Westpac, National Australia Bank and the Commonwealth Bank can accept the notion that there should be one rate for the job, then why can't the government?If we look at the industrial relations agenda since the election of the Howard government in March 1996, we find a sorry list: the stripping back of awards, the watering down of unfair dismissal legislation and the hobbling of the powers of the commission. Then there are the second term ambitions of this government in regard to industrial relations—the so-called `second wave'. Some of their designs have already been introduced into this House, such as the attempt to remove unfair dismissal protection from a whole raft of unfortunate workers. One can only conclude that these miserable so-called `reforms' are reflective of the ideological bent of this government—anti-worker, anti-union and now a push for discounted wages.The justification for entrenching discriminatory rates of pay appears to centre around an imported theory: if you keep youth wages low there will be a corresponding decrease in youth unemployment. To support this theory the government trots out the occasional `foreign expert' ignoring the legions of economists who are unable to agree on the subject. With youth unemployment levels running at 24.8 per cent, junior rates have hardly been the panacea for youth unemployment in the past. Junior rates have always applied in retail and hospitality—the two areas of high youth employment. Yet youth unemployment remains stubbornly high. If the government was serious about addressing youth unemployment it would invest in the genuine labour market programs that were so successful in redirecting young people into the work force in the early l990s under the Labor government.The existence of junior rates also gives the dishonest employer—of course, my colleagues on the other side of the fence have been saying that there would never be any of these out there; no, no, never—an economic motive to reduce the hours of work or dismiss em ployees when they reach the age at which they are finally entitled to receive the full rate of pay. An extension of junior rates would only intensify these problems. Surely this is not the government's intention?This leads me to my third and final point. Whilst the bill inserts the partisan notion that age based rates of pay are not discriminatory, it leaves intact section 120B of the Workplace Relations Act which is the provision for the Industrial Relations Commission inquiry on the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives. The commission has received submissions to the inquiry and must report back to this House by June 22 this year. It is one thing for the government to break its agreement with the Democrats in the Senate and introduce legislation to retain junior rates; it is even more farcical to predetermine the outcome of an inquiry even before it is finished deliberating.The minister and the government obviously have no regard for the role of the independent commission or any of the parties who have sought to be heard on the matter. The bill makes a mockery of the inquiry and the Industrial Relations Commission. Most disturbingly it supports an unfair, antiquated system which discriminates against the nation's future—our young people—and ought to be opposed by all members of this House.11:18:002304Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I am pleased to speak in support of this Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 and to again commend the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, for his achievements with respect to workplace reform since the Howard-Fischer government was first elected in 1996.Initiatives have been taken that were needed and well overdue in this country and they are benefiting Australians generally. This bill is part of the process of reform the government has committed to implement in this country.The bill provides for the immediate implementation of two commitments concerning youth employment made in the coalition's workplace relations policy, More Jobs, Better Pay. It was vigorously and robustly debated— and, I might say, grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented by our political opponents. But the Australian people sorted it out very well and gave this government a mandate to continue with its reform, particularly in the workplace. The bill implements those policies put to the people of Australia and amends the objects and related provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to include specific reference to the protection of the competitive position of young people in the labour market and the promotion of youth employment and the reduction of youth unemployment. The bill also permanently exempts junior rates of pay from existing provisions intended to eliminate age discrimination in awards and agreements.I was interested to hear the contribution from the member for Chisholm and the story of the young and very successful ANZ Bank employee. She is progressing very well, obviously, with the bank recognising her talents and skill. The point I would like to make is that the provision of junior rates of pay in legislation provides the benchmark for the minimum. There is no law, as I think is implied or perhaps misunderstood by the member for Chisholm, that says employers and employees cannot make additional arrangements on top of the minimum in cases where they believe there is merit and joint and mutual benefit will be derived. That is actually what appears to have happened with the young lady at the ANZ Bank. We certainly wish her well in her career—undoubtedly she is climbing the ladder.Once again there is this misunderstanding—or is it misrepresentation?—on the part of the opposition about the government's policies. We are prescribing the minimum parameters, but in doing so we are actually reflecting what the community, industry, employees, employers and advisers are saying to us in Australia and overseas and that is that the provision of junior wage rates in an economy like ours will protect the jobs of more than 300,000 young people in this nation.If you listen carefully to the attack on an almost class war basis from the opposition, what they are saying is that this actually discriminates against young people and is unfair. So they are distancing themselves from the vast weight of evidence that has been provided to say that, if you do away with the junior wage rate provisions, which is what the Labor Party are arguing for, and you obstruct this legislation, you actually are putting at risk and in jeopardy the jobs of at least 300,000 young people in this country. We are very worried about the youth unemployment situation, as we all must be in this country, and about the consequences of long-term youth unemployment such as suicide.Last night, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember that I mentioned briefly that in my electorate, in the small town of Mount Beauty, sadly, we have had two young people commit suicide, one fairly recently. The youth suicide rates in regional Australia are amongst the highest in the world. Whilst there are complex reasons, some difficult to explain, as to why these young people are taking their lives, there is a united acceptance by everyone that part of the problem is despair due to the fact that they have lost hope, they do not believe that they have a future. That is partly due to the difficulty in gaining employment in a changing environment and a changing world and in a nation that has up to now, because of 13 years of Labor, failed to address some of the obstacles to creating investment, employment and training in this country.Once again I ask members and those who are listening to this broadcast to look at the government's reformist policies objectively, by all means to scrutinise them very closely but to look at them as being part of a total strategy, not just in isolation, designed to look at the problems that have been holding this country back and stopping investment and the creation of new jobs and preventing young people having a go and a chance that we had in our earlier lives that they are not having so readily now. What we do should be seen in that total context. I take the opportunity once again, as I will whenever I can in speaking to people in parliament and throughout my electorate and in other places, to say that, if we miss the opportunity in 1999 to introduce comprehensive and full tax reform in this country, we will actually be striking a deadly blow against the future of our young Australians, who deserve better.If you introduce comprehensive tax reform, it does not suit everybody; there are various vested interests and groups who would like it slightly different. Nevertheless, you cannot have it easy. You have to do it properly and you have to do it comprehensively. If you miss the chance of implementing comprehensive youth wage reform like this, tax reform, industrial reform, reform in transport and all of those things, you are actually preventing young people from gaining access to the employment that we all want them to have. That is a simple proposition. The fact is that in the real world people will not invest, people will not take risks, people will not create jobs for young people unless the environment is there for them to do that and unless there is incentive to do it through a fair, balanced, broad based tax system. The one we have—the 1930s model, the clapped-out model—is no longer relevant to this country. It must be comprehensively and urgently reformed, and it must be done before 30 June. The consequences if it is not done are quite horrendous.This legislation is part of the mosaic of this reformist government having the courage to tackle the hard issues, going to the people in an election with a broad based consumption tax and a comprehensive tax reform package and risking all—because that is what we believe this country must do and should have done 10 years ago, if not even before that. So there is no shirking responsibility. There is plenty of acceptance on our part that some of the things we are doing are challenging some of the cosy institutional and somewhat irrelevant attitudes of the past.I was just speaking on a radio program a little while ago from Shepparton with Tony Jerome, a wonderful community radio broadcaster and a good friend, about our implementation of programs like youth wages, Work for the Dole, Green Corps and the literacy and numeracy test for long-term young unemployed people. I was explaining—Mr Deputy Speaker, you might find your experience different from mine—that in my electorate contact in my electoral office with people face to face, by phone calls and letters and in conversations my staff have, all indicate a very solid level of community support for those courageous, reformist steps, particularly with relation to the literacy and numeracy program.I was saying to Tony Jerome on the radio this morning that it is not a matter of punishing young people, it is not a matter of saying, `We are going to blame you because you did not attain minimal literacy and numeracy levels in your school but you dropped out of school and did not obtain even some other levels of qualification and skill.' The reality is that you need help to equip yourself as a young Australian to get employment. The fact is that you have been unemployed and you have had interviews and you did not get work, and probably a lot of that is due to the fact that you have a level that is not good enough, for your own sake, for your own character, for your own future, in literacy and numeracy. I use the example of someone saying, `There is going to be a local marathon race next month in Wodonga, Wangaratta, Benalla or Euroa. I would like to go in it but I'm not fit enough to go in it, so I'm going to do something about it. I'm actually going to go into training and I'm going to get fit. I'm going to do exercises and the like so that I can do well and not get injured by entering a physical race like that without being fit.'People need to do something about improving their skills for their own benefit. The government is not doing this to punish anyone; it is doing it because it is sensible. It is what most people would do. If you want to meet a challenge and you are a little bit short on skills and an opportunity is there to get those skills, you go and do something about it, you take advantage of that opportunity. That is the basis of the government's literacy and numeracy policy for young unemployed people. It is not to punish them, but to say, `Listen, John or Mary, you have not been able to get up off the ground from where you have been, and it is causing enormous pain and sadness to you and your family. Why don't you do something about getting your skills up as you have not been able to reach minimum levels of literacy and numeracy?' That is the basis of it.I bring these examples into the debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment Bill which is now before the House because they are part of the mosaic of doing things that need to be done, which also includes the government's reform with respect to freedom of association. I am not against unionism. If you want to be a member of a union, good on you; I have no worries about that at all. I have some good friends in the House who have got strong associations with the union movement.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Name them.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—They include members on both sides of the House. I know that some members are former members of unions—those on our side of the House too. I remember one of my sons at 15 years of age getting a job after school as a `checkout chick' in Safeways. He was told that he had to join the union before he could start. He had no hang-ups about the union. In our house we try not to have hang-ups about people. He had no prior prejudice about them, although when I was Minister for Local Government and Planning in Melbourne he used to hear the name `Norm Gallagher' a bit, who used to put all the bans on the projects down there. But that is another story. My son was offended at not being able to start the `checkout chick' work after school because he had to join a union. I think that was a valid point.Isn't it good that the coalition government, since its first election in its first term, introduced laws that prevent the closed shop and enshrine in law the freedom of association that all Australians should have? We are free of any shackles, free of any law that says, `Hang on, you first must join this.' In my own profession, that of a lawyer, what a great thing it is to see compulsory membership of law institutes and law societies abolished. I do not practise law any more, but I remain a member of such organisations by choice.I was first made a barrister and solicitor in 1962—that is a fair time ago—but it was only last year that I could voluntarily decide to remain a member of the Law Institute of Victoria and the Law Society of New South Wales. Up to that time I could not practise unless I belonged to those member associations. They are reshaping and making sure their services are attractive and beneficial to members and the community. I believe their membership has gone up, believe it or not, despite the gloomy predictions that a reform of that nature—freeing people from these shackles—would have a detrimental effect. Quite the opposite has been the case. So it is with respect to the youth wage.I have suffered the low wage too. I was waiting for an examination result before I could first sign my articles, and in my capacity as a law clerk I was being paid $8 a week. When I passed my examination, I could then sign my articles—I could not sign them until then—and my pay went down to $6 a week, because I was then an articled law clerk. That was a bit tough, I can tell you. Nevertheless, I got training which led me to be able to become qualified and to be able to practise and to do fairly well in my practice, to make a good living for myself and support my family and give my kids better opportunities than those which I had. So the system works okay.It is not a matter of punishing a young person just out of school who has not got the training and the skills. It is a matter of giving them a connection with the employer. Most employers in Australia—900,000 of them—are in small business. That is the engine room of this country. It is dammed hard in small business—I have run a small business; I know what it is like—to take on that extra overhead, to employ someone. You have got to put in extra effort and take more risk and perhaps take larger premises and do all those sorts of things to accommodate that new employee, particularly the young one just out of school who understandably has not yet got the productive capacity to provide the return that you need, so that you can keep your bank manager happy and pay your taxes and have something left over for your kids' education and for your retirement. It is bottom line stuff.What the Labor Party is doing is totally out of date again. I think we had better get Mark Latham to write another chapter in his book, or maybe we should get Simon Crean to write another chapter in his book, which he has to do to keep pace with the Young Turks. The Labor Party is arguing from the wrong base. If it says, `The youth wage is acceptable, but we would like to see it reviewed because it does not quite reflect the skill of the young person coming out of school', that is a valid argument. I will go along with that, because the experts can look at that.The Labor Party is saying that someone just out of school starting their first job, who has not yet got the skills to deliver the productivity and the benefits in what they are doing, still should be paid the adult wage. That is cuckoo-land. People will say, `Sorry, I am not going to employ the young person. I will employ an adult at the higher level of wage who can provide the productive return for my risk and my effort.' That is what happens in the workplace. It is not a matter of taking advantage of young people; it is simply the real world.This legislation is about accommodating those things but ensuring that people are not exploited either. I believe very strongly, as you have probably gathered, that our reforms in tax, industrial relations, youth wages, Work for the Dole, Green Corps, unemployment benefits, additional training, new apprenticeship opportunities, one-stop shops—all of those things put together—take us into the new millennium better equipped than we have ever been to take our place in the world and to achieve all those things we can do but, above all, to give our young Australians the best chance they can get. Our duty is to give them a better chance than we had. We had a good show from the risks taken by our parents and their parents before them. What a wonderful Australia this is, if you trace all of that. So isn't it our duty going into the next millennium to make damn sure that we do all we can not to pander to vested interests but to sweep aside the obstacles that prevent new opportunities being created for young people?11:38:002307Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Listening to these arguments you would think that young Australians do not have families to support, that they are less skilled, necessarily less mature and unable to undertake complex tasks, that their work is perhaps of less value or that paying them decent wages would mean that none of them would be hired.These arguments are all familiar to me, because I remember hearing these arguments about paying women decent wages. In those days there were many stories about the disastrous effects of paying women the same rates as men. It was said that women could not lift heavy things, that they could not undertake complex tasks, that they were too emotional for some jobs. I recall particularly that when the first woman pilot was employed for Qantas there was some concern about whether she would be emotional at particular times of the month and thus unfit for the job. The other story concerned university entrants—that women's uteruses would shrivel because all the brain would rush to their heads when they were studying. These arguments sound ridiculous to us today but, equally, the arguments about youth wages are ridiculous for many of the same reasons.We are constantly reminded that we need new skills to utilise in the new industries that we are developing in a new global economy. We are talking about new incentives to encourage innovation, which will require new work practices. In the middle of this we come up with this old proposal—that if we cut wages employment will necessarily grow. The two do not go together.We are being told that the single most important thing we can do for young people is entrench a system which ensures that, no matter how hard they work or how skilled they are, they will not ever be paid the same as an adult doing the same task. We are being asked to tell young people that they will always be less productive than an older person, no matter what the task is and no matter how much training or experience they have had.This comes despite the Prime Minister's 1996 election commitment that no worker would be worse off. Yet, if this legislation is passed, young workers in workplaces which currently have no junior rates of pay will suffer a loss of income if junior rates are introduced into their awards or into their enterprise bargains.This all comes with indecent haste as well. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is currently preparing a report on junior rates and possible skills based alternatives to junior rates. This report is due in June 1999. Between June 1999 and the year 2000 when the current legislation expires, there will be a full 12 months to address the issue, with the benefit of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission report and its findings. The Democrats were counting on this report, and they have certainly learnt a lesson about trusting the government.Despite all of the available evidence, the government is asking us to believe that the single most significant cause of youth unemployment is that youth wages are too high. During the period from 1982 to 1984, youth unemployment increased, despite the fact that youth wages fell significantly and that wages for the general population increased. During the same period, the casualisation of youth employment meant that, as wages dropped, the cost to employers of sick leave, holiday pay and overtime also disappeared. So it was cheaper than ever to hire young people; yet youth unemployment was higher than ever.To suggest that lowering youth wages is the key to youth unemployment is deliberately misleading. John Buchanan and Ian Watson in the Financial Review wrote of recent research by Schmitt, Mishel and Bernstein at the Washington based Economic Policy Institute:Recent research . . . has shown that "wages flexibility" in the US did not lead to the creation of large numbers of new jobs at lower wages. Rather wage flexibility lowered the earnings of low and middle-wage workers in the US without significantly expanding employment opportunities for low-wage earners.So they dropped the minimum wage, and there were no increased opportunities for those low wage earners.Even the Productivity Commission study on youth wages notes that there is little evidence to support the view that increases in youth wages will be met with a substitution of adult labour. They propose that possible negative effects may be derived from a substitution of capital for youth labour. But that is a risk in any labour market.The problem is not as simple as the level of youth wages, but it relates to the changing nature of our economy. There is a current lack of structured skills development for young people which I believe is a much more significant factor in youth unemployment than youth wages. The Dusseldorp Skills Forum, which reported in March 1998, said:The overriding imperative is to provide more full time jobs. However, the problem for many young people is not just that they cannot get a job but that the jobs they do acquire are not taking them very far.That is because they are not being trained in those jobs, they are not developing skills. Some of the suggestions that the Dusseldorp Skills Forum came up with were:. The need to minimise early school leaving but at the same time to take early action to ensure that early school leavers have more structured employment and training opportunities.. This is also related to the importance of school to work transition programs and early intervention in the lives of young unemployed people.. The need to improve training opportunities for young people in part-time and casual employment which will require an increased understanding of the extent and nature of casual employment itself.. The need to have a regional focus on the stimulation of employment opportunities and the delivery of labour market programs. The experience of marginalisation varies according to locality.. The need to better understand the situation of those 20-40,000 who are not in the labour market and not studying.The work force of the modern economy is a skilled and educated work force and this measure, which may lead to cuts in youth wages, does nothing to address that need for a skilled and educated work force.The banking sector, which is a very important sector in my electorate of Sydney, is a sector that depends on customer service. We have already heard evidence about the fact that young people can give excellent customer service. The sector is very exposed to international competition, and it is interesting to note that it is a sector that is dispensing with junior rates. By the end of this year, none of the major Australian banks will be paying junior rates.Some areas of the banking sector have moved to competency based pay, which sees employees come in on a base rate and have their pay increased as a range of competencies is achieved. Their slogan is `The more you learn, the more you earn.' Other areas have revamped the training wage to combine structured training with on the job experience. The banking sector has embraced pay structures which reward skills and achievement—not penalising workers for their age. It certainly puts the lie to some employers' argument that assessing competencies is `too difficult'.The ACCI has argued in the past that `age is the only workable proxy for a lack of maturity and job skills', yet graded pay scales are already used to classify competencies and skills in many work places. Few employers are arguing that this is too difficult and that they would rather return to a system of years of service.The average weekly wages of young people have consistently declined, both absolutely and relative to other categories of labour, since 1984. While the average hourly earnings have increased slightly, the Productivity Commission notes that this `could be more than offset by reduced non-wage costs, such as from annual and sick leave'. So, while hourly rates may have increased slightly, earnings in other areas have decreased with the casualisation of the youth labour force.We are talking about average hourly earnings in 1997 of less than $8 an hour for young employees, and the majority of these employees are not receiving sick leave or holiday leave. Some of these people are benefiting from family support—some live at home with their parents—but many of them are not. Almost 40 per cent of young people are not living with their parents, and the tightening of government benefits for many young people who are perhaps studying or raising children means that they are relying on their wages as their only income. Of course these people get no concession for their rent, and food is no cheaper, clothing is no cheaper, for many of them transport is no cheaper, health certainly is not and entertainment is not. Their costs are the same. The only area that is being discounted is their wages. Many young people who remain at home with their parents are expected to make some contribution to the family income as well. Indeed, if parents are unemployed the rest of the family may well rely on this young person's wage as the only wage coming into the home.This government has presided over cuts to our overall education budget, and the idea that we can improve unemployment just by cutting wages and not by improving people's skills is certainly a mistaken one, yet at the moment we have the second lowest rate of education spending in the OECD. This government has cut $1.8 billion from labour market programs, cutting 230,000 training places as one of its first measures on coming into government. We have seen reduced university grants of almost $1 billion, 21,000 student places abolished, $500 million slashed from student income support, cuts to TAFE of $240 million, cuts of $130 million to government schools, and 46,000 young people have completely lost their benefits or have had them reduced with the common youth allowance. If this government is serious about getting young people into work, surely the important thing to do is to increase their skills—not cut university funding, not cut TAFE funding and not cut government school funding.It seems that there is some hope that entrenching junior rates will somehow deliver a quick fix to youth unemployment, but I would hope that, in modern Australia, we would have a slightly more sophisticated view of the sorts of jobs we want our young people to be doing in the future. The sorts of jobs referred to by Douglas Copeland and others as `McJobs' are not necessarily the jobs that a modern industrial nation should be pinning its future hopes on. Indeed, there is evidence that young people who take up these very low skilled jobs for which they are overqualified—instead of just gaining employment experience—find themselves moving very quickly in and out of the work force, and they remain on the margins of the permanent work force in very insecure employment.I certainly hope that that is not the ambition we hold for the future of our young people or for our economy. I hope that the economy of the future delivers jobs for young people which involve the acquisition of new skills which allow them to live independently, with dignity, and provide incentives for learning and development. We surely wish to demonstrate to our young people that their contribution to our society is as valued as any other contribution. I think it would send a very poor message indeed if we suggest that we entrench junior rates and create another class of working poor amongst our young people.11:52:002310Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—We hear a lot of political rhetoric from the Labor Party about the need to address youth unemployment. They stand in this place, they try to score political points and they shed crocodile tears for Australian youth, but one thing you will not find them doing is admitting that the problem was created during their 13 years in office. Another thing you will not find them doing is supporting any government action to try to improve the level of youth employment.I am proud to stand in this place today as part of the Howard government, which is taking practical measures to help young unemployed Australians to get a job. The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is yet another practical, commonsense way the government is fixing the legacy left to us by the Australian Labor Party. This bill seeks to finally reverse the legislation introduced by the Keating government in 1993 and 1994 which has made junior rates of pay unlawful from 22 June 1997.One of the first things we did following our election to government in 1996 was to discuss with the Democrats the repealing of this ridiculous legislation. They agreed on the condition that a review be established. That review is currently being conducted by the IRC. This bill amends the Workplace Relations Act to include specific reference to the protection of the competitive position in the labour market and the promotion of youth employment. This bill permanently exempts junior rates of pay from existing provisions intending to eliminate age discrimination in awards and agreements.It is a move endorsed by the recent joint government submission to the junior rates inquiry. This was a 250-page submission by the state governments of South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory. It presented absolute concrete evidence that the junior wage rates are a positive assistance to our youth employment and that the scrapping of them will cost thousands of jobs.We can stand in this House and argue until we are blue in the face about the merits of the philosophical view that pay rates should be based on skill alone. Those opposite can talk about discrimination and ageism. It all sounds fine in theory, but the bottom line is that junior wage rates protect young people's jobs. There is a mountain of evidence supporting this undeniable fact. More than 420,000 young Australians are employed on the base of youth wages in both federal and state workplace relations systems. In the retail industry alone, it is estimated that the jobs of more than 220,000 people will be at risk if this legislation is not passed. To put that into perspective, while the latest labour force figures show that youth unemployment is at its lowest level since 1990, there are still 80,500 unemployed 15- to 19-year olds. There are currently just over 80,000 unemployed young people, yet the Labor Party, at the behest of their union masters, is saying that they want to put at risk the jobs of a further 420,000 young people. Just think about it: 420,000 young Australians—enough people to fill the ANZ Stadium in Brisbane seven times over.If you stop to think about it, even for a minute, it seems absurd that we are here having this debate today. There should be unequivocal support for the retention and the protection of our youth wages. Perhaps there would be if there were more people with a small business background in the Labor Party who were interested in developing sensible policies instead of playing politics. I am yet to find a small business person who does not 100 per cent support the retention of youth wages.Many have told me that, without the youth wage, they simply could not and would not employ the number of people that they do. That is exactly what Labor and the union movement fail to understand—that if there is not an age based youth wage then employers will not simply pay all the junior employees at adult rates. They will reduce the number of people they employ and, inevitably, they will choose to employ older, more experienced and more reliable people for those positions they can afford to keep. In opposing this legislation, not only is Labor putting at risk the jobs of young people currently employed, they are severely inhibiting the prospects of finding jobs for those 80,000 young people currently looking for work.I have discussed this issue extensively with small business people in Forde and, having run a small business myself, I can appreciate their concerns. I have spoken at length in this House about the tenacity and resourcefulness of our local small business owners, be it in our rural or regional centres. They have endured great difficulty under the Labor government and, in particular, during Paul Keating's engineered recession. Once again, I take this opportunity to thank them for their endeavours and for being the engine room of the Forde economy. Our latest census figures results show that over 87 per cent of local residents are employed in the private enterprise sector of my electorate.Small business is the largest employer in Australia, which is why any government which is serious about addressing unemployment must take into account the views of the small business sector. To do otherwise is to defy logic. The verdict of the small business sector is undoubtedly strongly in favour of this legislation to protect youth wages. It makes sense. Any employer will tell you that a young person, simply by virtue of the fact that they have not been in the work force very long, does not have the same skills or work experience as someone older, and they generally require more training and guidance.As the Victorian Minister for Industry, Science and Technology pointed out in his statement `Jobs for young Victorians', it is all about junior rates of pay. Young people entering the work force for the first time do not have the same level of skills and experi ence as older people. It is important that our workplace relations agreements do not hinder young people getting and retaining a job. Junior wage rates are effective and well known and automatically recognise the experience and skills which young people gain as they become older and mature. There is no viable non-discriminatory alternative. On the contrary, without age based junior wages, young people will be priced out of a job. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.Debate adjourned.Ministerial Statements2312231211:59:002312Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—by leave—The `1999 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement' comes at a critical time for Australian trade. This year our exports will face a more difficult and challenging international trading environment. Growth prospects for the world economy are subdued and a number of our trading partners in Asia are in recession. But I have every confidence in our exporters' continued ability to look for new opportunities through market diversification strategies, as well as continuing to put in the hard yards in Asia until more favourable trading conditions return.The government's trade strategy is, of course, closely linked to our larger economic reform agenda, designed to increase Australia's international competitiveness. Our exporters are doing a great job, and full marks to them. They would do an even better one, by the way, if the Senate passes the government's tax reforms.In 1999 the government will match our exporters' efforts with enhanced trade facilitation and diversification efforts. In a time of global uncertainty, we need to pursue market opportunities at all levels—bilaterally, regionally and multilaterally. We also need to make a frank assessment of our trading performance and prospects, and implement clear, well-focused strategies for overcoming the obstacles which lie ahead. The `1999 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement' provides just that. I need not remind honourable members what is at stake here—it is about Australian jobs and continued economic growth, pure and simple.As outlined in the statement, exports of goods and services totalled a record $114.2 billion in the last financial year—an increase of 8.4 per cent over the previous year. This was an excellent result. However, consistent with government predictions, the difficult global economic climate cut in more noticeably to Australia's export performance in 1998. Using calendar year figures, our exports have grown at a more sobering two per cent. But this is still a strong performance by our exporters, who, despite these trying times, have been able to diversify successfully into new markets in response to the slowdown in Asia.Strong growth in exports during the 1997-98 financial year to markets like the USA, up by 41 per cent, and the European Union, up by 25 per cent, as well as a number of other emerging markets, have demonstrated the benefits of market diversification. It more than justifies the approach that the government has taken since it was elected in 1996 to promote trade not just in our immediate region but also in growing markets around the world—an approach adopted well before East Asia's economic crisis began ringing alarm bells in the export community.Our strong export performance also highlights the continuing resilience of our economy. Today, Australia's economic growth is among the highest in the developed world: unemployment is at its lowest level in eight years—with more improvement, hopefully, to come—interest rates are at their lowest levels in 30 years and inflation is below two per cent. The government's sound monetary and fiscal policies, and its structural reforms, have produced an economy described by the OECD as among the best of its member countries.Despite these positive results, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. In the `Trade outcomes and objectives statement' the government has outlined a comprehensive package of measures designed to ensure that Australia's trade continues to grow despite tougher times for world trade. These measures include a continuing effort to help East Asia out of its economic difficulties. The government has demonstrated through its substantive and timely response to the regional crisis—from our contributions to the IMF's rescue packages, and increased aid to Indonesia and Thailand, to the Prime Minister's good governance initiative prosecuted at APEC last year—that it is committed to Asia for the long haul. We do this because we are good neighbours. But we also do it because they are good customers, and we believe in the underlying economic strength of the region.At the same time, the government will continue to encourage diversification into growth markets beyond our region. To that end, Austrade is opening new posts in Lima, Peru, and Bucharest, Romania, and we are strengthening our existing trade and diplomatic networks in posts such as Buenos Aires, Pretoria, Brussels and Abu Dhabi.The Market Development Task Force, which has in a few short years already achieved impressive results, will continue to be the linchpin of our bilateral trade efforts. In 1998 the task force recorded many wins, such as approval for the export of Fuji apples to Japan, increased sales of automotive components to Korea and a 63 per cent rise in coal exports to the Philippines. While this government has devoted significant effort to reinvigorating our bilateral trade armoury, we have never lost sight of the fact that an export-oriented country like Australia needs a strong global trading framework to get access for our exporters to world markets. In the World Trade Organisation, Australia has been amongst a core of countries laying the groundwork for a new round of comprehensive trade negotiations—the so-called Millennium Round.Now in the crucial year of 1999, we have the opportunity to launch this new round at the ministerial meeting to be held in Seattle in the US at the end of the year. President Clinton's recently announced support is the latest in an impressive list of countries now indicating support for a millenium round. Australia will continue to take a central role to ensure that a balanced package of market access results can deliver new market openings to Australian exporters. We will do this through a range of actions, including our continued leadership of the Cairns Group of agricultural fair traders, as well as through building alliances with other like-minded countries in key priority areas for the Australian economy, such as the very important area of world services trade. And we will do it all in close consultation with Australian exporters and all other interested members of the Australian community.At the regional level, APEC will be a key vehicle for our continued commitment to regional economic recovery, regional market openings and practical trade outcomes. We will work closely with this year's APEC chair, New Zealand, to build support within APEC for a multilateral round. We will also focus on trade facilitation efforts to improve the environment for doing business in the region. APEC's response to the regional financial crisis will also be a priority, building on the $50 million economic and financial management package announced by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to last year's leaders' meeting in Kuala Lumpur.In 1999 we will continue to emphasise the importance of trade for rural and regional Australia, and to assist small and medium enterprises in their export efforts right across Australia. In this more difficult trading environment, the government has reaffirmed its commitment to providing exporters with high-quality, timely market information and appropriate levels of trade finance and insurance for trade and investment activity. As just one example, I will be introducing new legislation in the current session of parliament to amend and improve the Export Market Development Grants Scheme so that it is better tailored to assisting small and medium enterprises to develop sustainable export platforms.The `1999 Trade outcomes and objectives statement' reflects the government's efforts to strengthen Australia's outward looking and internationally competitive position. The statement highlights our export achievements but also warns of the challenges ahead. Most importantly, it sets out a clear path to meet these challenges. In short it is an indispensable document for all Australian exporters; it is one of those books that count. I commend the `1999 Trade outcomes and objectives statement' to the House, and I table the document and my statement.12:07:002314Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—by leave—I am reluctant to rain on the Deputy Prime Minister's parade—no one can doubt his enthusiasm—but I think some balance is required in consideration of the government's performance and its objectives in this vital area of public policy. Self congratulation is a common political weakness, and we have certainly heard a dose of it today.The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was held less than two weeks ago, with 40 heads of government in attendance. Yet John Howard did not deign to appear. Peter Costello could not fit it into his schedule. Alexander Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, went but his was not really a serious economic presence. One member of the Australian delegation was quoted as saying, `We asked for a special session on Australia, but the organisers told us that, unless the Prime Minister came, we couldn't have one.'Last year's APEC meeting in Kuala Lumpur lacked focus and direction. Most disappointingly, APEC failed to achieve an agreement on the early voluntary sector liberalisation. We saw from Australia absolutely no ambition whatsoever. On that occasion, the Prime Minister blew the opportunity to push for further trade liberalisation to help regional economic recovery. In Auckland later this year, it will be 10 full years since the Hawke government established APEC.We saw, with President Clinton's recent call for a new WTO round, the opening of the prospects for a new dynamic phase of world trade negotiation, especially in this year—the WTO year of agricultural trade liberalisation. Yet where is Australia? I will tell you where we are—we are dragging our feet. For example, we just missed the deadline for ratifying an important WTO agreement on financial services—an agreement concluded more than a year ago. Just what kind of a message does that send? There is scant sign now of the leadership shown by Hawke and Keating in the past.The Deputy Prime Minister makes much of the flexibility of the government in assisting exporters to switch from our traditional markets in South-East Asia into new markets in the Northern Hemisphere. But the reality is that a large part of this shift is due to the much lower value of the Australian dollar making our commodity exports cheaper overseas. Hidden amongst the figures here today, we see a range of exporters who are having real difficulty switching to the new markets. Penetrating these markets takes time, effort and an understanding of local conditions, preferences and regulations. It requires support from Austrade, and it is all the more difficult when Austrade's budget has been slashed by this government.In the present environment, there is a pressing need for Australia to shift into new industries. These include the information technology industry, but also others less often talked about such as biotechnology, genetic engineering, environmental protection and communications. The main criteria for attracting such high-tech industries is not low wages but good scientific infrastructure, a well-educated and adaptable work force and a government committed to putting in the resources required to encourage research and development.The Deputy Prime Minister has said today that our exporters are doing a great job and that they would do an even better one if the Senate passes the tax changes. That was his statement. In this House, we all know that the tourism sector in Australia is one with great potential to grow, but we also know that the number of tourists visiting Australia has fallen by around four per cent—equating to a loss of about $665 million for the many small businesses that depend upon tourism for their livelihood. Murphy—the government's own modeller of choice—says that tourism will decline further as a consequence of the GST. Dixon, the other modeller—the independent, world renowned modeller—makes the point that the GST will discriminate against labour intensive industries in favour of capital intensive sectors. He concludes that the high growth export sectors of tourism and education exports will be hit—and hit hard.There was no recognition of that by the Deputy Prime Minister today. His assertion that things will be better for the export sector with the GST is not borne out by the facts. Treasury's own analysis indicates that the GST will lift the exchange rate by some 3.5 per cent, while Murphy says it could be as high as 4.1 per cent. This will certainly make our goods more expensive in overseas markets—there is no doubt about that. For the export market sector, let me say, the Deputy Prime Minister's assertions today are the statements of a false prophet.The Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that our exporters face a much more difficult and challenging environment in this coming year. In these circumstances, the government should be doing a great deal more to assist our exporters to maximise their marketing opportunities. Where is the ambition in this statement for the active trade promotion so vital to Australian jobs? Money spent on the Export Market Development Grants Scheme has a major multiplier effect in our economy. Instead, this government has gutted it. As against Labor's last three years in power, the coalition's first three years saw the Austrade budget slashed by over 30 per cent. Over the same period, the EMDG scheme was cut by over 25 per cent. So we see Austrade not attending the recent Milia Multimedia Festival—not attending at all—and we see Victoria left to lead the charge for Australia.As a middle-ranking power, Australia's future lies in APEC and the WTO. Labor negotiated the Uruguay Round and won significant improvements for Australia's farmers, especially in beef, rice, wheat and a range of other products. Labor's WTO legacy includes the declaration of 1999 as the WTO year for agricultural trade liberalisation. Yet the government has almost nothing to say about this issue so vital to the interests of Australian farmers. What else is missing from the statement, is a substantive declaration of Australia's position on the upcoming WTO Millennium Round. All we get from this government is silence and secrecy, just as they gave us until they were smoked out on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment—same story, same secrecy, same silence.What we needed today was a statement of ambition and defined goals—that is what we needed. We needed real plans on how Australia can achieve those export goals, and it is exactly this that the Deputy Prime Minister has failed to deliver. Little wonder that, for the first time ever, the cumulative goods and services trade deficit in the 1998 calendar year topped $10 billion.Bills2315r6522315Debate resumed.12:15:002315Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his very positive `Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement'. I would like to resume my speech on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 by noting the remarks by the executive officer of the highly respected Australian Retailers Association, Mr Phil Naylor. He said that the jobs of around 300,000 young Australians are now at risk because of Labor's and the Democrats' policies to abolish junior wage rates. Mr Naylor also said that abolishing junior wage rates would force the cost of employing inexperienced young people up by as much as 150 per cent, making them less attractive to employers.At a time when the Howard government is working with the community to find solutions for youth unemployment, it seems incredible that the Labor Party wants to bring in a policy that will actually make the problem much worse. It is a severe blow for our young kids who are trying to get a foot in the door. It just does not make any sense to me.We all know that a young person's first job opportunity is so important. As a mother of eight, I have had the satisfaction of watching each of my children go into the work force. It is incredible to see just how much they grow in stature when they start their first paid job and when they bring home their first pay packet. The Labor Party should not deny any young person in Australia that right. Most of my children have worked part-time jobs while they were still studying, either at high school or university, to help them with the cost of education—yet another fact overlooked by Labor. In many cases young Australians chose to work casual and part-time jobs while continuing their studies. Labor is putting all of this at risk.The most ironic thing is that the Labor Party say they know how to create jobs. They come into this place and give sermons about how we should be tackling unemployment. When Labor was last in government youth unemployment hit record high levels of over 50 per cent in some regions. Labor's policy to abolish youth wage rates comes on top of their decision to block the Howard government's change to the unfair dismissals law to exempt small businesses with less than 15 employees. The Council of Small Business Organisations has predicted that this action alone has cost at least an extra 50,000 new jobs. Local small business owners are always telling me how they would be much more willing to employ an extra person if it was not for the unfair dismissal legislation, which is such a disincentive to employ.The fact is that Labor blocked 50,000 jobs when they voted against our sensible changes. It is another example of Labor making decisions to satisfy noisy interest groups instead of the Australian national interest. Instead of looking out for the interests of union bosses, Labor should take a principled stand and support the Howard government's decision to protect jobs, especially our kids' jobs.Since the coalition was elected, we have created well over 300,000 new jobs, and it would have been more if not for the efforts of Labor and the Democrats to block our changes to unfair dismissal. While there is more to be done, we have also introduced practical things, like Work for the Dole, to give our young people real hope, experience and an opportunity to work on local community projects. I still find it incredible that Labor opposes Work for the Dole. It has huge community support. With several programs operating in my electorate of Forde, I have witnessed first-hand the real profound differ ence it has made to the lives of many of our young local people. Again, it is something that Labor opposes purely for political reasons.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Shameful!6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—Definitely so. Their trenchant position on junior wage rates, on unfair dismissal, on Work for the Dole, speaks volumes about why they failed to gain the trust and respect of the Australian people at the last election. They have not learned from the past. They are still out of touch with the aspirations of mainstream Australia. And, worst of all, they are unwilling to act in the national interest. But then, when Labor's employment spokesman is the former boss of a union movement, I guess we should not be at all surprised.As I said at the outset, you hear a lot of political rhetoric from the Labor Party about youth unemployment. They have tried to make political mileage out of it, even though they have created the problem. But what disturbs and disappoints me most of all is that in opposing this bill Labor are saying, `We don't care if youth unemployment gets worse.' That is what they are saying. What other logical explanation is there? We have a mountain of evidence that the abolition of youth wages will mean that young Australians will lose their jobs and that those currently unemployed will have their chances of finding work severely reduced.Yet Labor oppose this important bill. They reject our efforts to fix the mess they created with their legislation to abolish junior wage rates. And we really have to ask the question why. Is it more than just blind ideology? Is it simply politically expedient? Do they secretly want to see our youth unemployment rise so they can get some mileage out of it with some slick advertising campaign at the next election? Are they deliberately blocking our measures to reduce youth unemployment because they think their chances of getting elected next time will be better if more young Australians are out of work? Those are the questions we have got to ask when their political position flies in the face of all logic. Australian young people deserve much better than to be used as pawns for a political campaign.But Labor has shown little regard for the will of the Australian people, as if the last election never took place. I am sure the Labor Party will hardly see this as relevant, but the coalition went to the last election just over four short months ago promising to retain existing junior wage rates, include junior rates in awards and to make the promotion of youth employment a central objective for the Industrial Relations Commission.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We got a mandate.