1999-02-113912REPS245501999-02-11Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills2455r7192455Bill presented by Mr Moore, and read a first time.245509:30:002455Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Honourable members will be aware the Prime Minister announced in September 1997 the key elements of the government's response to the Industry Commission's review of the textile, clothing and footwear industries. The package of measures announced by the Prime Minister for the TCF industries included a tariff pause at levels scheduled for 2000, until 31 December 2004, and adjustment initiatives designed to promote sustainable and internationally competitive TCF industries into the next century. I will later introduce a separate bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , to implement the government's decision to reduce duties on TCF items from 1 January 2005.The proposed Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 allows for the establishment of the TCF Strategic Investment Program as the key initiative for the TCF industries. The TCF Strategic Investment Program is a five-year, $700 million package aimed at encouraging additional investment in the TCF industries to add value to the products of early stage processing. The program aims to help in the development of sustainable, internationally competitive TCF industries in Australia during the transition to a freer global trade environment, by providing incentives which will promote investment, innovation and value adding in these industries. The program will also provide incentives to areas which are heavily dependent on TCF manufacturing industries, primarily regional areas.The benefits available under the TCF Strategic Investment Program will be paid as cash, annually and in arrears. All firms engaged in textile, clothing, footwear and leather manufacturing in Australia, as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, will be eligible to apply for assistance under the program.The TCF Strategic Investment Program will come into effect on 1 July 2000, following the termination of the TCF Import Credit Scheme on 30 June 2000. The benefits to be paid under the program for investment expenditure on new plant and building, research and development activities and value adding will be calculated as follows: (i) Up to 20 per cent of eligible investment expenditure on new plant and buildings; (ii) Up to 45 per cent of expenditure on eligible research and development related activities (including product development expenditure, other than advertising and media related expenditure); and(iii) Up to five per cent of TCF value added by the company in Australia in the year of their claim.In addition to the mainstream application of the program, and recognising that restructuring of the TCF industries may have some adverse impact on employment opportunities, the program will support two specific initiatives to assist areas which are heavily dependent on TCF manufacturing industries:(i) Subject to satisfying the criteria for reconfiguration and adjustment, affected firms may apply for assistance under the SIP for the purchase of `state of the art' second-hand plant and equipment;(ii) Subject to meeting the specified criteria, authorised agencies in regions affected by restructuring in the TCF industries may be eligible to apply for assistance under the Commonwealth's existing Regional Adjustment Program to create employment opportunities in the affected regions.These initiatives will primarily benefit regional areas which are heavily dependent on TCF manufacturing industries.The TCF Strategic Investment Program will minimise the risk of a successful World Trade Organisation challenge. In line with the WTO's rules, the overall level of assistance to individual companies from the grant program will be limited to five per cent of its total sales of eligible products in the preceding 12 months.To comply with Australia's obligations under the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand, sales to New Zealand would not receive payments under the scheme's value added provision and would not be included as sales for calculating the five per cent limit on overall subsidy payments.The proposed bill provides for, in part 1, introduction; in part 2, general provisions of the TCF(SIP) scheme; in part 3, supplementation of the Regional Assistance Program; in part 4, information gathering powers; in part 5, recovery of scheme debts; in part 6, offences; and, in part 7, miscellaneous provisions.The proposed bill provides for enabling powers for the minister to make a ministerial scheme pursuant to the new act, to be called the TCF(SIP) scheme, which will set out the necessary rules relating to the program. The Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources will administer the TCF Strategic Investment Program. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2456r7212456Bill presented by Mr Moore, and read a first time.245609:37:002456Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is the second of two bills which implement the government's Response to the Industry Commission's Report into the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Industries. This bill is titled the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999, which contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.The economic conditions under which Australia's TCF industries have operated in the past 20 years have undergone dramatic changes, particularly in relation to tariff protection. In the 1980s, the effective tariff rate for clothing and footwear was 250 per cent; by 1995, the rate for clothing had fallen to 40 per cent.The tariff rate in the year 2000 for clothing will be 25 per cent and 15 per cent for footwear. After a pause in duty reductions from 1 July 2000, the proposed legislation implements a further reduction of TCF tariffs on 1 January 2005.The pause will give Australia's TCF industries an opportunity to consolidate and strengthen by investing, restructuring and identifying global business opportunities through governmental incentives contained in the TCF strategic investment program bill. These stimuli will enhance sustainability and make the TCF industries internationally competitive in a low protection trade environment.This bill provides for tariff levels on clothing and finished textiles to reduce from 25 per cent to 17.5 per cent; for cotton sheeting, woven fabrics carpets and footwear from 15 to 10 per cent, and from 10 to 7.5 per cent for sleeping-bags, table linen and footwear parts with effect from 1 January 2005.The bill also terminates on 30 June 2000 the textiles, clothing and footwear import credit scheme under which import duty concessions are earned on the value of goods exported from Australia. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. Bills2457r7222457Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.245709:41:002457Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will implement the measures announced in the 1998-99 budget to allow a deduction to be claimed over 2½ years for spending incurred in acquiring, commissioning or developing software. The measures will not apply to software which is trading stock or is used to produce trading stock.The measures broadly provide for spending to be written off over 2½ years. In certain circumstances, they also allow an immediate deduction. An immediate deduction will be allowed for software spending of $300 or less and for undeducted spending where software development projects are abandoned. This will be helpful for small business.An immediate deduction will also be allowable in relation to spending on new software or on substantially rebuilding current software to ensure Y2K compliance for an existing computer system, provided the expenditure is incurred prior to 1 January 2000. Finally, spending incurred before 1 July 1999 on software development projects which had been started by 11 May 1998 will continue to be immediately deductible.The government has recognised the costs of complying with these measures. Taxpayers who develop or commission the development of software will therefore be able to choose between two methods of deducting expenditure. One method involves pooling spending incurred in an income year and writing that off over 2½ years from the year after it is incurred. Another method is to account for software development on a project-by-project basis and write the expenditure off over 2½ years from when the resulting software is used or installed ready for use.The legislation was released in draft form for public comment on 14 December 1998. Submissions received have been considered in finalising this bill and explanatory memorandum. The amendments generally apply to software spending incurred after 10 a.m. on 11 May 1998. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2457r7202457Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.245709:44:002457McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I am presenting this bill on behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services who is visiting the flood ravaged areas of south-east Queensland.The government's airports sales process and the post-sale regulatory regime is well on the way to establishing Australia as a world leader in airport ownership and management. None of the proposed amendments represents changes to government policy. Rather, they have been identified as necessary to facilitate more effective administration of the Airports Act 1996 and federal airport leases. The successful completion of both phases of the leasing of federal airports has uncovered a number of issues that require some readjustment of the act. This will ensure that world's best practice, a principle to which the government is fully committed, continues to be brought to the development and management of Australia's major airports.The Airports Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 will make several amendments to the Airports Act. Firstly, they will extend the time available to the new owners of the regional airports privatised in phase 2 of the sales process, to have access undertakings to airport services approved by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).Section 192 of the act provides for the automatic `declaration' of `airport services' under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, 12 months after airports are leased to private sector companies, unless the airport lessee has an access undertaking approved by the ACCC. Section 192 applies to the core regulated airports listed in section 7 of the Airports Act.The phase 1 lessees, that is, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports, did not have access undertakings approved by the ACCC within the designated period. As a result, services for these airports were effectively `declared' by way of ministerial determination on 23 July 1998.The approval of an access undertaking by the ACCC sets a framework for commercial negotiations between airport lessees and service users. An access undertaking sets clear parameters for the provision of services and resolution of disputes.The 12-month time period was originally imposed to assist speedy development of access arrangements, so that those seeking access to leased airport services would have a convenient and tailored process by which to do so.The government believes that it is entirely appropriate to give the remaining core regulated airport lessees a longer period of time in which to develop and finalise their access undertakings. Secondly, the amendments will enable regulations to be made that capture activities of a non-structural nature that intrude into protected airspace and impair the ability to pilot an aircraft.The Airports Act establishes a regime whereby people and organisations who want to undertake certain activities that affect protected airspace around airports require permission from the Department of Transport and Regional Services to do so. The mechanism by which the permission is given is set out in the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations. The regime is an important protection to ensure that developments around airports do not impinge on the safety, efficiency and regularity of current and future air transport operations.The bill proposes to expand the definition of `controlled activity' in section 182 to include activities of a non-structural nature which cause an intrusion into protected airspace through either the intensity of glare from sources of artificial or reflected light, air turbulence or reduced visibility from discharges into the atmosphere.An example of activities which can affect the safety, efficiency or regularity of aircraft operations include industrial plants discharging a heat plume, which may endanger or restrict aviation operations within the protected airspace due to the resulting air turbulence or reduced visibility. As a frequent air traveller I did not know that.Another is direct lighting (such as sport stadium lights or laser beams) or reflected lighting (such as that created by solar power farms) which can adversely affect aviation operations by causing glare or impeding the clear perception of aeronautical navigation lights on the ground. You can therefore imagine how important these clauses are.This clause also enables the Commonwealth to make regulations specifying standards associated with such activities. The minister's department will be developing these standards after consulting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and other interested parties. Until the Commonwealth makes regulations specifying these standards, the activities listed in the new paragraphs (d) to (h) will not be controlled under the part 12 regime.It is important to note that new controlled activities will not extend to ordinary domestic or household activities, which have virtually no impact on the safety, efficiency or regularity of air transport around airports. Neither will they extend to activities arising out of the operation of aircraft, which are regulated under other Commonwealth legislation. If required, the minister will be able to apply for an injunction under part 15 of the act to prevent any of the new controlled activities from proceeding.Thirdly the amendments will make a series of minor technical changes to the Airports Act to overcome some practical difficulties associated with day to day administration of airport leases. The definition of `airport lease' in section 5 of the Airports Act will be repealed and a new definition substituted. The new definition of `airport lease' overcomes some practical difficulties with variations to the boundaries of leased airports through acquisitions and disposal of land, by removing the requirement that the site which is the subject of the lease must include a runway.I should add that section 14(5) of the Airports Act requires that all airport leases must provide that the use of a site must be connected with its use as an airport. This means that even though the definition of airport lease will no longer require that an airport site must include a runway, it will not be possible to use an airport site for a purpose unconnected with airport operations. I am glad we added that.The new definition also removes the distinction between airport leases for joint-user airports and other airports. In practice, however, the only area leased subject to the act at joint-user airports will remain the civil part of the airport. The runways and defence part of the airport will remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Department of Defence.There are a number of interests in land which do not involve the exclusive use or possession of it, and it was never intended that the Commonwealth would maintain detailed control over those types of property transactions at leased airports. However, concerns have been expressed in some quarters that the existing provision could be interpreted to include all interests in land. In order to put the matter beyond doubt, the amendment excludes subleases, licences, restrictive covenants, easements and similar interests from the definition.Lastly, some minor technical amendments will clarify how various parts and divisions of the Airport Act apply within the boundaries of the airport site for that airport. Airport lessees are already requesting amendments to airport sites to enable minor land acquisitions and disposals at airport boundaries. While the current provisions of the act probably do not prevent partial surrender of airport lessees, the new section 163A will provide greater certainty by making it clear that airport lessees may seek to vary airport boundaries without surrendering the whole lease.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2459r7182459Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Mr Truss, and read a first time.245909:53:002459McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I am presenting this bill on behalf of the Minister for Community Services, who is visiting his electorate of Wide Bay in this time of their crisis.This bill follows up last year's youth allowance package. That package consisted of two substantial acts and several pieces of subordinate legislation, including three major ones relating to the fares allowance for students, the student financial supplement and the youth allowance family actual means test.Those three matters were addressed at the time in subordinate legislation only because of the time constraints imposed by the youth allowance package. As was always intended, those provisions are now to be moved into the Social Security Act itself, of this bill.The provisions are to be moved in this way without generally making any change in their effect. This, of course, was also the aim when moving the provisions last year from the former Austudy structure into the social security system, so that students did not suffer any disruption to their payments halfway through the academic year. However, certain drafting and other minor refinements are to be made now, including to ensure that the original Austudy provisions are correctly reflected.The other main purpose of the bill is to deal with several technical issues that were identified during the implementation of the youth allowance package. Again, these reflect the original Austudy policies and generally consolidate the operation of the package.The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to relevant tax and data-matching legislation. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills2460r7172460Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Mr Truss, and read a first time.246009:55:002460McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Again I am presenting this bill on behalf of the Minister for Community Services. This bill gives effect to a number of measures announced in the government's 1998-99 budget, and a number of non-budget measures that will assist in more effective and efficient social security administration.First, the bill provides for fairer treatment for more than 26,000 workers currently employed in Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP), as well as providing increased incentives for those workers. These measures will provide for a CDEP participant supplement of $20 per fortnight, (similar to the $20 Work for the Dole supplement), and will provide access for CDEP workers rent assistance, bereavement payments, telephone allowance and pharmaceutical allowance. Also, in the interests of equity, adjustments are made to the income level provisions which apply to CDEP participants who are pensioners, treating CDEP income in the hands of those pensioners as directly deductible on a dollar-for-dollar basis, up to the equivalent of the maximum basic rate of allowance. These provisions will commence on 20 September 1999, with the $20 supplement granted retrospectively to 20 March 1999.The government announced in its 1998 budget that it would provide a special employment advance of $500, to assist an estimated 30,000 customers with the `start-up' costs of taking up employment. This measure will also be available to assist an estimated 4,500 people in financial hardship as they move from social security payments into work, where those people have earned money but have not yet been paid. The bill provides for the measure to commence on 20 September 1999.In a further budget measure, some 11,000 victims of domestic violence will be among those to benefit from the government's initiative to introduce a new one-off crisis payment from 1 July 1999. This crisis payment will assist new and existing customers in financial hardship when they are forced to leave their home and establish a new one due to a limited number of circumstances, such as fleeing domestic violence or in the event of a house fire. The crisis payment will also replace the current prisoner release payment.In addition to the above, other budget measures included in the bill will:. expand the definition of `suitable work' to ensure that persons who seek, and are offered, work outside of their local area will be required to accept that work, or be subject to an activity test breach;. tighten arrangements for unemployed persons who move to an area of lower employment prospects;. amend the liquid assets test that applies to education leavers, to rationalise inconsistencies in the application of that test as between those education leavers who claim Newstart allowance, sickness allowance and youth allowance;. introduce a two-tiered payment structure for the Austudy pensioner education supplement, geared to the study load undertaken by the student. Under this measure, students who undertake a study load of between 25 per cent and 50 per cent will receive half the current rate (that is, $30 instead of $60). Disability support pensioners, and Department of Veterans' Affairs disability pensioners, will be exempt from this measure; and. promote consistency in the application of the newly arrived residents waiting period to migrants from all countries.Lastly, the bill contains various minor amendments rationalising the provisions in the act that relate to periods of overseas residence and travel.A further 1998 budget measure, dealing with the receipt of lump sums received in respect of non-economic loss, will be dealt with in another bill to be introduced later in these sittings. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills2461r7252461Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.246110:00:002461McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move: That the bill be now read a second time.As most, if not all members are fully aware, the year 2000 computer problem is a large and complex issue for many businesses and government agencies because of its capacity to disrupt services and cause financial loss and possible injury. If not addressed in a comprehensive and timely fashion, it has the potential to cause significant disruption across the entire economy. Inadequate remediation could cause services to fail. Insufficient information concerning the extent of any risk could cause the community to undertake unnecessary and costly contingency measures (such as the hoarding of cash and foodstuffs) with detrimental economic and social effects.This bill addresses this concern by providing a framework to encourage the voluntary disclosure and exchange of information about year 2000 computer problems, remediation efforts and compliance.At present, statements made in good faith for the purpose of sharing information on year 2000 readiness issues can, under certain circumstances, expose a person to legal liability. Legal risk could relate to:. negligent misstatement—where statements that are relied upon cause loss or injury;. defamation—where statements have the effect of injuring a business or personal reputation; or. breach of contract—where consumers choose either to purchase a product, or elect to terminate a contract with a supplier, as a result of a year 2000 statement.The most likely circumstances in which liability for a year 2000 statement may arise are under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (dealing with conduct that is misleading and deceptive) and section 53 of that act (relating to false representation of the standard of goods).The threat of legal liability is often cited by organisations (including governments) as a significant reason for their reluctance to reveal information about their year 2000 preparedness to other bodies, or assist other organisations to achieve early compliance.The year 2000 computer date issue is much more than an information technology problem. It is a whole of business management problem. Preparing for the year 2000 problem requires organisations to address not only their internal systems, but also the year 2000 preparedness of their suppliers, service providers and customers upon whom they rely.The lack of accurate and relevant information is hindering the ability of organisations to check thoroughly these supply chains. It is also impacting on, and adding significantly to the costs of, developing appropriate contingency plans.Large organisations need to be encouraged to provide remediation advice to small businesses, thereby helping to minimise the risk of small business failure. Availability of reliable information to the public will lessen the potential for unnecessary concern and uninformed reaction which itself could have adverse social and economic consequences.Australia is acknowledged internationally as a world leader in addressing the year 2000 problem. The government has been active since 1997 remediating its own systems with the aim of maintaining service continuity, and promoting awareness of the year 2000 problem to business and the wider community. In the 1998-1999 budget, as an incentive to business to address the problem, the government announced that most year 2000 related software expenditures would be immediately deductible for taxation purposes.However, a considerable cooperative effort is still required if Australia is to be fully prepared for the potential impacts of the date change. If incentives are not provided to encourage disclosure and information sharing on year 2000 processing, it is unlikely that there will be any major increase in current levels of activity.This bill demonstrates the government's leadership and ongoing commitment to respond to the challenges presented by the year 2000 problem by providing an environment in which organisations are encouraged to act responsibly.The bill will provide greater certainty to those organisations that wish to make statements to clients and the public concerning their levels of year 2000 preparedness. It will encourage organisations to be more open about their level of year 2000 readiness. This will assist organisations to check their supply chains and target their contingency planning more effectively at areas of real risk. It will also assist large companies to assist the remediation efforts of smaller firms—the so-called `good Samaritan' effect.The bill will not impose direct costs on business or impose administrative burdens. The strictly voluntary nature of any year 2000 disclosure statement will allow business to control any costs associated with the making of such a statement.In addition, the removal of some risks for governments and business in providing publicly available information on year 2000 preparedness will assist in addressing community concerns about the possible risks or otherwise of service failures.The bill has many parallels with the Year 2000 Information Readiness Disclosure Act introduced in the United States Congress in October 1998.The bill will, under certain circumstances, protect a person from civil liability arising out of the making of a year 2000 disclosure statement. The scope of the protection will be narrow and will apply for a limited period.Protection from civil liability for a year 2000 statement will be limited to clearly identified and authorised written disclosure statements that relate to year 2000 processing. Apart from dealing with year 2000 processing problems, these statements will be able to deal with planned activities to mitigate the consequences of potential problems relating to year 2000 processing. Protection will also extend to a person republishing an original year 2000 disclosure statement.Importantly to note, the bill will not provide protection from civil action in relation to:. year 2000 disclosure statements which were made recklessly, or known to be materially false or misleading;. actions instituted by consumers in relation to goods or services which they had purchased following inducements provided by a year 2000 disclosure statement, such as where a product or service fails as a result of a year 2000 service failure;. year 2000 disclosure statements made in the context of entering into a contract;. year 2000 disclosure statements made in the context of obligations imposed by a contract or a Commonwealth, state or territory law; or. proceedings, or the exercise of regulatory or enforcement power, by a regulator or enforcement body.A year 2000 disclosure statement will not be taken to amend a contract unless the parties agree otherwise. Provisions of the bill will not alter any intellectual property rights. The bill ensures that arrangements for the disclosure and exchange of year 2000 information between competitors in an industry are exempt from section 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 45 prohibits certain arrangements which have the effect of substantially lessening competition.The range of exceptions in the bill maintains the capacity of regulators to carry out their statutory roles to act in the public interest, and ensures that the rights of consumers, as set out in the Trade Practices Act 1974, will be unaffected. By maintaining the rights of consumers, and the rights of individuals to take action in the event of year 2000 product or service failure, the bill will not weaken incentives for government and business to continue remediation work.The government intends to monitor the operation of the bill following its enactment to ensure that its aims are not being frustrated. Should any abuses come to light, the government will act swiftly to move appropriate amendments.The bill will have implications for state and territory law, including in the areas of tort and defamation law. However, the government considers that the unique circumstances of the year 2000 problem warrant such action, which should not be treated as a precedent. The provisions of the bill are time limited, with all effects ceasing on 1 July 2001.The states and territories will be free to enact their own year 2000 information disclosure legislation. Any such legislation will be able to operate to the extent to which it is consistent with the bill.Where a self-governing territory, such as the ACT, Northern Territory or Norfolk Island, enacts its own year 2000 information disclosure legislation, regulations will be able to be made to limit the application of the bill to that territory.ConclusionThis bill, by significantly reducing barriers to disclosure and information sharing by industry and governments, will help accelerate the rate of year 2000 remediation progress.The bill provides the opportunity for Australia to enhance its position as a world leader in tackling the year 2000 computer date problem. Any increase in the level of Australia's year 2000 readiness will obviously have positive effects on Australia's international competitiveness. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills2463r6112463Debate resumed from 12 November 1998, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.10:11:002463Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The shadow minister has unavoidable commitments right at this moment and would not otherwise be out of the House, but he will be participating later in the debate and formally expressing the opposition's position in relation to this legislation.This legislation was, of course, introduced in the former parliament and, as a result of the dissolution of the parliament and the election, requires reintroduction. Over the period since the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 was first introduced, the very powerful criticisms that were addressed towards the bill by the shadow minister and others have had some regard taken by this government. There have been some marginal improvements incorporated in the proposed legislation, but the thrust of the legislation remains as fundamentally flawed as it was when it was last before the House.The context of this debate really needs to go back to the fact that it is only in relatively recent times that national governments have accepted that they have a responsibility, which is an overriding one, for the protection of Aboriginal cultural and other heritage. It was reflected by the original passage, which was an interim measure, of legislation during the Labor government's time in office—which was, for its time, best practice legislation but which I think all people of goodwill regarded as not adequate to take us forward into the 21st century.As a result of that, Elizabeth Evatt was commissioned to review the legislation and to propose how that legislation could be strengthened in order to secure better protection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. The landmark report that was brought down by Justice Evatt made some very strong criticisms of the existing legislation and urged that the national government thoroughly review that legislation and bring forth new legislation.The bill that came forward was miles apart from the recommendations of the Evatt report. The proposed amendments, which have now been incorporated since that legislation was first brought before the House, do nothing to address the fundamental criticism that we then directed at the legislation, which was that, instead of the Commonwealth having the overarching national responsibility to secure protection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, the regime that is proposed essentially provides for the accreditation of state legislation and, where such legislation is accredited, the Commonwealth abrogates any residual responsibility except in areas which are defined to be those of national interest.The national interest provision has been criticised not only by members from the Labor Party and the Democrats but also by the coalition parties themselves. It is important in this context to realise that after the Evatt report was made available there was a report from the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, which was chaired by Mr Entsch. That report looked at the proposals and made some very strong criticisms of them. Whilst the bill has been amended to include some of the recommendations for amendment in the majority report of the joint committee, it has not incorporated the bulk of those recommendations and certainly does not reflect what we would see as being appropriate for the national parliament to discharge its responsibilities.Going back to the principles that underpinned the Evatt report, that review com mented that, despite there being a plethora of Commonwealth legislation and administrative programs, there was no comprehensive or integrated Aboriginal cultural heritage protection regime and concluded that:. . . [t]he Commonwealth has international, moral and legislative obligations to ensure that Aboriginal heritage in its broader sense is nurtured and protected in a comprehensive and consistent way.That means that the Commonwealth really has to maintain itself as having operational responsibility to ensure that the basic principles of the scheme are maintained and that the Commonwealth has a broader role than being merely seen as a legislative mechanism of appeal not responding to principles that go to the protection of indigenous heritage but, rather, to some conceptions of national interest.There are significant divergences between the bill and the Evatt review's recommendations. The three primary areas where the bill has differed from the review's recommendations are in its treatment of this idea of national interest, its original failure to include any provisions to ensure the adequate involvement of indigenous people in decision making and in the treatment of the plans for state and territory accreditation.The important point, where issues of fundamental principle still remain, is in relation to this question of national interest. The second reading speech explained that the government was including a provision that state regimes would exclude any Commonwealth interests except in this narrow national interest provision because it would provide an incentive for states and territories to achieve accreditation because, if they were to do so, the Commonwealth would absent itself from involvement in state or territory decision making.That approach has been criticised very strongly by those who have most stake in this legislation. ATSIC commented that the provision fundamentally changes the nature of Commonwealth involvement in indigenous heritage protection and the relationship between Commonwealth, state and territory regimes. Judge Evatt herself commented that this is incompatible with the Commonwealth maintaining the Commonwealth procedure as a last resort mechanism and went on to say:The protection of Aboriginal heritage is an important national interest in itself , and . . . the protection procedure under the act should be available as a mechanism of last resort in all cases.The joint committee which looked at this legislation agreed that the provisions needed change. The majority—that is, the government members who looked at this matter—suggested that the bill be amended to ensure that the definition of national interest itself includes the protection of indigenous heritage. Whilst that perhaps would not go as far as the Evatt response would wish, at least it would have been a very significant advance. The minority report—that is, the Labor Party and the Democrats—fundamentally rejects the provision in relation to national interest because it would mean that the bill would not ensure that the Commonwealth is available as a mechanism of last resort and so the Commonwealth would not be able to fulfil its legal, constitutional and international responsibilities.The head of ATSIC commented in relation to the interaction between the 10-point plan and the Native Title Bill and this legislation by saying:[The] Bill significantly erodes this sole remaining option under the Howard Government's own agenda by withdrawing Commonwealth involvement in indigenous heritage, except in cases involving the "national interest."The most recently presented second reading speech acknowledged the criticisms made of the government approach but then reiterated that the government's bill should not provide a mechanism of last report because:. . . [t]his is contrary to the Government's policy of providing a clear delineation of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and accredited States.It also clearly delineates the difference between the opposition and the government in relation to this matter, because the opposition asserts that it is fundamental to the national government's responsibility that, where an issue of significance in relation to the protection of indigenous heritage arises, the Commonwealth cannot abrogate that responsibility by simply referring to a state based regime. There are provisions for accreditation of state based regimes, but they do not meet the recommendations of the Evatt report. For example, there are no requirements that go to indigenous control over assessments, access rights, review rights, provision for emergency and interim protection, provision for early consideration of heritage issues in the planning processes or guarantees of resources to secure effective access to state and territory remedies. There has been a concession on one of those criteria that there should be some consultation with indigenous persons and that the processes for advance approval should provide for the involvement of indigenous persons. But the language used in the standards for accreditation retain the imprecision that we have previously criticised.The legislation, therefore, is in a sense—as was used in the language in the first draft—`a provision for minimum protection'. It is the least a Commonwealth government can do in relation to these important matters. It is certainly not best practice, and it certainly does not place the Commonwealth in a position where it can appropriately address the concern of indigenous people that cultural and heritage issues will not be pushed out of sight by a Commonwealth government that is prepared to pass the primary responsibility for management of all of these issues down to state based regimes.It also is flawed in that it does contain several procedural matters which ought to have been rectified. The bill, for example, requires applications for protection orders to be made orally, conflicting with the Evatt review's recommendations that applications should be able to be made easily and that a valid application would be one that is made orally or in writing on behalf of Aboriginal people or a group of Aboriginals seeking the preservation or protection of a specified area from injury or desecration. It also does not provide that written reasons must be provided for decisions made under the act.So what we have, essentially, is legislation which purports to address the need for fundamental review of the previous legislation—which was introduced at a time when it might have been regarded as best practice but which now plainly is not—but which does so in a grudging, meagre and less than adequate way; and a less than adequate way discerned not only by the opposition in this place but by the joint committee which examined the bill—that is, a committee whose membership had a majority of coalition members. The government's own backbench says that this legislation is inadequate. ATSIC says this legislation is inadequate. The reviewer, Justice Evatt, who has enormous experience and competence in this field, says the legislation is inadequate. That places the opposition in a position where it has to address this bill before us.It would have been preferable had the government adopted at least those recommendations of the joint committee which were sponsored by its own members so that this legislation could have been passed by this parliament with the support of the opposition parties. But it asks too much of the opposition to support legislation which is Clayton's legislation, a charade of concern for indigenous cultural matters rather than the actuality. We do not need the feelgood of putting forward legislation which does not have the opportunity in operation of securing the objectives which nationally we would advocate. We do not need that.We believe that the national interest would be better protected by the opposition maintaining its firm commitment to a principled position that this legislation should be rejected so that we can actually have a decent piece of legislation which does the job, which is not a half-measure, which is not half-hearted and which does not fall in with a succession of government decisions on indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander matters where essentially this government has been out of touch with any vision, without any sense of true commitment towards a process of reconciliation, without a real concern for land rights, without a willingness to see that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have to be given a place of respect and recognition in a framework of laws that will actually work and not just be fig leaves to cover up the government's unwillingness to address these issues more comprehensively. We need not be complicit in that, and we will not be complicit in that.I conclude these brief remarks by saying that the Australian Labor Party's national platform commits us to strengthening heritage protection legislation to deliver improved economic, social and cultural outcomes for all Australians. We note that heritage protection and associated legislation has not in the past presented significant barriers to economic development in Australia. We argue that non-adversarial processes to accommodate and protect indigenous heritage and cultural and intellectual property will ensure greater certainty for development, and we maintain that this legislation does not meet those benchmarks.So too, ironically, does the government's own backbench. Of course it did require some courage for Mr Entsch, who chaired that committee, to dissent so strongly, and for the other members of the backbench to dissent so strongly, from the government's proposed course in this legislation. In a parliament where that kind of courage is not a readily available commodity, I place on record my respect for those members who took this issue straightforwardly and addressed it in a straightforward way and dissented from the approach that their government was proceeding to adopt. Some of their recommendations—regrettably not all—have been incorporated by the government, but those that have been adopted were adopted to appease the dissenters on the backbench rather than to address the fundamental criticisms that they made in respect of this legislation.So the opposition will maintain its opposition to this bill. It will be addressing with strength its concerns in the Senate and we would hope that the government, which still has before it a long period before this current parliamentary term concludes, has the goodwill and the willingness to review its own actions to at least meet those standards which were recommended by its own backbench in the joint committee.10:31:002466Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Having served on the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in the parliament on this Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 and to put forward the views that I dare say come from the government side. The honourable member for Denison bemoans the fact that we could not have bipartisan support on this particular issue. Unfortunately, the committee proceedings did become very political from time to time and it was fairly obvious that there was never going to be bipartisan support on all of the issues. It is a pity in many ways because this is a very important and sensitive issue.It arises, I believe, from the Hindmarsh Island debacle. It was instigated by the previous government because they realised that the 1984 bill was not working and there were serious deficiencies within that bill. So there needed to be some reassessment of the issue. If you talk to people within our society about their regard for Aboriginal heritage and particularly Aboriginal sacred sites, I do not think you will have any argument—from anyone that I know, anyway—that these sites, once identified, should be protected. The real issue arises in our society when the importance of the site suddenly arises. That was the problem exhibited in the Hindmarsh Island situation. And it has been exhibited in some other areas across Australia.So the committee, in a very serious way, tried to address these issues—not only how to protect significant Aboriginal sites and artefacts but also how to identify them so that in our planning processes we could make consideration for them. As the bill rightly says and identifies, we have to accept that under our constitution it is the states that are the land managers and it is their planning processes that in most instances are going to dictate what happens in these areas. There is no argument about that. That is obvious. Anyone who understands and knows what goes on knows that that is the way it happens. So it is important that the states get in place processes that will protect these particular sites.I put questions on several occasions to Aboriginal people who came before the committee whether they could identify and put on a register sites important to them so that we in our planning processes did not transgress on what they believed to be important sites. There are some Aboriginal communities who are addressing this. We had evidence in Cairns of a group up there who were putting on maps sites that they believed to be sensitive and important to them so that at least in the planning processes those concerns could be taken into consideration. In other instances, though, it was put to us that it was secret men's business or secret women's business and therefore they could not identify for us where these sites might be. That is something that the Aboriginal community has to come to terms with. We have to find a process—whether it be protected in some way—whereby sites of importance can be identified so that we do not inadvertently despoil those particular sites. That is of absolute importance.The bill put forward by the government addresses most of the problems. The minister in the past did get too involved. Under the 1984 act it was the minister who made decisions and got involved in decisions, and that obviously did not work. In fact, you could go so far as to say that it became political. I do not think that was of any benefit to the process at all. This action tries to take one step away from that so that there is a director of indigenous heritage protection that will assess all these issues and advise the minister. The minister will still make the final decisions, but the assessment will be done one step away from the minister. I believe that is a very healthy position.The opposition has made much of the fact that the federal government is not going to be the source of last appeal. Coming from a state area, far too often I have seen in parallel areas of state responsibility and Commonwealth responsibility players that are expert in playing one off against the other. At the end of the day you get nothing. At the end of the day you do not get any result. It is a goldmine for lawyers—I will not go into my opinion of lawyers in this chamber—but at the end of the day we do not get the result we are looking for. You have to try to remove some of that duplication between the two spheres of government—state and federal—so that we get a workable process.The states will have to be accredited. Some of them do have some processes in place at the present time that are fairly reasonable. It is not saying that they cannot go further; the states can go further if they want to put a process in place that is more than that expected by the federal government. They will have to be accredited in their processes and, of course, it goes so far that the accreditation can be revoked by the parliament. It has to sit on the table of the House and therefore all members of this parliament can peruse it and, if necessary, can move that the accreditation not take place. So I do believe that is a very open process and that in many ways it will overcome some of the problems.The opposition has also been saying that there will be no decisions taken by the Aboriginal people themselves. But, if you read closely the second reading speech of the government, you will see it makes it very clear that in all cases the advice, the understanding and the knowledge of Aboriginal people will be taken into consideration when these areas are assessed. It is an important part that they will not be removed in any way from the process; it will be the local knowledge of the Aboriginal people that will be taken into consideration.One of the processes that is also very important is to make sure that we talk to all of the groups because quite often—and this was found in the Hindmarsh Island affair—one group differs from another group. We have to make sure that the particular religious and significant area that is being addressed is in fact just that and is considered to be so by the entire group of people that find it to be a significant area. That is something that needs to be addressed up-front. It is too late to address it when you have an investor who has invested millions of dollars in a process and all of a sudden we get into the courts over whether this is in fact an area that is significant to Aboriginal people.There is one point that the community cannot accept. When these issues arise after the event, after development has started, there is a certain amount of cynicism in the com munity at that stage. The community is very sympathetic to the fact that a site should be protected, but when it is not identified up-front—when a mine or a development starts and all of a sudden it becomes a sacred site—there is a certain amount of cynicism in the community about that. We have to overcome that; I do not think that does any of us any good. So it is important that we address those particular issues.There will be a standard set by the federal government of what is expected of the states. Accreditation can be refused. I think this legislation goes a long way to addressing some of the issues that have arisen over the last few years that have been fairly vexing to the community. I do not think the community likes to see these types of disputes going on. It would prefer that the issues be resolved early, amicably and up-front.I believe that it would also be very helpful if we could give some monetary support to developing the types of registers that are necessary from these Aboriginal groups so in the processes the information could be available. The evidence given to the committee indicated that that can be an expensive process, and I have no doubt that it can. We could look fairly carefully at trying to help in those processes so that there could be an extensive and complete information base. If necessary, in some instances, that could be protected so that it would not be public knowledge, if that were the wish of the particular people. It would be available to the director of indigenous heritage protection, so at least that knowledge would be there and could be forwarded to the minister before the decisions were made.I do not want to go on at length on this issue. I think that this is a very sensible reaction to problems that had arisen over the protection of Aboriginal heritage. It is a genuine attempt to try and address those particular problems. It may not go as far as some people want it to go, but I think it has a very good chance of working. Therefore, I believe the government should be congratulated for addressing this issue and I support the bill.10:42:002469Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I do not know how the member who just spoke, who was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, could approve of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 , which rejects most of the recommendations that he signed off on—but I suppose that is par for the course—unlike the chairman of the committee, who at least had the guts to actually point out that there were real problems with this particular bill.Let me say two things initially about this legislation, and I think anyone who understands and is concerned about the plight of the Aboriginal people in this country would see this bill in the same way. It breaks my heart to see a bill like this come before the parliament when we could do so much about the protection of the heritage of the Aboriginal people. In fact, what we need besides a bill for the protection of heritage is a bill for the enhancement of the culture and heritage of the Aboriginal people, because the starting point should be the fact that we have destroyed a huge amount of the heritage and culture of the Aboriginal people over the last 200 years.We have destroyed a great deal of it, and we are now saying, `Let's try and do something about the protection of what remains.' What happens then? Instead of having a bill which actually does that, we have a bill which is mean, which in fact is the minimum that one could try to do, which does not even meet the requirements set by the parliamentary committee which had a majority of government members on it. That is what this bill is about. It is a disgrace to the parliament. As the honourable member for Denison said before, the opposition will oppose this bill here and it will move significant amendments in the Senate to try to get a bill which is in accordance with at least the minimal determinations of the majority of the parliamentary committee. I will come back to this.Let us begin with this point: Australia is a signatory to a number of United Nations conventions. Some of those conventions clearly state that we have an obligation to protect the culture and the heritage of the indigenous people of this country. What has happened to our international obligations? There is a statement from UNESCO that says that each culture has a dignity and a value that must be respected and preserved, and that every people has a right and a duty to develop its culture. In their variety and diversity, and in the reciprocal influences they exert on one another, all cultures form part of the common heritage belonging to all mankind. We have signed these statements. We have agreed with these provisions. Yet what happens? When we get an opportunity to do something real and substantial to redress some of the things that have happened to Aboriginal culture and heritage, we get this mickey mouse bill.Are we surprised that we have got this mickey mouse bill? Of course we are not. Have a look at who is responsible for this: the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—that buffoon, that person of no sensitivity. He came to this portfolio of Aboriginal affairs and said, `The Labor Party has not done much in Aboriginal affairs; we are going to get in there and improve health, we are going to improve education and we are going to improve a whole range of things like infrastructure for the Aboriginal people.' The reason he used for not doing anything about land rights and for not doing anything about heritage protection was that they were going to move resources to these other areas.Nearly three years on, what have we got? Have we had a dramatic improvement in Aboriginal health? Have we had a dramatic improvement in education? Have we had a dramatic improvement in infrastructure? No, we have not had any improvements. The minister put forward a program to justify his attacks on aspects of Aboriginal organisations like ATSIC, saying that he was going to improve all of these other areas. He has made no improvements. We have had continuing attacks on ATSIC, we have had a reduction in the consideration of land rights and sacred sites, and now we have this mickey mouse bill here. It is totally consistent.Why does this man retain his job? Does he retain his job because it is universally con sidered either by the Aboriginal community or by the Australian community as a whole that he is doing a great job? No—he retains his job because he happens to be a personal friend of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, having managed to sneak into office by a bare majority—not actually a majority of the votes but a bare majority of the seats—instead of learning some lesson from this has decided to keep the same person in Aboriginal affairs. Then he brings this insulting legislation to the parliament.The reality is that Australian Aboriginal culture is one of the most important cultures. Why? Because, if you really look at what it was all about, it is a very rich culture philosophically. It is a culture that deals with the whole system of understanding of the world and the universe. It is a culture that is full of symbolism. It is a culture that is full of meaning. What has happened to that culture? As I said at the beginning, we have destroyed a lot of it. Now we have the ability to do something in this bill and we come out with these mickey mouse provisions. It is totally unacceptable. It is a disgrace from the point of view of what has already happened under this government in the area of Aboriginal affairs.You also need to ask some questions about processes. We had the report of Justice Elizabeth Evatt, who recommended a whole series of measures—tough actions—to actually do something about the protection of Aboriginal heritage. What happened? The report was put aside. They established a parliamentary committee to look into the act. They ignored the recommendations of the parliamentary committee in its report. Then they brought in the draft bill last year and had the committee look at the draft bill. What happened? Even the majority recommendations, including those of the government's own members, were ignored with regard to the provisions of the draft bill. I say this to the Prime Minister: if you think this bill has any chance of getting through the Senate, given the views of the other parties on Aboriginal protection, you are dreaming. This bill will be substantially amended or it will be thrown out. And that is how it ought to be.Let us look at the actual issues involved. Notwithstanding the fact that the Australian people, in the referendum, gave the Commonwealth government absolute rights in relation to making determinations about Aboriginal issues, we have this government saying, `Oh, no, we are going to hand over the majority of powers here to the states.' Can you believe that? The Australian people made the determination to give the federal government those powers.The previous member who spoke misled the House when he said, `This is a matter in which the states should have responsibility because they have some role in terms of land and sites.' They have some role in terms of land and sites, but the fact is that the Commonwealth, under the Aboriginal power, can override the states' power whenever it wants to. The reality is, as in the native title issue, it did not. We have a situation where, even on something like heritage protection, this government says, `We are not going to meet our responsibilities as a Commonwealth government; we are going to hand the majority of the powers here to states.'This is extraordinary, especially given the recommendations of both Justice Elizabeth Evatt and the parliamentary joint standing committee. Therefore we have this provision on the national interest. What is this provision intended to do? It is intended to override some decisions that are made in relation to the protection of particular sacred sites. If it happens to be in the national interest, defined in a certain way, to do so, we will be able to override it. What did Justice Evatt suggest? She suggested what the parliamentary committee also suggested. I will read from clause 3.17 of the committee report:In consideration of the evidence before it, the Committee—this is the bipartisan committee with a government majority—accepts that the concept of `national interest' needs to be defined in the Bill so as to include the protection of indigenous heritage.In other words, if you are going to have a national interest provision, you should at least include as part of the definition of national interest this protection of indigenous heritage. Do we get that in the bill? No, we do not. We do not get it in the bill. Even though the minister is aware of the recommendations of the committee, as is made clear by the second reading speech, we do not get it in the bill. So we have got the government completely running away from its responsibilities in relation to the protection of indigenous heritage even in terms of the recommendations of the committee.Then, of course, as I have already mentioned, we are going to have this complicated scheme of accreditation of the state regimes of the protection of heritage. So we are going to move it all to the states and then we are going to have accreditation. But the accreditation needs to meet certain minimum standards, and how are you going to do that? I will read what Elizabeth Evatt had to say about this:Yet, if you go through the accreditation standards set out in the bill, you could say fairly confidently that, with very minimal action on the part of the states, they will achieve accreditation or could achieve it under this bill. Not only that, but the minimum standards for accreditation set out in this bill, with which states and territories have to comply, do not even match up to the standards that are set down for the procedures to be followed if you apply to the Commonwealth for protection.The committee accepts this view. It says:The committee accepts these views. The scheme of accreditation under the Bill requires revision to achieve integrity for accredited regimes and uniformity with the heritage protection criteria that would apply to the Commonwealth.So what are we saying here? We are saying that even the government members who agree to moving it to the states do not think that the minimum criteria for accreditation are being met in the bill. So the first thing is the abdication from national responsibility. We move it to the states. Then we have in relation to the states no real enforcement of standards in terms of accreditation that make any meaningful gestures towards real protection of Aboriginal heritage.You might think that if we are dealing with protection of Aboriginal heritage we might actually put some things in there that directly involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in an official way in the determination of these issues. What happens? Again, we have the recommendations of Elizabeth Evatt ignored in this legislation. We do not have any real statutory involvement of the Aboriginal community in making these determinations. This is the protection of their own heritage. Really, how can the government put forward this legislation? This legislation is in fact a shame to this country when we had the opportunity, especially given what has already happened with Aboriginal affairs in terms of the action or inaction of the government, to do something in this bill to show some good faith, some goodwill.As the honourable member for Denison has mentioned, this bill is not supported by the major Aboriginal organisations. It is not supported by ATSIC, it is not supported by the joint parliamentary committee, it is not supported by Justice Elizabeth Evatt, it is not supported by the Labor Party, it is not supported by the Democrats and it is not supported by the Greens. Who supports this legislation? A narrow group of people around the Prime Minister, and his ludicrous Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. That minister's understanding of and sensitivity to Aboriginal issues is amazing in terms of his insensitivity and lack of understanding of the importance of Aboriginal culture, heritage and tradition to this country, and not only to this country but to the world community. We in Australia have a sacred obligation to Aboriginal people, especially if you look at what has happened to their heritage. This is not an expectation that we have as a people alone; it is an expectation which the international community has of us. The United Nations and other forums have made it clear that they expect us to act to protect what is left of Aboriginal culture and tradition, to boost the standing and position of our indigenous people. We have not done that, and this legislation does nothing to support that.The previous speaker, Mr Causley, kept emphasising places. His idea of heritage is merely the question of sites. He went on about how there can be disputes between different Aboriginal groups about sites, whether a site is a sacred site and so on. You can see the motivation of the government in bringing up this matter. The Hindmarsh incident is their motivation. One incident which they are able to turn around against the Aboriginal community is their motivation for bringing in this legislation. It is not a genuine desire to do something universal for the protection of Aboriginal heritage. No, it is their idea that, if we get a few challenges in relation to some developments or land issues and indigenous people come up and say, `This is a sacred site for us,' we had better have some legislation in place, so we will put this legislation in place which then allows us to refer to a clause about the national interest to overcome the fact that the Aboriginal people are claiming that this is a sacred site.What a disgraceful motivation for a bill. The fact is that we could deal with the issues concerning sacred sites if we had much greater consultation, even in the provisions of this bill, with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, but we do not. And because of that, if the government thinks that it is going to be able to use this mickey mouse bill to trample on claims to sacred sites and heritage by Aboriginal people, then it will find opposition in the Australian community and in the international community. This bill is a disgrace. We have lost the opportunity to really enhance and protect Aboriginal traditions and indigenous traditions generally. We could have done something to show our goodwill towards the Aboriginal people. Instead of that, we have lost this opportunity and we are putting in place a bill which ought to be opposed. I am hopeful that it will be rejected, taken away and redrafted altogether or will be substantially amended by the Senate and brought back here for real consideration by this House as a better piece of legislation.11:01:002472Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The opposition will be voting against the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 at the second reading stage and, when it goes to the Senate, will be moving substantial amendments to the bill. The bill now before the House is largely the same as the previous bill, which was presented to the House on 2 April 1998, although it has been marginally improved by several amendments.It is important to acknowledge those amendments: firstly, the director of indigenous heritage protection must now have a knowledge of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous people in a culturally sensitive manner; secondly, the deletion of the word `minimum' when describing the standards for accreditation of state and territory regimes; thirdly, the redrafting of standard A to ensure that state and territory regimes do provide blanket protection; and, fourthly, the requirement that indigenous people are consulted in relation to the significance of areas or objects and that decisions on significance be separated from those of protection. While these amendments are welcome, the bill remains fundamentally flawed.The review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 undertaken by the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt AC must not be ignored when addressing the issue of indigenous heritage protection. It is the most comprehensive and credible analysis of Australia's heritage protection regime ever conducted during the life of the current act. The report comprises a 370-page overview of heritage protection regimes, setting forth 117 recommendations resulting from broad based national consultation in every state and territory and 69 written submissions.The report identified important problems in the current heritage protection regime: one, the lack of clear definition of the respective roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth, the states and the territories in regard to heritage protection; two, the procedures under the Commonwealth act are poorly defined, leaving the minister's decisions open to challenge in the courts; three, indigenous Australians have no control over and no recognised involvement in the protection of their heritage; and, four, confidential information relating to significant areas and objects is not protected from unauthorised disclosure, contrary to indigenous tradition.In responding to these identified problems in the 1984 act, the report was based on several principles in recommending changes to the act: to acknowledge that the protection of Aboriginal heritage is a major national responsibility; to maintain the main principles of the current act—that is, to provide a protection mechanism of last resort at a Commonwealth level where adequate protection was not provided by state and territory regimes; to provide effective protection for indigenous heritage through early consideration of issues, effective indigenous consultation and genuine mediation; to recognise that indigenous Australians should be an integral part of the recognition of the significance of their heritage and have participation in protection decisions; to avoid duplication of functions by encouraging states and territories to adopt adequate protection standards and accredit their processes; and to protect confidential information about significant sites and provide a clear decision making process under the Commonwealth act which will avoid court proceedings.The opposition agrees that the 1984 act should be amended to rectify the problems identified by the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt's report, but the opportunity provided by the report should not be used, as the government is doing through this bill, to emasculate the Commonwealth's responsibility to protect indigenous heritage. The government has taken up selective recommendations from the Evatt report, but failed to embrace the totality of the report's purpose and spirit. In this bill, it has failed to prioritise the aim of the 1984 act—the adequate protection of indigenous heritage.On the problems with the bill, one of its major failures is the provision for accreditation of state and territory regimes. The standards which must be attained by state and territory regimes are well short of those recommended by the Evatt report. They are too general and lack the detail of those set out in the report. The standards do not even meet those set down for the Commonwealth regime contained in the bill. Several states would be able to accredit their current regimes, which are well short of the minimum to protect indigenous heritage. On introducing this bill, the minister said:States and Territories have unique social, cultural and legislative environments and the standards need to allow flexibility for States and Territories to have regimes that can meet the prescribed standards but in a locally appropriate way.In other words, the low standards of accreditation mean that indigenous heritage protection will be subject to the political needs of the states and territories. The weak standards for accreditation set by the bill ensure that the minister must accredit regimes that are inadequate. As the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt commented in her submission to the committee:This is nothing less than an abdication of Commonwealth responsibility.Where accreditation should be used to ensure that state and territory regimes are effective in protecting indigenous heritage and avoid duplication and overlap with the Commonwealth, the government has used accreditation to absent itself from the process unless a site or object passes the obstructive test of being in the national interest.The government has superficially used the idea of accreditation to drastically limit its own crucial involvement as a mechanism of last resort. This, the main failure of the bill, is clear in the explanatory memorandum. The government seeks to allow states and territories:. . . to design laws to meet their own conditions and for the Commonwealth to protect sites of national interest. Standards for accreditation of State and Territory heritage protection regimes provide a basis for improving State/Territory laws and withdrawal by the Commonwealth provides an incentive to the States to seek accreditation.The government's stated policy of withdrawal is not only unacceptable but is also an abnegation of this parliament's responsibilities. The bill before the House fails to adequately ensure the maintenance of Commonwealth procedures as a last resort mechanism in all cases.As the Evatt report emphasised, the protection of indigenous heritage is a significant national responsibility. The government's bill provides that the Commonwealth processes can only be resorted to if state and territory processes have been exhausted and a protection order would be in the national interest. This contradicts the fact that the underlying basis of the 1984 act and of the recommendations of the Evatt report is that the protection of indigenous heritage is an important national interest in itself. The Commonwealth has constitutional and international obligations for the protection and advancement of Aboriginal people, their human rights and their culture.The government has also failed to adequately involve indigenous Australians in the protection regimes. While there is mention of indigenous consultation through one of the new amendments, the bill largely fails, as Elizabeth Evatt points out, to give:. . . provision for Aboriginal people to exercise any control over the process or to have responsibility for decisions relating to the protection of their significant heritage, nor any provision for an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisory council as recommended . . . That is, as recommended in the report. This was one of the key recommendations of the Evatt report. The lack of any substantial degree of indigenous control or responsibility in the area will inevitably lead to little confidence in the system among indigenous people, and rightly so.Every advertisement that advertises Australia as a favourable destination for travel and leisure features aspects of indigenous culture and heritage. Many people come to Australia to discover our diverse and exciting landscape, the wealth of our many-cultured peoples, and the traditions and sacred sites and objects of our indigenous people. This government is comfortable with promoting indigenous cultural values, both here and overseas, to attract tourists, but it is not interested in adequately ensuring the protection of these same traditions, sacred sites and objects from the damage of unfettered development.The government seeks to replace the 1984 act with the bill which is before the House. The 1984 act, while needing amendment, at the time of its creation was a reflection of the best available advice and practice. The same cannot be said of this bill. It ignores the best and most comprehensive advice available today. It rips out the underlying principle of the 1984 act through its almost total abolition of the Commonwealth's role as a mechanism of last resort. It fails to provide adequate standards for state and territory regimes. And it fails to engage indigenous Australians in the protection of their heritage, which they not only know most about and are therefore best placed to provide protection for, but which is vital to their ongoing participation in our society with a true sense of identity and history.The bill, in short, has flown in the face of the recommendations of the Evatt report. There are substantial differences between the bill and the government's own majority on the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund which examined the bill. There is fundamental disagreement on the actual premise of the bill by the minority of the membership of the same committee. Most importantly, the bill does not have the support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—the people who are most affected by its provisions and who were not adequately consulted during its preparation.