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—We did too. They forget that. This bill does precisely what we promised we would do. It fulfils an election commitment, but I hardly expect Labor to recognise or acknowledge that. They find it impossible to accept that our tax policy—which they, themselves, made the central plank of their campaign—should be implemented. It was what they said the election was all about. If the election was all about tax and we won the election, surely that means we have the right and the responsibility to go ahead and do what we said we were going to do. But, again, Labor's position defies logic. I have to say that I hope the Democrats will rethink their position, listen to logic, let commonsense prevail and support this bill, because it is clear that to oppose this bill is to risk the jobs of many Australians.I would like to point out that the Labor governments of Queensland and New South Wales have both legislated to protect junior wage rates. They know that doing so will protect jobs. They know it is the right thing to do, despite what their mates are now saying federally. But Kim Beazley's Labor has already found it much easier to be a totally impractical and irresponsible opposition. They have displayed that time and time again in this place.With little regard for the national interest, they have tried to stand in the way of government at every turn. When we took the tough economic decision to get the budget back into surplus and began to repay Labor's debt, they said it was not necessary and they opposed that all the way. When we introduced Work for the Dole to give our young children a chance to be part of this community, Labor opposed us all the way. When we put forward a plan for tax reform which everyone in Australia agrees was necessary, again they opposed us all the way. And now it is junior rates of pay. It is about time the Labor Party took a hard look at themselves and actually developed some decent policies, because at the end of the day Australia deserves better and, especially, our young Australians deserve better.12:23:002317Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Having heard the contribution from the other side, it is time to get some rationality back into this debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . On the final sitting day of last year, during the matter of public importance debate, I said:. . . at the end of 1998, we can, unhappily, say that we are seeing the birth of the Howard generation—out of higher education, out of work, and out of hope.Clearly not content with creating a generation lacking genuine and fair access to opportunity, this government now wants to go further. This government now wants to make sure that those of the Howard generation who, against the odds, find work will be forced to accept low junior pay rates, irrespective of the skills they bring to the job.The bill before the House is another example of the sort of bad public policy this government is hell-bent on pursuing in the industrial relations area. It is bad public policy for four reasons: it entrenches discrimination and moves away from international labour regulation standards; it will reduce the wages of working young people; it usurps the proper role of the industrial umpire; and it will do nothing to address the real causes of youth unemployment.Let us look at each of these reasons in turn. First, let me deal with the move away from international labour regulation. In 1958 the International Labour Organisation established the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. The ILO has a proud history as a specialised United Nations agency which seeks to promote social justice and human and labour rights. Founded in 1919, it is the only surviving major creation of the Treaty of Versailles which brought the League of Nations into being, and it became the first specialised agency of the UN in 1946. Within the UN system, the ILO has a tripartite structure which is unique and brings together workers and employers participating as equal partners with governments. It was, at its creation, an organisation truly before its time. Let me briefly quote from the preamble to the ILO's constitution. It states:Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required.And the preamble later continues:Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries;The High Contracting Parties, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of the world, and with a view to attaining the objectives set forth in this Preamble, agree to the following Constitution of the International Labour Organisation.Stripped of the quaint language, the purpose of the ILO is clear. In an era before `globalisation' was a word in everyday parlance, the founders of the ILO understood that allowing the oppression of working people in one nation must ultimately lead to the undermining of the conditions of workers in another nation. The ILO's founders, almost 80 years ago, understood something that this government does not—that international labour regulation is good for working people.In ratifying and legislating on the basis of the discrimination convention and a number of other ILO conventions, the then Labor government understood something this government clearly does not—that one of the keys to the future for work forces like Australia's lies in the spread to every nation of appropriate labour regulation. Australians need the battle for global competitiveness to be played out on a field that increasingly has at its foundation some form of basic security for working people. We want to enjoy that security and, by helping others enjoy it as well, we will be taking a significant step in ensuring such security is not lost in a global competition downwards about the wages, conditions and security of working people.If our government had the wit to grasp this point it would be promoting the adoption of ILO standards worldwide and leading by example by ensuring that Australia's laws complied with ILO conventions. Instead, this short-sighted government answers the clear call by Australian working people for increased security and workplace fairness as they face increased global pressures with yet another fundamental shift away from ILO standards—a bill that entrenches age discrimination.In 1999, I would hope that even the members opposite would say it is completely unacceptable to discriminate in employment against a woman, just because she is a woman, or against an Aboriginal person, just because of that person's race. To any such proposition I trust we would hear, even from the other side, cries of shame. And yet this bill entrenches the ability to discriminate against a young person, a so-called junior, simply because of his or her age. The very essence of discrimination is that you impute to a class of persons characteristics you believe to be true of that class; that you languish in the intellectual bankruptcy of saying `All women are like this' or `All Aboriginal people are like that'; that you avoid the intellectual rigour of dealing with individuals and situations on their merits free of prejudice. That intellectual bankruptcy is precisely what this legislation is founded on. This legislation is founded on the belief that young people, simply because of their youth, are worse workers, less productive and less motivated than their adult counterparts. The intellectual task of dealing with competency levels, skills assessment and training questions is avoided.For that very reason, and for the very reason that it entrenches discrimination and accepts prejudice against the young, this legislation should be rejected. For the very reason that it entrenches another move away from ILO standards and a regime of international labour regulation, this legislation should be rejected. Indeed, so blatant is the prejudice against young people inherit in this legislation that this bill permits the wages of young people who are already employed to be reduced. This bill contemplates that, for no other reason than age, the wages of a young person currently in employment could be cut. To take one example, the introduction of junior rates in the National Metal and Engineering On-Site Construction Award 1989 could result in weekly wage cuts of up to $274.67 per week.The justification advanced by the government and its failed minister for workplace relations is that, unless junior rates are entrenched and indeed extended into awards which do not currently contain such rates, the wages of youth will rise and youth unemployment will worsen. Both of the assumptions inherent in this argument are flawed.If this bill were consigned to the dustbin, where it belongs, what would happen is that the industrial umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, would be free to complete its inquiry into junior rates. If you take the time to study the material that has been placed before the commission by both employers and the union movement, it is immediately apparent that the industrial players and the commission itself are dealing with the issues in a sophisticated and considered way. No-one is putting forward the proposition that you simply abolish current junior rates, pay all currently employed juniors adult rates and then stand back and watch what happens.The simplistic and insulting conclusion of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that the commission is mad, that the industrial parties are stupid and that you cannot trust them to do anything other than unrealistically bump up wages for young people should be rejected by this House by rejecting this bill. We should let the industrial umpire do its job rather than intervene on the basis of flawed assumptions, in particular the very flawed assumption that the Australian Industrial Relations Commis sion will do its job badly. So part 1 of the minister's justification for this bill falls away because there is no reason to assume that we must act to stop a pay explosion for young Australians.Part 2 of the minister's argument, that without this bill youth unemployment will rise, is equally absurd. Indeed, in the second reading speech for this legislation, the minister showed how completely devoid he is of ideas on how to deal with youth unemployment when he said:Quite frankly, this parliament should be dealing with policy issues designed to put more unemployed young people in jobs—such as the coalition's unfair dismissal reforms. . . This is a minister who believes that the answer to youth unemployment is to make young people easier to sack and, through this bill, to try to cut their wages. Isn't it time that the minister woke up and realised that in 1999 we require more from him than cheap posturing on the republic? It is time to recognise that the real cause of youth unemployment in our society is the complete restructuring of our economy as a result of technological change and globalisation.We no longer live in an age of secure employment in large enterprises that choose to offer young labour entrants low skill positions with a view to giving them a start on the road to a lifetime career. The days of the 16- or 17-year-old bank teller who goes on to become the bank manager, or the copy boy or girl who goes on to become the newspaper editor, are gone. Many of these entry level positions have been replaced as a result of technological change. The shape of our labour market has changed as a result of outsourcing, with employment increasingly with smaller specialist entities. The swing of employment to the service sector, the rise of new technology and the adoption of `just in time' work systems have all contributed to the creation of part-time, casual and occasional work.The skill requirements of our economy and the need for lifelong education are changing the way we view the intersection between work and schooling. In this changed and changing world, the answer to youth unem ployment is not a wage system of the 1950s coupled with laws that sanction unfair dismissals. The answer is much harder. Australia needs a better resourced and more flexible education system that meets the needs of our young people and promotes higher retention rates. The fact that in my home state since 1992 the retention rate to year 12 has fallen from 77.9 per cent to 69 per cent is a disgrace.Let me reiterate those figures in case you have not understood the importance of that move. We have seen an 8.9 per cent reduction in retention rates to year 12 in the period in which we have had the Kennett government in Victoria—that is, from 1992 on. When our competitors, particularly our Asian economic competitors, are increasingly focusing on schooling and looking at their retention rates to the completion of undergraduate qualifications as being the viable statistic for determining the efficacy of their education system—in the way in which Singapore, for example, can boast very high retention rates to the completion of an undergraduate qualification—we in Australia are going the other way. We are watching our school retention rates fall as more and more young Australians and, in the case of my home state, young Victorians are consigned to a future out of work and out of hope because they have not been able, in a properly resourced education sector, to complete the very basic step of secondary school.The crisis in rural Victoria on the question of retention rates is even worse than that in metropolitan Melbourne. Indeed, in some rural areas like Gippsland, which have struggled with drought and other natural calamities, retention rates have plummeted as far as 57 per cent. Almost one in two young Australians is not completing secondary school. Against a backdrop like that, this government will try to tell us that the answer to youth unemployment lies in cutting wages and making young Australians easier to sack. It really is a very offensive conclusion given the magnitude of those statistics and the problems that we face in keeping young Australians and young Victorians in schools to give them some opportunity of a start in life.Clearly, the answer to youth unemployment does not lie in this government's simplistic conclusions and posturing on the question of youth wages. It lies in part in sophisticated regional policy and in part in a better resourced education system. If we look at the question of sophisticated regional policy, we need to look at analysing the needs of not only rural and regional Australia but the varying regions within our cities.Throughout my home state of Victoria youth unemployment, as measured by the number of 15- to 19-year-olds looking for full-time work, is too high at 31.2 per cent in the 12 months to December 1998. Within this generally dismal result, and it is truly a dismal result, there is a clear geographic pattern. Youth unemployment in every country region is higher than the city rate, peaking at 47.3 per cent in the Barwon-Western District. Youth unemployment in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, including my electorate, is higher in all cases than the youth unemployment rate recorded amongst the more affluent and educated populations of Melbourne's inner suburbs, particularly the inner eastern suburbs.In my electorate we have a youth unemployment rate of 34.3 per cent, the third worst result of Melbourne's nine regions. It should be noted that the second worst youth unemployment rate is in the region adjacent to the one in which my electorate lies. This spatial distribution shows the fallacy of making a neoclassical economic assumption that fixing youth unemployment is about creating wage rates low enough so that the market will clear. The 15- to 19-year-old kids from Werribee in my electorate or from a country town like Hamilton are not participating in the same employment market as the kids from Toorak.The needs of each area are very different. Sophisticated and detailed regional education and jobs strategies are required if we are to seriously address the youth unemployment problem. On those very basic issues this government has not even made a start. Its answers have been—as we have noted today—to try to get lower wages for young people, to try to make them easier to sack and, on all occasions, to underresource our education and higher education sectors, with higher education in particular having been the subject of the government's most vicious round of cuts in its last period of government.At the outset, I said this bill was bad public policy and ought to be rejected. I urge the members on the other side of the House to seriously consider what on earth this bill is aimed at achieving, apart from a cheap headline for the minister on the question of youth wage rates. We should be rejecting this bill or perhaps having it withdrawn. We should allow the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to complete the task which it has been assigned, the task of inquiring fully and in a sophisticated fashion into the question of junior wage rates and how we can restructure the system to remove age discrimination but still have a system which addresses competency, skills and training issues. We should allow the commission to complete that task and, when it has completed that task, to make the decisions operative through industrial awards and agreements.We should not accept a piece of legislation in 1999 which entrenches a discrimination as basic as age discrimination. We should not allow the government to get away with the sham of suggesting that this is in any way an answer to youth unemployment. We should move on from debating this very bad piece of public policy to dealing, hopefully, with the real issues that I have raised which are affecting the employment of young Australians as we stand here today.12:41:002321Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—In response to the previous speaker, I would draw her attention to a statement by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in his second reading speech on 26 November on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . The minister used a very telling quote. He quoted from a letter to the Adelaide Advertiser from Paul Madden, Executive Director, Baptist Community Service, South Australia:It seems to me that a fundamental question must be asked: "Is it better for a young person to have a lower wage and the opportunity to develop valuable skills or to have an adult rate and no job at all?" That quote sums up the discussion for me. The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999, as I have indicated, was introduced in the House on 26 November 1998. The aim of the bill is to promote the inclusion of junior rates in awards and workplace agreements and to exempt youth wages from the anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act.By way of background, more than 420,000 young Australians are employed on the basis of youth based wages in both the federal and state industrial relations systems; 220,000 of those jobs are in the retail sector. At the same time, October 1998, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for 15- to 19-year-olds was 27 per cent. For those over 20, the equivalent unemployment rate was seven per cent. Clearly, young people are disadvantaged in their search for full-time employment.At the 1998 election the coalition made a commitment to protect and promote junior rates as part of its More Jobs, Better Pay policy. This bill is the direct and immediate implementation of that commitment. That commitment involves the reverse of the Keating government's 1993-94 industrial relations program, a program that would have made junior pay rates illegal from June 1997. I am particularly interested in the member for Batman's earlier comments. He mentioned that the ACTU actually had in its submission to the commission that it would allow for junior pay rates in many industries.As for the provisions of the legislation, the legislation is broad ranging for it does not simply focus on pay rates. The amendments apply to the whole operation of the Workplace Relations Act, including the exercise of powers and discretions by bodies such as the Industrial Relations Commission and the Office of the Employment Advocate.This legislation amends the principal object of the act by including in its aims:. . . protecting the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promoting youth employment and assisting in reducing youth unemployment.It also requires the IRC to take into consideration the promotion and protection of the competitive position of young people in the labour market when varying and establishing awards. As such, junior wage provisions will not be regarded in law as constituting age based discrimination. Similarly, the commission's determinations and decisions must take into consideration these principles. Junior rates of pay will be formally and permanently exempt from the operation of relevant antidiscrimination provisions.On the issue of the totality of Australia's youth employment situation, when discussing the often emotional issue of youth unemployment it is worth while reflecting on the raw facts of the matter. A snapshot taken in October 1998 of the condition of young Australians would reveal that of the 1.4 million 15- to 19-year-olds almost half were not in the labour force—that is, 562,500 were at school, in training or simply enjoying their youth. A further 213,900 were in full-time work, 395,980 were in part-time work and 136,800 were unemployed, almost half of whom were seeking part-time employment only. There we have the totality. It is something that the last Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, did bring some factual base to in the dying days of his government.As such, youth unemployment is not the scourge of an entire generation. To take as gospel the tabloid headlines would be to ignore the extraordinary contribution made by young Australians across the nation in their work, their education and their service. Nevertheless, all Australians deserve the right to seek out their own destinies without the interference of others. And here is the real tragedy of youth unemployment, for it is the present industrial relations system that condemns over 136,000 young Australians and countless other citizens to the poverty, idleness and dissatisfaction that comes with unemployment. For far too long we have all tried to close our eyes and ears to the reality that unemployment in Australia is about choice. And we have chosen to trade away the futures of a minority in the interests of centralised wage fixing—the interests of big unions and industrial lawyers.This legislation represents a paradigm shift away from that immature and irresponsible trade-off. It recognises that the young and inexperienced are disadvantaged in their search for employment precisely because their age and experience makes them less valuable, especially initially, to those who ultimately pay the bills—Australia's employers and small business people. There are some in the community, most of whom occupy the opposition benches and the office of the ACTU, who would say, `So what?' They would condemn those young people to unemployment without a second thought—collateral damage in a long over class war.That is not the Liberal way. The Liberal way recognises that our workplace relations system should cater for the national interest and the interests of individual citizens, not for lobbyists and lawyers. It should cater for all Australians both in and out of work. Failure to pass this legislation will cost 60,000 young people their jobs almost overnight and 200,000 jobs in the long term. There will be 20,000 jobs lost in South Australia alone. And those who vote against this legislation must be willing to look everyone of those 200,000 young Australians in the eye and tell them their intransigence was in their interests. Be they senators or members, they must be willing to justify themselves to thousands of Australian families who will lose a pay packet because ideology demands it.Our youth are the next generation of Australians—they are our next MPs, our next ministers, our next professionals, our farmers, employers and employees. We should not deny our young their bright futures and we should not deny Australia the contribution they can make by denying the young work.Youth is an advantage and a disadvantage. Enthusiasm cannot always compensate for experience and skill. For that reason we wholeheartedly support apprenticeships and traineeships and for that reason we should support junior wage rates by supporting this important legislation.12:50:002322Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I would like to preface the remarks I was planning to make with a couple of quick observations. When listening to the honourable member for Grey, who has just spoken, we need to keep in mind that some young people already in the work force are going to have their wages cut if this Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is passed. We need to remind ourselves that this is not a simple problem with a really simple solution involving this type of legislation. It is all very well for the honourable member to stand up and claim that I am going to have to look people in the eye because I am creating a loss of jobs; I feel very confident in the action I am taking in not supporting this legislation for a variety of reasons. But let us remember that some people already in work, who have already gained work on a good salary—defying the odds as outlined by those opposite—will have their wages cut under this legislation. That is not a solution to the problem, as far as I can see.The other casual observation I would like to make is this: in today's society we sometimes have a fairly confused way of measuring success. When we talk about access to employment for a range of people, both the young and others, we need to think carefully about the way things are structured in our society. Is it really a good idea for the executive of a company to get a $1 million bonus at the end of a successful year because he happened to improve profit by halving the work force? I have nothing against profit, but I am very much for employing people. When we talk about the economics of employment we need to talk about the humanity of employment as well. I am personally somewhat bemused by the measures that we have for success in our economic world today and the fact that we reward people with money and accolades because they have halved their work force. Outsourcing, cut-downs, cut-outs and reductions in staff—none of those contribute to full employment.The government claims that moving from age based to competency based wage rates will result in increased youth unemployment. The available evidence just does not support that argument at all. Wage rates are not the most significant factor in determining levels of employment. Relative to adults, the wages of young full-time workers have in fact been falling, but that has not resulted in employers substituting young workers for the mature. On the other hand, wage costs for part-time teen workers have increased relative to adults—but so has their part-time employment. Youth wages are lower in manufacturing than in retail, but youth employment has fallen faster in manufacturing. So wage rates are not a significant factor in youth employment, but they are a decisive factor in the poverty of young workers.Youth unemployment in my electorate of Canberra has been very high for a very long time, as many members in this House can testify in relation to their own electorates. Here it regularly jumps between 30 and 50 per cent. I am pleased to say that, fortunately, it has not been up to 50 per cent for the last while, but while it is still consistently bouncing around the 30 to 40 per cent level we must remain very concerned. Many young Canberrans remember the statement from Mr Howard on the eve of the 1996 election about youth unemployment. I will remind the House by quoting what he said:I will be a very disappointed man if I haven't made a very serious inroad into the level of youth unemployment in this country because I would like to see our performance in that area as being a mark of what we have been able to do as a government.The mark of this government's first term was actually increased youth unemployment and reduced opportunities for our younger people. It remains to be seen if their second term is going to prove to be any better. However, I fear that they are determined to continue their agenda of cutting youth wages and funding to education and training, even though it is not the solution to this problem.Let us look at some of the alternatives to the present system. The relationship between wages and employment is a complex one. Contrary to what the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, would have us believe, there are alternatives to the present junior rates system, and we all need the opportunity to consider these. The minister has an obligation to the Australian public to allow these important matters to be fully investigated and reported on by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission prior to any decision being made on changing any legislation. Consideration of the available data in a non-political environment will allow the possibility of a result that gives young workers the best chance in their work and their training opportunities. To miss this opportunity ensures that young people become even more entrenched in a discriminatory, low income wages system.There needs to be consideration of the long-term effects of any legislative decisions. The previous speaker mentioned a quick snapshot of these young people. I have my snapshot that I would like to share with the House. The 15- to 21-year-olds today would look very different from that same age group 20 years ago. School retention rates for year 12 have increased from 35.1 per cent in 1978 to 71.8 per cent in 1997. More students are combining full-time study with part-time work. Between 1986 and 1998, this nearly doubled from 15 per cent to 28 per cent. Full-time labour force participation among young people has collapsed. In 1996 teenagers comprised 14.1 per cent of the full-time work force, but by 1998 this figure had fallen to 3.2 per cent. That is quoted from the ACCI submission.The type of employment being undertaken by young people has also changed. The Queensland government submission to the inquiry on youth wages suggested a number of alternatives to the current system of junior rates. On the retention of junior rates, it said that to do nothing would entrench discrimination. It would perpetuate the unfairness of placing full adult responsibilities on young people 18 years and over but refusing to pay them as adults. It would reinforce the perception of youth being a cheap wage option. On abolishing junior rates without replacing them with other alternatives, the submission said that there are no serious proponents for unilateral abolition of junior rates. This could lead to large wage increases in many awards. This option has been put forward by parties to provoke uninformed opposition to any attempt to replace junior rates with a viable alternative.They also had something to say about the option to replace junior rates with across-the-board traineeships or apprenticeships. They said that introduction costs could be replaced by undertaking pilot implementation with government and industry support, then continued on an industry by industry basis. That would deliver increased efficiency and productivity through skills development and vocational education and training. On competency based progression, they said that there could be gradual introduction on an industry by industry basis, competency based wages could be based around previous junior rates and there should be no move away from junior rates until a replacement competency based system is available.The minister does not want to listen to the submissions or the debate in the Industrial Relations Commission. As is evidenced by this government on many occasions, they really do not want to hear the alternative in a fair and unbiased fashion. The minister does not want to know about the training, the advancement or the recognition of our young workers. He wants to deny parliament and all Australians the opportunity to consider this whole complex and fascinating issue of youth wages and the exciting alternatives that could in fact be developed. Unlike what the minister would have us believe, proposals for non-discriminatory alternatives to junior wages will not necessarily result in aggregate wage increases. There are also differing views on whether cutting wages will in fact create jobs. It is very easy to stand here and say, `Cut all the wages and double the work force,' while we are also seeing attempts within the area of industrial relations to cut the work force and cut the wages.Bad legislation for our young workers actually means that all Australia suffers. Members on this side of the House want to see the evidence, we want to hear the debate and we want to read that report. Unfortunately, this is typical of this minister's style. He gagged the debate on the unfair dismissal bill and he does not, I believe, want to have the parliament scrutinise his legislation.I do not believe that we on this side of the House have a patent on our care and concern for the young people in our community or their wish for, belief in or need for full-time, secure employment. We all have that as a goal and we all honourably believe that it is a worthy thing to charter for and to attempt to achieve. Unfortunately, what we differ in is the methodology by which we can achieve that. I implore the government to look very carefully at the outcome of the AIRC inquiry, and to consider very carefully all views and look very sincerely at the evidence that will be and is available in relation to this myth that, if you have lower wages, you automatically improve the ability for more young people to gain employment. I am afraid that that is a myth. It has not been proven to be fact. Any legislation based on that type of hypothesis is a very wrong piece of legislation. I implore members opposite to consider very carefully their position in relation to youth unemployment.13:01:002325Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I am pleased to rise today in this place to speak in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998. I have listened with interest to the contributions of the members opposite. It disappoints me, because the Labor Opposition seems to be living in a time warp. They want to go back to the 1950s, they want to live in the past. This amendment bill seeks to make this legislation effective for today's small business people, for the industrial relations process that is in place in today's work force and in today's workplace.If this bill is not passed, it could jeopardise the employment of 300,000 young Australians. I have spent most of my working life in small business. I understand how small business works. I understand the opportunities that are there for young people to be employed in many roles within small business. I also understand that if junior pay rates were abolished, many of these small businesses would not choose to employ juniors, to employ young people, when they have to pay the full adult wage rate.Young people just out of school may have no experience; they may never have had a job before. The employers have to teach them the work; in many cases they have to teach them the work ethic, which is a reflection of Australian society over the last decade. Often the employers are repaid many times over by those young people in future years. But in the initial stages a lot of time and effort has to be put into those young people to make them valuable employees. Why would employers employ young 16- or 17-year-olds and pay them the full adult wage if they could just go out and employ a well trained, competent adult who could walk straight into the job and do the job efficiently? The simple answer is that they would not do that.I am speaking from experience. I am not being driven by ideology. I am talking about hands-on experience. I spent five years on a cruise ship called Lady Hawkesbury, a 68-metre vessel which employed a crew of 28 people. I was originally employed as a crew member and left five years later as master of that vessel. Most of the crew that we had on that vessel were young Central Coast kids—people who in many cases had never had a job before, but were keen to enter the tourism industry. We employed young people as waitresses, bar staff, deckhands, dishwashers, galley hands; there was a whole range of employment on board that vessel.Over the five years we employed several hundred young people. Those young people employed as deckhands—`deck boys' was the classification—were all members of the firemen and deckhands union. They were employed on junior pay rates, and they took up a lot of our time. They were young 16-year-olds who left home and came to live on board the vessel. We were on board for two week shifts, then back home for a week. We had to train them not only in work skills but also in lifestyle skills, in many cases.A number of those young people have now got their deep sea masters certificates and are working on ocean going vessels. A couple of them are masters of ocean going vessels. They started off with nothing. If we were not able to employ them on board that vessel at junior rates of pay, the simple fact is that our boss would not have taken the time to employ them and invest money in training them when he could have been paying experienced ship persons the full adult rate, and they would have continued in the industry.The point that I am trying to make is that junior pay rates are a start for young people. We are talking about high youth unemployment. I have listened with interest to the genuine concern of members opposite about high youth unemployment. It is a difficult issue. I do not think that anyone should stand in this place and say they have the magic answer. We now have youth unemployment down to levels that, whilst still far too high, are running at around 27 per cent. I think the last figures were 24 per cent nationwide. That is certainly a lot better than the previous figure of 32 per cent. The way to continue to reduce that figure is to allow this legislation to go through the House.Over half the employees aged under 21 are covered by junior rates, with almost a third of these being employed in the retail trade, which is obviously the most significant and important industry as far as youth employment is concerned.The AIRC inquiry is currently looking into junior pay rates. I read with interest the ACCI submission, put forward mainly by the retail and fast food industries, which put the case to retain the age based pay rates for juniors. The submission makes a number of points relating to the retention of junior rates:. Youth unemployment is already high, and the onus on those supporting the removal of junior rates is to show that such a change would not damage the job prospects of unemployed young people.. The higher cost of employing, the fewer persons will be employed.. Young people have fewer skills and less experience.Generally that is the case. Young people often have a higher work motivation and more enthusiasm. I think that has to be balanced against their obvious lack of experience and skills in most cases. The next point is:. Young people are less mature than are adult employees.That is often the case as well. More importantly, the next point states:. Employers believe that young people have fewer skills and are less mature than adult workers.There is always some sort of resistance to employing young people, so there has to be an incentive to employ those young people. Junior pay rates are an incentive to employ them. The submission further states:. It is not discrimination to pay less to young workers who are less skilled and have less experience.. The prime interest for young people to gain workplace experience and to develop labour market skills.That is one of the major problems that many young people have, particularly those who do not finish their high school education. Many of them have never worked in the workplace and, unfortunately, many of their parents have never worked in the workplace. There is no training within the family unit of workplace skills, of the simple fact of getting up in the morning and going to work. If their parents have never worked in their lifetime, these young people have no guidance. So once they do get a job the employer has to train them in the work ethic—the fact that they have to be reliable, that they have to turn up on time and if they don't, there has to be a reasonable explanation as to why they have not. The submission further states:. Where junior rates have been eliminated there has been a reduction in youth employment.. International data show that paying adult wages to young people costs them jobs.I believe that that submission certainly upholds the case that this legislation should be passed. I was listening to some of the speakers opposite in this debate. Some members raised the issue of discrimination, somehow saying that this issue could be related to the debate over equal pay rates for women in the workplace, and discrimination against Aborigines. There is one difference. Women in the workplace, hopefully throughout their lives will always remain women, and Aborigines will always remain Aborigines, but young people will not always remain young people. They will grow up, they will mature, they will gain skills and as they do so, they will get the wage increases that they are entitled to. They will very quickly become adults.I saw again in the debate that the Labor Party seems to be locked in a time warp. They were saying that people were going to get a job at 16 and were never going to grow up, that they would be locked into this pover ty trap, as they call it, with low wages for the rest of their lives. A young person is very grateful to get a job at 16 at junior pay rates to get experience and training. With two boys of my own who are now in their early 20s, I know that time flows very quickly. Before you know it they are 17 and they have got a pay rise, which they believe they have earnt. They get a great thrill from that.Going back to the Lady Hawkesbury cruise ship, when these people turned 17, they had gained extra skills, they had worked. There was a great sense of achievement and enthusiasm when they got that pay rise, because they believed that they had worked hard and trained hard and that they were entitled to that increase. That is what the workplace should be all about—working as a team with your employer and training and getting those skills. I just wanted to make that point, because no-one else seems to have made that point.The joint government submission that was put forward to the AIRC inquiry also has some very telling points. It says that junior rates are inherently conducive to youth employment and that there are no feasible alternatives to junior rates, non-discriminatory or otherwise, as all available alternatives have a detrimental effect on youth employment and do not properly reflect the differences in skills and maturity between young people and adults, or are difficult and costly to implement and administer. It further states:The anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act are concerned with equality of opportunity just as much as with equality of treatment.. . . . . . . . .Removing those provisions would severely damage the youth labour market in Australia, and would be likely to result in many young people experiencing protracted unemployment, with potentially permanently damaged prospects of labour force integration and reduced career prospects over the longer term.A number of other points were made in the government submission to that inquiry. Ultimately, this bill reflects the government's goal, the government's achievements, in offering to young people greater opportunities. What we have done as a government is to turn this economy around. We have given people greater opportunities, greater flexibility in the workplace, and we are starting to see the benefits of what this government has done. As a new member in 1996, I came in here full of enthusiasm, full of hope for the country, very concerned about the direction in which we had been going under the Keating government. I stood here and argued for the changes that we made and the difficult decisions that we made in addressing the deficit. I was convinced that we were on the right track, but we did not have the evidence to say that we were.Now when I go out into the community, I can speak with conviction that the government is on the right track; that we have the evidence, the track record, to show that we are taking Australia forward. I talk to young people now and I say, `Go out there and take the opportunities that now exist.' I talk to my own sons; I talk to their friends. I go to high schools and talk to the young people there. I say, `This government has given you an opportunity to make this country great, to go forward, to get jobs, to buy homes with reduced interest rates'—interest rates that we have not seen in our lifetime—`with the unemployment rate now down to 7.7 per cent and the youth unemployment rate falling.' This government, through the difficult decisions it has had to take, has given the young people of Australia opportunities they previously did not have.The reason I got into federal parliament was to try to make a difference—and I believe that this piece of legislation is just a further progression of what the government is trying to do. I cannot believe that the Labor opposition is opposing this legislation. It is legislation that makes sense. It is commonsense to allow junior pay rates to exist; to allow young people to enter the work force, to get training, to get accreditation and to become useful citizens within the work force. This legislation is a way of doing that. I commend the bill to the House.13:16:002327Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—We have had a number of speakers from both sides of the House already speak in some detail—and, on this side of the House, persuasively—about the difficult issue of youth wages. It is clear that it is not an issue for glib statements or easy populist solutions. It is equally clear that the government's Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill seeks not only to maintain youth wages, irrespective of the work being performed by young people, but also to extend them to areas where they have never existed before and never been demanded and are not even regarded as appropriate.That this bill and its proposal are discriminatory cannot be avoided as an absolute truth—although I do notice that the member for Robertson, who spoke immediately prior to me, seems not to have acknowledged that as an absolute truth. It appears that a large number of members of the coalition benches do not appreciate that using age as an arbitrary definition of whether you have skills or talent or experience or capacity is, in fact, discrimination.This whole debate is being run at cross-purposes. The coalition is saying, `We should, as employers, be able to employ young people so that they can obtain skills in the workplace and go on and contribute for a long time in their working lives to come.' In fact, the member for Robertson gave a rather quaint example of working on a ship, the name of which already escapes me, where a large number of young people under his tutelage were able to grow to adulthood and then be paid an appropriate rate.What the member for Robertson refuses to acknowledge is something that the members on this side of the House have been arguing very convincingly and in a non-discriminatory way: that, if those people are in their first job, if they are being trained and if they have no skills when they start, there is a much more appropriate and non-discriminatory manner for dealing with them. That is called a training wage; it is called competency based wage rates; it is called having an appropriate classification structure. It does not use age as an arbitrary definer of whether or not those people have that skill.I would be more than happy for the member for Robertson to perhaps return to his position as a friendly educator for these young people, and no doubt those young people would be happy to be employed on rates of pay that reflect their skill. If, in fact, some of those young people already had some skills in boating, or already had some other service skills, I am sure that the member for Robertson, following his argument, would accept that, once they had those skills, they should be paid appropriately for them. This is one of the big falsities of the argument that has been going back and forth in the House this morning. Youth wages and skill based wage rates are not the same thing.I also heard the member for Gilmore this morning say that she did not believe that the system being proposed by the government was discriminatory, she did not believe that it discriminated against the young, and she would not support it if it did. She does not think it is discriminatory because it gives these young people a chance to get some experience. As I have already indicated, this defies logic.Anyone who is familiar with our industrial relations system knows that there is a capacity for training wages and competency based skill structures, which appropriately allow payment based on the level of skill and irrespective of age. We know that age cannot determine these things, in just the same way that gender, race, hair colour and other arbitrary indicators cannot.The fact that this is discriminatory is some sort of blind spot for the coalition. It seeks to argue that it is not discriminatory, hoping perhaps by repetition that we will be convinced it is not. The coalition fails to recognise that the legislation is of a discriminatory nature, I think, because, once it concedes that it is, it does not have the intellectual rigour to explain to us why the legislation should remain in place nevertheless.We on this side of the House recognise that youth wages are discriminatory, but we also recognise that it is a complex issue and that change will need to be carefully considered and managed. This was a view that the government held until recently, as it legislatively required an inquiry into the complex issue of junior rates. But now it is more interested in some populist mantra—unsubstantiated, of course—that this change will create jobs. It has gone for the crash or crash-through policy, rather than wait for a considered report from the experts in the area, the Industrial Relations Commission.We have heard before these arguments about what is and is not discriminatory. We have had the argument—as the member for Robertson already alluded to—about women's wages; and we have had the argument about Aboriginal wages. Once again the same things have been said. Didn't we say that Aboriginal stockmen should not be paid full wages because they should be grateful just to have food and somewhere to sleep? Didn't we say that, with white men being employed instead, Aboriginal stockmen would actually be unemployed? We are hearing the same arguments now: won't we employ adults, if young people are paid the same wages?We said that it was not discriminatory to pay women less because they did not have the same skill and intelligence—and, anyway, their needs were more modest. In saying that young people deserve less, are we now saying that their needs are less or not as important as those of others? If a particular young person is supporting a family, would a new system allow them to be paid more?Despite concerns and difficulties, no-one in our community now truly believes that Aboriginal workers or women should be paid less for their work than their white or male counterparts. But, although we are in the 1990s, nearly into the next millennium, the recognition on the government frontbench of a modern reality and a modern discriminatory problem based on age still has not sunk in.There is an irony in this situation: the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has a propensity to cast unions and the ALP as the group in our community that is `rash, thoughtless and irresponsible'; but it is a title in this situation that only he can wear. The unions and the ALP know that this is an issue that is unfair, that must be resolved and that must be dealt with with caution and fairness.But the government's answer to an issue which is discriminatory and complex is simply to make it more discriminatory. Let's not even be content with maintaining the status quo; let's actually extend it into areas where we never have had youth wages before. To answer this problem, let's make it more discriminatory. Let's make employment of young people even more insecure. Let's change the unfair dismissal laws so that, in the first six months of your first job, you can be dismissed for no reason. It does not matter what your skills are; in fact, it does not matter what your age is—although, of course, young people entering the work force for the first time will be disproportionately affected by that.In dealing with this complex problem, let's make it more discriminatory; let's make it easier to sack young people—after all, we would not want them to feel secure in their employment. Let's also make it more difficult if you are a young person and you cannot get that job to start with; let's say that you will be treated differently to others in whether or not you are to receive your Newstart entitlements. You might as well get used to the idea that you will be treated differently in the workplace once you get there, so you might as well be treated differently out of the workplace as well.Just to add to these three brilliant ways of resolving a complex and difficult problem—we will make it more discriminatory; we will make it easier to sack people; and we will make it discriminatory when you are in the workplace, just so that you get used to the idea for when you actually do get a job—let's also add a GST rate. Do not let anybody misunderstand that the GST—IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know that there has been quite a bit of free ranging debate on this bill, but I would ask you to bring the member back to the bill. I believe that she is ranging a little too widely at the moment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I think the member has wandered away from the bill. I ask her to come back to the point of the bill.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The GST does have an impact and is relevant to the bill that is before the House. We are talking about the application of a system of youth wages which will entrench a different rate at which young people will be paid. Their earning capacity will be affected by this legislation, but the taxes that the government is prepared to take will be at the full adult rate.This is an argument about the double standards of the government. Looking at this legislation, we are dealing with whether or not the government regards people who are 16 or 17—or 19 or 20, for that matter—as adults. The government, through the use of its tax package, is happy to take an adult contribution when taxing these people, but it is not happy to regard them as adults for the purposes of the payment of their wages.The government does not want to look at whether or not these people are doing an adult's work; it does not want to look at making some sort of sensible assessment about whether or not the skills that a person is performing are being performed at the adult level. However, the government does want to say, `Because you are 16, or because you are 19, you should be paid a different amount, but we'll still take the same amount of money when you buy your food at the shop, we'll still take the same amount of money when you pay a tax on your bus fare to work.' It is actually very relevant to what this government is doing through this legislation.I think the message from the government on this issue is pretty clear. The government is clear about the way they want to regard youth in this community—although it takes the youth vote as a full vote; it does not take it at half the rate. The government cares about youth as a source of income, whether with the GST, whether through tightening benefits to young unemployed people or restricting their entitlements to youth allowance. But the government is not prepared to treat these people as adults when it comes to the work they are doing. The government is not prepared to listen to their advocacy groups either, demonstrated by its reduction of funding for APEC and all sorts of other issues.Not only will this legislation impact on young people in an unfair and unjust manner, but also the government, through its action of proposing this bill, runs the risk of our losing them forever as contributors to our communi ty. We know that for young people there is already a growing cynicism about politics and public life. We want them to participate in civic life, and we want them to respect this government's concepts of mutual obligation. We want and demand and we want and demand, and it goes on. But we are not prepared to recognise them and appreciate them when they work at an adult level.I also wanted to focus particularly on the ever-diminishing role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. This issue is absolutely relevant to the legislation which at the moment is before the House. Under this government, not only have we seen fairly relentless attacks on ordinary working people and basic conditions, but also, perhaps more insidiously, we have seen the role of the independent umpire restricted, ignored and dismissed. This has been observed with the list of allowable award matters, the limits on the commission's capacity to arbitrate and its access to unfair dismissals.With the current amendment, we see that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is trying to push the issue of youth wages through the parliament, before a full and proper inquiry has been conducted by the commission into the detailed circumstances and the impact of any changes in this area. We all know that the Industrial Relations Commission is well placed to do this review. We know that it has the government's terms of reference and it includes its appointees on the bench. But the government is still scared of the outcome and, instead, wants to push through with this reform.The member for Robertson stood up and said in his speech that we all know that the issue of youth wages and unemployment is a complex one, that there is no magic answer and, quoting him, `no-one has it'. I think it would be helpful for us if the member for Robertson perhaps raised with the minister this issue of why the minister thinks he is the only person who has the answer to this complex question; why the minister does not listen to the Industrial Relations Commission and wait for its report is beyond all of us.It is a complex issue. We know that it will take a long time to resolve. We know that, even though we recognise it as discriminatory, there are a large number of issues that will have to be dealt with, even once the commission's report is handed down. The member for Batman this morning has already gone through how complex this issue is and its interaction with unemployment.In speaking against the bill, I would say this: when the coalition and many of the speakers on the other side of the House refuse to acknowledge that this legislation is discriminatory, I have this to say—and I say it particularly to the women who are on the opposite benches—these arguments have been run before; they have been run about us. The arguments about women's capacity, their skill and their impact on employment if we entered the work force were all proved false. We would not, as women, be here receiving equal pay with our male colleagues if these discriminatory arguments had prevailed. It is the same argument; it is just a different group.Do not allow yourselves, I say to the women on the government benches, to be associated with this equally discriminatory system against young people. Do not let us be part of another generation of workplace discrimination.13:31:002331Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—The bill we debate today, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999, is of great consequence to Australia's small businesses and to the employment future of thousands of our younger citizens who are embarking on their working lives. As with so many of this government's attempts to bring our work force up to date, to make it skilled and competitive, this measure has the Labor Party shaking its head at us and thumbing its nose at the youth of our nation. All the while, of course, it is nodding its head in unbridled obedience to its union bosses.It must be increasingly difficult for those on the other side to maintain their negativity over coalition policies. We see it through the apparent proliferation of aspiring Booker Prize writers. No doubt they are distressed at their failure to win the 1998 election and the failure of their frontbench to have any semblance of policy, let alone any ideas that have relevance or meaning. As we approach the new century the ALP is indeed at a crisis point, hemmed in by its union affiliations. Their opposition to this legislation is but an example of their dilemma.Perhaps even more distressing for them is the way that the coalition policies have taken root and produced positive results in the community. We see lower interest rates to assist home buyers, low inflation to keep prices at bay, lower unemployment, higher standards of education and a call to service through the principle of mutual obligation. All these achievements have made Australia stronger, with the promise ahead of lower and fairer taxation.As I move around my electorate and speak to many of the small businesses, the message they give me is the same: don't fall into the trap of your predecessors, who claimed that this is as good as it gets. Put the right systems in place, continue to create and maintain an environment in which business growth can flourish.When the coalition took office in 1996, workplace relations was a messy area. Labor had exacerbated the problem with its introduction of draconian unfair dismissal laws and rigidity over collective bargaining. Their stance came at a heavy cost. Companies lost profits, young Australians lost jobs, and our nation lost opportunities it might have otherwise grasped.Historically, unemployment among young people aged 15 to 19 has been higher than in the community at large. In seasonally adjusted terms over 20 years, the youth unemployment rate has ranged between 2½ times and 3½ times the community rate. While the rationale for the discrepancy is perhaps understandable, it is nonetheless disturbing and unacceptable for us as members of parliament. It highlights the importance of a greater emphasis on training and on ensuring that job seekers are ready for work. You cannot buy experience and the young can only compete for jobs if they have the skills.I spoke in this place on a number of occasions about the success of the vocational education and training schemes introduced in the first Howard government. I have been particularly delighted to have witnessed its implementation in my own electorate of Deakin.Private and public enterprises today are technology rich but leaner on manpower. There are more jobs available when there is more business. Business increases when it is competitive. To be competitive requires a skilled and cost-effective work force. We have seen many industries shed workers in an attempt to stay alive. This reduction can often mean fewer opportunities for our young. The fastest way to guarantee unemployment is for the work force to price itself out of the market. The unions have done it so often you would think they might have learned. Wage pushes do not help the employment situation.For most of the century, junior rates of pay have been permitted under the Commonwealth and state laws and supported by the opposition. Recent survey results among retailers suggest that the best way to safeguard employment and employment prospects for our young is to continue that system of junior rates. Last year the Australian Retailers Association surveyed its members, who account for over 380,000 employees, about their likely response to the abolition of youth wages: 16.8 per cent said they would lay off some junior employees, 18.4 per cent said they would lay off most junior employees and 50.6 per cent said they would recruit only adult employees. If the job is needed, an employer faced with the prospect of paying adult wages to juniors would prefer to hire adults with maturity and experience. It would be hard to fault this logic, but it indicates nothing but doom and gloom for youth employment if junior rates are abolished.Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that the shedding of junior positions would not result in adults replacing youth in the work force on a one to one basis. The abolition, for example, of three junior positions may mean replacement by one paid adult position. There would be a net loss in employment. Most small businesses attempt to keep a tight reign on expenses. Many are owner operated and may decide to take on the extra duties themselves, placing extra pressure and burden upon their businesses.Given that so many opposite seem to have spent their lives agitating against employers, or developing their view of society from the pages of the ACTU training manual, they would not understand that it is often a struggle for these small businesses to take on staff. One of the main incentives to employ young people is the cost-effectiveness of their labour. The requirement to pay everyone the full award would no doubt see juniors retrenched and many not replaced at all. The junior wage rewards young people as well as any conceivable competency based system could. Young people can be moved to higher duties if their performance warrants it, and thus earn a higher wage.The ALP stance on this issue is a matter for some head scratching on our behalf. Those opposite have a history of supporting award wages. They have a history of maintaining a system where businesses have been forced to overpay for less than satisfactorily performing staff. Therefore, because of financial constraints these same businesses have been forced to pay their better performers less than they are really worth.Labor is posing as the guardian of the junior pay packet by asking for competency based pay. I ask: who will measure this competency? How do they propose that it will be policed? Why have competency at junior but not at senior levels? It is as hypocritical as it is utopian. Do those opposite support the same competency arrangements for teachers, for waterside workers or even for their own frontbench? Let's face it—the union movement has only recently been forced to accept competency based, performance based pay in any form. We saw evidence of that in last year's maritime dispute.Between the ages of 15 and 19, young men and women are going through the latter stages of their transition to adulthood. Most are still at school or in some form of study. Those in the work force, particularly those who are working full time, are taking the first steps in their life's direction. The annual increment they receive in their pay is good reward for their service, and most welcome.Of course, many of these junior workers will change jobs as they seek clearer direction and better remuneration. And just because a person is a junior does not mean he or she has a fixed earning capacity. There are many who show exceptional talent at an early age and who are never constricted by the bounds of award wages. The junior wage is not a form of discrimination against our teenagers, nor is it ageism in the workplace. It is an opportunity for many to get a foot in the door that otherwise may not be open to them.While we all accept the notion of equal pay for equal work, it is very often difficult to define or measure the contribution of individuals in the work setting. During the last parliament, as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I had the privilege of looking into the factors influencing the employment of young people. On the point of competency based rates the committee heard from McDonald's and a number of other organisations. I want to highlight the evidence by McDonald's, who employ over 40,000 young Australians. They argued:Young employees can learn skills related to the tasks they perform quite quickly, usually within six to 12 months. Young people also develop other more general work skills in their employment which are valuable to employers, such as teamwork, organisation and planning, responsibility, punctuality, customer awareness, communication, initiative, self-confidence and a healthy work ethic. These skills are not easily measured objectives but, as young people are generally less proficient in them than older workers, age based rates represent a simple, rational and intelligible proxy for competency based rates.Coles Myer and Woolworths, who employ 110,000 young people, also supported the retention of junior wage rates. The committee noted that it was understandable that such large employers of young Australians would support the status quo, given that the abolition of the youth wage or a move to competency based rates would put a severe dent in their profitability.However, we should consider the somewhat immeasurable benefits to our young of such employment aside from the obvious pay packet. The member for Batman, who spoke earlier today, was a member of that same committee and heard the same overwhelming evidence for the retention of youth wages. However, being the prisoner of ideology that he is, he then put his name to the dissenting report. Today that same member came in here and rattled on about the need for bipartisanship in an attempt to solve unemployment. It is perhaps the first olive branch offered by the opposition in a long time. However, it is a false dawn. He offers no support for our attempts to bring the jobless rate down. Rather, he would have us do the bidding of his union bosses who, having caused so much unemployment, know all about it.A career has never been an exercise in instant monetary gratification. Successful careers begin perhaps at universities or other institutions of learning or as an apprentice or working with an organisation that trains and promotes its own. There are those who go another route, and perhaps at age 22 or 23 they will be better off financially than their counterparts who stayed with the books or with training. Ten years later it is quite often a different story.The Productivity Commission has found that a one per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of between two and five per cent in industries employing a relatively high proportion of young people. That sort of drop would be catastrophic and unacceptable to this government. Since coming to office in 1996, the coalition has worked to provide the environment in which our employers can offer more workplace opportunities. It is obvious that to bring youth unemployment down we must also bring down the general rate of unemployment. We do not propose to fudge the figures by moving people into dead-end schemes. Rather, we seek to end the cycle of generational unemployment that has gripped many families under the previous Labor government. All of our policies in the areas of education, employment and taxation are designed to get people back to work if they are able and willing.Good habits are best developed early in life and through programs such as Work for the Dole, the Green Corps and literacy testing we are sending the message to young people that it is just not good enough to sit back and accept unemployment benefits. At the same time, there are many more people seeking work than there are jobs available. While we continue to push to create more jobs, we must do all we can to protect the opportunities for our young. For those who cease their studies in their teens, getting a job is the most positive step available. Numerous studies have tied youth unemployment to the high rates of teenage suicide and drug abuse. While a job is not a cure-all for the problems faced by our young, it can be the ray of hope, the light at the end of the tunnel, that many seek.As I said earlier, I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions about the success of the vocational education and training schemes introduced in the Howard government. I have seen first-hand any number of examples in my electorate of Deakin of young people who have been steered into jobs where not only could they perform but they were encouraged to continue their training and expand and improve their skills.Recently, I had the opportunity to visit two of these companies—Upstream Technologies in Blackburn and Transcal in Ringwood. Both are smallish companies with an outward view of the future and, as a consequence, they are growing. At the same time, they are employing younger people who are exposed to the positive mental attitude with which both organisations are imbued. The juniors are in training. They are obviously not earning enormous pay packets, yet they have a chance to develop skills, both tangible and intangible, and a chance to specialise in areas that interest them. As their skills become more vital to their companies, their value increases. The dedicated young workers at Upstream and Transcal would scarcely have had the same opportunities had management been forced to pay its juniors on the adult scale.The approach of the opposition puts at grave risk the future of thousands of young Australians like these in my electorate. They should forget their ideological nonsense about discrimination. They should encourage business to continue hiring young people and give them a start to their working lives. Real discrimination in the workplace will take place if increased wages force young people out of the job market. If that should happen, the Australian people, particularly our young people, will surely know who is to blame. I commend this bill to the House.13:46:002334Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The reason we are debating the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is that the government has no strategy to deal with unemployment. Unemployment is the scourge of Australian society. It causes a loss of self-esteem and tragedies in homes. It is not just the loss of the nation's productive capacity that we are dealing with; it is a problem that has tragic human consequences.There is nothing more tragic, of course, than the waste of human potential through youth unemployment. In presiding over high levels of youth unemployment in this nation, we are creating a real danger that unemployed young people will be condemned by society to joblessness and alienation. This causes our young people to strike out at the society that has spurned them. The legislation before this House is very important because it gives us an opportunity to talk about this issue of youth unemployment and the remedies to it.Instead of developing an integrated plan for tackling youth unemployment, the government has embarked upon a program of punishing young people for the government's own failure. The key to getting young people into work is to ensure that they have the education and the skills to command a job at a decent pay. Nowadays, young people who leave school early—and there are still very many of them who leave well before year 12—face the prospect of being condemned to joblessness. We are now in the information age. That is where the jobs are and we need to generate the skills in young people so they can get those jobs. If we do not do that, we are failing them.Under the previous Labor government, the proportion of young people completing year 12 increased dramatically from 36 per cent to more than 70 per cent. But what have we seen since 1996? This government has actually cut education funding by $130 million. That is a $130 million cut in government school funding. The Howard government has not committed itself to providing a decent education for disadvantaged young people at all, and this is what we must do. We must lift the skills base for these people, instead of withdrawing funding and then coming into the House to debate this issue of youth wages.The government is punishing young people again through the Common Youth Allowance. On 1 July last year, 46,000 young unemployed people had their benefits cut. The Common Youth Allowance for 15 to 17 year olds is a complete fiasco. In Logan City, which is in my electorate of Rankin, there is absolutely no funding for the young kids and they are being forced to return to school against their will. We were advised that, to fund the Common Youth Allowance for 15- to 17-year-olds, the relevant government department put in a budget submission of $140 million. In fact, the amount that was approved was $42 million. Assurances were given that that meagre amount of money at least would be distributed. There are children in Rankin being forced to return to school against their will and they are getting no funding, and I am quite sure that situation would be replicated right across the country.At the university level, which is highly relevant to this question of youth wages, further punishment is being meted out to our young people. University grants have been cut by nearly $1 billion under this government, and 21,000 student places have been abolished. What direction are we heading in? TAFE funding was cut by $240 million. We are seeing a systematic deskilling of the young people of Australia, and then we come into this place to debate the issue of youth wages. If we had some proper skills based programs to lift the skills of young people, there would be no need to come in here to debate this issue.What is happening is that the government is systematically punishing young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I fear that we are seeing a return to the days of privilege of the pre-Whitlam era—where privilege is being entrenched but, worse, disadvantage is being entrenched by this government. The government's proposal on youth wages is just one dimensional. They have no imagination whatsoever, and they have no commitment to solving youth unemployment in Australia.I wish to go to the issue of work incentives for young people because this goes to the heart of the matter we are discussing today. The tax package provides, I am afraid to say, further punishment for young unemployed people. Education is supposed to be GST exempt. That is not the case. Most of the costs of an education will bear a GST. The families who are trying to educate their young people will have to pay extra costs for books, clothing, transport and a whole array of other things involved in getting young people into school, into training and then into university if they choose that course.Let us have a look at another impact of the government's tax package on young unemployed people. Members would be aware of the modelling that has been done by Professor Dixon of Monash University and Chris Murphy of Econtech. They have predicted the following as a result of their modelling. They have predicted very large job losses in the tourism sector. They have predicted large job losses in the housing sector. In fact, the tourism task force has confirmed that there will be large job losses of up to 60,000 in the tourism sector. This is the result of independent modelling.Where are our young people looking for jobs? Where is the greatest prospect of finding work? It is in our growth industries, our service industries. But we are debating a goods and services tax, including a punitive tax, on tourism. So we are here debating the issue of youth wages, but last year we debated the GST and the Senate inquiry is now debating whether there should be a 10 per cent tax on the education and job prospects of young unemployed people.Let us look at a particular category of young unemployed people and it is a fairly large one—that is, people in the age bracket of 17 to 24 who have had their youth allowance cut or removed entirely by this government. There is no extra compensation to those parents who will be impacted financially as a result of their kids at home having their youth allowance removed or reduced and as a result of the impact of the GST.Members opposite seem to be fond of quoting McDonald's. I will quote another McDonald—Professor Peter McDonald of the Australian National University. In a submission to the Senate GST inquiry, Professor McDonald said:There is no compensation at all for the costs to parents of any child aged roughly 17 years and over despite the fact that nowadays a very high proportion of these young people are dependent or semi-dependent upon their parents. Income tests of the Youth Allowance imply that the government expects families to support children aged between 17 and 24 years, but this is not recognised in the new tax arrangements.That is a point that has been reinforced by the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission. Mr O'Connor, the National Director of the Catholic Social Welfare Commission, said:Tax package cameos being marketed by glossy advertising and snapshot references to `what is the total package worth to me?' are selective and do not give a full indication of the package's impact.He went on to say:It is a concern that for average families depicted in the tax campaign advertisements with two or three dependent children, there may be an additional `hidden' dependent young adult who is unemployed or studying with no financial assistance. They would add at least $130 each week to the family's taxed consumption and costs of living, according to the Institute of Family Studies this estimate does not include housing, transport, medical or dental expenses.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order. Could you bring the member opposite back to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill? I believe he is speaking on a wide ranging area.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— —I thank the member for Robertson. I call the honourable member for Rankin again, and I am sure he will speak to the bill.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—The reason I am talking about this is that the whole issue of incentives for young unemployed people to work relates directly to the measures that the government is proposing in this legislation. So I will finish what Mr O'Connor had to say, which was obviously of concern to the member opposite. Mr O'Connor said:This estimate does not include housing, transport, medical or dental expenses. The invisible dependent young adult attracts no assistance under this package.The government should be easing the transition from welfare to work for young unemployed people. This, in fact, was Labor's plan. I will point out a cameo about Bill that Labor actually provided in its package. It went:Bill works part time earning $5,000. He also receives a part rate unemployment benefit. Bill currently pays $16.30 a week in tax and has $80 a week left over from his wages. Labor's tax rebate will enable him to keep almost all of his wages. Under Labor, Bill gets to keep $94.42 of what he earns. Under the Coalition package, Bill would be paying $13.42 a week in tax, keeping only $82.73 of his income from working.That is where the solution to this problem lies—in providing an incentive for young unemployed people, an incentive that is totally lacking in the government's tax package and is totally lacking in the measures that it is proposing.We on this side of the House are delighted with the bipartisan support that has been provided by the government for our target of reducing unemployment to five per cent. This nation needs an integrated plan for reducing unemployment and, in particular, for reducing youth unemployment. What we are seeing today is simply one reacting measure, one proposal. We need to have an entire plan that provides incentives to work and rewards for work. That is a plan that the Labor Party developed and presented to the people at the last election.What we are seeing here are the world's great renegers. When they went to the 1996 election, they made core promises and non-core promises, but they reneged on their non-core promises and, dare I say it, a significant proportion of their core promises. We heard from the Prime Minister that we would `never ever' have a goods and services tax. He reneged on that commitment, too.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements23372337Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation (Mr Hockey) will be absent from question time today, due to an illness in his family. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) will be available to take questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice233723372337Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it not the case that you have watered down your guidelines to make the standards fit the ministers rather than the other way around? What assurance will the public have that a minister's decisions are not influenced by his or her shareholdings, simply because someone else is temporarily controlling them, particularly when there is nothing in the revised guidelines to stop ministers from having knowledge about interests they have transferred to a nominee or trust or to non-dependent family members? What public confidence can there be that decisions taken by ministers in matters where they have a commercial stake are not free of a conflict of interest? Prime Minister, how can you justify this serious diminution of longstanding standards of ministerial conduct?2337Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I, of course, reject completely the rhetorical elements contained in the Leader of the Opposition's question. Can I remind the Leader of the Opposition that we now live in a society where 40.3 per cent of the population own shares.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—So what?ZD4Mr HOWARD—He says, `So what'! Forty point three per cent of the Australian population own shares, and that is a direct result, I am proud to say, of the privatisation policies of the coalition government. If the member for Melbourne had his way, it would be 75 per cent of the Australian population, because he is the great privatiser.I would inform the House that the changes that were made to the code were, with one or two very minor exceptions, direct recommendations contained in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's brief to an incoming government. They make the guidelines more contemporary. They are totally defensible. I completely reject the envy credo of the Labor Party, and I do not intend to be Prime Minister of a country which allows a situation to develop where men and women who have been successful in business, men and women who have accumulated assets, are intimidated out of offering themselves for public service.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not intend in this or any other question time to allow persistent interjections such as we have just witnessed from the member for Wills, the member for Corio, the member for Hotham and the member for Lilley.23372337Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of any recent indicators of the strength of the jobs market? What is the government doing to maintain the momentum for further job creation?2337Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Moore who has asked this question which goes to the heart of what the Australian community is really interested in and what the Australian community expects of its elected representatives in the national parliament, which is a focus on job generation.I am very pleased to draw the House's attention to a statement summarising a survey released today by Morgan and Banks. Under the title `Phenomenal Job Growth', the Morgan and Banks survey indicates that Australian employers are exhibiting extremely high levels of optimism, with over one-third, namely 35.6 per cent, saying they will put on staff in the next three months. Morgan and Banks Ltd, Australia's largest recruitment firm, surveyed 3,206 employers to formulate the job index. They say it is the most optimistic and the best result that has been produced since the index was inaugurated in 1995.Mr Geoff Morgan, the joint managing director of Morgan and Banks had this to say:For the first time ever, an overwhelming mood of optimism has been recorded across all industry sectors.Let me say that again, in case anybody sitting opposite did not understand the import of that statement:For the first time ever, an overwhelming mood of optimism has been recorded across all industry sectors.This is a direct result of the policies pursued over the last three years by the government I am proud to lead. This is a direct result of the coalition government getting the budget in order. This is a direct result of the lowest interest rates we have had for 30 years. It is a direct result of the low inflation we have had. It is a direct result of the measures we have taken to build economic growth and economic confidence. Fifty-four thousand new jobs were created in December alone, and more than 400,000 new jobs have been created since the coalition came to power.But, at 7.5 per cent, everybody would agree that the unemployment rate is still far too high. There is a responsibility on us on this side and there is a responsibility on you on the Labor Party side to take further policy steps to bring that unemployment rate down. And you will have an opportunity over the next few weeks in the Senate to make a decision as to whether you are going to knock off our unfair dismissal regulation. Because, if you do that, you will destroy the job prospects of 50,000 Australians in small business. If you and the Australian Democrats continue to oppose the measures that we have put forward to entrench junior wages within the Australian employment system, you will be putting at risk the jobs of several hundred thousand young Australians.I say to the Australian Labor Party: if you want to build on the momentum so clearly evidenced by the Morgan and Banks survey, if you want to make a contribution to getting unemployment lower than 7.5 per cent, you will drop your opposition to our unfair dismissal regulation, you will drop your opposition to our attempt to protect the jobs of 300,000 or 400,000 young Australians and you will join the government in further measures to free up the labour market, consistent with the maintenance of the Australian safety net system which has been a cornerstone of our policy since we were elected in March of 1996.We have the best opportunity in this country for almost a decade to really achieve a big breakthrough on the unemployment front. We have high economic growth, we have a very strong Australian economy, we have booming business confidence, we have a government that has the courage to implement the taxation and other reforms to bring about change; all we need is an opposition both here and in the Senate that is prepared to put the national interest ahead of petty, party-political point scoring.23382338Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, under your watered-down code of conduct, is it not a fact that a future minister for coal who owns shares in a coalmine is allowed to divest control to a trust or non-dependent family member? What is to stop the minister from ringing their trustee or non-dependent family member every day to find out how their shares are going? Wouldn't this allow potential conflicts of interest to arise regularly?2338Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would have thought the question was a tad hypothetical.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh really?DT4CREANMr Crean—That's Warwick Parer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I believe the Prime Minister is right and that the question is hypothetical. I thought he was seeking to elaborate, and that is why I allowed him to continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat what I said. I think the Leader of the Opposition's question is a tad hypothetical. I repeat that these changes were essentially recommended by the Prime Minister's department in the brief to the incoming government. They make the guidelines contemporary, they make the guidelines realistic. Frankly, I am totally relaxed about the changes that have been made, and so are all members of the government.23392339Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen the results of any surveys on the Australian economy? How do they reflect on the healthy state of the Australian economy?2339Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. I was interested to see the National Bank's monthly business survey for January, which was released I believe yesterday. It shows that business conditions improved for the sixth consecutive month in trend terms, all components of business conditions improved, business confidence remains at extremely high levels and has now returned to the high levels recorded prior to the Asian financial crisis.The chief economist of the National Australia Bank, Mr Allan Oster, said in this survey:The National's latest business survey suggests a strengthening trend in economic activity evident in recent months was maintained in early 1999. Looking ahead, the domestic economy has enough momentum to continue expanding strongly for at least six months.The Prime Minister has already referred to the Morgan and Banks survey which was released today. The quarterly Morgan and Banks job index released today says:. . . employers are exhibiting extremely high levels of optimism, with over one-third saying they will put on staff in the next three months and only 12 per cent saying they will downsize, giving a net effect of 23.6 per cent, the highest level of confidence in the economy since the job index commenced.Whilst I may not actually say it myself, I note that the headline was `Phenomenal Job Growth Predicted from Morgan and Banks'. Even outside the Australian Labor Party, which will not admit the government's success in economic management because it has opposed nearly every step that was necessary to get it there, there have been important recognitions from other elements which are opposed to the government in relation to the government's economic management.I was interested to see the ACTU's living wage submission to the national wage case bench. I thought I would quote from it, because it is so rare that I agree with the ACTU. In fact this could be the last time I agree with the ACTU this millennium. The ACTU said:Australia has worked its way through the crisis and is in good shape and with sound fundamentals to weather any future storms form Asia or elsewhere. This is due to certain features of the Australian economy, sound macro fundamentals of economic growth and low inflation, the flexibility of our exporters, our stable financial system, the productivity boom of the 1990s and flexible and adaptable economic institutions, particularly in the labour market.The ACTU is now welcoming `flexible and adaptable economic institutions, particularly in the labour market', which I suppose puts them in the progressive wing of the Labor Party, along with the member for Melbourne and the member for Werriwa—I welcome them both here today, the thinkers of the Labor Party—against the member for Hotham and the member for Brand. I said yesterday that I have actually read both of your books, which I think are important contributions to economic thinking.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—When is your cookbook coming out?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I welcome the way in which you endorse government policy. But we have to say that there are at least two people on the Labor frontbench who have been unable to bring themselves to modern economic thinking. They are respectively the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They are now behind the ACTU, behind the member for Werriwa, behind the member for Melbourne—unable to congratulate the government on its economic management. I encourage them to try to modernise their thinking and to take a leaf from each of the books that have been published, because they may learn something.23392339Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows his previous answer. Prime Minister, are you trying to blame your head of department for the water ing down of your guidelines? Are you trying to say that, because you would not enforce these guidelines in the last parliament, the guidelines are now the responsibility of someone else for the development and enforcement?2340Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Of course I am not trying to blame anybody. Of course I am not. I simply repeat that the changes made are realistic, sensible and contemporary, and I defend completely every one of the changes that have been made.23402340Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's views on the most recent developments in the UN sponsored talks on East Timor? Is the minister aware of any alternative views on that matter?2340Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Indi for his question. I particularly appreciate the work the member for Indi does on behalf of Australia on foreign affairs issues, both as a member of the joint house committee and on a number of trips he has made to Asia over the years. He is a very able member.I understand that the United Nations sponsored talks in New York have gone into adjournment and that those talks could be described as being at a critical juncture. The whole of that negotiation—involving Indonesian foreign minister, Ali Alatas, and his department, as well as the Portuguese government and their foreign minister, Mr Gama—is at a very sensitive juncture. Of course responsible members of this parliament are restrained in the remarks that they would make about this because of the sensitivity of the time.As the House well knows, the government has made it perfectly clear that our preference is to see an autonomous East Timor, obviously subject to the agreement of the people of East Timor. Of course we will accept that if the people of East Timor want to go their own way—and the Indonesian government has made it clear they can if they want to—we will accept and support that decision. But the key is to make sure that there is a smooth and successful transition—a peaceful and calm transition—either to a fully autonomous province or, if the East Timorese people choose to go that way, to an independent state. Obviously Australia is already very active behind the scenes in doing what we can to help achieve a smooth and peaceful outcome.The government has been very active on this issue. Over the last two weeks I have met with the Indonesian economy minister, Mr Ginanjar, I met with Kofi Annan, I met with the EU Presidency of the Council of Ministers and with the European Commission, the British Foreign Secretary and the United States Assistant Secretary of State, inter alia, to discuss the very difficult issue of East Timor. I must say that I have been very impressed with the positive responses I have received from each and every one of those people.In two weeks time, members of the government—including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, the Minister for Defence and I will be in Bali for the ministerial forum with the Indonesian government. Also over the next two weeks, I will be having a number of discussions with East Timorese leaders.Opposition members interjecting—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Watch out for Bali belly!4G4Mr DOWNER—The interjections make the point, because what is really bizarre about this historic time in the destiny of East Timor is the attitude of the federal opposition. I understand that this morning the opposition had yet another meeting to discuss the issue of East Timor, and there was considerable debate in this meeting. What I did hear this morning when I was listening to the radio was the Leader of the Opposition emerging for the very first time, as far as I am aware, in recent weeks on this issue to claim that the government was `behind the game' on the issue of East Timor—as if the Prime Minister's letter of 19 December had been an event definitely `we, as the opposition, ought to forget.'Let me make this point: the Labor Party had 13 years in government. Some of you may not remember it, because it is becoming a little while ago. But you had 13 years in government and your foreign affairs spokesman says that, in those 13 years, there was a litany of wrong decisions with respect to East Timor by the Labor government. You had a litany of wrong decisions and you have the audacity to lecture us about how to handle the issue of East Timor. What sort of advice is that? Would you go to somebody who says that they made a litany of wrong decisions and ask for their advice? Do you think that, up there in the press gallery, they are interested in your advice when you say you presided over a litany of wrong decisions? Not a chance.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs will resume his seat. The member for the Northern Territory is a persistent interjector. I remind him of the standing orders.4G4Mr DOWNER—I hardly need to remind the House that in the caucus meeting yesterday the member for Holt, the former foreign minister—the man the Leader of the Opposition described as `the greatest foreign minister since Metternich' or whatever it was—said that the member for Kingsford-Smith had mounted `a comprehensive assault on the competence and moral integrity of successive Labor Prime Ministers and foreign ministers.' That is what the member for Holt said, and he is a man who was respected in his role as the foreign minister. In fact, the more I contrast him with the member for Kingsford-Smith, the better I think he was—not great, but better than the member for Kingsford-Smith.Throughout this extraordinary debate in the Labor Party—this fusillade of fire across the factions and within the factions of the Labor Party—the Leader of the Opposition, like Jabba the Hutt, sits there doing absolutely nothing, allowing this debate to go on behind him, with the member for Kingsford-Smith, like Salacious Crumb, buzzing around. The opposition is out of control on an issue of central importance to Australian foreign policy at this time. It will always be remembered that the Labor Party said, at this turning point in history, that they made a litany of wrong decisions and then played politics at the crucial turning point in history. It is a pathetic indictment, at the end of the day, of the Leader of the Opposition.23412341McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is the trust model that appears in your watered down guidelines inspired by the shonky, secretive trust arrangement that exists between the Greenfields Foundation and the Liberal Party, which is now the subject of investigation by the Electoral Commission?2341Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have been waiting all week for a question about Greenfields. If anybody wants to ask any questions that are allowed under the law in relation to the Greenfields trust, they should go ahead and do so. You are welcome. You will not find anything.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—At the bottom of the harbour—is that where it is?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks.23412341Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Minister, in the light of the release today of the government's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement, could the minister outline what initiatives the government is taking to secure Australia's trading future?2341Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I thank the member for Parkes for his question and reflect on the fact that he already capably represents such centres as Dubbo with Roger Fletcher, Parkes with IMC and Broken Hill—all good exporting centres adding to our export progress and the further expansion of our exports to the world. I am delighted to affirm an announcement that there will be further trade diversification efforts bilaterally, regionally and multilaterally, with working visits to Iran and, I announce now, to Turkey as well, commencing at the end of the next parliamentary sitting week. As Minister for Trade, I will lead a delegation comprising senior personnel from Austrade and Australian business.Secondly, I will be introducing legislation in this Autumn session of parliament to extend the Export Market Development Grant scheme for another two years, involving $300 million. Thirdly, the government will launch in May a major new study on the prospective economic benefits of a millennium round. Fourthly, for the first time we are going to invite public submissions to help refine our World Trade Organisation negotiating agenda, to build confidence and to connect with the Australian constituency in relation to these trade issues. We recognise fully there is no such thing as a level playing field and, therefore, we have a very hard-edged pragmatic trade policy approach. Fifthly, a new study is to be prepared on agrifood export opportunities to the Asian region. Finally, I will be launching two new reports on the government's online trade strategy—electronic commerce represents so much potential for Australia, not just capital city Australia but isolated parts of Australia as well—when I attend with the member for Indi at Wangaratta on Friday. I look forward to doing that.I point out to the House that, last year, 17 of our major trading partners have had a massive contraction of GDP—it has come down into negative growth—whereas Australia has remained with a positive growth of plus five per cent. We are maintaining a strong domestic economic base, which is allowing our exporters to cut the mustard and get the job done. As I present the Trade—Outcomes and Objectives statement, I make the point that the gold medal in this equation should go to our hardworking exporters, who have done so well in difficult times.23422342Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question without notice is to a beneficiary of the Prime Minister's change to the code of conduct.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth will come to his question.5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH—My question is to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the government support a proposal by the Treasurer's friend Mr Kroger, a member of the ABC board, to sell off 49 per cent of ABC Online, the ABC's online service? Is the minister aware of remarks by a spokesman for the minister for communications that the privatisation of ABC Online is akin to the commercial promotion of ABC books and videos? Do you agree with these remarks, or will you rule out categorically the privatisation in whole or in part of ABC Online?2342McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I did see that report in today's Australian regarding the recent ABC board, where a suggestion was put forward to sell part of the ABC Online—although, I did notice, with the ABC retaining majority control and revenue from the sale to be used to supplement funds for program making. The honourable member should know from his portfolio responsibilities that the ABC's legislation permits it to undertake commercial activities, which `are related to or incidental to the performance of any of the functions of the corporation'. So it is a matter for the ABC board and management as to whether or not this suggestion has merit.However, if the board did go ahead and commercialise some of ABC Online, the government would require that it be compatible with the ABC's primary responsibility as a free to air public broadcaster. It would have to be at arms length from the ABC's budget funded activities, with clear accounting mechanisms and subject to the ABC's normal controls on editorial content and responsibilities.Distinguished Visitors234210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Chief of the Territorial Staff of the Indonesian Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia, General Yudhoyono. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice234223422342May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. In light of Australia's outstanding achievements in medical research, could the minister inform the House of any recent Australian develop ments that have occurred that will improve the quality of life for people worldwide.2343Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I am pleased to be able to inform honourable members that last week the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee approved for release in Australia the drug Relenza, which is an anti-influenza drug. This makes us the first country in the world to approve this drug. Relenza is the trademark of the chemical zanamivir, which acts directly against the influenza virus, which is what makes it so exciting. The drug is taken as an inhalant. It is active against influenza A and influenza B. It can help people who have been directly exposed to influenza but have not yet picked up the symptoms.It was an exciting piece of medical research developed in Melbourne by Biota technology, who have done it in conjunction with Glaxo. They discovered a particular hot spot on part of the virus that they could direct a protein against and effectively neutralise that one single hot spot on an enzyme called neuranimidase, and that effectively deactivates the virus. We still have a few minor issues to work out as to how we will label the information on the product, but we are highly hopeful that this will be available to the Australian public by this winter.23432343Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows the remarks he made in answer to the question on the Greenfields Foundation. Prime Minister are you aware that the Australian Electoral Commission is investigating the Greenfields Foundation's secret relationship with the Liberal Party? Are you aware of remarks made by the Minister for Finance and Administration last year when he said:. . . if a loan is made on favourable, non-commercial grounds, then the lender may well fall within the Electoral Act's definition of an associated entity and may be required to furnish comprehensive disclosure returns to the Australian Electoral Commission. I can assure honourable members that evidence provided in respect of the Greenfields Foundation . . . clearly indicates that there is a commercial basis for that, and the Electoral Com mission has no reason to doubt from information provided anything to be the contrary.Do you agree with Mr Fahey that there is a commercial basis to the Greenfields loan, or do you acknowledge that a $4.65 million loan repaid at a flat rate of $100,000 a year is clearly favourable and non-commercial?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I recognise that the Prime Minister in his previous reply invited the question, and he is free to respond to it, but it is not in an area where I would have thought he had any control.2343Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I respect the point you made, Mr Speaker, but I am very happy to respond. I simply make a couple of points: the first is that the power under the act which is being used for inquiry into the Greenfields transactional company, or whatever it is, was in fact sponsored by the government. It is our amendment. I repeat: I do not mind what questions are asked of the Greenfields Foundation, within the law; I do not mind at all. Matters relating to fundraising for the Liberal Party are of course the responsibility of the Liberal Party. I am completely comfortable and relaxed about the whole issue.23432343Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Given that literacy and numeracy difficulties underlie much of youth unemployment, what action is the government taking to ensure that young people do in fact have the skills to get jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternate policies on the issue and has he made an assessment of them?2343Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Fadden for his question. I know he is concerned with the young unemployed people in his electorate. I think most Australians believe that the ability to read and write is part of the educational birthright of young Australians. When this government came into office, we found that some 30 per cent of young people coming through school did not have adequate literacy or numeracy skills. This government is now engaged in a rescue mission for Labor's lost generation, for the 30 per cent of young people who missed out on these vital skills during the 13 years when Labor was in office.From last week, Centrelink is referring young people who are unemployed for six months or more who present with literacy and numeracy difficulties for assessment. If they present with serious problems as a result of that assessment, they are being referred to the appropriate course to raise their literacy and numeracy skills. I believe that most members of the community think that if they are working hard to provide support for young people who are unemployed, it is fair that young people should be prepared themselves to put in and address the major obstacle to employment. The government has put $143 million into this program and contracted some 69 providers.I regret to say that the reaction of the Labor Party to this wonderful initiative has been an extremely negative one. We have seen the member for Batman refer to it as a hollow stunt; $143 million and 69 providers—a hollow stunt. Senator Lundy says that it is just going to further disadvantage the disadvantaged. In other words the party that created the disadvantage wants nothing to be done to address the disadvantage.There are one or two on the other side of the House who realise that this absolute policy vacuum has got to be addressed if the Labor Party has any credibility. Mark Latham, the member for Werriwa, has said that the published policies of the Labor Party, federal and state, have fallen short of the new thinking which is required to address the major issues facing Australia. He has been quite honest, up-front and frank about what the problems are.I noticed the other day that the member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, has indicated that he is fed up with the situation that has been created by the weak leadership of the party and its weak leadership group, and he is calling for a commitment to a specific literacy goal on behalf of the Labor Party. His view is that the Labor Party should aim to lift numeracy and literacy above 90 per cent over the medium term. Well, that is a start. It is actually less, I have to say, than the commitment that all the states and territories have already agreed with the Commonwealth—that every child coming out of primary school should be able to read, write and count at an appropriate level—but it is light years ahead of the policy of the Labor Party. Mr Lindsay Tanner, the member for Melbourne, knows that the weak leadership which is leading to this policy vacuum is, in the end, going to damage his political party and is already damaging it in the eyes of the Australian people.The new thinkers of the Labor Party are making a direct challenge to those who are currently responsible for its failures. Lindsay Tanner has an education policy, the member for Werriwa had an education policy until it was butchered by the Leader of the Opposition's office—Mike Pezzullo and John Angley—but it is the invisible member for Dobell who is carrying the can for the leadership of the Labor Party at the moment, and he shows no signs of getting them back on track.23442344Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Prime Minister, and I remind the Prime Minister of his new code of conduct that states:Ministers should not intentionally mislead the parliament or the public.Prime Minister, did you not tell the 7.30 Report last night that the government had `never disguised the fact that it had done no modelling on the employment impact of the GST'? If that is true, Prime Minister, how do you explain the Treasurer's statement to the Press Club last year when he said, `Look, we've done a lot of modelling' on employment? Prime Minister, have you not breached your own guidelines even before the ink is dry?2344Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On a day when you get a survey talking about phenomenal jobs growth, when you have the working men and women of Australia wanting the Labor Party to get their hands off their tax cuts—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This was a very specific question about their modelling and their claim that they had done it and the Prime Minister saying he had never disguised it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—His code of conduct requires him to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! I made the point in the parliament yesterday, and I will make it again today, that it is not reasonable or fair to expect the Speaker to rule on a matter of relevance within 15 seconds of the question being answered.DT4CREANMr Crean—This is obvious irrelevance—obvious.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows better than he does. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I was saying, at a time when the working men and women of Australia are wanting to know from the Australian Labor Party when they are going to take their hands off their tax cuts, when those Australians who think that 81 per cent of the Australian population ought to be on a marginal tax rate—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I rise on the same point of relevance. I take note of your comment about 15 seconds being unfair, but this is a very pointed question about the Prime Minister having misled the people of Australia. He has no intention of answering the question, and it is very obvious that he does not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat; he is now arguing the case. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a question relative to the code of conduct and modelling on the GST, and the Prime Minister is responding to it. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I thought it was one of those questions that deserved a bit of a preamble as part of the answer, and the preamble simply is to remind the parliament and the Australian people that the Australian Labor Party is not interested in talking about employment issues, the Australian Labor Party is not interested in a constructive policy debate, the Australian Labor Party is not prepared, on a day when we have—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I go to the point of relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about modelling and his denial of their having done it. Nobody is interested in the fact that you do not like the fact that we will not pass your tax slug on Australian families.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat; he has made his point. I call the Prime Minister and invite him to come to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think the Australian people have just heard it out of the horses's mouth: he will keep his hands on the tax cuts of the Australian workers—$13 billion of tax cuts.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is the great political debate in Australia at the moment, and I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for crystallising the issue. I think the Leader of the Opposition has done us a great turn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will not debate sensible tax reform, the Labor Party will not debate a decent employment policy. Of course, there has been no breach of the guidelines by me.23452345Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of published evaluations concerning the effectiveness of Commonwealth employment programs? What is the government's response to these assessments?Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition persistently interjects and, in fact, has shouted interjections at the chair. I invite him to leave the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Hotham thereupon withdrew from the chamber.2345Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Wentworth for his question, and I congratulate him on his own recent published work. Funnily enough, I am aware of a number of published evaluations of the effectiveness of government programs, the most recent of which describes the programs of the former Labor government as `leading to perverse outcomes with some unemployed people forced to undertake inappropriate and even demoralising training'. This assessment did not come from some free market think-tank; it did not come from some pro-business zealot; it came of course from the member for Melbourne in his recent published work. The member for Melbourne is not just speaking for himself here; he has obviously been talking to large numbers of his colleagues, because he says:Labor MPs regularly encountered people who had done several Working Nation program courses and still had little chance of finding a job.This is not the only recent published evaluation. In his book, the member for Werriwa said:Contestability in the provision of place management services signifies an important break from the passive provision of public services in disadvantaged areas.He said:It allows a number of parish and charity based organisations, for instance, which would be well placed, to apply for place management projects.The member for Werriwa expresses himself in his typically dense prose, but what he is saying is that he entirely supports the Job Network. And, in case anyone thought the member for Werriwa had calmed down over the Christmas break, another published assessment, this time in the Financial Review in January, said:The recent dumbing down of Australian Labor policy looks unappealing and unnecessary. It is—he said—enough to break the heart of any thinking social democrat.In a final published work, he said:There is a great sucking sound that can be heard around the corridors of parliament, which is presumably the leadership vacuum which exists right now at the top of the ALP.23462346Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you reject the assertion made yesterday by Dr Rob Lee, the director of BASI, that Australia's international standing in aviation safety is being damaged by the continuing attacks on BASI by Mr Dick Smith, the chairman of CASA? Do you have full and complete confidence in Dr Lee?2346Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I think Australia's aviation record in terms of safety is amongst the world's very best, if not right at the top of the tree. I really cannot see why anybody, least of all the shadow minister for transport, would want to undermine that in any way. And I have confidence in Rob Lee.23462346Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, can you outline to the House what measures the government has implemented to encourage Australians to celebrate and reflect on the concept of Australian citizenship? What special events are being planned for this year to mark the 50th anniversary of the creation of Australian citizenship?2346Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I am grateful the opportunity to respond to the question from the member for Petrie because, as Australians, we are greatly proud of our nation of such a diverse group of people—our original inhabitants, our indigenous Australians; the descendants of earlier generations; and, of course, the significant group of people who have settled in Australia having been overseas born, being some 23 per cent of our population.Among this diversity, of course, Australian citizenship is our common bond. It is fundamental to our national unity, and it has proved a focal point of our unique identity. Although we have been self-governing for some near century, it was only on 26 January 1949 that the status of Australian citizenship formally came into being. Before that, we were British subjects, as some members may recall. Since that time more than 3.1 million people have become Australian citizens. It has certainly been very significant. It is the glue that binds us together. It is an appropriate time, of course, to look at and appreciate the import ance of it. In that context, we established last year under Sir Ninian Stephen an Australian Citizenship Council which is looking at ways of promoting community awareness of it and reviewing the policy and law in relation to that area.I did last week launch for the Citizenship Council an issues paper designed to encourage the community to have a say on these matters. I conducted here in Canberra in the Albert Hall a citizenship ceremony on 3 February which was a re-creation of the first ever citizenship ceremony held in Australia. At that original ceremony there were seven men from the various states of Australia and territory and I was delighted that the two survivors were able to return as guests of honour for a contemporary celebration. That celebration had amongst it people who were drawn from all corners of this globe, reflecting very much the diversity of our present migration program.We have a range of other activities as part of this celebration. These include the commemorative stamp issued by Australia Post. We will be holding a conference here in July entitled `Individual, Community, Nation—50 years of Australian Citizenship'. We will have a web site competition and an essay and artistic design competition for children. Finally, I hope members will have seen the National Australia Day Council's Visions of Australia program which we have been sponsoring. These are very important announcements by prominent Australians of the Year about what being Australian means to them.23472347Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain why the Health Insurance Commission has taken so long to conclude its investigations into 15 suspect contracts for MRI units which could cost the health budget $25 million a year? Is the minister aware that the Health Insurance Commission told the Senate estimates committee that such investigations normally take only two to three months? Can he advise why, nine months since the budget, this investigation has only been carried out in Sydney, with inquiries in Brisbane and Melbourne yet to commence? As the accountable minister, are you serious about controlling health costs?2347Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I am far more serious, Mr Speaker, than the Labor Party ever was. I would like to say, first of all, that the entire premise of the question is wrong. The fact is that this will not cost the Commonwealth budget anything, as far as I understand it. What the question shows is that the Labor Party does not understand health. This is clearly shown by their line of attack on this. The MRI initiative was part of a broader initiative that was actually a cost-saving measure. We saved $80 million over four years on the forward estimates by working together with the radiologists. That included a cap on radiology expenditure. So if one area of expenditure happens to blow out, other areas of expenditure will be reduced.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—So state governments carry it, then?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The interjections by the Leader of the Opposition show that he simply does not understand health. We have had such an arrangement in place with pathologists for a number of years now and that arrangement has worked extremely successfully. So should there be a blow out, which I do not actually believe there will be, it will be found by the radiologists from other areas within their Medicare part of the Medicare table. That is the first thing. There is no blow out in expenditure here, whatsoever, and the whole process was part of a savings measure rather than an expenditure measure.The second point which I would say the Labor Party do not seem to understand by their line of questioning in this, is that, as far as I know, there has been no massive blow out in MRI numbers, although I have not been briefed about the investigation by the HIC because that would not be proper. I will come back to that in a second. But the fact is that the time between ordering an MRI machine and the delivery of that machine is of the order of nine to 12 months or more. So the machines that are on order could have been ordered any time in the preceding 12 months. I do not know when they would have been ordered but, given that MRI is an expanding technology, it is not surprising that they would have been ordered.Finally, it is a long-established practice, followed by previous health ministers and backed up in legislation, that any investigative process is completely independent of government. I do not seek to know about it. I am not informed about it. I do not seek to influence it. The Health Insurance Commission has a completely credible record in this area and if there has been any wrongdoing, they will find it.23482348Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The minister will be aware of the role that speed plays in Australia's road fatalities. I understand, Minister, that some owners of federally registered trucks are currently able to avoid state government penalties for speeding. What is the federal government doing to close this loophole?2348Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledge her real interest in this important matter. Last year 1,760 or so people were tragically killed on our roads. That is well down on the 1970s but it is still far too high. The research shows that speed remains an important element, along with fatigue. In the case of the trucking industry, both of those factors are still significant and both still need to be fully dealt with.We have now developed in this country a very effective strategy for dealing with driver fatigue in the trucking industry. Its acceptance and now promotion by the trucking industry is, I think, welcomed by everybody, particularly people using the roads.We now need to move on the area of speeding trucks. At the state level there have been, of course, strong penalties in place for a long time to tackle this problem. But there has been a concern as highlighted in your question that operators of federally-registered vehicles have had an opportunity to avoid the full force of state laws. We have now moved to close that loophole with the so-called `three strikes and you're out' changes to laws which will govern federally-registered heavy vehi cles. It will complement the penalties already operating at the state level.What it will mean for owners or operators of heavy vehicles is that if they continually break the law in relation to speeding, they will be subjected to very stiff penalties, including suspension of their heavy vehicle registrations. If they are not fitted with speed limiters, they will be required to be so fitted. In net terms, Mr Speaker, if owners or operators set schedules that cannot be met without speeding, or if they do not take measures to ensure that their drivers can act responsibly and within the law, they will have to wear the responsibility and that will mean—apart from anything else—losing the income available while the truck is off the road. I believe that all road users would welcome these measures.23482348Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain how he reconciles his long spoken commitment to competitive tendering with the evidence provided by his department to the Senate estimates committee that he has twice personally intervened to make large grants without allowing other willing applicants to make bids—the first being the stripping of an $800,000 grant from the Australian Cancer Society because of their public anti-smoking activities, especially in the electorate of Casey, and the second being the grant of $4 million to Professor David de Kretser for the establishment of a centre for excellence for men's health? Why were both of these projects not put out to open tender? Can the minister assure the House that political and personal motives did not colour his decisions?2348Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—It is quite common for grants to be given on a non-competitive basis. In fact, in the Labor Party's health policy in 1998 I notice there is the Hunter Medical Research Centre, where they would provide $15 million in capital funding to house the Hunter Medical Research Institute—a grant not on the basis of a competitive tender. I suppose the Kathleen Cunningham Foundation was on a competitive tender, was it? Of course it was not. What about the National Diabetes Supply Scheme? What about the national HIV-AIDS education program for doctors? What about the evaluation of the second national HIV-AIDS strategy? What about the community sector support scheme? None of them was done on a competitive basis and none was required to under the Labor Party because they were grants.Prior to giving the grant to Professor de Kretser, I checked with my department that this was an utterly proper course of action to follow and I was advised that the action was completely proper. They also said it was in keeping with the sorts of things the Labor Party does. A person who says one thing and expects another from others is a hypocrite.Opposition members interjecting—Dr Wooldridge interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Health and Aged Care and members will exercise just a little restraint.23492349Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. Can the minister inform the House of the steps the government is taking to improve safety in the homes of Australia's veterans and war widows?2349Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his question on this third day of the parliamentary sitting year, which also marks the International Year of Older Persons. It is appropriate in this first sitting week to focus on what the government is doing to assist our veterans and war widows to remain in their own homes, where they want to be, for longer.Last week I launched my department's initiative entitled Homefront in the home of Bruce and Jill Ruxton in Victoria. Mr Ruxton is a very good subject because, firstly, he is a veteran and, secondly, he lives in his own home and wants to remain in his own home.