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 that is before us must be placed within the context of the totality of this government's policy towards indigenous Australians. The government has a pattern of conduct which cares nothing for the aspirations of indigenous people, which reflects an old view that white men know what is best for indigenous people.Since his re-election, the Prime Minister has talked long and hard about reconciliation. He has committed his government to a `positive outcome for the reconciliation process by the time of the Centenary of Federation'. He has `stressed that it is important that expectations be realistic'. The Prime Minister's rhetoric is there, but the substance of government policy shows a completely different direction.If the Prime Minister is realistic about reconciliation, how can he expect its successful negotiation when his government tears apart protection regimes which maintain the sites and objects that are so central to indigenous people's sense of identity? How can he be realistic about reconciliation when he dilutes indigenous people's common law rights under his Native Title Amendment Act—which is now law—and when he refuses to make the simplest of apologies to express regret and extend understanding to the victims of the stolen generations? Certainly he has expressed personal regret, but as the leader of the nation he should express regret on behalf of the nation and the government.How can he realistically expect reconciliation when he and his minister refuse to negotiate with indigenous representatives because they dare to have a different view about their own futures and the methods and practice of achieving these aspirations? If the Prime Minister sincerely wants reconciliation, he and his minister must engage indigenous Australians in meaningful negotiations on an equal footing, rather than adopting the preaching and `we know what is best for you' approach that is so prevalent in this government's policies.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the peak indigenous representative group and the principal adviser on indigenous issues to the Commonwealth, has expressed its reservations and fears that this bill `presents a major threat to indigenous heritage'. They have clearly stated the fact that `there are few, if any, issues of greater import to Australia's indigenous people than the protection and preservation of their cultural heritage'. They have clearly pointed out that the bill `will effect a major diminution of the existing level of protection afforded indigenous heritage under the combination of the existing Commonwealth act and state and territory heritage protection regimes. As such it is contrary to indigenous interests and strongly opposed by the commission.'Of course, the response from the minister to sound advice from ATSIC, or to any advice that does not happen to agree with government policy, is to sideline the commission. Again, on the issue of heritage protection, he has ignored the advice of his principal adviser and shunted the issue off to the Office of Indigenous Policy, a bureaucratic and largely non-indigenous body that is under the direction of the minister. The minister clearly does not want independent and fearless advice from an organisation that represents Australia's indigenous people.And what is ATSIC's punishment for opposing the government's bill? A promise in the coalition's election document Our Living Heritage to transfer the responsibility for the administration of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to Environment Australia. This is despite the fact that ATSIC has a specific statutory function `to advise the minister on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, including the administration of legislation'. This is despite the fact that the issue of heritage, which is so culture specific by its nature, is surely best administered by an indigenous organisation that is sensitive to the needs of its own culture.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 is not an advancement for Australia's indigenous people, but a further winding back of their human rights, their rights to adequately protect their culture, which provides them with their unique identity and a sense of continuity. This is the first government since indigenous issues became a Commonwealth responsibility to actively and aggressively wind back the hard fought for rights of indigenous people—not special rights, but rights which provide equality and dignity.And there is more winding back to come. The government's review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 will seek to further wind back indigenous rights. This legislation, while watered down from its initial version, was enacted by a coalition government under the prime ministership of Malcolm Fraser and represented a step forward for indigenous people.The recommendations of the government's review is an attack on indigenous rights, an attack by a Prime Minister and minister who have divorced themselves from a largely bipartisan approach on indigenous issues initiated by earlier Labor and coalition governments that improved the lives and wellbeing of indigenous Australians.The opposition will be voting against the second reading of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 . As I said earlier, we will be moving substantial amendments to the bill in the Senate. Labor cannot support legislation that robs indigenous Australians of the means to protect and enrich their culture. Labor cannot support legislation that diminishes the Commonwealth's constitutional and international responsibilities. Labor cannot support legislation that does not reflect the best advice available. And I repeat that the best advice available is the report commissioned by the previous government and delivered to the government by the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt AC. Labor cannot support legislation that turns its back on nearly three decades of progress for Australia's indigenous people. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 does not enjoy the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and it does not deserve the support of this House.I think it is worth while quoting concisely from Elizabeth Evatt's submission to the joint committee. I think it really encapsulates it in a few small paragraphs. In her overview submission she said:The Bill is fundamentally flawed, and weakens considerably the protection available from the Commonwealth for areas and objects of significance for Aboriginal people. The principal defects are these:An applicant for protection has to show that it is in the `national interest' to make a protection order, even an interim or emergency order, where accreditation has been given to a State or Territory system; this is incompatible with maintaining the Commonwealth procedure as a last resort mechanism.The Bill provides for the accreditation of State and Territory heritage protection regimes, without ensuring that those regimes meet the strict minimum standards set out in the 1996 Report, or those established for Commonwealth procedures by the Bill.There is no provision for Aboriginal people to exercise any control over the process or have responsibility for decisions relating to the protection of their significant heritage, nor any provision for an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisory Council as recommended.In the light of those damning criticisms from the author of the review, the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt AC, you would think that the government would get the message and withdraw its legislation. It should go back and talk to indigenous Australians and to the opposition to try to achieve cross-party support in relation to this issue.That is the plea we make to the government. We are all supportive of reconciliation. Reconciliation and the treatment of indigenous Australians is not a Labor issue. It is not a Liberal issue. It is a national issue. It is an issue that has to be embraced by all political parties. We diminish ourselves as a nation when we engage in this partisan approach to indigenous issues, which has been around since the High Court's decision on Mabo.The former Fraser government has to be congratulated for the land rights act that it brought in. I do not agree with everything that the former Prime Minister did but, in this area, he has an impeccable record. The 1967 referendum was initiated by a conservative government, which enjoyed cross-party support at the time and more than 90 per cent of community support.There are a number of issues currently on the agenda. The problem is that on every occasion the government are ham-fisted. They are arrogant, they are not listening, they are not responding to Aboriginal people and they are seeking to politicise the issues. Today I met people at the tent embassy in relation to a recent issue that is prevalent. There you have a peaceful and symbolic protest and an over-the-top response from the government. What brought it on? It was the actions of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald who, prior to Christmas, signed regulations and then had them gazetted in the new year. The input of those regulations allows him to move on the tent embassy outside the Old Parliament House, which is a symbolic, peaceful protest that has been almost continuously in that position since first put there on Australia Day 1972.It survived the Whitlam government and the Fraser government. This government took this action without proper consultation and without negotiations. Indigenous Australians are engaging in peaceful protest—attempting to bring smoke, putting 211 spears in the ground to symbolise the number of years of European settlement and a whole range of things. It is a peaceful protest. You would think that a government with a Prime Minister who talks about free speech would allow peaceful non-violent protest, but in the end they get moved off.The reason I raise this now is that we are at the crossroads. The government has been re-elected. It is this Prime Minister in particular who will be held accountable, not only in the lead-up to the Olympics but during the Olympics and at the centenary of Federation. History will treat him savagely, and so will the people of Australia, because the rhetoric is not being matched by the action. This bill is the classic example. We had a tortuous approach to amendments to the Native Title Act. There was the undermining of the High Court, with criticism of the 4:3 decision—a one vote majority in the High Court. Yet debate in the Senate lasted for 18 months, or whatever, and also ended with a one vote majority. We as politicians could not be mature enough to come together with a bipartisan approach. It sent all the wrong signals. The well has been poisoned.This heritage protection bill is an opportunity for the government to pull back. It is not as if the current act is overly protective of indigenous heritage. There have not been many sites protected under the current act. Indeed, under the current act the minister has an absolute discretion. He cannot be mandated; it is purely within the minister's discretion. Even if there is a report of significance, as there was in the case of the Boobera Lagoon in New South Wales, the minister is not compelled to act. In fairness to him, he has put in train some procedures to give protection for that for a short period of time.The government's over-the-top, sledgehammer approach to crack a walnut in relation to peaceful protest is going to rebound on us. This will rebound on us as a nation if we do not start coming together. I say to this Prime Minister: it is about time your rhetoric was matched by deeds and by action. You diminish yourself by continuing down the road of this sort of legislation—winding-back legislation.What would happen to the Prime Minister if he brought in some progressive legislation that fulfilled the hopes and aspirations of indigenous Australians, that was a result of proper consultation and negotiation? After all, it is a two-way street. We would be supporting him. I would have thought that would have made him look good, and that he would have grown in the job. That would have enhanced his position. That is the sort of thing we should be looking forward to. What worries me is that, from the day this Prime Minister was elected—and indeed his history in public office in relation to indigenous Australians has not been a good one—he has had an old-fashioned attitude. He has an attitude problem. I know the views are genuinely held, but equality is about recognising that we are different and that we need to be treated differently. Reconciliation is about respecting our differences and being sensitive to those differences.If we cannot respect and acknowledge the tradition and culture of our first Australians and act sensitively, how can we be seen to be sincere in relation to later arrivals, to new migrants? It is just madness. What did the 1967 referendum do? It gave this parliament a mandate to protect indigenous Australians from the states, not throw them to the mercy of the states. The history of this nation is that state and territory governments have abdicated their responsibilities. That was the import of the 1967 referendum, the motivation behind it: to give the national parliament the constitutional responsibility to help indigenous people's advancement, in cooperation with the states, and to protect them from the states.What this government is doing with this legislation is abrogating our responsibilities as a national parliament. It is similar to what it is doing with a consumption tax and handing over the revenue to the states. It is walking away from government; it is abandoning government and handing it over to the states. At the time we celebrate the centenary of Federation we have legislation like this that basically hands it back to the states. On a whole range of things, that is what is wrong about this government.We are one nation; we are an Australia, not the Northern Territory first, Queensland first or Western Australia first. We are one nation. What will happen if you hand this back to the state of Queensland and the state of Western Australia and they get it wrong? It will not be those states that will be held accountable in international forums; it will be Australia as a nation that will be condemned. What we should be doing is setting minimum, reasonable standards, in consultation with indigenous Australians, and we should not apologise for it. What were the mistakes of the past? The mistakes of the past were: not listening to them; thinking we knew what was best for them; and not involving them. (Time expired)11:31:002478Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It gives me pleasure to speak in this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 and to advocate a position opposed to that of the government. It gives me no pleasure to see that the government should be positing this legislation before this parliament. I say that for a number of reasons. I actually think this legislation is about our nation's soul. What it tells me is that, really, the question of our nation's soul is something of an irrelevancy to this government.The shadow minister enunciated in a fairly erudite way some very important criticisms of the legislation. I want to start by going to a quote from an Aboriginal playwright, Robert Merritt, in which he said:History teaches us that the way to genocide is to take a culture and destroy its credibility so it can no longer reflect itself.They are very important words because, ultimately, the impact of this government's legislation could well be to cause Aboriginal people, indigenous Australians, to be divorced in many ways from their cultural heritage, from their law. Frankly, the concept of Aboriginal law, Aboriginal spirituality, is something I do not comprehend at all—I have a view about it, but I do not comprehend it; I do not pretend to understand it properly—but I respect it.I respect the fact that indigenous Australians have their own system and body of law. I respect the fact that indigenous Australians have their own spiritual beliefs. I respect the fact that those beliefs involve places of significance, sacred places. I do not understand, nor do I pretend to understand, the relationships between those places. But I do acknowledge their existence. I do acknowledge that they are at the very heart of indigenous Australians' being. What worries me about this legislation is that it shows absolutely no comprehension at all as to those facts.I was reading this morning the litany of submissions in relation to this bill. The litany I refer to is from Aboriginal Australians, indigenous Australians, bodies that represent their interests, and individuals. I did not see one submission that purports to represent the interests of indigenous Australians, either as individuals or as a group, that supports the government's legislation. Indeed, the government's chief advisory body on this issue has made it very clear through its chair, Gatjil Djerrkura, that they are saying that this piece of legislation is a clear abdication of the government's responsibility.When I was reading through these submissions, I came across a submission from Mr Michael Dodson, then the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—he is no longer in that position—from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. We know that the government does not have great deal of respect for HREOC or for those people who work within it. We understand that. But, nevertheless, Mick Dodson is an important Australian, acknowledged as such by a wide spread across Australian society. What he says is, I think, important. I want to quote from the introduction to his submission. He said:I appreciate the protection of Indigenous heritage may, at times, come into direct competition with development interests held by non-Indigenous people. I would nevertheless urge the Committee not to conceive of the protection of Indigenous heritage as a necessary site of conflict or to frame the issue in terms of Indigenous interests versus non-Indigenous interests. Ultimately, the sites that are significant to us, the areas which carry our history and our stories, are the significant sites of Australia's history and Australia's story. What may narrowly be conceived as cultural protection for Indigenous Australians will be seen, in the fullness of time, as cultural protection to the benefit of all those who identify as citizens of this country, and indeed all human beings. As such, to the extent that we as a nation are committed to our nation's culture and heritage, we must be mindful not to split Indigenous interests off as some type of minority or eccentric interest which is irrelevant, inconvenient, or a mere curiosity to non-Indigenous Australians.That last sentence is very important, because that is how I believe members of this government see these issues. They do not want to understand. They see them as eccentric. They seem them as inconvenient.In relation to sacred sites, I note from Hansard that the previous member for the Northern Territory said:As soon as somebody wants to go and develop something, all of a sudden a sacred site is found that has not been known about by traditional owners for 10 or 15 years.I think that is a clear illustration of the views of many people who support the coalition's bill—of that I have no doubt. There is a legion of examples of the way in which conservative state and territory governments have sought to override the interests of indigenous people for the purpose of development. Basically, they have said, `Accept the proposition put by the previous member—that these sacred sites are artificial constructs which have no meaning and which are put there effectively to obstruct development so that our indigenous Australians can negotiate some sort of payment as a result of it.' In effect, that is what he is saying and that, in effect, is what the government thinks.In relation to the objections that we have to this legislation, it is worth while pointing out the recommendation from Elizabeth Evatt about the Commonwealth government being able to override the state government authorities or decisions. I will make this very clear and illustrate it with one particular example where the Northern Territory government, in the early 1980s, took it upon itself to develop a dam around Alice Springs. The Central Land Council, in its submission to the inquiry, made this a central example of the sorts of problems that emerge when, as in the words of the legislation, the particular social, cultural and legislative environment of a state or territory is taken into account and the political imperatives override those of Aboriginal people or indigenous Australians. I am talking about the Junction Waterhole site in Alice Springs—the Aranda word is Nyiltye.What this example illustrates is the way in which the Northern Territory government sought, for its own purposes, to effectively bypass the interests of traditional owners—those with the prerogative to make decisions about sites around Alice Springs—to develop a waterhole, to develop a dam and, in doing so, they destroyed a site. This became the subject of an inquiry, and what was illustrated by that inquiry was the fact that the Northern Territory government refused to release the information to Mr Hal Wootton, the person appointed by the then minister, Robert Tickner, to undertake that inquiry. It refused to release information about the way in which they dealt with the Aboriginal people involved with this particular site because they knew that what they had done was attempt to manipulate the Aboriginal people for their own purposes, and they were found out.The Northern Territory government issued a certificate for that particular development, and it was not until the previous Labor government—with Robert Tickner as a minister—prevented that desecration from proceeding, that that dam was stopped. The development of that dam would not have been prevented had it not been for the legislation that then existed, had it not been for the right of the minister to set out an order.What we have here is a proposal by this government to give the power to destroy those sites to state and territory governments. No-one—apart from governments—who made a submission to the inquiry by Justice Elizabeth Evatt supported the proposition which is now being supported by the government. In relation to the issue of national interest, I note that the second reading speech states:I am aware that the issue of `national interest' was raised in the debate on this bill in June. It was suggested that national interest be defined in such a way that it is the very act of protecting indigenous heritage that is in the national interest.Well, it should be—of that there is no doubt—and those people involved with indigenous people in this country know that to be a fact. The speech continues:Amending the bill in this way would potentially involve the Commonwealth in all indigenous heritage protection case. I am told that there are about 11 or 12 cases where there has been intervention by the Commonwealth, where protection orders have been sent out. It continues:This is contrary to the government's policy of providing a clear delineation of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and accredited states. Indeed, if the Commonwealth were in a position to review all state decisions, there would be no incentive for states or territories to seek accreditation.Well, ho, hum—surprise, surprise! This is the same government that set up processes for accreditation under the native title legislation. This is the government that has had to tell the Northern Territory government to go back and redraft its bill, because we could see that what was being proposed by the Northern Territory government in relation to native title was the subjugation of the interests of the native title holders to the interests of the Northern Territory government. And that is exactly what they will do if they put in state based regimes. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The minister is saying:The standards for accreditation will ensure that accredited state and territory regimes offer comprehensive and fair heritage protection processes. There should be no need for recourse to the Commonwealth in an accredited regime, except where it can be argued that a site has some special qualities that suggest its protection may be in the national interest.Nyiltye may not have been seen in the national interest but it was sure as hell at the core of the beliefs of those people who own that site and who have relationships to it. We have no respect for that. This bill illustrates that lack of respect and the lack of understanding that this government has for these issues.My friend the member for Banks—in his eloquent way, as always—talked about the issue of reconciliation. I think it is very important that we put this bill in the context of the reconciliation debate because, without question, there is now a systemic approach by this government, as pointed out by the member for Banks, to wind back the rights which indigenous Australians currently have under various pieces of legislation.Already, we have heard the lengthy debate over the Native Title Bill and its amendment. We have seen the rights and interests of indigenous people being subjugated yet again. We see now the government seeking, in what I think is politically a very cynical exercise, to amend—at some time in the future—the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We see the sorts of recommendations they want us to consider which effectively will take away rights that people currently have. Then we have the proposal to amend the environmental protection biodiversity legislation, designed to take away the rights of people who own Kakadu and Uluru national parks and subjugate them to the rights of the minister. They are of a piece. There can be no doubt of the intentions of this government. They are to wind back rights. Then we have the Prime Minister standing up in this House this week and saying, hand on heart, that he would support an amendment to the preamble to the Constitution to recognise indigenous Australians.Let us be serious. Let us consider what is happening in this country. I remind you of what I said at the outset: this debate is about the soul of this nation. It may be esoteric and it may be difficult for us to comprehend, but the very fact of the matter is that we must attempt to come to terms with it and accept that Aboriginal people have religious beliefs which they hold dear and which, while we may not comprehend, nevertheless are true.I am a Catholic. I go to confession. Well, I don't—perhaps I ought. But when I did go I could go with absolute confidence that whatever happened, whatever I said in the confessional, would never be divulged to anyone. It was secret and sacred. Yet we are asked by this government, and by those who support the sorts of proposals being put forward by it, not to trust Aboriginal people to define what they see as secret and sacred; that what we have got to do is make a judgment about it. But what if we got one of those traditional leaders—those law men—to sit in the confessional and make a judgment about whether or not what was being said to the priest was in fact secret or sacred? How do you think they would judge it? Yet we feel as if we should appropriate to ourselves the responsibility to make judgments about what is secret and sacred to the being of indigenous Australians. I do not think we have that right. The international community says we do not have that right. But this government believes it wants to take that right to itself and subjugate the interests of indigenous Australians.We must understand—we must appreciate—that the political and social context in which this debate is being held is one in which Aboriginal people are being suppressed. Their interests are being suppressed. We had the minister responsible for Aboriginal reconciliation sitting at this table some while ago. I wish he were here to be able to respond to these accusations. How can he tell us that this government is concerned about reconciliation when at each and every turn it does everything it possibly can to undermine the interests and rights of indigenous Australians and wind back what those rights have been legislated for—as the previous speaker, the member for Banks, has said—often in a bipartisan way? There is no right. They assert a right, but there is not one. We are dealing with human beings here. We are dealing with their feelings. We are dealing with their essence. We are dealing with their soul. But this Prime Minister treats it as if it is some piece of dross. I do not believe that he has any real feeling for these issues at all. I know his government has no feeling for these issues at all. Individuals within it may. I note the shadow minister sitting at the table.8E4WOOLDRIDGEDr Wooldridge—That is minister, mate.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I beg your pardon, I was on the other side. The minister at the table—the Minister for Health and Aged Care—I know has got a feeling for these issues. I am sure he is embarrassed by the way in which this government, this Prime Minister and the minister who is responsible for indigenous affairs in this country—the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—and the cabinet are seeking to take away these rights.They are asking indigenous Australians to bare their souls and then for the minister at a state and territory level to decide whether or not they choose to take upon themselves the prerogative of deciding whether or not they should take some action which might destroy a site without recourse to the Commonwealth government saying they cannot unless it was in the national interest. They want to define national interest in another way because, as sure as hell, they would not have preserved the sorts of sites that are protected under this legislation previously in the context of the national interest. (Time expired)11:52:002481McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 for a number of reasons. First, in support of my belief that indigenous people have a right to self-determination, land rights and involvement in the processes and decision making about issues, including heritage protection; second, in support of my belief that non-indigenous people have a responsibility, as the colonial oppressors and displacers from the land of indigenous people, to put in place laws and processes that provide self-determination to indigenous people, including heritage protection; third, in support of my belief that non-indigenous people need to have an attitude of goodwill, open-mindedness, inclusiveness and a willingness to work in a consultative way with indigenous people until resolution is reached on an issue, including heritage protection.The heritage act is of great importance to indigenous people and the non-indigenous community as it puts a national focus on indigenous heritage protection. The bill contains some important new steps, including the establishment of a director of indigenous heritage protection; a process of resolution by negotiation and mediation; that heritage significance be assessed according to indigenous traditions, observance, customs and beliefs; protection for culturally sensitive information; and accreditation of state and territory regimes that meet specific standards. This model is a positive step in addressing gaps within and between Commonwealth and state governments to ensure indigenous heritage protection.I am pleased to see that after the original bill, passed on 4 June 1998, had lapsed, the government took the opportunity to consider the second report of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund and then made some changes to the bill now before the House—changes which have strengthened the bill.However, there are some aspects of the bill that could be strengthened, and these include: further consultation with the indigenous community, as there has been insufficient consultation and exposure to the current bill; ensuring that the Commonwealth maintains a central role in the protection of indigenous heritage so that the Commonwealth will be able to discharge its constitutional responsibility for the protection of the interests of indigenous Australians; ensuring that the legislation provides for the Commonwealth regime to be a last resort mechanism; including a mechanism for ensuring indigenous people's involvement in the selection of the director; ensuring the right for indigenous people, groups and communities to initiate the recourse process to the Commonwealth in relation to a site or information being defined as of national interest; providing a mechanism for consultation between a state government and indigenous people, groups and communities in relation to the development of accreditation regimes and standards; ensuring that minimum standards require protection to be blanket protection; ensuring that significant decisions are made by indigenous people; ensuring that the office of the director has a majority indigenous membership; ensuring protection of confidential cultural information is specifically stipulated; ensuring that decisions under part 3 include consultation with relevant indigenous organisations; increasing the period under clause 33 from 30 days to 60 days between advertising for and acceptance of applications so that indigenous groups have time to respond; and ensuring there is a compulsory advance clearance procedure.I would like to be able to stand here and say that I understand the concept of indigenous spirituality and the relationship with the land. However, after 25 years in community work and some experience of working with and for Aboriginal peoples and groups, I am humble enough to say I only have a glimmer of understanding. What I do understand and respect is that indigenous people do have a spiritual connection or bond with the land. I understand and respect that indigenous people's wellbeing and sense of self and community is underpinned by their relationship with the land and by the strong relationship between law, land and people.I have observed and experienced that when this connection to the land is broken, or when that relationship between law, land and people is broken, the impact and outcomes can be negative and in many cases destructive. This can be evidenced by the cycles of poverty, ill-health, family disruption, community breakdown and disadvantage experienced or suffered by many indigenous people, groups and communities as well as towns, areas and cities where significant populations of indigenous people live.The report on the stolen generation, Bringing them home, clearly and tragically brings out the negative consequences of laws and policies that enabled state governments, departments and organisations to remove children, adults and families from their families, their communities and their land. The report also demonstrates the negative impact of lack of or loss of self-determination and how destructive this is to the self-esteem of indigenous people, families and communities.I have experienced in my community work the positive effects on indigenous people and communities who have achieved self-determination. I have seen the positive changes in individual and family attitudes and the beneficial effect on the communities or areas in which they live. I have seen a rise in self-esteem, the development of services and programs of benefit to their needs and an increase in participation in their own organisations and in the broader community. I have seen the impact within the broader community of these changes brought by self-determination, including a rise in respect by non-indigenous people, a decrease in negative attitudes and discriminatory practices towards indigenous people and cooperation between indigenous and non-indigenous people to address local issues and to develop services and programs of benefit to all.In passing this bill I believe that we have a responsibility to address concerns raised by indigenous people, groups and communities about its weaknesses. We need to ensure indigenous people's need for self-determination is expressed in the process and structures outlined in the bill. We cannot assume that all states will develop accreditation regimes that involve indigenous people, groups and communities in their development, design, implementation and related processes. Two states that I observed are particularly negative and hostile towards these issues are my own state, the state of Western Australia, and the state of the Northern Territory. Or should I say `the territory of the Northern Territory'.Honourable member interjecting—83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE—They wish they were a state, but they missed out by that much. We must ensure that if indigenous people, groups and communities cannot convince a state government that a site needs protection, then they have the capacity to request Commonwealth intervention because they have defined the site or issue as being in the national interest. The processes must be simple and expedient.In his speech in the second reading debate on 12 November 1998, the member for Banks pointed out the need to ensure that this bill had a fair and transparent process to ensure the protection of indigenous heritage at both the Commonwealth and the state level. To ensure that this is so, the concerns about the gaps and weaknesses raised by indigenous people, groups and communities need to be addressed before this bill is finalised.I am proud to say that I was involved as a committee member in the founding and running of the Women's Legal Service in Western Australia from 1992 until last year. The Commonwealth gave that committee the responsibility for the indigenous women's program money. It was not a large grant but it would have made a big difference to how indigenous women received help and assistance when dealing or impacting with the law. For 18 months we negotiated with the Commonwealth and met with the Commonwealth funding officer to discuss our request—the request of a group of non-indigenous women—that the money be transferred to a committee of indigenous women in the interests of self-determination and their desire for self-determination, and considering that they were the culturally appropriate people to develop the service and program.I am sad to say that the Commonwealth said no. It was not the department that was saying no; the problem was a technical thing. The cabinet had made a decision about how this program money would be handled and unless the cabinet rethought its decision and allowed a process whereby in different states the money could be handled differently—and in the state of Western Australia the money could be given to a committee of indigenous women—the money would remain in the care and control of a group of non-indigenous women. As a community worker and long-time advocate for social justice, I was not comfortable with that situation.It was a decision which led to a lot of conflict and hostility towards the Women's Legal Service committee from the broader community as well as from the indigenous community. It also led to great strife within my family. My teenage children challenged me over my social justice principles—if I had been working on this issue for two years how come we had not achieved self-determination for Aboriginals? Were we talking through our hats?We were also challenged by other community groups who saw that we were really manipulating to keep our hands on the money and that we really did not have a great commitment to self-determination for indigenous women. It is a situation that meeting with the funding officer in late 1998 still saw unresolved—a situation I draw to the attention of the cabinet in the hope that they will look at it to see what a barrier they have created and how this decision has added to conflict in a community sector in Western Australia. This decision cannot be undone unless there is some goodwill, open mindedness and inclusiveness on the part of the coalition cabinet.There is another story I want to tell. My first job in the field of community work in 1972 was as an Aboriginal welfare worker for the child welfare department in New South Wales. I had responsibility on the north coast for the communities of Purfleet, Forster, the area out the back of Sawtell and the lower area of Port Macquarie where there were four separate indigenous communities. I took the job with goodwill and a belief that there was goodwill in both the state government department that employed me with Commonwealth money and the Australian community about helping Aboriginals overcome the disadvantages they had suffered.The school on the Aboriginal reserve had closed down in 1969. By 1972 the attendance of Aboriginal children in the local primary and high schools was very low. The state government sent me there to help the local Aboriginal people access three areas, local education, housing and services.I discovered the wonderful world of hypocrisy, bureaucracy and racist stereotypes about Aboriginals. The Commonwealth government and state government devised this program and with goodwill employed people like me. From the townspeople I met incredible barriers. They did not want the Aboriginal people in town, they did not want them in their local schools, they did not want them using their local services and they did not want them employed in the jobs in town. I knew even then that the key to self-determination for Aboriginals was jobs. They wanted jobs in town. They tended to have the seasonal jobs out in the surrounding countryside—doing the pea picking, the corn picking and working as labourers on the prawn trawlers. Not one Aboriginal person in 1972 worked in any of those four or five towns where I had responsibility for the Aboriginal community.Because of heritage protection the Aboriginals were denied access to the state forests there. The local police and rangers charged the indigenous community with trespass or theft for taking native fruits from the state forests and from the surrounding lands. I have always viewed the police and the rangers as my colleagues—we as the non-indigenous community are supposed to work together—so I tried to sit down to work with them. I found incredible racist attitudes and incredible blocking. My protestations about their treatment of the local Aboriginal community resulted not only in me being given a hard time, but also in their upgrading and escalating the number of times they arrested and charged indigenous people for what were offences that had nearly fallen off the statute books.The local Aboriginal people had a great love for their area and a strong connection with the land. Despite being on a Christian mission, they had kept up their cultural practices and services. They were continually interfered with by the local bureaucrats who were trying to break their connections with their cultural practices and their connection with the land.The member for Banks will be pleased to hear that after I had spoken at a local services club one businessman did come forward and say that he would employ an Aboriginal person as an apprentice in his hairdressing salon. This local resident was of Lebanese background so he had experienced himself the issue of racism and discrimination, having a fairly dark skin and complexion.In goodwill he interviewed a number of Aboriginal young people and he agreed to sign up one as an apprentice and to get the papers from the apprenticeship board. Did this ever happen? It certainly did not. As soon as the local townspeople heard that this was going to take place, he had phone calls of hostility, people walking into his shop and abusing him, threats against himself, his wife and his young family and threats that his shop would be boycotted or that it would be burnt down. The local people did not want to have their hair done by an Aboriginal person because of the negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people.To this day I commend that man for his bravery and his courage, because in the end he could not proceed with that course—and rightly so because, as a small businessman, he had to protect his business, his livelihood and his family. But he did try to speak to some of the people who were being so aggressive and hostile to him, saying that giving jobs to Aboriginals and getting to know them might help overcome some of the other problems that the townspeople felt were being caused by the Aboriginal community.A couple of months later, the matron of the Manning River District Hospital was prepared to sit down with me and discuss taking up a Commonwealth program to employ Aboriginal people under an enrolled nurses program. To her credit, that woman suffered the same hostility, threats and attacks—personally and professionally—but she managed to convince the board to proceed with seeking this money from the Commonwealth in subsidies so that three young Aboriginal people could be put through an enrolled nurses program.She did it, and to this day she is one of my heroes and one of my role models. I had seen this woman sit quietly across a table while people screamed and yelled that they did not want this. The local media had come out and addressed the issue through a story which had alerted the whole town to what was happening. That led to her receiving an incredible amount of hostility, but she proceeded to interview six people and employ three as enrolled aids. I am proud to say that program continued year by year at Manning River District Hospital for many years. I have not been back to the Manning for a while, but I think it is still in place today—and that was the breakthrough.There are many aspects to self-determination. I could tell many stories about my work and life experiences, but those experiences never made me negative about Aboriginal issues or towards Aboriginal people. I had great respect for the humble way in which the Aboriginal people did not spit the dummy, did not become hostile and did not cause problems. They quietly faded into the background but they would still come to you to say they appreciated your work and efforts of support. With this heritage bill, I feel the same thing. I feel that this parliament really needs to look at the gaps and the weaknesses raised by indigenous people, communities and groups—not by me because they are not my concerns; they are concerns that have been conveyed to me. I think that this bill needs some work done on it before it is finalised.12:11:002485Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable members for Denison, Banks, Northern Territory, Calwell, Stirling and my colleague the member for Page for their contributions to this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 .I apologise that I was not able to remain here for the whole of the discussion. I understand that was alluded to when I was away in some discussions about an issue very much related to the ones that are here in debate today—in assisting some Aboriginals who are trying to identify sites significant to them in terms of the burial of some of their forebears. These are sensitive issues and obviously important questions.An earlier version of this bill has previously been passed by this House but the election gave us an opportunity to revisit it, particularly in the light of the 12th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund. I know that in his remarks the honourable member for Banks acknowledged that there had been, in the amendments that the government has effected, some significant improvements made to the bill.It was as a consequence of that advice, and a reconsideration of that advice, that the changes were made. I think it demonstrates that, although you do not always get everything you want—because we do not always have absolute agreement in these matters as to what is the most appropriate outcome—nevertheless you can resolve issues and can produce improvements that are acceptable to both sides.The bill establishes a comprehensive process for the protection of indigenous heritage. The new bill is consistent with the philosophy of the current act, that decisions on protection of indigenous heritage are properly matters for the states and territories concerned, that the Commonwealth should only retain a role in ensuring that the appropriate standards are met, and that the Commonwealth operates as a true forum of last resort.The bill aims to achieve two key objectives. The first is an improved Commonwealth regime for dealing with applications for protection. This system aims to avoid un necessary legal challenges, as experienced with the current legislation, and will ensure that the process is both inclusive of indigenous people and one which protects sensitive cultural information.One of the changes in the bill that was recommended by the joint committee is the requirement for the Commonwealth director of indigenous heritage protection to have certain skills and abilities in relation to Aboriginal culture and heritage. This strengthens the inclusive process that had already been established in the bill and will give indigenous people more confidence in the Commonwealth regime—and, I am sure, will make the task of selecting an appropriate person more difficult; perhaps I should say `challenging'.The objective of the bill is to encourage state and territory heritage protection regimes to achieve a higher standard. The quality of these regimes varies widely at present. In order to give the states and territories the impetus to improve their regimes and to take a responsible role in indigenous heritage protection, those states and territories that meet a set of specified standards will be accredited. This is similar to the approach towards accrediting alternative provision regimes in the Native Title Act.The joint committee's report recommended that the accreditation standards be strengthened and clarified to ensure that the only state and territory regimes that can provide an appropriate level of protection will be accredited. To this end, the standards now explicitly require states to provide blanket protection for all indigenous heritage areas and objects. This puts the onus on a developer to gain an appropriate clearance before any work goes ahead.It has been claimed—and this was by way of criticism—that the bill excludes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from proper involvement in protecting their heritage. This was not the case with the previous version of the bill, and the current version provides further guarantees that indigenous people will be involved at all appropriate stages of the process. In addition to the requirement in the earlier bill that indigenous people be recognised as the primary source of information about whether an object or an area is of significance to them, the current bill contains an explicit requirement that indigenous people will be involved in advance of the work approval process. This will allow indigenous communities and people wishing to undertake a development on land to work together to ensure that developments do not disturb areas of special significance to indigenous people. Indeed, all sides agree with the bill's emphasis on negotiation and mediation as a means of resolving heritage matters.Further to these changes, the accreditation standards now mirror the Commonwealth's regime by requiring the separation of decisions on significance of indigenous heritage from decisions in relation to protection. This implements one of the key recommendations of the Evatt report and will provide increased involvement for indigenous people in the decisions on significance.It seems to have been overlooked that, in combination, the standards of accreditation will ensure that an accredited state or territory regime will meet the same high standards as those inherent in the Commonwealth regime. Continued calls for the Commonwealth to provide a forum of last resort in all cases, regardless of the quality of the state's regime, are of course unhelpful. Firstly, it would continue a situation where the Commonwealth became involved in land management matters which are properly the responsibility of states and territories. Secondly, it would perpetuate the current confusion of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and states and territories in indigenous protection. Thirdly, allowing recourse to the Commonwealth in all cases would undermine the incentive for the states to improve their indigenous heritage protection regimes and thereby gain accreditation.Recourse to the Commonwealth regime will still be possible from an accredited state or territory regime when the protection of an area or an object may be in the national interest. In addition, the bill provides a last resort function in relation to all cases from unaccredited regimes subject only to the requirement that the state processes be exhausted first.The government has shown a willingness to take constructive comments on board. The changes that have been made to the bill by the government show that it is serious about ensuring the protection of significant Aboriginal heritage. I understand that the bill is already having the desired effect, with several states now actively reviewing and improving their indigenous heritage protection regimes in the light of these provisions. An improved indigenous and heritage regime is of course long overdue, and the government considers that this bill will provide proper protection for indigenous heritage throughout Australia and ought be supported by all members.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.The House divided. [12.22 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.2487Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills2487r704Billsr705Billsr706BillsBills2487Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.12:28:002487Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—These three bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , are the supplementary appropriation bills. Although they are only a small aspect of the total budgetary picture, being the changes that are being made as a result of various decisions that have occurred in recent times, they nonetheless reflect the Howard government in all its nastiness, in all its narrowness and in all its negativity.They reflect, for example, the devastation that is currently being wreaked on Centrelink, with the vast bulk of the $152 million that is being brought forward from the forward estimates as a result of these pieces of legislation designed for massive redundancies that will occur at Centrelink. These are redundancies that mean that people who are using Centrelink will have fewer staff to deal with, less assistance and less resources, and therefore will be less able to tackle their problems and to deal with the government in a reasonable way.This legislation reflects the last-minute electoral deceit of the government brought on as a result of a press release by Leigh Hubbard, the Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, about the gas crisis in Victoria where, out of the blue, the Prime Minister decided to promise $100 million in compensation to Victorians affected by the gas crisis. That is now the matter of some controversy between the federal government and the Victorian state government. That particular item is reflected in these appropriations. It also reflects the enormous cynicism of this government in spending $19 million of taxpayers' money for political advertising for the Liberal Party prior to the election campaign campaigning for the GST and the tax package.Some time has elapsed since this House debated the tax package. It is now being considered by the various committees in the Senate. In the process that has occurred since that time, both in the public arena and in the Senate, the credibility of the tax package, dubious as it already was, has been unravelling bit by bit. We have heard that, contrary to statements made during the election cam paign, there has been no modelling done by Treasury with respect to the employment impact of the tax package. We have heard from eminent economists and econometric modellers that the tax package and the GST will actually destroy jobs, not create jobs.We have heard that price increases across-the-board as a result of the introduction of the GST will not be 1.9 per cent but 3.1 per cent. That is a very substantial difference and is a guarantee that a very large number of low income Australians will lose out and will effectively have lower real disposable incomes as a result of the introduction of a GST, irrespective of what the government says about compensation. And we have heard from respected community organisations, such as the Australian Consumers Association yesterday, in one of the Senate hearings, that the GST is fundamentally inequitable and that it will particularly hurt people in regional Australia and small businesses.People in regional Australia, as recent debate has demonstrated, tend to pay more for basic supermarket groceries and food, sometimes for legitimate reasons and sometimes because of inadequate competition. With the GST, they will get a double whammy. As well as paying an additional amount for their apples, pears, deodorant, pies, whatever, because they live out of the main capital cities, they will also pay a higher amount of GST on those items.The fundamental flaws which have been revealed are regressivity—a set of tax cuts that give 52 per cent of the value of the total tax cuts to 20 per cent of Australians who just happen to be the most wealthy 20 per cent of Australians; a 10 per cent GST, which of course the government fails to mention when it talks about 80 per cent of Australians going to a 30 cents in a dollar marginal rate—yes, 30 cents in a dollar and 10 cents in a dollar, 10 per cent, on a GST; and the compliance burden that it will impose on small businesses in particular is going to increase. The stocktakes that many small businesses will have to undertake to switch to the new system will be a nightmare for many, and of course the ongoing compliance problems will be considerable. The whole system is biased towards not only the big cities but also big businesses, which will benefit from being able to hold the very substantial sums of GST that are paid over the counter to them, and earn interest on those amounts in ways that will be virtually impossible for small business to do.The tax package will generate more tax avoidance, not less. It has actually been argued that it is a vehicle to tackle tax avoidance. That is backward thinking. It is a solution to the problems of yesterday in tax avoidance, not to the problems of today or tomorrow. For example, we have increasing levels of commerce on the Internet and that is raising taxation problems around the developed world already. Those problems will only grow and the GST actually exacerbates those problems; it does not tackle them.The GST will lead to an increase, not a reduction, in the black economy. Experience in Europe indicates that taxes of this nature are widely avoided. In economies such as Italy and Germany there is enormous avoidance of the equivalent taxes and it is almost certain that we will see exactly the same experience here.The tax package is deliberately designed to put the squeeze on payments to the states for specific purposes, particularly for schools, health and local government. This will not happen immediately, but inevitably you will see a shift which will put the squeeze on the states in those areas and they will be told, `If you want that money any more, you will have to unanimously agree to increase the GST.' This is all designed to put the squeeze on states that want to spend more money on schools, that want to improve their hospitals.Finally, the bill reflects the cynical almost $20 million expenditure of public money to fund the Liberal Party's election campaign—a massive distortion of the democratic process that cannot be compared with government funded ads initiated by Labor governments in the past. That attempt has been made by the government, but there is one fundamental difference: these advertisements related to the issue that was always going to be the overwhelmingly dominant issue in the election campaign, and that is the first time that has happened in this country's history.Yes, in the past, on odd occasions, from both sides, there have been publicly funded advertising campaigns about particular government initiatives that have ultimately run close to elections, but this is the first time we have had a government spend this sort of money on election campaign material that relates to the key issue that is going to dominate the campaign. And in spite of the expenditure of that money, they still only managed to get 48½ per cent of the two-party preferred vote in support of their tax package.There has been a lot of talk about mandates over the past few months. It has been suggested that, because that 48½ per cent of the two-party preferred vote fortuitously for the government happened to translate into a majority of seats in this House, therefore that constitutes a mandate. When Labor talked about mandates for Labor governments, we did not have 48½ per cent of the two-party preferred vote; we had a 49 per cent primary vote. In 1972, Gough Whitlam had 49.6 per cent of the primary vote. In 1983, Bob Hawke had 49.5 of the primary vote. This government is claiming a mandate for its tax package on the basis of 48½ per cent of the two-party preferred vote. The contrast is stark. The fact is that the Australian people voted against this package and it was only the fortuitous vagaries of the election system that translated that minority vote into a majority of seats.As has been commented upon in this place in the last few days, and as was announced by the Leader of the Opposition a week or two ago, the Labor Party is engaged in a rethinking of its policy position, its approach to the future of this country—and that is entirely proper and appropriate. That is something which is required and is appropriate when an election defeat occurs, regardless of the reasons for that defeat and regardless of the margin of that defeat.As a proud member of the Labor Party, I am endeavouring to make a contribution to that. I believe that we need to consider a number of positive alternative approaches. These approaches must be positive and not negative or backward looking or part of the narrow, nasty agenda that characterises this government. Labor is the positive force in Australian politics. We are the creators, we are the builders, we are the generators of new ideas. We get elected on our positives; on our optimism and enthusiasm. The conservatives get elected on our negatives. The conservatives get elected when the Australian people are tired of a Labor government. They do not get elected on the basis of their positives, because they do not have any.Australia faces a fundamental choice: are we to be an open or a closed society? We are currently in the most negative period in our political history. This period has been led by two figures: John Howard and Pauline Hanson. We have been sloughed in a trough of bitterness, inferiority and negativity that has been driven by these fundamentally negative, narrow and nasty characters. It is incumbent upon us to deliver positive ideas, to address the challenges of the future, and to build the framework of new ideas that can address the problem and give people some hope, optimism and imagination.If we are to be a closed nation, we will decline. History shows time and time again that nations that have closed themselves off from the ideas, people, products, contribution and technology of other nations have declined. If we choose to go down that route, we will also decline. We have to acknowledge that globalisation is a reality. It is affecting everybody around the world, not in uniform ways but in similar ways, and we have to negotiate those changes. We cannot defy them in an absolute sense without enormous cost to ourselves as a country. Equally, we should not simply sit back and applaud and say, `Fine, go for your life, let people who suffer suffer.' We should not do that.We still have substantial negotiating power. We still have many opportunities to moderate change, to protect people, to grasp the opportunities of the future while, at the same time, looking after the people who will suffer adversely from those changes. Unfortunately, public debate in this country has failed to acknowledge that there is an alternative path between the cheer squad and the gloom merchants on these issues. We need to ac knowledge that aspects of globalisation in this country are good things. Foreign investment and immigration are good things. Australia has been built on them. Imagine where the South Australian economy would be, for example, if GMH and Mitsubishi went home. Imagine the effect that would have.We have built this country with the assistance of foreign investment and with substantial immigration, and we need to acknowledge that those forces have a very important role to play in our future. We equally need to acknowledge that international regulation of economic activity is increasingly looming as an important arena for participation by Australia, Australian governments and the Australian people and that, more and more, the real decisions that affect people's lives in this country are being made at that level by organisations like the World Trade Organisation. We have little control over this, but we can contribute, participate, and exert an influence.This has some similarity to the process of the federation of the six Australian colonies 100 years ago. At that point, we had to come to terms with the idea of government regulation and intervention in market forces occurring at a higher level. We have to do that again; we have to adapt to the same sort of change. There are five core things that we need to pursue as a society for success in the new economy and in the future, things which will enable us to embrace the challenges and opportunities that are emerging as a result of the enormous change that is occurring around the world.The first core thing is to embrace the information economy and the information revolution. This means that content creation, for example, will be a huge job generator in the economy of the future. It means that we have to focus on computer literacy as well as on basic reading and writing skills—literacy and numeracy—and on accessibility for people to computers. We have to take a different approach to media regulation and understand that the media of tomorrow is going to be a very different landscape from what we have all grown up with and got used to. We have to look at the future of Telstra. We do not want it privatised; I do not want it privatised. One-third of it has already gone and more of it may go. We have to adapt to that reality because it will not be bought back. We have to consider the future of the communications market in this country around those facts and consider what we will do in order to ensure that we have a genuinely competitive communications market and proper social provision of basic communications access, particularly for people who have difficulty accessing it in market circumstances.Finally, in the information economy arena, we need to rethink our approach to the capital gains tax. It is a difficult task because the capital gains tax is in there for one key reason: without it, the tax avoidance industry in this country—which is already a huge problem—would return to the good old days of the early 1980s when the Prime Minister was Treasurer and tax avoidance was rampant. The absence of the capital gains tax was the primary vehicle for tax avoidance. However, having said that, we need to reconsider the structure of the capital gains tax in order to ensure that there is greater incentive for investment in industry generally, but particularly in the new industries because they are exposed to competition for investment with other parts of the world, particularly the United States, in ways that other forms of economic activity are not quite so directly exposed.The second area where we have to engage in some fundamental rethinking is the broad economic approach that we pursue. Our nation and all Western nations have changed dramatically economically in the past two or three decades. We have become so productive at making the basics of human existence that more and more the essence of our economy has drifted into areas that in the past were not even part of the formal economy. Things that were peripheral to our economy 30 years ago—like rock music, tourism, entertainment, child care, aged care—are now rapidly becoming big employers, big generators of wealth and income and, in the future, along with the information economy, will be the dominant elements in our economy. And we have to reposition our policies to reflect that reality.We need to reform our schools to reflect the changes in the demands of the labour market and in the broader economy. We need to develop a new approach to industry policy, which focuses not on specific assistance or handouts but on broad assistance that is targeted at the underlying factors which generate competitiveness and efficiency in firms, that ensures that firms do have access to advanced manufacturing technology, that ensures that management skills are at an optimal level and that ensures that people do have research and development capacity. We need to develop marketing skills, access to export markets and the like—all of those broad things that determine outcomes—so that government assistance enhances competitiveness and efficiency, does not reduce it, does not protect people from competition, but ensures that there is a base from which they can genuinely compete and that the core elements that determine competitiveness are in fact enhanced.The third area where we need to fundamentally rethink our approach is in the area of social policy. I am a proud member of what has been tagged the sixties generation. And I have grown up with a set of values and views that very much reflects my origins, a set of values and views that focuses very heavily on concepts of liberation, personal development, opposition to harsh authority and opposition to conformism. And the wave of change that hit the world as a result of the efforts of people in my generation and the technological change which opened up those opportunities have been enormously liberating. The changes in the status of women in our society, the fact that people such as gay people are no longer subject to criminal sanctions, the fact that racism is no longer endemic and officially sanctioned—these are enormously positive changes.But at the same time as we have seen these positive changes occur, there has been a range of changes in our society all of which go back to these structural changes that occurred in the fifties and sixties which are overwhelm ingly negative—that is, an increase in the level of family breakdown, drug abuse, violence, criminal activity, suicide and a variety of other problems.I would argue that people from my part of the political spectrum have had a bit of a blind spot in those areas, and it is time that we started addressing those issues. All political groupings have blind spots. The blind spot of the coalition is the question of inequality—they have nothing to say. The blind spot of the political tradition that I emerged from has been the question of social breakdown, and it is time that we addressed those issues. And there are a lot to deal with.I would not suggest for a minute that we should turn back the clock. That would be totally untenable and wrong. And as I said, the changes that have occurred in total have been enormously liberating. We need new ideas, new approaches, to address these issues. And I offer one suggestion as an important step.Governments already do a lot to alleviate the loneliness and alienation that are all too prevalent in our society and that seem to be ever mounting. But they do it mostly by accident. Look at things like the Home and Community Care program, which is notionally based on delivering services, particularly to older people in their homes, for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons. The real value that many people get out of the HACC program is that they get someone to talk to, someone who is a connection with the outside world, somebody who can actually help them in a range of things that they are not even supposed to help them with. Look at neighbourhood houses, community health centres, sporting clubs, playgroups—some of them government funded, some of them purely private: all of them play a critical role in giving people a place to belong, somewhere they are valued, somewhere they can actually live their lives in a social context, achieve things and pursue their goals.Often governments do support and assist these organisations, but rarely do they do so with the objective of ensuring that people have somewhere to belong, of ensuring that those people who have in a sense fallen out of social networks, who are in a difficult situation, who do suffer from loneliness, have options so that they can be included in a society, so that they have the choice to participate in a society. That is the broad concept that we need to embrace, particularly on the social front, but it also has pertinence to the economic front. The role of government, the obligation the community has in total, is to ensure that everybody has a capacity to participate in our society.We do not want to ensure that they have enormous material resources from go to whoa. We do not want to ensure that they are being told how they should live their lives; what we need to ensure as a community is that people have the capacity to participate in the society. That means being able to belong, being valued, having somewhere to be a citizen who is accepted and can participate and fulfil their potential. That means also that they have an obligation to contribute in some way to the society.The fourth point that we have to embrace is reforming government itself. I think the state governments are in the process of slowly disappearing, and that is a long overdue improvement in our society. It will not happen by referendum, but the continuing change will continue to flow and we need to start thinking about the future and how we can shape a two-tiered structure where regulation is essentially a national responsibility and service delivery is more localised, so that you can have regionally based local government bodies that have substantial control over how government money is spent at the local level and what services are delivered within their territory.We need to change this place. I think there are a range of antiquated features about how this House operates that really need to be updated, really need to be changed. And we need to be engaging in much more intensive dialogue with the ordinary citizen as their representatives, particularly ministers, government departments and the like.How often do people write a letter to a minister, and sometimes wait months for a reply? The answer is: often. This is something that occurs across both governments. It is by no means something I would accuse the current government of having a monopoly on. Why does this occur? Because not enough priority is placed on continuous dialogue with people. The Internet and new information technology are opening up new opportunities where you can have much more direct ongoing engagement with the community than we are currently able to pursue. That is a fundamental requirement for being able to revive people's faith in government, people's connection with government and people's understanding of government.The final observation from our point of view as a political party—the only political party that is capable of addressing these great challenges and taking Australia into a positive future into the new century—is that we have to reform ourselves. We have had to do it before, and we have done it successfully. The world has changed. The Labor Party, therefore, as an organisation that seeks to have members participating in processes, campaigning and generating ideas has to change too.It has been suggested in one or two quarters that I may not quite practise what I preach on this front. I will very quickly comment on that. If you ask people in my faction of the Labor Party about my track record on pursuing the question of reforming the Labor Party, they will tell you that I have done so vigorously and enthusiastically for about 10 years—and most of the time I have put forward propositions that have been opposed vigorously by my own faction. In 1989, at my behest, my union supported proposals by the Right in the Victorian branch of the Labor Party to allow direct voting by members in Legislative Council preselections. The Left opposed it. In 1990 I put forward a range of proposed rule changes to further democratise the Labor Party and to more involve members. The bulk of the Left opposed them. In 1991 one of these rule changes actually succeeded, giving members a direct right to vote in preselection ballots rather than having an indirect collegiate system. That particular proposition was advanced by me, supported by my union, supported by the Right and opposed by most of the LeftThroughout the mid-1990s, in various quarters I have pursued a range of ideas, with respect to reforming the Labor Party, with the National Organisation Review Committee. I have also opposed some of the more bizarre and intricate factional deals carving up safe seats—again, often at odds with the position of my own grouping within the party. In very recent times, in an inquiry into internal matters in the Victorian branch, which has finished but the conclusions to the inquiry have not yet been determined, I put in a separate submission from my own grouping and differed from them on a number of matters.I am putting this on the public record because these are issues that I feel passionately about. What happens inside the Labor Party does not just matter to people in the Labor Party; it matters to the people who vote for us, and it matters to the people who we hope will vote for us. One of the preconditions for us to be able to deliver for the people of Australia is to get into government and generate the optimism, the hope and the creativity that will take us into the future. That will ensure that we can get the jobs of the future and that we can tackle the problems that are arising from the enormous changes in our society. One of the preconditions of that is that we put ourselves in a position to be able to do that. We have to confront that and we have to face up to that. I have spent a long time—sometimes successfully; more often not—trying to pursue that particular agenda.Having made that small digression, I will conclude on this point. I think this country has a tremendous future. I think it is a tragedy that over the past few years we have been caught in this trough of negativity that has been a product of the awful dance that we have seen between the Prime Minister and Pauline Hanson. It is time we extricated ourselves from that negativity. It is time that we recognise that, although we have many problems and we have many issues to address, so has everybody else. Many people, if not most of them, are worse off than us.It is time that we realised that we have a tremendous future in the new economy that is emerging around the world. It is an economy where distance—our traditional bugbear and disadvantage—does not really matter any more. It is an economy where having English as your first language is a huge advantage. It is an economy where having enormous cultural diversity and virtually every other major language on earth present in your country is an enormous advantage. It is an economy where having a pretty good education system and a pretty good infrastructure, in spite of the efforts of some conservative governments, is an enormous advantage. It is an economy where our tradition of creativity can be seen in significant exports of things like rock music, soap operas and the like, and software and multimedia products. It is an economy where that tradition of creativity and imagination and openness is a tremendous advantage. So we are well situated.But it requires a government with imagination, a government with ideas, a government that is positive, and a government that can lead. Sadly, this government is the absolute antithesis of those propositions. We can move this country forward into a very, very strong position in the new century, but that means positive new ideas, energy. It needs an approach that is fundamentally different from what this government is doing.12:58:002493Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I will take the opportunity, in speaking on Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 to make some remarks about the Sydney 2000 Games, in particular about the prospects for the financial health of those games and the effect of recent scandalous behaviour among members of the International Olympic Committee on the prospects for a financially healthy Sydney Games. Before I do so, I welcome to the chamber my friend and old opponent, the member for Cunningham. One gets a sense of deja vu with the two of us in the chamber talking about the Olympics again.That said, it is clear from some of this morning's news, in particular details made public about the host city contract between the IOC and Sydney, that the revenues for the Sydney Games—for the organising committee, SOCOG—will depend largely on sponsorship and ticket sales. There is also revenue coming from merchandising but, in large part, it is sponsorship and ticket sales that really bring in the dough, so to speak.From remarks last night, and quite often recently, by officials of SOCOG and its President, Michael Knight, it is plain that SOCOG's efforts to raise more sponsorship money are being hindered by the scandals erupting almost every week in the IOC such that some commentators have suggested that there is a danger that a deficit may result. Of course that deficit will be funded in the end by the New South Wales taxpayers.In considering the prospects, grim though they may be, of that sort of thing happening, there are two critical financial arrangements surrounding the Sydney 2000 Games that warrant our scrutiny. The first is, as I said, the host city contract between SOCOG and the IOC and the second is an interim arrangement made between SOCOG and the Australian Olympic Committee—what is described as the deal between Michael Knight and John Coates, which was the subject of some scrutiny on Four Corners on Monday night.I was very surprised, perhaps shocked, to learn from reading in the newspaper this morning some of the figures regarding the amount of money that the IOC will receive from the Sydney Games—things such as 40 per cent of the TV broadcasting revenue, five per cent of all the SOCOG marketing contracts and one-third of all international sponsorships. The result is that the IOC stands to collect some hundreds of millions of dollars from the Sydney 2000 Games. In these circumstances, with scandals erupting in the IOC hindering the efforts of SOCOG to properly fund itself, I believe this contract should be renegotiated such that the IOC forgoes revenue equal to any deficit that may result from the games, the deficit that would otherwise be funded by the New South Wales taxpayers.One interesting aspect of this contract, and likewise the one with the AOC, is that it is governed by Swiss law. It seems that that is the sort of thing that can protect the IOC and its obligations from perhaps proper scrutiny by courts in this country. I took the time this morning to visit the library and do a little research of my own into the law of Switzerland or that part of it governing contracts. Swiss law is part of the civil law jurisdiction. The rules regarding contractual obligations really come from Roman law. In Roman law there is a basic principle of bona fides or good faith.Good faith colours every aspect of a contract made under civil law. It imposes obligations on both the buyer and the seller. But, very importantly, in the case of the Sydney Games, it qualifies the maxim caveat emptor. So you might say, for example, that the Sydney bid in the beginning should have known that there was such corruption within the IOC and so forth. Therefore, what they bought—that is, the right to host the games and the intellectual property with which to raise the sponsorship, and that is the rings—had some sort of flaw within it. Therefore, the trouble they are encountering now was really their own fault. Hence, caveat emptor, and the IOC should be let off.Good faith, or that principle, also imposes an obligation on the seller—that is, the IOC who sold the right to host the games to Sydney and sold them the right to use the rings to raise money. It imposes an obligation such that, if a seller is aware of defects in what is being sold—the subject of the contract—but fails to reveal those defects to the buyer, then plainly there is no good faith. Hence, the contract itself may either be void or at the very least the seller may be liable to the buyer for any damages that might result from that bad faith.I am quite certain that the IOC has long known of the corruption within its ranks. For example, after the decision to award Atlanta the 1996 games, there were bitter complaints from some of the losing bidders about the behaviour of various IOC delegates. I believe the IOC held a special meeting in either Birmingham or Manchester at which these grievances were heard in secret. I believe that the host city contract is quite possibly lacking in that essential legal element of good faith, but in any case it ought to be renegotiated simply on an equitable basis because if it is, in effect, a fault of the IOC that the scandals are erupting and thereby causing financial damage to SOCOG, which is the buyer under this contract, then the very least they could do in these circumstances is make it clear to the hosts of the games, the New South Wales taxpayers, that they will forgo any revenue that is equal to a deficit that may result.The second critical financial arrangement that I referred to is the deal between SOCOG and the Australian Olympic Committee whereby apparently the AOC gave up its veto rights over various aspects of the organising of the games in return for a payment to be made, not from any surplus but from revenue, of $100 million or more. Some have suggested it is as high as $150 million. Clearly, the AOC should receive any such moneys not from revenue but from a surplus. It is simply unfair to force the New South Wales taxpayers to underwrite this payment.What they are proposing is that, in effect, the taxpayer would fund what they describe as a legacy. After the games are over, the AOC will always have access to sponsorship revenue for its needs. It has done that in the past and will do that in the future. I ask another question: should sport in Australia be dominated by any such national Olympic committee? I do not believe it should, because the IOC is the master here. It controls the intellectual property—the rings. It allows, by agreement, the national Olympic committee of this country to use that intellectual property to bring in revenue.If in the future, for example, the IOC wanted to force on a national Olympic committee, such as the Australian one, an unpalatable or flawed policy, for example a very slack anti-doping code, then there is nothing to stop it from making such a policy a condition of that national Olympic committee using the rings to fund itself. Hence, in that sense Australian sport comes under the influence of the IOC. That is a poisonous outcome.Beyond that, I simply reflect on some remarks I made on the radio in December. Now that parliament has resumed for the year I think it is appropriate that I put those same remarks on the record here. I was asked what I thought of the future of the IOC. I said simply that I thought its time is up. It is no longer of relevance to sport, certainly not in the new century that is nearly upon us. Having awarded the games in 2004 to Athens, there is some sort of symbolism perhaps about that being the very last of the Olympic Games. What we need is a new organisation created, operated, run and represented by people who have the public trust—people who could conduct a transparent bidding process to host a games and could supervise the raising of revenue and the organising of it and have the public trust while they do so.I believe that the IOC, as it is presently constituted with its leadership, and a great number of its members is incapable of redeeming itself in the sense that it is an intensely political organisation. There are quite clearly rivals for the succession to Mr Samaranch, the current incumbent president. Therefore, without the ability, in effect, to scrutinise or police itself from outside, it is in that sense inherently flawed. If, for example, you saw a government in a democratic country sinking into such scandal, the obvious consequence of that would be that that government would be thrown out at the next election. I think that metaphor is precisely the appropriate one in the case of the IOC. We need a new outfit and we need one for the time beyond the games in Athens.Last of all, I suppose one may well ask: why is this all of such great importance? Why all the fuss about some broadcasting of sporting competition? I say very clearly that it comes home to many of us in a very personal sense as we watch our children pay inordinate amounts of attention to the activities, the feats, if you like, of their sporting heroes. Therefore, sport has a very powerful influence on a child's life and the attitude that a child forms, and there is a great risk that any hint of corruption or tolerance of corruption or doping and poisonous things such as that would translate through to the minds of the children who watch that sport and seek to emulate their heroes. That is why it is very important that people who have custody of great sporting events such as the Olympic Games should be far above suspicion. That is why we precisely need something new to replace the IOC beyond the 2004 games in Athens.13:10:002496Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 lists amongst the measures contained within it a number of measures related to defence items which I wish to make some comments about. But I cannot let the opportunity go by without responding to some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Wentworth in respect of the Olympics.As he pointed out at the beginning of his contribution, in the former parliament I was the shadow minister for sport and in the latter part of that government he was the minister for sport and, accordingly, our paths crossed quite regularly in respect of the Olympics and sport generally. Some of the views which he has expressed today would certainly not be in accord with the views which I would personally hold and which I am sure the majority of people involved in sport within this nation would hold.Let me make it perfectly clear that I think the process which SOCOG has embraced in respect of the Olympic Games in Sydney has been most appropriate. The individuals who have been asked to participate on the board of SOCOG—individuals that embrace a cross-section of Australian society, a cross-section of Australia's social strata, a cross-section of Australia's influential individuals, a cross-section of people coming from different political backgrounds—have been moulded into an organisation which is striving to achieve one thing; that is, to contribute to the best Olympic Games possible in Sydney in the year 2000.Unfortunately, what most people tend to lose sight of when we talk about Olympic Games these days is the fact that the games are about athletes participating in sport. Whenever we read newspapers or we see television programs like Four Corners and so on, are they interested in the athletes? Are they interested in what Michael Klim might do? Are they interested in what Cathy Freeman might achieve? Are they interested in how high Emma George may pole vault? Are they interested in how successful our Austral ian women's hockey team might be? Are they interested in seeing just how talented our netballers are? No, they are not. What they are interested in is graft, corruption, the smell of something which is distasteful about organisers, and in some way detracting at every opportunity from the achievements of Australia's sporting men and women.Therefore, I find it very difficult to sustain and agree with some of the comments from the member for Wentworth about what has happened in respect of Sydney. I would remind the member for Wentworth that the President of SOCOG, who is also the New South Wales Minister for the Olympics, a week ago established an independent inquiry into the bid process by Sydney. If there was something to hide or if he thought there was a great problem associated with that bid, I would have thought that Michael Knight would have been the last person to want to see an inquiry of that nature release a report during the lead-up to a state election campaign.I think this says something about the integrity of Michael Knight. It says something about the way in which he has gone about his business as the President of SOCOG and as the Minister for the Olympics. This is somebody who has been committed to ensuring, by the employment of appropriate people within that organisation such as that well-respected former Canberra bureaucrat Sandy Hollway, that the 2000 Olympic Games are run smoothly and that they achieve their aim—achieve their aim of providing a showcase for Australian athletes and world athletes and providing a spin-off for Australia in showcasing this great nation of ours. I think Michael Knight needs to be congratulated for the courage of his convictions in establishing that inquiry which, in my view, will go to the sorts of concerns that perhaps the member for Wentworth and one or two other people have expressed in the course of media presentations about so-called scandals in respect of Sydney.No-one likes to look back and see what has happened in relation to some of the other Olympic bids. What has happened with Salt Lake City has been well publicised. There is no doubt people have been in receipt of largesse. There is no doubt that people who were going to vote for whether or not Salt Lake City was successful in hosting the Winter Olympics were in receipt of scholarships for children, were in receipt of some payments to perhaps other events not necessarily associated with the Olympic Games. Some of those people have been exposed and some of those people rightly took the dive before they were given the flick by the IOC. If there is one thing on which I and the honourable member for Wentworth can agree it is the leadership of the IOC. There does come a time, regrettably, when it is time for all of us to pass on. I would suggest to the head of the IOC that maybe his time has come. Maybe it is time for the leadership of that organisation to look at itself. Maybe it is time to do what the member for Wentworth suggests—that is, get rid of the leadership and provide an opportunity for a little more transparency in the way things are done so that any suspicion in the future as to the way bids for the Olympics are handled can in fact be open to public scrutiny. There is no doubt that there is a lot of public money involved in this. There is no doubt that in the case of New South Wales there has been public money involved. There is Commonwealth government money involved. There is New South Wales state government money involved.There is also, through carefully constructed contractual arrangements, the involvement of private sector funding for this particular Olympic Games. Quite honestly, to suggest that scandals are prohibiting sponsorship is taking it a little far. I think the member for Wentworth might need to sustain that particular argument. I have not seen too many examples where major sponsors have decided they are going to pull the pin.What I find quite staggering is that one of the major sponsors of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games is a major media organisation and they seem to be the ones spending most of their time trying to uncover scandals and trying to put the arrows right through even the Sydney 2000 bid. That is their right. It is their legitimate right as a media organisation to want to do so. But I find it quite extraordi nary that, as a concerned major sponsor, they are still in it at the present moment. If they think there is something improper in terms of SOCOG's operation or the way in which the bid was handed out to Australia, then maybe those concerns should be expressed by their no longer participating. But that is not the case. They are continuing to be a sponsor.Some of the comments about any deals being done by SOCOG and the IOC that will lead to deficits being exposed and the New South Wales taxpayers having to foot the bill are unsubstantiated. It is important that, if we are to give some consideration in the future to the financial arrangements associated with the Olympic Games in Sydney, the information that I am sure is going to be exposed and made very public during Mr Knight's inquiry that has been established will once and for all put some of those rumours to bed.Far be it from me to suggest that there are people with different political agendas running some of these issues in respect of Sydney 2000. Far be it from me to suggest that in the lead-up to the New South Wales state election certain individuals are running around making accusations about SOCOG and in respect of that trying to rope in Mr Knight and the New South Wales government so ably led by the Premier, Mr Carr. Far be it from me to suggest that, by people coming into this parliament and saying that there is going to be a deficit which will have to be funded by the New South Wales taxpayers and therefore running a scare campaign which I am sure will grab some legs through some individuals within Australia's media, this issue has some political bias associated with it. Far be it from me to suggest any of those sorts of things, but I am sure somebody will. It may not be me who suggests that—much—but I am sure there will be somebody in the broad community who will.I also thought it interesting that the member for Wentworth talked about the Australian Olympic Committee, SOCOG or anybody else here being forced to accept slack anti-doping codes for the success or otherwise of being awarded the Olympic Games. Mr Deputy Speaker, you, I—and I am sure many other people in this building—would know that, if there has been one organisation that has voiced its absolute and total commitment to trying to have an anti-drugs stance which is so tough as to make it almost unbreakable, it has been the Australian Olympic Committee.John Coates has been a luminary in being out there on the front foot calling for tough anti-drug stances in terms of Australia's Olympic movement and on behalf of world Olympics and the athletes who participate in these games. It has been much to John Coates's credit that, even most recently in Lausanne where a conference occurred on what was going to happen with the anti-doping procedures, he was there, as was the Australian delegation, calling for a tougher set of standards.The end result of the conference was that a couple of the major sports—soccer and one other—decided, `No, we want to set our own doping procedures. We want to set our own standards. We want to set our own penalties.' Let us not forget that some of those sports now are multimillion dollar enterprises in their own rights and they, therefore, would not want to see any particular player disadvantaged by not being able to participate for any length of time because that brings down the fans' ire on that particular club or whatever it might be.Whom did we have out there leading the charge and being disappointed by the end result adopted by the IOC? None other than the Australian Olympic Committee. You had people like John Coates and Kevan Gosper arguing this point. The one person you did not see in Lausanne arguing this point when other ministers for sport were there was Australia's Minister for Sport and Tourism. She was not there. She was not in Lausanne lending support and assistance to Australia's Olympic Committee in their bid to do something about this issue. She was not there.I find that action quite amazing when on the Notice Paper today we are to talk about beefing up some of the procedures for the Australian drugs organisation here, ASDA, to improve our ability to test drug procedures and so on. The minister has responsibility for assisting in that, yet the same minister did not bother to go to Lausanne to take part in a very important conference when other ministers for sport were clearly there and took the interest to do so. I certainly know one of the minister's predecessors would have been there.I know Warwick Smith, when he was the minister for sport, was in Lausanne every time the Olympic movement met, and rightly so because Australia has an investment in the year 2000 Games in Sydney. He had every legitimate right as the minister for sport who had the responsibility for the Olympics for the coalition government to be there to see that Australia's interests were protected. But the current minister did not feel it was appropriate for some reason—we do not know why—to be there to talk about one of the insidious issues.This comes from a minister in a government whose Prime Minister stands up and trumpets about his war on drugs, talks about what his government has done over the last 2½ years at least to crack down on drugs in this country, and talks about their insidious nature in terms of young people. The influence that sport has in that should not be understated. I think the member for Wentworth should go back and have a look at what he said in his contribution and at some of the beliefs he holds.The member for Wentworth should also ask himself this fundamental question: `If all these concerns were there for a period of time, why didn't I ask somebody about it?' He was the minister for sport. Why didn't he ask the Australian Olympic Committee? Why didn't he ask the Australian Sports Commission, `What is the go, fellas?' Why didn't he sit down with Michael Knight and ask, `What is the go on these suspicions I have?' I well remember why not. It was because he did not see eye to eye with Minister Knight. He tried to play a little bit of politics. He tried to tell people about Olympic torch relays. He tried tell Mr Samaranch that there should be an Olympic torch relay that went through the Pacific islands. He did not realise that his Prime Minister had already committed Australian money to allow that to happen.I think that is the mark of the member for Wentworth when he was the minister. He did not know what was going on. He did not know whom to ask. Now he comes in some months later, after he has been given the flick as the minister for sport by his Prime Minister—not surprisingly—and makes all these allegations about the Australian Olympic Committee, SOCOG and so on.Somebody has to get to the bottom of this. As I said at the outset, I think Michael Knight's courageous decision to appoint a former judge to conduct a thorough and far-reaching inquiry into Sydney's bid is the appropriate course of action. He should be commended for doing that. He should be commended for trying to at least get to the bottom of any suspicion, of any hint, of impropriety that exists in respect of SOCOG and the 2000 Games in Sydney. Both he and Premier Bob Carr deserve the plaudits of every Australian who has an interest in sport.In the last couple of minutes I will say something about the appropriations bill relating to matters relevant to the Defence portfolio. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 contains something like $119 million for Defence running costs, with $22 million for the military compensation scheme and $58 million for market repositioning of the Defence Housing Authority.When you check through this, you see that there are additional appropriations for the Department of Defence for things like Defence running costs. Under this government's Defence Reform Program, there were supposed to be savings made for this government. There were supposed to be savings made that would enable smarter use of the defence dollar in respect of how the department itself would operate. Yet here we see additional funding being required for running costs of the department.What we have already seen here is that it requires something like an additional $61 million of that funding for running costs when it is immersed in the middle of what I have already indicated is the Defence Reform Program prospered by the present coalition government. That was expected to return mature annual savings of at least $900 million and a one-off saving of over $500 million. So if this Defence Reform Program is going gang-busters, if it is doing everything this government said it would or hoped it would, if it was going to return savings of $900 million and $500 million, why the need for the extra money now for running costs in the department?Savings given in the 1997-98 annual report under the Defence Reform Program totalled $97 million and are expected to increase to something like $250 million in 1998-99. So part of what is happening in that department clearly is working and some savings are being realised. If this is the case, why aren't those savings being diverted to more appropriate causes which would, therefore, not have to call on additional appropriations we are debating today?We have also seen a reduction of around 3,800 military personnel and 1,800 civilian positions and market testing of up to a further 11,200 military and 5,300 civilian positions under the Defence Reform Program. That is quite a staggering number of personnel savings to be made. Yet we see this government saying it still needs to inject further funds into one of the largest callers on the government funding—that is, the Department of Defence—for a number of these issues. I think it is important to pause and reflect on why that is the case.I draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying the Department of Defence is one of those organisations which plays a very real and responsible role in Australian society, as does its adjuncts as reflected by the Australian defence forces. We on this side of the House will continue to be supportive of responsible and appropriate expenditure in Defence used in its broadest categorisation, but we want to see that any of the Defence Reform Program measures which this government is imposing on it in no way mean that the delivery of those services in the defence of this nation are compromised. We will continue to scrutinise very closely, through the processes available to us, the way in which that Defence Reform Program continues to operate.13:30:002499Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—One of the many privileges of being a parliamentary secretary in this place is that one gets few opportunities to address the House. At the outset, I would firstly like to express my concern and support for the many south-eastern Queensland families affected by flooding this week. A large number of people have tragically lost their lives over the past five days, and the sympathies of all of us go out to the friends and families of those people who have died. In particular, I would like to mention Aaron Lade from Palmwoods, Harriet Hunter of Closeburn, Peter Muller of Kenilworth and Christopher Miric of Caboolture. There have been other people lost whose names have not as yet been released.Latest reports from the area indicate that rivers and tributaries south of the Maroochy River have their flood levels subsiding rapidly. However, further north the news is not as good. The Mary River has peaked at its highest level for 100 years in Gympie, leaving a massive clean-up job for local businesses and residents. Maryborough is now bracing itself for the swollen Mary River as the flood peak moves downstream from Gympie. I understand that the flood peak will occur some time this afternoon.I am very pleased that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, accompanied by the Minister for Community Services and the honourable member for Wide Bay, Mr Truss, the honourable member for Fairfax, Mr Somlyay, and the honourable member for Dickson, Mrs Kernot, are on their way to view first-hand the tragedy which is unfolding at this time and to pass on the sympathies and best wishes of all of us. It is an unfortunate reality of living in this wonderful country that we do have at times extreme climatic conditions which can wreak tragedy and destruction when it is least expected. Areas that experience drought one year can be awash with rain the next.I was talking to one of my colleagues from Victoria, and while much of south-east Queensland is currently being submerged under water, his electorate over the last couple of weeks was threatened with fire. It is, however, a true reflection of the Australian way that in times of adversity the community galvanises together. Right across south-east Queensland, police, ambulance, fire and state emergency personnel and countless volunteers have made a contribution in improving the lot of those residents in need. On behalf of all of us, I reiterate our sympathies and best wishes to those who have lost family members during these floods.I now turn to the defining issue for Australians this year, 1999—tax reform. This is the government's top priority. Already the government has brought forward a number of initiatives which take effect from 1 January. I refer to the increased eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card, which will see those couples with a combined income of $67,000 or less or a single person with an income of $40,000 or less who are not in receipt of a pension and who are of pensionable age able to receive access to pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate.We also have the extension of the veterans gold card. This will be good news for 50,000 Australian war veterans aged over 70. They will be able to receive free hospital health care. The 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance has also taken effect, and that will deliver a $600 benefit to an average family with a typical $2,000 policy. Unlike Labor, our pledges in the last election will be delivered, and the tax reform we have promised and the tax reform for which we have a mandate we intend to enshrine in law so the benefits flow through to all parts of the community.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Not if we can help it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member for Hunter really ought to be appreciative that we gained a mandate. There was an election. We won and you lost.The government's tax reform package will see the scrapping of nine Labor taxes, including the dreaded wholesale sales tax, which is currently levied at six levels, with rates as high as 45 per cent. The financial institutions duty and debits tax will be scrapped, along with various stamp duties and bed taxes levied by the states. There will be a dramatic reduction in the personal rate of income tax, and over 80 per cent of taxpayers will face a top marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent. The tax-free threshold will increase appropriately from $5,400 to $6,000. The government will crack down on tax rorts and will simplify the tax system. The new tax system will be better for families and simpler for businesses. It will be fairer. There will be extra incentives to work, save and invest. There will be a system which promotes exports and which encourages investments.At the present time we have Senate inquiries under way into the proposed GST legislation. The tax package is now before four Senate committees and it is very interesting to look at the evidence that is emerging during these Senate inquiries. Much of it is supporting the government's plans to bring in wide-ranging tax reform. Leading economist, Mr Chris Murphy of Econotech Australia, fully endorsed the tax package.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—He said—and the member for Hunter should listen carefully:This package is good for the Australian economy and it should be possible to ensure that it leaves most, if not all, people better off.Notably, Mr Murphy's submission also concluded that the increase in food prices would be only three per cent. The Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants told the GST inquiry in Melbourne:It is important that we don't replicate the anomalies of the current wholesale sales tax system in the new tax regime and that means that food must be included in the tax base.Strikingly, evidence has been brought forward by a full-time practitioner who actually deals with the tax system on a daily basis. The Australian Society of CPAs supported the government's broad based approach to tax reform. It has endorsed the government's view that compensation for low income earners was preferable to GST concessions that would make the tax system only more complex. It also reinforced the need to get on with the job of passing the legislation to enable sufficient time to prepare for its implementation. That, naturally, is the government's preferred alternative.The Australian Council of Social Service has failed to support the position of the opposition. ACOSS has continued to back the concept of tax reform. ACOSS knows that the current wholesale sales tax system is broken, and the submission of ACOSS to the Senate inquiry was based on research commissioned by the Melbourne Institute, and that shows that welfare recipients will be better off, not worse off, under the tax package. The research shows that, for every category of welfare recipient, people will receive increases in pension which overcompensate for the expected cost of living increases.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—You don't even believe that.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I do believe it, and I support the government's mandate very strongly. We stood up prior to the last election. We announced what our policy would be. We gained the support of the Australian people.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The parliamentary secretary knows that he should make his comments through the chair and ignore the member for Hunter.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—We have a mandate, and we are seeking to implement our promises. When the committees from the Senate bring down their reports, we hope that they back what the government is proposing, but we ought to bear in mind that some of those people, the colleagues of those opposite, are from the Labor Party. They are prepared to play politics. They are prepared to deny the fact that the Labor Party in earlier manifestations supported the principle of tax reform. Now, because of cheapjack political opportunism, they are refusing to vote for what they know is good for the Australian economy and the very many benefits that will flow through to all sectors of our Australian nation.As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, I have been privileged to do work in the area of public sector accounting reform. I have also had an interest in the move to accrual budgeting. The 1999-2000 budget to be handed down this year will be the first to report on a fully accrual basis replacing the cash accounting framework. This will greatly improve the quality and usefulness of the information provided to government and its agencies to manage their finances responsibly. The accrual based reporting framework and the whole of government accrual financial statements constitute significant changes to the way that government will make its budgetary decisions, particularly how and what the government measures for assessing performance.The accrual framework also provides a greater degree of transparency of the government's financial position consistent with the charter of budget honesty. It represents an important and complementary part of the government's reforms to Commonwealth finances designed to improve accountability. The Australian community will benefit from these reforms with greater transparency and improved performance by government agencies. These are landmark reforms that will help ensure that Australian taxpayers receive good government and management to which they are entitled. A public sector which is more performance focused and more accountable will lead generally to better government. Improved reporting information will let the government identify and get on with the job of doing what it does best. It will also enable the government to budget more effectively for changing circumstances as they occur and deliver improved fiscal performance.There is another defining issue this year, and I move to the question of a referendum on whether or not Australia should become a republic. I fully support the government's announcement that we will, towards the end of this year, give the Australian people the chance of voting to become a republic or to remain a constitutional monarchy. I fully support the promise of the Prime Minister. We are prepared to deliver to the Australian people the form of government they want, not the form of government that the Labor Party sought to impose. We strongly back the right of the Australian people to decide Australia's constitutional future as we approach the next millennium, whereas the Labor Party are not prepared to allow their members to stand up and have a conscience vote.Mr O'Connor interjecting—Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—People in our party have varying views on this issue. We are like the community and have differing views. When the referendum comes along, individual coalition members will be allowed to stand up and express those opinions. There are in our party republicans, monarchists and those who are somewhere in between. The member for Corio, the member for Hunter and other members of the Labor Party have been lined up and told that they have to support a republic. They are not allowed to express their own views. I do not know what their personal views are, but they are monumentally irrelevant to those people who run the Labor Party, because the Labor Party simply is not prepared to allow its members to have a say and speak up.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The parliamentary secretary is misleading the House. There have been no demands within the party that we should vote in any particular way. What the electorate want to know is how Peter Slipper is going to vote. That is what they want to know, and he should share that with them.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The honourable member for Hunter can later on, when he is listed to speak, reply to the parliamentary secretary.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Mr Deputy Speaker, there are provisions in the standing orders which provide for you to be able to deal with him for raising a frivolous point of order. The member for Hunter has been here long enough to know that he ought not test your patience by standing up and sprouting arrant nonsense. It is obvious that the Labor Party has a policy, and all members of the Labor Party are locked into that policy, even though in the Labor Party, as in other parties, there are varying views on this very important issue.It should also be noted that some people are suggesting that the change which they advocate is a small yet hugely symbolic step. Whichever way Australians vote in the referendum, it is absolutely vital that they are aware of the issue on which they are voting. They have to sit down and consider the alternatives. We are going to give them that opportunity, but it is important that people are not deceived. It is important that people do have the chance to consider whether Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy or become a republic and the ramifications of either of those decisions. In other words, people are entitled to know what they are voting on.It is interesting to see that those supporting the Keating-Turnbull model want us to accept that what is proposed is a change, a perception, a matter of mere symbolism and not a matter of substance. What would occur if the republican referendum is carried is monumental change of very great substance. One simply cannot remove the foundations of a building and expect that it will stand up without massive reconstruction. It is interesting to note that, when one looks at the proposed powers of the president under the republican model under consideration, they would not be justiciable. It is also suggested that the powers would not be enumerated and that the powers of the Governor-General would move across to the new president without change. It ought to be considered that, because those powers are not justiciable, the conventions of constitutional monarchy which currently restrain the use by the Governor-General of his very broad powers in the Constitution will not necessarily restrict the president in the exercise of his powers. If people choose to vote for a republic, it is important to recognise that they might be receiving a president who has not only apparent powers but very real powers.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—It is codified.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Your government when in office said that it would not codify. The Keating-Turnbull model, which will be voted on towards the end of this year, has no proposal for codification either. Consider what eminent jurist Sir Harry Gibbs has said. He has expressed grave concern in one of his many excellent papers about the transfer of powers presently vested in the Governor-General to a president. I share those concerns, and I believe the Australian people prior to a vote are entitled to know what would be the situation.I am very supportive of the right of the Australian people to decide whether we should be a republic or a constitutional monarchy. It is also important for those people who are republicans to consider very carefully whether they are prepared to junk our present system for any old republic. Bear in mind that it is extraordinarily difficult to change our Constitution. So any republic that comes about, if this referendum is carried towards the end of this year, will be the republic that is enshrined virtually forever. Those who are direct electionists or who have some problem with the Keating-Turnbull model ought to consider carefully whether they are able to vote for the Keating-Turnbull model on the basis that any old republic is better than the system we now have.I have many friends who are republicans and many who are monarchists, but when I talk to people who are passionately in favour of a republic it is common to hear that while they want a republic it must be the right sort of republic. Many of them say that the Keating-Turnbull model is flawed and that it is nowhere near as good as the current system, which has delivered freedom, stability and the way of life that is the envy of people throughout the world.What I am pleading for in this debate is an honest debate. It is very important that the people of Australia know that the referendum is a referendum of substance. We are not talking about mere symbolism; we are not talking about perception. What we are talking about are changes of very real substance. There would be very many alternatives to the Australian Constitution and, while we should appreciate that in good times any system of government will work well, we need to guarantee that our Constitution is able to assist Australia in bad times.I am pleading for an open and honest debate. This government has pledged—and I support this pledge absolutely—the right of the people of Australia to have, as we approach the next millennium, the form of government that they want. We are not going to ram down their throats any particular model. We strongly defend the right of the Australian people, but what I want to happen between now and the referendum is for people who are on both sides of the argument to be up-front and honest. It is erroneous to suggest that what will be on the ballot paper will be a minor symbolic change. If people want to vote for change, that is their right. But they ought to appreciate that, if they do vote yes towards the end of this year, the changes that will be made will be substantial. It is rather like asking people to hop on a cruise boat that is leaving the harbour without any set of maps, without any plans, without any route on the basis that the captain says, as Hawke did, `Trust me.' I commend the appropriation bills to the House.13:50:002504O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I am quite amazed by the contribution that has just been made by the member for Fisher to this debate on the appropriation bills. We in this House know that the member for Fisher is a man of change, and we do hold out some hope that, at some time in the near future, he will change his views on the issue on which he has just addressed the House. We know he is a member for change because many years ago he used to be a member of the National Party. Indeed, I think he came into this House as a member of the National Party then, in typical fashion, he jumped the fence. He was defeated, I believe—I don't know what happened up there—and came back into the House as a member of the Liberal Party. We on this side of the House live in great hope that the member for Fisher some time in the future approaching this vote on the republic will indeed jump the fence yet again.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—He hasn't told us how he is voting.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The member for Hunter is in the dark. However, I am not in the dark as to where the member for Fisher is on this particular issue. Let me say to all coalition members: we have had to drag you one by one by the nose into the republic debate and we have had this arrogant Treasurer that we have here in Australia putting himself up, when he sensed that the Australian public might cop a republic, now saying, `Well, yes, maybe. Maybe I will vote for it.' Then we have his ministerial colleagues who are still wedded to the Queen Camilla line on the issue. The coalition is split right down the middle on an issue that is fundamental to the Australian people.I say to the honourable member for Fisher: go home tonight and before you go to bed simply say these words, because tomorrow you will come to this House a new man, a reinvented man, `I would like an Australian as Australia's head of state.' It is easy.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—No, he wants Queen Camilla.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—You will drop Camilla and certainly jump on board with those in the republican movement and opt for an Australian to lead Australia and be Australia's head of state.Day after day we have had a bevy of government ministers and members from the other side of the House parade into this parliament singing the praises of the GST. We on this side of the House call it Costello's curse. That is what they call it out in the rural and regional areas of Australia because they simply know that, like Paterson's curse, Costello's GST curse is going to ravage the pastures of their income. Over in the Senate the clinical evaluation of the Howard government's GST tax package has exposed it for what it is: a fraudulent exercise that at the end of the day will destroy jobs, increase inflation and leave many low and middle income Australians much worse off than they would have been were it not introduced.We have now reached the pinnacle of conservative economic vision for Australia. It is really back to the future stuff. We have a Prime Minister locked into a 1950s mentality proposing a 1960s tax as the panacea for Australia's problems. The one great vision for the new millennium as far as the Liberal Party is concerned is to propose a tax package which has at the heart of it a 1960s tax that will be overtaken in a very short time by the march of economic events in the new millennium.There are some things that we know the GST will do and there are some things that we know that it will not do. We know, for example, from the evidence that has been given to the Senate inquiry that this new Liberal tax, Costello's curse, will increase inflation and increase compliance costs for small businesses and cripple them. We know that to be the case. The Howard government is going to introduce this tax at a time of record bankruptcies among small business under the Liberal Party of Australia. So we are going to have foisted on the small business community a tax that is going to drive their compliance costs through the roof.We know what this tax will not do. It will not appreciably reduce the unemployment rate nor will it appreciably lift the growth rate. If that is the conclusion that is coming out of the Senate inquiry into the GST, one must simply ask the question: why are we having it? In my electorate of Corio we have a high percentage of low income earners and pensioners. They will be more than a little concerned at the evidence that has come out of the Senate inquiry in relation to the inflation effects of the GST. The Treasurer gave an assessment in the tax package that the inflation effects of the GST would be in the region of 1.9 per cent. We now know this to be the central deception of the Howard government's tax package.