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair exercises a great deal of patience with the way in which some backbenchers behave. The minister has said nothing that justified the sort of response that he had from opposition benches. I invite the minister to respond to the question and I invite the House to hear him in silence.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—The Homefront program is designed to prevent falls in the home. Research shows that one in three people over the age of 65 today will suffer a fall each year. If you look at the cost to the health budget of such falls, it really is quite an alarming statistic. Statistics show that the cost to the health budget for accidental falls is double that of road traffic accidents in this country today. That demonstrates there is a significant cost to the budget for falls that occur in the home. It accounts for something like 31 per cent of the total injury costs in the health budget each year.The Homefront program, which is a free service to our veteran community, will allow them to have an assessment of their home. Following that assessment by professionals, advice will be given relating to perhaps the need for rails in the bathroom or non-slip surfaces. There are many parts of the home in which there could potentially be an accident that could be prevented merely by some intervention. This is a very important preventative measure that is designed to assist our veterans and our war widows to remain in their own homes for longer and I commend it to members of both sides of the House. I hope there is interest from the other side, notwithstanding their mirth at the start of the question.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Documents23492349Reith, 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 .Questions to the Speaker234923492349Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. This is a very small matter but one which, in the last couple of days, has arisen in respect of questions asked by me and I think by the member for Prospect. Both I and the member for Prospect, and a number of other members, have asked for ministers to answer questions which have been outstanding on the Notice Paper for some period of time. On advice of the Clerk, you have responded in a couple of instances that the matters that had been raised had in fact been answered.I sought your assistance in relation to the matter which I raised with you yesterday. An answer had neither been prepared for publication in Hansard nor been delivered to me. So in the ordinary course one would not have said that is was a proper use of the English language to say the question had been answered, although I understand that an answer had been prepared and was en route to delivery.Although it is a trivial matter, I would draw your attention to the point that someone who stands and asks for your assistance to direct a minister to answer a question does feel a bit of a goose when advised by the Speaker that the question has been answered when the member has not received that answer in their office and nor has it been included in Hansard. They would not be asking for the assistance of the Speaker were that the case. I would just ask you, Mr Speaker, to reflect on that matter and perhaps ensure that some more diplomatic way of addressing the matter is found.2350Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Does the member for Canberra want to raise a similar point or a different one? Is the member for Canberra's matter related to the issue raised by the member for Denison or not?5K6ELLISMs Ellis—It's not, Mr Speaker.10000Mr SPEAKER—I will respond to the member for Denison's inquiry. The member for Denison raises a matter that did cause me some concern because it was not the intention of either the Speaker or the Clerk to reflect unkindly on the member for Denison. In fact, the Clerk had seen the response, hence the comment that I made to the member for Denison that the response had not been printed in Hansard or delivered to the member's office. We are both aware of that and we had in fact followed it up yesterday. We will ensure that in future, if we do indicate that an answer is on the way, it will be that it is on the way—and no implication of receipt.23502350Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I assume that this question is not related because I do not believe it has been answered. Under standing order 150, I note question No. 88 asked of the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services on 23 November. I have yet to receive an answer and I would appreciate your assistance.2350Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow that up as the standing orders allow.23502350Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Similarly, Mr Speaker, I ask you to write to the Treasurer seeking reasons for the delay in answering question No. 85 asked by me, and listed on the Notice Paper on 23 November last year, concerning the cost of implementing the superannuation surcharge tax.2350Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—That matter will be pursued.Personal Explanations235015:09:002350Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Yesterday in parliament, as recorded on Hansard page 2143, after having explained how I had two sheets of paper in my hand, one of which was a press clipping, the Leader of the Opposition stated:We have seen the tape, and that last statement in the chamber is simply untrue.I have viewed the tape. It supports entirely my version of events.Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—It shows I am right and you are wrong, and I table the tape for the benefit of honourable members. So suck on that one!Matters of Public Importance2351235110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The lack of accountability and poor standards being exhibited by the second Howard Government.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—15:11:002351Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I could not have wanted a better introduction to what I am raising today than the performance that we have just seen from the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who will get a guernsey in the course of my remarks for other matters. But just to set the record straight on this particular matter, the day before yesterday he told the House that he was going to `table' the briefing note that he had, and then he tabled half of it. This, he thinks, is adequate accountability, given his performance here today. Those are his words to the House.But I set that aside because both his demeanour and actions are simply part of what has become a malaise in this government of arrogance and hubris that means that they are no longer sensitive to what has been required by the Australian people in this parliament in terms of basic accountability for many years. This hubris and arrogance is based on the fact that they got 49 per cent of the vote at the last election. Having come from a position of a very large swing to them, they experienced a record swing against them and, for some reason or other in their perverse imaginations on these matters, this somehow results in an endorsement of them.I would have thought that the first thing a Prime Minister would have had to say to his people after an election like that would have been what the Deputy Prime Minister said to his people after that election. It was, `We've been let out of gaol.' That was what he said, because that is precisely what happened to them. Instead, the Australian people have been subject to a massive array of actions by members of this frontbench, including those by the Prime Minister, of arrogance, of a lack of accountability and, in some cases, the most extraordinary uses of the public purse—unprecedented uses of the public purse—and a complete hypocrisy when it comes to dealing with one section of Australian society as opposed to another. But more of that later in my remarks.Let me take the piece de resistance, which was not in fact yet another tawdry performance from the minister for health but the performance of the Prime Minister on that basic element of accountability, the ministerial code of conduct. Contrast these performances: the election of the first Howard government and the first appearance in parliament of Prime Minister Howard with the code of conduct, which he was pleased to trumpet to us all, with the Prime Minister stating in parliament:The guidelines that were laid down in this document will be complied with in full.When he started to sack his ministers piecemeal as they failed to conform with it, he then had to say:I understand, incidentally, that the guidelines in the document I put out are substantially similar to the guidelines that operated under the Hawke and Keating governments and also, from my recollection, similar to those that operated during the time of the Fraser government.After he lost a few more ministers, he had this to say about it:But at the end of the day they are guidelines, they are not a death sentence and you do have to look at the totality of his behaviour . . . Responding to that, the interviewer, Mr Lyneham, said:If I—that is, the interviewer—get a parking ticket, I can't say to the parking attendant, `You have got to look at the totality of my driving behaviour.' But that was all there was as far as Mr Howard was concerned in regard to that.But in case you thought that that was about as distant as he could get from them and as meaningless as he could possibly render them, we had yet another depth plumbed yesterday and today by the Prime Minister in his presentation and explanation of the guidelines. Instead of the brave Prime Minister slamming them down in parliament, giving the opposition the beady eye and saying, `Come up to these standards; we are going to come up to them,' we had the Leader of the House tabling them in an effort to avoid debate on them. Then we had the Prime Minister today in question time saying, `These are not really my guidelines and amendments—they're Max Moore-Wilton's.'We increase substantially—by $500 per week—the situation of the head of the Public Service and we now realise why. He has had an added responsibility: to police this government and undermine the guidelines. That is what we have had from them.We must understand the import of this. What these changed guidelines mean is that, as I pointed out—and the situation is not hypothetical but exactly replicated by the minister in charge of coal in the previous parliament—it is okay for the minister to hand across his shareholding to his non-dependent children; that does not matter. The whole point of the set of guidelines that we have is that the public is absolutely convinced that ministers when they take decisions on matters affecting their portfolios do so with regard to the public interest and not their personal interests. The guidelines in the past have been replete with reference to appearances as well as actualities. That is what has been required of ministers through the history of the Commonwealth—but is required of them no longer by this government. There is not even a restriction on the extent of their knowledge of what is happening within them.Initially the Prime Minister, in his vague answers to questions on this last night, implied that somehow a set of conditions would be created where there would be no knowledge of what was going on. He was asked by the interviewer Kerry O'Brien:But do you accept that if the minister is seen to be divested of any possible personal interest, or conflict of interest, in shares that might impact on his own portfolio responsibilities, that in handing that over not only does he hand over control of those shares, he loses knowledge of any future movement of shares?The Prime Minister replied:The circumstances that we have in mind is to put . . . a person is situated where he can say: Look, you run this; I have no control over what you do and I can't influence your decisions.No control over what you do! You hand a huge interest in a coal mine across to your son and then you say to your son, `You control the show now,' and as far as the Australian community is concerned when you take decisions in relation to the coal industry—knowing that you have handed over a substantial interest in a coal mine and that that interest is now held by your son—there is no conflict! The Australian community is expected to have no perception of conflict in taking a decision? There is no prohibition, of course, of it being handed back the moment the minister ceases to be a holder of that portfolio.This is the lowest point the standards of ministerial conduct have reached in this country. And there is absolutely no reason to say that these are too difficult to conform with because we all have shares—these days all Australians have shares.You have to understand these things; they work in a hierarchy of activity. Firstly, merely because you have shares does not preclude your holding of a portfolio. It does not. What it does is govern your behaviour in the conduct of your portfolio and as a member of a government. If, for example, your shares are irrelevant to your portfolio or only touch upon it lightly, then you are obliged, when in your administration you confront an issue of conflict or when you are at a cabinet meeting you confront an issue of conflict, to declare the interest and absent yourself. That is what you do. You do not have to get rid of your shares.If, on the other hand, the interest is so deeply embedded—like a one-sixth ownership of a coal mine for a coal minister—in the activities of your portfolio that it is going to be a source of frequent problems in relation to conflict of interest, then you divest. But this condition has been removed from these guidelines. This incredibly arrogant government has taken a major step away from ministerial accountability, and the Prime Minister seeks to render himself unaccountable by saying that it is somebody else who has devised these guidelines.That is of a piece with a number of other things that are going on here with this government. Firstly, there is the administration of your responsibilities in relation to your portfolio. To say, as the Minister for Health and Aged Care just did, and has repeatedly said in this place, that a central part of your portfolio related to the Health Insurance Commission—on which public funds are being outlaid—is not your responsibility is a total abdication of responsibility for public funds by a member of this administration.Compare and contrast the performance of the investigation into this with another situation. If you happen to be a supporting parent in receipt of supporting parents benefits and you misclaim by a few hundred bucks—what you earn in cleaning—this government will hip-hop into you like a rabid dog. You will be displayed for mockery on television shows; you will be excoriated by what was described as the `dullard minister for social security' yesterday. That is what will happen to you.If, on the other hand, you might have taken advantage of the fact that the minister cannot shut his mouth and you therefore get an understanding that the government is about to take a decision massively beneficial to those who have acquired an MRI machine, are you hip-hopped into? No, a stately gavotte begins. We do not even have a police inquiry yet on this—which is why I can talk about it. We do not even have a city inquiry on this. We have one city being inquired into, although the offences appear to have occurred all over the place.What do you get from successful exploitation of the minister's loose mouth in this situation? What you get from successful exploitation of his loose mouth is this: if you have spent $3½ million on this machine, you will get $1½ million worth of medical rebates a year, on average, to pay off that little investment. What a rocking little performance that one is! In the Senate estimates the department has been saying, `Look at the minister. It has got nothing to do with us; look at the minister.' He comes in here and says, `It is not my responsibility because I absolutely refuse to give any consideration to anything that the Health Insurance Commission is doing.' Does Jocelyn Newman get up in this parliament and say, `I absolutely refuse to give any consideration to what Centrelink might be doing in referring people to a bit of investigation for the possibility of breaches of the Social Security Act'? Does she get up in the Senate and say, `Oh no, I don't have anything to do with that. I am not accountable as far as that is concerned'? Rather it is, `I am delightedly accountable as far as that is concerned.' But if you have got a quid and you have been in a situation where the minister has opened his mouth when he should not have, the minister will walk away from any consideration of that.Think of another performance by this particular minister on the issue of accountability. That goes to the grant to the Australian Cancer Society. What an extraordinary thing occurred here. The Australian Cancer Society tried to make their issue an issue at the last election. They tried to get out there and campaign in marginal seats and get people to uphold a concern for what is a disease which will take a very substantial proportion of us off, including members of this House. What is their reward? The removal of their operating grant from the government, from the minister. Not that the minister lacks blatancy. I quote here from the minutes of the Council. This is Professor Burton reporting:He reported that actions taken as part of the heart and cancer offensive targeted on marginal elections had antagonised the government and the contract with the ACS for a further three years of NCCI secretariat funding had been withdrawn before signing. The minister had stated that the ACS would not receive a contract and an alternative solution was being sought.The minutes then go on to describe various ministerial briefings from this minister and from Senator Herron that the reason why they were knocked off was politics.It is not as though this bunch are not into the public purse enough—$19 million so far spent on advertising their tax package on encouraging Australians to skin themselves; $7 million so far spent on their misleading advertising which has caused such heartburn to many low income members of health funds—$7 million spent on misleading them about what their situation is. This government has got a set of requirements upon it: accountability in relation to departments, accountability in relation to avoiding conflict of interest and accountability to tell the truth as far as administration of its affairs is concerned. Yet it breaches it cheerfully. Government members stand up in this place and regard themselves as immune to accountability here and immune to accountability before the Australian people. Arrogance, my friends, will see you out. Your arrogance has been unsurpassed. In terms of your abilities, your achievements and your personalities, your arrogance is without any form of justification whatsoever. Your arrogance is going to take you out of this place at the next election, because arrogance like this is not what the Australian people expect in terms of accountability of their ministers and it is not what they expect from this parliament or any of their governments, let alone this one. (Time expired)15:26:002354Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Tell us about Greenfields, Petro.HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Do you really want to hear about Greenfields? Okay, you have got it. I understand that yesterday the opposition pulled a series of quorums during the MPI and throughout the day because they were miffed that the government had put up my distinguished colleague to reply to them. I am afraid that today you have another backbencher—in fact two of them—and you are just going to have to wear it.The approach of the Leader of the Opposition at question time and in interjections went far and wide across the so-called lack of accountability of the government. I would just like to take some of the elements of the allegations that have been made and deal with them fairly quickly. In terms of the Guide on key elements of ministerial responsibility that the Leader of the Opposition and several of his colleagues were so exercised about, the situation is quite straightforward. The guide has been updated to include the option of ministers and parliamentary secretaries relinquishing control of shares and similar interests to any outside professional nominee or trust, provided the minister or immediate family has no control over the operation of the nominee or trust. The change takes into account the findings of the blind trust report that divestment need only be one option. The prohibition on divestment of shares to family measures relates only to a spouse or dependent family member; it was never intended to apply to an independent adult family member. (Quorum formed)The guide also specifically provides for ministers and parliamentary secretaries to indicate that they are unaware of the financial interests of their spouses and that their spouses have no intention of informing them of interests held. It includes longstanding arrangements for the declaration of interests in the context of cabinet discussions, and it reflects the adoption by the Senate last year of new rules for the registration of gifts.The fundamental fact is that the changes to the guide in no way diminish the requirement that ministers adhere to high standards of honesty and propriety. The changes reflect the original intention that, while ministers must avoid conflicts of interest, they should not be barred from ministerial office on the basis of their assets. Government would be diminished if people who achieved success in other occupations were discouraged from entering the parliament—on whatever side—because of their assets. I vividly remember the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, pointing across the chamber at us and saying that some of them were richer than some of us. He was most certainly richer than I was.By recognising that shareholdings are an accepted and common form of asset and not a bar to the holding of public office, the guidelines have been made more realistic. The ministerial guidelines were never meant to be an immutable and total ban on shareholdings. That would be out of kilter with Australian society, which is becoming increasingly a shareholding society. The burden and the responsibility of the government is to be transparent, and this government has been transparent.In the past, this transparency has been at a cost to the government, and that has been a cost that we have borne. I do not intend to rehearse those details, but the fact is that the guidelines have been revised publicly and are there for the Australian public to see. This transparency should maintain the trust of the public.Since I am unsure about quorums, I will make another couple of points. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about expenditure on advertising. Over the five-year period from 1991 to 1996, the Keating government spent $315.5 million on advertising and market research. Altogether, over the 13-year period, the Hawke and Keating governments spent over $675 million on advertising, so I was not deeply moved by the Leader of the Opposition's observations about our expenditure on advertising campaigns.I will move on to an issue that was touched upon in question time. Although it was not totally taken up by the Leader of the Opposition during his speech, I have been asked to make some sort of response to it. That issue is the matter of Greenfields.First, I must say where I am coming from. As a former state director of the Victorian division of my party—a division which, I should say very modestly, has been quite successful in maintaining its financial viability—I used to have a little bit to do with fundraising. It was never of the exciting nature of Senator Richardson's but it had its moments. Now, as a backbencher, I have, alas, lost contact with such matters but, like my colleagues on both sides of the House, I do enjoy a good yarn about fundraising. I have particularly enjoyed stories about fundraising on the Labor side. The honourable member will know some of these, because they are much more bold, daring, colourful and exciting than anything we have ever been able to manage.However, I also have to admit that occasionally, like most people active in politics, I have thought that I have hit on a golden vein, a disclosure nirvana that will devastate the other side. Usually it has not been the case, and the problem with all fantasies is that occasionally you have to wake up, pinch yourself and bring yourself back to reality with the realisation that something is a pipedream.It is about time Labor did that about Greenfields. It really is time that they woke up to themselves. The little Greenfields campaign mounted by Labor has been shown time and again to be an exercise in farce. Last year it was all explained at great length, and yet here we are back at it again.What has Labor actually done on Greenfields? They have hounded staff from the Australian Electoral Commission during hours of Senate estimates questioning. They have spent a year issuing press releases as if they were confetti. They have wheeled out their heavy hitters in the Senate, to give the issue a bit of a push along. They even set up a special web site on Greenfields during their election campaign! That web site is a truly remarkable exercise in conspiracy politics in Australia. What is amazing about it is that it is so boring. I thought of this site just as I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—What about hackers?HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Don't worry, I'll come to hackers in just a moment. I went to the site in great anticipation. I thought this was going to be the Matt Drudge site of Australian politics, full of scandal, detail and facts. But there is nothing there of any substance. There are plenty of mind-deadeningly boring pages of press releases by Labor members, but the site shows nothing. Essentially, it is made up of a series of bizarre press clippings together with speech after speech by Senator Faulkner. I like Senator Faulkner, but they should not call this the Greenfields Foundation Site; they should call it the Senator Faulkner Promotion Site.But, coming to your point, the Labor Party does have a particular liking for the Internet. There is the now famous case of the young staff member from the Leader of the Opposition's office who adventurously hacked his way into the Liberal Party's Internet site. In fairness to the Labor Party, I have to say that they did apologise for that.Apparently, this young man was hired by the Leader of the Opposition to conduct Internet research. And while I was looking through the Greenfields Internet site I could not held but wonder whether the poor young man had to work on the Greenfields site. If that was the case and he had to put up with all that mind-deadening material, you can sympathise with but not excuse his desperate desire to go away and do something a little more interesting, like hacking into our web site. The Greenfield Internet site is exactly what the Labor Party campaign on Greenfields is about. Once again, given the character of question time, given the character of the interjections, I really was waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to launch into it in a full-scale way.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What is Greenfields?HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—I will tell you. Every allegation that could possibly be made about it has been made by the Labor Party, and what have they come up with? After a year of estimates committee hearings, national media coverage and probing, what has emerged? There has been a whole series of statements by the AEC. Let me go through them:On the evidence available the AEC does not believe at this stage that the Greenfields Foundation has any further disclosure obligations.We believe that there are no disclosure obligations by Greenfields at this stage.K26LATHAMMr Latham—This is like the X-Files . What is it?HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Maybe I have been impacted on by your web site. Another statement by the AEC said:A routine audit of the Liberal Party's returns and the Greenfields Foundation had not uncovered any breach of the law.After all this, what has been the outcome? At Senate estimates last night Mr Edgman of the AEC said that they had served a notice on the Greenfields Foundation in mid-January to ascertain whether it is an associated entity with requisite disclosure obligations.The fact is that the ability of the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct such inquiries has in the past been hampered by the requirement that, before the AEC could conduct an investigation, it had to have strong evidence on the public record or strong grounds for believing that there was a breach by an organisation in relation to associated entities. This has now changed, and why? Last year the government introduced and passed the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act, which has considerably broadened the ability of the AEC to conduct such investigations about whether or not an organisation is an associated entity. Indeed, my esteemed colleague Senator Minchin last year commended this bill and the granting of broader investigation provisions by the AEC.So it was this government that provided the AEC with broader powers with which to conduct their inquiries because, unlike this opposition, we have nothing to hide. The fact is that on Greenfields, on the issue of the code of conduct, you strip everything back and it is quite straightforward. And that unfortunately is what the Labor Party cannot appreciate. Labor has this capacity to project. There is a psychological term called projection—you project onto some other entity the sort of behaviour that you think your own organisation engages in.15:41:002356McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Australians are losing a lot of faith in many of their democratic institutions, including this parliament. And one of the reasons—and we all have to take some responsibility for it—is very clearly that they perceive that the standards of propriety and accountability to which they legitimately feel they are entitled are not being maintained.Today we had this farce of seeking to pretend that the code of conduct had not been watered down. Let us just find a few examples of where the code of conduct now allows behaviour which it previously did not allow—that is, the code has been watered down. I will give four examples and then talk about some of the implications.First of all, ministers can now comply with the code by divesting their shares to a non-dependent family member—for example, their adult children, their siblings, their parents; previously this was prohibited. We will talk about some of the implications of that in a moment. But, for the moment, let us just say clearly that it used to be prohibited; it is now allowed. That is watering down No. 1.Secondly, ministers can now comply with the code by divesting their shares to a professional nominee or trustee beyond the control of the minister. Previously, this was prohibited; now it is allowed. That is watering down No. 2. We will have time in a moment to talk about its implications, but clearly it is a watering down.Thirdly, in each case, there is no requirement that the minister no longer has knowledge of the standards of the share portfolio. In the case of divestment to a professional nominee or trustee, this means that a genuine blind trust is not required. That is what they mean when they say, `We're transparent.' You can see right through the blind trust, you can see exactly what is going on inside it. If you are the person who previously owned the shares, you still have the capacity to know exactly what is going on with your interest. That is the transparency: the blind trust is transparent. And in each case the minister can still be influenced in his or her public role by their known private interest.That is what is wrong with this assessment. When you hear the Prime Minister last night on television explaining that they have made sure that the minister will no longer be able to control the company, what we have is this. The government is stopping people making decisions in their companies to take advantage of government decisions. But that is not the problem. What they have not done is stop people in their public life making decisions to advantage their company. It is that conflict of interest that is the core of the problem. It was the core of the problem for Senator Gibson. It was the core of the problem for Senator Short—both of whom were a bit unlucky. It was the core of the problem for Senator Parer, who was a bit lucky. And it was the core of the problem for some others, including the current Minister for Defence. It is there that the problem lies. They have done nothing about the big problem and they have solved the non-existent problem. The only thing the member for Kooyong said with which I agree is that the key to this issue is the question of the potential for conflict of interest. What these guidelines do is expand the potential for conflict of interest. I give you a little example—a very interesting one. This is saying that if you have a massive shareholding in an area for which you are about to receive ministerial responsibility and you give that shareholding to your son, you can be the minister. That means Kerry Packer could be minister for communications. All he has to do is give his shares to James, and then there is no conflict of interest—Kerry Packer can be minister for communications.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What do you mean `could be'?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—That is a separate problem.Opposition members interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Whichever one he sought. But there is no doubt that somebody with the shareholding equivalent of Kerry Packer could be the minister for communications and comply with these guidelines. Who in Australia thinks that is dealing with the problem of conflict of interest—or, to be very kind about it, at least a perception of conflict of interest? If the person who owns the biggest media outfit in Australia were the minister responsible for regulating that outfit—but it was all okay because his adult son was running the company and knew every decision the company made because it is all on the public record, and he was merely making decisions and did not control PBL any longer—who in the world thinks that reduces the conflict of interest? Who in the world thinks that is a reasonable set of standards? We thought there was only one person—we thought it was the Prime Minister—but now we think there are two. Max Moore-Wilton and the Prime Minister both think that is reasonable. But no other Australian would think that is a fair and reasonable set of arrangements.What we have is a set of arrangements designed to appear to deal with issues of ministerial code of conduct, but make sure nobody ever falls foul of them. Wouldn't you have to really try hard to breach these? Think about this, but don't bother for too long: how could you breach this code of conduct? What would you have to do? It is very hard to imagine. Warwick Parer, as his arrangements were before, would have been in breach. All he had to do was sign a letter to his sons and say, `This is handed over to you on condition you return it to me when I request.' There is nothing in here that says you cannot have a condition in the handover that says you have to hand it back on request. Nothing in the guidelines says you cannot do that. He could say, `Young Mr Parer, these shares are yours until I ask you to return them to me' and that would have complied with the code of conduct. What a rigorous standard. Don't you all feel better to know about that?We have here in the parliament other examples—some of which the Leader of the Opposition referred to as they relate to the minister for health—that go beyond the aspect of decent standards to the question of accountability to the parliament. The Leader of the Opposition outlined the outrageous behaviour of the increasingly arrogant and out of control minister for health.Yesterday, in response to questioning from the member for Dickson, we had the minister for transport saying, `I refuse to divulge to you the nature of my private conversation.' What was this private conversation? It was a conversation between the minister for transport and the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority about air safety. He said, `Oh, no, I am not going to tell you about that. You don't have any right to know.' Apart from me, I think all of you have a big right to know. You all catch planes to come here very often. And so do hundreds of thousands of other Australians. Apart from the fact that they all pay their taxes, hundreds of thousands of them catch those planes, and they would like to know what Dick Smith was saying to the minister for transport about his concerns about air traffic safety. But, under these new rules of accountability, he decided we did not have any right to know.I am sure he was sternly rebuked by the Prime Minister after question time for failing properly to answer. I am sure that information will be forthcoming very shortly, and he will come in here—as the code of conduct requires—and give us all the information that he failed to give in that question, because the code of conduct says, `If you have not given the information that you should have, you should come in as soon as possible.' So wait with bated breath. He will probably wait for the next quorum—because it won't be long—and then he will come in and give us all the information he forgot to give yesterday.The only thing the Leader of the Opposition got wrong was when he said the coalition got 49 per cent at the election. They did not get that much, Kim. They got only 48.5 per cent but, because they got 48.5 per cent, they think they have a mandate to ignore the standards of accountability, responsibility and propriety that Australians have come to expect and have been entitled to expect for all of this century. Not that nobody has ever breached them—of course they have—but they have paid the price. Now we have the bar lowered so low that you would have to be the limbo champion to get underneath it. It is not possible to imagine a code of conduct that is slacker than this.In conclusion, I want to say that the challenge before government members is to ensure that this code of conduct is of very short standing and that they demand that their government comes back with a decent standard that does something about restoring propriety and accountability of the executive to the parliament and, through it, to the people. Steps need to be taken to lift the standing of parliament and public life in the eyes of Australians instead of continuing to lower it, demean it and reduce it to new lows on each occasion. This is not an achievement of which any government should be proud, and I hope government members will speak to the Prime Minister about it.15:51:002358Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In listening to the member for Fraser, I really felt rather sad for him. His heart obviously was not in it, and he developed these totally hypothetical cases that just reduced the weight of his argument. I felt that he was having such great difficulty with the farcical cases he was putting forward that he could hardly create a man of straw, let alone work out where to start to try to knock it down.This MPI that the Leader of the Opposition has put up today is a classic example of a leader who is desperate. It is clear the Leader of the Opposition is desperate. He is showing that he is devoid of policies, he is looking for a diversion from the inadequacies of the opposition, and this is how he does it: by trying to come in here with this farcical case. It is clear that he has not made any case. He has not demonstrated where standards have dropped, nor has he demonstrated where they are likely to drop. I think honourable members also ought to be reminded that the Leader of the Opposition does not come to this debate with clean hands. He was a member of governments in the past that definitely did demonstrate much lower standards of accountability than have been demonstrated by the Howard government, both in the last parliament and in this parliament.The most important point that all honourable members ought to be reminded of is that the standards of accountability that the Prime Minister has put forward have worked. There is no question about that. They have not been watered down and they will continue to work. I think it is worth having a look at some of the points in the document `Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility'. (Quorum formed) When the opposition comes in and wants to debate standards, it does seem a trifle strange that they then try to interrupt and stifle debate, but I suppose that is the double standards we have come to expect from the opposition.It is worth noting some of the key points noted under `ministerial conduct'. It is pointed out that:Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the Parliament or the public. Any misconception caused inadvertently should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.It goes on:Ministers should ensure that their conduct is defensible, and should consult the Prime Minister when in doubt about the propriety of any course of action. It is important to remind honourable members that the Prime Minister demands that this code be met. He will continue to demand that it be met, and there has been no watering down whatsoever.The Leader of the Opposition does not come to this debate with clean hands. What we saw in some of his remarks was clearly politics of envy. As the Prime Minister said earlier, we now have a situation where more than 40 per cent of Australians own shares in public companies. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fraser, I felt that most of their time was spent trying to create this feeling of envy—something that will cause most Australians to realise more and more and why Labor is seen as so irrelevant. (Quorum formed)The Leader of the Opposition does not come to this debate with clean hands. He was a minister in a government that had all sorts of cases arise when ministerial accountabilities and the standards were very much lower than those demanded by the current Prime Minister, Mr Howard. We could go back to the situation in 1986 when the then Minister for Trade Mr Dawkins—a fellow Western Australian—was on a cabinet subcommittee looking at the question of a takeover of BHP by Bell Resources. Apparently, Mr Dawkins's mother owned not just a few but a significant number of shares in Bell Resources, but he chose to not even tell his cabinet colleagues, let alone declare that interest. Listening to Mr Beazley today, you would have thought, by the way he was carrying on, that that would have been automatic. But apparently the standards have changed somewhat since.Then we had the case of Senator Richardson and his interest in a radio station, which he did not bother to declare and did not think he needed to. We had a situation with Senator Bolkus and Centennial House, where he was very happily putting taxpayers' money to the benefit of the Labor Party.As time is short, I would like to say in conclusion that this is a very sad and pathetic effort by the Leader of the Opposition. He is obviously desperate to try to create a diversion from his own problems. It is clear, when you look at the ministerial guidelines, that the government has maintained proper standards and clearly will continue to maintain proper standards of accountability for public life. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Miscellaneous236010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I advise the House that I have fixed Thursday, 11 February 1999, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous2360Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Bill 1998 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 1998 Committees23602360236016:02:002360Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee's advisory report: Advisory report on the delayed provisions of the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 . I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in conjunction with the presentation of the report.Leave granted.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that in November 1997 the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 was referred to the committee. The committee subsequently tabled its advisory report, Report 356 , on 12 March 1998. In that report the committee advised that it had been unable to give adequate scrutiny to a subdivision and two divisions in the bill and, consequently, recommended that those provisions be withdrawn from the proposed legislation to enable review by the committee. The government agreed with this recommendation. The committee has now completed its review and Report 363 contains the committee's conclusions.An issue of general importance to tax law improvement legislation was raised during the committee's review. This concerned possible unintended consequences arising from the rewrite. The mandate of the Tax Law Improvement Project, which was at the time responsible for rewriting the legislation, is to simplify and restructure the existing law to make it clearer. This should reduce compliance costs to taxpayers. TLIP's mandate permits it to make minor policy changes which are consistent with its primary mandate and which have no losers, whether the taxpayer or revenue.From time to time the new language used in the proposed legislation generates concern from stakeholders. This is because in some instances they believe new legislative meaning has been unintentionally created and the new interpretation might be to their disadvantage. Sometimes, of course, the new interpretation can benefit the taxpayer.In Report 356 the committee recommended that any unintended consequences in the rewritten legislation be corrected retrospectively, irrespective of whether the revenue or taxpayer had received advantage. The committee has followed up this issue in Report 364, due to concerns raised by stakeholders, by recommending the creation of a publicly available register of unintended consequences. This register would include information about the impact of the unintended consequence and any steps being taken to rectify the matter.Information on the register would prevent taxpayers expending unnecessary time and effort in bringing to the attention of the tax office unintended consequences which had already been identified. As well, details on the register of the steps the tax office intended to take to rectify any consequence would impose a discipline and a timetable on the bureaucracy.The subdivision and two divisions concern three areas of capital gains tax legislation: exemption for the disposal of small business assets where the proceeds are used for retirement; capital gains tax rollover relief where a small business disposes of an active asset and acquires another active asset; and the shifting of value between companies under common ownership. In the report the committee has discussed various policy and technical issues arising from the provisions and has made a number of recommendations.The committee has agreed with concerns raised by stakeholders about the breadth of clauses which affect discretionary trusts. From examining the legislation, the committee has been able to identify particular scenarios where those administering trusts would find it extremely difficult to obtain the information needed to satisfy their obligations under the proposed legislation. The committee has therefore recommended that the provisions be re-examined to determine whether their scope can be made more appropriate and potential compliance difficulties can be overcome.An important benefit of the committee process for reviewing this legislation has been that it has allowed TLIP to canvass, via its submission to the committee, a possible minor policy change concerning division 123. TLIP proposed altering the rollover relief provisions to overcome possible taxpayer confusion about the different treatment of depreciable and other assets. It was proposed to do this by identifying an amount for which rollover could be claimed—called the `quarantined small business rollover amount'. The committee considers TLIP's proposal to be within its mandate as the operation of the law would be simplified and the compliance and administra tion costs would be reduced. TLIP has advised that the proposal is likely to have minimal impact on the revenue, especially in the current economic environment of low inflation.In conclusion, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this review. I am personally indebted to my colleagues on the committee in both the 38th Parliament and in the current parliament who dedicated time and effort to completing this review. I would also like to thank members of the secretariat—Dr Margot Kerly, the JCPAA secretary; Dr John Carter and Ms Tiana Gray—who were involved with the inquiry. I also thank Mr Gary Martin, who provided technical advice to the secretariat. I commend the report to the House.Private Members' Business2361Motion (by Mr Nehl)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notices Nos 5 to 11, private members' business, given by the member for Chifley and accorded priority for Monday, 15 February 1999, being called on, moved and debated together and at the conclusion of the debate, the resumption of debate on each motion being set down as a separate order of the day for the next sitting.Bills2361r6522361Debate resumed.16:09:002361Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I had virtually finished my remarks on this matter just before question time, so I will complete them now. I was reciting a litany of examples of the government reneging on its commitments. In putting this legislation before the House, the government again is reneging on an agreement—in this case, to await a full analysis of the relationship between youth wages and youth unemployment. I therefore call on the government to show some imagination and to develop an innovative approach to solving the problem of youth unemployment in Australia instead of meting out further punishment to the unemployed young people of Australia by introducing a job destroying goods and services tax.16:10:002362Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 , before the House this afternoon, is a bill of great importance to Australia's future. In fact, this bill is about Australia's future and about creating and maintaining prospects for young people. The importance of this bill lies in the fact that this bill will ensure that Australians will have jobs and job prospects, and that is what gives young people hope. It is only with a sense of hope and belief in themselves that young people will actually be able to carry this nation forward.Members on both sides of the House will undoubtedly agree that youth unemployment is the scourge of modern Australia. Headline figures of 30 per cent youth unemployment seem to have become commonplace in the Australian press. In fact, over the past 20 years, youth unemployment has outweighed total unemployment at a ratio of three to one—that is, for every person unemployed in the general population, there have been three young people out of work. There is clear evidence that something needs to be done about the youth labour market. It is fragile and it has been that way for almost two decades.In my own electorate of Petrie, I see many young people who seem lost and uninterested in life because they have little self-confidence. This lack of self-confidence no doubt stems from the fact that many of them are without jobs, and that is a great tragedy. My intention is to tackle this problem head on at a local level. Later this year I will be organising a youth forum in my electorate, and I hope to develop solutions to local unemployment problems. A major step in that direction was taken last week with the official launch of the area consultative committee. The Moreton Bay Coast and Country Area Consultative Committee brings together four local government authorities, the federal government and local business people, and they are all there with the express aim of enhancing local business competitiveness and employee skills, and to facilitate entry into the work force for young people.For this aim to bear any fruit, Australia needs to have the labour market framework that addresses the particular needs and failings of the youth labour market. This bill does just that. The government's Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill will provide youth employment by making sure that young people can get the start that they need in their working life.I am sure that we have all experienced a rather infuriating paradox as we begin our working lives, and it does not matter how long ago it was or how recently. Many times I experienced a situation when I was applying for jobs and I had the qualifications and the advertisement would read `experience required'. Of course, I did not yet have that experience, and the irony was that I really needed that job to get that experience. I am sure that I was not alone in this. In fact, I often hear this very same story now from young people who are doing exactly that—going for work in my electorate and being told that they need experience. How does one get experience? How do young people get out there and get that experience that they so vitally need—that experience that can get them a foot in that door, that experience that is so vital to the young person's prospect? They can get it by what this bill tries to do.This bill ensures that young people will maintain their competitive advantage in the labour market through junior rates of pay. This bill will open the door to employment for so many young Australians. Young people need to have some sort of comparative advantage when they enter the labour market. The necessary advantage is based on some of the issues at play on an employer's mind when they are considering hiring a young person. And what are some of those issues that an employer thinks about when he hires a young person? Maturity is an issue, and the perennial problem of experience is an issue. That is why we have junior rates of pay. That is why we need to maintain the junior rates of pay.A lot of the members on the opposite side here today have spoken about discriminating against young people, but actually their actions today and their opposition to this bill is the greatest discrimination of all. I heard today a number of speakers on the opposite side, including the member for Lalor, state that we were discriminating. Junior rates of pay compensate for a young person's lack of maturity and experience in comparison to much older candidates. That is why we need to keep junior rates. It is simple. It is straightforward. You cannot create jobs for young people by pricing them out of the market. This bill will not only help young people when they are trying to get into employment but also protect the jobs of many, many young people who are already at work, and that is a very, very important factor to note.The former Keating Labor government legislated in 1993 and 1994 to abolish junior rates of pay. This bill will permanently exempt junior rates from these Keating provisions. The bill, contrary to the ideological babble that has been bandied around by the members opposite, is not about telling young people to take a pay cut. It is not about that at all. This bill is about ensuring that 420,000 young Australians are not priced out of their own jobs. In fact, it is common knowledge that if the government had not introduced these measures—and a number of speakers on this side have already alluded to this in the speeches that they have given before the House—220,000 jobs in the retail sector would have been in jeopardy. I hope the members opposite and their colleagues in the Senate bear this in mind when they vote on the bill.As I said, this bill is not about pay cuts for young people; it is about maintaining the existing system of junior rates of pay. It is the Labor Party which wants to give people pay cuts. Yet again, those pay cuts will be the inevitable result of that special brand of Labor logic. The opposition wants a 17-year-old retail sector employee to get a $175 a week pay rise. Just imagine the scenario: a 17-year-old working at Myers would get an extra $175 a week if the Labor Party had its way. How long do you think that Myers could afford to pay that increase? Not very long at all. For every three employees that the firm has, how many new or extra jobs would disappear if that increase came into effect?The fact of the matter is that if Labor's position was implemented we would have a 17-year-old person who would be out of work. It is as simple as that. And not having a job is the biggest pay cut anyone could ever get. Labor logic. It says quite a lot about the Labor Party. With policies like this, it is little wonder that thinking members of the Labor Party are often relegated to the backbench, and we see that quite often here in the House with people like the member for Werriwa. Only Labor could actually formulate such a diabolical position on youth wages.What is even more galling is that the Labor Party pretends and possibly believes that they are acting in the best interests of young people. I listened to the member for Lalor today when she was talking about discrimination. They do not realise that the action that they are taking and the high level of opposition that they have for this bill plus the unfair dismissal provisions are great impediments for employers to take on young people. I am sure that young people are aware of what Labor sees as their best interests, and I am sure that they see right through that. You have only to remember the former member for Blaxland's comment, `Go and get a job!' some years back. But how could they if Labor had their way on junior rates?Not only does Labor treat young people with contempt through their insidious policy on junior wage rates, but they also show of great deal of disdain towards the jobs that young people actually seek. I would like to reiterate a point made yesterday by Minister Reith in question time. Labor seems to be arguing that the jobs that this bill will protect are not worthwhile jobs. `McJobs are not real jobs,' is what the Labor Party is saying. `A job at Myers or Grace Bros is not a real job,' is what the Labor Party is saying. I would like to draw the attention of the House to comments made on this topic by the member for Melbourne. As the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business noted yesterday, the member for Melbourne—and I see he is in the House—argued: R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Here comes a quorum.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—That was good timing. He argued:The ridiculous notion that some jobs are not real jobs but merely theme park jobs or McJobs must be abandoned. Many of the jobs in the old economy are no more fulfilling or better paid than such new jobs, and they are often dirtier and more dangerous.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Did you work for McDonald's?9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—What incredible insight! I worked in my parents' takeaway store—much greasier and a lot harder work.Mr Albanese interjecting—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Hear, hear! And I worked in my parents' fruit store. We have uncovered another thinker in the Labor Party! But how long will it be before another member is sent to the sin-bin for thinking this way. I have to applaud the member for Melbourne; at least he is able to think and he does think outside the realm that some of his other colleagues are so locked into. Judging by his comments on the 7.30 Report , it will not be long before he and the member for Werriwa form a shadow shadow cabinet in the outer Labor caucus.These retro style ideological thinkers will not help to tackle the problem of youth unemployment. The fact of the matter is that a job is a job. But Labor's policy platform seems to have had difficulty dealing with changes to Australia's economy and society over the past 30 years. The fact of the matter is that Australia's economy is now a service based economy and that is what the members on the opposite side do not seem to understand. We are going towards a service based economy. That is where it is all happening and that is where all the jobs are going to be. And 75 per cent—it is probably more now—of our gross domestic product is generated in the services industry.Let us look at the importance of the service sector to employment and the very vital role that junior wage rates play. Take the role of McDonald's. I talk about my parents' takeaway, but McDonald's is a very good illustrator here because it employs thousands of young people and 40,000 people overall. As I said earlier, the retail sector employs some 220,000 young people on junior rates and many young people had their start at places like McDonald's. The notion that these jobs are somehow qualitatively different from a job as a storeman or a job on a factory floor is absolute nonsense, but that is some of the stuff that is being peddled here today. Young people learn some very important skills when they work at McDonald's. They learn about teamwork. They learn about business processes. They learn about customer service and operating systems when they work for these firms.Mr Albanese interjecting—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I am very glad to hear that the member opposite has worked for places like McDonald's and understands the worth of that training. It has stood him in good stead.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—It is why I am here today.