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Absolute rot.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—It's absolute rot? Thank goodness the Australian people will never be in a position where they will have to suffer this tax, because I am sure it is going to be defeated in the Senate. The Treasurer's own department estimated that the inflation rate would be 3.1 per cent and the Treasurer and the Liberal Party say it would be 1.9 per cent. The Treasury says 3.1 per cent and every economist who has ever evaluated the introduction of a GST around the world says the rule of thumb is that the inflation rate will be approximately half the level at which it is introduced—10 per cent divided by two, give or take a per cent. You can count on the inflation rate here being four per cent. That is your deception and that is coming out of the evidence of the Senate inquiry. The real inflationary situation will be that inflation in Australia will go up by four to five per cent. The great Liberal achievement in its tax package will be an increase in inflation of four to five per cent. That is really some achievement.Let me comment on this arrogant Treasurer who parades himself here day after day telling us what a good state the Australian economy is in. He had the gall to quote the ACTU's living wage submission in question time yesterday about what good shape the Australian economy is in. It is in good shape because we put it in good shape, very simply. Let me take the economic imbeciles who sit on the other side through it. Your Prime Minister left this country with 11 per cent inflation. He left this country with a 10 to 11 per cent unemployment rate. He left this country with a negative growth rate. That was the economic shambles that Labor had to rectify when it came to power. Here we have the Treasurer gloating that there are sound macro fundamentals of economic growth—Mr Slipper interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—We gave you that. We gave you low inflation when your Prime Minister, who has just come to the table, left us with 11 per cent. We gave you a growth rate of an average of five per cent when he left us with a growth rate that was negative. You don't have to be a real bright spark to appreciate the points that I am making. I am glad the Treasurer has come into the House because the Treasurer gloats that he is really responsible for the reduction in the inflation rate. When Labor brings it from 11 per cent, which his Prime Minister left it at, to two per cent, we think that is some achievement. But, when he brings it down from two per cent to one per cent, he parades himself as a paragon of virtue.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 Arrangements250514:00:002505Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Community Services are absent from question time today. Both ministers are visiting flood affected areas in Queensland. I understand that they are being accompanied by the member for Fairfax, as well as a number of members of the opposition, including the honourable member for Dickson. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Community Services.Questions Without Notice250625062506Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you said your watered-down code is in line with contemporary practice. Doesn't Max Moore-Wilton's report to you, which reviewed contemporary practice and thinking in the US, the UK, New Zealand and Canada, show that a genuine blind trust requires not just a no-control test but a no-knowledge test? Why doesn't your code of conduct contain a no-knowledge test?2506Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The contemporary practice of which I spoke yesterday included a large number of things, including the 40.3 per cent private share ownership, which is one of the proud achievements of the coalition government. It recognises the fact that we are a society now that has a large number of people who not only aspire to own shares but have now got the money to own shares. That is a direct result of the economic policies of my government, and it is that range of contemporary consideration that is so important in putting something like this together.25062506McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of this morning's labour force figures? Were there any notable features in these figures in relation to the youth labour market?2506Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for directing a question in this House on something of interest to the mainstream of the Australian community. I am delighted to say to the House that today's labour force figures confirm the tremendous employment gains made last month. The unemployment rate remains steady at 7.5 per cent and, after increasing by 53,600 last month, employment remains steady in January. Given the way in which these figures often go, I think many Australians will see the maintenance of that figure of 7.5 per cent, which is the lowest figure since September 1990, as further evidence of the success of the government's policies in stabilising and reducing the unemployment level.I am very happy to report that today's fall in the number of unemployed young people has taken youth unemployment to 24.1 per cent—its lowest level since February 1991. Having said that, let me say immediately that just as last month's figures represented only one month so it is that this month's figures also represent only one month. A great deal more needs to be done, particularly for younger people, if any government or any side of politics is even to begin to contemplate claiming that real success, lasting success, has been achieved in bringing about a big reduction in unemployment.There are a number of things that we can all do. To start with, the parliament can pass the government's unfair dismissal law. We can pass that law that will create, not in the words of the government but in the words of small business, 50,000 more jobs. We can drag that 7.5 per cent down further. Who is holding it up? It is not the Liberal Party and it is not the National Party. It is the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. They are the people who are threatening to hold it up. That is the first thing we can do.The second thing we can do is to pass the government's legislation to protect the jobs of 230,000 young Australians who now, in no small measure, owe their jobs to the existence of youth wages within the Australian wage structure. What we are saying is that it makes commonsense to preserve that structure. It is anti the cause of young people in this country. It is destructive of job generation for young people to try to sweep away the youth wage structure. All I can say is that the Labor Party will have a second test in a short period of time—that is, will they vote in the Senate to pass the government's legislation on this score? If their behaviour here in the parliament yesterday is any guide, the omens are not good. I would say to those 230,000 young Australians whose existing jobs depend in no small measure on the existence of this provision in our award structure: `If your position is put at risk, you have the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats alone to blame for that particular decision.'The third thing that the Labor Party can do is to pass unamended in the Senate the government's taxation reform package. The government's taxation reform package, by adding further to economic growth in Australia, is going to add to employment over the long haul. So there are three tests for the Labor Party: test No. 1, vote for 50,000 more jobs, according to small business, by letting the unfair dismissal regulation go unrepealed; test No. 2, vote to entrench youth wages and protect the jobs of 230,000 young Australians; and test No. 3, pass the tax package—the greatest single next reform that the Australian economy needs. They are three simple tests. The Labor Party has a national responsibility, and all Australians will be watching over the weeks and months ahead to see whether the Australian Labor Party matches Australia's need.25072507Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his watered-down code of conduct and Max Moore-Wilton's report to him on which it was based. Prime Minister, doesn't that report, at paragraph 63, state:Blind trusts could . . . provide insufficient protection against conflicts if the office holder and trustee were not at arms length.Prime Minister, how do you expect the Australian public to believe that passing shares to your adult children is an arms-length arrangement?2507Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has invited me, in responding to that question, to take at face value his reference to the words of somebody else. Normally, one might be tempted in this place to do that, but I have learnt from long experience that when you hear somebody from the opposition—particularly the deputy opposition leader—get up and say—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I am right on the money.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, I have not heard what the point of order is yet.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if the Prime Minister has any doubt, I seek leave to table Max Moore-Wilton's report, and specifically paragraph 63, which he has had for two years.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He cannot expect—DT4CREANMr Crean—Can I seek leave to table it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not possible to seek leave to table a document on a point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have learnt through long experience that you do not necessarily accept, when somebody in the opposition gets up and says, `X said this,' that X really said it.DT4CREANMr Crean—Well, he said it; read it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well, you said somebody said something yesterday—DT4CREANMr Crean—Well, you said you would never have a GST.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have a bit of paper in my hand that demonstrates that yesterday you misled the parliament. Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question relating to employment and relating to a number of matters. In the course of his question he said: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 lots of modelling on employment'?That is not what the Treasurer said at the Press Club last year. What the Treasurer said at the Press Club last year was this:Look, we've done a lot of modelling.He made no reference to employment.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Ha, ha!ZD4Mr HOWARD—No reference to employment—no reference at all to employment.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister will resume his seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I appreciate the Prime Minister highlighting the Treasurer's misleading, but let me say this—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is the point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—It goes to the point of relevance. This was about Max Moore-Wilton's report, specifically paragraph 63—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order and will resume his seat.DT4CREANMr Crean—A report that he has had for two years and which he said he based his new code of conduct on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and the Prime Minister will answer the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—So not only did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite intentionally mislead the parliament—DT4CREANMr Crean—He is ignoring your ruling.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—That is disorderly behaviour.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is ridiculous.DT4CREANMr Crean—This is disorderly behaviour.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not have the call.DT4CREANMr Crean—I am seeking the call.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.DT4CREANMr Crean—The Prime Minister is clearly ignoring your ruling. You asked him to answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is testing the patience of the chair. The Prime Minister had scarcely concluded one sentence of the response to that question.DT4CREANMr Crean—He ignored your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invite the Prime Minister to answer the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And the evidence of his deliberate deceit of the parliament is to be found in his own press statement of 17 December last year when on this occasion— because it then suited his purpose—he correctly quoted the Treasurer as having said, `Look, we've done a lot of modelling.'PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to the question of relevance. As the Prime Minister knows, he can add to an answer, clear up an answer, do anything he likes—there is great freedom for him in this place. The normal point of time to do it is not in the presentation of irrelevancies in answer to another and totally unrelated question but at the end of question time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition makes a valid point of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not need any assistance from those on my left. The Prime Minister will respond to the question asked and deal with the issue of arms-length arrangements for family members.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, these matters were canvassed yesterday and I do not have anything further to add.25082508Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of reforms due to be undertaken to streamline tax forms for business? If so, could the Treasurer outline how these changes will improve and simplify compliance costs for Australian businesses?2508Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. I can assure the House that, because this is a government which is determined to reform the tax system, not only can we improve the tax system but also we can dramatically reduce the compliance burden on business as a result of their taxation obligations.Under the government's tax reform, we are abolishing five existing tax and payment reporting systems: prescribed payments, PAYE, reportable payments, provisional tax and company instalments, and replacing them with one system of pay-as-you-go tax. Because we are introducing a broad based indirect tax which requires business to report sales and purchases on a quarterly basis, we can, from the back of that return, make it possible for a business to do all of its tax requirements on one form quarterly—one form quarterly.At the moment a small company and its directors typically need to make about 16 payments to the ATO and, for some businesses, up to 32 payments in any one year. Under Labor's tax system, companies have to put in provisional tax reporting forms and get instalment notices in return. They have to put in their fringe benefits returns on different forms and get assessments. And they have to put in their company and superannuation forms on another set of compliance documents and get their returns. Under Labor's wholesale sales tax, if they are in the wholesale sales tax system—the system that the Labor Party loves—they get a book like this with all their sales tax remittances. If they have a prescribed payments system under Labor's tax system, they get a book like this which they have to fill in. Under the PAYE system—Labor's PAYE system—they get this booklet which they have to fill in on a separate and different set of records and, if they come into the reportable payments system under Labor's tax system, they get this book as well. Up to 32 payments to the Australian Taxation Office: that is a business's reporting requirements to the Australian Taxation Office under Labor's loved tax system.Under the tax system which the government proposes to introduce, you will have this one page four times a year. This is the draft return—the business activity statement—which is filled in four times a year on which you put sales and purchases and on which you get your assessment for all withholding tax obligations, company taxes, reportable payments system, prescribed payments system, diesel fuel excise credit and every other requirement. That is what tax reform under the coalition will bring in benefits to small business.Labor's loved reporting requirements are dense and thick—like the Labor Party. If small business gets a new tax system from 1 July 1999, not only can we introduce that as the system—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Ha, ha!CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always laughs loudest when he is doing worst, Mr Speaker. Not only will that be the requirement of small business, but small business will be getting a cash flow benefit through the alignment of the PAYG system of up to $150 million. Small business are going to say to themselves, `Why was it that after 13 years of a Labor government they could not do better than that? Why was it that it took a coalition government, in its first term, to produce a system like that? And why is it that Labor, after an election—a fair and square election—still refuses to help the small businesses of Australia?' We say: get on with it—let us pass the tax package and let us have decent reform in this country.25092509Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, doesn't Max Moore-Wilton's report, upon which you relied to water down your code of conduct, state at paragraph 90 in its recommendation, and again I quote:The office holders should nominate as the equivalent of immediate family for conflict of interest purposes any other people having especially close relationship with the office holder.Prime Minister, don't you think this would ordinarily include adult children?2509Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I repeat what I said yesterday that the relatively small changes that have been made to the code essentially follow recommendations that were made to the government in the incoming brief from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.25092509Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister inform the House of any recent indicators of performance of the Job Network? In light of these indicators, will the minister inform the House of any opposition to the Job Network?2509Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Longman for his question and for his work as chairman of the government members employment committee. On that note, I would like to congratulate the ABC for this morning's interview with Malcolm Jackman, who is the head of the big private sector job agency, Manpower, who, according to the ABC, said that the government's recent changes to the Job Network have made all the difference. Mr Jackman said:I am . . . positive about it . . . I'm positive because the government has . . . made it a lot more commercially viable . . . And given those factors, it makes me a lot more bullish about wanting to be in the marketplace.Why wouldn't Manpower, or any other job agency large or small, seek to join a Job Network which is getting better all the time?In January 1999 the Job Network placed 16,000 job seekers on benefit into work and this was 50 per cent better than the outcomes achieved by the CES a year earlier. In January 1999, 43,000 vacancies were registered with the Job Network by employers, which is nearly double the result achieved by the CES a year earlier. On both counts, the Job Network in January substantially outperformed the CES in earlier years.Despite a slow start, Job Network has now found work for 23 per cent more unemployed people on benefit between May and January than the CES did in the corresponding period a year earlier. Job Network has also done significantly better in placing the long-term unemployed. It has done better in finding full-time permanent jobs.Despite this, some people are still living in the past—not, of course, the member for Melbourne or the member for Werriwa but certainly the ALP leadership team because, on this subject, the Leader of the Opposition sounds like a cracked record. You have to ask yourself when will he finally get the message that open markets work and competitive systems work. The reason why he does not get the message is that members opposite are slaves of the unions and they are slaves of the public sector. Fifty-two per cent of ALP frontbenchers are former trade union officials. Fifty per cent of the ALP's 1998 parliamentary intake are—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, I was asked about explanations as to why there was continuing opposition. Fifty per cent of the ALP's 1998 parliamentary intake are former union officials. On my reckoning, there are only two—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you have asked the minister to return to the question and it is not up to him to disregard your instruction and then give his own answer.Mrs Draper interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The member for Makin will allow me to make a ruling. I will determine whether or not what the minister is saying is getting back to the question. I call the minister.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. On my reckoning, just two of all the members opposite were other than trade union officials, political staffers or public sector employees before entering this place, which is why the member for Melbourne is entirely right in saying that Labor MPs are not representative of the Australian community or even of Labor voters.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You would be entitled to rule if we said in the course of a question, `Nineteen cabinet ministers have family trusts,' that that was irrelevant. You should be saying that what he is saying is irrelevant.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I will determine whether or not an answer is relevant to the question.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I tried to raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And I heard your point of order. I call the minister to respond to the question and to be relevant to it.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The member for Melbourne is absolutely right, and that is before you even begin to consider Labor's nine hereditary peers who have followed their daddies into parliament and, even in those cases, inherited their fathers' economic policies.25112511Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will wait until the House comes to order. The chair is not being assisted by the frivolity of members on my right. The House will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition now has the call.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Prime Minister, are you aware of the report in the Australian of 6 April 1998 which stated that a number of ministers at the cabinet meeting which discussed blind trusts expressed strong reservations about a blind trust system because of the tax and stamp duty implications? Prime Minister, have you watered down your code of conduct to allow ministers to relinquish control of their shares to their adult children so that they can avoid paying the tax and stamp duty that would be required if those shares were transferred to a proper blind trust?2511Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As to the first part of the question, on past experience I would have to check the quote made by the Leader of the Opposition before I accept it. As to the second part of the question, the purpose of the changes was in no way related to avoidance of either stamp duty or tax.25112511Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, in the light of today's unemployment numbers, will the government continue to pursue labour market reforms? What obstacles exist that may prevent any necessary reforms? And are there any alternative policies that the government will consider?2511Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his question. The unemployment numbers today, as the Prime Minister has said, are steady on the previous month at 7.5, which is a good number in itself. We have also seen a very good unemployment rate for young people. If you look at the number of young people as a percentage of the total population, that number at 5.4 per cent, I think it is, is the lowest number since 1989; so that is a good number. But, if you look at the actual number of young people unemployed in the 15- to 19-year-old age group, we have still got 71,000 young people looking for jobs, and that is why this government is so absolutely determined to press ahead with the reforms which we believe will, once implemented, give young people a better chance of a job.I must say that we are very concerned within the government that, whilst we are working hard to get these numbers down, if the Labor Party continues to oppose the legislation which yesterday they voted against rather than reducing employment for some young people, the chances are young people will actually lose their jobs—deliberately as a result of a policy being pursued by the Labor Party and their obstruction in the Senate.I am asked what obstruction is there in the way of the government implementing the policy. It is as simple as that. The fact of the matter is that we have a series of proposals, all of which are being obstructed by the Labor Party who are absolutely intent on denying people the job opportunities we believe they ought to have. For example, in the area of workplace relations we have a policy commitment to improve further the labour market to make it more flexible, to help it create more jobs. I am asked, `What is the obstruction to that?' The fact of the matter is it is Labor's political obstruction and the use of their numbers in the Senate that stand in the way of the system that is going to help create jobs. As to what are the alternative policies, the Labor Party themselves could take a different view, and they could take the view of Tony Blair, who took over from Margaret Thatcher. This is what he said to the trade unions back in September 1997—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Blair took over from Major. You missed a Conservative Prime Minister.WI4Mr REITH—He said:We are not going back to the days of industrial warfare, strikes without ballots, mass and flying pickets and secondary action . . . We will keep the flexibility of the current labour market—it may make some shiver, but, in the end, it is warmer in the real world.Why can't the Leader of the Opposition say that? I will tell you why he cannot say that, and that is because he has got a whole stream of people on his back bench and on his front bench who are representing a narrow sectional interest against the general interest, against the public interest. We have got a narrowing interest: 44 per cent of all Labor members have a trade union background; 52 per cent of their frontbench have got a union background. I do know what my colleague was referring to when he talked about the nine hereditary peers, but we have got a lot of them here. We have got Lord Brand from Fremantle; we have got the Earl of Reid. Who else have we got? We have got the Duke of Hotham. They are stacked with union people.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley is seeking the call and would have the call if it were not for the behaviour of members on both sides of the House, but principally on my left.Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dobell. I ask the House to come to order. I call the member for Chifley.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the standing order requiring the minister to refer to members correctly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister was responding to a question. I felt that his answer was moving away from relevance to the question. I ask him to come back to the question.WI4Mr REITH—The point I make is that there is a very serious issue here. The government is attempting to put through a whole series of policy reforms which we believe will help to create jobs. Against that we find a wall of opposition, basically from the trade union movement represented by members in this place. Look at the new members, for example. Reading the maiden speeches of the new members is very instructive because they do not reflect a mainstream view. The member for Lalor, for example—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. When the Minister for Employment Services was pulling exactly the same stunts as this minister is doing you correctly ruled that he was not being relevant. I ask you to do the same to this minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have asked the minister to return to the question. I noted that in fact he had avoided the references he was making in the earlier answer. I call the minister to continue his answer.WI4Mr REITH—I will bring the matter to a conclusion. The point I make is that there is a serious obstruction to good policy. The problem is to be found within the organisation of our political opponents. It is not just us who are saying that. The member for Werriwa said that there are two types of opposition parties. He said:The first represents what I would call scab lifting.He goes on to say:Since 1996 federal Labor has been in the scab lifter mode. This approach sits easily with the political background of Labor's inner circle comprising ex-state ALP secretaries and ex-union secretaries.If you go through the new members, it is very revealing. The member for Charlton, Lady Charlton, says:My deep appreciation—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is completely unrelated to the question that was asked. It is as unrelated as if I were to stand up in this point of order and say, `Last year he said, "Who are we onside with? We are on the side of the people owning private capital."'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I invite the Leader of the House to return to the question.WI4Mr REITH—I conclude by making this point.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer again to standing order 80.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have already ruled.QI4PRICEMr Price—He just did it again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will return to the question.WI4Mr REITH—I conclude by making the point which I think has become very obvious to everyone this week as the parliament has returned, and that is that there are very seri ous issues here and there is a real contest within the Labor Party about the way in which they will form policy in the future. That is a relevant issue to the policies the government is attempting to put through this week. The comments of the member for Melbourne have lit a fire under the Leader of the Opposition that is going to burn all this year.25132513McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, is it the case that the MRI investigation which you instigated has as its sole object determining whether the 15 suspect contracts were both signed and binding before budget night on 12 May 1998?2513Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The premise in the question is somewhat wrong. I did not actually instigate an investigation—the Health Insurance Commission is looking at that in due course.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—You said you did.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—You are confusing an investigation with the normal examination of process. And I am afraid that, just as with everything else, you do not understand it. I did actually talk to the Health Insurance Commission last night and they informed me that to date there is no reason to believe that anybody had advanced information about the MRI proposal.25132513Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of the benefits that rural and agricultural workers will receive from the government's tax reform package?2513Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question and recognise the honourable member's understanding of matters rural and how things work in the bush. I have travelled Australia in the last couple of months visiting a lot of rural centres across Australia. Notwithstanding the fact that the economy is going extremely well due to the good policy settings of our government, there are parts of rural Australia that are still experiencing difficulties because of low commodity prices and climatic conditions. We need to understand that.Universally across Australia, in talking to people in rural Australia, people say they want the government's tax reform package passed, because they know—whether they are rural workers, they are farmers or they are running small businesses in regional towns—that the reforms proposed in our tax reform package are going to benefit everybody in rural Australia. Rural Australia over the years has disproportionately been disaffected by Labor's policies.We all remember the election of 1993, when the then Prime Minister, Mr Keating, promised tax cuts for all Australians and passed them into law but never enacted them. He has never delivered those tax cuts to any Australian—and the Labor Party had the hide, when we came to office, to ask us to deliver the tax cuts that they cheated on. They had the hide to ask us to deliver them! Now they have got the hide to oppose $13 billion worth of tax cuts which are going to benefit all Australians, particularly rural Australians including rural workers.In that budget in the election campaign of 1993, not only did they promise to provide tax cuts but they promised no increased taxes. Remember? And what happened? Everything went up. Not only did they deny Australians the tax cuts they promised but they increased wholesale sales tax across-the-board. Remember Keating's sales tax in 1993? It got worse, because it now impacts on rural Australia.We are now proposing a tax reform package that includes $13 billion worth of tax cuts that are going to benefit rural workers in Australia. In fact, a station hand married with two children on a single income, earning about $400 a week, will get a $23 a week tax cut. The Labor Party are opposing this. They never delivered on their tax cuts and they are now trying to stop the coalition government from delivering them now.Worse than that, as an example of what the Labor Party does to rural Australia, you have got a Labor government in New South Wales which, in the term of the last four years, has gutted $40 million out of the agriculture department in New South Wales. Where is the member for Clarence, who is supposedly representing rural New South Wales? He has allowed Carr to gut $40 million out of the department of agriculture in New South Wales.Rural Australia know that they need the tax reform package that our government is proposing. They know that the $13 billion worth of tax cuts are going to benefit everybody in rural Australia and they know that only the Labor Party and the Democrats are stopping our government from implementing a policy that we were elected at the last election to implement. You will be held accountable for opposing these tax cuts. You will be held accountable by the people in rural Australia.25142514McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, assuming that all MRI contracts currently under scrutiny by the HIC are approved as genuine projects, will this not represent an extraordinary one-third increase in the total number of MRI units in a very short period of time? In fact, is it not the case that, while it took 13 years to build a stock of 62 MRI units, it took just several weeks around budget time last year for a further 21 MRI units to be contracted? Is the minister aware that, when this became known in the industry, there were widespread rumours that some people must have had inside knowledge of your rebate decision?2514Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I am happy to give a detailed answer because there are many implications here. If the House wants to know it, I will. As far as I can see, the allegations being made broadly, and they are a bit broader than the question, are that public moneys were wasted; the investigation was slow—normally investigations take two to three months; there has been a lack of accountability; that it was my decision and that somehow overruled the department; that someone had inside knowledge; that somehow that related to me talking. As far as I can see about the summary of the seven allegations, let me take them one by one. As for the first allegation that public moneys have been wasted, the fact is—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. I think, Mr Speaker, you would agree we are entitled to ask our own questions on this side of the House without having them redefined. The point of relevance is this: we want to know—and this is the question and it is highly specific—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition cannot use a point of order to ask another question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, I am not debating. The question—to establish the relevance—goes specifically to that point about the sudden, dramatic increase in the number of machines contracted for and the relationship of that to rumours from his office.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That is the only question being asked.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—Do you take points of order in your sleep?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has the call and he is, as far as the Speaker can ascertain, responding to the question. I will listen to his answer.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I will give Labor the answer they want—that's fine—if they don't want a full answer. The first thing I will say is that there is no evidence that all these machines were ordered in the weeks before the budget. You are quite wrong there. There is no evidence.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—When were they?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—They were ordered over the previous 12 months—and if you had listened to my answer two days ago you would have understood that. The second point is that I completely and categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion whatsoever there was any leak from me or any leak from my office—categorically. 25152515Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Australian economy performed better than expected during the world financial crisis? is the Treasurer aware of comments which support the economic management and reform program of the government?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Batman. The member for Lyons. The member for Bruce.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Have you got the youth allowance, Alex?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman. The Treasurer has the call.2515Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. As he would know, and as I think I have said to this House on a number of occasions, Australia is probably living through the most difficult international economic climate since the Second World War. Right throughout the period of the 1980s and early 1990s, Asia was booming and providing an impetus for Australian growth. All of that has changed in the last 18 months or so since first Thailand, then Korea and then Indonesia went into IMF programs. We have seen a continued depression in Japan. We have seen Hong Kong and Singapore slide into recession. We have seen the New Zealand economy slide into recession and, outside of China, we have seen the whole of the Asian region, once considered the strong economic region of the world, practically in recession if not worse.Throughout that period it has always been the case that an international downturn would have an effect on Australia. But we went into the Asian downturn in a strengthened position because this government did the hard work to fix a budget deficit of $10 billion, which had been created by the honourable member for Brand when he was the Minister for Finance of Australia. He left that deficit to this government, notwithstanding pledges that the budget was then in surplus.If we had not fixed the fiscal position in 1996, before the Asian downturn was known, Australia would have been in a terribly exposed position. It was making sure that we had the budget in place, that we had a new monetary policy and that we were able to reduce interest rates—and, since this government has come to office, interest rates have been reduced to some of the lowest in 30 years—that protected the Australian economy at a time of international downturn.On the basis of the last national accounts, at five per cent growth, Australia was not only, outside of China, the only growing economy in Asia but the strongest growing economy in the developed world. In recent times, as business confidence has picked up, you have seen people like the National Bank describe that as a stunning performance. That was the assessment of the chief economist at the National Australia Bank. The IMF deputy director, Stanley Fischer, talked about Australia doing remarkably well. In Fortune magazine in December of last year, Paul Krugman, considered by many to be the pre-eminent economist in the world, said words to the effect, `In case you did not know it, Australia is the miracle economy of the world financial crisis.'I think we can recognise the benefits of good policy in all of that. We have to recognise the performance of our exporters, who were able to divert exports to new markets as a consequence. We have to recognise the part that was played by a floating exchange rate. We have to recognise the enormous benefit to Australian business of low interest rates. We have to recognise the fact that it was this government that took the standard variable mortgage rate down from 10½ per cent to something like six per cent, putting money back in the pockets of Australian home buyers. It was this government that put money back in the pockets of Australian home buyers, which made sure that retail spending kept the domestic economy strong at a time of international economic turmoil.As I said before, one of the things that was important to that was a floating exchange rate. I pay tribute to those in the Labor Party who have supported economic reform for the work that was done. But for the modern leadership of the Labor Party to turn its back on opening up the economy is for it to turn its back on probably the only successes it had in the 1980s. As the member for Melbourne said—and I think this is something that all members of the parliament should consider carefully, particularly the Labor frontbench:The Labor Party cannot afford to indulge in the politics of nostalgia. Strident denunciations of economic rationalism and broad hints that we can return to the good old days of high tariffs and pork-barrelling may produce short-term political benefits but they will only engender disillusionment in the long run.Let us be honest about this: that is an indictment of the economic policies of your shadow Treasurer and of the leader. You could not have lined the targets up better—two of the hereditary peers—of the deputy leader of the Labor Party and the leader of the Labor Party. Let us hear it again:Strident denunciations of economic rationalism and broad hints—this is how it is done; wink, wink, nudge, nudge—that we can return to the good old days of high tariffs and pork-barrelling may produce short-term political benefits but they will only engender disillusionment in the long run.There is the challenge to the modern Labor Party. Can they embrace the policies of Werriwa and Melbourne and turn their backs on Hotham and Brand? This is the great economic challenge for the Labor Party. If the Prince of Hotham wants to stand by his political program, as I said earlier, he can write a book and say why the member for Melbourne and the member for Werriwa are wrong.The great challenge for the modern Labor Party is: can you embrace the future or will you cling to the past? The future is represented by Melbourne and Werriwa; the past is represented by Hotham and Brand. The future is represented by joining the government in the great reform process; the past is represented by the strident denunciations and the `back to the future' policies and populism of Brand and Fremantle.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Fremantle?CT4Mr COSTELLO—And Fremantle as well. There is no future in following the hereditary peers here. Follow Werriwa and Melbourne, learn the lessons of the international downturn and support the great reform agenda that this coalition government is leading.25162516Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recollect telling the parliament two days ago:The final thing is that the investigation is at my suggestion.Today, in answer to a question, you said that the investigation was not at your suggestion and in fact it could not really be called an investigation at all. What is the truth in that? Furthermore, to put at rest the suspicion that some of the contracts were signed shortly before the budget as a result of disclosure of budget information, will you now provide the dates on which the 15 suspect MRI contracts were allegedly signed?2516Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—There are two questions there, and I will answer each of them in turn. The first relates to the investigation. I have checked my words on the 9th and they are correct. There are two processes under way here. The first is a process that was put in place before the budget at the suggestion of my department when they told me several days before the budget that there could be a loophole here, or a problem, and that we should address it ahead of time. I put in place then a process—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition. The minister has the call.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—This sledging is very difficult, Mr Speaker. I put in place then a process that would see that all machines would be registered and that the Health Insurance Commission would check each and every registration.As for the Leader of the Opposition's interjection that this was somehow outside the process of government, let me say what the process was.Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—No, it is not my department's suggestion; you did not understand it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is not a conversation between the Leader of the Opposition and the minister, as both know.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—My department said in Senate estimates that I made the decision. That is correct. Let me tell you the process of my making the decision. The department advised my office that there may be a problem. I asked my department for proposals that could address that problem. I discussed them with my department. I asked my department which was their preferred option and I made a decision along the lines of—in fact, identical with—the preferred option put to me by my department. So the notion that you are suggesting that I somehow came in over the top and put something in myself is not correct. The fact is, though, that in this government the final decision is always with the minister, and I took that decision on the advice of my department and I took my department's preferred advice.I might say that then, because we were close to the budget—because of the other interjection by the Leader of the Opposition—I wrote to the Treasurer, Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and Administration, as is absolutely appropriate, to have it agreed for the budget process.The second investigation, which the Leader of the Opposition will not be aware of, which is why there may be some confusion, is that the Health Insurance Commission received anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations in December. It is not clear whether these are fact or whether these are as a result of professional, personal or organisational jealousies. In effect, with this additional information, only eight weeks ago, I might say, the Health Insurance Commission of its own volition decided to go through the process it normally would when there is any doubt. This process is completely independent of government, as it should be.In terms of will I say which machines came in before the budget cut-off, this also shows a lack of understanding of the process by the opposition, and it goes back to the earlier question. I have no evidence, and no evidence has been presented to me or provided by the opposition, that there was actually a rush of orders in the weeks before the budget.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The fact is that to order a MRI and have it in place may in fact take 12 months.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—This is the point of the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is blatantly ignoring the chair. The minister has the call.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—We are talking here about a new technology that is very underrepresented in Australia. In 1996 Australia had 2.8 MRI units per million of population compared with 21.3 units per million in Japan, 15.6 units per million in the United States and 6.5 units per million in Germany. So it is not at all unusual to expect that with a new technology, when there is a very rapid growth in that technology and where Australia is a long way behind in that technology, there should be new units being ordered. In fact, with all the new units being ordered, we are still less than half of what Germany has on a per capita basis.Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Eight times behind Japan or six times behind the United States. So it is a silly schoolboy debating point. It was well known that we were looking at MRI. The Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee released a report in October 1997 and said that we should fund it, and this created substantial expectation. We commenced negotiations with the Royal Australian College of Radiologists in an open way in December. I said publicly and privately that I wanted to find a way to fund MRI. Then, with the authority of the ERC, I entered into formal negotiations with the College of Radiologists because this involved placing a cap on the number of services. It involved actually a savings measure where the net effect was an $80 million saving to the budget. So there was a great expectation in the industry from October that this service that was underutilised in Australia by any independent measure would be more utilised.I do not know when the machines came in except to say that I asked the Health Insurance Commission last night whether there is any evidence that anyone had advance knowledge of the decision, and I was advised that their investigations to date have not provided any evidence whatsoever. Finally in terms of my role, I asked the Health Insurance Commission last night what is the role of ministers in this. I will read you their written advice, and I am happy to table the page. It reads:The Health Insurance Act 1973 contains secrecy provisions which preclude the release of information about individual cases.So it would be against the law for the Health Insurance Commission to provide it to me.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Jagajaga is warned.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I must say that to even provide the dates could show to individual people that they are potentially under investigation, and the Health Insurance Commission has said that it would be improper to make that available. Let me just read their words:The Health Insurance Act 1973 contains secrecy provisions which preclude the release of information about individual cases. Furthermore, it has not been the practice of successive Health Ministers to interfere in the action of the HIC with respect to individual providers. This practice is a sound one and there is no basis for an exception being made in this case.I will table that. Further, I will table the Health Insurance Act 1973, under which I operate, which was passed under a Labor government. Finally, there is absolutely nothing that has been shown up here, yet. There is mud slinging and there are allegations. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that it may turn out, when this process has gone through its normal course, that this anonymous, unsubstantiated allegation is in fact a professional rivalry, and you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the documents from which he was quoting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—He had six pages and he tabled three—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Speaker hasn't even ruled. Was the minister quoting from documents that are confidential?8E4WOOLDRIDGEDr Wooldridge—I quoted from one document only. Part of that document was confidential; I did not quote from that and again, following previous procedure, I did not bring the confidential part to the table. The unconfidential part I have already tabled.25182518Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Has the minister seen reports in the press today concerning the level of home and community care funding? Can the minister advise the House what funding the Commonwealth government provides to home and community care and what increases have been provided?2518Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for her question. I know of the concern that she has, for all of New South Wales as well as for her own seat, for the way in which home and community care money is spent. In this current year, the Commonwealth government is providing $500 million funding for HACC. That represents 60 per cent of all HACC money that is spent across Australia. This represents a rise of $24 million—a five per cent rise—in HACC funding on behalf of the federal government. With regard to New South Wales, $156 million is being paid, which represents an increase of $9.5 million.I saw some suggestion that this increase was contingent upon other fee structures being put in place, and I would say that this payment of $156 million, including the increase of $9.5 million, is not conditional on any fee structure. But I would say this: it is contingent upon the New South Wales minister providing me with sufficient financial data to ensure that the money will be spent with a diversity and equity which will satisfy the needs of individuals. I currently await that information from the New South Wales minister. Particularly during the lead-up to a New South Wales election, it is most important that the federal government is ensured that federal money is spent properly in the interests of individuals and is not used in a pork-barrelling manner in the state election.25192519Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration and it follows an answer given by the Minister for Health and Aged Care in which he revealed that he corresponded with the Minister for Finance and Administration about a risk in a program. I ask the minister: if there was forewarning of adverse consequences, why was this not advised in the statement of budget risks included in the budget?2519Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—One would have thought that the former Minister for Finance, the now Leader of the Opposition, would be somewhat familiar with procedures relating to budget and when there are variations thereof in the lead-up to it. But I suppose all of us would be forgiven for gaining the impression that he had little or no knowledge of just how the budget operated. After all, he was responsible for $10.3 billion worth of deficit when he left office.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will try to refrain from speaking over the Speaker because I was about to concede that he has a valid point of order and to call the minister back to the question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Let me elaborate that process and how it related to the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition. Whenever there is a matter which has an impact on or relates to a variation in respect of the budget, it is the practice and the procedure, which has been honoured from time immemorial, for ministers to write to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer and to the minister for finance to indicate what that variation or otherwise might be. In this instance, following on from the process in the lead-up to the last budget, in respect of radiology, including MRI, there was a decision taken and, within the bounds of that decision, the Minister for Health and Aged Care wrote to the three ministers in question. It was a capped fund; it was simply an acknowledgment of that. It was a capped fund, and it was within those bounds that those letters were written. I distinctly recall that letter. It was straightforward and followed procedures to the letter.25192519Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, you will no doubt be aware of the case of the Reverend Staines and his two young sons who were cruelly incinerated as they slept in their car in the Indian state of Orissa. What is the government's reaction to this almost unspeakable act?2519Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question and for his concern. I think it is fair to say that, on this rather rare occasion, I can speak for all members of the parliament when I say that we were shocked by the death of the Australian missionary Mr Graham Staines and his two sons, Phillip and Timothy, who were aged 10 and six respectively. They were killed on 22 January in the Indian province of Orissa. Mr Staines and his sons were killed while they slept at a Christian camp. The Indian authorities have now arrested 52 people in relation to the incident. The government acted quickly on hearing of the details of the deaths. I would like to commend the Australian High Commission and, personally, the Australian High Commissioner, Rob Laurie, for the decisive action they took at that time.The consul of the High Commission travelled to Orissa province on 24 January to gain first-hand information about what occurred and to provide all necessary support and assistance to Mrs Staines and her daughter who lived in the town of Baripada. I am sure all members of the House would agree with me that the courage of Mrs Staines and her daughter in these circumstances was quite extraordinary and was a great credit to both of them and to Australia.The High Commission has advised that the Indian government has now announced that it will institute a special judicial inquiry into the killing of the Staines. The inquiry will be headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. It is expected to commence sitting this week and to present its final report within two months. The terms of reference for the inquiry will be announced in the next few days. Our High Commission in New Delhi will monitor the inquiry closely to ensure that, at the end of the day, those who were responsible for this most horrific killing are brought to justice.25202520Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to your election eve announcement of a $100 million program to assist Victorians who `have suffered significant hardship as a result of the interruption to gas supplies'. Are you aware of the revelation by Senator Hill before the Senate estimates committee on Monday that only $7.3 million of this money—less than 10 per cent—was actually provided in compensation before the fund was closed? Is the Prime Minister satisfied that sufficient information was provided to the public and media about the fund, or do you now concede that the fund was closed before hundreds of thousands of Victorians had the opportunity to apply for compensation?2520Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As to the last part of the question, I do not concede that; in fact, I reject the claim made by the honourable member for Wills. At the time the assistance was announced, I made it clear that it was for emergency assistance for individuals and small businesses facing hardship. The press release made no mention of compensation for everyone affected. The Minister for Finance and Administration issued more detailed eligibility criteria later the same day, and these were drafted in consultation with the Victorian government to reflect the intention. Initial estimates of the funding required were also developed in close consultation with Victoria.The availability of assistance was widely publicised, including through a series of press advertisements and hotlines, Centrelink publicity material and outreach activities, and through community organisations providing material aid. The government has allowed an appropriate and generous period for claims to be lodged. It extended the time for claims under the community assistance component to 31 January 1999 at the request of the Victorian Premier.I understand that there have been claims that Commonwealth guidelines prevented the Victorian government reimbursing charities for electric appliances given to people during the gas crisis. This, I am advised, is not accurate. For example, the Salvation Army has been reimbursed at least $200,000 for kettles and frying pans, and we are investigating why their further claims have not been paid.I have been informed that a total of $3.8 million was spent under the community assistance component of the program, including at least $700,000 to the Salvation Army. The Department of Finance and Administration is investigating why their further claims, which I think were referred to on the 7.30 Report last night, have not been reimbursed because clearly they should have been, within the guidelines laid down. The department is investigating that claim, firstly, to establish its accuracy and, secondly, to establish why those additional claims have not been met. Final expenditure under the program is likely to be around $7.3 million: $0.2 million for Newstart, $3.3 million for small business and $3.8 million for community assistance.25202520Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hurrah!3K6Mr ROSS CAMERON—I welcome the encouragement and support of members opposite. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I understand that this morning the minister attended a farewell function for the first batch of Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development. Could the minister update the House on the implementation of this important program?2521Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for his question. The honourable member for Parramatta is one of those members who can claim great credit for this scheme. He has been a strong and consistent supporter of what has become known as the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development scheme. This morning I had the great pleasure of going to a breakfast in Sydney where I welcomed the first 80 members of the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development scheme who are going to leave Australia very soon for periods of between three and 12 months in the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Nepal, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Solomon Islands.These 80 people were selected from 700 applicants, and they will be going to those countries to share their experiences, talents and skills in a wide range of areas—from engineering to public health, to teaching, and so the list goes on. There are two things that this scheme will achieve. First of all, it will ensure that a large number of young Australians develop a clear and positive understanding of the countries in the Asia-Pacific region. After all, we need to understand our own region if we are going to successfully engage with it. That does not just mean members of parliament or the bureaucracy; it means the mainstream of Australian society.These people will get to know the region. And the other side of this is that the region will get to know Australians. People in our region will come to know young and talented Australians. I am absolutely convinced that this will generate a very positive image for Australia. This is a great scheme. Five hundred young Australians will participate in this scheme over the next two years. All I can say is that if we maintain the quality of the first 80 in the scheme these young people will do Australia enormous credit. This is a scheme which I am proud this government has set up and which I know will work and work successfully for many years to come.25212521Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that, as part of the government's use of Centrelink resources to distribute propaganda about the GST just before the federal election, informa tion about 350,000 Veterans' Affairs pensioners was accessed by Centrelink and provided to a private mailing house, signed by Senator Jocelyn Newman and issued without the knowledge of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs or departmental approval? Prime Minister, are you also aware that the former Privacy Commissioner ruled that the use of the Centrelink database for this mail-out was not authorised by law? Prime Minister, what knowledge did you or your office have of this abuse of the Centrelink database?2521Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has not been recognised. The only reason he has not been recognised is that it was not opportune to do so for reasons he understands. The Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, the point of this question was the state of knowledge of the Prime Minister or his office. Mr Williams is not responsible for the Prime Minister or his office.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the Prime Minister is at liberty to hand the question—DT4CREANMr Crean—Flick pass.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—to the person to whom it is most appropriate.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not expect to be lectured by members of the opposition. As the opposition is well aware—and so is the government—the Prime Minister is at perfect liberty to indicate which minister is most appropriate to answer the question.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What about the state of his knowledge?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane and the Leader of the Opposition are both warned.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—Mr Speaker—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Did you just issue me a warning? 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, I did not. That was a case of my issuing a warning to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition understands precisely what happened. The Attorney-General has the call.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—I am told that the mail-out that is referred to by the member for Canberra actually occurred before the federal election was announced and therefore before the caretaker period had commenced. I am told that it was consistent with some 10 years of practice under which the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Family and Community Services have sent aged pension news to DVA pensioners. Similar mail-outs occurred under the Labor government—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No!7V5Mr WILLIAMS—Yes, including a previous Labor minister who, I am advised, actually provided the addresses of veterans to the Labor Mayor of Brisbane for a mail-out in 1995. In that case, the mail-out was conducted by a private mailing house without any formal protection of privacy. This case—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question asked about the state of knowledge of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office. He has not answered.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will determine whether the answer is relevant or not. It certainly would not be fair for me at this stage to deem the Attorney-General's answer not to be relevant to the question.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—This matter was referred to the former—Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—This matter was referred to the former Privacy Commissioner, Ms Moira Scollay. She found that there had been a minor breach of the Privacy Act by what is now the Department of Family and Community Services and by Centrelink. She noted that no personal information was disclosed to any third parties, and personal information was used only to provide pensioners and recipients of veterans' entitlements with information. The commissioner accepted that the mail-out had been conducted in good faith and noted that the department and Centrelink had agreed to a number of procedural changes to ensure there were no similar breaches in future. I understand that before she left office the Privacy Commissioner was satisfied that the matter had been adequately dealt with and intended to take no further action. I am also advised that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is negotiating a memorandum of understanding with Centrelink to govern future use of the veterans database, which is more than the previous Labor government did.25222522Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Would the minister inform the House what action the government is taking to ensure that defence families throughout Australia are receiving the best quality child care?2522Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. When I was down in her electorate last week I saw the way she is recognised by her constituents. She is a great member and a great representative of that part of New South Wales. While I was at Nowra last week, I opened the new Tingira Child Care Centre. This is certainly good news for defence families because the opening of that facility means that there are now 16 child-care centres operating around Australia for defence families.I also made available the good news that a contractor is going to provide these facilities for defence families around Australia. Since the defence child-care program was introduced in 1991, it has been managed by the parents of those children and those parents who, by the very nature of defence service in Australia today, are often transferred to postings all around Australia. The responsibility that they had was not only for the running of the child care centre but also for the legal and the managerial side of things, so there was a very unfair burden placed on those defence families.As a result of this initiative of the government, and the comprehensive tendering process, I announce that KU Children's Services will be providing this service for defence around Australia. Progressively, over the course of this year, we will see some 900 children of defence personnel taking the opportunity to have their children cared for in these excellent child-care centres for defence families. It is certainly good news for defence families. I hope that the opposition will support this initiative because it is certainly supported and appreciated by the defence personnel all around Australia.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . I am happy to let the Leader of the Opposition ask a further question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, I am grateful for your generosity. In fact, I determine who has questions and who does not have questions and I had not recognised the Leader of the Opposition.Personal Explanations252315:26:002523Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes, I do—grievously by the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He said during question time that I misrepresented the Treasurer in relation to the Treasurer's non-existent modelling. The assertion was that, contrary to what I said, the Treasurer was not referring to employment when he answered, `We've done a lot of modelling,' at the Press Club on 14 August last year, and that I said he was. The Treasurer made the statement in immediate response to a question from Ben Pedley of Dow Jones, and I will quote it. This is important. The question read:Is it possible to quantify the jobs and unemployment impact of the package?The Treasurer said:Look, we've done a lot of modelling.Clearly the Treasurer was attempting to convey the impression that the government had done a lot of modelling on employment. My assertion, the only misleading—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! That was an abuse of a personal explanation.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is not! Mr Speaker, I take exception to that. It was not an abuse.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was abusing the forms of the House when I was on my feet and he refused to resume his seat. That was the abuse of that personal explanation.15:28:002523Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Yes. It refers to a remark made by the shadow spokesman on legal matters in the Senate, Senator Bolkus, which was made in relation to some events that took place outside this building last night. The remarks that I am referring to I disagree with, but I am not taking any exception to a number of the remarks he made on this incident because they are part of the normal political exchange. But he made this observation, regarding the government I lead, in relation to action lawfully taken by the police. He said:I think this is a cowardly act of racial violence—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order in relation to the personal explanation of the Prime Minister. In view of what the Prime Minister has just outlined, I submit to you that this is a gross abuse of personal explanation. There is nothing in the words that the Prime Minister has just uttered that reflect on this Prime Minister in relation to a personal explanation and the forms of this House. It might require other ones—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call, and I am no more guilty of allowing him to range than I am of allowing the Depu ty Leader of the Opposition. I am waiting to hear where the Prime Minister has been personally misrepresented, and I am inviting him to do so.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The procedure of personal explanations is where a member was personally misrepresented. The acting shadow spokesman for Aboriginal affairs was quoted on the radio, and the Prime Minister is going to say that, about `the government'. He never mentioned the Prime Minister. He mentioned the government. The Prime Minister has been here for a long while and he well knows that Speakers in the past have said that people cannot claim to be misrepresented themselves when an allegation is made against a group, and he is only a part of that group.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am inviting the Prime Minister to come to his personal misrepresentation.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I hear what the opposition says. I will read the quote to which I take exception, and I believe I am entitled to take a misrepresentation. The quote is as follows:I think this is a cowardly act of racial violence by the Howard government under the cover of darkness.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Can I just finish my—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on both sides of the House know that they do nothing to facilitate the forms of the House when they interject. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The facility for a personal explanation is extended to a highly personal relationship with the particular matter that is at hand. If this is permitted as a personal explanation, then every criticism made of the opposition during question time would entitle me to a misrepresentation response, and it will be taken.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not believe that mature adults elected to the federal parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia would need to be lectured more than once by the Speaker on the need for silence. The Leader of the House has the call.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There can be no more personal attribution than to refer to the `Howard government', being a reference to a person, namely the Prime Minister himself. There could not be a more personal reference where you have a phrase that includes the name of the head of government. On that basis, Mr Speaker, entirely in accordance with past practice and convention, I put it to you that a response by a person so named is entirely in accordance with the standing orders and the procedure to allow a person—in this case a person who also bears the name of the government because he is the head of the government—where he has been clearly misrepresented, to say so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would have thought it helpful if I were to rule on the point of order, but I will take additional points of order if I must—in this case, from the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes again to the character of personal misrepresentations. It goes to a misrepresentation of an individual. This is a quote about an action by a government that has been characterised as the `Howard government'. But it is an action by the government, not a misrepresentation of the words of the Prime Minister. If this is adequate as an excuse for a personal misrepresentation, it opens up a cornucopia for the opposition.2524Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point; allow me to rule. I do believe that if we were to allow either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition to make personal explanations such as this, we would be in the situation outlined by the Leader of the Opposition where there would be, in a sense, a class action. In this case, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister had every reason to be indignant that his name was directly associated with words that anyone in this House would find offensive. It may have been appropriate for it to have been addressed in another form in the House—for example, the Prime Minister could have sought indulgence from the Speaker had he wished—but I believe the matter has probably been addressed. If he wishes to make any other comment, I will grant him that indulgence.ZD4Mr SPEAKERMr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I naturally accept your ruling but I do seek indulgence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.15:34:002525Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, the matter that I wish to speak on in indulgence is that in making comment on these events Senator Bolkus had this to say:I think this is a cowardly act of racial violence by the Howard government under the cover of darkness.Mr Speaker, I think those words were absolutely inflammatory, totally unjustified and not only an unfair slur on the government I lead but also highly offensive to police officers of the Commonwealth who were carrying out their lawful duty.The situation, so I am told, is as follows: at the request of the National Capital Authority, the Australian Federal Police removed a number of items and the fire brigade extinguished an illegal fire. The NCA asked the protesters to remove illegal items and to extinguish the fires, and they chose not to. The NCA was simply enforcing the requirements of the law in the same manner as they would for any group in the community who established unauthorised structures or fires. This was not about stopping a protest; it was about ensuring that no illegal structures or fires were established.I also inform the House that the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation invited the protesters to meet him in his office yesterday. They declined that offer, after apparently describing him as a `racist'. I do not think the remarks made by Senator Bolkus do anything for the cause of reconciliation or indeed for the reputation of the Australian Labor Party.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.15:36:002525Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I seek indulgence to deal with the issues that evidently the Prime Minister thinks he can deal with when he gets to personal explanations. I have a few objections, too. I object to the way in which question time in this place is routinely abused by members of the government. I object to the deliberate deceit that is involved in comments, particularly from people like the Treasurer, both as to the relationships of my frontbench—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Speaker believes that indulgence is a facility at his or her disposal to enable what are difficult issues or matters of concern to members anywhere in the parliament to be addressed, and it is for that reason that indulgence is given. It was given to the Prime Minister to address what was clearly a matter that would cause alarm to any individual in this parliament. It was given to the Leader of the Opposition so that he could be seen to respond to that. I will be obliged to withdraw the indulgence, reluctantly, from the Leader of the Opposition if he does not in fact come back to the point at which he feels the issues raised by the Prime Minister ought to be addressed.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the words `deliberate deceit' in reference to the Treasurer.Opposition members interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—You are defending Bolkus. You ought to put Bolkus back into line.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It would seem to me that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman have forgotten the warning that was issued earlier. The Leader of the Opposition has the call and he understands precisely the form of the House under which he is addressing—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I beg your pardon, the Leader of the Opposition was responding to a point of order raised—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—On the question of deliberate deceit by the government about opposition policy. I withdraw the `deliberate deceit' about the way in which the opposition is portrayed by the government.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the Opposition.Government member interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—So it is not deliberate? So the deceitful way in which they portray opposition policy is not deliberate?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has—Government member interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Oh, I see, it is accidental deceit. I withdraw `deliberate'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, I object to the accidental deceit that is involved in the way in which the government—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my point of order was that certain words were offensive; they were clearly offensive. You asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw them. He then attempted a qualified withdrawal. That is not appropriate. He should simply withdraw without qualification and then leave it at that.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister used exactly these words during question time. He used the words `deliberate deceit', and you did not require him to withdraw them. We cannot have one standard for the Prime Minister and another one for the Leader of the Opposition.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn the offending words. He is currently addressing the House under the indulgence of the chair. He will respect that indulgence or it will be withdrawn.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I object, Mr Speaker, to the deceit, whether it is deliberate or other wise, of this government when it handles, for example, the industrial relations policy of the opposition. It is absolutely outrageous. The repeated false characterisation of the concerns that we have to protect ordinary workers in this country from the repeated assaults on them and illegal assaults on them—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Indulgence is withdrawn.Questions to the Speaker252625262526Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker, if I may. As a new member of the House, I would appreciate it if you could provide clarification to those of us, particularly on this side, as to precisely what grounds you issue indulgence on. Having just read pages 461 and 462 of the House of Representatives Practice , it cites 15 specific grounds under which indulgence can be granted, none of which cover the grounds under which you have just extended it to the Prime Minister.2526Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Griffith and all members ought to be aware of the fact that the Speaker will never grant indulgence in order to favour one side of the House against the other. I granted indulgence to the Prime Minister to allow him to indicate where, in fact, he felt there had been a statement made that was offensive to him and would have been offensive to anybody else in this House. I then granted the same sort of facility to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not intend to use indulgence in any other than an even-handed way.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser wanted to ask me a question.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has the call.25262526Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The grounds that you just gave then were for matters that were offensive to the Prime Minister. I got up and asked for indulgence and took the opportunity of indulgence to talk about matters that were offen sive to me. And, being even-handed, if he found that offensive, well, I find a few things offensive in this place too, and I think I ought to have been permitted, under your indulgence, to point those out. We get abuse in this place from this arrogant government time after time in question time.2527Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he is now abusing the forms of the House. The Leader of the Opposition also knows that he is welcome to raise this issue with me at any time. In this instance, on this afternoon, I have provided similar facilities to both government and opposition. The matter is dealt with. The member for Fraser has the call.25272527McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I want to draw your attention to remarks that you may not have heard, as I did not, that were made by the Minister for Health and Aged Care after question time yesterday.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.5I4Mr McMULLAN—No, I want to ask a question, thank you very much. I want to ask the Speaker a question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am happy to hear the question, but I—5I4Mr McMULLAN—I was qualifying my remarks because—WI4REITHMr Reith—Well, get to it.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Relax, relax, it's okay.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser knows that his remarks must be addressed through the chair.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I want to ask you whether you found acceptable the language which the Minister for Health used yesterday at the end of his personal explanation, which several members on this side have made quite clear they found offensive. I raise it now because I assume that you, like me, may not have heard it. I went and listened to the tape, and I understand the point that was raised and you know that people have raised it with you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, as you would appreciate, standing orders do not provide you with a general umpire's position to decide what you find personally acceptable or unacceptable. It is a complete nonsense for such a question to be put and it should be entirely dismissed.2527Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I appreciate the fact that the matter ought to be entirely dismissed but, out of respect for the member for Fraser, I was happy to respond by indicating that an opposition backbencher who may or may not—Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Burke!CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Somebody's got to tell him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke!Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Burke thereupon withdrew from the chamber.10000Mr SPEAKER—An opposition backbencher approached me—and whether or not he wishes to be identified is entirely in the hands of the opposition backbencher—expressing the same concerns as the member for Fraser. I then raised the matter with the minister and indicated that what he had said may be interpreted in more than one way and, therefore, the level of offence would depend on the way it was interpreted. It would not be acceptable language in my view.25272527Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr Speaker, I want to raise the question of exercise of indulgence. Since the first question time that I entered the House, I have been continually attacked for something I am exceptionally proud of.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is a question to the Speaker?LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, Mr Speaker. It is on the question of being a trade unionist and the fact that my father left school at 13 and was able to go on to be the Deputy Premier in New South Wales.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I need you to come to the question.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—I take offence at the suggestion that it is un-Australian to be a trade unionist and that I should not be proud of the fact that my father was a politican. Will I be given your indulgence each question time to give a personal explanation because I find their language offensive?2528Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The answer to the member for Batman's question is, as everybody in this chamber will know, no. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, just a moment ago the member for Griffith drew your attention to page 461 of House of Representatives Practice and indicated that there was some prescription on the matters for which you might give indulgence. I draw your attention to how that list is described. It says:This has occurred, for example, to permit—and then it lists the circumstances. In other words, tell the whole story.10000Mr SPEAKER—I will be very happy to refer to House of Representatives Practice on return to my office. I am quite content with the ruling made.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Take your medicine, Wilson. Go and see a doctor.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is warned.Committees252825282528Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 2 July 1998, and the date of the last schedule, and 10 February 1999. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard .The schedule read as follows—THE SPEAKER'S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSESTO COMMITTEE REPORTSOn 10 December 1998, the Government presented its response to a schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports tabled in the House of Representatives on 2 July 1998. The Government had earlier in the Parliament affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports presented during the present Parliament within three months of their presentation and to clear, as soon as possible, the backlog of reports arising from previous Parliaments.The Government's commitment follows the undertaking by successive Governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in a timely fashion. In 1978 the Fraser Government implemented a policy of responding in the House by ministerial statement within six months of the tabling of a committee report. In 1983, the Hawke Government reduced this response time to three months but continued the practice of responding by ministerial statement. The Keating Government generally responded by means of a letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the House at the earliest opportunity.The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and Government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 2 July 1998. It also lists reports for which the House has received no Government response. A schedule of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives. The Government's responses to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Members' Interests, the Committee of Privileges, the Publications Committee and the Selection Committee. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes, which are tabled by the Committee. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered.10 February 1999 Description of Report Date Tabled or Published1 Date of Government Response2Responded in Period Specified3 Banking, Finance and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's 1993-94 annual report and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's 1993-94 annual report25-09-95No response to date4NoTaxing relaxing: Report on the impact of Australia's taxation regime on the tourism industry27-03-95No response to date5No Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform (House, Standing)Ship safe: An inquiry into the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Annual Report 1996-9726-08-986No response to dateNoTracking Australia: An inquiry into the role of rail in the national transport network12-08-986No response to dateNoPlanning not Patching—An inquiry into federal road funding24-11-97No response to date7No Electoral Matters (Joint, Standing)Industrial Elections: Report of the inquiry into the role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial elections20-10-9715-07-98No Employment, Education and Training (House, Standing)Today's training. Tomorrow's skills28-07-986No response to dateNoYouth employment: A working solution29-09-97No response to date8NoTruancy and exclusion from school12-01-96No response to date9No Environment, Recreation and the Arts (House, Standing)Regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions—Interim report25-08-986No response to dateNoReview of Auditor-General's audit report No 31 of 1995-96—Performance audit—Environmental management of Commonwealth land: Site contamination and pollution prevention24-03-97No response to date8NoFamily and Community Affairs (House, Standing)What price competition? Report on the competitive tendering of welfare service delivery29-06-98No response to date10NoMens' Health, summary report01-12-9702-07-98NoHealth on Line: A report on health information management and telemedicine24-11-9702-07-98NoConcessions—who benefits? Report on concession card availability and eligibility for concessions17-11-97No response to date11No Financial Institutions and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the National Competition Council annual report for 1996-9729-06-98No response to date12NoReview of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-9722-06-98No response to date13NoReview of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-97—Interim Report23-03-98No response to date13NoReview of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 1996-9709-03-98No response to date12NoReviews of the 1995-96 annual reports of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Securities Commission and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission29-09-97No response to date4No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing)Australia's trade relationship with India29-06-98No response to date14NoImproving but : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights29-06-98No response to date14NoFunding Australia's Defence08-05-9815No response to date12NoAustralian and ASEAN: Managing Change06-04-98No response to date16NoDefence Subcommittee visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores Defence properties23-03-98No response to date12No Industry, Science and Technology (House, Standing)A sea of indifference: Australian industry participation in the North West Shelf project30-03-98No response to date17No Legal and Constitutional Affairs (House, Standing)To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships22-06-98No response to date12NoDon't stop the music: A report of the inquiry into copyright, music and small business01-06-98No response to date18NoSaving our census and preserving our history25-05-98No response to date19NoThe third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution30-11-95No response to date13NoIn Confidence: the protection of confidential personal and commercial information held by the Commonwealth26-06-95No response to date20No Long Term Strategies (House, Standing)Australia's population carrying capacity—one nation—two ecologies05-12-94No response to date21No MigrationImmigration detention centres—Inspection Report27-08-9822No response to dateNoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29-06-98No response to date23NoWorking holiday makers: More than tourists01-09-97No response to date24NoAustralia's visa system for visitors27-01-96No response to date24No National Crime Authority (Joint, Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority06-04-98No response to date25No Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint, Statutory)The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 199801-06-98No response to date26No The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 198402-04-98No response to date26NoPrimary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs (House, Standing)Adjusting to Agricultural Trade Reform: Australia no longer down under22-06-98No response to date27NoDevelopments in New Zealand Agriculture—Report of a visit to New Zealand, 16-19 June 199701-12-97No response to date8NoManaging Commonwealth Fisheries: The last frontier23-06-97No response to date8No Procedure (House, Standing)Ten years on: A review of the House of Representatives committee system01-06-9803-12-98No Treaties (Joint, Standing)Seventeenth Report—UN Convention on the Rights of the Child28-08-9822No response to dateNoSixteenth Report—OECD Convention on combating bribery and draft implementing legislation02-07-98No response to dateNoFifteenth Report02-07-98No response to dateNoFourteenth Report—Multilateral Agreement on Investment—Interim Report01-06-98No response to date28NoTwelfth Report—Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty01-12-97No response to date29NoEleventh Report24-11-97No response to date29NoEighth Report23-06-97No response to date29NoNotes:1. The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.2. If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate , the source is shown in an endnote.3. The time specified is three months from the date of tabling.4. In its paper presented to the House on 10 December 1998 (referred to hereafter as the 10 December 1998 paper) the Government stated that a `response has been reviewed for recent developments and is expected to be tabled in the near future'. 5. The Government indicated in its 10 December 1998 paper, that it `does not propose to make a detailed response to this report as the issues raised in the report have been overtaken substantially by recent developments'.6. This is the date the report was presented to the Speaker and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the House of Representatives on 23 November 1998.7. The 10 December 1998 paper said that the `Government response is under consideration and will be tabled when this process is complete'.8. The Government indicated in its 10 December 1998 paper that a `response is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings'.9. `As the recommendations of this report have been overtaken by events the Government does not intend to table a formal response.' (10 December 1998 paper)10. In the 10 December 1998 paper, the Government indicated that it `is considering its response to the report following consultations with key stakeholders. It is anticipated that the Government response will be finalised in the near future'.11. `Consultations are nearing completion and it is anticipated that the Government response will be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.' (10 December 1998 paper)12. In its 10 December paper, the Government said that a `response is expected to be tabled in the near future'.13. The Government stated in its paper of 10 December 1998 that a `response will be tabled as soon as possible'.14. `Preparation of the Government response is well advanced and it is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.' (10 December 1998 paper)15. This is the date the report was presented to the Speaker and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the House of Representatives on 12 May 1998.16. The Government indicated it its paper of 10 December 1998 that a `response is close to completion and is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings'.17. `It is anticipated that the Government response will be tabled during the 1999 autumn sittings.' (10 December 1998 paper)18. `The report is being considered by an inter-departmental committee. The Government's response to some of the recommendations require consultation with affected interests.It is expected that the Government response will be finalised by the end of the year for tabling in the 1999 autumn sittings.' (10 December 1998 paper)19. The Government stated in its 10 December 1998 that a `response will be tabled when consultations are complete'.20. In its 10 December 1998 paper, the Government indicated that it `is in the process of examining the report to ensure that its response takes into account developments and decisions taken by the Government since it was tabled'.21. In its 10 December 1998 paper the Government stated that a `response has been updated and is expected to be tabled when further consultations have been completed'.22. This is the date the report was presented to the President and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the Senate on 10 November 1998.23. `The report's recommendations are currently being considered by the Government.' (10 December 1998 paper)24. The Government indicated in its 10 December 1998 paper that it `is now finalising its response for tabling'.25. `The Committee's report, which was tabled on 6 April 1998, contained a number of recommendations to the Government concerning the powers and operations of the National Crime Authority (NCA). The complex nature of the recommendations required extensive consultation to be undertaken with a number of agencies, including members of the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) on the NCA.Subject to further consultations with the IGC, the Government is expecting to table its response in December 1998.' (10 December 1998 paper) 26. `The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill was redrafted taking into account the recommendations of the 11th and 12th reports of the Committee and was reintroduced into Parliament on 12 November 1998. The Government will not be making any further response to the reports.' (10 December 1998 paper)27. In its paper of 10 December 1998 the Government indicated that a `response will be tabled as soon as relevant consultations are completed'.28. The Government stated in its paper of 10 December 1998 that the `Government response is expected to be tabled shortly'.29. In its 10 December 1998 paper, the Government stated that `The required consultative processes are in progress and the response is expected to be tabled in the 1999 autumn sittings.'Documents25352535Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration; andSupporting Applications of Issues from the Advances to the Minister for Finance and Administration.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance2535253510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wills proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to spend more than $7.3 million of the $100 million promised to Victorians on election eve following the Longford gas disaster.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—15:50:002535Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The day before the federal election, Prime Minister Howard had a big announcement to make. He announced a $100 million program to compensate Victorians who had suffered hardship as a result of the Longford gas disaster. He was in a heck of a hurry to make this announcement before election day. He was in such a hurry that he made no effort to consult with the Leader of the Opposition over that decision—a flagrant breach of the conventions of caretaker government and a major discourtesy to this side of the House. He was in such a hurry that he did not seek proper departmental advice before making the announcement.When the matter came before the Senate estimates committee this week, no-one in the Department of Finance and Administration had done any work or costing of the proposal or put forward any recommendations concerning it. The Department of Finance and Administration's financial framework branch manager told the Senate estimates committee the department had no role in the precise costing of the $100 million.This was an election eve special which had everything to do with saving the hides of Liberal marginal seat members in Victoria. It received a blaze of favourable publicity. And there can be no doubt that it did help the government on election day. I do not think I am exaggerating at all to suggest that the members for La Trobe, McEwen, Deakin and Dunkley owe their survival as members to that announcement. After that, everything went deadly quiet.UNKNOWNHonourable memberHonourable member—And McGauran.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—And McGauran? I am not sure it had quite that impact. What did become of the $100 million? I first became concerned about this in mid-December when I had dozens of irate Italian pensioners descending on my office after having been turned away from the Coburg Community Information Centre, an emergency relief organisation. It turned out that many of them had been queuing for hours before being turned away—in some instances they were told they did not qualify for emergency assistance; in other instances they were informed that the money had run out. Naturally, they became quite irate, and indeed police had to be called. When I asked them how they came to be aware of the program, they told me that they had heard about it by word of mouth from other Italian pensioners, for example, who had been given $50 in either cash or food vouchers on presentation of their pension cards and a gas account.So I and my office started making inquiries. It emerged that about $3 million had been handed over to emergency relief organisations but they had been given no proper guidelines for its distribution and there was to be no promotion of this program to MPs, to the media or to the community. This was a secret program. As a result, people heard about it by word of mouth or, in most cases, not at all. I also learned that there had been queues not only at Coburg but in other places—Preston, Glenroy—at other emergency relief agencies, of up to 300 people. And I found out that the program was scheduled to close on 18 December.I wrote to the Prime Minister protesting about the secret and unsatisfactory way this program was being handled, and I asked him to keep the program open beyond 18 December and to give it some proper guidelines. To the best of my knowledge I have not had a reply to that correspondence. The Prime Minister got up today and said in fact it was extended beyond 18 December to 31 January. You would have to ask who was told about this. There is some secret correspondence between the Premier and the Prime Minister. If the Premier is planning to make a hardship application, well and good, but it would be more appropriate if the rest of us had been told about this secret extension.We pursued this matter with the Department of Human Services. I made applications for emergency relief on behalf of many constituents who had been told the program was closed, the money was all spent, and their applications were therefore not considered. They were, quite legitimately, most unhappy that some people had received compensation whereas others in identical circumstances had not.Subsequently, Labor pursued this matter in the Senate estimates committee. I realised back in December that the program was a shambles, but nothing could have prepared me for Senator Hill's revelation that the government has only spent $7.3 million of the $100 million and considers the matter closed. What a fraud! What an outrageous con on the people of Victoria—promised $100 million in compensation for hardship suffered and given a $7.3 million amount, less than 10 per cent, in a secret program which closed before most Victorians even became aware of it!This is eerily reminiscent of the Prime Minister's infamous 1977 pre-election fistful of dollars which was snatched back after the election was over. Even worse, Senator Hill told the estimates committee that the fact that only $7.3 million was spent was `good news in a number of ways' and went on to claim that `fewer individuals and small businesses than initially feared were badly affected'. To quote him in entirety:It was good news in a number of ways. It means, as I have said, that fewer individuals and small businesses were as badly affected as was feared at the time. And it is good news for the taxpayer that less was needed than expected.He said that apparently with a straight face. And a spokesman from the Prime Minister was also quoted as saying that everyone who applied for compensation and met the relevant conditions had been compensated. What an insult to the hundreds of thousands of Victorians who suffered as a result of the Longford disaster.Let me point out to the House what this assistance was promised to cover. The press release talked about, first, cash grants equivalent to Newstart allowance to workers who have been stood down. The fact is that, although tens of thousands of workers were stood down after the disaster, many of those who sought compensation have been met with a deafening silence.The press release also referred to assistance for small businesses with costs of conversion to alternative fuel supplies. In my electorate of Wills I came across many small businesses who had been hit really hard by the gas crisis—bakeries, for example, were devastated. Many of those small businesses incurred substantial extra costs as a result. How many of them have been compensated? It appears that as little as $4 million has been allocated for this purpose. Last night the 7.30 Report showed one of no doubt hundreds of small businesses who had applied for compensation but got nothing—and this from a Prime Minister who poses as a friend of small business. What a terrible way to treat Victorian small businesses.The press release also referred to emergency relief funding for community organisations dealing with the frail, the aged, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups in the community. The idea that the needs of all these people have now been met is preposterous. I have already mentioned that I had dozens of constituents come into my own office after getting nothing. Just today the Salvation Army is reported in the Herald Sun as having been short-changed to the tune of $225,000, money it spent on purchasing frying pans, kettles and the like for the needy, money for which it has not been reimbursed. We also had Mr Gavin Dufty from VCOSS reporting that many small emergency relief agencies redirected Christmas resources to help people through the gas crisis but received no government funding.To come back to my own electorate, I had a pensioner come in, Mr Mezzatesta, who had purchased a $60 electric hotplate in order to prepare meals. When he went to the community information centre, they told him they had no money. Mr Joe Butera contacted the local council after learning that other people had received a rebate. He was told the funds had run out.For Senator Hill to describe this state of affairs as `good news' displays an appalling lack of compassion. The federal government must reopen this program, spend the $100 million it promised in compensation to Victorians and spend it properly, not in secret, with proper promotion and proper guidelines. And those Liberal MPs who owe their seats to this election eve announcement— Australia's equivalent of the Zinoviev letter—should do the decent thing and demand of their—UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—Fran.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Yes, the member opposite, the member for McEwen. They should demand of their Prime Minister that this money go where it was intended to go.I also want to say something about the role of Premier Kennett in this issue. You would think that he would be acting as a Victorian patriot. You might make the judgment that he should be trying to hold the Howard government to its promise to give this $100 million to Victorians. Publicly, in fact, he has said nothing—there has been absolute silence. Privately, however, we learn through the good work of Senator Ray and others on the estimates committee that Premier Kennett is trying to hold on to over $42 million of this money to upgrade the gas network. The Department of Finance and Administration revealed to the estimates committee that there `has been correspondence between the Victorian Premier and the Prime Minister on this issue'.We all know that this is simply about fattening up Victoria's gas cow for privatisation—all cows are gassy, I know. The truth is that, far from looking out for the interests of Victorians as he should do, Premier Kennett has been secretly participating in a massive fraud on the Victorian people—the $100 million promised to them on election eve has been all but withdrawn now the election is over and the government has spent a mere $7 million and described this as `good news'.So I have to ask the Prime Minister: just how is spending $7.3 billion of $100 million different from the fistful of dollars which you waved before the Australian people at the 1977 election and snatched from them once the election was over? We have to ask Senator Hill: how is this good news for thousands of workers who were stood down after the disaster but have not received compensation? How is this good news for the small businesses who have received no compensation for their extra costs? How is this good news for the pensioners like Mr Butera and Mr Mezzatesta and thousands of others who suffered real hardship during the crisis and who took the Prime Minister and his government at their word on election eve?We have to ask the government: just what guidelines did it give to the state government and the emergency relief organisations concerning the distribution of this money? We have to ask the government: what effort did it put into promoting the program once money was actually available? We all know you spent plenty of taxpayers' dollars promoting the program on election day. What money did you spend promoting that program once it was actually opened up for applications and the details of its assignment had been worked out?We ask the government: how did you cost the program? We have heard that the Department of Finance and Administration was not consulted or asked in any shape or form for costing of the $100 million. That was the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister. We have to ask the government to tell us how many small businesses applied for compensation and how many were successful in their applications. How much money actually went to those small businesses? We have to ask: how can this government possibly believe that $7.3 million is adequate to cover the hardship suffered by Victoria? We have pending a class action against Esso for in excess of $1 billion. There may be an element of ambit in that, but even if there were a lot of ambit claim in that it would clearly swallow up the $100 million that the government promised on election eve.We also need to work out some of the inconsistencies in the evidence given to the Senate estimates committee. For example, when the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was asked about amounts being paid over to the Victorian government, Mr Henderson said:As to the amounts that have been paid over, you have been suggesting that maybe $50 million has been paid over and that we would be requesting it back. That is clearly not the situation. There have not been sums of that amount paid over. Yet later on, when the Department of Finance and Administration was asked a similar question, Mr Millar from the finance department said:As you know, an advance of $50 million was paid to Victoria around mid-October.So there are clearly contradictory statements about what has actually happened concerning that money. What we have here is a Prime Minister endeavouring to weasel his way out of election eve commitments and an election eve promise. It goes to the issue of standards—the same sort of issue that we have been pursuing with the code of conduct and the like. The Prime Minister is hoping that public cynicism and scepticism concerning the political process will enable him to get away with reneging on his promise to give $100 million to Victorians.Victorians are not going to accept this. We are going to hound this government until it agrees to reopen this program—and not in secret—and provide proper guidelines for the distribution of this money.16:05:002538McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—There is a fundamental misunderstanding by the opposition and the member for Wills in particular about the nature of this program. And that is simply because, despite him having heard it from the Prime Minister himself in question time today, he has not read the public announcement of the Prime Minister of 2 October in which he set out in sufficient detail a targeted, focused program in which up to—and I stress the words `up to'—$100 million were set aside to alleviate the hardship of those who fell within the categories so defined in the Victorian gas crisis.The member for Wills would have us believe, firstly, that it was a $100 million program and if there is a cent less than that it will not therefore be properly honoured. That is totally wrong. The second thing is that he wants an open-ended, ill-defined program without criteria. Any government that bequeaths a succeeding government a $10½ billion deficit gives some indication of its inability to maintain fiscal discipline.Let me state again, as the Prime Minister did earlier today, what the program was targeted at. Firstly, the package of assistance would include cash grants equivalent to the Newstart allowance to workers who have been stood down and who are otherwise unable to access an immediate assistance through Centrelink. Secondly, it would include assistance to small businesses with costs of conversion to alternative fuel supplies, including, for example, cash grants equivalent to full up-front tax deductibility for the capital costs of conversions. Thirdly, it would include emergency relief funding for community organisations dealing with the frail, the aged, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups in the community.That was announced on 2 October. It is clearly defined and, therefore, brings a measure of accountability to a sizeable government program. Later that same day, the Minister for Finance and Administration nutted out with the Victorian government the heads of agreement that saw the Victorian government administer our program.An estimated 1,390,000 customers of the gas companies in Victoria were said to be affected. We wanted that $100 million to provide immediate social security payments for stood-down workers. We wanted it to provide emergency relief for community organisations assisting people in hardship and to offset the cost of small business converting to non-gas energy. We allocated notionally $15 million to be spent on the Newstart component and up to $85 million on the small business and community organisation components. Under the heads of agreement reached with the Victorian government, $50 million was supplied as an initial transfer and the unspent moneys, as this was part of the agreement, would be returned to the Commonwealth.Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember, as will all members of the House, the crisis of the time, which has lingering effects to this day. Media speculation predicted that the gas could be off for weeks. In the early days of the crisis, Premier Kennett, a spokesman for Esso and a spokesman for Energy Victoria could not predict when the gas would be restored and the chief executive officer of the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry had estimated losses to businesses at about $75 million from a two-day gas shortage earlier that year. So the government responded as not just Victorians but as all Australians would have wanted.Labor kicked up a fuss at the time, even though they committed themselves to some ill-defined rescue package. So it surprises me that Labor would now, several months after the event, bring the issue before the House with only one question at question time. This is of such moment to the Labor Party that they ask only one question about it at question time when we have already had a total from the Labor Party of 40 questions this week. Of course, last year after the election, we had more than a hundred questions and they never asked a question on this.Mr Lee interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Approximately 100 questions last year. The only reason they are bringing it to the House now is that a Senate estimates committee has revealed that $7.3 million of that package has been expended. They therefore think that they can shock the public into believing that the government has been mean and has underfunded its own program, whereas the administration was carried out by the Victorian government. So there was no attempt by the Commonwealth to in any way minimise our financial commitment.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Why wasn't it promoted? Thank you, the member for Wills, for reminding me. It might have slipped my mind, although you did repeat it several times during the course of your address. There was extensive advertising in the national media, the local media and the ethnic newspapers. A hotline was set up and it was heavily promoted.Government member interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—And Centrelink, of course, also promoted it amongst their clients. One of the complaints of the opposition is that we have engaged in politicising the issue by overadvertising—so you can't really win with this group. We do know that there have been dozens and dozens of questions during which this matter has never been raised, and now they are seizing on a figure that came out of Senate estimates that they will manipulate.As for the take-up rate that the member for Wills wishes to know about, I am advised that nearly 20,000 small business assistance application forms were distributed. The issue received very wide coverage in weekly, local, daily and also foreign language newspapers. About 80 per cent of the small business assistance applications received have been approved. The welfare component deadline was extended, which the member for Wills seems to begrudge, from 8 December to 31 January 1999.So it is very disappointing that the member for Wills would seek to criticise a program which has materially benefited those whom the government identified and defined from the very start. This was not a free-for-all, this was not an open-ended blank cheque, and the government has been completely up-front and direct about that at all times. We never said that we would compensate everyone for everything. Instead, we published from day one the criteria under which people could apply—and we received no criticism from the Labor Party then.Are the Labor Party saying that we have somehow narrowed the criteria or have changed them? Of course they are not saying that, because that was never done. We published the criteria. They did not criticise them through the rest of 1998 and had not done so through 1999 until this point where, through what has emerged in the Senate estimates stage, they believe the $7.3 million is too low and that they can therefore crank up some cheap political points. They need to tell us, if they are to have any credibility, how they would spend the remaining $93 million. But, no, instead the member for Wills says, `We need to distribute it all.' No wonder we run up budget deficits under Labor governments!The member for Wills raised the point about the Salvation Army. Bearing in mind that the program was administered by the Victorian government, I am advised that the Salvation Army has already received a quarter of a million dollars towards their expenses incurred in buying electrical appliances. The Salvation Army, like so many other non-profit community organisations and religious charity groups, responded extremely well to the crisis and helped a great many individuals and families. We also, I am advised, funded several hundred thousand dollars for food vouchers and emergency relief. I stand to be corrected, but it was about $700,000.Mr Lee interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—No, I'm correct. The Salvation Army received $700,000 for food vouchers and $250,000 for the electrical equipment, including kettles and frypans.They have asked for another $225,000 for electrical items. The Minister for Finance and Administration has today, having only learnt it through the 7.30 Report last night, instructed his Department of Finance and Administration to ensure payment is made forthwith on the basis that there was a misunderstanding by the Victorian administrators. So the member for Wills has not been drawing these things to our attention; it had to be pointed out on the 7.30 Report for the simple reason that it is being administered by the Victorian government. We are very happy to correct any misunderstandings that might occur through their good offices.What is the basis of your criticism? That it was not publicised? That is demonstrably wrong. That it was not properly targeted? It certainly was. You have never made a complaint before, even though the criteria and the target groups have been published. They are very explicit. So it is hard to know what your criticism is.I would make the point that the government has, at all times, publicised this program. It has sought to assist people in desperate need within—naturally, as any accountable, responsible government would require—defined criteria. People have been assisted. We have rightly targeted the people most in need. It is very difficult to say much more than that.The Prime Minister succinctly answered all of the questions raised by the member for Wills later in the MPI earlier on during his answer at question time. The government responded quickly and correctly to a very serious state and national crisis, it set out the criteria for the program, it adequately funded that assistance package and it has at all times ensured proper probity and accountability. The member for Wills simply, as part of a party that knows nothing about responsible government spending, is trying to score political points. Instead, he should acknowledge the government's swift actions, correct response and proper administration of a program with set guidelines.I notice the member for Wills, at the conclusion of his address to the House, mentioned something about the Premier. The Premier can speak for himself—I have no doubt about that. Indeed the member for Wills sat opposite him for a number of years in the state House.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—That is why he moved up here.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—That is why he moved up here, the member for Ballarat reminds me. It was not just him but also the member for Maribyrnong.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—That's right.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Probably one or two others chose the federal parliament rather than the state parliament for that very reason. It was the Premier of Victoria who requested of the federal government in early December that the charitable assistance aspects of the program be extended to 31 January. So he was acting on behalf of all Victorians in need. I think he deserves full acknowledgment for that.It is difficult to know what more can be said. After all, the Labor Party itself admits that this is not an issue of high order. If it were a pressing issue in which there was some failure on the part of government policy or administration that had been identified, we would have heard about it a long time before now. In fact, it is quite disgraceful for the member for Wills to try to crank up criticism of the government on this issue only on the basis that it spent $7.3 million—only $7.3 million when 80 per cent of small business applicants for assistance were approved and when hundreds of individuals received assistance through not-for-profit organisations such as the Salvation Army, whom we then reimbursed for their charitable work. You will certainly not hear criticism of the government beyond the ranks of the Labor Party.16:19:002541Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I would say at the outset that I am very disappointed in the political partisanship of the member for Gippsland. He displayed a lot of flippancy in the House with regard to this issue. He did not once mention the deaths of the men involved in the Longford tragedy, even though both of them came from his electorate. What we must never lose sight of is that men have died and that this is an extremely serious issue. Two men died in the Longford explosion: Peter Wilson and John Lowry. Eight other men were injured in the incident. Those men were from Sale, in Peter McGauran's electorate.One of the other things we need to bear in mind with regard to any discussion on the Longford disaster is the courage of the men involved on the site on the day. In particular, I want to draw to the House's attention the courage of Jim Ward, who was the operator who shut down the plant on the day. Jim Ward ran to the emergency shutdown switch, which was outside the control room, in what has been described by firefighters as a very hot scene and a very dangerous situation. Mr Ward saved the lives of a lot of other men on that day.Gippsland is a community that has suffered much recently, and that is why I take this issue so seriously. We have been through an agonising drought and through devastating floods. Then we had this incident. It is also timely and appropriate to recognise the good work of the Australian Workers Union in supporting the workers and their families involved in the tragedy. The Australian Workers Union state secretary, Bill Shorten, and Gippsland organiser Terry Lee took all action possible immediately to assist the families involved.The Australian Workers Union have also set up the Wilson-Lowry trust fund, and AWU members right across this state have contributed to that. In honour of the men who have died, there will be an apprenticeship set up as a permanent memorial to their hard work and the respect that their colleagues had for them.It is widely thought that, even if Esso could get the repairs done at gas plant 1, with the imminent building of the eastern gas pipeline to Sydney, which they are expected to service, they will not be able to meet the extra demand. In fact, Longford, which at present only supplies Victoria, is struggling to meet present levels of demand. Any fair-minded person needs to know what Esso's logic is with regard to this. I think we all have a right to know, because we do not want to see a repetition of the events of September last year. We want to know how they are going to fill it when they are already struggling to meet local demand. Are we going to end up with another crisis? When does Esso intend to build gas plant 4?I think it is important as well, when considering the compensation issues relating to this matter, that we bear in mind state legislation in Victoria. In Victoria, thanks to Jeff Kennett, workers have no right to sue for damages and they are made to be happy with whatever the company, in this case Esso, gives them. So, whilst consumers can sue for loss of income, thanks to Jeff Kennett the families of the workers who were killed or injured at the Esso plant cannot get access to justice by the courts. This is something which Jeff Kennett and his government should be ashamed of, as it is something that I think all fair-minded Australians take as a right. On 2 October last year, the eve of the federal election, the Prime Minister announced a program of `up to $100 million to assist Victorians who have suffered significant hardship as a result of the interruption to gas supplies'. I want to pick up some points made by my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGauran said that only now does the Labor Party raise this. We raised it on 18 December. We raised it in a letter to the Prime Minister which he never replied to. Quite logically, we would have assumed that the program was running well if it was not for the fact that it was raised in estimates that only $7.3 million out of a supposed $100 million program had in fact been allocated. I think Mr McGauran's response to that should be exposed as an inadequate defence of the government's position.The truth is that this government has handed over $50 million to Jeff Kennett and to date a mere $7.3 million has been distributed. I think it is important to bear in mind the context of that $7.3 million. The GST promotional campaign, which was paid for by taxpayers in this country, cost $20 million. So, whilst this government was prepared to fork out $20 million to pay for this blatantly party political campaign, it was prepared only to give out around $7 million to all those people in Victoria who had been disadvantaged by the Longford disaster. When challenged about this response, Senator Hill said:I am advised that it is likely to be $7.3 million, reflecting that fewer individuals and small businesses than initially feared were badly affected.He goes on to state:It was good news in a number of ways. It means, as I have said, that fewer individuals and small businesses were as badly affected as was feared at the time. And it is good news for the taxpayer that less was needed than expected.It is pretty obvious that Senator Hill does not represent the state of Victoria in the Senate. I think this bloke is probably living in fairyland. Doesn't he know that in Victoria a $1 billion class action has just been approved by the courts? That sounds to me like a lot of unhappy people.There have been angry scenes as well, as mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Wills, at emergency relief providers in Coburg, Glenroy and Preston. There have been queues of some 200 or 300 people lining up to get assistance. You should read the Herald Sun; it is all in there. While the minister is reading the papers trying to get a handle on what is going on in Victoria, he might read about how the Salvation Army, the organisation which the Prime Minister refers to often as a great example of community services, are out of pocket by about $225,000, thanks to this government. They provided frying pans, electric kettles and other household items to families in need. That is the role of the not-for-profit sector and is a role which they were told they would be supported by this government in providing.When Senate estimates committees revealed that Jeff Kennett has some money which was intended to go towards helping those affected by the crisis, it sounded a few alarm bells for me. Being from Victoria, I know that this is not a good thing. Jeff tends to have a real problem in distributing money to the poor and the needy. He is like a sick Robin Hood, our Jeff: he takes from the poor and he gives to the rich. In this case he has taken taxpayers' money intended to help the needy and he is sitting on it. It could well end up as equity in Crown Casino if we are not careful. The money is not intended to be a capital grant for Jeff. It is intended to be money which goes to those people in Victoria who were affected by this crisis, and that is exactly what the Labor Party intends to make sure it is spent on.What is blatantly obvious is that this is yet another government shambles, yet another program which has clearly been mismanaged. There has been an inadequacy in the criteria provided by the government to determine eligibility, which has meant that some people who deserve to get support have received nothing. Many people have never heard about it and subsequently have never claimed. As far as access and equity are concerned, some places have clearly handed out compensation with few questions and little hesitation whilst others have had to endure long interviews and convoluted processes. Due to the inadequate guidelines and the appalling promotion of this program, which consisted of precious little apart from election day ads, many people who should have been entitled to compensation have missed out. Many pensioners in particular were led to believe that they would be entitled to compensation because of the advertisement placed by the government in its bid to ensure electoral support. These people were, of course, bitterly disappointed when they were knocked back.This was an issue I remember particular well when I was out doorknocking small businesses during the election campaign. It is an issue which a lot of people raised with me and they were extremely concerned about it. These people deserve access to compensation, not sleight of hand between governments and delaying tactics in the courts from Esso. People have a right to feel pretty cynical about this whole process if on the one hand you have the government prior to the election saying, `$100 million, $100 million,' and now we find out that it is only $7 million which is going to be actually handed out to the people of Victoria.The remaining money we are told might get used for something else. The people of Victoria have a right to know exactly what this something else consists of. We will be very alarmed if this goes towards the gas industry, which Mr Kennett intends to sell off. As well, Esso would be well advised to be conscious of the depth of community feeling about their actions with regard to their delaying of the actions taken against them. This is something which we are all very concerned about. I conclude by saying that this is something which the government should be ashamed of, and we intend to hold it to account. (Time expired)16:29:002543Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I think firstly we have to get this whole issue into context. This issue is really about two things.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—It is about saving your seat.