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—He has even managed to become a member of the House of Representatives, so I am very thrilled that he got that great start in life. Clearly and most importantly, they learn lessons about life—I am sure the member opposite did—and they develop a work ethic. I am sure he is working on that at the moment.I would like to give you an example of another successful person who started on junior rates at a bakery. Tom Potter is CEO of a booming business called Eagle Boys Dial-a-Pizza. One of the members opposite—I think it was the member for Lalor—said that in these times of change it is impossible to envisage that a junior at the bank can go on and become the bank manager. I say that is appalling and I say that that is nonsense. There are opportunities for young people to work their way up. I have worked in the hotel industry. Many of the general managers in many of the hotels that I worked in, at the Parkroyals and the Travelodges, started off as the concierge and then progressed their way up through the ranks. So to believe that that does not occur is absolute nonsense.Tom Potter started off in a bakery as a young person on a junior wage rate. His business is getting stronger and stronger every day nationally and he is branching out overseas—so much so that he has 150 stores and he turns over $80 million a year. Why do I tell you about Tom Potter? He is the very same person who, at an early age, was put on the success track that he is on today. Why? Because he started as a junior on junior wage rates.It is interesting to note that federal Labor's position has not been taken up by its state parliamentary colleagues in New South Wales, in my home state of Queensland and in Tasmania. Why is that so? Do the members for Werriwa and Melbourne have the ears of the Labor state Premiers? Or are the state Premiers just thinking people who realise the absolute folly of abolishing junior wage rates? I hope, at least for the sake of young people and for the sake of my home state, that they continue to be that way. And I hope that the Labor Party will recognise for once in their history that they are doing a great disservice to Australia by not supporting this bill.16:26:002365Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to oppose the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 today, because I think I have a duty to represent those young people in my electorate who will be discriminated against as a result of this legislation. This bill seeks to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in a way that will result in the inclusion of junior rates of pay into awards and workplace agreements. It will also result in the permanent exclusion of junior rates from the age discrimination provisions in the act. Once again, this government is reneging on its promise that no worker will be worse off by the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act. We have to ask ourselves: why is this occurring? What is the rush to push this legislation through?There is, of course, an inquiry being conducted by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that has to report to the minister by 22 June 1999. Already, an 111-page issues paper is being circulated, dated 22 December 1998, which has identified a number of the issues which need to be addressed in this legislation. But we are not waiting for the proper process to occur. What we are doing is rushing this bill through the parliament. This is occurring as the result of a broken deal—at the time that the Workplace Relations Act went through the Senate—between the government and the Australian Democrats. But commitment and integrity do not seem to matter terribly much to this minister.This government are punishing the young people of this country for the government's own inability to create real jobs for young people. It follows on from decisions to cut social security payments to young people, the replacement of the CES with a convoluted Job Network that clearly is not working and ongoing cuts of something like $1 billion to tertiary education throughout the country. On top of this, we have the farcical situation of the common youth allowance legislation which means that over 40,000 young people effectively have been forced to go back to school.They have displayed a callous disregard for a substantial sector of the population. Of particular concern are those aged between 18 and 21 who are legally of age to vote, to serve their country in military combat, to obtain credit cards or go to pubs; but, according to this bill, they are not old enough to be paid adult wages. This is a staggering bit of logic because it assumes that workers under the age of 21 are of less value to employers than adults.In opposing this bill, we are simply arguing for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. We are arguing that, just as young people do not have to pay a different amount when they purchase food or services or accommodation, nor should they, simply because of their age, be paid less wages.In proposing this bill, this government alleges that it is attempting to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market. The reality is that this bill will result in low paid young workers who will be exploited by ruthless companies, with the assistance of this government. There is very little statistical evidence to support the claim that lowering junior rates of pay will result in lower youth unemployment and increase the skill base amongst the young people of this country. Lowering junior rates will only result in lower paid young people. What will reduce youth unemployment in this country is serious industry policy, serious training and vocational education policies, and real job creation. That does not mean an expansion of the Work for the Dole schemes, which are only designed to punish the unemployed and to gloss over the unemployment figures.According to the government submission to the Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into junior wages, 56 per cent of junior employees aged between 15 and 19 are paid under the system of junior rates of pay. Over 375,000 young people fall within this category. That is 375,000 young people who have the potential to be adversely affected by this bill. That is 375,000 young people who may see their wages fall and their opportunities for training dry up. How long will it be before this government attempts to legislate to reduce the wages and conditions of the remaining 44 per cent of the young workers of this country?The effect that this bill will have on young people greatly concerns me. For example, in my electorate of Grayndler, approximately 20 per cent of the population are aged between 15 and 24. Using the above statistic, approximately 11,000 young people will be potentially adversely affected by this bill.Contrary to what this government would like the Australian people to believe, the trade union movement has taken a mature and sensible approach to the issue of junior rates of pay over the years. In consultation with employers, the union movement has developed fair and equitable ways to ensure decent wage outcomes for young workers. It must be added that this has been achieved without damaging the viability of the companies involved. This fairness and equity has been achieved in certain industries by moving away from age based wage setting and implementing a competency based or skills acquired system of wage fixation. What is wrong with that?Government speakers over the last day have consistently said, `We are about giving young people skills. We are about giving them training and lifting them up.' If that is the case, then let us talk about that. There is no correlation between that and an `of necessity' system, which simply means lowering wages for young people. All of this will be swept away if this bill is implemented. It will result in falling rates of pay for junior workers and reduced levels of training for advancement in employment. I fear that, if accepted, this bill will pave the way for low paid, low skilled young workers who will have little or no portability of skills or job experience.In respect of the inquiry that is currently under way by the full bench of the AIRC, the government is displaying a total disregard for the commission bordering on utter contempt. The commission's inquiry is to focus on whether it is desirable to replace junior rates of pay with alternatives that do not discriminate on the basis of age and the consequences for youth employment of abolishing junior rates. We are not arguing here in support of the commission's guidelines for the inquiry that is taking place. We are not arguing that you do not draw any distinctions in terms of wage rates. We are simply arguing that wage rates should relate to competency and should not be restricted to age discrimination.It would be far more sensible for this government to wait for the results of this inquiry to be released and then to decide upon a course of action. But it is easy to see why this government wishes to override the commission in this fashion. In the commission's issues paper, released last year, the inquiry exposed a situation where:. . . for those awards which contain only adult rates, any juniors employed might be faced with a reduction of their minimum rate, if junior rates were to be introduced . . . Imposing junior rates of pay based on age is an outmoded, unfair system of wage fixation. The permanent exemption of junior rates from the age discrimination provisions only proves that these proposals are discriminatory towards young workers. I find this totally reprehensible.The Howard government has sought to reduce junior rates of pay for some considerable time. In opposition, the coalition flagged low junior rates of pay around the level of $2.50 to $3 per hour as part of their Fightback package. The Australian people did not hold back in displaying their opposition to this proposal, and it was rejected at the 1993 election.We have heard a lot of rhetoric from those opposite. They have built arguments just to knock them down. No-one on this side of the House has argued that there is some distinction between jobs in the white-collar or tertiary sector, jobs in places like McDonald's and jobs in the manufacturing sector, so let us get rid of that argument. I think I speak with perhaps a bit more credibility than those opposite who speak about working for mum and dad's small business. That is fine, but not everyone has parents who own a small business. I would suggest that most young people who work at McDonald's do not. They work there because they have to. By and large they are working their way through school. I was certainly in that situation. I had to go out and work my way through school. I grew up in a household where my mother was a sole parent living on a pension. I had to go out and work on a paper run originally. Once you were old enough, the logical place to go was somewhere like McDonald's.I remember being paid something like $1.20 an hour at one stage to work at McDonald's. Because of what they did in training and because of their discrimination—it was not unionised—if you wanted a shift, you had to go in on Saturday morning and watch, for four hours, propaganda videos about how terrific McDonald's was and how lucky you were to have a job there. You got paid nothing. You had to pay your own bus fare to the store.You also had a number of so-called voluntary systems after work. You had to go in and be there unpaid, otherwise you did not get any shifts—all this for the grand total of something like $1.20 an hour. Everyone who worked at McDonald's knew, because their system was based upon junior rates of pay, that once you hit the age of 17 you were out the door with no training, simply because they based their system at that time on employing the people to whom they could pay the least amount.I think it is terrific that some 40,000 people work at McDonald's. That is fine, but the fact is that junior wage rates help entrench a situation whereby young people—by and large not unionised—can be exploited and then thrown on the scrap heap solely on the basis of age. So I get a bit upset when some of the toffs over on the other side of the House speak about how we are supposedly not concerned about McJobs and how we draw a distinction. The fact is that the people whom the Labor Party represents know that many young people are out there getting whatever job they can and being exploited by unscrupulous employers.I well remember when Mr Peter Ritchie, the head of McDonald's, was arguing for a special youth wage—being supported by John Howard and the coalition in the 1980s—because, as a Young Labor member, I was campaigning very strongly against such proposals to drive people's wages down even further. There is no lower limit that those sorts of unscrupulous employers would not stoop to in terms of paying their staff a `decent' wage, and this legislation very much opens up the proposal to pay young people even less.The proposal is a distortion of the labour market. All these people speak about level playing fields and how the market has to be allowed to operate, but it distorts the market to pay different rates of pay to someone who is 16 years old and someone who is 18 years old, where the 16-year-old has exactly the same skills as the 18-year-old—or as a 25-year-old for that matter. That is a distortion of the labour market and it is against the principles which people on the other side of the House purport to represent. We argue that you need to look at a whole range of issues, in terms of competency and skills base, if those opposite are going to be fair dinkum and if we are not going to simply exploit young people.This legislation is pretty consistent with the government's attitude towards young people. This government is really in the business of shifting the blame, and in many instances young people are targeted as causing problems for our society and our economy. With this blame comes punishment, the basic premise behind the government's plan, and the rhetoric about working for the dole or about literacy and numeracy. These are the same people who have cut back the adult migrant English services for people who are trying to learn English so they can get into jobs; these are the people who have implemented massive cuts to education.How is it, with regard to this latest plan, that a school system which has failed over 10 years to give people proper skills will put them into a six-week course that will supposedly solve the whole problem? It really is a case of blame the victim, and it is an attempt to shift the welfare debate to one which is about the individual. It is the individualisation of the welfare debate.We should be about maximising people's language and numeracy skills. I have no problem with that all. The principle is absolutely sound. It is a fact that in a lot of places, such as in my electorate, that is happening. The Exodus Foundation, run by Reverend Bill Crews, does a fantastic job of taking young people—many of whom are street kids—who have had a problem with learning and giving them, in a proper and compassionate way, skills so they can participate in the society from which they feel alienated.These are the sorts of programs that the government should support if it is fair dinkum. There is just one example, run by a private operation—a church in this case—and Bill Crews does a great job. But what young people continually hear from this government is that they are to blame for the problems that are not of their creation, problems that they have inherited from other generations. You simply cannot solve the problems of youth employment by cutting wages and bringing up these mickey mouse schemes, because complex factors contribute to this situation—poverty, dysfunctional home life, difficulties with English as a second language and undiagnosed learning difficulties.There are no simple causes and there are no simple answers either. But this government is committed to simplistic slogans against young people. With regard to wages, it would appear that the simplistic slogan is, `If we just pay them less, they'll be more employable.' That is not an appropriate way to go forward. This legislation is shoddy. It is being rushed through at a time when we do have a proper inquiry and it should be opposed by this parliament. The young people of this country deserve real employment opportunities with real wage and salary levels, not low paid, low skilled jobs with very little future. I urge the parliament to reject this legislation.16:45:002368Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I am going to talk about youth employment too. I want to address five basic issues. The first issue is wages, which directly relates to this Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . The other issues are literacy and numeracy, education, skills and careers advice.I am going to resist the temptation to spend my 20 minutes trying to counter the words of the member for Grayndler. That would certainly be appropriate, I can assure you. But I would rather say something positive than spend my time on the negative, trying to de-bunk some of the rubbish that we heard about the motives associated with this particular piece of legislation.This is not the first time that the coalition government has attempted to legislate to make sure that we retain a historic system of age based youth wages. History will tell us that we have, for a very long time, paid young people according to their age. We have done this for a very good and proper reason—young people generally lack the experience and the maturity of adults until they get the experience in the job place. So employers have a real bias, and that is that if the wage rate must be the same they would rather employ someone with higher skills, more experience, greater maturity and greater willingness to do the job. In the absence of a discriminatory—if you want to call it that—wage system which attempts to advantage young people, we may have a worse youth unemployment situation than we have today.I am certainly not happy about the level of youth unemployment in Australia today. I have not been happy about it for a very long time. I cannot recall being happy about it in my time in this parliament.Junior rates have contributed to giving young people an opportunity. But it is the Labor Party, through legislation, that attempted to take away those rates in 1997. With an amendment we did manage to string it out until next year, but in the meantime no-one has come up with an equitable solution that will provide opportunities for young people to work and that takes account of their experience and maturity without basing at least minimum wages—not maximum wages—on age. So I would contend that this legislation is designed to assist young people.But it goes further than that. The legislation will now require the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to promote inclusion of junior rates in awards and agreements. We are attempting to create a culture shift. There are so many young people who are already dependent on junior wage rates in this country that it is important that we do not shift the goalposts and all of a sudden have the unemployment rate even worse and further disadvantage young people who do not have the skills, maturity or education to start up higher on the ladder. All of us have to start at the bottom somewhere.I will comment on one thing that the member for Grayndler said. He talked about people on this side of the House being born with silver spoons. He said that he had a paper round and that he had to work at McDonald's. I had a paper round for years and years. I worked in a potato field picking up potatoes. I worked as a carpenter's helper, I dug ditches and I worked as a builder's labourer—on and on it goes. So what? What does how you grew up prove? What does it prove if you had to pay your way through school? I paid my way through school too. So what? What does that prove? Does that make me any more competent to talk about what is in the best interests of our youth and our country than somebody who did not have to work, somebody whose parents paid their way through school? It has nothing to do with it whatsoever.McDonald's is a good example, today, of a company that makes the system work. In 1996 and 1997 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training held an 18-month-long inquiry into youth employment. We talked to McDonald's Australia, the retail industry, Woolies, Coles and lots of other people. One of the things that McDonald's told us was that not only do they provide extensive training programs for the young people who worked for them, but that their operation in Australia is entirely different from what it is in the United States or other countries. Young people get a go in McDonald's in Australia while in other countries they really do not. For example, in the United States, McDonald's operations fall under the Federal minimum wage act so McDonald's hires largely older people who are retired from the general overall active work force or who have not been able to find other employment. They hire mature people more than they hire young people.So McDonald's Australia has created a positive discriminatory policy towards young people. I have talked to lots of young people who are 18, 19 or 20. They are still working at McDonald's, so it is rubbish about being tossed out. That is not right. It may happen in shops somewhere because they are all individual employers.Everybody we talked to in industry said, `When we have resumes from several kids and we do the interviews and we are down to the final selection process between two young people on the short list and their skills and qualifications are reasonably the same, then, if one of them has McDonald's experience and the other one does not, the chances are that the one with the McDonald's experience is going to get the job.' Why? Because of attitude. McDonald's teaches attitude. That is the first thing employers look for when they go to hire a young person—attitude.The second is literacy. I talked about junior rates and how important it is for us to maintain those rates. Likewise, it is very important for us to make sure that young people are literate and are numerate, using whatever it takes. I have argued the case for reform of early childhood literacy development in this place for almost nine years. It is true that in any inquiry you undertake anywhere you go, any employer you talk to or any employment representative body will tell you that we have a literacy problem. They will tell you that young people who cannot read and write properly are disadvantaged in the job market, and severely disadvantaged. Any social worker that you talk to about the kids that they have in their care or that they talk to and work with will tell you that, of the street kids that they come in contact with, in the very high 90 percentiles those kids have literacy and numeracy problems.That goes all the way down the social strand. If you find young people in correctional institutions and you talk to the officers involved, they will tell you that almost universally those young people have poor reading and writing skill. And it is not their fault. I agree with the member for Grayndler—it is not their fault. It is our fault. It is the teachers' fault. It is the education system's fault. While ever we fail to teach any young child how to read and how to write at an appropriate level, we have failed that child. It is very difficult to recover the situation once a child passes on through school and reaches an age when they can potentially leave school. We know, and the statistics prove it every day, that the young people who leave school before the end of grade 12, who leave at 15, 16 or even 17, are going to be disadvantaged in the job market for a very long time. There are some who will get lucky. There are some who will go back and find an adult education class and will learn how to read and learn how to write. They may go on and do well, and they may then attend further education. They might go to TAFE or they might go to university. They might ultimately wind up in very good and very well paid jobs. But in the beginning they are going to find it hard. If you talk to employers, they tell you it is the second most important thing on the list when they go to hire young people.There is a huge change, a sea change, in our country and indeed internationally in the nature of jobs and the nature of work. We do not have any more the great breadth and number and percentages of those employed being in unskilled labouring type jobs. They no longer exist. There are some but there are not many, and certainly they are not growing. In that sense, since the nature of industry is changing, it is even more important that young people have a good grasp of our language in our country, which is English.That changing of the nature of work also leads me on to the next point, and that is education generally. People in the future, we are told, are going to have five, six or seven jobs through their working lifetime. I am on my fourth. Who knows, some day there might be a fifth. In the future it will be the norm, not something unusual. People will not go to an industry or a category of work and stay there forever. Some will, but not many. The kind of work will change. We know that knowledge based industries are on the increase. We know that entertainment and leisure based industries are on the increase. We know that the hospitality industry is a huge and still growing job market, particularly for young people but for the adult population as well. We know that the information technology sector is growing so fast that we cannot keep pace. The information technology sector requires individuals who can read and write and who can do maths well. It requires them to be well educated and well trained.Education does lots of things for people. Through a general education course one learns a little bit about society, a bit about history, a bit about the arts, and some mathematics to be able to explain things in mathematical form and to be able to calculate readily. You learn about literature and about science—many aspects of science and engineering. But I have always thought that the basic reason for education was to provide us with a method of learning how to learn. Sure, you can pump yourself full of facts and if you have got a very good memory you will remember what you were taught in school. I do not know that I remember very much about either Latin I or Latin II. I am not sure I remember all the rules associated with English grammar. I am not confident that I can tell you anything about calculus or theory of statistics, or indeed some of the advanced thermonuclear courses that I took. But I bet you I could find the books and read the books and in a very short time I could go back and pick it up and be back where I left off when I left school.That is one of the most important things about school: that the education provides people with the ability to learn how to learn. In this world of the changing nature of work, of advancing skills and of the need for new skills and changes and new professions, we are told that people will need to be more adaptable. This means that lifelong learning, which has become a bit of a cliche, is probably necessary. Probably those who want to do well will have to continue to learn all their lives. That will probably become increasingly important to them.Along with general education comes some skills education. There are many areas of work still available today which are largely skills based rather than knowledge based. We even find in some industries that employment opportunities for young people—and sometimes for adults—are going begging. In 1997 there was a shortage of something like 5,000 chefs in Australia. I recently read an estimate that there will be a shortage of 7,000 chefs in Australia by the year 2000. Somebody ought to be telling young people that, although it is hot in the kitchen, the working hours are terrible and it can be dangerous—you can get scalded, burnt or cut—there are jobs available and they pay well too. Those are good, paying jobs.This leads me to another issue I want to talk about: careers advice. We have an absolutely appalling history when it comes to letting people know what kind of work is available or will be available in the future. Regardless of their level of remuneration, how on earth is anyone going to decide what they want to do with their life if they do not know what is going to be out there? There is no sense in telling all our young people they should get a university education—and this happens all too frequently. There is no sense in basing the structure of the high school curriculum on tertiary entry requirements in total. (Quorum formed)In summary, I support this legislation for youth wage rates. It offers opportunities for our young people. Requiring the AIRC to include junior wage rates in their determinations with respect to both awards and agree ments will be a positive culture change for the future. (Time expired)17:05:002371Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Many previous speakers have made the point that the decision to press this legislation occurs at a time when the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has the very same issue under consideration. We are aware that, after that inquiry is completed, the government will have a whole year to move on legislation on this matter.Those on the opposite side claim that this is a black-and-white case about the value of retaining junior rates, but that inquiry is investigating a number of aspects of it. Matters under consideration by that inquiry include questions about whether it is desirable that we retain junior rates, whether the outcomes are worthwhile and whether there is a proper transition between education and work. There is already an issues paper out.We have to recall that the genesis of this inquiry came at the time that Minister Reith loudly proclaimed to the country that he had gone dancing with the then leader of the Democrats and that they had come up with a reasonable outcome with regard to `workplace reform'. He said at the time that the deal—the overall understanding—recognised the genuine concerns that had been put to the government by the Australian Democrats. In retrospect, he said at a press conference in the parliament on 27 October, `We wanted to ensure it was a fair deal in the end.' The fair deal he talked about included the agreement to investigate this matter in the AIRC.What we are seeing today is the government pressing ahead, essentially telling that inquiry to go jump, that its time and effort were of no value. Quite frankly, rather than being typical of processes in this country, one is more reminded of Robert Mugabe's threat to the Zimbabwean High Court in the last week or so that he is going to sack them, or of the arrest of people in Singapore for holding illegal meetings, or of the difficulties that Anwar is having in Malaysia with the legal system there. This is clearly and utterly an attempt by this government to intimidate the AIRC as to the outcome that should occur. One has to ask what degree of faith we can have in the minister in anything he says—whether it is in regard to supposedly guaranteeing people that their wages will not be reduced, whether it is in regard to supposed gains that people are going to have from this suggestion of retaining junior rates or in regard to work creation. After his decision to basically throw out the window, ignore, and repudiate the deal that he reached with the Democrats, everything he proposes should be questioned. It was a very controversial debate which was in the headlines of the newspapers of this country for quite a while, which was a definitive point of argument by this government. An understanding was reached. It has been clearly breached.To my mind, it is not that clear-cut. The member for Deakin indicated that his analysis of the opposition's position was that they were `thumbing their noses at young people'. The member for La Trobe equally had the hide, the audacity, to say that this legislation advantages young people. It is interesting that he cited the situation in the United States in regard to McDonald's. We all know that there are no junior rates over there. There is indeed a minimum wage rate which the US President had so much difficulty increasing to its current abysmal level over the last few years.What is happening in the US is indicative of the whole thing that those opposite represent. He is saying that because they do not have junior rates in America they hire adult, mature people—I guess they might say that in general these people have more experience, et cetera. One has to ask how low this government wants to drive down wages and conditions to the level they see as the solution for this country, to the lowest common denominator. The direction for life is not training, not education, not skills, but basically competition with our region and with those that do not have proper industrial relations systems. What he is saying is that essentially McDonald's will go for the cheapest rates. That is the end of the story. There are no other considerations. Because there are no junior rates in America, basically they do not hire junior people. I associate myself very clearly with the member for Grayndler and his comments about McDonald's. The member opposite was telling us before what a good company they are. Of course they give employment to people. Of course that is welcome for those people. But I actually meet young people in my electorate who have experience of employment with this company, and I think the member for Grayndler's tone is the right kind rather than the glorious praise of those opposite. In my electorate, there are a significant number of people from the Middle East, and they tend not to have a culture or upbringing which is quite as pro-union or as aggressively pro their conditions in seeing themselves as employees.I ran into a woman who had worked as a manager at McDonald's. A few years prior to that meeting, she had been very pleased with herself in life. She had the badge and authority in the company. A few years later there is a very sorry history of what happened to her—her experience of the company and her disillusionment. Other people talk of their children being telephoned by McDonald's. Regardless of all this rhetoric about how people get skills, improve, are trained, and how much McDonald's do for them, three girls in the same family get different rates of pay and the family has to lie about which one of them is available for employment, because they would not hire the one who might have turned a year older. That is the reality out there, and that is what this government is driving: essentially a situation whereby they believe that the only future for the country is in driving down wages.Whilst it might be a fact of life that a lot of people have to start at the bottom—and that is a pretty obvious kind of analysis—the situation in this country is increasingly that there are wage disparities according to educational level. Increasingly, people in short-term casualised employment return to unemployment and back again. It was interesting to note an article `Low Wages and the Distribution of Family Income in Australia' in September 1998 by Sue Richardson and Ann Harding. They made the point:The poverty rate was very high for low wage earners who were aged less than 21 years, with an apparent one third—that is, 35.1 per cent—of such earners in poverty. This suggests intense disadvantage.They did put the qualification that many of these young people in absolute poverty were in families and received some family support. But there is a concentration of young people in very low wage situations. And people have talked about the Harvester decision of 1907 which established the seven shillings a day for the male, because he then had the obvious need to support the entire family. The Harvester decision was based on a family of five. Later on, Higgins gave 54 per cent to females, based on the theory that very few of them had to support families. And the youth rates stem from that period. It is a very different society in 1999 for young people in this country—different because of the degree to which people stay at home, the degree to which family formations occur, and the extent of dissolution of relationships. And we cannot assume in 1999 that it is 1907 and that all of these people do have the support of their family in regard to their overall financial situation. We have the reality that many of them no longer live at home. So to say that what happened in 1907 was rational and should be retained in this day and age is very questionable. The article went on to say:Low wage earners are a diverse lot, but with an overrepresentation of women and young people and the less educated.If you compare the bottom three and the top three deciles in this country, 25 per cent of young people were concentrated in family units in the bottom three deciles, whereas eight per cent were in the top three. So there is increasingly a relationship between age and wages and the after tax income of the family unit.Sue Richardson, in an article dated November 1998 entitled `Households, Individuals and Low Wages', looked at the 1989-90 data. In that article from the University of Adelaide she commented:One in every 20 low wage workers was in a family where the principal current income source was government cash benefits. This proportion almost doubled to nine per cent when the principal source of family income in the preceding year was considered. This suggests that there is a substantial movement between reliance on the welfare system and low-paid work.In other words, the people whom those opposite seek to perpetuate in low incomes in this country are the people who are in insecure areas of employment to a large degree and are increasingly dependent on social security.Those opposite constantly carry on about giving people a chance, tying things to experience and the acquisition of skills. It is interesting to note that, in a period when a constant stream of articles has talked about the growth of corporate managerial incomes in this country, we do not see the same interest by those opposite in doing anything about the growth of incomes for corporate executives. That is a matter they cannot interfere with. That is the market. They cannot bring in legislation to attempt anything to circumvent or reduce this kind of trend.An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 January by Sean Aylmer stated:Australia's middle-level and senior managers are set to receive above-average pay rises during 1999, outstripping their peers in the Asian region.. . . . . . . . .The expected 6 per cent rise for local executives is one of the highest in the region, the survey says.. . . The Towers Perrin survey shows team incentives, share-based rewards and other long-term incentives were a cost-effective way to attract and retain senior management.An article in the Business Review Weekly of 23 November 1998 commented about Gerry Harvey and looked at him as being value for money `compared with the average chief executive salary in the top 50 companies of $1.69 million'. The article further said:In the same year, shareholders in WMC, Coca-Cola Amatil and Brierley Investments watched millions of dollars being stripped from their market capitalisation. The chief executives of two of these companies have since departed and their payouts have caused much controversy. In the case of WMC, Hugh Morgan's salary remained at $1.3 million as the group's share price fell 43% to $4.88, part of which could be attributed to the slump in commodity prices and industrial disputes. The article further noted:A Recruitment Solutions survey of accounting and finance staff reveals that 72% of companies plan to increase salaries 3-5% at the next review. Significantly, 13% of companies will give increases of 2% less in the same period. Savage says that senior accounting executives (earning more than $100,000 a year) will get the highest increases at their next review . . .. . . . . . . . .The average salary package for the head of the United States health-care companies is about $US5 million, according to the Australian Nursing Federation. Secretary Belinda Morieson says: "You might think that kind of money is a long way off, but the privatisation of Victoria's health services is already here, and the salaries that go with it are beyond the public's control.. . . . . . . . .Another chief executive forced out, Paul Collins of Brierley Investments, departed with $3.4 million after leaving the company heavily in debt and in breach of one of its debt covenants. The Brierley share price, $1.10 a year ago, is about 45c.Amcor's Don Macfarlane got $2.9 million—not bad considering he is in the bottom half of the ranking of chief executives . . . So, whilst we see this government concentrating all resources in ensuring that people could have, in some cases, reductions of $200 a week—way below anything that an individual could live on in this country—we do not see the same emphasis, the same interest or the same passion from those opposite in regards to the growth of corporate salaries in this country.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—What about Paul Keating and Bob Hawke? What do they earn?8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The member opposite is questioning me as to what Bob Hawke and Paul Keating earn. I could not care less what they earn. The essential point I am making is that you are taking up the time of this parliament to entrench the low wages of young people in this country. We do not see the same devotion to the interest in analysis when it is Bob Hawke—or any other person who is retired from this parliament—or corporate executives in this country. We do not see the same level of interest in regard to the growth of disparities in this country.What we do see is a situation where they are not only trying to retain these 1907-influenced wage patterns but we see the current government determined to extend them to all awards. They are not satisfied with a situation where they will retain them—where they will basically go against Labor's intention to abolish these junior rates—but they are going to essentially dictate that they will operate in all awards in this country.The situation is that there is no rational reason in the world why a 17-year-old person cannot do the same cleaning as a 25-year-old person. As other speakers have made clear, those opposite accept, with us, that in many other ways people are adults at 18 years of age. An earlier speaker said—quite correctly as I understand it; I have not seen it contradicted—that there is no clarification yet in this legislation as to whether a person is an adult at 18 or 21 in regards to the wage people will receive.Essentially, I dispute very strongly that there is going to be a major spurt in job creation. It is Fantasy Island stuff, similar to the proposition that every employer in this country is going to rush out and hire people just because they make it easier to sack people in small businesses. It is just as farcical and just as much Dreamtime as the proposition today that they are going to hire a whole lot of younger people just because they keep their wages at these low levels.17:21:002374Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—It seems that the attack on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 is coming from the point of view that somebody is going to be worse off. The shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, went to some lengths to outline how the Prime Minister had stated back in 1996 that no-one would be worse off under a Liberal coalition government, as far as wages and conditions were concerned. They have laboured this point for the last several hours, so I want to make it quite clear that nobody, either currently in work or who is going to enter the work force, will have a reduction in their wages as a result of this bill.The member for Brisbane used some figures about a retail distribution centre employee. He quoted that that person, who today might be 18 years of age and earning $412.60 per week, would under this legislation have his wages cut to $288.80. That would not be satisfactory and certainly would not satisfy the Prime Minister's undertaking, but the fact is that it simply is not the case. The shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, has got it totally wrong.The legislation requires that the AIRC look at introducing age based wages where appropriate. It is not mandatory, which is the point the shadow minister continually laboured, stating that so many of these people who are currently working under an adult based wage would suddenly find themselves on these age based wages and hence have a lower income.There is also a precedent for how the AIRC can handle this. I am sure he has heard of the term `grandfathering'. In this particular incident, the most recent of cases before the commission was the transition from paid rate wages to minimum rate wages. They ordered that there be a transition so that no-one was worse off. Does the opposition really believe that the AIRC is going to allow the situation to arise where an 18-year-old—the one quoted on $412.60 per week—is going to have his or her wages cut by $123.80? I think not.But of course that is part of the rhetoric that has supported the Labor case here today. All the way through, they have tried to talk down young people's opportunities to earn, when it simply is untrue. If an employer tried to sack a young employee who was paid the adult wage—which is really the lead-in to the rest of their argument—and replaced them with someone on a junior wage rate following the extension of these junior rates, then that action would be unlawful under section 298K and 298L of the Workplace Relations Act. That is not getting rid of unfair dismissal; that is an unlawful act and they could be prosecuted for doing so. So the protections are in place. Once again the member for Brisbane has got it wrong. Many employees aged under 21 and currently paid at adult rates will not be affected by these changes. Some young people may currently be paid at adult rates because their employers choose to do that. They may believe that their work performance or their productivity warrants their being paid more. Our legislation will not affect the ability of employers to pay—and the employees to receive—such overaward payments. No-one will receive a reduction in their wages.Why should junior rates be extended to awards that do not presently include them? This is another point laboured quite heavily by the member for Brisbane. Under our current legislation, the commission will be required to support youth employment by ensuring, wherever appropriate, awards that apply to work that is or may be performed by young people include junior rates of pay. Awards for a number of industries do not provide for junior rates of pay, and these include the building and construction industry. A prominent example is Queensland, where there is just no way in for a young person or an unskilled worker. Therefore they are basically excluded from this industry, which is obviously booming in Queensland due to the tourism industry and booming in New South Wales because of the Olympic Games.It has been estimated that there would be some 6,000 new jobs created for young people if the extension of junior rates were introduced into the building and construction industry alone—6,000 new jobs in an industry which needs young blood desperately but which this Labor opposition is opposed to. The Master Builders Association argues in a submission:It is the MBA's belief that the absence of junior rates of pay has led to underemployment of juniors in the building and construction industry.A lot of people on the opposite side have represented the ACTU, the MUA and other unions. Perhaps they should be listening to the evidence that the Master Builders Association has given so they recognise that there are jobs going to waste.I will turn my attention once again to the shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, and his reference to the Queensland government and its submission. He pointed out that the Queensland government believed there should be a move to age based wages in their submission. As it stands, every state and territory government in this nation has the power to legislate to end the use of junior rates, but none have done so. No Labor government has done so. They have all enacted anti-discrimination legislation, but all have also exempted junior rates from the requirement of that legislation. So why is it that they stand here and tell us that this is such a heinous crime, when their brethren in the states have had the power to do so and have not done so? You must ask yourself that question.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Ask Bob Carr!2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Ask Bob Carr said the minister at the table. Or ask Premier Beattie! The Queensland government supports no move away from junior rates until a replacement competency based system is available. They note that any changes would recognise the fragility of the youth employment market. Well, bully for them! The Queensland legislation contains provisions which have the effect of permanently exempting junior rates of pay, so if they are so opposed to this, why haven't they moved away from it in their term in government. They have been in government since June last year, and they have not made one attempt to do anything about removing what they consider to be such a heinous attack on young people's rights. They did not do it under the Goss government, and I would suggest that they will not do it in the years to come.Section 129/8 of the Queensland Workplace Relations Act 1997 states:In making an award that fixes the award rates, the commission must consider the age and experience of persons aged under 21.Section 33 of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 states:A person may remunerate a worker who is aged under 21 years of age according to the worker's age.If they are so adamant about this, why have they not removed these particular pieces of legislation as a matter of urgency? I would say that every speaker from the opposition today has told us that these are provisions that should be removed, yet their colleagues at state level, having had the power to do so for many years, in many cases have refused to.Queensland submitted to the junior rates inquiry that the AIRC should take a lead role in introducing a system to replace junior rates by recommending a set of principles consistent with those previously agreed by the ministers of the Labour Advisory Council and the guidelines developed for the implementation of the Australian vocational training systems. The principles they state should be based on the following: introduction to the competency based progression system, based around traineeship and apprenticeship systems; no move away from junior rates until the replacement of the competency based system is available; development of a progression arrangement involving industry participation; and development of appropriate traineeship and apprenticeship schemes for full-time and part-time employees.The Queensland position involves revisiting an approach that has already failed to develop a workable alternative to junior rates of pay. That is why they refused to do it—because they knew it was unworkable. This was agreed to in 1990 and has been abandoned since.I take up another point of the member for Brisbane. In referring to some of the figures, he simply got it wrong. He states that 56 per cent of young people employed in Australia in May 1996 were employed under junior wage rates. He is correct on that part. So he drew the conclusion that 44 per cent were therefore not under age based rates. That is in fact incorrect—13 per cent were employed as trainees or apprentices, which left only 31 per cent employed under adult wage rates. I invite the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister, not to misrepresent the figures in what has been an appalling case of misrepresentation in his address to this House today.So what do young people say about this? Not us as politicians, not the opposition. What do the young people, who are the ones who will be most impacted upon, have to say about the issue of junior wage rates? Of the young employees aged 15 to 20 years surveyed by the department in 1995, 55 per cent thought they were paid fairly. Only 20 per cent thought they were not paid fairly. Let us look at that in context of the overall workplace. That compares with 47 per cent of all employees who agreed that they were paid fairly. So more young people currently agree that they are paid fairly than do the average in the population.Let us now look at some specifics. I was part of the employment, education and training inquiry into factors influencing the employment of young people in 1996. We took evidence in my home town of Caboolture. I would like to give you the responses of three students from years 11 and 12 from the local schools to that inquiry. Mr Bell said:If you get older while you are working there they do not sack you, but if you are looking for a new job as a casual and you are nearly 18, it is a lot harder.That flies in the face of the evidence given by the honourable member who spoke before me in relation to McDonald's. Ms Robinson stated:So I think it is really important that we do have a different wage because it sort of enables us to just get our nose into the work force by being young.And Mr Bywater stated:I believe the age system is a lot better than the skill related thing, mainly because we have got a secure environment there.He went on to say:Whereas with the age based things, I think a lot of young people out here start part-time employment at about 15. They usually stay in that job for about two or three years and they are gaining experience and as they are gaining that experience it is pretty much related to their age. So, as they get older, their pay increases with their age and thus it fairly well reflects the amount of skill they have developed as well.So that is just a sampling of what young people say. And what do the employers say, the people who create these jobs? Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that yesterday I pointed out to this House that governments do not create jobs; small business and the business sector in general do. The Australian Retailers Association estimates that the abolition of junior rates would lead to a loss of 220,000 youth jobs in their industry. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition, who knows all about losing jobs—he increased the long-term unemployed by 95,000 people during his term as employment minister—could wear having another 220,000 youth jobs on his head. This government cannot and will not do so.Employer groups have consistently told the junior rates inquiry that junior rates must be preserved if the jobs of young people are to be protected. I will give a few quotes. The ACCI's submission states:The deletion of age based junior rates clauses and replacement with adult rates or increased rates would be an act of gross recklessness.The Timber Trade Industrial Association submission states:The consequences in the timber industry for youth employment given the abolition of junior rates of pay would be horrendous.This is very strong language. The Housing Industry Association submitted:There is no workable alternative system to the present award age based junior rates, and these should be retained.Coles Myer has similar sentiments, as do the restaurant and catering industry and the Australian Retailers Association. But what about the third player in this? What about the unions? Mr Deputy Speaker, most of those that have spoken across the other side have either had an affiliation with or been directly employed by the unions over the years, so you would think they would be representative of union views. The ACTU's main alternative wage arrangements uses the national training wage progression framework. That almost exactly duplicates the use of age.The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association submission to the junior rates inquiry recommends the application of an age based wage structure for those under 18 years of age. The Labor Council of New South Wales similarly supports the retention of an age based structure for the same age group, albeit an alternative wage structure can be developed. Unions are continuing to enter into certified agreements that do contain junior rates. So they are prepared to negotiate with their members and with their employers. Unions and employers are jointly agreeing under certified agreements that junior rates of pay should be included, and beyond the deadline of 2000, which is when the current exemptions will lapse.The department recently surveyed a sample of 181 certified agreements covering workplaces which employ one or more juniors. In only seven of these arrangements were the junior rates provisions removed; 96 per cent continued junior rates. So what does the ACTU say? In their submission to the ACTU Council 1998 Resolution on Youth Wages they basically said that the government should be condemned, that Minister Reith should be condemned and that we should get rid of age based rates as being discriminatory. But the fact is, if you look back over their history, they have now tried for some 10 years to develop a system fairer than the age based system and on each occasion they have failed to do so.The ACTU says that the only feasible alternative produced has been the development of a framework based on years of schooling, but that almost exactly, of course, duplicates age base. The national training wage progression framework is, indirectly, age discriminatory, and it is age use by any other name. To devise a system that would not undermine the youth labour market, the ACTU basically had to mimic the use of age but, of course, it does not suit their case to come in here today as now members of parliament and deride what they have attempted to do over 10 years.Let us turn to the economic evidence. Is there any economic evidence other than that that we hear in the streets from employers, from the unions—as I have outlined—and from employees? Well, yes, there is. In October last year, the Productivity Commission published a major study entitled `Youth Wages and Employment'. They found that one per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of two per cent in the retail industry, five per cent in the accommodation industry and 2.5 per cent in the cultural and recreational service industry. This is consistent with the overwhelming body of Australian evidence which shows that real wage increases which are not backed by the productivity growth have an adverse impact on employment.Junior rates are about positive discrimination. They are about giving young people a chance. My first job was, in fact, pumping petrol at the local service station. I know for a fact that there is only one reason I got that job. It was because I was cheap—very, very cheap, and I mean cheap in the nicest possible way. But the fact is that I was not a good employee. I had come straight out of school and I had a senior education but I really did not know what work was about. The only work I had done was at home in the family shop. Whilst that was hard and arduous and all the rest of it, it did not have the discipline that was required of working for someone else. I am sure that if that gentleman, who was good enough to try me at that time, had had his way, he would have more than readily taken on a senior person who had a more mature outlook on life. That, unfortunately, is the reality. Young people have not changed that dramatically since I was 17—it is only a few short years ago. It is about giving young people a start.Finally, I would just like to make a comment in relation to the contribution by the member for Brisbane where he referred to the fact that junior wage rates were not considered in many industries. Only 14 per cent of the construction industry has junior wage rates where 86 per cent of the industry does not. On the other hand, in the retail trade, 90 per cent have junior wage rates and 10 per cent do not. If you want to have a little look at those two industries and if you were able to get the statistics, I am absolutely convinced that you would see that there would be an overwhelming increase in the number of young people employed in the retail sector because they can get a start in life; whereas, in the construction industry, a young person on a work site is almost non-existent.It is not going to be mandatory for the commission to ensure that junior wage rates are in every award. We are simply advocating that they should look and see what opportunities are there. We should not just, as a matter of course, discount opportunities for young people because there are no junior wage rates available. I reiterate: this is not going to cut one person's wage. The young people who currently enjoy adult wages will continue to do so. The evidence is before us in the decisions that the commission has already taken.The member for Brisbane, as the shadow minister, has got it badly wrong. Those New South Wales and Queensland Labor governments and other state Labor governments, who have had a chance over many years to rectify what they see as this heinous crime, have failed to do so. The fact is that there is no better system, and it is beholden upon this government to uphold its democratic duty of fulfilling the election promise at the last election to ensure that age based rates are legislated and we give the young people of Australia a real chance in life. (Time expired)17:41:002379Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This government, once again, demonstrates its inability to understand the real issues that are impacting on a major policy area. It is continuing to show just how out of touch it is with the people of Australia, and how the attack it has waged on young Australians is affecting them.John Howard and his government do not realise that the more they attack and disadvantage young Australians, the harder it is for them to find work. The problem of youth unemployment is multifaceted and one which involves an all-of-government commitment to solve. It is a problem that has caused heartache for many young Australians, their families and governments over a number of years, and it is a problem that will not simply be solved by legislating for a youth wage.This government is prepared to legislate to discriminate against young people. It is not prepared to wait until July this year for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to report on the feasibility of replacing junior wages with non-discriminatory alternatives such as competency base and skill levels. It is pre-empting the commission's report and recommendations and yet again showing its arrogance and inability to accept advice or consult.Young people are one of the least powerful groups in our community, and this government has waged a constant assault against them. It has restricted their eligibility to receive benefits from Centrelink with the introduction of the youth allowance. It has increased the cost of education and made it more difficult for young people to obtain an education and, thus, get employment. It has forced them to work for the youth allowance with the Work for the Dole scheme. Every policy, every statement, every action is an attack on young people. There has been no attempt to develop any real policies to address the issue and the causes of youth unemployment. Rather, this government has tried to hide the problem, blame young Australians and make it more difficult for them to survive. Young people are facing a real crisis in our society today and this government's answer to this is to entrench a youth wage in all awards. At a time when we have record youth unemployment, when youth suicide is increasing, when all the social indicators suggest that young people in our society need fresh new policies, this government's solution is a youth wage—introduce a youth wage and you will solve all the problems relating to youth unemployment.This legislation will force all awards to have junior rates. I disagree with what the previous speaker was saying. It will force all awards to have junior rates of pay inserted in them. Currently, there is a number of awards that do not include junior rates of pay. This legislation will take away the discretion of the commission to omit junior rates of pay from an award. This means that many awards will have to insert junior rates. Those rates may be irrelevant, and young people will face a reduction in their pay.In 1996, the Prime Minister promised that no person in Australia would have their wage reduced—obviously he did not mean people under the age of 21. He and his government have shown contempt for young people in every policy area. Now they are saying to young people that their work does not have the same value as that of other Australians. In other words, if you are an 18-year-old working in a restaurant, serving customers alongside a 21-year-old and doing exactly the same work, serving exactly the same number of customers with exactly the same food, your work does not have the same value as that of that 21-year-old. Similarly, if you are a 16- year-old and you are working as a labourer alongside a 45-year-old on a construction site, then your work will not be considered to be as valuable as that of the 45-year-old, even though in some cases your capacity to work and your output may be even greater.This legislation is out of step with the United States and many other countries. In the US, youth wages only apply for the first 90 days. After that time, young people are paid at least the minimum adult wage. This recognises that young people may not have the skills initially, but it also recognises that when these skills develop the young person should be paid for the work and not according to their age.The government has justified its legislation on the