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—Can I tell you that if everyone who had claimed to save my seat were here, they would be queued up for miles. The question which the member for Wills has raised is really about two issues. They are about a very caring, compassionate and responsible government and also about a government which has very sound principles of economic management. I want to refer to a media release put out by the member for Wills on 5 February headed `Remaining Gas Compensation—Hand over the Money!' That is the philosophy which the member for Wills has been using and is filtering through this whole debate on the opposition side. It does not matter what the problem is or how serious a problem is, the opposition's attitude is simply `Hand over the money'.Nobody could deny that this was a tragic incident and that it indeed had enormous ramifications, mainly in the state of Victoria but also beyond the borders of Victoria. It had ramifications for big business, in particular, in my own electorate with very large car manufacturing plants. It also had ramifications for small business. In fact, it had ramifications for anybody in the state of Victoria who was linked to natural gas supplies. But what did the majority of the people do? How did they respond to this disaster?Not one phone call was received in my office and not one person approached me when I was going around the electorate, in a very busy period and seeing lots of people, to ask me to approach the government for assistance. Nobody was asking for handouts. Let me remind the member for Wills exactly what did happen, and it was commented on throughout the national media coverage, in every newspaper and radio station that covered this disaster.People in Victoria and the small and large businesses responded with the most fantastic spirit of cooperation. Firstly, everybody—in spite of the very tasteless remarks made by the member for McMillan in this debate—responded with a great sense of empathy for those whose family members were killed. Two people were killed in that disaster and eight people were injured. Everyone's heart went out to those people who lost their loved ones. Secondly, people got on with their lives. If they could not cook the evening meal on their gas stove, they dragged out the old barbecue or they went around to a friend's place. People likened it to the spirit of camaraderie and support which existed during World War II.It was incredible how many older people—one would have thought they would have been most disadvantaged—were ringing the talkback radio stations and encouraging younger people to just get on with it. Everyone knew that it was a disaster. No-one, including Esso executives, the state government and certainly not the federal government, knew exactly how long it was going to take for the gas to be restored. So people got on with it and all pulled together. Not only did individuals respond in that manner but so too did small businesses. Many of the small businesses which were most affected were bakeries and certainly the restaurants. What did these people do? Did they immediately ask for a cash handout from the government? No, they did not. They were innovative, they changed their menus and looked at other alternatives. In response to this disaster, the government set out very stringent guidelines and criteria as to who could be assisted. As the minister has already said—UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—It was in the fine print.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—This is not the fine print.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Table them.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—I do not mind tabling them at all. It certainly was not in the fine print. I have here some examples of the ads which were put in the newspapers with quite specific criteria listed as to exactly who was going to be eligible. The member for Wills is making a lot in this debate of how only $7.3 million has been used out of the up to $100 million—not $100 million, but up to—that the Prime Minister announced. As the minister has already indicated, the fact is that of the numbers of small businesses which applied for assistance, 80 per cent were given that assistance—I have been advised by the state government in Victoria that anyone who applied for assistance and met the criteria was provided with that assistance. There is absolutely no doubt about that.Let me briefly describe some of the criteria for small business. They had to be a small business with fewer than 20 employees. They were going to be eligible if their costs related to emergency conversion or temporary substitution to alternative fuels resulting from the gas disaster. They were entitled to compensation if they had met the following: emergency additional costs, costs of assessing the viability of the business following the disruption or costs relating to the damage or failure of equipment as a direct result of the disruption to the gas supplies. Assistance was going to be provided only if those businesses met those criteria and also if individuals and community organisations met the criteria that Centrelink was advertising. We have already heard about the amounts that organisations have received.If the member for Wills was so concerned that some small business people were not being provided with assistance, why didn't he pick up the phone and make some inquiries to provide assistance? I found it unnecessary for me to do that because Business Victoria set up a 24-hour call centre. Anyone could make inquiries, 24-hours a day, around the clock. On another point, the extension to 31 January concerned the charitable organisations, and they were informed by the Victorian administrators of the extension and that they would be reimbursed.It is an absolute disgrace for the member for Wills to stand up here and try to make something out of this debate. It is deplorable that the member for Wills is using this tragedy for very crass political reasons.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—If you had been at all concerned about the people in genuine need, you would have raised this as an issue. You would have at least raised it as a question in the House. You would at least have gone to see the relevant ministers. You would have at least been doing something proactive on behalf of these people who you claim have been disadvantaged. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the honourable member going to seek leave to table certain material?JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—Yes, I seek leave to table that document.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills2545r6502545Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.16:40:002545Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the members who have spoken in this debate in the Main Committee and in this House—the member for Barton, the member for Moreton, the member for Mitchell, the member for Gilmore and the member for Dawson. I am pleased to hear that the member for Barton acknowledges the great value to the Australian community, and to parents in particular, of Australia's comprehensive classification scheme. However, I am disappointed that the opposition proposes yet again to oppose the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 and the complementary amendments contained in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 .As I have said before, the government does not believe that it is either fair or appropriate to use public funds to subsidise businesses involved for commercial gain in the production or distribution of publications, films or computer games. The government does not think it is at all unreasonable that the industry should be expected to pay for the services and benefits it receives from the National Classification Scheme. The charges to be levied by the charges bill are designed to cover the costs of activities ancillary to the classification services provided by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. These include certain research, the community liaison officer scheme, policy development and ministerial support.As the explanatory memorandum for the bill points out, while these activities are related to an efficient and effective classification and enforcement scheme, their costs cannot, for constitutional reasons, be included in the fees for the provision of classification services. Nevertheless, they benefit the industry. For example, the community liaison officer scheme, which now operates in all jurisdictions, is designed to increase compliance with the classification scheme which benefits those sections of the industry which comply with the law. Policy development and research assist in improving consistency in decision making and in ensuring that classification decisions reflect community standards.The industry itself acknowledges the benefit that the National Classification Scheme provides to consumers on the content of entertainment products it distributes for commercial gain. Given these factors and the fact that the industries which are embraced by the National Classification Scheme have a high turnover each year, the government can see no justification for the stance the opposition has taken on the charges bill. On the contrary, as the member for Gilmore pointed out in the debate, the charges proposed are reasonable given the excellent service provided by the OFLC.The member for Barton also referred to the effect of increases in the classification charges on the so-called niche or specialist market which involves products with limited market appeal. I have acknowledged the concern expressed by some users of OFLC services who fall within this category. I therefore appointed an independent body to review the charges structure, with a view to seeing whether greater equity could be provided to applicants who submit material for classification that has a more limited market appeal. I note that the member for Barton made no reference to this review, which was undertaken by Ernst and Young in Melbourne. This is surprising, as a copy of their review of statutory charges for the classification of publications, films and computer games was made available to him.The conclusion of the review was that there is no single compelling argument supporting continuation of the proposed charging structure or, alternatively, changing the charging structure to provide concessions based on limited market appeal. The review also noted the industry view that limited market appeal was not a measure of profitability. Despite this, the government considers that there is a case to enable certain material in this category to be classified at reduced rates to encourage diversity of specialised product available on the Australian market.It is for this reason that the amendment bill allows the director of the classification board to waive classification charges for limited distribution special interest material which comprises a documentary record of an event or which is of a cultural or like nature, if it is in the public interest to do so. Examples of the type of material to be covered by the waiver are set out in paragraph 26 of the explanatory memorandum.I have noted the member for Barton's concerns about the fact that the charges will apply to short films by young producers and organisations producing limited quantities of religious or educational material. As to the first, these are usually exhibited at film festivals, which are generally exempt from classification requirements. Regarding the latter, I would have thought that the proposed waiver power would be sufficient to cover most of the material referred to. In any event, educational material is already exempt from classification.I am pleased to hear that at least the opposition supports the new waiver provision, although no acknowledgment is given that it represents a genuine attempt by the government to alleviate the possible effect of the charges bill on niche or specialist market product. Further, as I made quite clear in my opening speech in this debate, the government is also exploring, in conjunction with state and territory censorship ministers, the possibility of extending the range of material exempt from classification. I believe that the government's response to the possible effect of the proposed charges on the specialist market is both reasonable and equitable. Notwithstanding these concessions, the opposition continues to oppose the charges bill. If successful, this will only increase the burdens on the public purse to the benefit of commercial operators.The member for Barton also suggests that since fees were last raised on 1 November 1997 there has been an increased lack of compliance with the national classification scheme and that this will further increase with the additional charges to be imposed by the charges bill. I am advised that there is no reliable evidence to support the view that compliance with the national classification scheme has declined since the fees were last increased. Indeed, I am informed that since the establishment of the community liaison officer scheme that officer reports an in creased level of compliance as a result of his work in educating retailers and distributors on their obligations under the scheme.The member for Barton criticises the power to amend the charges in the schedule to the charges bill by regulation as enabling the government to make the OFLC a source of general revenue raising. This issue is comprehensively addressed in my response to the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to the previous bills introduced into this House. I refer the member to the committee's third report of 1998. The charges bill is not a general government revenue raising measure. Its sole purpose is to generate sufficient revenue to pay for the annual operating costs of the OFLC.The member for Moreton raised a number of issues, including public display of publications and control of Internet content. The guidelines for the classification of publications, which include posters and covers, are currently under review by censorship ministers. This follows a public consultation process which included all Commonwealth state and territory parliamentarians. As far as regulation of Internet content is concerned, this is currently under consideration by the government.The member for Mitchell is concerned that the amendment bill does not contain a requirement for the director of the classification board to report on the exercise of the discretion to waive classification fees. I am told that the current power in the act to waive classification fees in the act has been used sparingly to date. While the bill expands the current waiver power, it does so only in accordance with the terms set out in the bill. Further, the director of the classification board may only waive the payment in accordance with principles that the Commonwealth Attorney-General agrees to after consulting state and territory censorship ministers.Despite this, I agree with the member for Mitchell that it would be desirable that a report be provided on the exercise of the discretion. The matter has been raised with the director, who has indicated that information on the exercise of the waiver power will be included in the classification board's annual report, which is tabled in the parliament. The information will include the categories of material for which a waiver is granted and the number and amounts involved.I have noted the concerns expressed by the member for Dawson and previous speakers about the need to protect children from material that may be harmful to them. I agree that parents have an important role in supervising their children's habits. Governments also have an important role to assistant parents by ensuring that classification decisions reflect community standards and that the restrictions and prohibitions on access to certain material are properly enforced. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2547Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.16:50:002547McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 12:(1) Schedule 1, items 12-15, page 6 (lines 6-20), omit the items.(2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 6 (lines 21-27), omit the items.(3) Schedule 1, items 18 and 19, page 7 (lines 1-7), omit the items.(4) Schedule 1, items 20 and 21, page 7 (lines 8-13), omit the items.(5) Schedule 1, items 22 and 23, page 7 (lines 14-23), omit the items.(6) Schedule 1, items 24 and 25, page 7 (line 24), to page 8 (line 2), omit the items.(7) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (lines 3-6), omit the items.(8) Schedule 1, items 27 and 28, page 8 (lines 7-12), omit the items.(9) Schedule 1, item 29, page 8 (line 13-15), omit the item.(10) Schedule 1, item 30, page 8 (lines 16-19), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (line 20), to page 9 (line 6), omit the item.(12) Schedule 1, item 33, page 10 (line 1) to page 11 (line 3), omit the item. The opposition is content with items 1 to 11 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 , because those items relate to enforcement of the classification structure. As I indicated in my primary speech, we were in favour of and indeed supported those changes to make it easier to obtain an application for classification before enforcement of the regime.Similarly, the opposition is content with item 32 of the bill, which provides the waiver provisions whereby the director of the OFLC is entitled to waive the fee with respect to the production of special interest material, being a documentary of an event or containing a cultural element. So we are content with those aspects.Our other amendments seek to remove those provisions relating to this new cost structure. The cost structure, as the Attorney-General pointed out, is in the nature of a tax, but we point out that the reason it has to be in the form of a tax is that it goes beyond simply recovering for the cost of performing the work in classifying this material.We say that it is regrettable because there is a significant public interest function that the office performs, and that it is inappropriate to charge the industry for those educative functions—indeed, the enforcement functions. As I pointed out in my primary speech, it is somewhat ironical that the legitimate producers will be paying a higher fee to facilitate the OFLC in taking action against those who are seeking to avoid the classification system. That is what we say is a real concern. The charges seeking a full cost recovery of the costs of the OFLC are excessive and beyond what is appropriate.We also have expressed our concern about the inequity of the application and that there is no measure of the fee being based on commercial success of the particular publication. We have also raised our concerns that, with the higher fees in place, there will be a greater risk of evasion by backyard producers. Those arguments have been addressed in my primary speech and, from our point of view, that is enough to advance our reasons in moving our amendments to the bill.16:54:002548Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not accept the opposition's proposed amendments. The effect of the amendments proposed is to remove from the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 those administrative provisions that are required to complement the imposition of charges under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 .For the reasons that I have just outlined, and which I outlined in the opening speech, the government will not accept the opposition's rejection of the charges bill and the complementary proposed amendments to the amendment bill. I note that the opposition, in its enthusiasm for deleting provisions in the amendment bill, proposes to delete items 12 and 13 in schedule 1. These involve technical amendments to the principal act which have nothing to do with the charges bill. Further, if the charges bill is not enacted, the waiver power, which the opposition amendments will allow to remain in part 2 of schedule 1 to the amendment bill, can never commence. The government does not accept the proposed amendments.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.2548Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills2548r6432548Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The question is that the bill be read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2549Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills2549r6842549Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.2549Bill (on motion by Mrs Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills2549r6942549Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.2549Bill (on motion by Mrs Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills2549r704Billsr705Billsr706BillsBills2549Debate resumed.17:00:002549O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Before question time I was referring to the government's GST tax package—Costello's curse, as we call it on this side of the parliament—and I was referring to the Treasurer's reference to the ACTU's living wage submission to the national wage case, where it said:Australia has worked its way through the crisis—that is, the economic crisis—and is in good shape and with sound fundamentals to weather any future storms from 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.Of course, the Treasurer was trying to make some political capital out of the statement of the ACTU relating to the Australian economy by somehow suggesting that it was an endorsement of the government's economic policies. On reflection, the ACTU's statement is a resounding endorsement of the economy that Labor left the Howard government when it came to power in 1996. If we go to the sound macro fundamentals of economic growth and low inflation, you will recall that in the four years before the Howard government came to power there were average economic growth rates in this country in excess of four per cent, and measuring nearer to five per cent on some occasions.The Treasurer, as a manager of the Australian economy, has enjoyed one quarter where the growth rate in this country has reached a level that Labor achieved in four years before it left office. If we look at low inflation, we can see that it was Labor that broke the back of the inflation rate in this country, bringing inflation down from the 11 per cent that was left to us—the legacy of the current Prime Minister—to below two per cent. So those sound fundamentals of very strong economic growth and low inflation were the product of Labor; they were the achievements of Labor.The ACTU talked about the flexibility of our exporters. We all know that in the 13 years that Labor occupied the Treasury bench in this country we really turned the culture of exporting on its head. We reorientated the Australian economy to its new global trading environment and we set our exporters on a very sound footing to exploit the markets because of our competitive position, which had been enhanced very much by the economic accord between the ACTU and the then Labor government. That flexibility of our exporters has enabled Australia, in the face of the downturn in Asia, to turn its eyes to markets in the United States and the European Union. That has enabled Australia to cushion the shock of the Asian economic crisis.The ACTU referred to our stable financial system. When we were in government we introduced a range of measures relating to the financial system that have given it the flexibility to cope with the global capital flows and the difficult financial situations that emerged during the Asian economic crisis for countries like Indonesia, Thailand and Korea. It has been the Australian financial system put on a very sound footing by Labor in government that has enabled the Australian economy and the Australian financial system to weather the Asian economic storm. The ACTU referred to the productivity boom of the 1990s. The coalition has been in power three years out of the nine as far as the 1990s are concerned. Labor was in power for the majority of that time and, of course, we saw above average lifts in productivity in the Australian economy over that time.The ACTU referred to flexible and adaptable economic institutions, particularly in the labour market. We do not shy away from that particular statement at all. Indeed, it is very much compatible with the policy direction that Labor pursued when in government. However, when we did walk down the road of labour market flexibility, we did it with compassion. We did it with an eye to securing the living wages of Australians, and low income Australians particularly, not like the direction being pursued by this particular government in power where it is seeking to bludgeon workers by its raft of workplace relations legislation that, really, at the end of the day, is a low-wage solution, a low-wage direction, for wages in the Australian economy.We really have to ask some fundamental questions about taxation reform and whether this GST package really addresses the issue of reform. The word `reform' means to progress; it does not mean to go backwards. That is what we have with this GST and the package that accompanies it. We have a 1960s tax which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say, basically, is responsible for the sun coming up in the morning and for mas sive employment growth, and the remedy for the ingrown toenail that you have and any other illness or deficiency the Australian economy might have.Why is it necessary to have taxation reform? Obviously, economic circumstances change. There is a need, on an ongoing basis, to reform many areas of economic and social policy in this country. We had to do it in 1983 because the current Prime Minister let the tax rorters run riot in this country. The friend of the tax bludgers—that is what this present Prime Minister was back in the early 1980s. We had to reform the Australian taxation system to make sure that people who should have been paying their tax were paying it and that schemes like the bottom of the harbour scheme were eradicated. We had to do that. We engaged in the process of meaningful reform.This arrogant Treasurer comes in here and tells the Australian people that the only people who have ever done anything about taxation reform in this country are the Liberal and National parties. I remind the Treasurer that, when we came to power in 1983, we had marginal taxation rates of 60 per cent—60 per cent, compliments of the Liberal Party of Australia—and, of course, we had to reform the system. So let us not hear this nonsense about the government being the only ones capable of engineering taxation reform in this country.I am particularly concerned about the effects of the GST on local councils. The councillors in my electorate—the City of Greater Geelong—are hard-pressed in preparing budgets that allow for outlays to meet the needs of the residents of the City of Greater Geelong. I asked those councillors to reflect on the effect that the GST is going to have on their particular revenue base. The Municipal Association of Victoria had some very interesting things to say about the GST and its effect on councils. It said:As a result, communities will be required to subsidise the increased cost burden on local government caused by the introduction of this tax. Councils struggle to maintain services at current levels and cannot afford additional costs. To cover these costs, communities will face a reduction in service provision and/or a reduction in infrastructure spending and/or an increase in rates. None of these outcomes is desirable for the communities that local government serve. Rural communities will be significantly disadvantaged by this cost burden.GST equals massive burden on local councils like the City of Greater Geelong—equals an increase in rates, equals a diminution in service. That is going to be the great legacy of tax reform in this country—a local government system that is hamstrung by an unfair tax. (Time expired)17:10:002551Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—As a former councillor of 11 years of the Townsville City Council, I can categorically tell this parliament that, in fact, under a GST, local authorities will be reducing their rates. In the case of my own councils in Townsville, if they do not reduce their rates—because it can be demonstrated that they will be able to—then I will have the ACCC at the door of the councils asking them why they are not reducing their rates. Overall, costs in local government in Australia are going to fall by some $70 million because of the introduction of a new tax system for Australia. That is a great benefit, and it is just a shame to see the scare information that is being presented here in the parliament this afternoon. The Labor Party obviously do not want to move forward and, as I am a ratepayer, I am as much interested as any other ratepayer in seeing my rates fall through the introduction of a new tax system in this country.I thought it might be interesting to observe and to record this afternoon that currently there is a cyclone bearing down on my electorate in North Queensland. It is currently category 2. I hope that it will change direction and go down the coast and move away from the coast, but we have always got to be on guard. I note this afternoon that the harbourmaster has closed the port of Townsville and has sent everybody home to Magnetic Island as a precaution. So we will see what the morrow brings, and we hope and pray that there is not a problem.Townsville is Australia's largest tropical city. It is the capital city of northern Australia—and, gosh, is it booming. Of course, it is going to boom even better under the new tax system for Australia. Under the Howard government, there have been some tremendous developments in the city, and I would like to record some of those this afternoon. For the interest of those who are listening in other parts of Australia, Townsville is further north of Brisbane than Melbourne is south of Brisbane. That just goes to indicate the vast distances that are in this country, and certainly in the state of Queensland.In Townsville, airline passengers on the Townsville to Brisbane flight are up 6.9 per cent in the last 12 months; residential building approvals are up 15.4 per cent; housing is up 19.1 per cent; the value of residential building approvals is up 18.9 per cent; the value of non-residential building approvals is up 119 per cent; for the northern labour force region, unemployment in the last 12 months fell from 9.2 per cent to just over seven per cent—a magic result in relation to getting jobs in North Queensland; job ads in the Townsville region are up 21.4 per cent in the last 12 months; throughput through the port of Townsville has increased from 7.5 million tonnes to 7.7 million tonnes; real tourism takings in commercial hotels and motels has increased 4.4 per cent; guest nights in commercial hotels and motels increased 2.1 per cent—and so it goes on. Townsville is doing very, very well indeed and it is doing that on the back of being the support city for the world's largest mineral province.I do not know whether many people in the country know or understand that the north-west minerals province in Queensland is the largest minerals province in the world. In fact, the Cannington mine, recently developed by BHP, is a lode of silver and lead and is the largest piece of silver under the ground in the world. When I was out there they explained to me how that mine was originally discovered. It does not outcrop on the surface, it is in the Mount Isa inlier. It was found with magnetic anomaly detection, as so many other ore bodies have been found below the surface. That has created a major development in the north-west minerals province along with other mines like Ernest Henry, Century, Eloise and so on. The region is booming.Townsville is also booming because we are currently building there the largest Korean investment in the world, outside Korea. That is stage 1 of the Sun Metals Zinc Refinery. Once stage 1 is done, then hopefully we will move on to stage 2 and we will double its size again. That has been tremendous for employment and apprenticeships, particularly in trades such as metalworking, boilermaking and so on. These are trades where there are great skill shortages in Northern Australia and there have been some moves to address that, which is terrific. In fact, the Minister for Employment Services will be up in Townsville on 24 February to launch the ACCC's skills audit that has been done on the trades that need support in Northern Australia.There are some more exciting developments. One of those will be the proposed gas pipeline by Chevron which will come from New Guinea. It is a tremendous project. In fact, across Australia, the amount of development in gas pipelines is just truly amazing. You find those pipelines snaking through Western Australia, in the desert, through the cities, through Victoria and so on. The proposal to bring a pipeline from the gas fields in the highlands of New Guinea down across the Torres Strait, down the Cape York peninsula, down to Townsville and, ultimately, to Gladstone, is a truly magnificent $3,000 million project.That gas pipeline will deliver cheap energy which will be good both for the Australian end and because it will also bring much needed export dollars to the Papua New Guinea economy. We could foresee, in Townsville, the development of a proper base load power station to service Northern Australia. That may result in a new alumina processing plant in Gladstone. I note that the federal government has offered some $100 million in subsidies to help get a positive decision for that plant to establish in Gladstone, rather than somewhere like Malaysia.Power is a key element in any industrial area and in any developing area, and base load power is particularly critical. I am somewhat disappointed now that Queensland governments—in all fairness, I will say of both political complexions—have not, in my view, planned power supply provision properly in our state. In fact, while Townsville now has two peak load power stations, the philosophy is—after the investment of some $250 million or so—that we never want to run those stations because, for every hour that they run, they lose money. It seems a shame to have that tremendous investment when we do not ever want to turn them on. It is base load power that you need, and base load power can be provided and fuelled by this gas pipeline.Recently, there has been an announcement that Stanwell will go ahead with a 400-megawatt station on the site of Sun Metals. There has been some disappointment with that, because we need an 800-megawatt station to be viable in Northern Queensland. If we do not go ahead now with the second generator in that station, we will more than likely see a third supply line come up from Rockhampton to the north and, of course, that will kill stone dead any development of a true base load power station in Townsville. That would be tremendously disappointing because of the costs involved. Townsville would pay at least 23 per cent more than Gladstone for the cost of electricity. In Cairns, it would be considerably more again. I am sure that North Queenslanders do not want to see those additional costs being imposed on them when we could have base load power in the north.The other advantage of a gas-fired power station is the advantage to our environment. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Mrs Stone, is here at the table this afternoon. She will understand what that means. I know that our nickel refinery is moving towards becoming what is called a cogeneration plant and it is probably going to be the best of its class in Australia. That cogeneration plant will be a gas-fired plant which will generate steam. That would normally be waste steam, but that waste steam will then go into the nickel refinery and be re-used there so you can get efficiencies of up to 80 per cent. That is a tremendous win for our environment. I know that Minister Hill is very supportive of projects such as that in Australia. We are doing it in Townsville. The clear message to the Queensland government is that our region needs and demands a true gas-fired base load power station and we will not settle for anything else.There are some other matters, Mr Deputy Speaker, which you might find interesting. Today I attended the Public Works Committee as a member of the oldest statutory committee or standing committee of the parliament. We have resolved today to recommend the spending of $139 million on the development of stage 2 of Lavarack Barracks, the largest Australian Defence Force facility in the Commonwealth of Australia. We have that in Townsville as well. Lavarack Barracks is the home of what is called the ready deployment force. Is the parliamentary secretary's son still there?EM6STONEMrs Stone—Not any more, he was there recently.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—The ready deployment force is the force that has to respond within 24 hours anywhere in the world. So currently, one of the battalions will be on line and if there is an emergency somewhere, the button gets pressed in Townsville and the troops in Townsville respond. That is terrific to see.The government has recognised that we need to look after the troops with this redevelopment because some of the accommodation there is now 30 years old. It is way below standard. The accommodation in the tropics is certainly unsatisfactory and I am a very, very pleased that the Public Works Committee has made that decision today.But, moving on from there, it is not only the Army that is very important to Townsville; there is a base called RAAF Townsville at Garbutt. It supports the troops. It is also the home of 5 Aviation Regiment, the Black Hawk helicopter squadron, and in June of this year it too will be facing the Public Works Committee. I will certainly be in there batting for them because we want to spend about $70 million providing the new facilities for the replacement of the Caribou aircraft—that will be based in Townsville—and also for new ordnance loading areas on the town common side of the main runway. So lots of money is to be spent in the city by the federal government in terms of capital development.But, of course, in just recurrent expenditure Defence spends half a billion dollars a year in the Townsville economy—a tremendous spend—and that is why the people of Townsville certainly hold the defence forces in great regard. It has been a very integrated community, which is just tremendous to see. I pay tribute too to Brigadier Mark Evans, the commander of Third Brigade, and Group Captain Greg Weekes at RAAF Townsville, who indeed are tremendous leaders of the ADF based in Townsville.There are some other opportunities too, and I would just like to flag the prospect of establishing in Townsville a national centre for marine science. Currently we have got the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which manages the largest and most pristine reef complex in the world. We have got the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which does the marine science associated with that and looks after other matters in Western Australia. We have got the James Cook University with its marine science department. We have got the reef CRC. I have a vision that in fact we could establish in Townsville a national centre for marine science and integrate many of those elements into a critical mass which will then bring other important bodies from overseas to co-locate and to become part of that national centre. There is a great opportunity waiting there for Townsville, and I think that it is one that our community should take up.In terms of other marine matters, something that I think the city needs—and there has not been a lot of attention paid to this so far—is a cruise ship terminal. Townsville is often seen as the second cousin of a little place that is 400 kilometres north, called Cairns. The member for Leichhardt would not quite agree with my description of that, but we have a bit of friendly rivalry between the two cities. Townsville is considerably larger than Cairns, but Cairns is considered really to be the tourist destination in the north and Townsville is not.But it turns out that cruise ship passengers just love Townsville because of its unspoiled nature. It is not chrome and glitter; it is not Tinseltown—it is the real Australia, and it has on its doorstep the reef, the rainforest and the outback. And, in that sense, it is an ideal place to have a cruise ship terminal. The port can turn around the very large cruise ships that cannot be turned around in Cairns. The Cairns harbour is not deep enough; the Townsville harbour is. I think that if there is a will in our community we can establish a cruise ship terminal which would probably see the arrival of one ship a week into the city, which would have a terrific positive impact on the economy of our city.That of course then introduces the redevelopment of the central business district. Townsville has grown and driven development along the river, and the central business district has become somewhat run down, as happens in many cities. A cruise ship terminal would go part of the way to revitalising the CBD because all of the customers who had come off the ship could just walk straight into town—it is only about 500 metres, and it would be a very convenient thing to be able to do.In relation to the CBD development also, I have said quite publicly that we should be opening up the mall. We have had a mall in Townsville for 25 years. Each year fewer and fewer people seem to go into the city, and I think that the time is right, that we do have the support of the mall traders and the people of Townsville, to bring slow-moving traffic back into the mall and bring some parking to the front doors of those many business traders who have been finding it pretty tough for several years. Our community will be challenged by that request because there is a lot of infrastructure in the mall that would have to be removed. It is valuable infrastructure but if we want to look ahead as a city and we want to look to the future and to the positives that are available I think that we certainly need to be doing that.Another feature of Townsville is its airport. Townsville airport was successfully leased last year to Australian Airports Ltd and, to their credit, they took on all of the existing FAC staff. They, having had the bureaucratic shackles removed, have done a tremendous job in the last seven or eight months in revitalising the Townsville airport. They are required by the minister to do a master plan and an environmental plan. I am telling you that the environmental plan is probably the best that I have seen ever in my experience in both local and national government. It is to their credit that they certainly have a vision for what might be at Townsville airport.Finally, in the last 45 seconds, I might just say to you that flooding continues to be a problem in my city. I am really pleased to see that the Thuringowa City Council, led by Mayor Les Tyrell, has met with me. We have talked through those issues. They have made it a priority. Probably from this year on with the expenditure that is going to be made by the Thuringowa City Council we will see that flooding ameliorated. It is really good to be able to work with the local authority, to have the confidence of the local authority and to get good things done for your city. If the cyclone hits Townsville tomorrow, I hope I will still be here!Adjournment255410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.255417:30:002554Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—In the coming months tens of thousands of Australian school children will be absent from their classes and preschools for a week or even longer. Thousands of parents will be away from their place of work to care for those children. Thousands more adult Australians will suffer from a painfully irritating illness.Some infants may even die. This suffering, tragedy and economic loss will occur as a result of a disease which is preventable in the majority of cases—a disease for which an effective vaccine has been in use overseas for more than a decade.That disease is chickenpox, the last remaining major childhood disease. Without immunisation, 95 per cent of children can be expected to be affected by chickenpox. It is highly contagious, causing a painfully itchy rash, fever and fatigue. In adults the disease is often more severe and can cause pneumonia and brain swelling. While chickenpox can be contracted only once, in a proportion of cases it re-emerges in later life as the painfully irritating disease shingles. This condition can last for months and often requires long absences from the workplace.I commend the government and the health minister for the attention given to immunisation programs. Australia is relatively free from the major childhood diseases of diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella and polio. Recent campaigns to maintain awareness of the threat of childhood diseases are essential public health measures.In view of the minister's record on this issue, it is hard to understand why there appears to be no sense of urgency in evaluating chickenpox vaccine for use in Australia. Vaccines for chickenpox have been in use in Japan since the 1980s and the US Food and Drug Administration gave approval in 1995 after more than a decade of testing.Evaluation of the vaccine began in Australia early last year. The most recent information I have been able to obtain from the vaccine supplier, Smithkline Beecham, suggests that evaluation in Australia will take a further 12 to 18 months. There appears to be no urgency or high priority given to the evaluation of chickenpox vaccine in Australia. I should acknowledge that the vaccine in use in the US is only 70 per cent to 90 per cent effective in preventing the disease. Some who receive the vaccine will suffer a mild dose of chickenpox. There are concerns that vaccination may not last, exposing adults to a more severe case and to shingles. The general conclusion though is that the vaccine is safe for use.As I began by saying, chickenpox will cause suffering, tragedy and economic loss for thousands of Australian families. The last major childhood disease can be prevented. The evaluation of chickenpox vaccine deserves a high priority by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. I appeal to the minister to ensure that the highest priority is given to this application.It is worth noting the difference in priorities of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee in its evaluation of chickenpox vaccine and its evaluation of Viagra. Applications were lodged about the same time for both drugs. Approval for Viagra was given—among much fanfare—in just four months. Chickenpox vaccine approval can be expected to take a further two years. This clearly demonstrates the government's preference for stimulating the private sector at the expense of providing public health measures for all Australians.255517:34:002555Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Today I wish to raise in the House a matter of misunderstanding and, in some instances, deliberate misleading. It would be best if I read to the House a letter I received on 8 February from Dr Amy McGrath OAM. Dr McGrath says:When Kim Beazley paid a tribute to Jim McClelland today, he perpetuated once again the myth that Jim was involved in the famous FIA case of l95O-51, Short vs Thornon; a myth on which Jim founded his career with the connivance of Short and maintained by both of them to this very day, even by Short in the Town Hall for which Peter Kelly, formerly of the FIA, openly rebuked him.The first person to set the record straight was Paddy McGuiness who referred to my book `The Forging of Votes' written to tell the truth in his article `The Judas Kiss' two weeks ago. The truth was that my husband acted throughout the case, which took 16 months, for his master solicitor, Cecil O'Dea, who paid senior and junior counsel, Eric Miller QC and John Kerr, out of his own pocket. Today Kim Beazley implied otherwise by saying that Jim McClelland briefed John Kerr in the overthrow of the Communist officials. Jim did nothing of the sort.On reading Dr McGrath's book it is obvious to me that by an action of, perhaps, opportunism and following the court decision in the inquiry into the ballot papers, Jim McClelland and Short filed the draft order in the name of J. J. Carroll Cecil O'Dea and Co. without O'Dea's knowledge or approval.Cecil O'Dea was, for many years, a constituent of mine and I have never met a finer person. Cecil O'Dea was a great man of the law and solicitor who acted for many Labor unions. He had a splendid property on the banks of the Hawkesbury River where he raised fine Friesian cattle.Cecil welcomed me as the member for Mitchell and indicated his background and something of his knowledge of the union movement, but I never discussed those matters with him in detail. It was only within the last few days that I became aware of his heavy involvement with the union movement through Dr McGrath's letter. I acknowledge Dr McGrath and her husband, Frank, who are sitting in the gallery today. Dr McGrath drew to my attention the role of Cecil O'Dea and of her husband in the fight against communist control of the Federated Ironworkers Association and the way in which the myth that it was Jim McClelland who was the hero and the victor has been perpetrated, mostly by Jim but by others as well to Jim's benefit.I wish to set the record straight today because I have the highest regard for the memory of Cecil O'Dea. I conclude by reading the tail-end of Amy McGrath's letter which says how from that particular moment Jim McClelland:. . . assumed the role of victor with Short in all conferences and an all-union victory party, to which the real victors were not invited, and did nothing to redress the lie. The lie became so entrenched as truth that no one I spoke to when researching the book knew that Frank had run and won that case.I am anxious that a correction to Beazley's speech should be made, if possible with both Frank and I in the gallery. It so happens I am going to Canberra—and she goes on to make her personal arrangements. I wish to read a brief comment about the quality of the person of Cecil O'Dea because I think his victory in this instance was a historic and important victory in the relationships between the union movement, the Labor Party and the Communist Party in Australia. Dr McGrath's book is:Dedicated to Cecil O'Dea without whose brilliant tactical and professional support 1945-1951 the battle begun by the Balmain ironworkers in 1945 would never have succeeded . . . I quote the remarks of Murray Tobias QC, President of the Bar Association of New South Wales, who said of Cecil O'Dea:There was no more able, wiser—or for that matter—wily solicitor than that gentleman of very fond memory. He was a great character with a personality that is, regrettably, missing from the modern profession. 255617:40:002556Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—We saw again in question time today the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business trying to embarrass those of us who support and represent workers. He will never succeed. My colleagues, including the members for Batman and Fowler, and I are proud unionists. He issued an offensive attack on those who represent workers. By doing that, he offended workers right across this country. We are proud to represent and protect the rights of workers. We are proud to stand up against this government and the Patricks and the Rio Tintos, which are trying to smash unionism and rip away the right to bargain collectively.I want to pay tribute to a great organisation of retired men who do not believe that the need for struggle or mutual support ceases when one reaches retirement. I refer to the Retired Mineworkers' Association. The members of the RMA are men whose working-class sentiments and principles were forged on the industrial battlefield as they sought to protect their jobs, their conditions, the security of their families and the rights of all workers. I thank the RMA for being so well represented when they showed their support for Labor and for me, as the Labor candidate for Charlton, by attending the launch of my campaign by our great Labor icon, Gough Whitlam.In the RMA there is Jim Priest, co-founder of the Miners Museum located in my electorate at Teralba—a fine museum which tracks the days, the work, the triumphs and the tragedies of our local mine communities. The Miners Museum serves as an important reminder of the coalmining heritage of our area. Jim has held senior positions in the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation over a 12-year period, including the highest positions of Secretary and President. He holds a lifelong commitment to the rights of pensioners.There are men like Mick Jurd, who designed and built the museum. There are men and women like Terry and Robyn Wilson, both so committed to the work of retired miners that they hold elected positions, Terry as Treasurer of the Retired Mineworkers' Northern District and Robyn as Secretary of the Cessnock branch. Bill Chapman, whom I have known since I was a child, is President of the Retired Mineworkers' Northern District. These people attended my campaign launch along with Ted Plunkett of the Weston branch and Gail and Lawrence Ellis from Cessnock, and from Singleton to support me and the Labor Party were Brian Leighton, Allan Harrod, Bill Griffiths and Bill Hill.The RMA consists of people like Ray Leslie, Secretary of the Westlakes branch. Ray's grandfather, the late Bill Jobson, was also my great-great-grandfather. There are men like Jim Comerford OAM, who left school at 14 and rose to the highest position in the miners federation. He has an honorary Master of Arts from Newcastle University and is a researcher, historian, author and outstanding labour figure.There is Coogan Frame, first Freeman of the City of Cessnock, who has been showered with honours for his community work. Coogan is the state president of the RMA. His brother Mick Frame OAM is also a Freeman of the City of Cessnock, a life member of the Labor Party, former Deputy Mayor of Cessnock, Chairman of the Kurri Hospital Board and a prime mover in establishing the rehabilitation unit at Kurri Hospital, preserving Richmond Main Colliery and establishing the Mick Frame Masonic Hostel at Kurri. There are many more—too many of them to do justice to them all—like Merv Mahon, son of an outstanding miners leader and himself an author of a history of Richmond Main Colliery and joint editor with Jim Comerford of the Richmond Main News.Coalminers were always strongly supported by their wives and families. Their wives formed women's auxiliaries which often ladled out soup to schoolchildren whose dads were involved in the struggles or locked out of mines. This tradition is being continued by people like Colleen Fuller of Gunnedah and mineworkers' support groups.All these retired mineworkers continue to support the struggles of present-day miners. They assist them and the labour movement generally morally, physically and materially. They join workers in their struggles on the picket lines and in their demonstrations. There are probably some of these retired mineworkers at Gordonstone tonight to protest against the scab labour which was bussed in this morning by Rio Tinto. This is the Rio Tinto who, like Patricks, seems to take advice from Minister Reith.They will never capitulate in the face of the savage attacks by this government on the rights of workers. They fought for these rights and they faced hardships and made sacrifices to achieve them. They, like us, appeal to all workers to safeguard and protect all their hard-won conditions. (Time expired)255717:45:002557Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—On 26 January we celebrated our national day with our community. As with many members of this House, I spent the time meeting citizens young, old and new at various community events. Australia Day is a time for celebrating our history and our achievements, and for thinking about the kind of society we want for our children. On Australia Day we reflect on our national identity and on our strength as a community. We honour the energy, commitment and altruism displayed year-round by many thousands of Australians.In the electorate of Deakin, we recognise our unsung community activists in two ways. Through the Deakin Shield, we say thank you to our school students who have gone the extra yard for their school community, while those over the age of 16 receive the Deakin Australia Day Award. I am glad to say that there was no shortage of nominations for these awards in their latest round. It is a great indicator that community activity and community spirit are alive and well in the heart and soul of Melbourne.Parliamentarians are familiar with full diaries, but I was nonetheless amazed to hear of the enormous workload of our Deakin Shield awardees. It was also a humbling process for me to realise the amount of work that retirees and those who are in full-time employment do in the service of others. I would like to go through the list of those who received the Deakin Australia Day Award this year. Brenda and Neville Armstrong were honoured for their 30-year service to Nunawading Little Athletics at the second Australia Day awards, as was Annette Bendixen for services to Rangeview Primary School over 20 years. Doug Bergman won for his long service to palliative care in our region; Jess Brown for her efforts in the fields of church and charitable affairs; Carol Clarke for her work on Loughie's Bushland in North Ringwood; Sue Curlis for her efforts at the Mitcham Community House; Norma Dare for her work on behalf of the elderly and disabled; Howard Fearn-Wannan for his energetic leadership of Habitat for Humanity; Gwenyth Gray for her services to lawn bowls; Anita Hinton, Ida Oke and Corrie Hoeboer for their contribution to the scouting movement; Bob Hoskins for services to the Blackburn Chamber of Commerce and Industry over 43 years; Horst Klump for his tireless contribution to Reach Out for Kids in Nunawading; Margaret McCorkell for her services to the Burwood Heights Uniting Church Netball Club; Dale Morgan for her promotion of indigenous plants in the city of Maroondah; Adelle Pollock for serving as a lollipop lady for 24 years; Chris Salisbury for services to young people in the Ringwood area; and May Shaw for her work for the Nunawading Arts Council and for the Eastern Victorian Highland Dance Group in Mitcham. I believe these people are role models and I trust that others will emulate their selfless commitment to the community. Helping others is a noble endeavour.The community effort in our electorate extends well and truly to our primary and secondary school students. For the third successive year, I have awarded the Deakin Shield to encourage and recognise the efforts of our young in the community. Twenty-two schools participated and the Deakin Shield was awarded to the following: Belinda Ashe of Aquinas College, Victoria Bourne of Blackburn Lake Primary School, Jonathan Morgan of Blackburn Primary School, Quentin Wong of Burwood East Primary School, Russell Lee of Croydon South Primary School, Emma Whitmarsh of Forest Hill Secondary College, Toby Kadarusman of Great Ryrie Primary School, Jessica Croft of Heathmont Secondary College, Erin Mason of Kalinda Primary School, Stefanie Farmilo of Laburnum Primary School, Georgia Davies of Mitcham Primary School, Sayaka Tran of Norwood Secondary College, Georgina Sutton of Nunawading Primary School, Aidan Fawkes of Nunawading South Primary School, Sarah Donald of Parkwood Secondary College, Erin Greenland of Rangeview Primary School, Jacqui Savage of Ringwood Heights Primary School, Shelley Brown of Ringwood North Primary School, Roxanne Funston of Ringwood Secondary College, Emma Burkhart of St Philip's School, Michael Sanders of St Thomas the Apostle School and Carla Johnson of Tintern Anglican Girls Grammar.It is a long list of Deakin Shield award winners, but it is a list that I know will grow in years to come. It is encouraging to note the number of young people who have already learned the virtue of pitching in to help their school community. I hope that their efforts inspire their classmates to take an active role in our community. I thank the principals and teachers of these excellent schools for allowing me to recognise one of their students. Congratulations to all of these exceptional citizens in Deakin for their efforts on behalf of others. It was indeed a privilege for me to be part of their honour. (Time expired)255817:50:002558Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In speaking on the adjournment this evening I want to touch on the events of question time today and the period immediately after question time. It is on that basis that I also refer in passing to a statement by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business of 9 July 1998 in Perth. He said:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we are on. We are on the side of making profits. We are on the side of people owning private capital.In a modern day Australia, I regard that statement as un-Australian. I say that because we on this side of the House are proud of our family backgrounds and proud of our professional backgrounds. It is in that vein that I also refer in passing this evening to the recent death of Jim Brown. As a long-time Country Party member for a northern New South Wales seat, I refer in that context to the obituary which appeared in the Australian of 9 February 1999, which refers to Jim Brown in the following vein:Brown was a natural politician: hard-working, fiercely representative . . . During his parliamentary service, he played an active role in party affairs.Mr Brown served the Country Party in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly continuously for the period 1959 to 1984.I am pleased to say that my father also served in the New South Wales House of Assembly for the same period. More importantly, I am pleased to say that Mr Brown was perhaps my father's best friend in the New South Wales parliament. In that context I am pleased to say that Mr Brown, like us on this side of the House, was proud of the fact that he was hardworking and fiercely representative. I therefore take exception to what I regard as a planned endeavour by the government of the day to use scorn and derision—something that you have said, Mr Speaker, is unacceptable in this House—as a planned strategy in the course of question time today. I come from a hard school: you ask no quarter and give no quarter, but you also exercise respect. I regard the government's strategy in question time today as a cheap attack on the family background of many on the opposition side of the House and also on their professional background. It may have represented a good laugh for those on the other side of the House, but I suggest that it reflects poorly on them.The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that public service as a politician is a noble profession. The majority of politicians are hardworking and, irrespective of which side of the House they come from, vitally concerned for the best interests of their constituency. In that context, can I say that a number of people on this side of the House have had parents who have served in state and federal parliaments. That is nothing to be ashamed of; it is something to be proud of. I personally am exceptionally proud of the fact that my father, a child of the Depression, having been forced for economic reasons to leave school at the age of 13, was able to improve himself and to go on to be Deputy Premier of New South Wales. I also refer in passing to the fact that I have served the majority of my working life as a full-time trade union official. Does that suggest that I should come into the House, as the minister for workplace relations does, and as reflected in his statement of 9 July last year in Perth, and make statements which are of a class nature, ones seeking to inspire class war and showing a lack of understanding of modern-day Australia?We are all here because we are proud of our background and proud of the jobs that we held before coming into parliament. Being a politician is about service to the Australian community. It is about providing leadership and trying to ensure that we, irrespective of where we come from, offer ideas about what we think is in the best interests of Australia. Just because, for example, I oppose a GST on books does not mean I come to that position because of a class background. Perhaps it reflects the fact that my father, having left school at 13, basically educated himself through second-hand books and libraries. Mr Speaker, I request that scorn and derision stop and that you exercise a bit of leadership as the Speaker. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I request the member for Batman to withdraw the latter statement. I am sure he did not intend to reflect unfairly on the chair and I regard him as having unwittingly done so.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I respect you as the Speaker, but in withdrawing I remind you that on taking the chair you asked that scorn and derision not apply in this House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman knows that I am in fact being too generous. I accept the fact that he has withdrawn his statement, but his conditional withdrawal did him no credit at all.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I do respect you. I withdraw without condition.256017:56:002560Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Is it fair and reasonable that people receiving unemployment benefits for six months or more should in some way contribute to the society that is keeping them? Society has indicated that it wants to know if it is getting value for its dollar and that the government is not just handing out money without expecting any effort on the recipient's part. On the other hand, the unemployed person also wants to get value for time spent and wants training that is directly related to getting a job. Most people are unhappy with nothing to do, for work is one of the ways we define ourselves and network in this society.Yesterday's Morgan and Banks job index survey showed that Australian employers are exhibiting extremely high levels of optimism. It showed that more than one-third of employers indicated that they would put on staff in the next three months. This is the highest level of confidence in the economy since the survey commenced in April 1995. This is all due to this government's policies. But what good will it do for the people who cannot read this announcement, who cannot share the delight in the expected increase in available jobs simply because they cannot read? They cannot read the good press of strong economic growth which will encourage jobs. They cannot read the advertisements placed by their potential employers.Who are these people? They are, to quote Dr Kemp, Labor's lost generation—the people who for 13 years under a Labor government sat at the back of the classroom learning no useful skills. We want to rescue this lost generation, this 30 per cent of children who left their schooling without an adequate ability to read, write or do sums. In the olden days it was okay if you could not read. Jobs were plentiful and you picked them up at the pub just by listening. In my own electorate of Gilmore, there were lots of jobs in logging, sawmilling, dairying, fishing and mining, most of which did not require any literacy or much numeracy. This type of job is disappearing fast and the jobs now being created are different: they require the skills of literacy and numeracy. Even remnants of old jobs now require those skills because workers have to be made aware of legislative and other requirements on the job. They have to be able to negotiate, read and sign their work contracts.Young people who have been unemployed for six months or more are able to voluntarily participate in an approved program of work. In this program of work, they may choose to upgrade their literacy and numeracy skills. But, generally, those who need it do not take it up. Therefore, we have amended the legislation, enabling us to require young people to upgrade their literacy and numeracy. But why pick on young people? Many of you here today have returned to learning years after your schooling ended. You will know how hard that paradigm shift was. So why are we requiring young people to learn to read and write and do their sums? Because these days it is very difficult to live easily without those skills. Frankly, how can we approach anything like a clever country when 30 per cent of the population cannot access the information in a letter or a newspaper?However, experience has taught us that, having been burnt once in the learning situation at school, people do not easily put themselves forward for the same maltreatment again. There are many mature people in my electorate of Gilmore who have been covering up for their lack of numeracy and literacy skills for years. They have learned and, to quote, have used a lot of lies. So how do they come out and say, `Hey, I'm one of the dummies that can't read or add up. I've been living a lie for 40 years'? The reality is that you don't give yourself up. This government has allocated $143 million to this program through 69 providers, yet people who need the program most are not accessing it.Sometimes you initially have to force people to do what is good for them. It is like the wearing of seatbelts. Initially people had to be forced to wear them. They were fined heavily and constantly for not wearing them, they were bombarded with advertising campaigns and the car manufacturers were forced to include them in their cars. Now most people would feel naked, certainly vulnerable, if they did not have their seatbelt on. Similar ly, I predict, will lead the pathway of literacy and numeracy requirements.A group of mature men in my electorate, road workers and the like from one of the local councils, got to talking at one of those training needs analysis days that local government now promotes. Literacy, numeracy and safety awareness were the three most important areas of need identified by the workers. They went, with the help of the local TAFE, back to school at night, only they found that it was nothing like the classroom of their earlier memories. After a year, the class had grown from three to over 15.