grounds that it will promote youth employment. It has argued that if employers pay young people less there will be more jobs. I have news for the government: young people are being paid less already—they have been paid less for a long time—and there are still record levels of youth unemployment.This government's only answer to solving unemployment in Australia is to cut the wages and conditions of all workers. Today it is attacking one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australia, young Australians. Last year it was employees of small businesses. Tomorrow, who knows who it will be. There is only one thing that is certain: that it will be workers, their wages and conditions it attacks, not the employers. It does not have a balanced approach to solving the problems in our community, in our society.Because of the government's philosophical commitment to employers, it is unable to develop a balanced approach to policies or legislation. This prevents it from investigating alternatives to cutting workers' wages and conditions. There are some really innovative alternatives out there, but when you are not prepared to look you will never find them. There are a number of studies that have shown that there is no correlation between youth wages and youth unemployment, but John Howard and his government would not consider them as they are ideologically committed to reducing workers' pay and conditions. It is a mission that they are out there to achieve.This legislation is out of step with the current industrial relations environment where there is a move to flexible rather than prescriptive awards. Currently there is a move to enterprise agreements, and those enterprise agreements are not based on age—no, they are based on skills, competency and productivity of workers. This government has supported these moves, but it would appear that flexibility, competency and productivity are irrelevant if you are a young person. If you are under the age of 21, the only thing that matters to the government is your age, not your skill level.This government's approach to young people is hypocritical. On the one hand, it is saying that young people are old enough to vote, old enough to join the Army, old enough to consume alcohol, old enough to purchase cigarettes and old enough to be held criminally liable for their actions at the age of 18 years, whilst on the other hand it is saying that at 18 years of age a person is not an adult when they are at work or when they are looking at any work related activity.This government is equally as selective with the payment of Centrelink benefits to young people who are not employed. Once again, these young people are not deemed to be adults, whilst they have the same rights and obligations as adults in other areas. It would appear that this government is trying to hide its failure to address the employment needs of young people in Australia by cutting their wages, benefits and access to training and education.What new initiative has this government introduced to help young people get a job? I have already shown that youth wages and the fact that young people receive lower wages have existed for a long time, and still there are record levels of youth unemployment. So, obviously, lower wages is not the answer. The slashing of income support has not led to increased employment for young people—once again, it is not the answer.Cutting public education funding and cutting the funding of programs like the Students at Risk program has not improved young people's prospects or made it easier for them to get an edge in the job market. This government axed one of those Students at Risk programs in Shortland electorate, a program that worked with the most disadvantaged group of students in the community—students that had literacy problems, students that had a long history of truancy—a program that helped disadvantaged young people get the skills they needed to get a job rather than punishing them for being disadvantaged. This government axed it. Fortunately, the Carr Labor government took up the program and supported it when this government would not.John Howard's recent announcement that all young unemployed people will have to undergo literacy assessment and lessons if they fail the literacy test is another poorly conceived strategy destined to fail. On one hand, they are not funding programs for young people when they are of an age when programs will really impact. On the other hand, they are now saying, `Okay, you cannot read and you have got poor numeracy skills, and we are going to punish you for it.' It is very ill-conceived and discriminatory.Making university education more expensive has not led to greater job opportunities for young Australians. This government must cease adopting a reactive approach to youth unemployment and do some serious planning if it wants to reduce it and create an environment where there will be jobs growth. It is obvious that if the number of young people unable to find work is to be reduced then there must be more jobs for them. And if young people are to be able to work in these jobs they must have the necessary training and skills. That means that this government must do what governments are supposed to do: show some leadership and do some planning. It must identify the growth areas for new jobs and develop strategies to train our young Australians for these jobs. That is important. Identify the areas, plan strategies and then we are moving towards solving some of the problems that young people are having. Maintaining a failed youth wage system will not solve the problem of youth unemployment. It has not in the past; it will not in the future. This government have an opportunity to make a commitment that will ensure young people are not penalised.As we all know, Sydney will be hosting the Olympic Games in the year 2000. This will create many new job opportunities which could be filled by young unemployed Australians if they had the training and skills that these jobs require. The government has a unique opportunity to ensure that our young Australians get these skills, and a youth wage will not deliver that to them. What I am suggesting is that the government move away from its dry economic approach which has led to so much hurt in our community and introduce programs that are sensitive to regional needs and projected job growth and where there will be an undersupply of labour in the future.One of the first actions of this government was to slash programs that gave young people the training and skills they needed to find work. It demolished Skillshare, a program that successfully gave young people the skills they needed to find work. It axed LEAP, a program that gave young people both on-the-job and off-the-job training, a program for young people that quite often ended with them getting a permanent job. These programs were replaced with measures that penalised young people rather than programs that helped them get jobs.This government has been intent on cutting, slashing and attacking workers and this approach has not led to more jobs or better job opportunities for young people. It will look only at one side of the equation. We have heard time and time again from speakers on the government side that it will only look at one side of the equation. It only develops policies that benefit employers. It is not committed to governing for all Australians. It is time for the government to recognise that if our society and economy is to work effectively young people must have jobs and they must receive a wage that reflects their skills and abilities—not their age.The Howard government's ideological commitment to maintaining youth wages ignores one of the major problems facing young people working in Australia today—the problem of finding full-time work. There has been an enormous growth in part-time and casual employment in Australia, and nowhere has that impacted more than in the area of youth employment: 80 per cent of all young people can find employment only in part-time or casual work and they have no prospects of finding full-time employment.I know of many young people who have a number of part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time employment. Full-time employment is only a dream. One young person I know has a part-time job in an office and he delivers pizza on a casual basis. He needs to do this so that he can survive. Another young person works part-time as a shop assistant, clerical assistant and driver. She must do this to survive. These are highly motivated young people, young people who value their independence, young people who do not receive any assistance and cannot receive any assistance from Centrelink—all because of changes implemented by this government. These are young people who still have to pay rent, have to eat and have to buy clothes. They have to survive and this government is not helping them in any way. Nor are its policies.This government's legislation is condemning more and more young people to this sort of life. It is forcing them to work a multitude of jobs just to survive. I believe it is grossly unfair to pay young people, who have the same level of skills and competencies as people that are 21 years of age, a lower wage just because they are 18, 19 or 20 years of age. If you can do the job, then you should be paid at the same rate. If you do it at the same level of skill, you should be paid for the level of skill, not for the fact that you are 18 or 19 years of age.There is no area where this government's innate unfairness is more evident than in its treatment of young Australians. This legislation will discriminate against young people just as the literacy testing will, just as the youth allowance has and just as the cuts to education and the increase in the cost of education has. And John Howard and his government will continue to place adult obligations on the group in our society that they are constantly attacking. This is bad legislation and it will not achieve its objec tives. Today, this government is attacking young people. Today, this government has chosen that group of workers to attack. Tomorrow, who knows who it will be attacking?Any worker out there in the community is at risk of having their wages and their conditions attacked by this government, because this government has no commitment to workers. This government has no commitment to the average Australian worker who is out there striving to get money to support their family. This government is constantly attacking workers.The young people in Australia are not benefiting in any way from the policies of this Howard government. It has shown that it has no ability to introduce innovative programs. It has no inclination to introduce programs that will address the needs of our young people. It has no inclination to develop programs that will give young people hope—programs that will reward them for the work that they do and programs that will recognise the fact that they work hard. They too should be entitled to a future like we had and they should not be penalised because of the failure of a government to develop policies that react to their needs, policies that will ensure a secure future for them and policies that will make sure young people can find jobs.18:01:002382Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—It is with some concern that I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . A very simple question has been posed to the House today: do we want to reduce unemployment or don't we? Rather than refute some aspects of the previous member's speech, I refute all of it. To say on the one hand that we desire lower unemployment but then on the other hand that we would willingly lock thousands of young people out of the job market would be an act of gross irresponsibility. The growth of casual and part-time jobs for young people is a direct result of the unfair dismissal laws. So the Labor Party has to get into the real world and examine the real reasons for ever increasing casual jobs. Blame the Labor Party for their unfair dismissal laws.In my electorate of Makin youth unemployment is still a significant problem, but we have worked constructively and with conspicuous success over the last few years to help bridge the gap. Groups in and around my electorate such as Nastec, the Northern Adelaide Development Board and the Tea Tree Gully Development Board have worked closely with young people and local businesses to ensure that the skills and job readiness that business looks for in its young employees can be found among our local youth.Not only have we found a willingness on the part of local business to take on young people and train them, they are also telling us that it is vital that they are able to do this. They want to take on young people with the right attitude and teach them the skills that will make them productive in those businesses.This approach is working in my electorate of Makin, enabling businesses to take on young people, to train them and to give them a future. But this brighter future for the youth of my electorate would be trammelled by those who oppose this bill and who would retain the unfair dismissal regulations. In the name of equity of opportunity, the opponents of this bill are proposing to take away the best set of opportunities the young people in my electorate have had in years. It is the kind of equality that would warm the hearts of barren idealogues everywhere. It is equality in theory only.The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for people between the ages of 15 and 19 was 27 per cent at the end of last year. This compared with seven per cent for people aged 20 and over. Even when you factor in the number of young people in education and training, the unemployment rate among those actively looking for work is still significantly higher than for the rest of the population.Clearly these young people are not experiencing equality of employment outcomes at the present time. How their employment prospects will be further enhanced by making them more expensive to employ is a question of logic that has so far eluded those opposite. The difference in this debate is quite stark. Members on the opposite side of the House are talking about equality of opportunity in theory, while we are talking about actual opportunities in the world of work.I want to talk a bit more about that word `opportunity'. There are two aspects to it. There is the opportunity to gain that important first position, a question of whether or not the labour market is flexible enough to enable you to gain employment. There is also the world of opportunity opened up by one's first employment position. The level of wage that you are being paid is just one aspect of this. Perhaps even more importantly, there are the life experiences, the lessons in teamwork and the willingness shown to work that you are able to display to your current and potential employers, which are ultimately worth much more than what you take home in pay.It is important to note that this legislation does not represent an attack on competency based rates of pay, nor does it provide employers with a licence to underpay skilled workers. Rather it recognises that, if you are an unskilled or low skilled young person, who for one reason or another is not in receipt of further education and training, you are not well served by a rate of pay which will have the effect of locking you out of employment.The other important point that needs to be borne in mind about competency based rates of pay is that not all industries have moved to this system. Therefore there will either be an assumption that these people should be paid at the same rate as older, more experienced workers or there will be a rush on the part of these industries to competency based wage rates. This could well lead to badly conceived wage structures in those industries.There is no need for such an approach to be forced upon employers. No rational employer will underpay a skilled worker. Employers in my electorate know that a worker with the right skills and attitude is worth their weight in gold. Far from wishing to undercut them, they will do everything in their power to hold onto them. In fact in many industries that operate in my electorate of Makin, a young person who is taken on at a junior rate of pay may well find that, by the time they reach their early 20s, they are in a stronger position than people in their early 20s who are coming out of more formal education or training. This is because they have been able to demonstrate to their employer their willingness to work. They have assimilated into the work culture and understand their employer's objectives. They may also have the opportunity, once established in their place of work, to acquire more formal training as they progress.While there will always be a small number of employers who will not properly value their workers, these employers are not likely to prosper in the long term because failure to properly value your workers is a bad business decision. Employers who look after, and invest in, their workers will reap the rewards. But they will not be able to do that unless the system allows them to. If the start-up costs of investing in employees is too high, employers will shy away and look for alternatives.It is a fact sometimes lost on members opposite that there can be no power without choice. It is no good effectively robbing people of the choices available to them and then telling them that they have been empowered. It is no good taking away someone's job and then telling them that they have a right to higher wages. If we truly want to empower workers and those trying to enter the world of work, the best way of doing that is to have a flexible labour market. As long as policies which create higher than necessary levels of employment are championed, people have no choice and consequently no power. This failure to grasp the link between choice and power can be found in many of the arguments that we have heard against this bill.My son recently sought work in local retail outlets during his school holidays. I saw this as a very positive thing because it would undoubtedly equip him with the skills and attitudes which would stand him in good stead in his future search for more permanent employment. To suggest that my son should be entitled to adult wages at the age of 15 or 16, at such a stage in his life, is not at all in his best interests. It means that he is more likely to be excluded from that opportunity and consequently less likely to gain employment in the future.It is all very well to answer that, if his skills are low, he will still be paid according ly. But employers are then in a position whereby they must assess a young worker's skills thoroughly before taking them on, rather than being able to say, `Look, we're willing to give you a try and, if you're good enough, we'll give you some more opportunities.' Members opposite have also suggested that this bill will exclude young people from participating in our community, yet there are few forms of alienation more total in their impact than exclusion from the world of work. There is nothing more likely to exclude our young people from community life than policies which would exclude them from a place in paid employment.The fact that we must keep coming back to is that the abolition of youth wages will lead to higher rates of unemployment—taken together with the current unfair dismissal laws—among our young people. I would have thought that this would have been the crucial fact in this debate, yet I have not heard it disputed by members opposite. They talk about opportunity while ignoring the stark fact that abolishing youth wages will lead to fewer job opportunities for young people, not more.I drew the House's attention earlier this week to the growing social problem of young people finding that they have fewer opportunities in the labour market and the fact that this leads to them, in many cases, having to defer life choices, such as marriage, home ownership and children, until they are well into their 30s. I pointed out at the time that the failure by some in the other place to grasp the need for reform to our unfair dismissal laws was consigning these young people to a half-life of lost or postponed opportunities. Opposition to this bill is yet another example of that mentality. Opportunities are being denied to young people in the name of ideology.Employers and young people in my electorate of Makin have at least one thing in common: they are unimpressed by ideology. What concerns them is the reality on the ground. Reality on the ground tells them that an opportunity means nothing unless there is a system which allows employers to offer affordable jobs to young people. Employers in my electorate know this and the young people in my electorate also know it. I commend this bill to the House. It is a bill which creates genuine opportunities for young people and it will be of great benefit to young people in my electorate.18:12:002385Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 , in the sense that I would have thought this government would have learnt some time ago that its policies on wages are completely inappropriate in the context of 1999. I say that knowing well the problem of youth unemployment, but I also say it with an awareness of the possibilities that are open to us in addressing that particular problem.I note when looking through this legislation that a strange, but nevertheless predictable, aspect of it is the way it presumes to pre-empt an inquiry into the very matter by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. I would have thought that, given an agreement which had been reached as a result of a previous piece of legislation, it would have been entirely appropriate for the government to live by that agreement and ensure that the inquiry that had been proposed was undertaken fairly and objectively to examine the implications that had been foreseen. But that is not to be the case.Now we have this government proposing to exempt on a permanent basis junior rates from the age discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996. That will obviously remove the sunset clause, which is presently in place until 22 June 2000. It will require the Industrial Relations Commission to include junior rates of pay into awards that presently do not contain them if the work is or may be performed by young people. That is what the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, said in his second reading speech.Why though is he adopting this course? Why is the government presuming an approach which clearly anticipates the outcome of a properly constituted inquiry based on an agreement he reached with the Democrats as a result of the previous piece of legislation being passed? Firstly, he is obviously breaking his agreement with the Democrats—that should be no surprise to anyone. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he is presuming to determine the outcome of the inquiry without the inquiry having actually been undertaken. In doing so, he has denied us—the parliament of Australia—the possibility of considering the report of that inquiry in terms of this debate and this piece of legislation.Not only is that quite unfair, it demonstrates the political objectives of this government. All the rhetoric about trying to assist young people to work and to ensure that they get a fair and reasonable deal in the labour market comes to nought when you judge them against that basic question: why is this government taking this particular approach to this particular piece of legislation at this particular time?We know the history behind the industrial relations debate in this country. We know the government ascribes to the opposition motives concerning the way we deal in this place which relate to unions and union members. But he does not relate to us how he behaves in this place in terms of undermining the rights of individuals, of all Australians, by anticipating, as he has done, what this inquiry may find is the real impact of reductions in youth wages.A lot has been said in this place and elsewhere about the so-called impacts of reducing wages for youth and what that will mean in terms of employment. Frankly, there is no accurate information which can be relied upon to demonstrate to us what the effects of this piece of legislation on youth employment—or employment generally—will be.I have looked through the literature. I am not an econometrician. I am not someone who is used to mathematical modelling. But I am not a dummy. I do understand this: studies elsewhere in the world on the issue of minimum wages and the impacts on both youth unemployment and total employment levels when you change those minimum wage rates provide no indicator of the benefits of the type that are being claimed by this government.The Productivity Commission's report asserts, from memory, that there will be an increase of one per cent or thereabouts in youth employment if you adopt this particular course of action. The report says that the analysis finds a significant negative relationship between youth employment and youth wages and that the best estimates suggest that a one per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of between two per cent and five per cent in the industries employing a relatively high proportion of young people.I ask a number of questions. Firstly: what other indices do you need to assess the question of employment or unemployment? Is it just a question of wages? Certainly it is not. The Productivity Commission has alluded to part of it in the way they have written that report. What they need to look at—and what has not been looked at as far as I am aware—is the impact on aggregate employment levels of changes in youth wages. There has not been a decent analysis of the displacement effects of youth wages on the labour market. I do not believe that anyone in the government has a reasonable understanding of the displacement impacts—whether negative or positive—of changes in youth wages on the labour market.I will use just one example. We all know that the nature of work has changed considerably for many Australians—indeed, around the world. We all know that many of the trades that existed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are no longer available to us. We all know that the skill base has become in many senses more sophisticated, although in other senses less sophisticated. We all know, for example, that a compositor's trade as set up in the 1950s—a compositor lay lead type and the printer printed from it—no longer exists. We all know that. We all know that those people trained in those skills are either out of work or finding it very difficult to retain their work.I would have thought that that raises a very important question in terms of the demographics of the labour market—a question which has not been addressed in the discussions which have taken place in the government on this legislation, but one which is very important. On the one hand, we have the government relying on the Productivity Commission's report, trying to assert that we will have an increase in youth employment of between two per cent and five per cent in industries employing a relatively high proportion of young persons—I have made that point. But they give us no picture about what the total impact on employment would be of increasing youth wages—no picture at all.Consider this example. You are paying youth wages to someone working in a semiskilled industry like the building industry—they may be labourers or trades assistants. They may be 18 or 19 and under the government's proposals you can pay them a reduced wage. Indeed, if you are on the `Engineering on-site construction award 1989' you would have a wage reduction of $137.77 a week. That makes that young person potentially very employable—that is granted. But what happens to the bloke who is 45, who has been in this industry all his working life and who has the same skills? I know what happens. When those two people go to compete for the job the employer says, `Mate, I will take you. I can get you for $138 a week cheaper than the bloke who is 45.'There is no analysis being undertaken by this government of the social implications of this piece of legislation in terms of other age groups in the work force or of skill levels—no analysis whatsoever. It seems to me that this government is failing us, because what it is trying to do is provide a cheap way to employ young people without ensuring they have got the skills they might need to do these jobs. I say this knowing full well, as we all do now, that this government's analysis of youth is one which is dominated by the view that they have got to be suppressed in some way or other, that they have to be given less. In almost every aspect of public policy they have been victimised by this government. Now we are being asked to ensure that they are discriminated against in terms of wages, but at the same time what we are doing, perversely, is discriminating against other people in the labour force who might be competing with them for jobs.I know the importance of youth and the question of youth unemployment, but I am not at all convinced by the arguments being put forward by the government in relation to whether or not the impacts are positive or negative when you increase youth wages. I make the point that in research that has been done overseas at best it is equivocal. Some studies have indicated negative impacts, some studies have indicated positive impacts. I go to a document which is produced by the Productivity Commission entitled Minimum wages: review of the literature, and I just make a couple of quick observations. I will quote very briefly in terms of the experience of Europe, the United States and Canada. On page 27 of this document it says:Evidence from recent European studies appears to be broadly similar to US studies, that is, they indicate that the influence of changes in minimum wages on employment can be both negative or positive but that the effect is small to very small.I go to the study done on Canada in the literature search. They find evidence of small to negligible effects of employment from an increase in the minimum wage. They find the surprising result that the minimum wage has no effect on the employment of teenagers, a find that is consistent upon the various specifications of the model which they used.I do not at all trust the observations of the Productivity Commission on this matter, because I do not think it is a reasonable assessment of what the total impacts are of increasing or diminishing youth wages on the labour market. I do not think it really expresses an accurate examination of what the labour market is, nor do I think it demonstrates to us that the government has got an understanding of the different elements that make up the labour market and the different influences on employment. Granted, skills are very important. That is why the government should be adopting the approach which we foreshadowed and indeed was put forward by the previous Labor government in tying wages to skill levels. That is the way to test. Why should someone who has got the skills to do a particular job be paid less than someone else because of their age? What is the logic behind it? If they are as productive as one another, what is the logic behind it? There is no logic, at least in terms of the potential value of those two employees to a potential employer.The logic is that it is cheaper. That is what the government wants us to believe. It may be cheaper, but there is a cost, and I believe there are hidden costs in respect of other parts of the labour market. I do not believe that this government has shown any understanding at all of the real displacement impacts of unemployment in other age groups as a result of lowering wages where youth are employed. It is worth while observing what happened when studies were done in Australia on the introduction of equal pay for women in the early 1970s. I quote again from this document from the Productivity Commission. It says:While not focusing on the minimum wage per se, Gregory and Duncan, 1981, look at the effects of the introduction of equal pay for women in Australia in the early 1970s using the Australian Bureau of Statistics data on wage and salary earners for the period 1948 to 1978. They find that the level of measured unemployment for males was largely unaffected by the change in relative wages, with female unemployment as a proportion of male unemployment falling since the introduction of equal pay for women. They also find that female employment grew faster than male employment following the equal pay decisions.Obviously you cannot translate that into a similar interpretation for youth at this point, but it says a few things about the labour market which I do not think have been properly comprehended by the government.I do not believe that it is in our nation's interest to pursue the course which has been promoted by the government in this case. I say that in full knowledge that in my own electorate, where unemployment generally is quite low—in fact the lowest in Australia, somewhere around four per cent—amongst certain sections of the community the unemployment is as high as 80 or 90 per cent. What I do know about the proportion of the population who are going to be heavily penalised by this government's approach to unemployment is that having youth wages will make not one jot of difference to the employability of young people in those communities. There is a very simple reason why not. It is because they do not have even the most basic skills to get a job in terms of some of the potential employers who might be looking for employees.It is worth noting that the government is promoting the idea that the young, the old and anyone who has a problem with literacy will be penalised because they are illiterate. You need to understand that, in the case of the Northern Territory, if you happen to be born an Aboriginal person and you live in a remote community, you may end up at least five years and in most cases more than eight years below the grade-for-age standard. According to a study done for the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, secondary age students in remote Aboriginal communities are only achieving low primary standard reading and mathematics scores. Very simply translated, that means that people aged perhaps 15 or 16 have reading ages and skills in mathematics of a person aged nine or 10.This government intends to penalise those people, and reducing youth wages will not make one jot of difference to their employability. Those people and similar people around Australia require a comprehensive set of labour market programs which address their particular issues and a comprehensive approach to primary and secondary education. Those are things this government has failed to provide.We hear a lot about literacy, but what this government is going to do is penalise unemployed people for no other reason than that they cannot read or write. Then, if they are lucky enough to have the skills that are required to get a job, they are going to be penalised further and discriminated against, not only because they cannot read and write but, in this instance, because they happen to be young people.At the same time, these rates can have a very important negative impact as a result of the displacement effect they create in the labour market. Other people might be competing for those jobs, but they cannot get the work because of the wage rates being applied to young people.I do not think the government arguments on this issue are at all satisfactory,. I do not think the government has put up a case which is anywhere near cogent enough to let us even contemplate passing this piece of legislation. This is a very short-sighted approach, undermining the interests of all Australians. (Time expired)18:32:002388Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I have just heard something I did not think I would hear in an Australian parliament: that people should not be forced to read or write nor be given the means to assist them to read or write. I have to speak to the comments that the previous speaker made before I move to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998.I had a lady in my office last week—and I am sure many members of parliament have had similar constituent situations. This woman would be in her 30s. She cannot read or write. Because of this difficulty, she has been tricked out of a considerable sum of money. She is now taking literacy lessons and is very pleased to do so. In my electorate, I see quite a number of people of all ages taking the opportunity to become literate. They experience joy when, for the first time, a newspaper means something to them and they do not have to pretend that they have left their glasses at home or ask someone in a shop or in an office like ours to read a document to them.The government is not going to discriminate against people who cannot read or write. The previous regime in Canberra already did that. What we are going to do is to give those people who cannot read or write the opportunity to become literate, to join the mainstream, to make themselves attractive to employers. In my area, many people welcome the opportunity to do that, and I commend the Prime Minister for what he is doing. For those who absolutely refuse to avail themselves of the opportunity, there will be a penalty—or an incentive, depending on how you look at it—to encourage them to become literate. I support that absolutely.Now I want to turn to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 . This legislation reflects two important commitments made by the government during the election campaign in its More Jobs, Better Pay policy document. It is born of a genuine desire not merely to protect the existing jobs young people have but to give other young people a real chance, now and in the future, to enter the work force and gain training and experience.The bill basically preserves the status quo by repealing legislation introduced by the Keating Labor government in 1993 and 1994. Under that legislation, junior rates of pay were to become unlawful from 22 June 1997. In 1996, as a result of discussions with the Democrats, a compromise was reached whereby age based junior rates and the impact of their abolition on youth unemployment was referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for a review. While this review is yet to report, the government only agreed to it on the clear understanding that it would seek a mandate for its policy at the next election. That mandate was obtained and, therefore, the government is fully entitled to introduce this legislation.The Labor Party has a curious double standard when it comes to the general matter of junior rates of pay. At the federal level, we hear cries of indignation from those on the other side as they advocate the abolition of the concept, on the grounds of discrimination and ideology—I think the previous speaker mentioned `suppression'! At the state level, we hear a different story. Labor governments in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania have taken no action to eliminate age based youth wages from their relevant state workplace relations systems. Although the Beattie government brought in several changes, it certainly did not move to abolish junior wage rates, because Mr Beattie realised that such a move would interfere with his promise of five per cent unemployment.Although they would never admit to it, when the opposition attack the principles behind this legislation, they effectively attack their state colleagues in government in three states. The federal Labor Party is caught between the rock of its own blinkered ideology and the hard place of workplace reality. Fortunately for young people employed under state awards in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, the Labor governments there are far more realistic, pragmatic, and, finally, caring than their federal opposition colleagues.More than 420,000 young Australians are employed on the basis of age based youth wages, under both federal and state workplace relations systems. Under the existing act, junior rates of pay will become subject to anti-discrimination provisions from 22 June 2000, unless the Industrial Relations Commission otherwise decides, on a case by case basis.Case by case consideration would undoubtedly cause chaos in the workplace, and the existing and future jobs of young people would literally hang in the balance until the commission made its determination. That would be grossly and equally unfair to employers and to their young employees. Undoubtedly, every decision by the commission not to agree to a particular exemption would mean the slamming shut of yet another door of employment opportunity.It has to be admitted that, in the real world of private enterprise, decisions about who to employ are not made in some ideological fairyland but on the cold, hard and realistic basis of obtaining the best return for the investment cost. Why does the Labor Party find it so hard to admit that, if an inexperienced teenager fresh from school, along with a mature and well-experienced person, presents for a job which by law must pay the same wage, then the overwhelming probability is that the older person will win hands down?The final result of any failure to pass this bill will be higher wages for young people, and that result, however ironic it may appear, would be catastrophic for young people generally. Certainly, it would be a marvellous result for those young people who had jobs and who kept them, but the government has a responsibility to all young people, not just the fortunate relatively few in this undoubted outcome.I have to mention a point that the opposition has failed to mention. There is nothing in this bill to prevent skill based and age based awards. The industrial awards will still give an opportunity for skill based awards, so the arguments of the opposition in this regard are absolutely without foundation.The Australian workplace industrial relations survey 1995 determined a significant negative relationship between youth employment and youth wages. The best estimates suggest that a one per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of between two and five per cent in industries employing a relatively high proportion of youth. In the retail industry in particular, it is estimated that the jobs of more than 220,000 young people are at risk if this legislation is not passed. In that sector alone, it is estimated that more than 46 per cent of all employees—some 333,500—are under 21 and, of all employees now paid at junior rates, an estimated 62 per cent work in the retail trade sector.My state of Queensland is the state most dependent upon small business for economic activity and development. Small businesses of many types are the principal employers of young people. Small businesses exist in often precarious financial environments. Every single decision has to be carefully weighed and considered. There is no margin for error. The shock of suddenly having to pay adult wages to junior staff could prove financially crippling, if not disastrous, to many small businesses. But that has not sunk into the opposition. By opposing this legislation, the Labor Party would rather preserve their dinosaur ideological purity than save small businesses and the jobs for people of all ages that they provide.The ACTU has lodged its next living wage application seeking increases of $26.60 on award wages up to $572.80 and then five per cent on all awards above that. If the Labor Party and the ACTU were to get their way, we are expected to believe that businesses both large and small would cheerfully employ any number of 16-year-olds for $600 a week, not counting all of the heavy associated on-costs which could range up to an extra $250 a week. That is just so ludicrous it does not even require an answer.It is interesting to observe what is happening elsewhere in the world. I noticed that the previous speaker mentioned Canada. I also noticed that he failed to mention a couple of countries, one in particular. Under the British Labour government under Prime Minister Blair—a figure regarded as a role model for many on the opposition benches—Britain has announced its intention to introduce a national minimum wage in April 1999. That might be seen, on superficial examination, to be an endorsement of the position taken by the Labor Party here. However, the British government also recently decided to accept the recommendations of the UK Low Pay Commission to exclude 16- and 17-year-olds from the proposed national hourly minimum wage, and it has also decided to introduce a youth development rate for 18- to 20-year-olds.The reason that was given? The Labour government in Britain is concerned about the impact of the minimum wage on youth employment, a fact that does not seem to have entered the heads of those in the opposition seats. Fortunately, the British Labour government and this government share the same concerns and have adopted basically similar approaches. In fact, I quote from the UK Low Pay Commission:. . . young people are most at risk of unemployment if the industries in which they work are subject to sudden increases in wage costs. For them, the most critical issue is protection of job opportunities.This argument has been accepted by the Irish National Minimum Wage Commission, which recommended a lower minimum wage for young employees. It is also accepted by many other OECD countries which have reduced minimum wages for young employees.In this debate I would now like to look at the teenage employment market. In August last, there were about 218,600 teenagers in full-time employment out of a teenage population of some 1.3 million. Females comprised about one-third of those employed. A study of teenage employment trends in the past 20 years reveals some interesting and, in fact, alarming statistics. In each of the last two recession induced labour market downturns—1982-83 and 1991-93—there were large falls in teenage employment for both males and females, and these falls were not recovered in the subsequent upturns. As a result, the total teenage employment in 1998 was only 40 per cent of its level in 1978. For females the result was even worse, with fewer than one-third of the 1978 total being employed in 1998. This decline in teenage employment contrasts strongly with the overall performance in full-time employment over those 20 years—an increase of more than 25 per cent. The outlook for teenagers has not been promising. Employment for teenagers has fallen in nearly all industries in that period, and teenagers have only retained their share—about 6.8 per cent—in one industry: accommodation, cafes and restaurants.To be fair, one must say that in the past 20 years there has been an increase in the number of teenagers staying longer at school and proceeding to some sort of tertiary study. In 1978, about 35 per cent of teenagers were full-time students, compared with 72 per cent today. Nonetheless, the fall in teenage full-time employment has to be extremely worrying to those who do care about young people in work.One interesting fact is that long-term unemployment represents just over 20 per cent of all full-time teenage unemployment, compared with around 25 per cent for adults. While teenage unemployment rates are high relative to adults, teenagers tend to have more spells of unemployment than adults do over a 12-month period, although those spells of unemployment are, on average, shorter than for adults. At any given time, around two-thirds of all unemployed teenagers have been unemployed for six months or more.The decline in teenage full-time employment is attributed partly to the changes in participation rates. For example, full-time employment for women aged 25 and over has doubled since 1978, and this gives rise to the belief in some quarters that older women represent the largest source of competition for teenagers of both sexes looking for work.If many employers are prepared now to employ a woman over 25 and pay her adult wages in preference to a teenager on junior rates, how much easier would that decision be for all employers if they were required to pay the same wage to an employee irrespective of age? The question answers itself. For the sake of teenagers themselves and society generally, it is critically important that teenagers do not face unnecessary impediments to moving into employment. The scarring effects of unemployment on young people can and do cause severe problems that are reflected in a range of antisocial behaviours and personal tragedies. One Australian study found that young people who had spent the previous year mainly in job search activity had unemployment rates considerably higher than the rest of young people the following year.Failure to get a job leads to loss of self-esteem, loss of identity and loss of self worth. It can lead to drug abuse and crime. Undeniably, being young has many wonderful advantages but, on the other hand, youth by its very definition generally means, in the context of employment, a need for training and a need for greater supervision. Employers by necessity are in the business of making profits and, while most do recognise their social obligations to provide training and development for young employees, this is done at considerable cost. The compensation for this training, supervision and development is the recognition that junior pay rates apply for these young employees. These junior rates of pay reflect the fact that young employees who do not yet have a high level of skills and experience do not contribute as much to the business and, as well, consume some of the time of managerial and other staff which otherwise would be spent far more productively for the business.The existing system of junior rates of pay has stood the test of time and is recognised by most in the community as a realistic and practical way to get young people into the work force. To abolish it would condemn young people generally to an uncertain and difficult future. This government does not intend to do that, and I support the minister, the honourable Mr Reith, absolutely in this bill.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) put:That the question be now put.The House divided. [6.52 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J. Gash) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.The House divided. [6.59 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J. Gash) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2392Motion (by Mr Tuckey—by leave—put:That the bill be now read a third time.The House divided. [7.04 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J. Gash) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.19:05:002392Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Induglence granted.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Given the time, and after agreement between the two whips, it has been agreed that for the convenience of the House we will commence the adjournment debate immediately. We will run the adjournment for half an hour and then break a bit earlier tonight.Mr Melham interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Banks, we all know you are back; you do not have to reinforce it.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is not appropriate for the member for Banks to question any agreement that I have with the Chief Opposition Whip.Adjournment2392Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.239219:07:002392Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—One of Australia's major social issues as we move into the 21st century is the provision of care and quality of life for our older citizens. With a better lifestyle and improved health services, Australians are living longer. In 1981, 9.8 per cent of Australia's population was over 65. By the year 2011, 13.8 per cent will be over 65. By the year 2021, the age group over 65 will be a greater proportion of the total population than the 0-14 age group.Australians are being alerted to this increasing problem by their own personal experiences, by a recent OECD report and by a number of community organisations operating in this field. Many members of the general community who have had older relatives needing aged care will be well aware that our aged care facilities are not adequate to meet our current needs. Members would have seen recent press articles concerning the OECD report on the effects of the ageing population on the budget. This report predicts that the ratio of Australians of working age to those retired to be 2.5 to one by 2050 compared with 5.6 to one today.In the main, older people use health care services more frequently than younger people. Health spending for people over 65 is 3.8 times higher than for people under 65. It is, therefore, fairly certain that aged care funding will have to be increased to meet these demands for the future. Health care costs are likely to rise while the government revenue base is reduced due to the smaller proportion of the population working and paying tax. The income to support ourselves in older age will, in the main, come from the age pension, employees' compulsory superannuation and the nest eggs that the more fortunate people have put aside for their older age. Recent experience has shown that none of these three options is providing all the facilities necessary to provide care for our ageing population.One suggestion to provide adequate funding for Australia's future aged care needs has been put forward in a discussion paper entitled `Ensuring quality of later life—financing aged care services within the context of an ageing society'. This was prepared by the University of Western Sydney and commissioned by the Southern Cross Homes. This discussion paper suggests a 1.1 per cent aged care supplementary payment to operate in a similar fashion to the current Medicare levy. This levy would guarantee contributors access to residential care or home and community service. This model would require Australians to take out a comprehensive aged care insurance package in order to avoid the compulsory aged care levy of 1.1 per cent of taxable income.An alternative method of providing aged care insurance, suggested in the University of Western Sydney discussion paper, is that investment equivalent to 1.1 of taxable income could also be made through an approved quality of life insurance fund offered through any approved superannuation fund. This funding arrangement would have the advantage of creating a quality of life guarantee that supplemented superannuation as an income security measure. Employees and trade unions would be encouraged by the Commonwealth to include a supplementary superannuation based aged care payment towards approved quality of life funds in all future enterprise productivity agreements.The University of Western Sydney discussion paper also suggests initiatives designed to foster the contribution that older Austral ians make to our culture, economy and society. These include setting aside funding to celebrate and promote the strength and productivity that our country gains from our senior citizens. This initiative would support the independence and cultural, social and economic participation of older Australians through a series of phased projects which relate to the experience and the likely preferences of the different generations reaching the age of 55.If we do not act now on this issue, we will either be placing an unfair burden on the younger generation or the quality of aged care will diminish further.239319:12:002393Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Last month I was privileged to lead a group of MPs and senators to Israel. The group included Senator Marise Payne, Senator-elect Aiden Ridgway and the member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby.The Israel of 1999 is a very different country to the one that I visited in 1994. The Israel of today confronts many internal pressures of its own making while, externally, it has made encouraging moves towards resolving decades of conflicts. The debut of a new electoral system in 1996 produced a Knesset elected separately from the office of Prime Minister. The electorate now has the ability to insert a check upon the office of Prime Minister by voting differently in the lower house—the Knesset—from their vote for the Prime Minister. The result is coalition government that is beholden to sectional interests and minor party bickering like never before in Israel's history.My observation following our brief visit in January was that they would have been better to have stayed with the pre-1996 electoral system. They say that `the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. The fact that after 2½ years—when the normal term is four years for a Knesset—they have chosen to have elections on 17 May is proof that, unfortunately, their change to this system of government has not been successful. The realisation that minor parties can attract sufficient votes to elect two or three members of the Knesset has lent itself to a plethora of new political parties. From indications on our visit there last month, it would seem that that will happen at this next election even more so, and the problems that have been inherent since 1996 are unlikely to be resolved. There is an expectation that, if the situation is so unstable after the elections on 17 May, the Likud and Labour parties could form a national unity government, which might be the only way to end the process.As it has done, though, for 50 years, the state of Israel continues to prosper in the face of what some would regard as a new adversity. Since 1994, Israel has secured a genuine peace with the state of Jordan—and I hope that will continue after the death of King Hussein. While the road to peace has been rocky and long with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and now the Palestinian Authority, there has been progress since the worst days of the intifada in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.Israel also managed to avoid Desert Storm and Desert Fox, allowing the allies to deal with the menace of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This was a coup for Israel's diplomacy and international standing. While the southern zone in Lebanon remains problematic while Syria links it to the question of the Golan Heights, there have been developments in that area, with Ariel Sharon saying in January that it would be better if Israel was not present militarily in Southern Lebanon. Having visited the Golan Heights on this trip with the group of people that I went with, it became clear that Israel would find difficulty in handing that territory back to Syria. But let us hope that peace can be achieved nevertheless.In the last five years Israel's economy has experienced tremendous growth due to market diversification and the government's emphasis on high-tech industries. Israel is choosing to cater for niche markets around the world, and trade and two-way investment with Australia has also been increasing.One of the interesting aspects to emerge between 1994 and 1999 is the state of the Russian migrants, who now account for over 15 per cent of the Israeli population. In 1994, the Russian migrants were quite a new phe nomena; now they are quite an established part of Israeli society. And, probably because of the sort of society they left in Russia, they are at the forefront of supporting free market reforms and trying to promote the economic prosperity of Israel.The politicians, academics and commentators we met on our brief tour expressed doubts that the election would resolve the divide that exists in Israel over the peace process, and there was great concern about whether the election would produce greater diversity in the political make-up in the Knesset. As a consequence, whomever emerges as the successful candidate for Prime Minister will be handicapped in the next Knesset as much as Prime Minister Netanyahu has been handicapped in this one. But, whatever the result, those who watch the Middle East will continue to find much to fascinate them in that part of the world. I would also like to thank, in closing, those people who travelled with me and ensured that we had a pleasant and attractive visit in that country.239419:17:002394Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I would like to draw the attention of the House to Dr Nandor Jaross, an ophthalmologist who originally did his training in Hungary. Dr Jaross was invited to Australia by Northern Territory officials in 1987. He was offered permanent employment in Australia and he is an Australian citizen. He worked as a specialist ophthalmologist between 1988 and 1996 in the Royal Darwin Hospital, with all the duties, rights and privileges of a specialist. He carried out approximately 1,000 laser treatments and was involved in nearly 1,000 eye surgeries. He was directly responsible for supervising trainee registrars in Darwin from the time he arrived there.He has published extensively in local and international journals and he has represented the Royal Darwin Hospital at numerous conferences overseas. His research in Aboriginal health is already having a major impact on the community's health there. He has been a member of the AMA since 1990 and he was awarded the prestigious Ken Moo scholarship by the Northern Territory government in 1992. He established the first mobile eye unit in the Northern Territory, and he established a sustainable system of eye service provision in remote areas and delivered these services, which have now ceased.He received numerous awards, including the Commanding Officer's Medal of the 6th Field Ambulance of the Australian Army in 1993 and the prestigious World Health Organisation Fellowship by the Department of Community Services and Health in 1993 and in 1996. His thesis proposal on diabetic retinopathy in Aboriginal communities was accepted with the academic merits of a PhD by the Menzies School of Health Research in 1997. In 1997, the Review of Eye Services, ordered by the federal minister for health and carried out by Professor Taylor of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists, recognised the successes of Dr Jaross's efforts in eye care within the Northern Territory and Aboriginal communities.The tragedy of this story is that from 1996 onwards Dr Jaross was unable to practice ophthalmology in Australia. Dr Jaross was practising in an area where few ophthalmologists go, where there is a desperate need for trained ophthalmologists, and that was working in the remote communities of the Northern Territory in the area of eye health. Until recently this man, who was qualified enough to represent Australia overseas and also to train registrars to become ophthalmologists, was barred from practising ophthalmology in this country.In January 1997, Dr Jaross was advised by the Health Insurance Commission that he was not entitled to access Medicare benefits. Therefore, he could not continue his work in the Northern Territory. Due to the fact that he did not hold any medical appointment as of December 1997, his registration as an overseas trained doctor with the medical board of the Northern Territory was terminated. Then we find that the Health Insurance Commission actually had sent a letter dated 23 December 1997 advising him that he was able to access Medicare benefits for 1997.I have been familiar with the case of Dr Jaross for some time. It is not a case typical of most of the overseas trained doctors. I think we would recognise that most overseas trained doctors should be able to achieve or reach Australian standards. The differences in Dr Jaross's case are that he was originally invited by the Northern Territory Department of Health to actually practice in Australia, he practised in that capacity for 10 years, he actually trained registrars to become specialist ophthalmologists himself and, unfortunately, after doing all that work in the remote communities in the Northern Territory for that period of 10 years, it was found, once he no longer had his appointment at the Royal Darwin Hospital, his registration with the medical board had only been provisional on that appointment, so they were not prepared to register him. The Health Insurance Commission, as he had never been trained in Australia, were not prepared to give him Medicare benefits, and he was unable to get one without the other. So that was a cycle.I am pleased to say that Dr Jaross has now found a position in a teaching hospital in Adelaide. Previously, he was going to be required by the college to all his training again—the pre-clinical training and clinical training. That, I believe, has now been waived. He will have to do his clinical training in ophthalmology again, but he does want to continue with his commitment to Aboriginal eye health. Unfortunately, he will have to complete this training in Adelaide and then return to the Northern Territory after that.It is an important area. Unfortunately in Australia we still have a situation in Aboriginal communities where we still see the same sort of problems that you associate more with the developing world than with an affluent country like Australia.239519:22:002395Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I want to bring to the attention of the parliament the disturbing conduct of a private nursing home operator in my electorate of McMillan. I refer to the Narracan Gardens aged care facility in Moe, owned and operated by Croft Health Care Vic Pty Ltd. The managing director of the company is Graeme Ramsay Croft and the company's ACN is 071311530. The only other company director is Lena Christine Croft.The activities of Croft Health Care first came to my attention following the privatisation of the Latrobe Valley Nursing Home in Moe. Croft Health Care were awarded the tender by the Kennett government and on 9 July 1998 the old Latrobe Valley Nursing Home was closed and the new Narracan Gardens aged care facility was opened.The new Narracan Gardens aged care facility was built in Amaroo Way, Moe, less than two streets away from the old Latrobe Valley Nursing Home. Mr Croft relocated the residents from the old nursing home to the new facility and took the opportunity to reclassify them as new entrants, even though they had, in fact, simply been moved to a new building. This allowed his company to charge a number of the residents an additional new income tested fee.On 27 October 1997 the then Minister for Family Services, the former member for Bass, Warwick Smith, said in this place that:Residents in care before 1 March—1998—will not be income tested, and income tested fees will apply only to those entering care from that date.Croft Health Care is clearly operating outside this explicit commitment. By the company's own admission, there are at least 14 residents in the new nursing home who were in care before March 1998 and who are now being charged the additional fee. Fourteen existing nursing home residents were reclassified as new entrants so that Mr Croft can charge them even more; 14 struggling La Trobe Valley families who, since July 1998, have been paying an additional fee of up to $12 per day despite the promises made by this government to protect existing residents from the new charges. Croft Health Care has improperly taken more than $35,000 from these families over the last seven months.When I publicly raised this matter on behalf of the local community in August last year, Mr Croft's response to the Latrobe Valley Express on 31 August 1998 spoke volumes about his motivations. He said:Why would we agree not to levy the residents? We are not a charitable organisation. He went on to state:We are not funded by the tax payer, we are a private enterprise.This company is exactly the type of company that, through its focus on profits over people, sullies the reputations of others in the for-profit aged care sector.Most alarmingly, Croft Health Care's greed has not just manifested itself in the extra fees imposed on residents. It can also be seen in the standard of care being provided at the new Narracan Gardens aged care facility. I have had numerous complaints from the families of residents whose concerns ranged from the poor quality of the food provided to residents, to the use of baby nappies in place of proper adult incontinence aids. Other concerns include a lack of proper supervision, particularly of dementia residents, as well as a lack of proper bathing and personal grooming of residents.An additional concern has been Croft Health Care's recent decision to change the provider of pharmacy services to the residents of the nursing home without consultation with residents and their families. The new pharmacy is some 30 kilometres away from the town of Moe.The care being provided to these people in their most vulnerable years is clearly not affording them the dignity that they deserve and that any decent society is obliged to give them. I have in my possession a letter written to local and metropolitan newspapers by a Catholic priest in which grave concerns about the standard of care being provided at the new facility are expressed. The contents of this letter, of course, are of enormous concern. In the letter, dated 15 October 1998, Father R. McGregor, Acting Parish Priest of St Kieran's Parish in Moe, writes, amongst other things, that he has been appalled:. . . by the dismay expressed by a number of the elderly patients, at the decision made by management to withdraw proper incontinence aids.The concerns which Father McGregor and I have raised are clearly extremely serious and our local community feels an enormous amount of outrage and alarm about Croft Health Care's actions.Those of us who care know that this is not the way to treat older people in our community. Those of us who care know that these people have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes and contributed so much to our nation. They deserve our utmost respect and consideration in their closing years. What sort of a government do we have that allows people like Graeme Croft to exploit older people and their families for the sake of profit? What sort of society do we have when the care of the most vulnerable people in our community is left to market forces? There must be an immediate independent inquiry into the activities of Croft Health Care Vic Pty Ltd and into Graeme Croft himself. This inquiry must urgently address the concerns I have raised in the House today on behalf of our local community and it must provide a process whereby the families of residents and the staff employed at the facility can provide information to the department without fear of intimidation. I would appreciate advice from the minister as to exactly what action she intends to take in terms of her investigation of this very serious matter. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the document I referred to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is leave granted?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—There is no agreement unless he makes arrangements to let us look at it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I understand. For the advice of the—MG4LEEMr Lee—If they are refusing, Mr Deputy Speaker, thanks very much.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—No. I am not refusing. You know the processes.MG4LEEMr Lee—They refuse to have a letter from a Catholic priest tabled. Come on!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I was endeavouring to say to the member for McMillan that the normal courteous action, when you wish to table a document, is to take it to the minister or parliamentary secretary at the table and clear it in advance.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—My apologies. I was unaware of that protocol.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Well, we all have to learn.MG4LEEMr Lee—So he is seeking leave to table it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—He is seeking leave to table it?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—It is refused until we have a look at it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am seeking your advice on the matter. Can it be tabled later once we have seen it?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not know whether it is within the standing orders, but I am going to make an executive decision. As I call the next speaker, I suggest the member for McMillan take it to the minister at the table and show it to him and I will give you the opportunity before we close the debate.239719:27:002397Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I would like to bring to the attention of the House tonight my concerns and the concerns of many of my constituents about the continuing and increasing delays on the F3 freeway between Sydney and the Central Coast. This has been an ongoing issue for many years and is, unfortunately, slowly getting worse with the rapid development of the Central Coast and the increasing numbers of commuters and heavy vehicles using the F3.Recently this issue has been raised to prominence once again because of very significant delays that occurred on the F3 over the summer months. In fact, on Friday 8 January, there was a truck accident on the F3 which caused the F3 to be blocked and for many motorists to be held up for a number of hours. In fact some of the delays were as long as 16 hours, which was totally unacceptable. There was, of course, a chorus of concern raised by many people in the community and the state government also raised concerns about these delays.I would like to point out that I have been raising this issue for a number of years. In fact, on 18 November 1996 I held an F3 forum on the Central Coast of New South Wales to prepare a submission to the inquiry into federal road funding. This forum went through all the concerns of the traffic hold- ups that were being experienced on the F3 even back in 1996.There were three major recommendations made by the forum, which we placed before the inquiry. One was that the Hawkesbury River-Calga section of the F3 be used as a trial for the advanced electronic intelligent transport system, which is similar to those used on many overseas freeways. I am pleased to advise that that recommendation was accepted by the government and $10 million was made available to the state government for utilisation in the construction of those electronic signage boards.It was interesting that among the people who were held up in the traffic was Premier Bob Carr, who said that he was still waiting for confirmation from the federal government for funding for this electronic signage. The F3, whilst it is a federal road, is managed by the New South Wales government and it is up to them to install these electronic signage systems.In a media release dated 28 January, the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, pointed out to the Premier that federal government funding was first offered some 19 months ago. The money was available in July last year and if they had acted quickly those electronic signage systems could have been in place for the last summer traffic delays.This call has been made over a number of years by me and by other people. In a report by the local coroner, Brian Wilson, in October 1998, commenting on an accident that occurred on the freeway he said:I recommend that a copy of this transcript be forwarded to the appropriate authorities, which I assume would be the State Minister for Roads and the Federal Office of Road Safety, with a recommendation that action be taken to install electronic sign boards on the freeway. These can surely be implemented at minimal cost to warn motorists of pending problems . . .That was one of the major concerns that motorists had at the last significant delays. As I said, these delays lasted some 16 hours and there was no warning to motorists before they entered the F3 freeway that there were these significant delays. Once they were involved in the traffic delays, there was virtually no way that they could get out of them. If they had had prior warning, they could have used the old Pacific Highway, which is something I am pleased and proud to say I was involved in having reopened back in 1994. If it had not been for the efforts of getting that road reopened, we would not have an alternative.Finally, I would like to point out that that section of the F3 is not just a local issue, because it is the only major road north from Sydney. Once you get to Newcastle there is the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway, but between the Hawkesbury River and Newcastle the F3 is the only road leading north of any significance. Every vehicle—every heavy transport vehicle and every car—leaving Sydney or going to Sydney from northern New South Wales or from Queensland has to pass through that section of the F3. So I will continue to push for the installation of these signs. (Time expired)239819:33:002398Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I would firstly like to follow on from my colleague the member for Robertson. I do not doubt his sincerity in raising this issue and I do not doubt his intention to continue his long-term interest in upgrading the quality of the F3 freeway, but I am sure he understands that electronic signs warning us of traffic difficulties ahead are not going to solve the very serious problem that he has outlined tonight. The only long-term solution for the traffic delays on the F3 will be the federal government putting in the money that is needed to increase the F3 so that we have three lanes in each direction.What intrigues me is that Bob Graham, the National Party candidate for The Entrance, claims that the National Party Leader of that state, George Souris, has undertaken to him that there will be three lanes in each direction from Sydney to Newcastle. If the federal government funds the F3, as the member for Robertson claims, I would like to know how George Souris intends to make you, the federal government—I know it is unrealistic that we will see a Chikarovski-Souris govern ment, but in the unlikely event they are elected—fund his promises. I am sure that, after 27 March, my colleague the member for Robertson will be dealing with Barry Cohen as the Labor member for Gosford as well as Marie Andrews as the Labor member for Peats.You know that the only long-term solution for the F3 is three lanes in each direction. At the last federal election you were not prepared to join Belinda Neal's campaign and Lindsay Tanner's promise to provide the extra $50 million or more to upgrade the F3. Perhaps as years go by you will realise that the electronic signs are not enough and that you do need to persuade your colleague John Anderson to give us the extra money that is needed to get three lanes in each direction.My original reason for coming in here was to pay tribute to a World War I veteran, Frank Johnson, who turned 100 a few days ago. Frank Johnson is one of only 12 surviving New South Wales resident World War I diggers. He enlisted when he was 16 years and nine months. Last week I had the privilege of attending his surprise 100th birthday at the Wyong nursing home. I was very pleased that not only were his family and many of his other friends in the nursing home present but the Department of Veterans' Affairs also had a number of their staff go up to commemorate that very special day for Frank.Frank and his wife Hilda had four children, seven grandchildren, 13 great-grandchildren and one great-great grandchild. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you would like to join me in congratulating Frank Johnson on his 100th birthday. Frank was so young when he volunteered that he served his country mostly in the United Kingdom because he was too young to be able to serve at the front in France. However, during the time he was overseas he served his country with a great deal of distinction despite his young age.At that particular function, the Wyong RSL made a special effort to present Frank with a memento of his 100th birthday, as did the Wyong RSL Women's Auxiliary, who are also very proud of the fact that they have commemorated the distinguished service of someone such as Frank Johnson. I will also mention that in The Entrance sub-branch of the RSL we have a World War I naval veteran, Ernie Sanders, who is not quite 100 but is getting close. As someone participating in the latest computer trials, Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that Ernie, in his late 90s, not only drives himself around in his own car but is connected to the Internet. I am not quite sure what he looks up on the Internet at the age of 97, but he has not been afraid of keeping up to date with modern technological changes. Perhaps that demonstrates some of the fierce independence for which World War I veterans have been known for many years.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sure the chair and every parliamentarian would join the member for Dobell in expressing congratulations to any Australian who achieves the remarkable feat of possibly living through three millenniums, being the periods of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.19:39:002399House adjourned at 7.39 p.m.Notices2399The following notices were given:Mr Moore to present a bill for an act about the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program, and for other purposes.Mr Anderson to present a bill for an act to amend the Airports Act 1996, and for other purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend various Acts in relation to youth allowance and austudy payment, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991, and for related purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to encourage the voluntary disclosure and exchange of information about year 2000 computer problems and remediation efforts, and for other purposes.Mr Mossfield to move—That this House:(1) notes that 1999 is the International Year of the Older Persons;(2) notes the large number of middle-aged persons who have been retrenched in Aus tralia and who have little chance of obtaining further employment;(3) recognises that aged care services should provide a continuity of care in which services come to the people;(4) further recognises that many older persons who have been retrenched will have used up their superannuation entitlements by retiring age and will need to fall back on the aged pension; and(5) agrees that more work needs to be done to preserve Australian jobs, so that people are free to make their own retirement decisions based on quality of life issues rather than be forced to retire due to a management decision of their employer.Answers to Questions in Writing2401The following answers to questions were circulated:2401(Question No. 5)52401McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Do Commonwealth legislation or regulations require members of the Australian Public Service to retire upon reaching a certain age; if so; what provisions apply, (b) what retirement ages are specified and (c) will the Government amend or abolish the provisions.2401Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Secretaries, SES officers and non-SES officers in the Australian Public Service are required by the Public Service Act 1922 (sections 76C, 76J and 76V respectively) to retire upon attaining the maximum retiring age.An officer is retired by force of the legislation unless the Secretary or their delegate makes a determination before the person attains the maximum retiring age to extend employment beyond the maximum retiring age. In the case of an extension for a Secretary the Governor-General must approve employment beyond maximum retiring age.Where the Secretary is of the opinion that it is desirable, in the interests of the Commonwealth, that the officer should continue in employment and the officer is willing to continue, the Secretary may determine that the officer does not have to retire upon attaining the maximum retiring age.(b) The provisions of the Public Service Act currently fix a maximum retiring age of 65 years for all persons employed under the Act.(c) The Public Service Bill introduced by the Government into Parliament twice, in June 1997 and March 1998, establishes a flexible employment framework for the Australian Public Service. The Bill did not include any provisions relating to maximum age retirement for APS employees.This Government remains committed to removing compulsory age 65 retirement from the APS, and will continue to push for the passage of the Public Service Bill through Parliament. 2401(Question No. 10)102401Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Did he undertake in the 1997-98 Budget to publish a discussion paper on the taxation of trusts.(2) Has he acted to prepare and publish a discussion paper on the taxation of trusts; if so, (a) what action has he taken and (b) at what cost; if not, why not.(3) Has the Government established a backbench consultative committee on taxation; if so, who are its members, on how many occasions did it meet, how many meetings did (i) he and (ii) the Minister for Finance and Administration attend, what resources did (i) his Department and (ii) the Department of Finance and Administration supply to the committee and at what cost to the Commonwealth.(4) How do discretionary family trusts operate and is it possible for a Member of Parliament to have his or her salary and electorate allowance paid into a family trust to minimise taxation.2401Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) On 23 February 1998 I announced that the review of trusts would proceed as part of the Government's tax reform program, in place of the officials' paper announced in the 1997-98 Budget.A New Taxation System proposed taxing trusts like companies under a new redesigned company tax system. Mr John Ralph AO is currently chairing a Review of Business Taxation that will consult and report, among other things, on the proposed framework for taxing trusts like companies and on transitional and implementation details.(3) There is no backbench consultative committee on taxation.(4) A discretionary trust is a trust where the trustee has a discretion to choose the beneficiary who would receive distributions of income or capital or both from the trust.Members of Parliament cannot minimise their tax by having their salary and electorate allowance paid into a family trust. 2402(Question No. 14)142402Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What is the period of contract for each organisation participating in the Job Network.(2) When will the Department release tender notices for the next round of contracts.(3) What was the cost of the tender process to the Department.(4) How was the cost apportioned and was it subsumed within the Budget allocation for this tender round.(5) What additional costs did the Department incur as a result of companies and organisations rejecting the Department's tender offer and how many tender offers were rejected.(6) What is the Budget allocation for the next round of tendering.(7) How many participants selected to take part in the Job Network have subcontracted their work to other organisations;(8) With respect to each participant referred to in part (7), (a) who is the participant, (b) in which regions was the participant contracted to supply services, (c) what level of flex services was the participant contracted to supply, (d) what are the names of the subcontracting companies or organisations who will complete the work, (e) has his Department approved each subcontracted company or organisation, (f) has his Department agreed to allow the participant to retain a portion of the sum provided under the original contract; if so, what is the (i) name of the participant, and (ii) sum being retained in each case, (g) what additional costs did his Department incur as a result of the participant subcontracting work won in the initial tender process, and (h) will his Department allow the participant to submit tender proposals in subsequent rounds.2402Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The period of contract is from 1 May 1998 to 30 November 1999. However, there are contracts with eight organisations which commenced on a later date. The commencement dates of the eight contracts are listed below.1.—11 May 1998; 2.—15 May 1998; 3,—15 May 1998; 4.—21 May 1998; 5.—22 May 1998; 6.—22 May; 1998; 7.—1 June 1998; 8.—19 June 1998.These contracts also conclude on 30 November 1999. As announced on 16 December 1998, current Job Network members have been offered contract extensions to 27 February 2000. This contract extension does not apply to New Apprenticeship Centres.(2) No final decision has yet been made on the release date for the next Request for Tender.(3) and (4) The cost of the tender cannot be separately identified as it was distributed over a number of Divisions and State Offices of the former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs that had responsibility for other functions at the same time. There were also some additional indirect costs, for example, in information technology support, which cannot be separated from other corporate support services.(5) The Department incurred no additional running costs. Sixty seven tenderers rejected the offer of contracts.(6) Program costs are estimated to be approximately $1 billion in each of the financial years 1999-2000 to 2002-2003. Running costs for the tender cannot be separately identified at this stage, as they are part of the total allocation for the portfolio within such areas as the Employment Services Market Group, the Labour Market Programs and Services Group, the Systems Group, the Labour Market Policy Group and State Offices of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.(7) As at 9 January 1999, subcontracting arrangements under the Employment Services Contract had been approved for 44 Job Network members. All but two of these Job Network members have subcontracted part of their business only.(8) (a)—(d) Details of contracts awarded to Job Network members are commercial-in-confidence, including any approved subcontracting arrangements.(e) Yes.(f) Commercial arrangements, in respect of subcontracting, are negotiated between the individual Job Network member and the subcontractor. The Commonwealth is not a party to these negotiations and does not collect information regarding these commercial arrangements.(g) Nil(h) The tender process is designed to promote fair competition in the open market. Future tenders will be assessed against tendering conditions set out in the next Request for Tender document.2402(Question No. 15)152402Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Which participants in the Job Network failed to open all services and activities for which they were contracted on 1 May 1998.(2) At which localities were full services and activities not operating on 1 May 1998.(3) Does the Job Network contract contain penalties for participants unable to meet a commitment to start operating on 1 May 1998; if not, why not; if so, has his Department invoked the penalties.2403Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) DEETYA, the Department then responsible for Job Network, did not have the capacity to physically check the operational status of every Job Network site on 1 May 1998 and therefore does not have a complete list of every locality or any services or activities that were not operational on that day. It would require excessive resources to now compile such a list.(3) The Job Network contract does not contain specific penalties for a Job Network member who did not open contracted sites on 1 May 1998. It does however contain provisions regarding any default by the Job Network member. These provisions could be invoked by the Commonwealth if a member failed to meet any contractual obligations.Failure by a Job Network member to meet any of their obligations has and will be, considered on a case by case basis. My Department is aware of a number of instances where members were unable to open sites for a number of reasons including circumstances beyond their control. Generally resolution of contractual issues will be sought in the spirit of conciliation and negotiation before legal options are pursued.2403(Question No. 35)352403Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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.2403Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Human Resources Measures(1) and (2) My Department is committed to ensuring equal employment opportunity and workplace diversity principles are fully integrated into all departmental activities, management practices, policies and procedures. This includes policies to ensure equal access in employment, such as in recruitment and promotion processes, and flexible working hours and part time work. My Department currently has an Equal Employment Opportunity Strategic Plan 1995-99 and Disability Discrimination Act Action Plan 1996 in place, and the draft Workplace Diversity Strategic Plan 1998-99 has been in place since mid-December 1998. The Plans have been developed as part of my Department's human resource management policies and practices aimed at improving organisational performance through better people management. Through these measures my Department aims to create an environment where all people can better achieve their potential. It is not practicable to cost these measures.Examples of a number of specific measures that provide assistance to certain staff (for the period from 1 July 1997 until now) are outlined in the below table:ProgramsDetailsCostsSenior Women in Management (SWIM). One person currently participating in the program. Program fees $12,000.. Promotion of program. Travel and accommodation expenses.Carer Rooms (family carers, child care, emergency child care). Carers—women and men with carer responsibilities.Approximately $4000 initial set up cost in each state office and national office ($4000 x 7 = $28000). Rooms equipped with TV, computers, telephone, bed and toys. Ongoing cost $1000 per annum for each room ($1000 x 7 = $7000).. Promotion of program. Note: Savings may accrue as the provision of the room supports carers in the workplace and is as an alternative to absence from the workplace.Return to Work Policy. When illness or injury (compensable and non-compensable) has occurred appropriate assistance to achieve early, safe return to work at the fullest activity level consistent with the medical status of an employee.. Approximate cost of $108,000 per annum based on average rehabilitation costs.. Note: Early and well-managed return to work programs reduce compensation costs for the Department.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Veterans Project(1) My Department has initiated a strategy to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander veterans' access to of Veterans' Affairs entitlements by involving indigenous veterans in the development of policies which more effectively address their health and other needs, and the needs of their spouses and dependants.A first step in this strategy has been the creation of an ongoing national Forum consisting of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander veterans and Departmental officers which has met twice since its formation in June 1998.An important part of this initiative has been the three-month placement in my Department of an officer at director level from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. This officer is an Aboriginal veteran.Among issues being examined by the Forum are the following:. recognition of indigenous veterans' service to the nation;. development of a nominal roll of all indigenous veterans;. development of an indigenous veterans' network;. a greater emphasis on departmental staff undertaking cross cultural awareness training; and . examination of the impact of indigenous veterans' service on their families.(2) My Department has made a commitment to funding the meetings of the national Forum. No other specific requests for funding have been made.2404(Question No. 51)512404Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) According to the Minister's most recent figures, how many pieces of official correspondence has the Minister received from (a) individuals, (b) organisations, and (c) companies registering (i) concern over the effect the parallel importing of CDs will have on the Australian music industry and (ii) approval of the decision to allow the parallel importation of CDs into Australia.(2) Will the Minister provide the name and address of every (a) individual, (b) organisation and (c) company that has registered (i) concern with his office over the effect the parallel importing of CDs will have on the Australian music industry and (ii) approval of the decision to allow the parallel importing of CDs into Australia; if not, why not.(3) Will the Minister provide evidence that CD prices have dropped across Australia since the parallel importation of CDs was allowed; if not, why not. (4) Will the Commonwealth compensate the owners of Australian (a) independent record labels, (b) recording studios, (c) music magazines and newspapers, (d) live music venues and (e) music artists who lose their businesses and livelihoods as a result of allowing the parallel importation of CDs into Australia; if not, why not.(5) Are Australian CDs overpriced compared to the full-list price of CDs in other Western nations; if so, why.(6) Is the Minister able to say whether the cost of a full-list price CD in (a) the US is approximately A$30 including state sales tax, (b) the UK is approximately A$37 before VAT has been added and (c) Japan is approximately A$34 including tax; if so are Australian prices better; if not, why not.2405McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has received about 300 pieces of correspondence on the topic of parallel importation and CDs since coming into office.These letters referred to both the slow progress of legislative change to allow parallel importation of sound recordings and concern about its impact on the Australian music industry.(2) As there was a considerable amount of correspondence on the matter of parallel importation the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has indicated that he is not prepared to authorise committing the considerable human resources needed to search records to obtain information to answer this question. Further, the Minister considers that it is not in the public interest to disclose individual details about this correspondence as people generally expect that the opinions they express will not be publicly recorded. If people become aware that their views become a matter for public debate, it may deter them from expressing frank opinions.(3) There are indications that some retailers are obtaining lower priced legitimate sound recording from a range of countries overseas.The Big W chain has been reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 November 1998 and the Herald-Sun of 22 November 1998 as being ready to provide legitimate and popular albums at less than $20 before Christmas. Recent media reports are that a number of discount stores also plan to retail chart CDs at $19.95.(4) The Government believes that the removal of parallel importation will be a net employment generator in the music sector as lower prices are expected to lead to increased sales. Parallel importation of sound recordings is unlikely to have any impact on live and broadcast music in Australia.Recording companies will continue to develop new Australian artists while consumers wish to buy Australian music.Major companies have been criticised by some contemporary artists for failing to adequately support the local music sector while heavily promoting overseas acts.To address any short term adjustment in the industry, the Government has also decided to allocate $10 million over three years to an Australian music industry assistance package, including:- funding for promotion of Australian acts, particularly on the Internet;- increased assistance for touring, through the Playing Australia and Festivals Australia programs;- assisting young artists in the development of business plans;- expanded funding for the Contemporary Music Export Initiative, which is focused on assisting the independent sector; and,- pilot assistance programs in South Australia and Tasmania.(5) and (6) International price comparisons are complex and costly to do accurately. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has indicated that he is not prepared to authorise the expense of time and diversion of resources required.However, the Senate Legislative and Constitutional Committee examined the issue of parallel importation and evidence given to the Committee in early 1998 about prices included:- Woolworths' statement to the Committee that it expected prices to fall by 25 to 33 per cent (Top 30 material). Press reports indicate recently that Woolworths has reduced the price of Top 30 material to $19.95. Press reports also indicate that a number of other retailers have also reduced prices of charting material to a similar level.- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) analysis which indicated that after allowing for tax differences the price differential between Australia and the US was consistently higher since 1989. By June 1997, the price differential with the US was 33% for a top-selling, full priced CD.- The Australian Consumers' Association updated the ACCC estimates and believed in early 1998 that the price differential was around $7. However, a number of factors can influence price differentials observed between Australia and overseas over a period of time including:- exchange rates- differences in taxation regimes between countries- discounting practicesThe effect of the reforms on CD prices was expected to take some time to filter through to the retail market as retailers clear existing stocks for example. Recent media reports indicate that both Woolworths and a number of discount stores have begun retailing a wide range of recent CDs for under $20, substantially less than the standard retail price. One discount chain has begun advertising chart CDs for $19.95. The Woolworths move is particularly significant, as it will be the first time that a major retail chain has taken advantage of the reforms.2406(Question No. 52)522406Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Did the Minister attend the recent Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA) awards in Sydney; if not, (a) did the Minister send a representative, (b) why did the Minister not attend and (c) did the Minister receive an invitation to attend.(2) If the Minister or a representative attended, what response did representatives and artists of the Australian music industry provide about the Government allowing the parallel importation of CDs.(3) Did the Minister attend an event associated with the recent Pacific Circle Music Convention in Sydney; if not, (a) did the Minister send a representative, (b) why did the Minister not attend and (c) did the Minister receive an invitation to attend.(4) If the Minister or a representative attended, what response did representatives and artists of the Australian music industry provide about the Government allowing parallel importation of CDs.2406McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question :(1)—(4) Neither the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts nor a representative attended the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) awards or the Pacific Circle Music Convention. There are no records of an invitation for the Minister or any of his staff to either the ARIA Awards nor the Pacific Circle Music Convention in the Minister's Office. The Pacific Circle Music Convention took place on 15—18 October 1998, before the Prime Minister had announced portfolio responsibilities on 18 October 1998. The ARIA awards occurred on the same day as the Minister was sworn in by the Governor General (21 October 1998).2406(Question No. 54)542406Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Before the 1998 federal general election, did the Government undertake to introduce legislation designed to protect absolutely the wage entitlements of Australian workers if their employer became insolvent; if not, why not.(2) Will he introduce legislation to protect absolutely the wage entitlements of Australian workers if their employer became insolvent; if not, why not; if so, when.2406Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The Government did, however, indicate that this was a matter under consideration—particularly given the neglect given to the issue by the previous Labor administration. The Government has referred the issue to the peak national council of State and Federal Workplace Relations Ministers, the Labour Ministers' Council (LMC) which has recognised the issue to be a joint State/Commonwealth responsibility. At its most recent meeting on 27 November 1998, LMC received a detailed report on policy issues arising which had been prepared by Commonwealth officers with the assistance of State departmental officers. All LMC members resolved, on a bipartisan political basis, that corporations law issues be pursued by the Commonwealth and States through the Ministerial Council for Corporations (MinCo) and that workplace relations issues be assessed by each jurisdiction. The problem is a complex one where counterveiling policy considerations require prudent assessment. This is what is occurring at Federal and State levels.(2) See answer to question 1 above.2406(Question No. 64)642406Jull, David, MPMr JullMH4FaddenLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:What is the average time from date of filing to date of hearing for matters filed in each registry of the Family Court for: (a) property matters not exceeding a trial of one day's duration, (b) property matters with a trial of more than one day's duration, (c) child related matters of one day's duration and (d) child related matters of more than one day's duration.2407Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Family Court has advised me that:-Of cases of all categories filed, 70% are finalised within 4 months through the conciliation or mediation process or otherwise by agreement between the parties. Matters of an estimated one day's duration, whether child related or property, go into the Direct Track. The delay statistics have generally been recorded in terms of the oldest case waiting for hearing, not in terms of average delay. However, the percentage within standards is recorded.The answers can be given in terms of the percentage of matters set down for final hearing heard within time standards over the three months to September 1998. It should be borne in mind that 70% of filings have already been finalised within 4 months.Re (a) and (c) where the standard is 6 months from filing to hearing:%%Adelaide27.0Brisbane33.0Melbourne28.1Parramatta15.5Dandenong-Newcastle47.9Canberra57.5Townsville62.0Hobart50.0Darwin25.0Sydney66.0Re (b) and (d), these cases are in the Standard Track where the performance standard is 10 months for child related matters and 11 months for property matters. The percentages within time standards are:%%Melbourne10.6Brisbane41.2Adelaide4.0Parramatta35.5Dandenong8.3Newcastle67.8Canberra66.3Townsville68.0Hobart9.6Darwin59.0Sydney51.32407(Question No. 65)652407Jull, David, MPMr JullMH4FaddenLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Have some registries of the Family Court, such as Brisbane, fallen behind others in dealing with property and child matters; if so, why.(2) Is the Family Court meeting its own time standards; if not, what is it doing to rectify the problems.2407Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Family Court has advised me that:- (1) Yes. The relative position of Registries is not a constant. Workload and available judicial resources fluctuate over time. Brisbane in particular has sustained a considerable increase in workload while its judicial strength has been relatively constant. Melbourne and Adelaide have had similar workload increases without additional judicial strength. The Full Court workload has increased substantially which means that the Appeal Division Judges are less available to sit at first instance. Melbourne has 2 Appeal Division Judges while Brisbane, Canberra, Sydney and Parramatta have one each. Judicial resources are temporarily diverted to help out where Registries are falling behind the generally prevailing levels of delay. There are limits to this in practical terms because of cost and the extent to which Judges can be expected to be away from home. Fundamentally, it is a question of the number of applications filed and the number of Judges available to hear them.(2) Not universally. The Court has been and is engaged in extensive reviews of its procedures and practices and currently has external consultants engaged to map its processes and to look for improvements to assist in meeting standards. The Court is also undertaking a review of its case management system, in part to address the issues which are also confronting other courts, namely cost and delay. The Court has sought legislative amendment to allow Rules to be made in relation to trial management and those Rules have been drafted. The Judges have also delegated certain of their powers to Judicial Registrars and Registrars. However, the rate of growth in workload coupled with the increasing number of litigants who present without legal representation has meant that time standards are not always able to be met.2408(Question No. 66)662408Jull, David, MPMr JullMH4FaddenLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) On how many days did each justice and judicial registrar of the Family Court sit in the duty list and trial division in (a) 1996-97 and (b) 1997-98.(2) How many judicial days were available for the Family Court calendar to hear matters in (a) 1996-97 and (b) 1997-98.(3) For each Family Court registry, how many Fridays had listings comparable with other days of the week.(4) Is it a fact that in some Family Court registries very few matters are listed for trial or hearing in the judicial duty list on Fridays; if so, why.(5) Were most Family Court registries closed for a fortnight during October 1998 to enable judges to attend a judges conference in Melbourne and subsequently the National Family Law Conference in Hobart.(6) Could both conferences referred to in part (5) have been held simultaneously or one immediately following the other; if not, why not.2408Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Family Court has advised me that:-(1) (a) and (b). See Attachment A.(2) (a) 1996-97—8990 days; and (b) 1997-98—8631 days. (These figures include days available for Full Court sittings).(3) Friday has no particular significance in listings except that, in duty lists, matters which will require more than an hour to hear and cannot be accommodated in daily duty lists are sometimes adjourned to Fridays as a matter of convenience. In such circumstances the number of cases listed on Fridays may be lower but the workload may be greater.(4) No.(5) No. The Registries were open for business.(6) No, they could not have been held simultaneously but they were held with one immediately following the other. The Court conducts a national conference every three years and a Judges' Conference every year. The Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia conducts a conference every two years. To minimise disruption to clients, the Court's National Conference (and/or Judges' Conference) is usually held immediately prior to the Family Law Section Conference. In 1998, the Court's Conference concluded on the Saturday morning and the Family Law Section Conference began that afternoon and continued on the Sunday. The conferences could not reasonably be held simultaneously. Although they deal with different subject matters and have some different attendees, a number of people presented papers at both conferences and some attended both conferences. The Court's Conference is primarily for Court personnel and their requirements while the Family Law Section Conference is primarily for the legal profession and its requirements. However, it is important for Judges in particular to attend the Family Law Section Conference as part of their judicial education and development.Attachment ASITTING DAYS IN DUTY LIST AND TRIAL DIVISION (including Full Court)Judicial Officer1996/971997/98Nicholson CJ#4145Barblett DCJ#131Fogarty J#4278Murray J160153Frederico J***150125Finn J#80102Kay J#126111Joske J171177Gun J**161104Smithers J144175Butler J* 77-Hase J**188 88Bulbeck J**136 95Wilczek J183185Burton J193179Graham J194137Mushin J162155Hannon J161138Brown J125126Faulks J194178Dessau J150125Morgan J171126Dawe J+ 74193McGovern J* 30-Burr J++-47Guest J++-44Carter J++-24Baker J#11293Barry J145162Bell J160164Buckley J*** 43 41Chisholm J168180Cohen J158186Coleman J179156Ellis J#7068Gee J167153Hilton J178161Jerrard J++-47Jordan J187190Lawrie J143139Lindenmayer J#7595Maxwell J158165May J151166Moore J107186Moss J165161Mullane J135143 O'Ryan J197161Purdy J182196Purvis J**14965Renaud J151157Rourke J180152Rowlands J114109Steele J++-98Underhill J**10467Warnick J149124Judge not identified (a)253203Total Judges71066899JR Halligan198187JR Johnston183194JR Knibbs104113JR Loughnan194186JR Forbes209216JR Nikakis217226JR Ramsden213221JR Smith211221Total Judicial Registrars15291564Total86358463* retired during 1996/97** retired during 1997/98+ appointed during 1996/97++ appointed during 1997/98# Judge of the Appeal Division (Judges of the Appeal Division sit in other lists when not required for Full Court duties. Full Court benches usually include one Judge who is not a Judge of the Appeal Division).*** Area Judge Administrator (also has administrative duties).(a) Includes Full Court sitting days where the individual Judges were not identified. This artificially deflates the sitting days for those Judges who sat in the Full Court.Note 1: Figures include sitting days while on circuit.Note 2: Deputy Chief Justice Barblett sat for approximately half his sitting time as a Judge at first instance in the Family Court of Western Australia and those days are not included.2411(Question No. 67)672411Jull, David, MPMr JullMH4FaddenLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) During judges' conferences, is a judge available at each Family Court to hear interim matters.(2) How many judges were on duty at each location of the Family Court during the conference in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998.2411Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Family Court has advised me that:-(1) Yes, either in person or by video or telephone link.(2) All Judges at the conferences were on duty and were available to sit if needed. However, in relation to those on duty at each Registry of the Court, the position was:—(a) 1997. The Judges' Conference occupied three days. Two Judges were available in Melbourne to deal with urgent matters in the Southern Area (Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Dandenong and Canberra Registries) in person, by telephone or videolink as required. In the Northern Area (Sydney, Brisbane, Parramatta, Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin) two Judges and one Judicial Registrar were available in Sydney to deal with urgent matters in person, by telephone or videolink as required.(b) 1998. One Judge was available in Melbourne for the Southern Area as in (a) above. In the Northern Area, one Judge was available in Sydney to deal with urgent matters for the Area in the week commencing 19 October. In the week commencing 26 October, six Judges were available for all or part of the week in the Northern Area and were located in Sydney, Newcastle and Darwin.2411(Question No. 68)682411Jull, David, MPMr JullMH4FaddenLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Are interim hearings for all matters within the Family Court, including decision on the interim residence of children, restricted to one hour's duration.(2) Is it a fact that litigants may wait for up to 18 months for a final determination following an interim hearing; if so, is it also a fact that when matters are listed for final determination often they are not reached at the times set down for trial.(3) When a matter is not reached are litigants required to wait a further 6 months for dates in which they can be heard even with priority given to certain matters.(4) Is it a fact that adjourned hearings cost litigants considerable sums because of the material the Family Court requires to be filed.2411Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Family Court has advised me that:-(1) No.(2) In relation to the first part of the question, yes; litigants may wait for up to 18 months for a final determination depending upon many factors which were canvassed in the response to Question 65(l).As to the second part of the question, a low proportion of matters is not reached at the times set down for trial. In the quarter ended September 1998, of 1,534 matters listed, only 85 were not reached at the times set down. This amounts to 5.5%.The reason for matters occasionally not being reached is that they are overlisted, similar to an airline overbooking system, to maximise the use of judicial time which is a scarce resource. The alternative of giving absolute certainty of being reached at the stipulated time is not to overlist matters and to leave sufficient spare time over and above the parties' estimates of hearing time to allow for matters which continue on. The necessary outcome of not overlisting is that everyone would wait longer for a hearing and Judges would spend considerable periods of time without a case to hear when listed cases settled at the door of the court or during the hearing. Most courts have a similar system of reserve or "swinger" lists; the Federal Court is an example.(3) No. There is no set period. It depends upon the availability of a hearing date and the priority allocated. It is relatively unusual for such cases to wait a further 6 months.(4) No. The Family Court requires no different material to be filed because of an adjournment. However, in some cases the failure of parties to file relevant material causes the matter to be adjourned.2411(Question No. 72)722411Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) What criteria is the Government using to judge the success or failure of its law enforcement strategy to reduce the availability of illicit drugs.(2) Does the Government undertake research on the market for illicit drugs, if so, what (a) methods are used and (b) research results are (i) publicly available, (ii) of restricted availability and (iii) not publicly available at all.(3) If information is restricted or not publicly available, why it is withheld.(4) What is the Government's estimate for (a) 1996-97 and (b) 1997-98 of: (i) the total street value of illicit drugs sold in Australia; (ii) volume and street value of (A) illicit heroin, (B) cannabis, (C) `ecstasy', (D) amphetamines, (E) anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs and (F) all other illicit drugs imported into Australia. (iii) volume and street value of (A) illicit heroin, (B) cannabis, (c) `ecstasy', (D) amphetamines, (E) anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs and (F) all other illicit drugs grown or manufactured for sale within Australia.(5) What was the effect on the street price of heroin in (a) Sydney, (b) Melbourne, (c) Adelaide, (d) Perth, (e) Darwin, (f) Hobart and (g) Brisbane of the seizure of 400 kg of heroin by the Australian Federal Police in New South Wales in mid-October 1998 and how was the effect ascertained in each case.(6) What was the effect on the street price of `ecstasy' in (a) Adelaide, (b) Melbourne, (c) Sydney, (d) Perth, (e) Darwin, (f) Hobart and (g) Brisbane of the seizure of 23,000 `ecstasy' tablets by the Australian Federal Police in Adelaide on 5 November 1998 and how was the impact ascertained in each case.(7) Is it a fact `starter packs' of heroin are available on the streets of Melbourne for about the same price as a packet of cigarettes.(8) How many Australians seek assistance from (a) Commonwealth, (b) State and (c) community sector agencies for assistance with ending dependency on heroin.(9) How many persons referred to in part 8(a) are able to gain access and (b) cannot be accommodated without delay, or at all, in detoxification programs.(10) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the opinions of Major Watters, the Chair of its Drug Taskforce, on Ansett's decision to introduce needle disposal units in its airfleet; if so, what is the Government's response.(11) If the Minister is unable to supply the data requested in the preceding parts of this question because insufficient information is available to the Government, what action will the Government take to ensure that adequate information is available upon which to make public policy. 2412Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As the Prime Minister announced on 2 November 1997, the Government's Tough on Drugs strategy comprises an integrated approach to fight the illicit drug trade. The strategy focuses on supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation. The strategy was compiled with input from the health, law enforcement and non-government sectors. The success of the strategy will be measured in terms of positive impacts in these three interrelated areas.(2) Research into illicit drug usage is undertaken through the National Police Research Unit (NPRU), the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI), the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), the Illicit Drug Reporting System (NDARC) and the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1995 and 1998.The ABCI produces the annual Australian Illicit Drug Report (AIDR), which is a public document. It is the primary account of the illicit drug situation in Australia written from a law enforcement perspective and contains the most complete national collection of statistics on drug seizures, arrests, prices and purity levels, as well as addressing drug use trends from data provided by non-law enforcement sources. The most recent AIDR covers the period 1996-97. The 1997-98 AIDR is still in draft form and is expected to be released early in 1999.(3) Information that could reveal sensitive law enforcement plans or methods is not made available to the public.(4) Establishing estimates of total values and volumes of illicit drug markets is a very difficult task given their nature and the types of information available. The AIDR contains the best estimates currently available of the price and volume of illicit drugs. Two initiatives funded under the Government's Tough on Drug Strategy, the National Heroin Signature Programme and Drug Use Monitoring Australia (which is being run by the Australian Institute of Criminology) will help provide better information on the use and distribution of illicit drugs in Australia.(5) and (6) The nature of the illicit drug market means that it is not possible to precisely determine the effect of seizures on the prices of street heroin or ecstacy. The primary purpose of supply reduction is to stem, suppress and disrupt the flow and trafficking of illicit drugs and to send a deterrent message to other traffickers. The impact on the price of the drug is a secondary effect.(7) The Department is not able to confirm that so-called `starter packs' of heroin are being sold in Melbourne. (8) and (9) These programmes are the responsibility of the Minister for Health.(10) Yes. Major Watters was speaking on behalf of the Salvation Army and not as Chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD).(11) See above.2413(Question No. 92)922413Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:What projects did the Australia Council fund in the Melbourne metropolitan area in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 and what was the (i) expenditure on, (ii) location of, and (iii) purpose of, each project.2413McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a)—(c), (i)—(ii)The Australia Council has provided details of the projects it funded in 24 Federal electorates covering the Melbourne metropolitan area during 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Because of its volume, this information has been provided separately to the honourable member and a summary is provided below.(a) 1995-96(b) 1996-97(c) 1997-98(ii) Location (Federal electorate)No. ofprojects(i) Total expenditure ($)No. ofprojects(i) Total expenditure ($)No. ofprojects(i) Total expenditure ($)Aston115,000Batman26322,66615239,6549189,959Bruce13,650215,000128,000Calwell252,000Casey15,420140,000258,500Chisholm8230,728343,737423,213Deakin769,721459,014490,288Dunkley247,160469,527364,470Gellibrand20360,12714357,20516502,370Goldstein431,1106113,910236,387Higgins13311,30018359,39718405,333Holt125,000249,30017,920Hotham427,540237,300353,260Isaacs27,450140,000140,000Jagajaga1290,487863,477452,277Kooyong11102,90015218,85911154,749La Trobe446,970118,000464,547Lalor242,360110,000Maribyrnong531,070219,950114,850Melbourne1293,835,4221112,959,066872,790,536Melbourne Ports967,207,377716,784,771717,111,565Menzies224,295228,000110,000Scullin14,000111,900Wills15176,5789126,7487136,929Total36713,018,33129211,652,91525311,899,053The provision of exact locations for all projects would be a major task for the Australia Council, and I am not prepared to ask it to commit the considerable human resources involved. However, should the honourable member request this information on individual projects, this can readily be provided by the Council.(iii) The purpose of each project is included in the printout provided to the honourable member. 2414(Question No. 105)1052414Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:What sums were provided to companies in Victoria for export assistance in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 and what was the (i) expenditure on, (ii) location of, and (iii) purpose of, each grant.2414Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question follows:(a), (b), (c) The following sums were provided under the Export Market Development Grants scheme in Victoria over the last 3 financial years.Financial YearGrants provided1995-96$55,003,9731996-97$54,620,3501997-98$36,484,117(i) Expenditure on the following activities are claimable under the Export Market Development Grants scheme.Overseas representationto a maximum of $200,000 for ongoing representationOverseas market visitstransport costs, including air fares and $200 per day livingCommunication coststelephone, fax, internet etc for overseas contactsProduct samplesactual cost of providing free samples to non residentsTrade fairs, literature, advertisingtrade fairs, promotional literature and materialShort term marketing consultantsengaging short term market development consultants(ii) The confidentiality provisions of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 preclude the release of details (including location) of individual grants. Therefore these details have not been supplied.(iii) The purpose of the Export Market Development Grants scheme is to promote export awareness and to raise Australia's export revenue, by providing financial assistance to Australia's small and medium exporters for promotional expenditure incurred in seeking out and developing export markets.2414(Question No. 132)1322414Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) How many staff were employed at the (a) Northcote, (b) Heidelberg, (c) Coburg and (d) Epping offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) on 2 March 1996.(2) How many staff were employed at the (a) Northcote, (b) Heidelberg, (c) Coburg and (d) Epping offices of the (CES) (i) immediately before and (ii) following the restructuring of the offices into the Employment National network.(3) How many staff are employed at the Preston office of Employment National. 2414Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Job Network commenced on 1 May 1998. On that day 311 organisations across Australia began operating as Job Network members. Employment National Limited is one of those organisations. Employment National Limited did not take over the responsibilities and workload of the CES. Job Network, as well as Centrelink, now undertakes the work of the CES.(1) (a) 27, (b) 24, (c) 31 and (d) 43.(2) (a) (i) 7, (b) (i) 4, (c) (i) 11, (d) (i) 14.(a-d) (ii) The Northcote, Heidelberg, Coburg and Epping CES offices were not restructured into offices of Employment National. Employment National Limited does not have offices in these sites. Employment National has established offices in Brunswick, Preston and Greensborough in response to business levels the Company won under the Government's employment services contract.(3) Employees of Employment National Limited are not employed at individual sites or locations, but rather to an operating region to be able to respond to business fluctuations and demands. There are no specific employee allocations to Preston. Based on the current business volumes at this office, as at 11 November 1998, Employment National Limited had 17 staff at this business centre.2415(Question No. 135)1352415Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) How many submissions were received in response to the public consultation paper on the West Australian Regional Forest Agreement.(2) How and by whom have the submissions been evaluated.(3) When will the agreement be signed.2415Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) 30,410 submissions were received in response to the public consultation paper on the West Australian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA).(2) The submissions were summarised by staff from the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage. The issues raised in each submission were summarised and recorded in a data-base. The Western Australian RFA Steering Committee (which comprises senior Commonwealth and State officers) has responsibility for analysing the submissions and issues raised.(3) No date has been specified as to when the agreement will be signed.2415(Question No. 172)1722415McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Has the Government considered ratifying ILO Convention No. 162 regarding the prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos; if so, what action will the Government take. 2415Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:ILO Convention No. 162, Asbestos, 1986 was identified as an appropriate target for ratification for Australia by the Labour Ministers Council in October 1992 and the National Labour Consultative Council (most recently in September 1994). No recent consideration has been given to ratification.Australia's treaty-making policy, adopted in 1996, requires compliance to be established prior to ratification of a treaty. This principle reflects usual practice in relation to ILO Conventions, in that they are considered for ratification by Australia only when law and practice in all relevant jurisdictions is in compliance with the provisions of the Convention and when all State and Territory governments that have an interest in the Convention have formally agreed to ratification.South Australia formally agreed to ratification of ILO Convention No 162 in 1991 and Queensland formally agreed to ratification in 1992. The other jurisdictions have not yet advised the Commonwealth of their position with regard to ratification.2415(Question No. 173)1732415McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2834 (Hansard , 28 May 1998, page 4236), while it is not possible to provide particular details of any organisation's bid or reasons for selection, will he provide details of the guidelines and or factors considered by his department in considering the bids submitted by organisations generally.2415Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Trained staff from my Department, with appropriate expertise and regional knowledge assessed tender bids for tendered services against the published tendering conditions and selection criteria.All tenderers were required to sign a declaration to the effect that they had read, understood and accepted the tendering conditions.Tenders received were first checked to determine whether they met the conformance criteria laid down in the Request For Tender. Tenderers who satisfied the conformance criteria passed through to the next stage.Each tenderer was assessed to determine their financial capacity to deliver the service requirements and meet contractual obligations over the contract period. The Department used this financial viability assessment to minimise risk (financial and probity) to the Commonwealth.Tendering entities were assessed against their historic financial and qualitative information and their business plan as reflected by their projected cash flows.Tendering entities and associated relevant persons were also assessed against a number of probity factors. These were sourced from public records such as the Credit Reference Association of Australia Ltd (CRAA), the Australian Securities Commission (ASC), Dun & Bradstreet, Lawpoint and State/Territory Associations' Registrars and from internal Departmental records.The checks against internal records were undertaken to confirm that no significant incomplete acquittals, debts, or prejudicial investigation or litigation matters were outstanding with the tenderers.In addition to financial viability issues being addressed, assessment teams evaluated the claims made by tenderers against the criteria specified in the tender.Assessments of past performance included an assessment of local market conditions and the types of clients that they had assisted. These assessments drew on performance data supplied by the tenderer and on the Department's own sources of data.New organisations were required to provide referee reports addressing their performance in related fields.Only organisations which satisfied the selection criteria were considered for contracts.The business allocation process was the final phase with care taken to ensure appropriate competition, diversity and geographic coverage within a region and that special client needs were taken into account.Suitable tenderers were ranked in accordance with their bid for price competitive services and in accordance with quality for the Intensive Assistance service.Contracts were allocated to the highest ranked tenderers which met these requirements.The allocation process was sophisticated, taking into account information provided by tenderers regarding the sites which they proposed to service and the levels of business which they were to offer at each site in comparison to what other tenderers were offering. 2416(Question No. 174)1742416McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) In contracting with other companies or individuals to provide employment services, did his Department inquire whether the companies or individuals intended to subcontract the services; if so, (a) what inquiries were made and (b) did the inquiries include ascertaining the commission which the companies and/or individuals intended to make on the sub-contracting arrangements; if so, what commissions will be obtained by the companies or individuals.(2) If he will not provide the information sought in part (1), why not.2416Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes. The Employment Services Market Request for Tender provided for sub-contracting arrangements subject to approval by the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). Tenderers were required to provide the name and address of sub-contractors.Where sub-contracting arrangements were included in a tender response, tenderers were required to insert the details in the Employment Services Contract prior to it being executed by DEETYA. These details were subject to a check by DEETYA.Where a provider has proposed to sub-contract the whole or a substantial part of the services, subsequent to signing the Contract, they are required to seek approval from the Department.The process for approval involves Job Network members making a formal request including a Declaration. The Declaration, which is signed by an authorised party of the Job Network member, clearly outlines acknowledgment by the Job Network member of its contractual responsibilities in the sub-contracting relationship.Job Network members must explain how the work undertaken by the sub-contractor is consistent with the strategies in their tender bid. In particular they must provide information on the sub-contractor in relation to the:. premises, facilities and equipment to be used by the sub-contractor;. relevant experience and expertise of staff employed by the sub-contractor; and impact on sites at which the Job Network member had been contracted to deliver services. Checks are conducted through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or appropriate State Registrars of Associations to verify the bona fides of the proposed sub-contractor. In addition, Departmental records are checked to determine if the proposed sub-contractor has been a past provider to the Department.(1) (b) No. Commercial arrangements, in respect of sub-contracting, are negotiated between a Job Network member and a sub-contractor. The Commonwealth is not a party to these negotiations and does not collect information regarding any commercial arrangements of Job Network members to which the Commonwealth is not a contractual party.(2) See 1 above.2417(Question No. 177)1772417McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Did he issue a media release dated 26 July 1998 titled "Arrogant Democrats reject reform mandate" which claimed that the Democrats had already cost 50 000 Australians a job; if so, (a) does the claim imply that 50 000 Australians have (i) been dismissed from their employment or (ii) not obtained employment, as a result of action by the Democrats and (b) how was the figure of 50 000 obtained.2417Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) (i) No.(ii) Yes.(b) The estimate of 50 000 jobs comes from small business organisations, including the Chief Executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, Mr Rob Bastian. The basis for Mr Bastian's estimate has been provided previously in response to Parliamentary Question on Notice No. 10 from Senator Murray. That response stated:`The Chief Executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, Mr Rob Bastian, based his estimate that 50 000 jobs would be created if small businesses were exempt from federal unfair dismissal laws on the, in his view conservative, premise that 1 in 20 small businesses would hire at least one more employee if the exclusion was to come into force.' 2417(Question No. 183)1832417McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) On what matters did Australia sponsor resolutions at the meeting of the Commission on Human Rights in April 1998.(2) What was the text of resolutions which came to a vote.(3) Which members (a) voted for the resolutions, (b) voted against the resolutions and (c) abstained from voting on the resolutions.2417Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia sponsored two resolutions—on the human rights situation in Cambodia and on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Australia also co-sponsored over fifty other resolutions. (Australia is currently not a member of the Commission on Human Rights and is therefore unable to vote on resolutions. However, under the rules of procedure it is able to sponsor and co-sponsor resolutions.)(2) The resolutions which came to a vote were:Violations of Human Rights in Arab Territories including Palestine;Human Rights in Occupied Syrian Golan;Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Arab Territories;Realisation of all Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;Foreign Debt;Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures;Toxic Wastes;Human Rights and Extreme Poverty;Situation in Occupied Palestine;Mercenaries;Human Rights and Terrorism;Composition of the Staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;The Human Rights Situation in Nigeria;The Human Rights Situation in Iran;The Human Rights Situation in Southern Lebanon and West Bekaar;The Human Rights Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); The Human Rights Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;The Human Rights Situation in Sudan;The Human Rights Situation in Iraq;The Human Rights Situation in Cuba;Question of the Death Penalty;Abduction of Children in Northern Uganda;The full text of the above resolutions is available on the United Nations Human Rights Homepage (www.unhchr.ch).(3) Following is the result of those resolutions which came to a vote:Violations of Human Rights in Arab Territories including PalestineIn favour : Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suda, Tunisia, Uganda.Against : United States of AmericaAbstaining : Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay.Human Rights in Occupied Syrian GolanIn favour : Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Venezuela.Against : United States of AmericaAbstaining : Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Peru, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay.Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Arab TerritoriesAt the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote by show of hands was taken on the draft resolution, which was adopted by 51 votes to 1.Realisation of all Economic, Social and Cultural RightsThe draft resolution was adopted (52-1-0) after a vote called by the United States of America.Foreign DebtAt the request of the representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a vote by show of hands was taken on the draft resolution, which was adopted by 27 votes to 16, with 9 abstentions. (The voting pattern on this resolution was not published by the United Nations in its report of the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights).Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive MeasuresIn favour : Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.Abstaining : Austria, Guatemala, Ireland, Malaysia, Philippines, Republic of Korea.Toxic WastesIn favour : Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswan, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela. Against : Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.Abstaining : Austria, Guatemala, Ireland, Malaysia, Philippines, Republic of Korea.Human Rights and Extreme PovertyIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : United States of AmericaAbstaining : NoneSituation in Occupied PalestineIn favour : Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Venezuela.Against : United States of AmericaAbstaining : Argentina, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay.MercenariesIn favour : Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.Abstaining : Argentina, Belarus, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Ukraine.Human Rights and TerrorismIn favour : Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : NoneAbstaining : Argentina, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsIn favour : Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : Austria, Belarus, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.Abstaining : Republic of Korea. The Human Rights Situation in NigeriaIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : China, Congo, Cuba, Guinea, Indonesia, Mali, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sudan.Abstaining : Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Tunisia.The Human Rights Situation in IranIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela.Against : Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Congo, Cuba, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Sudan.Abstaining : Belarus, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay.The Human Rights Situation in Southern Lebanon and West BekaarIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : United States of America.Abstaining : NoneThe Human Rights Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro);In favour : Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : None.Abstaining : Belarus, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Madagascar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Sri Lanka.The Human Rights Situation in the Democratic Republic of the CongoIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Rwanda, Uganda.Abstaining : Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Guinea, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia.The Human Rights Situation in SudanIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela. Against : China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sudan.Abstaining : Bangladesh, Bhutan, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia.The Human Rights Situation in IraqIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : None.Abstaining : Bangladesh, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia.The Human Rights Situation in CubaIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of AmericaAgainst : Belarus, Bhutan, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda.Abstaining : Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela.Question of the Death PenaltyIn favour : Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Congo, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nepal, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against : Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan, United States of America.Abstaining : Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, guinea, India, Madagascar, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uganda.Abduction of Children in Northern UgandaIn favour : Austria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Chile, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Nepal, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Federation, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.Against : Sudan.Abstaining : Argentina, Belarus, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela.2422(Question No. 200)2002422Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:Will he bring up-to-date the answer to question No. 2788 (Hansard, 14 May 1998, page 3522) concerning ILO Convention No. 169—Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989.2422Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Since I responded to Question No. 2788 in May 1998, Tasmania has agreed to the proposal to suspend further work on assessing the ratification prospects of Convention No. 169, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989.This means that all States and Territories have now agreed to the suspension of that work until further notice. The Commonwealth is therefore not seeking comments from the States and Territories on its draft law and practice report on this Convention.2422(Question No. 202)2022422Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) How many serving ADF personnel (a) were killed on duty, (b) suffered severe injuries, leading to quadriplegia, paraplegia or similar conditions and (c) suffered other reported injuries in (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1996-97 and (iii) 1997-98.(2) What sums were payable, and how many ADF personnel or their dependants received assistance, under the Military Compensation Scheme in 1997-98 in terms of (a) weekly payments, (b) medical, hospital, pharmaceutical and other treatment costs, (c) household and attendant care services, (d) rehabilitation and return to work assistance, (e) death benefits, (f) lump sum payments for permanent impairment and (g) other benefits.(3) How many ADF personnel were discharged as medically unfit in 1997-98 because of compensable injury or illness.2422Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i) In 1995-96, twenty six serving members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) were killed while on duty. This includes one member who was killed while travelling to or from duty.(ii) In 1996-97, ten serving members of the ADF were killed while on duty. This includes one member who was killed while travelling to or from duty.(iii) In 1997-98, six serving members of the ADF were killed while on duty.(b) (i) In 1995-96, three serving ADF personnel sustained severe injuries within the meaning of that term for the purposes of the payment of additional compensation under the Defence Determination 1998/3.(ii) In 1996-97, one serving member of the ADF sustained severe injuries within the meaning of that term for the purposes of the payment of additional compensation under the Defence Determination 1998/3.(iii) In 1997-98, two serving ADF personnel sustained severe injuries within the meaning of that term for the purposes of the payment of additional compensation under the Defence Determination 1998/3.(c) (i) In 1995-96, the total number of reported injuries sustained/suffered by serving ADF personnel was 11,804.(ii) In 1996-97, the total number of reported injuries sustained/suffered by serving ADF personnel was 9,981.(iii) In 1997-98, the total number of reported injuries sustained/suffered by serving ADF personnel was 6,187.(2) (a) Weekly compensation payments totalling $37,390,212 were awarded under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (SRC) Act 1988 in the financial year 1997-98 to 4,264 former ADF personnel or their dependants.(b) A total of $9,990,379 was awarded for medical treatment and similar expenses under the SRC Act during the 1997-98 financial year in the cases of approximately 5,260* compensation claimants.(c) A total of $1,714,190 was paid for household and attendant care services during the 1997-98 financial year in relation to approximately 665* compensation claimants.(d) A total of $2,948,731 was spent under the rehabilitation provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 during the 1997-98 financial year in the cases of approximately 1,250* compensation claimants.(e) 17 death benefits totalling $2,621,573 were paid under the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to the dependants of deceased members of the ADF during the financial year 1997-98. (f) A total of $44,399,968 was paid under the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in the 1997-98 financial year to approximately 1,930* compensation claimants for permanent whole person impairment and the often related non-economic loss suffered as a result of compensable injury.NOTE 1—In addition to the information provided in response to questions (2) (e) and (f) above, a total of approximately $4.53 million was paid during the 1997-98 financial year in accordance with Defence Determination 1998/3 for the additional death benefits and severe injury adjustments which were announced by the former Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel on 11 June 1997. This related to deaths and severe injuries which occurred on and after 7 April 1994.NOTE 2—The payment of seventeen death benefits during the 1997-98 financial year (answer to part (2) (e) of the question) does not relate only to deaths which occurred during that year, or to deaths which occurred while the relevant members of the ADF were `on duty'.(g) Other benefits totalling $2,718,683 were paid to, or in relation to, approximately 4,310* compensation claimants.* Because of difficulties experienced in matching data of payments with particular compensation recipients, these figures can at best be approximations. Nonetheless, it is thought that they are reasonably accurate approximations of the total numbers of compensation recipients in each category.(3) During the 1997-98 financial year, a total of 549 ADF personnel were discharged on medical grounds.Because there is no cross-matching of data between the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service of the Department of Defence and ComSuper, it is not possible to say with any degree of accuracy how many of those who were medically discharged from the ADF lodged compensation claims either before or after their discharge. Nor is it possible to say whether the condition(s) leading to discharge are likely to have been the subject of compensation claims.2423(Question No. 207)2072423McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) Has a section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act since 1922 precluded State and federal elections being held on the same day.(2) On what occasions had State and federal elections previously been held on the same day. (3) On what date, in what circumstances and with what result was consideration last given to repealing the section.2423Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable Member's question:(1) Section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides that, on the day appointed as polling day for an election of the Senate or a general election of the House of Representatives, no election or referendum or vote of the electors of a State or part of a State shall, without the authority of the Governor-General, be held or taken under the law of the State.Section 394 was inserted in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in 1922, although a similar provision was first included in the Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act 1917.(2) The Honourable Member will find some information and opinion expressed about State referendums or polls being held on the same day as federal elections in the debate in the Senate on 16 March 1917. Information on what State elections, referendums or local government elections or polls might have been held on the same day as a federal election before 1922 is not readily available.(3) In 1984 a by-election in South Australia was approved by the Governor-General for the same polling day as the federal election. I am advised that the experience resulted in confusion for the voters and that the State electoral authorities and the Australian Electoral Commission expressed the view that the experience should not be repeated.The Constitutional Commission in 1988 recommended that section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 be repealed. No amending legislation was brought forward.2423(Question No. 219)2192423Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Did the Unesco Executive Board at its 155th session (19 October—6 November 1998) decide to invite member states to participate, during the first six months of 1999, in the second meeting of governmental experts on the draft convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage in order to report to the General Conference at its 30th session in October- November 1999.(2) Will Australia participate; if so, what are the (a) names, (b) positions and (c) qualifications of the persons who will represent Australia at the meeting.2423Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The meeting will be held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris from 19 to 24 April 1999.(2) Yes. It is envisaged that staff at the Australian Embassy in Paris, which is accredited to UNESCO, would represent Australia at the meeting. The choice of particular individuals who will undertake this duty will not be made until closer to the event.2424(Question No. 220)2202424Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Is he able to say whether the Victorian Government intends to change within 12 months the funding source of many nonprofit human services, or charities, from an operating grant to winning a competitive tender.(2) Will the source of funding effect the GST-free status of a charity.2424Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No(2) The source of funding for a charity will have no affect on the GST-free status of it's charitable activities as it is the nature of the activities that determine treatment under the GST.2424(Question No. 221)2212424Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:Is it a fact that the GST-free status of charities will apply only to their non-commercial activities; if so, what will be the GST status of cakes, sausages, fairy bread and similar goods sold for fundraising in direct competition with other charities.2424Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government has announced that the non-commercial supplies of goods and services by charities will be GST-free. Non-commercial supplies will be:. supplies less than 50 per cent of the market value of the good or service, or. supplies less than 50 per cent of the cost to the charity of providing the good or service, or. supplies of donated second hand goods.Where fundraising activities, such as cake stalls, fit the definition of non-commercial supplies, they will be GST-free. 2424(Question No. 222)2222424Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:Is it a fact that charities and other low turnover nonprofit organisations will pay GST and subsequently receive reimbursement; if so, how will they be able to maintain financial liquidity.2424Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Rather than remitting GST or receiving an input tax credit whenever goods and services are purchased or supplied, business, charities and other entities registered for GST will attribute GST and input credits to tax periods.Charities that generate accounts on an accruals basis will be able to claim input tax credits on the basis of an invoice received in a tax period, even if they have not paid the invoice in that tax period.Entities whose annual turnover is less than $20 million may choose to have quarterly or monthly tax periods. Entities who are entitled to a refund from the Australian Taxation Office will be paid interest on the refund amount if the refund is not paid within 14 days of the lodgment date.The Government's tax reforms will ultimately reduce the cost of running charities. The removal of 10 types of hidden indirect taxes will reduce costs to the Community Services sector by an estimated $280 million.2424(Question No. 223)2232424Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:Will the Government compensate charities similarly to commercial business to enable them to implement the GST.2424Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government has agreed that the charitable sector has a legitimate call on the pool of funds set aside to assist small and medium enterprises with the startup costs associated with the GST.2424(Question No. 243)2432424Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) Will the Government (a) support Mr Luciano Arias, an Australian citizen of Chilean background, in his quest to achieve justice for the killing of his brother, Luis Arias, by the Pinochet regime in Chile on 19 February 1975 and (b) ensure that the case is brought before any international court which seeks to judge Mr Pinochet for his alleged crimes.(2) Has his attention been drawn to the plight of the indigenous people of Chile, known as the Mapuche-Pehuenche, who are in danger of being eradicated because of the policies being pursued by the Chilean Government, including the attempt to destroy the natural environment in which these people live through the construction of a dam and hydro-electric power stations in the upper Bio-Bio River.(3) Will the Government make representations to the Government of Chile on protecting the cultural heritage and natural environment of the Mapuche-Pehuenche people.2425Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Government recognises that serious violations of human rights occurred during Senator Pinochet's Presidency and acknowledges that many Chilean Australians suffered under his regime. However, while there are some national courts which may have jurisdiction, no international court currently exists which is competent to try Senator Pinochet. The Australian Government has strongly supported moves by the international community to establish a permanent International Criminal Court with capacity to deal with the most serious crimes of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, the Statute of the Court has not yet entered into force and will not have retrospective jurisdiction.(2) and (3) The Australian Embassy in Santiago de Chile has advised the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the construction in Chile of the Ralco hydro-electric project and its impact on the traditional land of Chile's indigenous communities in the project area. The Chilean Government has developed a compensation plan which has been accepted by the majority of the affected families. The Australian Government recognises the sovereign right of the Chilean Government and people to make decisions concerning Chile's energy resources, as well as the best means of achieving reconciliation with its indigenous people. As such, the Australian Government believes it would be inappropriate to make representations to the Chilean Government in relation to this issue.2425(Question No. 258)2582425Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 December 1998: What sum did the Commonwealth allocate for sport on (a) capital works expenditure and (b) sports programs in (i) New South Wales, (ii) Victoria, (iii) South Australia, (iv) Queensland, (v) Western Australia and (vi) the Australian Capital Territory in each financial year since 1992-93.2425Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Capital WorksThrough the Community, Cultural, Recreation and Sporting Facilities Program (CCRSFP), for the development of community-level facilities, the government approved funding as follows:1992-93NSW: $7,484,176; VIC: $8,235,352; SA: $3,001,460; Qld: $4,654,404; WA: $3,937,713; ACT: $520,0001992-93 was the final year grants were allocated under this program, progress payments were made throughout the years leading up to June 1995 when the Program was ceased.(b)Sports ProgramsThe following funding information is broken down as follows:. 1992-93 to 1997-98 the amounts represent actual expenditure;. 1998-99 the amounts represent budgetary allocations.SASU(1)Other(2)Total1992-93NSW:$687,743-$687,743VIC:$631,953-$631,953SA:$288,367-$288,367Qld:$310,955-$310,955WA:$293,360-$293,360 ACT:$129,375-$129,3751993-94NSW:$835,000-$835,000VIC:$660,000-$660,000SA:$248,243-$248,243Qld:$518,888-$518,888WA:$330,000-$330,000ACT:$165,000-$165,0001994-95(3)NSW:$796,835$357,811$1,154,646VIC:$675,180$402,365$1,077,545SA:$262,064$185,011$447,075Qld:$444,485$233,704$678,189WA:$337,590$207,038$544,628ACT:$168,721$88,555$257,2761995-96NSW:$782,774$349,600$1,132,374VIC:$663,128$248,625$911,753SA:$252,758$114,400$367,158Qld:$461,608$160,190$621,798WA:$342,316$122,900$465,216ACT:$171,158$64,069$235,2271996-97NSW:$1,172,296$175,339$1,347,635VIC:$843,955$336,236$1,180,191SA:$510,362$164,817$675,179Qld:$833,603(4)$162,957$996,560WA:$683,291$191,757$875,048ACT:$231,718$45,403$277,1211997-98NSW:$1,172,030$223,730$1,395,760VIC:$553,556(5)$332,748$886,304SA:$500,687$224,594$725,281Qld:$299,416$175,442$474,858WA:$683,414$213,352$896,766ACT:$239,666$64,860$304,5261998-99 NSW:$1,142,813$215,167$1,357,980VIC:$918,239$214,813$1,133,052SA:$525,736$169,076$694,812Qld:$456,820$175,488$632,308WA:$656,631$178,194$834,825ACT:$237,866$60,730$298,596NOTES:(1) SASU (State Aussie Sport Units) funding includes funding for Participation and Indigenous Sport Programs.(2) 1994-95 to 1997-98—"Other" includes Athlete Career and Education Program (ACE), Olympic Athlete Program (OAP) Athlete Servicing, State Administration Support, Talent Identification, Australian Coaching Council Centres, OAP Medicine Co-ordinators. 1998-99—"Other" includes Admin support, OAP Athlete Servicing, OAP—ACE, ACC Coaching Centres.(3) OAP funding commenced in 1994/95.(4) In 1996/97 Queensland was funded for grants under the Indigenous Sports Program ($528,000). Prior to this grant funding was handled by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Since 1996/97 Queensland has not received this funding.(5) Due to restructuring in Victoria in 1997/98 less funding was paid as the State employed less staff in the transition year.2427(Question No. 268)2682427McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:What sums were provided to (a) government and (b) non-government schools in (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1996-97 and (iii) 1997-98 in the postcode areas of (A) 2205, (B) 2207, (C) 2216, (D) 2217, (E) 2218, (F) 2219, (G) 2220, (H) 2221, (I) 2222 and (J) 2223 and what was the (I) expenditure on, (II) location of, and (III) purpose of, each grant.2427Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Commonwealth schools programmes operate on annual calendar year funding arrangements. Details of grants provided to both government and non-government schools in the selected postcodes for years 1995-1997 are provided at Attachment A. At this time, payments for 1998 to individual schools are only known for non-systemic, non-government schools of which there are three in the total schools listed. Inclusion of the 1998 payment figures for these schools would misrepresent the funding situation and therefore have not been included.Commonwealth grants for government schools are paid as block grants to the State and Territory Governments. The Capital Grants programme is the only government schools programme under which the States and Territories are required to report expenditure on individual schools.Attachment ACommonwealth Grants to Schools in Selected Postcodes1995POSTCODE 2205$(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Francis Xavier's, ArncliffeGeneral Recurrent Grants415,668Students with Disabilities2,820TOTAL$418,488POSTCODE 2207(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsKogarah Marist High, BexleyGeneral Recurrent Grants2,297,378Students with Disabilities3,784TOTAL$2,301,162St Gabriel's, BexleyGeneral Recurrent Grants290,297Students with Disabilities1,410TOTAL$291,707POSTCODE 2216(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Joseph's, RockdaleGeneral Recurrent Grants434,359Students with Disabilities470TOTAL$434,829St Thomas More's, Brighton Le SandsGeneral Recurrent Grants371,414Students with Disabilities705TOTAL$372,119St Dominic Savio, RockdaleGeneral Recurrent Grants53,856POSTCODE 2217(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Patrick's Primary, KogarahGeneral Recurrent Grants491,161Students with Disabilities940TOTAL$492,101POSTCODE 2218(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsNilPOSTCODE 2219(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Finbar's, Sans SouciGeneral Recurrent Grants365,219Students with Disabilities1,645TOTAL$366,864POSTCODE 2220(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsDanebank School, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants746,543Students with Disabilities26,645TOTAL$773,188St Mary's Star of the Sea Primary, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants555,876Students with Disabilities1,645Capital Grants100,000TOTAL $657,521 Hurstville Seventh Day Adventist, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants100,244Students with Disabilities3,594TOTAL$103,838St George Christian, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants624,202Students with Disabilities469TOTAL$624,671Bethany College, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants1,959,107Students with Disabilities3,784TOTAL$1,962,891POSTCODE 2221(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsMater Dei School, BlakehurstGeneral Recurrent Grants519,461Students with Disabilities1,175TOTAL$520,636St Raphael's Primary, South HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants422,532Students with Disabilities940Capital Grants21,980TOTAL$445,452POSTCODE 2222(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsMarist Brothers' High, PenshurstGeneral Recurrent Grants844,419Students with Disabilities1,376TOTAL$845,795St Declan's, PenshurstGeneral Recurrent Grants593,096 Students with Disabilities705TOTAL$593,801POSTCODE 2223(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Joseph's Primary, OatleyGeneral Recurrent Grants388,732Students with Disabilities470TOTAL$389,202POSTCODE 2205(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Francis Xavier's, ArncliffeGeneral Recurrent Grants407,646Students with Disabilities3,096TOTAL$410,742POSTCODE 2207(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsKogarah Marist High, BexleyGeneral Recurrent Grants2,424,972Students with Disabilities9,000Capital Grants1,400,000TOTAL3,833,972St Gabriel's, BexleyGeneral Recurrent Grants383,355Students with Disabilities2,064TOTAL$385,419POSTCODE 2216(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Joseph's, RockdaleGeneral Recurrent Grants437,825Students with Disabilities2,580TOTAL$440,405St Thomas More's, Brighton Le SandsGeneral Recurrent Grants376,820Students with Disabilities2,064TOTAL$378,884St Dominic Savio, RockdaleGeneral Recurrent Grants43,900POSTCODE 2217(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Patrick's Primary, KogarahGeneral Recurrent Grants498,561Students with Disabilities2,322TOTAL$500,883POSTCODE 2218(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsNilPOSTCODE 2219(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Finbar's, Sans SouciGeneral Recurrent Grants359,592Students with Disabilities2,580TOTAL$362,172POSTCODE 2220(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schools Danebank School, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants796,762Students with Disabilities32,588TOTAL$829,350St Mary's Star of the Sea Primary, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants554,731Students with Disabilities2,322TOTAL$557,053Hurstville Seventh Day Adventist, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants108,960Students with Disabilities7,824TOTAL$116,784St George Christian, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants795,074Students with Disabilities2,962TOTAL$798,036Bethany College, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants2,001,140Students with Disabilities6,750TOTAL$2,007,890POSTCODE 2221(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsMater Dei School, BlakehurstGeneral Recurrent Grants463,602Students with Disabilities1,032TOTAL$464,634St Raphael's Primary, South HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants426,705Students with Disabilities1,806Capital Grants395,885TOTAL$824,396POSTCODE 2222(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsMarist Brothers' High, PenshurstGeneral Recurrent Grants927,549Students with Disabilities4,500TOTAL$932,049St Declan's, PenshurstGeneral Recurrent Grants622,526Students with Disabilities1,290TOTAL$623,816POSTCODE 2223(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Joseph's Primary, OatleyGeneral Recurrent Grants412,488Students with Disabilities1,548TOTAL$414,036POSTCODE 2205(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Francis Xavier's, ArncliffeGeneral Recurrent Grants401,165Students with Disabilities2,664TOTAL$403,829POSTCODE 2207(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsKogarah Marist High, BexleyGeneral Recurrent Grants2,527,298Students with Disabilities13,020Capital Grants151,424TOTAL$2,691,742 St Gabriel's, BexleyGeneral Recurrent Grants402,940Students with Disabilities3,552TOTAL$406,492POSTCODE 2216(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Joseph's, RockdaleGeneral Recurrent Grants509,349Students with Disabilities2,960TOTAL$512,309St Thomas More's, Brighton Le SandsGeneral Recurrent Grants439,303Students with Disabilities2,960Capital Grants725TOTAL$442,988St Dominic Savio, RockdaleGeneral Recurrent Grants59,551POSTCODE 2217(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Patrick's Primary, KogarahGeneral Recurrent Grants536,402Students with Disabilities2,368TOTAL$538,770POSTCODE 2218(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsNilPOSTCODE 2219(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schools St Finbar's, Sans SouciGeneral Recurrent Grants420,238Students with Disabilities2,664TOTAL$422,902POSTCODE 2220(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsDanebank School, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants885,435Students with Disabilities38,835TOTAL$924,270St Mary's Star of the Sea Primary, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants611,919Students with Disabilities3,256TOTAL$615,175Hurstville Seventh Day Adventist, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants138,246Students with Disabilities8,206TOTAL$146,452St George Christian, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants970,680Students with Disabilities2,729TOTAL$973,409Bethany College, HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants2,213,035Students with Disabilities8,029TOTAL$2,221,064POSTCODE 2221(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsMater Dei School, BlakehurstGeneral Recurrent Grants508,557Students with Disabilities888 TOTAL$509,445St Raphael's Primary, South HurstvilleGeneral Recurrent Grants420,165Students with Disabilities1,776TOTAL $421,941POSTCODE 2222(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsMarist Brothers' High, PenshurstGeneral Recurrent Grants1,059,591Students with Disabilities5,642TOTAL$1,065,233St Declan's, PenshurstGeneral Recurrent Grants674,046Students with Disabilities1,480TOTAL$675,526POSTCODE 2223(i) Government schoolsNil(ii) Non-government schoolsSt Joseph's Primary, OatleyGeneral Recurrent Grants386,718Students with Disabilities1,480TOTAL$388,1982437(Question No. 270)2702437McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:What sums were allocated in local government financial assistance grants in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 to the (i) City of Rockdale, (ii) City of Hurstville and (iii) Municipality of Kogarah. 2437Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The actual entitlement to local government financial assistance grants (including identified road funding) for the three councils as determined by the independent NSW Local Government Grants Commission for the three years 1995-96 to 1997-98 is as follows:City of Rockdale1995-96$2,003,0401996-97$1,959,1881997-98$1,898,284City of Hurstville1995-96$1,247,4681996-97$1,280,1001996-981997-98$1,267,096Municipality of Kogarah1995-96$905,3921996-97$929,4041997-98$922,7042438(Question No. 308)3082438Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) What is the Government's position on self-determination for indigenous peoples domestically and internationally.(2) Has the Government's position recently changed to an emphasis on self-management and self-empowerment; if so, (a) what is the rationale for the change, (b) where did the impetus for change originate, (c) which agency prepared the relevant Cabinet submission, (d) which other departments or agencies provided advice on the matter, (e) what consultative processes did the Government undertake with indigenous peoples, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and other relevant interest groups before the change, and (f) was ATSIC included in the process preceding the Cabinet decision; if not, why not.(3) Has the Government or his Department attempted, or will they attempt, to influence other governments, particularly CANZUS governments, to downgrade the language of self-determination in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.2438Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government's position on self-determination in the context of the UN negotiations on a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is that it is unable to accept the term "self-determination" as it is used in the Draft Declaration, because "self- determination" has no settled meaning and for many it implies establishment of separate nations or separate laws. The Government does not question the legitimate aspirations of indigenous peoples to enjoy meaningful participation in decision-making and political processes and greater autonomy over their own affairs, but there is a difference between this and the way "self-determination" could be interpreted in the Draft Declaration. Australia is, therefore, not seeking to have Article 3, which contains the reference to "self-determination", deleted. Rather it is seeking to have more appropriate language in the Draft Declaration. This position was conveyed by the Australian delegation to the meeting of the UN Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Geneva on 7 December 1998.(2) At the 7 December meeting of the UN Working Group, the Australian delegation conveyed the Government's view that it would be more productive for the Working Group to look at alternative language to "self-determination" in the Declaration which would more accurately express the principle of indigenous peoples having greater opportunities to exercise meaningful control over their affairs. The Government believes that this would be a more positive approach than the alternative proposed of introducing clarifications or qualifications to references to "self-determination" in the text of the document.The Government consults regularly States and Territories and interest groups, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, on issues relating to the Draft Declaration.(3) Over the years many countries in the Working Group have expressed their concerns about the ambiguity of the term "self-determination" in this document. At the December Geneva meeting, most delegations which spoke on this issue expressed concern that the term "self-determination" was ambiguous and ill-defined and required further discussion. The Australian delegation discussed its approach to the Draft Declaration, including the use of the term "self-determination" with other delegations involved in the Working Group, including the delegations of Canada, New Zealand and the USA. 2439(Question No. 313)3132439Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) To what stage have negotiations on a social security agreement between Australia and Croatia proceeded.(2) What further obstacles or problems remain to be overcome before the agreement can be concluded.(3) When is the agreement likely to be concluded.(4) What are the Government's intentions on concluding the agreement.2439Truss, 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) Australia and Croatia had an initial information exchange about their respective social security systems in May 1995. This was followed by a formal round of negotiations in Zagreb, during the first week of December 1998.(2) At this stage there do not appear to be any particular obstacles in the way of concluding an agreement.(3) Excellent progress was made during the negotiations and it is possible that the draft text of an agreement could be finalised, by correspondence, during the first half of 1999. The draft agreed by officials would then be considered by the Government. Were the Government to approve the draft, experience indicates that it can take some time (six months to a year) to put in place administrative and systems requirements so that the agreement can commence to operate.(4) The Government is happy to conclude an agreement with Croatia which would make appropriate social security arrangements for people who have lived in both countries.2439(Question No. 314)3142439Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) To what stage have negotiations on a social security agreement between Australia and Turkey proceeded.(2) What further obstacles or problems remain to be overcome before the agreement can be concluded.(3) When is the agreement likely to be concluded.(4) What are the Government's intentions on concluding the agreement.2439Truss, 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) The first round of negotiations on a social security agreement between Australia and Turkey was held in Ankara in May 1994 when Australia gave the Turkish delegation a draft agreement to consider.A second round of negotiations was planned to be held in Australia in October 1995. However, Turkey was unable to visit at that time and there was no progress in this matter until July 1998.On 13 July 1998, the Embassy of Turkey in Canberra wrote to the then Department of Social Security via the Department of Foreign Affairs expressing a wish to expedite the negotiation process for the social security agreement. Turkey also requested an updated draft agreement.A draft model social security agreement was sent to Turkey on 4 September 1998. Australia proposed that due to reforms in the social security systems of both countries a comprehensive information exchange should take place, in preparation for restarting negotiations.Officials in Turkey have not yet responded to Australia's proposal.(2) There are no particular obstacles or problems that Australia is aware of. As mentioned above Australia is awaiting a reply from Turkey to Australia's proposal for resuming negotiations.(3) It is not possible to indicate when an agreement might be concluded.Officials in Turkey have not yet responded to Australia's proposal that due to reforms in the social security systems of both countries a comprehensive information exchange should take place, in preparation for restarting negotiations.Past experience indicates that it can take between 2 to 3 years from the date negotiations commence to the date an agreement is signed and implemented.(4) The Government will wait for a response from Turkey about Australia's proposal for the resumption of talks. 2440(Question No. 315)3152440Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) To what stage have negotiations on a social security agreement between Australia and Greece proceeded.(2) What further obstacles or problems remain to be overcome before the agreement can be concluded.(3) When is the agreement likely to be concluded.(4) What are the Government's intentions on concluding the agreement.2440Truss, 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) In April 1998, the then Minister for Social Security wrote to the Greek Secretary of State for Labour and Social Security, Nikos Farmakis, indicating that the Australian Government is willing to enter into a `total' agreement ie. including those people who have already resettled in Greece and those who will do so in the future. To date, there has been no response from the Greek Government.(2) Negotiations for the conclusion of an agreement could recommence immediately if the Greek Government responds positively to the proposal.(3) Progress on the conclusion of an agreement depends on the Greek Government's response to the April 1998 letter.(4) If the response were to be positive, the Government's intention would be to recommence negotiations with a view to concluding an agreement as soon as is reasonably practicable.2440(Question No. 316)3162440Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) To what stage have negotiations on a social security agreement between Australia and Germany proceeded.(2) What further obstacles or problems remain to be overcome before the agreement can be concluded.(3) When is the agreement likely to be concluded. (4) What are the Government's intentions on concluding the agreement.2440Truss, 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) Australia and Germany have been negotiating a social security agreement since the mid-eighties, with the last formal talks taking place in May 1994.(2) Since that time negotiations have been effectively put on hold because of the German Government's position on an across the board income test concession for German pensions. This Government takes the view, and is reiterating this point to the new German Government, that such a concession is not appropriate in Australia's international social security agreements. No current agreement contains any such concession.The delay in concluding an agreement has also been caused by the previous German Government linking social security negotiations with the renegotiation of the existing Double Taxation Agreement. The Government is maintaining that negotiations on the two agreements should be independent of each other.(3) It is not possible to say when negotiations might recommence and hence when an agreement might be concluded.(4) The Minister is keen to recommence negotiations on an agreement with Germany and considers conclusion of an agreement a priority. Apart from the traditional provisions contained in such an agreement, it might also regulate contributory superannuation arrangements for seconded employees and their employers.2440(Question No. 318)3182440Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:(1) Following the sale of the ANL Liner Division to Compagnie Generale Maritime SA (CGM), what individual financing obligations transferred to CGM.(2) What liabilities were listed on the balance sheet of ANL Limited as at 30 June 1998 and what was their value.(3) Which of the liabilities referred to in part (2) remain with ANL Limited or the Commonwealth after the sale of the ANL Liner Division to CGM.2440Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The individual financing obligations transferred to CGM are as follows: Australian Endeavour;ANL Container Series 1;ANL Container Series 2;ANL Container Series 3;short-term container leases;property leases;motor vehicle leases; andsundry office equipment leases.(2) Due to the timing of the sale of ANL Limited, consolidated financial statements of the company for 30 June 1998 were not prepared.For the purposes of the sale, Special Purpose Proforma Financial Statements as at 30 April 1998 were prepared. The Australian National Audit Office reviewed these accounts. A listing of the liabilities in the consolidated accounts for ANL Limited as at 30 April 1998 are as follows:(A$Million)Current LiabilitiesCreditors and Accruals37.5Provision—Long Service Leave7.3Finance Lease Liabilities*6.9Provision—Uneconomic Lease2.3Provision—Annual Leave2.0Provision—Dry Docking1.4Provision—Australian Advance0.6Other0.3Total Current Liabilities58.3Non-current LiabilitiesFinance Lease Liabilities*29.0Provision—Uneconomic Lease10.2Provision—Dry Docking1.0Provision—Long Service Leave0.5Total Non-current Liabilities40.7Total Liabilities99.0* Finance lease liabilities are net of loans to lessors.(3) Liabilities retained pending the completion of sales of other businesses are:(A$Million)Provision—Uneconomic lease12.6Creditors and accruals5.5Provision—Long Service Leave2.9Provision—Dry Docking0.6Provision—Annual Leave0.5Uncompleted Voyages0.2Total22.32442(Question No. 322)3222442Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:(1) Which areas in New South Wales have been identified as high need in the 1998-99 round of Commonwealth-funded centre-based long day child care places.(2) What criteria are used to determine need and what (a) distinction is made between 0-2 year care and 3-5 year care in the process and (b) consideration is given to socio-economic factors in determining need.(3) How many places will be received by (a) Warringah and (b) Pittwater and what needs were identified in these areas.(4) How many places will be received by Campbelltown and what needs were identified in this local government area.2442Truss, 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) In the most recent assessment of high need areas (October 1998), the following areas in New South Wales were identified as requiring additional centre based child care places:. Auburn. Blue Mountains. Camden. Warringah/Pittwater. Blacktown/Baulkham Hills. Strathfield/Concord/Ashfield/Drummoyne. Kogarah/Rockdale/Hurstville. Fairfield. Griffith. Jindabyne. Ku-ring-gai. Liverpool. Ryde. Wagga Wagga. Wingecarribee. Wollongong(2) The primary criterion used to determine need is the geographical distribution of children whose parents participate in the labour force (including those parents seeking employment or study ing/training for employment). This is further refined with relation to:. labour force characteristics of their parents (eg. full time/part time work patterns, shiftwork, seasonal work);. their parents' preference for formal or informal care;. existing supply;. gaps in service provision (eg. baby care); and. preferred location of care.(a) The distinction between the need for 0-2 year care and 3-5 year care is made by each State/Territory Planning Advisory Committee when they consider gaps in supply. In NSW, this assessment is based on data gathered through surveys of child care services, local government councils, State government departments and other stakeholders, and through regional consultations.(b) In addition to the socio-economic factors listed above, the NSW Planning Advisory Committee also considers the location of new housing estates. As above, this information is gathered through the use of surveys, regional consultations and data from State and local governments.(3) There is a total of 60 places available in the combined(a) (b) region of Warringah and Pittwater. The planning process identified a sufficient supply of centre based long day care places for children aged 3-5 years, but a shortage of places for children aged 0-2 years.(4) The planning process identified a sufficient supply of centre based long day care in the Campbelltown local government area this time, therefore no places will be received by this area. Needs will be reviewed in April/May 1999.2442(Question No. 335)3352442Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) How often has the Commonwealth-State consultative machinery on ILO matters been invoked since March 1996.(2) When, where and over what period were Commonwealth-State meetings held on ILO matters and what ILO instruments and conventions have been considered.2442Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth-State consultative machinery has been invoked on an on-going basis since March 1996. The term "Commonwealth-State consultative machinery on ILO matters " encompasses all consultations that the Commonwealth has with the States and Territories concerning ILO matters. These consultations include the formal, collective decision-making processes of the Labour Ministers' Council underpinned by the Departments of Labour Standing Committee and the ILO Technical Officers' meetings (Commonwealth-State meetings of officials specifically undertaking work on ILO matters). Other consultations relating to ILO matters are carried out by direct contact with the individual State and Territory Governments. Since March 1996, ILO matters have been considered at ten formal Commonwealth-State meetings, details of which appear below.(2) Since March 1996 ILO matters have been considered at the following Commonwealth State meetings.Labour Ministers' Council: 30 May 1997 (Melbourne); 21 November 1997 (Melbourne); 1 May 1998 (Wellington) and 27 November 1998 (Melbourne).Departments of Labour Standing Committee: 30 April 1997 (Canberra); 7 November 1997 (Canberra); 3 April 1998 (Canberra) and 30 October 1998 (Sydney).Technical Officers' Meetings: 1-2 April 1996 (Canberra) and 22 September 1998 (Canberra).The following instruments and Conventions have been considered at different times at various of the above meetings:C.9 Placing of Seamen, 1920;C.53 Officers' Competency Certificates, 1936;C.97 Migration for Employment (Revised), 1949;C.103 Maternity Protection, 1952;R.95 Maternity Protection, 1952C.119 Guarding of Machinery, 1963;C.134 Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers), 1970;C.138 Minimum Age, 1973;C.139 Occupational Cancer, 1974;C.141 Rural Workers' Organisations, 1975;C.143 Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions), 1975;C.145 Continuity of Employment (Seafarers), 1976;C.146 Seafarers' Annual Leave with Pay, 1976;C.147 Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards), 1976; Protocol to Convention 147, Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards), 1976;C.148 Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration), 1977;C.151 Labour Relations (Public Service), 1978;C.152 Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work), 1979;C.154 Collective Bargaining, 1981;C.155 Occupational Safety and Health, 1981;C.162 Asbestos, 1986;C.164 Health Protection and Medical Care of Seafarers, 1987.C.167 Safety and Health in Construction, 1988;C.169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989;C.170 Chemicals, 1990;C.174 Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents, 1993;C.176 Safety and Health in Mines, 1995; Protocol extending the Labour Inspection Convention (No. 81) to the non-commercial services sector, 1995;C.177 Homework, 1996;C.178 Labour Inspection (Seafarers) Convention, 1996;C.179 Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers Convention, 1996;C.180 Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996;C.181 Private Employment Agencies, 1997; andILO Constitutional Amendment—Constitution of the International Labour Organisation instrument of Amendment 1997.