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned.18:00:002561House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices2561The following notices were given:Mr Hollis to move:That the Public Works Committee Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 310, made under the Public Works Committee Act 1969 , be disallowed.Mr Martin Ferguson to move:That this House:(1) celebrates the 50th anniversary of Australian Citizenship;(2) acknowledges the success of the postwar immigration policy and the massive contribution these new settlers have made to Australia;(3) recognises the desirability of living in one of the world's most harmonious multicultural societies and applauds the diversity of our cultural mix;(4) applauds those beneficiaries of our immigration program who have become citizens of this country; and(5) encourages permanent residents to consider their commitments to this country and apply to take out citizenship in this, the celebratory year of the 50th anniversary of Australian Citizenship.1999-02-11Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members2562256209:40:002562Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I am particularly pleased to address this committee today for a positive purpose, specifically to report on the presentation of certificates of appreciation of war service in my electorate of Swan. These certificates have been presented to persons who have served their country in many campaigns, amongst them World War II, the Indonesian crisis, the Malay emergency and those who served in Korea and Vietnam. As a person who is relatively young compared to many of the recipients, it is both a humbling and moving occasion to be able to meet and offer some community recognition to those men and women who built our future through their past commitment. In particular, it is moving because many of the recipients of the certificates have for many years gone unrewarded and unrecognised for their service to this nation.As a student at school, I recall the usual lectures about our participation in the larger theatres of operation—for example, World War II. Many Australians would be unaware of our involvement, however, in many of the other conflicts in which we have been asked to assist—for example, the Malay emergency and the Indonesian conflict of the 1950s and 1960s.Importantly, the certificates also go some way to recognising both the combative and non-combative roles many performed in serving this country. Many of the recipients have been those men and women who have served in the land armies of this nation during the major conflicts. On more than occasion I have been told of people who dedicated almost five years to raising produce and the maintenance of essential services. Many were stationed in isolated communities far from friends, home and family. Many worked long hours for months on end in hard and unrelenting conditions.In my discussions with these men and women, I was surprised and disturbed at the treatment afforded to many veterans by past and present governments. An example was one fine gentleman who approached me regarding the treatment of him and his crew mates who served in the Royal Australian Navy during the Malay emergency and the fact that they are not eligible for receipt of the gold card. During this conflict of the 1950s, the ship on which he served was literally in the line of fire from guerilla forces. I believe that frequently the ship was at risk of attack from insurgents during its mission to supply troops or whilst conducting routine patrols.Despite having been in this hazardous position, this veteran and his mates are not eligible for any benefit because their ship was not in hostile territory for more than 28 days. If, however, members of the crew disembarked at a port considered hostile, then they would have been considered as being eligible. As a result of this and many other representations from affected veterans, I believe we must do more to remove the anomalies in the system of gold card allocation.I say to members of this committee that it is wonderful to be able to recognise individuals who have served our nation. I believe that, as they enter their senior years, recognition is well deserved and generally appreciated. The ceremonies have been very popular in the electorate of Swan, and I look forward to continuing this process in the future.256309:43:002563Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I stand today to issue a call for understanding and balance in environmental politics. I am as serious as anyone about preserving the environment, and I respect structured environmental groups that make a genuine and honest contribution to our understanding of sustainability of resources. But I am deeply troubled that extremists in arguments destroy the balance and that projects end up being held up by time wasting and unnecessary hurdles. I refer in particular to the Walla Weir, south-west of Bundaberg in my electorate. The Walla Weir will provide only two to three per cent to the Bundaberg irrigation scheme, but it is a strategic balance that is very important in times of drought. It has also been put in place to assist with the removal of salt intrusion further downstream in the Burnett, where surface water will replace underground water which is suffering salt intrusion.The Walla Weir was promised originally by the previous Labor government. It took four years to reach fruition—an extraordinary length of time. Now, having got the dam in place, there is a case for having to open the flood gates between July and October every year because of some grasses that require regeneration, those grasses being required for lungfish. I am not arguing the toss about that, but I call for honesty and integrity in how much time those gates need to be open, because we need to have that dam full at the end of spring, when the spring rains come, to get the sugar industry through the summer.The other point I would like to make is that bags have been promised for the Walla Weir. Bags are rubber extensions on the top of the walls, which will take the dam from 29,000 megalitres to 42,000 megalitres. That is quite significant, and I call for the WAMP process and the EIS connected with that to be accelerated. Let us face it: it follows roughly the same parameters of the dam, it is achieving the same thing, but it is of critical importance to the sugar and small crop industries in my area. I think at times some extreme areas of the environmental movement pick projects like this because they have been well debated, they are public and visible. I call on the saner voice and I call on the state government to accelerate sensible measures to get water into this very critical area, which could be contributing much more both to the district and to the national economy.256309:46:002563Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Tomorrow morning a subcommittee will meet to campaign for the establishment of a handover centre in the Illawarra region. The committee convened by Wollongong City Lord Mayor involves the Illawarra committee against domestic violence, and various community leaders. Separation and divorce is increasing in our community and, regrettably, so are incidents of domestic violence. Separation and divorce is never easy, as two people once so intimately involved have to face a barrage of emotions as they get on with their new lives. But, as in most things, children are the forgotten victims.We all like to believe that, as adults, we act with maturity and experience in relationship breakdown. That is an ideal, and it is never or very rarely realised in practice. Too often children are used as pawns in a bitter battle of recrimination—relegated to a piece of property, neglected in an act of spite. How the separation and divorce of their parents affect children is difficult to assess and, despite all of the studies, I do not believe we will ever have a conclusive answer.I often wonder what goes through the mind of a child subject to the routine handover from one parent to the other on weekends in front of the local police station, the local library, the shopping centre or, indeed, McDonald's car park. But this is what comes about in the Illawarra and, I am sure, other communities around this country when children are to have contact with separated parents. There is absolutely no excuse for domestic violence perpetrated by either parent, and I totally understand why the handover of children takes place in public places. But surely we as a community can do better. Surely we can provide safe handover centres for parents and children to feel safe and secure in contact with their parents.There is a report prepared by the Attorney-General's Department that provides a useful assessment of the handover centres established on a pilot program basis throughout Australia. Time prevents me from addressing the report in detail here, but I urge all of my colleagues in this place, if they have not already read it, to obtain a copy and to read it. It is a useful report providing evidence that handover centres do work and provide safe and secure environments for the successful transfer of children between parents during contact times. The pilot program was funded in the 1995-96 budget. I call on the minister to allocate appropriate funding to ensure these centres are established.We cannot make parents at war appreciate that their children also suffer by separation and divorce, but we as a community can provide essential support. I do not want to wonder any longer about what is going through the mind of that child handed over in front of the local police station. I prefer to wonder instead why that child has a spring in their step and an enthusiasm to develop a relationship with their parents.256409:49:002564Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Transport networks are the lifeblood of any region, providing essential links with suppliers and with markets. Deficiencies in infrastructure in the transport area can badly cripple regional development. The Hawkesbury region, the northern part of my electorate, suffers from such deficiencies. Since the Hawkesbury region is not on any national transport links, the responsibilities are, by and large, those of the state government. In this regard, the New South Wales Carr government has badly failed the people of the Hawkesbury region—failed in terms of road transport links and failed in terms of adequate rail transport links.The Windsor Road is the prime road link between the Hawkesbury and Sydney. Windsor Road is hopelessly inadequate for the traffic flows that it is required to carry. Before the 1995 state election, the now Premier, Bob Carr, promised that in his first term of office Windsor Road would be upgraded to a four-lane highway. Over the last four years, nothing has happened in this regard—nothing except more talk and more promises. The problems on Windsor Road have been exacerbated by the New South Wales government continuing to expand housing in the north-west sector, continuing to put extra pressures on the road and doing nothing to relieve the pressures on that road.The Hawkesbury region has a lot going for it in terms of potential development. The member for Mitchell, having once represented much of my electorate, would know full well its potential. The Hawkesbury region has tremendous potential in agriculture, being the breadbasket of Sydney, but it is being strangled by the problems on Windsor Road. It has terrific potential in tourism, but it is being stifled by the inadequacies of Windsor Road. The many thousands of commuters that have to struggle daily along Windsor Road between the Hawkesbury and Sydney experience enormous frustration because of the failure of the state government to do anything to adequately upgrade that road.The many small and medium manufacturers in our region, propelled by terrific small business people and entrepreneurs, are continually frustrated because of the cost and delay of inadequate transport facilities. The failure of the Carr government to deliver on its promises has cost the Hawkesbury severely. The failure to provide adequate rail services and the failure of the state government to meet its commitment to upgrade the Hawkesbury transport services on Windsor Road has been a constant barrier to local business development. If we are going to have adequate development in the Hawkesbury, the Carr government needs to fulfil its promises to upgrade Windsor Road. The Hawkesbury region deserves better than it has had from the New South Wales government, and the only solution is a change in the New South Wales government.256509:52:002565Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the spirit of bipartisanship. There is an important vision for the future of this nation which has to do with the creation of a new generation of Asia-literate Australians. We cannot underestimate the continued importance of East Asia to Australia's future economic wellbeing. Despite the recent economic downturn, the major economies of East Asia, North Asia and South-East Asia will be of continued significance to our future jobs. The recovery in those economies is under way. It will not be long before once again they resume a dominant position in this nation's future economic wellbeing.That underlines the importance of creating in this nation, through our education system, a new generation of Asia-literate Australians, a generation of Australians who are comfortable in the languages and cultures of our principal economic partners, from China through Korea through South-East Asia. We do not want just language specialists; we want a generation of Australians who are competent in their own professions and their disciplines, as lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, as people who are specialists in their mainstream occupations and professions, but who, in addition to that, have a set of skills in the languages and cultures of our principal economic partners.Because of this, in 1994 the Council of Australian Governments—comprised of all governments, Commonwealth, state and territory, Labor and Liberal—agreed on a national program called the National Asian Languages and Studies Strategy for Australian Schools, NALSSAS. Its vision was a long-term one. It was to provide over a 10-year period sufficient funding, on the basis of a 50 per cent, 50 per cent tied grant arrangement between the Commonwealth and the states, enough resources to enable the schools of this nation to offer foreign language education for children between year 3 and year 10 in the school system and for 50 per cent of the languages on offer to be the principal economic languages of East Asia.I am pleased to be able to report to the committee that this strategy, which was agreed to in 1994 under the Keating government, has been sustained under the Howard government. I would like to use this opportunity to place on record my appreciation for the interest and support displayed in this program by the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp. It is one of those programs which we see in this parliament from time to time and which is of genuine long-term benefit to the nation. It is one whose benefits will not be shown in terms of the children emerging from it and benefiting from its content until 2005-2010, when these children emerge from the school system, the universities and the training institutes to take their place in the work force of the nation. It is one of those rare programs where we as politicians in the short term will not see the benefit till the long term. Hence its bipartisan support has been essential. (Time expired)256609:55:002566Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I thought I would give a little insight into the trials and tribulations of a woman `pollie' on the road. Whilst it may appear light-hearted, it is in fact a very important and serious part of being a politician. Do I take the tent or just the folding table and chair? Sure as eggs, when I leave the tent behind, it pours with rain or the sun beats down mercilessly and there is no shade to be had. When I take the tent and set it up, the wind howls through the streets, flapping the tent so forcefully that I fear for my life inside it. Either way, no-one is going to sit and talk with me in any serious kind of fashion.Then of course there is that sign—that very professional little A-frame sandwich board sign with my name on it. If it is a good day, the sign breaks my nails as I fold it up. If it is a bad day, it rips my whole hand. Those who know I have a thumb missing often ask if it is still wedged in that sign somewhere. Luckily I have a Tarago to cart all this stuff about in.Packing the van in itself is an art. A man can wear a suit and put his jacket on or not—that is the choice. Not so for the woman pollie. She needs a dress, a skirt, a top, a slacksuit, pants and a blouse and of course the accessories and the make-up. Every appointment requires a different type of outfit. The trick is to change while you are driving to the next stop without giving away too much of the local member!And then there is the food. Has anyone been successful in working out where you put the tomato sauce as you are eating that wonderful local pie that you bought at the last village stop while changing into a skirt and driving to the next job at the same time as you are speaking to the office on the phone that you are not allowed to pick up? Where do you put the sauce so that you do not lose it on the corners or on the sleeve of the blouse that you are surreptitiously slipping on at the traffic lights!Having arrived neatly dressed at the next appointment with a blazer on to hide the tomato sauce, it is inevitable that as I am in a skirt and high heels someone wants me to see something that is on the beach, 15-foot up a ladder, halfway across a building site or half a kilometre into the scrub. I put the slacks on and the sturdy shoes—and you've guessed it! All of the town's ladies have decided to make a real event out of my visit and throw a special lunch and arrive in their finest clothes ready to eat delicate sandwiches.Yes, packing the van is a real challenge and, having packed the tent, table, chairs, that sign, many clothes, food minus the tomato sauce, there is the petrol. In my electorate almost all of the service stations shut just five minutes before I pull into them. After 7 p.m. there are only three open in about 6,500 square kilometres. Some of my staff now carry a drum of petrol with them wherever they go, expecting of course a phone call!Yes, there are many delights in sitting exposed to the elements and under or overdressed at my table, next to that sign. The best is that I am meeting my people, the people I represent whether they voted for me or not. I love every bit of it. I love how they toot their horn and wave as they drive by and how they walk up and say, `Good on yer, Jo. Doin' a great job.' But what really brings a tear to the eye and makes me fill up with pride is when people bring their children to meet me because they believe it is important to begin the relationship with their local member early. I wonder which one of them will replace me and whether I should pass on that sign.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills2567r650Billsr643Bills2567Debate resumed from 9 February, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:002567Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I rise to support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 . It is an important bill. It is also consistent with the approach this government has on a number of measures in that it provides for the full cost recovery of the charges involved in administering matters relating to film and literature classification. In fact, it was originally posted in the May 1997 budget so that the imposition of charges for the classification of publications, films and computer games and for related services could take place. Because of events such as elections, this matter is now finally being considered by the House.It is important work that is done by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. That there has to be full cost recovery is good from the taxpayers' point of view because it imposes not just a charge but a greater sense of attachment to the responsibility that producers must show towards the consumers of the products that they make available. The Office of Film and Literature Classification does important work; it is not a matter of deciding directly what people should or should not consume but rather of offering advice on what is to be consumed. I do not think they necessarily get it right all the time, and I would like to explore some of those aspects of that claim later on.Essentially what they are doing is administering commercial services, and the operations of the OFLC should not be simply charged to the taxpayer but rather to those who provide the commercial services and benefit from the operations of this particular office. As well, the government has recognised that there are some limited appeal markets involved in various films and literature that are put before this office for consideration. They have a limited market. Therefore, they have less capacity to meet the cost that big budget films and books would. There is of course expanded power for the office to waive charges to provide some relief to small operators and small business people who may be involved in the production of niche or specialised material. All of this has been done with ongoing consultation with the industries involved. I think the government is acting very responsibly on all fronts.As I said, I think the work the office does is important. In one way it is important because so many people can deliberate what is reality and what is fantasy in what they read and what they view and, in fact, what they play on computers, but there are some in our community who cannot. I think on that basis it is important for this office to impose the standards that it does. The standards are revealed in the forms of classification and advisories which state clearly the types of activities people are about to be exposed to. I would hope that people feel a great deal of certainty when they read those advisories.We have noticed over recent years that television classifications and movie classifications now have greater detail in the kind of material that is about to be shown. For example, some scenes may contain violence or some scenes may contain nudity or explicit or passive sexual references—those sorts of things. All of those advisories are very handy, although I am not quite certain whether everybody fully appreciates exactly what each of those classifications means. Let us face it: offence to certain material can always be in the eye of the beholder and some people can deliberately look for offence in certain material and others may say, `That is one of those things I choose to read or view.'I believe each individual does have the right to read or look at any material of their choice. But I also believe that there is a certain responsibility on those individuals when it comes to that kind of material. I must confess in this place that I have seen some of those rude magazines myself over my 39 years on planet earth. I know the member for Mitchell is horrified by that, but I think in the interests of understanding this subject matter it is important to appreciate the range of material that is available. That is my excuse and I will stick to it.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—It is a good story and you stick to it!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—That is right. But I think at the end of the day I can tell what is reality from what is fantasy. There are some in our community who cannot, and we do have a role to make sure that they are not exposed to certain matters. Having said that, while individuals are allowed by choice to look at magazines or movies or material that may be offensive to others, I find it equally offensive that my 6½-year-old son is exposed to posters from everyday household name magazines, even magazines like New Idea and Woman's Day , which seem to portray sex on their covers and posters in order to get people to purchase them. It is not so much promotion as seduction of consumers of those magazines.Again, I want to emphasise there is no prudish nature to my being, but I find it wrong that those particular posters are exposed, generally at kneecap height to adults but at just under chin height to a 6½-year-old boy. Like any boy, my son has an understanding of the female form and a fascination with it. I guess after two years at school he knows all of the one-liners, pranks and jokes that schoolboys tend to come up with. But one thing is for sure: a reinforcement to him about what is proper and what is not is one of the roles I have as a father.It is important to note that as a parliament we should insist upon a greater deal of sensitivity and understanding from the publishers of those magazines. I am not talking about Penthouse and Playboy, who are well known for providing those sorts of provocative covers to get people to purchase them. I am talking about magazines which were the sorts of things great-aunts used to buy and probably still do, despite their covers.I think those standards are important. If Playboys and the Penthouses were stuck in brown paper bags without the cover exposed to people in newsagents, I do not think any of the people who wish to purchase them would be offended by having to ask the newsagent, `I want to purchase whatever.' I do not have a problem with that. I think the Office of Film and Literature Classification is going to be overburdened if they were to take the Hardgrave plan on these things, but at the end of the day these matters need to be aired.Just as we look at people who misuse guns in this country and at the way our gun laws have quite deliberately and fairly been universally well accepted so that there are certain responsibilities for those who wish to use guns and the availability of guns has been limited—I do not think too many people argued against some of those semi-automatic high powered weapons being made difficult, impossible officially, to get hold of—so there are people in our community who, by their previous conduct, have shown they are unable to divorce themselves from fantasy. Perhaps we need to have a prohibited person's register for pornography so that, in other words, producers of pornographic material are not knowingly sending the material to those who cannot understand that all women do not expose themselves at will and all men are not doing things to women—or whatever may be portrayed in some of these materials. I think this may be another way of looking at it, rather than restricting material holus-bolus simply because some may do the wrong thing with it.We also need to look very closely at the portrayal of movies which receive a classification that is acceptable under the system currently because they use over-age actors. They say in their advertising, `All of our actors are aged over 18,' but the story line is about under-age sex. The notion of portraying in a video tape the concept of a 13- or 14-year-old girl doing whatever it is that she may or may not be doing in a particular movie is wrong.There was a Quentin Tarantino movie a year or two ago—and I will not mention its name in order not to promote it—which had in it a scene of a young teenage girl—I must confess this is second-hand but I think it was a fair representation made to me—saying hello to somebody on a train. A mind's eye camera shot came up next. It was from the perception of this sicko, who believed that sex and violence were linked. He saw this 14-year-old girl saying hello as being a come-on line in his mind and the movie then played out the scene of violence linked with sexual gratification.The Academy Award winning movie Leaving Las Vegas, which I think Nicholas Cage won an award for and which was highly regarded and well received, also had a link between the portrayal of violence and a sexual act. I think those sorts of movies are just not good enough. I think the Attorney-General, who is the minister responsible for classifacation of X-rated movies, is right, in that violence is different from X-rated.I am simply saying that there are movies and publications in our everyday midst which seem to get through and seem to be accepted. I think any link with under-age sex and any link between violence and sex is just not good enough and should be prohibited or at the very least restricted. I think we all understand that if you ban things they tend to be made available underground. I think ever since Eastman invented film and Kodak started producing it there have been nude pictures available. That is just the nature of the male beast, more so than not. So we do not have a real capacity to stop it.I would just like to add one other thing to the list of matters that I think the Office of Film and Literature Classification may have to have a greater role in in years to come. In fact, it is true right now—that is, Internet pornography. For the benefit of the House I would like to cite the name of a magazine, but I have spent the last three days trying to find it. It was one of those computer magazines that I flashed through amongst the millions of pieces of paper we see across our desks everyday. Its headline is stuck in my mind: `Is pornography killing the Internet?' I think it is an interesting possibility.The Internet system is a bit like the old party line telephone system. Any person who involves themselves in any activity on the Internet technically can be seen by somebody else who chooses to do so. But we all have regard for each other's privacy and we allow people to do certain things on the Internet without any difficulty. The downside of that is that there is so much pornography now available on the Internet that parents are deliberately finding ways and means to switch the thing off.Despite it being the great educative and information resource of this decade and into the next millennium, I find it difficult when my nine-year-old daughter, Jessica, would like to sit down and do something innocent like find pictures of her musical heroines, the Spice Girls. I think item No. 6 on her search for the Spice Girls was a lewd and vile depiction of the Spice Girls verbalising all sorts of four-letter words. She has been at school for four years, so she has heard a few of these words, because kids are kids, but she called out to me and said, `Dad, I've seen these rude words,' and turned it off.It is a matter of great concern to me. If 6½-year-old boys are confronted by posters of nude women at their corner shops and nine-year-old girls are confronted by four-letter words on the Internet on an everyday basis, then we have real problems in this community. The desensitising of our children is a matter that should concern everybody in this place. So the challenges are there. The government bill that is before us today provides the wherewithal, if you like, for the excellent work that the Office of Film and Literature Classification does, but there are a number of challenges to the office. In the years to come, I hope we give more strength to their arm to fight the good fight that we all want. I look forward to the industry, as well as the consumers, cooperating fully with the deliberations of the office. I commend the bill to the House.10:12:002570Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. It was a very thoughtful speech and, as a person well versed in the whole field of communications and with professional experience in that field, he is well placed to offer the opinions that he has. I want to pick up on the theme that he commenced with and look at the classification process, perhaps through the eyes of the community, taking into account that we have a multimedia process out there that this parliament and its members have a responsibility for. My colleague has mentioned the Internet, but we also have compact discs, the straight use of computers, and videos, films and literature. There is a whole range of rapidly expanding information available to the community. We are living in an exciting and challenging time, offering wonderful opportunities for the expansion of knowledge.One factor that appeals to me more than any other is the prospect of individuals bypassing mainstreams of canned information, such as our major networks put out, and limiting the source of information. We can now begin to bypass those sources of canned information and go to the very source, the university or the individual through email, the Internet, the telephone. Any one of a number of avenues can be used to source information accurately and directly. I think that will in the future prevent the sanitising of public opinion to a point where everybody thinks the same thing because a couple of major newspaper chains and their television and radio stations say we should think that way. We now have access to more information and there are attractive ways of pursuing it.The diversity of information is exciting but challenging also. One indication of this in my own district is an all night film showing in our local cinemas which attracted full houses—2,000 young people stayed up all night to see film after film after film. They were great films and the young people had a good time, but there was a mass of people. I started to look at some of the statistics relating to my own district and other electorates around Australia. I found that in the electorate of Mitchell I have more young people in the age group between 12 and 18 than anybody else in this parliament.I know that parents are very concerned about standards and values when it comes to multimedia, mass media. However, at a certain point in a young person's development parents will say: `I cannot intervene any longer. I cannot control what they watch, where they go or who they are with. I must at this point release some of the hold I have on them and trust in their own decisions.' That point is a very difficult point for parents. The foundation years for young people, from, say, 10 to 14 or thereabouts, are very significant regarding the way they make their decisions, form their friendships and amalgamate alliances.The whole of this area is a source of concern for parents in my electorate: the abuse of drugs, tobacco, alcohol and, of course, illegal drugs. Parents are frenetically, desperately concerned but basically uninformed about how to take charge of that. My local police tell me that we have one of the most crime free communities in the whole of Australia, so that is something to be thankful for. Parents, by their interest and concern, at least regarding their young people and the students in our schools, are having an impact by saying: `You have to make good decisions regarding the relationship between what you see and hear and your actions,' which seems at this stage, anyway, to be producing for parents and for our community a peaceful and lawful environment.It is the wish of every parent that that be maintained. I am not coming to this chamber today with some fiercely zealous point of view, although I believe in values and standards, but to represent the view of parents who are concerned about the standards of television, videos and radio. They worry about them. They worry about the language and depiction of certain values on Triple M.UNKNOWNGovernment memberGovernment member—Triple J.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I am sorry; Triple J, not Triple M. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware of the differences between those organisations. Young people can pick up, at an impressionable age, immature attitudes that can lead to immature actions, some of which can be very damaging, both to themselves and to the community around them. That applies to drugs, to violence and to their responsibility to other people, particularly to the relationship between the sexes—as to whether there is courteous, respectful conduct between boys and girls or the exploitative attitude which is encouraged by some media presentations. Getting this balance right is very important in our community.It is my view that if adults want to see or do anything in private, that is a matter for them, as long as they do not by their carelessness influence others. In an inquiry into literacy and numeracy that I did for this parliament many years ago as chairman of a select committee, we established that about 80 to 85 per cent of children watch television unsupervised. They just watch whatever it comes into their minds to watch or whatever they pick up by flicking channels. That also applies to the careless use of videos by adults, who leave them around the place. Something that might be completely appropriate for an adult to watch, if carelessly used by adults, can have a big impact on children—considering that the great majority of children are unsupervised in their use of the Internet, videos, films, tapes and radio.So we would like to have good standards for our young people but generally people are standing back and saying: `You can make your own decision about that; we are not going to check you out,' and 80 to 85 per cent of parents do that. They may not think they are doing it, but they just let the kids go to their room or use the family television or use the Internet in any way they choose or see fit. That is where the responsibility falls on this parliament. We have to think of the impact on young people's minds and actions that the laws we pass here can have if we adopt a relaxed attitude to the depiction and classification of material in all forms of media, or whether as a group of representatives we think that there is an impact on young minds of the depiction of violence, of explicit sexuality, of drug abuse, and all of those attendant things that seem so attractive and exciting to film-makers. I can never work out why, myself, but the darker sides of human activity seem attractive to a lot of film-makers. We have a responsibility to make sure that the laws are right.This bill, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998, deals with the charges, as has rightly been said. I know Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl has been very kind in allowing the first speaker, myself, to stray somewhat from the subject, but the classification legislation before us today is only about charges. We will be dealing with the content and the description and the definitions that apply to classifications some time later this year, but at the moment we are looking at charges. I have no problem with the bill. I think it is sensible for cost recovery to take place. I notice that some estimates indicate that it will increase the costs for films by 360 per cent, by 130 per cent for video and by 69 per cent for computer games.There is within the bill a capacity for the director to make decisions to waive charges or diminish charges for a limited number of films according to definitions which are going to be given to us by the Attorney-General and state ministers. We don't know what they are. We are giving them the powers. I don't like making legislation in this way, I have to say. We are going to give somebody the power and then we are going to tell them to define it later. I like to know now what we are approving, and that is a criticism of this legislation. We ought to know as a parliament the impact of this legislation.We are given a description that will relate to records of an artistic or cultural performance and documentation of public, sporting and religious events. That is fine. I know many ethnic groups would love to have this capacity and hold their annual feast days or celebrations at a lower charge; I understand that. But I do believe the directors must report to this parliament at the end of each year and say what they have given a waiver or a reduced charge—a charge, not a fee, because this is a tax—to. We need to know what the director is up to and how the director is implementing the freedoms the director has. I would press on the Attorney the wisdom of that course of action.In pursuing the classification process, I want to bring to this chamber the concerns of parents in my electorate because the biggest group of voters in my electorate are the parents of the kids I have described, the 12- to 18-year-olds. As I say, I do not come with some zealous view; I come as a representative, because those parents are really concerned about the future of their kids. The state members, the local mayor and I have claimed our area to be a drug free zone. We are working very hard on strategies and policies to implement an educative process to help people understand that the abuse of drugs is damaging, to have the policing processes upgraded so that law and order are implemented in regard to the supply of drugs, particularly to minors, and also for the compassionate treatment of people who have somehow or other become addicted to drugs. So we are using a three-pronged approach.So many of the attitudes developed in young people are drawn from media. We as a parliament must reflect what the community views are. A newspaper report on 21 January 1999 in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled `The people's verdict: cut the violence' addresses the survey of community attitudes that I understand the Office of Film and Literature Classification did. The strong view of people around Australia is that violence must be knocked out and abusive sexual references must be knocked out because that is bad news for boys and it is bad news for young people about how they can treat each other. We must reflect those community attitudes. Certainly I make a plea to this parliament from the people I represent that we must have a very well understood and carefully enunciated policy.It is okay for some—and I think at times the Attorney-General is among them—to say adults can do what they want, and surely you are not going to have thought police. I acknowledge he has not gone to that extent. I understand that, but at the same time we as adults have a responsibility to those young people not to be careless and to recognise that 80 per cent of kids just watch whatever they want to watch. If this parliament, the Attorney-General or anybody else does not think we have got a responsibility in those circumstances, they are wrong. We have a responsibility to those under 18 years of age.My plea is that this parliament, as it comes to consider not just the charges for classification but the classifications themselves, will adopt an approach which is both responsible and thoughtful. The parents and the young people I represent deserve to have the best. We must do anything that builds or enforces their self-confidence, their survival opportunities and their prospects of getting through those years where there are lots of challenges to their personal standards and conduct. Anything that pulls down the prospect of them succeeding must be rejected.I refer to `The people's verdict: cut the violence', which refers to comments made by Brian Harradine. That is not a surprise. Brian has been an advocate for standards for a long time. From my reading of Brian's stuff, he is no wowser wanting to impose on adults his own views. He is entitled to his views and so are other adults. His concern is for young people. Back in 1996 Julian McGauran and Richard Alston also made statements about standards in all of the multi-media avenues that we have access to today.So my plea is: not only must the charges be right but the classifications themselves must be right. I would like to make sure that the government's previous decision of banning X- and R-rated videos, particularly for young people, is adhered to and that any changes in classification, description or definition reflect that decision. It is very important that we do that.10:29:002573Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Currently publications, films and computer games submitted for classification attract a fee that covers the cost of actually classifying that material. The ability of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the OFLC, to provide those services depends on a number of other operations taking place. These operations include some research functions, the Community Liaison Officer Scheme, policy development and ministerial support. The current fee structure does not cover the cost of these operations, although they directly benefit the individuals, businesses and governments applying for classification services.How do they benefit the customers? Allow me to take you through the points. Point 1 is research functions. In my own electorate there has been much debate about the perception and causes of violence in the street. Some of my constituents in Gilmore have claimed that the ready availability of violent material for general consumption is linked to increasing violence in society. The Office of Film and Literature Classification may choose to research this topic to establish any causal link between, say, violence in films and violence on the street, and also to establish if violence is increasing or people's perception is changing. This sort of research enables the OFLC to ensure that its classification of material, firstly, reflects community standards and, secondly, is based on fact.Another area of research that you may have heard about is the recently piloted community assessment panels. Members of the general community from widely differing backgrounds, age groups and geographical locations were asked to view several films and suggest classifications for them. In this way the OFLC was able to check whether the guidelines used to classify material broadly reflect community standards. The results of the pilot study affirmed the OFLC's current guidelines. The panel gave six films the same classification, two a slightly higher classification and one a lower classification. I believe this demonstrates once again the federal government's preparedness to apply transparency to the decision making and audit processes. Of course, research of this type comes at a cost, which is currently borne by the government.Point 2 is the Community Liaison Officer Scheme. This scheme is designed to ensure that industry and the community understand how to apply for classification, the processes used in classification and the reasons why it occurs. Community liaison officers go into the business community to help them with applications for classification. They also provide an inquiry and educational service to the general public to help them gain a perspective on the complex issues surrounding classification of material. Promoting such understanding allows reasonable product to be published and accessed by appropriate responsible people.Point 3 is the policy development. Once community standards have been ascertained, policy needs to be negotiated, agreed and written in conjunction with industry bodies, and state and territory governments. This requires an amount of consultation and review.Point 4 is the ministerial support. As this is a national issue, the minister is required to discuss the implementation of guidelines and standards with the state and territory governments. High level negotiations also take place with peak industry and community bodies. The costs of the minister for these processes include briefings, secretarial and administrative support.As you can see, all of these operations lead to an effective and efficient service that directly benefits those applying for classification of their material, be it publications, films or computer games. The purpose of these classification bills is to permit full cost recovery so that the federal coalition is not subsidising commercial enterprises. Similarly, the imposition of fees is not for the purpose of killing off small business. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 provides for the imposition of charges for the classification of material and for related services.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 amends the act and contains administrative provisions relating to the collection and waiver of charges. It also prescribes time limits for the making of classification decisions. This brings to light another point. These bills give some guarantees to industry and impose some obligations on the OFLC, such as maximum times for the classification of material.With full cost recovery comes the right, under the charges bill, to consultation before any changes to classification charges are made by regulation. In return for bearing the full cost of the OFLC, business, government and individuals will have the right to consult with the office to ensure that it is functioning in the most efficient and effective manner possible.As mentioned earlier, the amendment bill also contains administrative provisions relating to the collection and waiver of charges. This bill allows the OFLC director to reduce or waive the fees as appropriate. These provisions are included to encourage and ensure that Australians can gain access to the widest range of specialist product. Without these provisions, small, not-for-profit, limited distribution documentary or public interest classifiable material may not be available to the general public. Reduced fees for these types of materials may also encourage compliance by distributors.This ability to reduce or waive fees is expected to cost in the region of $54,000 per year, covering about 100 publications, films and computer games. A film currently being made in my Gilmore electorate will benefit from these bills. The Nowra-Greenwell Point RSL Sub-branch has received funding to preserve historical film of memorial and dedication ceremonies in the district and incorporate them into a documentary or historical commentary on the region. Without the provisions of these bills, production would cease.Even with the expected cost of the reduction or waiver of fees, savings to the federal coalition of $2.15 million is anticipated in the first year. There is strong industry support for the higher fees to be introduced incrementally. This is a prime example of the federal government applying targeted assistance to those who need it while ensuring those who can pay do so to the extent that it is possible for them to pay.To put the fees in some sort of perspective: currently the fees for a feature film range from $100 to $2,000 and this will rise by about 57 per cent. In comparison, fees to rate a feature film in the USA would cost $24,000 or $94 per million head of population; in the United Kingdom, $6,000 or $109 per million head of population; and in New Zealand, $1,500 or $500 per million head of population. The fees we are proposing would amount to an average of $2,000 for a feature film or about $118 per million head of population. In this context, the fee structure seems to be reasonable for the excellent services provided.I have not spoken on the need for classification, and it is timely that I do. I believe that people need to know what sort of material they are about to access so that they can make an informed choice. It is important, especially with material that may be offensive to some, that the type of offence possible is clearly displayed on the outside of the product. Whilst I believe generally in freedom of choice, there are some types of materials that simply should not be available anywhere, including that which exploits children.While on the subject of children, I believe classified materials are still far too easy for children to obtain both at the point of retail sale and after the sale, such as in the home. The responsibility lies not just at the feet of the shopkeepers but also firmly at the door of parents. I believe it is the parents' role to set boundaries, to advise on, and ensure compliance with, community standards and to model appropriate behaviour. I commend these two bills to the committee. They are a further example of the mutual obligation policy of this government working in favour of business, the government and the Australian public.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I meant to mention during my speech that I had a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library grading electorates by the numbers of young people between the ages of 12 and 18. I believe the opposition has no objection if I ask for it to be included in Hansard .Leave granted.The table read as follows—STATISTICS GROUPDepartment of the Parliamentary Library1996 Census of Population and Housing Commonwealth Electoral Divisions (1997 boundaries)Ranked on the proportion of Persons aged 12 to 18RankElectoral DivisionParty Per cent1Sydney (NSW)ALP4.72Melbourne (Vic)ALP5.93Melbourne Ports (Vic)ALP6.04North Sydney (NSW)Lib6.75Grayndler (NSW)ALP6.76Wentworth (NSW)LIB6.87Higgins (Vic)LIB7.08Batman (Vic)ALP7.19Hindmarsh (SA)LIB7.210Brisbane (Qld) ALP7.311Warringah (NSW)LIB7.312Adelaide (SA)LIB7.513Wills (Vic)ALP7.614Newcastle (NSW)ALP7.715Barton (NSW)ALP7.916McPherson (Qld) LIB8.017Chisholm (Vic)ALP8.018Kingsford-Smith (NSW)ALP8.019Gellibrand (Vic)ALP8.020Moncrieff (Qld) LIB8.021Kalgoorlie (WA)LIB8.122Sturt (SA)LIB8.223Goldstein (Vic)LIB8.424Perth (WA)ALP8.425Lowe (NSW)ALP8.426Leichhardt (Qld)LIB 8.427Lilley (Qld)ALP 8.528Cook (NSW) LIB 8.529Isaacs (Vic) ALP 8.530Swan (WA)ALP 8.631Port Adelaide (SA) ALP8.632Deakin (Vic) LIB8.633Mackellar (NSW) LIB8.734Hotham (Vic) ALP8.735Bennelong (NSW) LIB8.736Watson (NSW) ALP8.837Griffith (Qld) ALP8.9 38Robertson (NSW) LIB9.039Banks (NSW) ALP 9.040Fisher (Qld) LIB9.141Cunningham (NSW) ALP9.242Lyne (NSW) NP9.243Parramatta (NSW) LIB9.344Fremantle (WA)ALP9.345Gwyder (NSW) NP9.346Curtin (WA)LIB9.347Kooyong (Vic) LIB9.448Reid (NSW) ALP 9.449Boothby (SA)LIB9.550Eden-Monaro (NSW) LIB9.551Richmond (NSW) NP9.552Fairfax (Qld) LIB9.553Flinders (Vic) LIB9.654Wide Bay (Qld) NP9.655Grey (SA)LIB9.656Shortland (NSW) ALP9.657Moreton (Qld) LIB9.658Barker (SA) LIB9.659Stirling (WA)ALP9.760Gilmore (NSW)LIB9.761Lyons (Tas)ALP9.862Maranoa (Qld) NP9.863Wakefield (SA)LIB9.964Kennedy (Qld) NP9.965Dawson (Qld) NP9.966Dobell (NSW) ALP10.067Jagajaga (Vic) ALP10.068Northern Territory (NT)ALP10.069Parkes (NSW) NP10.070Denison (Tas)ALP10.071Blaxland (NSW) ALP 10.072Paterson (NSW) ALP10.173Petrie (Qld) LIB10.274Mallee (Vic) NP10.275Hume (NSW) LIB10.376Brand (WA)ALP10.377O'Connor (WA)LIB10.478Farrer (NSW) NP10.479Lalor (Vic)ALP10.480Wannon (Vic)LIB10.581Menzies (Vic)LIB10.5 82Corio (Vic)ALP10.583Maribyrnong (Vic) ALP10.584Charlton (NSW) ALP10.585Dunkley (Vic) LIB10.586Macquarie (NSW) LIB10.587Cowper (NSW) NP10.688Hinkler (Qld) NP10.689Longman (Qld)LIB10.690Bass (Tas)ALP10.691Bonython (SA)ALP10.792Throsby (NSW)ALP10.793Page (NSW)NP10.794Herbert (Qld) LIB10.795Corangamite (Vic)LIB10.796Forrest (WA)LIB10.797La Trobe (Vic) LIB10.898Fowler (NSW) ALP10.899Murray (Vic)LIB10.8100Fraser (ACT)ALP10.8101Hunter (NSW) ALP10.8102Makin (SA)LIB10.8103Bendigo (Vic)ALP10.8104Indi (Vic)LIB10.8105Greenway (NSW) ALP10.9106Calwell (Vic)ALP10.9107Fadden (Qld) LIB10.9108Oxley (Qld) ALP11.0109Holt (Vic)ALP11.0110Bruce (Vic)ALP11.0111McMillan (Vic)ALP11.0112Gippsland (Vic)NP11.0113Hughes (NSW)LIB11.1114Capricornia (Qld)ALP11.1115Bowman (Qld) ALP11.1116Braddon (Tas)ALP11.1117Riverina (NSW) NP11.1118Berowra (NSW)LIB11.1119Ballarat (Vic)LIB11.1120Kingston (SA)ALP11.2121Scullin (Vic)ALP11.2122 Prospect (NSW) ALP 11.3123Mayo (SA)LIB11.3124Forde (Qld)LIB11.4125Canberra (ACT)ALP11.4 126Calare (NSW)IND11.4127Franklin (Tas)ALP11.4128Chifley (NSW) ALP11.5129New England (NSW) NP11.5130Blair (Qld) LIB11.6131Aston (Vic)LIB11.6132McEwen (Vic)LIB11.6133Casey (Vic)LIB11.6134Canning (WA)ALP11.7135Macarthur (NSW)LIB11.7136Lindsay (NSW)LIB11.9137Ryan (Qld)LIB11.9138Rankin (Qld) ALP11.9139Dickson (Qld)ALP12.1140Bradfield (NSW) LIB12.1141Cowan (WA)ALP12.2142Groom (Qld)LIB12.3143Burke (Vic)ALP12.4144Pearce (WA)LIB12.5145Werriwa (NSW) ALP12.6146Mitchell (NSW) LIB12.6147Tangney (WA)LIB12.6148Moore (WA)LIB12.610:38:002579Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—These classification bills, while important in themselves, may be regarded somewhat as machinery bills. They provide for the full recovery of costs relating to the classification of publications, films and computer games and the enforcement of decisions made under the act. That act establishes the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board and provides the procedures for the classification of material. There is complementary state and territory legislation relating to the exhibition, sale or hire of publications, films and computer games, both classified and unclassified.There can be no fundamental argument against the principle that those who wish to distribute and sell for-profit publications, films and computer games should have to pay for the costs related to classification. Broadly we are considering the entertainment industry that is well able to sustain those costs. However, I am pleased that the government has recognised that there is a case to enable certain material where limited distribution is involved to be classified at reduced rates. The bills give the director of the Classification Board the discretion to waiver in whole or in part classification charges for limited distribution, special interest material which, for example, may be the recording in some form of a cultural or like event. Nobody would deny that the government has a clear public interest obligation to ensure that a fair and reasonable classification system reflecting community standards exists. Equally, the government has a responsibility to intending distributors of material requiring classification to ensure that this system operates efficiently. I believe both the philosophy behind the bill and the administrative mechanisms it provides meet both of these responsibilities. It is entirely appropriate in the context of this debate that there be some discussion about the vexed and ongoing community debate as to what does or does not constitute pornography. The need for a classification system arises from the sensitive need to ensure society is protected from the excesses of pornography.Each of us has our own innate sense of what is pornographic and what is suitable for different age groups. Parents like myself must make these decisions for their children on an ongoing basis. We all know how vigilant we must be in this regard while at the same time acknowledge that as our children grow towards adulthood they must be allowed an increasing individual freedom of choice. For some the term `classification' means censorship. I certainly do not object to equating the two because some form of censorship is and always will be necessary. The challenge facing all of us is determining what should be released and what should not be released. We face the challenge of determining what is the acceptable community standard, knowing always that community standards change with time.Only the very smallest minority now would strongly believe that D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover should be banned, yet, at the time of its publication and for many years after, it was banned as an obscene publication. On the other hand, only a very small minority would strongly believe now that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on any form of pornography, no matter how depraved and extreme. Between these two tiny minorities is the overwhelming majority who hold to their views strongly, and who all have a legitimate right to express them. The argument is often heard that standards applying to the classification of pornographic material are declining and that more and more material is being allowed for release.To some extent this is true. However, it can be argued equally that in some critical areas there are even tighter restrictions than existed in the past. The tougher laws against the sale and ownership of child pornography are a case in point. In only the fairly recent past there were very lax laws, or even no laws at all, specifically aimed at suppressing child pornography. But today, quite rightly, it is a serious public issue under constant review. Certainly the community has made its views known and governments have responded appropriately.In the debate about what is or is not pornography, there are often seemingly strange alliances. Those who hold strong pro-censorship views for religious or cultural reasons have gained an ally from the feminist movement who seek to achieve the same result but for a different reason. It is unlikely that these two groups—the first generally associated with the Right of politics and the second generally associated with the Left—would agree on anything else. Therefore it is clear that community standards are in a state of some flux and it is not necessarily true to assert reasonably that all standards are falling. Nonetheless, it is true generally that what was considered hard core in the past is now considered soft core. That leads to the inevitable question: where will all of this end?I mentioned earlier that there had in fact been some tightening of standards. Many of those who in the past argued against any form of censorship on the grounds that censorship was an insult to the intelligence of individuals and even an assault on democracy now feel that they must qualify their philosophical views when confronted with the frankly sickening and bizarre material that we see in some publications and releases. Once it was the pro-censorship advocates who felt under attack as being narrow-minded puritans. Now the anti-censorship advocates are under pressure to draw their own line in the sand and declare from their perspective what finally must be banned.Central to the debate about censorship is the question as to whether pornography does any harm. My personal view is that it does. As a parent I would not want my child's view of adult relationships to be influenced in any way by pornography. It would deny him the great joy of that journey of discovery for himself. Equally, I cannot accept that any adult who gets pleasure from hard-core material is not damaged morally and spiritually. That is not the view of a puritan or a wowser but the view which I happen to believe represents mainstream society.There is a great debate about whether or not the effects of pornography, especially in its most extreme forms, contribute to or inspire serious antisocial behaviour. However, there is a solid body of evidence that the consumption of pornography can have a deep and serious effect. There is also significant evidence that pornography has an insidious negative influence. In all probability, many of those affected by it are unaware of this, but tests have shown that men exposed to pornography are far more likely to have seriously disturbed views about women.These men, for example, were found to be more tolerant of rapists and more willing to believe that women, in some way, are responsible for their own rapes. The leading psychologist James Weaver summarised this research in his book Pornography published only a few years ago when he wrote:The fact that exposure to contemporary pornography can activate sexually callous perceptions of women and promote manipulative and, in some instances, aggressive behaviour is highlighted consistently in the research evidence.It must concern all of us that such men, in all likelihood unaware of the basis for their intolerant views, can and sometimes do serve on juries asked to pass judgment on an alleged rapist. There have been any number of documented cases around the world providing evidence to show that serial rapists and murderers have been addicted to pornography. One American study conducted by the Chicago Police showed that pornography was involved in almost 100 per cent of all paedophilia cases.The anti-censorship advocates might argue that pornography in many cases prevents many rapes and other attacks because it provides a form of release for the disturbed and therefore acts to protect society. There is also the argument to the effect that if pornography does contribute to or inspire crimes then alcohol should be banned or severely restricted because it is the cause of so much grief, despite the fact that most enjoy it in moderation. I cannot accept either of these arguments. They are just too smart by half and, at best, are dubious excuses.I do not deny that there are those who say that they are opposed to censorship as a matter of principle. Yet when pressed to clearly spell out the absolute limits of their tolerance, their principle is found to be hollow. I believe it is true to say that virtually all of these people who claim to be wedded to this principle really do, in the end, support some censorship. By admitting that, if only in their heart of hearts, they are being forced to confront the fact that their principle falls to the ground.The great campaign against censorship in the 1960s and 1970s was not just about artistic freedom; it was part of the sexual revolution. Just as the outer limits of the sexual revolution are contracting because of the HIV/AIDS virus and the deadly infections that take their terrible toll, the community is coming to realise that the legacy of the peace, love and freedom movement of those days needs to be re-examined and reassessed. The baby boomer generation which revelled in the new freedoms of the 1960s and 1970s are now parents themselves. Nothing changes perceptions and beliefs more than age and maturity. As our parents sought to impose limits on our behaviour in the genuine belief that we would be better people for it, so we seek to ensure that our children are protected from insidious influences today.Obviously the greatest buffers against the insidious influences in some sections of the community are a loving family and nurturing a child's religious faith. However, not all children have the benefit of a loving and cohesive family. I think it is the responsibility of those in parliaments across the country, federal and state, to ensure that all young people are protected from insidious and evil influences. In conclusion, while nobody is ever going to be completely happy with classification and censorship standards, I support the proposal by the government and certainly believe that this is a most sound measure for those of us and parents across the country who wish to see a form of classification that protects our young people.Motion (by Ms Bailey) agreed to:That further proceedings on the bill be conducted in the House.Bills2582r6432582Consideration resumed from 9 February, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.Motion (by Ms Bailey) agreed to:That further proceedings on the bill be conducted in the House.Bills2582r6842582Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Ms Worth:That the bill be now read a second time.10:49:002582Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Bill 1998 is principally about measurement, which is the primary concern of the science of metrology. This science has been with us since the very earliest times. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the whole history of our society and many other human societies has been based firmly on the science of measurement because trade and commerce between people, between groups in society, is a practical impossibility without some predefined system of measurement which all in the society accept. Naturally, this has evolved substantially over time, through history, and the science of metrology is now a very well established one in our community.I would have to admit though that this is not one of the most headlining of sciences. It is not a science which the average person is very familiar with, although of course they are exposed to it every day, day after day, as they go through the supermarket checkouts, as they buy petrol at the pump, as they buy their gas, their electricity and their water—1,001 everyday commodities which are now measured with substantial precision in a way which is entirely reproducible, in a way which is entirely verifiable and which is entirely consistent across Australia and indeed across many countries over the world.The modern science of metrology has been with us for some hundreds of years now. Indeed, I suppose you would date the modern implementation to the establishment of the metric system which has gradually spread across Europe and to many other countries, including in more recent times Australia. Unfortunately, while it remains legal in the United States to use metrication, it is far from commonly adopted and there remains substantial resistance in the world's largest economy to that. I suspect that eventually they will come to see the wisdom of being part of the world community of measurement, but that is a topic for another day.Why is the science of metrology so important, and why are the terms of this bill so significant, for Australia's commerce? The fact is that some $140 billion worth of goods are traded through measurable instruments every year in this country, a very substantial amount. Some of the figures which are quoted in the supporting material are very instructive. Some 32,000 megalitres of oil, 3,500 megalitres of LPG and 21,000 gigalitres of natural gas are measured every year in this country. Indeed, many of those are measured on many occasions as they are sold at the wholesale level and perhaps moved through other distributors and then finally retailed through the petrol pump or through the gas meter of our homes. Obviously measurement becomes very critical when you see volumes of that order of magnitude.It is quite important to our economy as well. Measurement activities add something like four per cent to gross national product in this country. In countries like the United States and in western Europe, that is very much the case. So the science of metrology has a very substantial impact on our economy. As our economy becomes more efficient, as micro-economic reform takes hold, obviously the science of measurement becomes even more critical to that economy itself.It is quite important to consumers because it ensures that they will receive a fair allocation of the goods which they are buying. Consumers need to have confidence in the way in which goods are measured so that they can be certain that that which they are paying for is that which they finally receive. History is replete with examples of consumers being cheated by merchants who historically might favour the scales in a certain way or ensure that their weights were balanced in a certain way so that when they measured out some commodity this favoured them rather than the consumer. While on each individual purchase this would have minimal impact for the individual consumer at the time, obviously over a period of time the merchant would gain substantially.Because of the work of organisations like the National Standards Commission, CSIRO and others who are involved, such as the Standards Association and the individual state organisations, fortunately Australian consumers can have very substantial confidence in the accuracy of measurements of trade goods in this country. However, we have evolved—despite the fact that the constitution gives the power over weights and measures to the Commonwealth government—a situation over the years where the states have had a very substantial role in the regulation of these commodities. Although there has been national cooperation, the reality is that each state has very much set out its own regime.This has been particularly true in the areas of water, electricity and gas supply because each of the state governments has in the past maintained a monopoly supply and distribution arrangement for these essential commodities and, therefore, they were reluctant, I suspect, for obvious reasons to press too much regulation on their own authorities. The states were both the suppliers and the regulators of these commodities. They trusted themselves. They expected others to trust them—the old adage `I am here from the government and I am here to help you' or `I am here from a government monopoly and I am here to help you' has even less relevance today than it may have had in the past.Therefore, as we move into an era of significant competition reform in the area of utility supply—electricity, gas and water—as we move to make these areas subject to competition reform, and as the states move to sell some of these previously monopolised utilities to break them up at both the supply and the distribution ends of the spectrum, obviously it becomes much more important that we have the proper regulations and standards for the actual measurement instruments which dispense these commodities to the consumer. It is for that reason that the previous government established the Kean review of standards and conformance infrastructure, which took place some years ago now but the report of which is gradually working its way through the parliament.That report recommended a national system of standards whereby the National Standards Commission and its agents and instrumentalities, working through groups like the CSIRO and others whom they will contract for the service, were able to give pattern approval for water meters, gas meters and trade utility meters to ensure that manufacturers and the importers of those meters were able to obtain a pattern approval for a particular type of meter to ensure that, having obtained that approval, it would then be valid for both that manufacturer and that importer throughout Australia. Also, the consumer would have every confidence that a utility meter which met that pattern approval, which met that standard, would deliver an accurate result for them when they were purchasing that commodity.This, of course, ensures a high level of compatibility across the country. It ensures that manufacturers and importers have to pay for that testing on only one occasion with the one authority, and there are substantial benefits to efficiency and productivity as a result of that. In a new era of competition reform in the utility delivery industries—however we might react to that in individual states—there is still some dispute as to the merits of the way in which this might be implemented in each of the states. But, given that that argument will occur anyway, it is very important that at the national level we establish accurate standards for utility meters to ensure that the consumer is able to have confidence in the system and that the utilities themselves are working from an accurate base.This legislation will ensure that that pattern approval system across Australia is available to manufacturers and importers of utility meters. It will provide a nationally recognised system which the states are in relative agreement with, and this important area of utility metering in an era of competition reform will be an accurate and competitive one. It is a very timely measure because it matches so well with the competition reform changes and with the gradual break-up of some of these natural monopolies in the states.As I say, the argument persists about the way in which this should be done in each of the states, and I think that is a valid discussion to have in that context, but it is important that, at the national level, we do establish some uniformity, certainty and scientific validity to the way in which those meters are tested and approved, and this legislation does that. The opposition is pleased to support it. We would wish the legislation a speedy passage through the parliament. Although the science of metrology is not one which will frequently find itself on the front page of the newspapers or on the Channel 2 news at 7 o'clock, nonetheless its importance should not be understated because of that. It is something worthy of the parliament's approval, and I wish the bill a speedy passage.10:59:002585Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I first came across this particular problem that the National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Bill 1998 will solve in my days on the Townsville City Council. I used to sit on the water committee. Inevitably, on every meeting agenda there would be a matter from a ratepayer in relation to charges for excess water usage. It used to cause the council and the ratepayer tremendous heartburn because there were always the questions: was the meter accurate, was the charge fair?Some years ago the Townsville City Council moved to a semi user pays water arrangement, so it became very important in fact that the accuracy of the meter was beyond question. However, with so many people then challenging the city council and saying, `Is our meter reading accurate?' the council decided to impose a charge on testing the meters. Of course, that met with terrible resistance among the ratepayers because they felt they were being improperly charged, they felt there was something wrong with the council's meter and they asked why they should have to pay when it was the council's problem.It was also confused by mechanical problems within the meters whereby a small piece of grit or something coming through the water supply could get into the vein system in the meter and jam it, causing the meter to read slowly. Equally, I saw cases where meters for some inexplicable reason ran fast. As much as the council's engineers continually told the committee that meters could not run fast, there were in fact documented cases where it ultimately did happen. So the community in Townsville became suspicious and untrusting of the council's metering system.As we in this country now move through mechanisms such as national competition policy, and as we move with local authorities in terms of environmental concerns to full user pays considerations, it is really important that consumers can rely on the integrity of their metering systems. This will be one of the outcomes of this bill this morning.These amendments that we are putting through are urgently required because of matters like the commencement of the national electricity market and the consequent need to introduce controls to ensure the accuracy of electricity measurements, as recommended in the Kean review. They are also urgently needed with the move of some 400 local authorities across Australia towards a full user pays system in their water supply. It also applies to the gas supply industry. All in all, I understand it is about a $30 billion market that is being measured, so the consequences of metering systems that do not have the necessary integrity are pretty obvious.It is also interesting—and I think it is sensible—that these measures are being supported by the meter manufacturing industry itself. Finally they will have a mechanism and a standard by which they can have their meters certified and go out with confidence to communities all around Australia. This bill is about incorporating specified utility meters into the National Measurement Act 1960.The contestable electricity market is certainly very interesting, and meters that measure gas, electricity and water all have their own idiosyncrasies. We will now be able to cover all those specific idiosyncrasies so that meters can be certified in relation to their accuracy. The other thing that is very good about this bill is that previously there have been no uniform requirements for pattern approval, verification and reverification of utility meters, so there has been no foundation on which fair and equitable competition in these commodities could be based.The result of this bill will be that metering manufacturers will be able to produce lower cost meters which will be of a much higher accuracy as opposed to the current situation where there are substandard metering systems in the community with a much lower accuracy. The need for accurate and reliable meters is very soundly demonstrated. The benefits of this will obviously be an increase in the confidence of consumers. People will be able to have confidence that their metering systems are reading accurately and that they are paying what they should be paying and not a cent more.A further benefit will be benefits of scale where there is a single national market available to Australian manufacturers, and with the certification process there will be opportunities for the export of these products as well. The final benefit that I see is an enhancement of competition from utility commodities and for utility meters by providing standard metering requirements as the basis for competition in utility meters.This bill is supported by the government, the opposition and the industry. I believe it will be supported by the users of the meters and the consumers. So, all round, it is win, win, win. On that basis, I expect that this bill will go through the parliament.11:07:002586Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I would like to thank the member for Bonython and my colleague the member for Herbert for their comments in support of the National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Bill 1998 . The development of a national contestable market for electricity and other utilities emphasises the need to ensure that meters are accurate and suitable for the purpose for which they were intended.The bill provides for increased consumer confidence in the accuracy of meters, for efficiencies, for the benefit of economies of scale and for export opportunities for the manufacturers of these products. It also provides for enhanced competition between utility providers and meters. I believe this is very timely and sensible legislation and has the support of all the stakeholders.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2586r6942586Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.11:07:002586Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 in the Main Committee today not only because it is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak in the Main Committee but because the issue of superannuation is extremely significant and one which is of particular interest to a great many people in my electorate of Curtin and, of course, throughout Australia. Superannuation plays a significant role in the government's commitment to increased national savings and in the government's retirement income policy. Our overall retirement system is both appropriate and sustainable and is well positioned to cope with the ageing of our population in terms of both budgetary outlay and the delivery of benefits to individuals.There are numerous advantages to our multi-pillar approach, which is based on the age pension, compulsory superannuation, voluntary superannuation and other private savings. The government has intended, and is ensuring, that the system spreads the burden of risk to individuals' retirement incomes across different sectors in order to reduce the possibility of retirees finding that their total retirement income is different from what they had expected. It is, therefore, vital that an effective regulatory regime is maintained to enhance and protect the security of members' benefits and to ensure that superannuation entities operate for genuine retirement purposes.The proposed amendments in this legislation have been identified as a result of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's Superannuation Fund Review Program, and industry has made representations on improving the operation of particular aspects of the legislation, which we have heeded.Turning to the amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, there are, in the main, five areas with proposed amendments, and I will deal with some of them. The first amendment would permit a trustee of the fund to amend the governing rules of the fund to enable the acceptance of binding death benefit nominations from members. Payment of a death benefit is ultimately a matter of trustee discretion and, in order to expand the range of options for trustees in managing death benefit payments and, most significantly, to provide more certainty to members, the SI(S) Act would be amended to remove any impediments to funds voluntarily structuring their governing rules so that trustees can accept binding death benefit nominations.Many funds presently use beneficiary nomination forms to obtain guidance from members on how they would like their death benefits allocated. However, trustees are not currently bound by these forms and, in fact, under section 59 of the SI(S) Act, are prevented from being bound by such nominations. So, for funds that choose to adopt the proposed approach, the trustees would automatically pay the death benefits to the person named on the beneficiary nomination form—and that is a good thing. The conditions for the acceptance of binding death benefit nominations by trustees will be prescribed in the SIS regulations so that there are appropriate safeguards to ensure that nominations are valid and kept up to date.There will be a new division in the SI(S) Act which applies alternative in-house asset rules to certain defined benefit funds with large accumulated surpluses—of course, subject to actuarial controls. The new in-house asset rules will apply as an alternative to the existing rules for certain superannuation funds that meet the conditions of these new rules. Particularly, the new in-house asset rules can only apply to an applied benefit fund with substantial surplus. The requirement that the fund must have a substantial surplus provides a buffer against short-term decreases in the value of assets backing the vested benefits.The purpose of the new rules is to provide greater flexibility by allowing financially strong funds to hold their existing in-house assets rather than having to sell them to comply with the phased reduction of in-house assets. There are prudential safeguards associated with this amendment, including the solvency margin and actuarial oversight, which will ensure that this accommodation for commercial efficiency will not compromise the safety of members' benefits. It is for that reason this alternative in-house asset rule has been proposed.Another important aspect of prudential regulation is the monitoring and investigation powers of the regulators. The SIS legislation empowers the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to monitor the activities of superannuation entities and to investigate those entities which are considered prudential risks. It is vital that APRA have effective monitoring and investigation powers. It has transpired that a number of unintended impediments in the legislation have limited the effective use of the monitoring and investigating powers. Impediments to the use of powers can only reduce the APRA's effectiveness as a prudential regulator. This bill will increase the flexibility of the existing powers and, in particular, expand the parties to whom they apply and increase the penalties for non-compliance.Another important aspect to the whole regulatory framework is the existence of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. There was a decision of the Federal Court in February 1998, in the Bishop case—no relation—to the effect that the tribunal's review powers involved an exercise of judicial powers. But this does not affect the tribunal's inquiry and conciliation functions. The tribunal is continuing to use those functions to resolve a significant number of complaints made to it. But it is important that superannuation fund members continue to have access to a fair, informal, quick tribunal—an efficient, effective alternative dispute mechanism. The Federal Court decision is being appealed but in the meantime we seek these amendments to ensure efficiency.There is an innovative amendment with regard to the operation of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, and that is the proposed ability to reconstitute the tribunal to prevent bias. It is a technique I have not found elsewhere, and it adds an abundance of caution to the structure by ensuring that, if an issue of significance is latent and arises unsuspectingly in a matter, the tribunal can be reconstituted to bring the matter in line.The tribunal will have arbitration powers. From my experience with tribunals of this nature, the power to arbitrate is an extremely popular, extremely effective mechanism for alternate dispute resolution; particularly as the parties are required to consent to subject themselves to arbitration, that act of consent brings about a willingness to have the dispute arbitrated.The chair will also be able to provide written guidelines as to how the tribunal will be constituted. It is proposed that it be constituted by one, two or three members; currently, it must be constituted by three. This, of course, gives greater flexibility to the operations of the tribunal. There are obviously certain classes of complaint, differing levels of complaint, that require investigation, and it is appropriate in some circumstances that one or two or three members constitute the tribunal. The chair has the responsibility for managing this process and for allocating the workload to the tribunal, depending upon the level and class of complaint. These written guidelines as to the allocation of work will be available to the public.As to the issue I raised earlier of the ability to reconstitute, it is proposed that, in circumstances where there is a perception of bias and/or where it is necessary for the timely operation of the tribunal, the chair and deputy chair should also be able to stand down from a review panel. So there is greater flexibility in this regard, and all it can do is increase the integrity of the tribunal and add confidence to this review system, which is an essential part of the overall framework.There is also a miscellaneous amendment, and that is to the Bankruptcy Act. At present, the superannuation benefits of a bankrupt are not available to creditors up to the pension reasonable benefits limit, the RBL. However, this protection is currently not afforded to superannuation benefits in exempt public sector superannuation schemes. The bill will amend the Bankruptcy Act to ensure that the superannuation benefits of a bankrupt in an exempt public sector superannuation scheme only up to the pension RBL are not available to creditors. The rationale, of course, is the protection of superannuation benefits so that a person should be able to retain their concessionally taxed super benefits to provide income in retirement. But a bankrupt should not be able to direct greater amounts than the pension RBL, the reasonable benefits limit, into superannuation in order to protect them from creditors in the event of a bankruptcy.So there are various aspects to the proposed amendment and, in relation to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, there will need to be a permanent solution to the situation. But we will await the outcome of the appeal and, in the meantime, seek the continued operation and efficiency of the tribunal.The bill, in general, will go a long way in assisting trustees to discharge their obligations to fund members and, with the miscellaneous amendments, will assist in maintaining and strengthening the superannuation supervisory framework. I commend this bill to the House.11:20:002589Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the legislation before the House. However, even though we are generally supportive of the provisions contained in this bill, I do want to raise a number issues with the minister. My office has been discussing issues with the minister's office, particularly those relating to binding death benefit nominations. Depending on the answers we receive to those questions and subsequent deliberations, it is our intention to expedite passage of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 through the House.Of course, this bill should have already been through the parliament. We debated this bill about 12 months ago; at that time, the opposition also indicated its support for the bill. Regrettably, however, inaction on the part of the Assistant Treasurer—not for the first time—delayed the changes in this bill. I hope that now, with a new minister, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, having responsibility for the legislation, we will see things moving much more quickly—certainly more quickly than we could get them to move with the Assistant Treasurer in charge—and I wish him luck with the passage of the bill in the Senate.The last time we debated this bill, the member for North Sydney, before being rocketed into the ministry, made some observations about the complexity of the taxation treatment of superannuation. At the time I did point out that there is no one measure which has done more to dramatically complicate the taxation of superannuation than this government's superannuation surcharge tax, which, I regret to say, is still in operation and referred to in this bill.That was said to be a measure which would impact on high income earners. It has, in fact, damaged all workers, low and middle income earners as well, because of its complexity and because of the load that it has thrust onto superannuation funds in requiring them to become de facto tax offices. It threatens all those low and middle income earners who, with the 15 per cent surcharge, do not declare their tax file numbers. No single measure could have been calculated to do more damage to superannuation than this measure has done.The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Investment and Financial Services Association commissioned a study into the cost of the superannuation surcharge tax to superannuation funds. They revealed that the cost of collecting the surcharge tax exceeded $190 million. How much revenue did the surcharge collect? It collected $347 million. Firstly, that is $133 million less than the government estimated it would collect; and, secondly, we can see that it is costing the industry more than 50c for every dollar the government is able to collect in tax.In terms of theories of proper tax collection, efficiency and the like, this is an appalling state of affairs. That is $190 million in super fund fees and charges that will not be going into the retirement income accounts of millions of Australian workers. I invite the parliament to compare this situation with what the Prime Minister said when he was Leader of the Opposition. Back in August 1995, Mr Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, was asked about this in Newport at a doorstop. He responded by saying:Australian workers will not be worse off superannuation wise under us. It's just part of the litany of Labor lies . . . I give an absolute guarantee that people will not be worse off superannuation wise under us. Absolute, full stop, end of story.Given what the Prime Minister has done to everything else in the Australian parliament, the fact that his `absolute guarantee' that nobody would be worse off superannuation wise under his government turned out to be complete nonsense is perhaps not surprising. It suffered, I guess, the same sort of fate as the ministerial code of conduct.The reason why this information is significant to this bill is that schedule 2 of the bill contains measures which extend the transitional period during which tax file numbers already quoted for superannuation purposes may be taken to have also been quoted for surcharge purposes. While the opposition, along with the rest of the Australian public, despises the surcharge, at least this measure may go some way towards keeping the cost to superannuation funds down.The bill contains other measures. The most significant of these is the one that allows trustees to accept binding death benefit nominations. Trustees' responsibilities and duties come from trust law and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. They place a prudential and fiduciary responsibility on superannuation fund trustees to exercise care, skill and diligence in undertaking their duties on behalf of superannuation fund members. Trustees regard the discretionary allocation of death benefits as an important part of those prudential responsibilities—there is no question of that. It ought also to be noted that, generally, trustees are not paid to undertake their role and do not benefit financially from that discretion to allocate death benefits.In the area of death benefits, a superannuation fund trustee may accept a nomination by a fund member to pay any death benefits to any person or entity. Under the present arrangements, the member's nomination is not binding on the superannuation trustee. Trustees have to ensure that any payment meets the sole purpose test, which is that a superannuation fund should be maintained solely for one or more core purposes or one or more ancillary purposes relating to the provision of benefits for use on or after retirement. The sole purpose test also allows for the provision of benefits on or after a fund member's death if the death occurred before the member's retirement and/or age 65 and the benefits are provided to the member's legal representative, to any or all of the member's dependants or both. You can also have a fund member's legal representative as a representative of a deceased estate.The government's bill contains technical amendments which permit superannuation fund trustees to amend the trust deed of their funds to allow them to accept binding death benefit nominations from members. I think it is fair to say that there are a number of advantages in having a trustee discretion; there are also some advantages in not having a trustee discretion.If you think about advantages, if benefits are to go directly to an estate, you find that other creditors may have access to the funds before any dependants get access. State assets are subject to additional taxes from which superannuation eligible termination payments are exempt, so that can erode the value of the death benefit. In most cases, trustees are able to quickly deliver death benefit payments to appropriate dependants. That is unlike the delays which occur all too frequently where the assets are dealt with pursuant to a will and you get disputes and so on. Trustees can approve advance payments in specific cases to alleviate immediate financial hardship. In some cases, there may not be a will which determines who should receive assets, and that can cause further delays in the payment of benefits to dependants. It can cause additional legal costs.As against that, it is also fair to say that there are advantages in not having trustee discretion. There are established precedents which attach rights of certain parties, either in law or by direction through wills. Probate courts have specific knowledge of these laws, probably more knowledge than trustees. Leaving everything to the estate creates an area for potential disputes. Discretion creates more administration delays and costs to trustees in the superannuation fund. If you think about making it binding, that may well lessen the time and money spent on these cases and reduce the trustees' workload. We could perhaps anticipate reduced legal costs and fund administration time. We could hope to eliminate the cross-subsidies of expenses and hope to reduce disputes over trustees' decisions.Some would argue—and I have heard this argued quite vigorously—in favour of the person who has the superannuation fund in their name being able to have their wishes given effect to. They take the view that their wishes ought to be paramount. An interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald, the last time we debated this bill, by Annette Sampson talked about the present situation where superannuation funds will ask you to nominate who the money should go to. Her words were, `This is an illusion.' If someone else can convince the trustees that they have a better claim to the money, the trustees are obliged to override your preferences.She expressed the view that it is outrageous that fund members cannot treat their super, and their death benefits emerging from it, in the same manner as assets held outside the superannuation system. She pointed out that, while dependants can challenge a will, it has clear legal standing as a statement of your wishes and a strong case is needed to overturn it. With super, all you need to do is to prove dependency, which can result in unfair distributions. She welcomed the legislation as a step forward, on that basis.I believe that Ms Sampson's general assumption that people should have a say in where their superannuation contributions and benefits are distributed in the event of untimely death is fair. It does leave out the flip side about the benefit of having trustees determine where death benefits should be paid. It also, I guess, leaves out the fact that governments provide quite generous taxation concessions to superannuation savings for the purposes of assisting individuals to build a bigger retirement income. I do note, however, in saying this that the tax concessionality of superannuation is presently being undermined by the government's proposals for a GST. It is probably fair to say that there is going to be some injustice, whichever way you go. If you have a situation where someone has nominated that their death benefit ought to go to a particular person and the trustees determine that it should go to somebody else, that may well be a situation of injustice. It may be a situation of inappropriate outcomes.Equally, if someone nominates that their death benefit should go to a particular person and then circumstances change, it is probable that in some cases people do not get around to changing a death benefit nomination—something that might have been many years outstanding—and then it no longer reflects their personal circumstances or their wishes. You might find the trustees being forced to give effect to that binding nomination in circumstances where it would not be just to do so, and the personal relationship which had given rise to that nomination had long since fallen by the wayside. It is probably fair to say that we are going to get some injustice under either arrangement. It is a question of coming up with the best possible arrangement. In terms of Labor's position, we would see this measure as being a step forward. One of the issues that does come up, however, is whether there ought to be some kind of review mechanism which allows those who might have a claim on part or all of a death benefit to appeal, where the death benefit has been distributed under a binding nomination. Currently, trustee decisions can be appealed to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, subject to the limitations of that tribunal's operation in the light of the Bishop case—that is a matter I will come back to—or trustee decisions can be appealed in the courts. Labor is interested in the review mechanism. We want to pursue with the minister and the minister's office this issue of whether there ought to be any possibility of reviewing the death benefit payment if a binding death benefit nomination has been made. The bill goes on to apply in-house assets test rules to individual subfunds. The in-house assets test rule provides protection for superannuation fund members' contributions by strictly limiting a company from borrowing from its own superannuation fund. The reason for this is that, if an employer fails, employees' superannuation benefits need to be protected. We certainly would not want a situation of the superannuation benefits going down the same path as the employer's company. This measure closes a loophole whereby some individual superannuation subfunds—separate superannuation funds which are subsidiaries of a larger superannuation trust fund—have been allowed to avoid the in-house assets test. Labor supports this measure. The next provision in the bill extends the transitional period from 5 June 1997 to 5 June 1998 for funds to use already quoted tax file numbers for surcharge purposes. This will assist superannuation funds that, for other purposes, collected members' tax file numbers before 5 June 1997 to also use it for surcharge tax purposes thereby improving the administrative efficiency of collecting the surcharge. We support this measure. It may help some low income and middle income earners to avoid paying the surcharge. In terms of efficiency and improving the operation of the surcharge, we are certainly coming off a low base.I said earlier in my remarks that the surcharge has been an administrative disaster from start to finish. The government ought really to be condemned for the damage that it has done to superannuation through the superannuation surcharge as well as the damage it has done to superannuation by the abandonment of government co-contributions to superannuation; the damage it has done through its proposals in the tax package to tax the income that funds annuities for retired people; and for other actions it has taken in the superannuation area which have been highly damaging to superannuation. The bill also contains provisions which expand the APRA's monitoring and investigation powers to widen the category of parties to whom they apply to include custodians and to increase the penalties for non-compliance. This provision will increase the protection of members' contributions and is supported by us.It is also the intention of the legislation to allow the chairperson of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to convene either a one-, two- or three-member panel hearing instead of the current requirement for compulsory three-member panel hearings. This is set to improve the efficiency of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. The changes to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal are intended to speed up the current backlog of complaints, many of which are non-controversial and may not need the full three-member panel hearings. While the bill does not specify what type of cases will be heard by how many panel members, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal chairperson is required to publicly release written guidelines setting out how the tribunal will be constituted for different classes of complaints. Labor has been in contact with Mr Neil Wilkinson, the Chairperson of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, about the release of these guidelines, and we are satisfied that the appropriate transparency will take place. We need to understand that these measures occur against the backdrop of the recent Federal Court decision in the Bishop case, which has prevented the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal from making determinations which are binding on superannuation trustees. This has been a problem facing tribunals where, under the separation of powers that we have constitutionally in this country—and properly so—challenges are taken to the courts on the basis that any given tribunal is exercising judicial power which ought properly to be exercised by the courts and is therefore acting unconstitutionally.In the Bishop case, the Federal Court held that this was the case for the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. That Bishop decision has effectively gutted the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's powers. There is no doubt that that decision has done the tribunal some damage. That is a matter of concern to Labor, as, indeed, it ought to be to the wider community. Labor established this Superannuation Complaints Tribunal as a low-cost, reliable, fast dispute resolution mechanism. We think it has worked well. The alternative for low and middle income earners in the past was that they had to go off to the court to seek resolution of any problems that they had with the superannuation trustees. We think the tribunal has functioned pretty well and has been a better alternative. I am aware that the government has appealed the Bishop case to the High Court and that a decision is pending. That is a proper thing to do. But, generally, the government has been very slow in reacting to something that is having a substantial impact on this part of the superannuation system, an important component of the system: dispute resolution. We believe that the government has not taken this issue as seriously as its significance deserves.I again call on the government, as I did at the time of the Bishop decision, to urgently address this issue in the interests of consumers. We would certainly welcome any indications from the government about the actions that it is taking with the superannuation industry to try to ensure that the very good work of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal continues, notwithstanding the Bishop decision. In other areas of the bill, we support what is being proposed and we think that these changes are worth while. I think it ought to be said that the government has pretty much sat on its hands in relation to superannuation and retirement incomes issues. The problem with legislation like this is that, while it is good and we are supporting it, it is really fiddling at the edges of a major problem which is confronting this country and which is going to confront this country into the next century.More Australians are going to retire between the years 2010 and 2050 than at any other time in Australia's history. The vast majority of these people will have experienced higher living standards in their working years compared to their parents'. They will expect a higher standard of living in retirement. In addition, these future generations of retirees are going to live longer than previous generations. Their savings will need to be stretched further. We will see pressure on government pension outlays; they will rise. The cost of health and related care will rise as new technology extends the life of many into their 90s.This poses a twofold challenge for governments. First, we have to have public policy that ensures that future generations of retirees have enough income to live on to ensure a decent standard of living in retirement, and we have to do that without placing an unreasonable tax burden on current generations of workers. We also have to have public policies that ensure that there are adequate funds available to finance the increase in health and related care services without compromising the quality of care and to make sure that the health benefits from the new technology are spread as evenly as possible across the elderly population.It is becoming increasingly clear that the government is not treating this problem as seriously as it warrants. Back in November last year a number of organisations wrote to the government to express their concern about precisely these issues. We saw the Association of Superannuation Funds, the Australian Bankers Association, the National Credit Union Association, the Financial Planning Association of Australia Ltd, the Investment and Financial Services Association, the Permanent Building Societies Association and the Mortgage Industry Association all writing to the Treasurer, highlighting Australia's poor national savings performance and pointing out the need to boost private savings to prevent pension and health care cost blow-outs on the federal government in the next century.We even saw the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry echoing those concerns, urging the government to adopt a comprehensive approach to retirement income planning and policy. Let me quote briefly from observations that the Financial Planning Association made when they were writing to the government about these things. They said:. . . a longer term review of Australian retirement incomes policy is needed to enable Australians to save for the future. A comprehensive review is required to address the issues of health, superannuation, savings, aged care, and social security. Australia's poor savings record emphasises the urgency of this review and the need for a long term strategy. The household savings ratio has fallen from around 15 per cent in the mid 1970s to 4.7 per cent in 1996-97. This year it is expected to be less than 3 per cent. Yet soon, more than 2 million baby boomers will enter retirement, and most have not saved enough for a secure future.Mr McKenna from the Financial Planning Association said:This problem will not go away; indeed, it is becoming more serious the longer it is delayed.In their correspondence to the government these organisations made some telling points about the size of the problem. They pointed out that the national savings performance has been relatively poor for an extended period of time, and that Vince FitzGerald had noted:If we don't do anything about this we will be progressively exposed to external shocks and the risk of imposed, possibly harsh, adjustment at some time in the future.There is no doubt that the superannuation pool that we have built up as a result of the superannuation guarantee has greatly assisted Australia during the period of financial turmoil we have seen in other parts of the world in the last year or so, but we still have a significant problem ahead. The 1998-99 budget papers also noted the continuing weakness of our national savings performance, the associated forecast increase in the current account deficit and the consequent greater susceptibility to both external and internal pressures.Those organisations said that the maximum superannuation guarantee contribution of nine per cent in due course was not going to be adequate, that that was going to place pressures on private retirement income arrangements and that it would lead to demands on future governments to increase the level of public support for the aged. They had a worst case scenario which would see age pension and health costs blowing out by 10 percentage points of GDP, creating a $60 billion budget black hole for government.So on that basis these organisations have been urging the government to turn its attention to the issue of savings and adequate retirement incomes. That sort of perspective has been strongly supported by ASFA, the Association of Superannuation Funds. Philippa Smith, their chief executive officer, has pointed out the Treasury projections which show that by about 2030 the government will need to spend about 22 per cent of gross domestic product on age pensions and health care, compared with the 10.5 per cent that is spent now, and that if you combine this with an ageing population and declining labour force participation we have a real problem down the track.The government's response to this has been to say that things are going all right because superannuation contributions are rising. This is always the Assistant Treasurer's response when we raise these concerns. When we say, `You really need to do more about the issues of savings and retirement incomes' he says, `No; it is okay. The contributions are still going up.'The lie to this was given by a study released by ASFA as recently as 4 February. They have conducted an analysis of the trends of contributions to superannuation over the past two years. In particular, their analysis indicates that the strong recorded growth in member contributions is for the most part a rise in one-off payments to retail superannuation funds to buy retirement income stream products. That is being done in order to meet the social security assets test and minimise the tax on accumulated savings. If you are going to calculate growth including those figures, you end up with double counting because that is simply reinvesting lump sum payments from the superannuation system.ASFA have also produced a number of other reasons and factors as to why they believe that the real trend in voluntary contributions is down. Their analysis of trends in superannuation contributions over the past couple of years shows a clear pattern of decline in voluntary contributions to superannuation, implying disenchantment by employers and employees with superannuation's current status.So, if we do not get some urgent action to boost national savings and retirement incomes, in my view, millions of Australian retirees are going to suffer the same fate as Old Mother Hubbard's dog; there will be no bone when they get there. ASFA had a good look at this and described the government's treatment of superannuation as being like the picture of Dorian Gray, displaying everything as rosy and unchanging while the portrait stashed away in the attic shows the reality—a much uglier and more depressing look for superannuation.So what we need from the government, and in particular what we need from the Assistant Treasurer, is for them to snap out of their complacency regarding superannuation and to take notice of the advice they are getting from business organisations, from organisations in the financial services area, from those who are looking at our demographic profiles and work force profiles, from those who are looking at the contributions that are being made to superannuation and who are arriving at the conclusion that this nation will have a serious problem in the next century unless we press on with the kind of superannuation initiatives which Labor took through the superannuation guarantee, instead of pulling money out of superannuation, which is exactly what this government has done.As I indicated to the House earlier, the government has abandoned its co-contributions to superannuation. Billions of dollars are being taken from superannuation via that. They imposed the superannuation surcharge, which has had a very adverse effect on voluntary contributions to superannuation. In a variety of other ways they have been in there damaging superannuation instead of trying to press ahead with it on the basis that we need to build up those private voluntary savings so that there will be enough left for Australians in their retirement.It is an issue which is also impacting on other countries. I thought it was significant that President Clinton's State of the Union Address a few weeks back made savings—what they refer to as social security, but which is effectively retirement incomes and age pensions—the showpiece, the centrepiece, of the address. It is also an issue which is exercising the minds of the people in the UK and the European nations. In some respects we are better placed than they are because of the superannuation guarantee and, indeed, because of the way we have means tested the age pension and the pension benefits.If you look at the information being put forward by ASFA and by other groups which are expert in this area and concerned about this area, you realise that we need to do more. It is regrettable that the government has not taken superannuation seriously. Its concessional status will be damaged by the GST tax package.Opposition member interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I hope that it will improve with the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation because, frankly, the Assistant Treasurer has not displayed the capacity or the will to deal with this problem. So things can only get better from that point of view. But as I indicated before, we will support the legislation. We do have some questions that we want to pursue with the minister and his office between here and the Senate. (Time expired)11:51:002596Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—As the member for Wills rightly points out, the core element of the bill before the House, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , is the question of how we regulate national savings. I would put it to the chamber that the question of national savings will be a centrepiece of public policy at least for the first quarter of the next century.The member for Wills rightly points out that other nations around the world are grappling with this issue. President Clinton in his State of the Union Address made the commitment that if his administration has its way the United States government will put two-thirds of the annual budget surplus for the next 15 years into `social security', or retirement income reserves. That amount over 15 years will be $2.7 trillion. I must admit that I find it hard to conceptualise $2.7 trillion, but I take it as read that the American government regards it as a serious problem and is taking substantial measures to correct the problem.The President in his address also raised the prospect of social security reserves being used to add investment to the equities markets in the United States. That proposal generated a more divided response. I note that Alan Greenspan has specifically repudiated it because, he said, of the concerns about the impact of government intervention in the marketplace and the difficulty of regulating decisions by governments to enter one market sector or another. That raises the wider complexities associated with the regulation of superannuation largely because of the compulsory element of the superannuation sector in Australia.We ought not forget that the underlying drive and purpose of this bill relates to the question of how we encourage Australians to save for their future. This bill is in existence because over successive generations Australians have not developed an adequate culture of voluntary savings—unlike, for example, the Japanese, who are chronic, obsessive savers. In fact, one of the great challenges facing the Japanese government at present is how to persuade the Japanese not to save but to spend their money. So you have the extraordinary situation where the Japanese government have just reduced the level of indirect consumption tax from five per cent to three per cent, when all of the major policy experts acknowledge the desperate need in Japan to broaden the tax base—to reduce income tax and raise the level of consumption tax to probably around 10 per cent, which some other enlightened nation in the Asia Pacific has recently also adopted as its policy. We hope the Senate will see sense in that regard, and the Labor Party in particular.What we are looking at today is a challenge of global proportions. That challenge is driven by the twin demographic realities of a declining birth rate and a rapidly increasing life expectancy. The result of that is that we have more and more ageing Australians who are reliant on retirement income either generated by themselves over the course of a working life or provided by government consolidated revenue in the form of a pension. What we must do as a nation is get an increasingly high proportion of all Australians into that camp of being self-funded retirees. In order to do that, we have to make saving for one's own retirement an attractive economic proposition.The former government—to its credit, I think; at the same time it is an admission of cultural failure by all of us, by governments on both sides, since Federation—introduced a program of compulsory superannuation. Any time we as legislators introduce compulsion into an environment there is a concomitant requirement to regulate that use of force. In my mind, while I applaud the general thrust of this bill and I acknowledge its necessity in the environment we find ourselves in, it would obviously be desirable in a generation's time to be able to say that Australians had taken the steps to look after their own retirement, that they were not reliant on special benefits from the government and, as a consequence, they were not beholden to special regulation by government as the quid pro quo for the tax benefit that is being offered.I have to largely endorse some of the critique of the member for Wills that we have to lift national savings, both public and private. I note that FitzGerald in his seminal inquiry in 1991 noted that national savings as a proportion of GDP was roughly 17.5 per cent. He said that, in order to meet our future obligations, that rate would have to be lifted to 23 per cent. So, in effect, we were five to six percentage points behind where we needed to be if we were going to meet our future obligations. It has been eight years since that report and national savings as a proportion of GDP has gone from 18 per cent to 19.3 per cent. So we have lifted 1.3 per cent from where we were eight years ago when we were already five per cent behind the eight ball. We do need to acknowledge that there is a need to lift our performance in this regard.The first thing we should say is that national savings has these two elements—that is, both public savings and private savings. This government has had the bold leadership to take the difficult decisions necessary to bring a spiralling public deficit under control. There was a flagrancy about the former government. There was a complete lapse of discipline about the Labor government in its last five or six years. There was this incredible unrestrained escalation of public sector deficit coming from the Commonwealth year after year after year.While successive Labor ministers felt the warm inner glow of writing press releases and talking about social justice and spending billions of dollars, what they were doing in effect was making future generations of Australians more and more indebted for services they would never receive, for services which had already been consumed by the generations which preceded them. We eschewed that warm inner glow because we recognised that it was unsustainable and that there had to be a rapid turnaround in the performance of public savings. So for the last two years we have been in the admirable and enviable position of being able to boast a complete turnaround. For the first time we have recurrent savings in Commonwealth public sector outlays.That does not address the accumulated debt. It does not address the fact that, from the time of Federation, successive governments have accumulated debt worth something like $70 billion. Thank goodness for the decisive leadership of this government in relation to the partial sale of Telstra. Thank goodness we are alleviating for future generations of Australians that burden of servicing Labor's accumulated debt.I personally would support us going further. I think we ought to go further and largely accept the critique of the member for Melbourne, Mr Lindsay Tanner, in this regard which says that you cannot be half pregnant—you ought to be one thing or the other. I join with my colleagues on this side who have acknowledged the innovation and the thoughtfulness of a couple of members of the opposition in relation to Telstra, among other things. Here we are poised on the threshold of a new millennium and I think everyone in this chamber recognises the importance of national savings to good governance in that century.Returning to the specifics of the bill, both the member for Curtin and the member for Wills referred to the Bishop and Leshem decision of the Federal Court which found the exercise of review powers by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal as unconstitutional. That decision rested upon the centuries old doctrine of the separation of powers, best articulated by Montesquieu when he said that the powers exercised by government most naturally fall into three classes or species—that is, executive, legislative and judicial. He further articulated the doctrine that those powers must be separate in their exercise. He not only said that it is the case that judicial power must only be exercised by judicial organs but also further stated that only judicial power can be exercised by judicial organs.The minister responsible for the bill, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Hockey, is in the chamber today, and we are always delighted to be in his company. I note that a decision of the Federal Court such as this could cause mild irritation to the executive. There could be a feeling that there was nothing malevolent about this act and that we are simply trying to practically solve people's problems, and yet the Federal Court has to come in and in this legalistic way uphold this centuries old doctrine of the separation of the powers.My view is that we should celebrate this irritation as being an example of the fact that the constitution is working like a charm. I note the headlong rush of some members present in the chamber towards a new constitution and a new form of government for Australia, but I suggest that the pedestrian and arcane exercise of the Federal Court's jurisdiction in this one instance reminds us that we are not a law unto ourselves, that we submit ourselves to the fundamental law of the land, which is the constitution of Australia, and that it disciplines the excesses of executive power. Long may it remain so.I take this opportunity to say that, if there is a branch of the government which requires strengthening, and I am sure Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker will agree with me in this regard, it is the status of the legislature. I appeal to this executive as a member of the government—a humble one at that—to re-examine the means by which we can invigorate the legislature and restore its place of respect in the minds of the Australian people.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sure the honourable member is coming back to the bill.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—One of the key purposes of this bill is to give trustees the power to accept binding direction for beneficiaries on their death. That is a somewhat controversial aspect of the bill in that it goes to the ancient doctrine of trusteeship. Trusteeship emerged from the ecclesiastical courts in about the 16th and 17th centuries. The doctrine of trusteeship and fiduciary duty is unique to common law jurisdictions around the world. It is a piece of ingenious innovation which gives us an opportunity to deliver regulation in a very flexible way. It places on the trustee strict fiduciary obligations in that the trustee must act in the interests and for the benefit of all beneficiaries, the trustee must not him or herself benefit from the trust, and the trustee must abide by strict measures of disclosure and accountability. In exchange for those strictures, the trustee is given a wide measure of discretion in the exercise of his or her responsibilities.This bill does go in a small way to constrain that measure of discretion available to the trustee. Admittedly, it is a voluntary restraint in that it will only operate if the trustee elects to be so constrained. But the truth is that, if you look at the pattern of legislation in this parliament and the parliaments of the states, there is an ongoing tendency to encroach upon the common law doctrines to be replaced by statutory law. In my view, it is not a trend that I support or encourage. I think the common law has its special genius and we ought to defend and protect it where we can.There is this question of the capacity of an individual to direct that a benefit be paid on death to a same sex partner. This is the sharp-edged, thorny and controversial aspect to this bill. I note that there is a private member's bill which is about to be submitted on the floor of the Lower House sponsored by a member present in the chamber which would like to see us go substantially further in recognition of the purported rights of same sex couples and to address the apparent discrimination against those rights.I note that this bill adroitly sidesteps many of those issues by achieving its intended effect without amendment to the definition of spouse or partner. It achieves its intended effect by allowing a trustee to accept a binding nomination through the agency of the estate of the beneficiary or through the legal representative of the beneficiary, which provides the avenue within which the same sex partner can become a certain beneficiary.I am not about to enter into—members will no doubt be pleased—a detailed exegesis of Blackstone and Maitland on patriarchal or family values or whatever. I simply note that I support this bill but I will not be supporting the private member's bill. I think it goes too far, purely on the fiscal implications alone for tax and social security, in redefining the nature of a spouse. For this fairly unreconstructed conservative, it is a leap of faith and social revolution which I just cannot quite rise to, not diminishing my respect for the honourable member.This bill contains a whole range of essentially housekeeping, practical amendments to strengthen the supervisory capability of APRA. It reflects the cast of mind of the minister in the chair who is fastidious about matters of accountability and transparency and who is determined to ensure that Australians get the savings that have been put aside for their benefit over the years ahead. I admire his determination in that regard. He is making an outstanding contribution to the government. This sensible piece of legislation rightly enjoys the support of both sides of the House. I join with other members in urging its speedy passage.12:08:002600Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . The member for Parramatta and the minister opposite will not be surprised that I intend to concentrate my remarks today about this bill and the implications for removing discrimination which is currently imposed against same sex couples.I am pleased to note that this bill in some way begins to address the appalling discrimination that exists in the current superannuation legislation. Members of this parliament will be aware that I have been concerned for some time about the unequal treatment of same sex couples under superannuation legislation. Therefore, I wish to speak in particular about the proposed amendment to section 59 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.This amendment will allow superannuation funds to amend their rules so as to give binding effect to the death benefit nominations provided by contributors. In other words, where a super fund chooses to change its rules, members of the fund will have the security of knowing that upon their death their contributions will go to the person or people they have nominated where certain conditions are met. This is in contrast to the current situation where several areas of discrimination arise, and I wish to outline those to the chamber once again today.When fund members make death benefit nominations, they have no assurance that those nominations will be followed, as payment is currently at the discretion of the trustee. Further, on retirement of the contributor, funds refuse to pay a joint pension to the contributor and his or her partner, and they refuse to pay a lump sum benefit in respect of a same sex partner. Further, upon death of the contributor, funds refuse to pay death benefits to a same sex partner and refuse to acknowledge the dependency of a child where the contributor is not a biological parent of that child. This usually means that death benefits are paid into the estate of the contributor rather than to the same sex partner or children of the relationship.This bill allows superannuation fund trustees to accept binding death benefit nominations—subject, though, to meeting certain requirements. I must stress, however, that I believe that this very small concession is only the beginning of much needed reform to the superannuation legislation, and I am disappointed that the government has not taken the opportunity to fix the problem. Given the nature of the bill before this committee today, which is essentially about fixing up a number of administrative issues with regard to the administration of superannuation in this country, this is a lost opportunity. It was an opportunity that the government had to provide leadership in the reform of this area.In effect, this bill provides a loophole by which same sex couples may be able to access death benefits that are the right of all heterosexual couples in Australia. As a result, the bill goes some way towards acting on the recommendations contained in the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee's inquiry into sexual discrimination. Recommendation 7 of that report states:That . . . all Commonwealth superannuation legislation, and any related legislation, directly or indirectly affecting payment to people on the grounds of their sexuality or their gender status, be reviewed and amended. It further recommended:That . . . the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation be asked to consider and report further on any barriers to superannuation contributors being able to nominate a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries of lump sums, pensions or other payments.I believe also that the fact some provisions of the bill have progressed reform is a response to my private member's bill and is because it is an issue in the electorate.Last year I circulated letters to a number of members of the parliament that were signed by people at the Mardi Gras Fair Day, which is a part of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, which is currently being held in Sydney. A number of members came up to me and said, `I was surprised. I did not realise there were homosexuals living in my electorate.' I can assure members of the House that, given there is something like 80,000-odd people in every seat, there are people of different sexual choice everywhere in Australia and they deserve representation by the people whom they elect to parliament.I might also point out to those opposite that, in the days of political campaigning, people are always looking for marginal voters. If there is one such group in Australia, it is the gay and lesbian community. They are a classic case of swinging voters who do not necessarily have an allegiance, I believe, to either major political party. The emergence of independents such as Clover Moore in the electorate of Bligh shows that that is the case as a large base of her support is the gay and lesbian community. The tragedy of that is that they end up with a local representative who is essentially a fraud in terms of how fair dinkum she is in representing their interests. They end up with someone who grandstands but who cannot achieve anything because it is only through the representation of the major political parties that reform can occur.The reason why the Clover Moores of this world appear is the failure, short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness of people in the major parties to not support equal rights in areas such as superannuation. My bill, for example, is certainly not about special rights; it simply says that people should be treated equally. I believe that is totally consistent with a small `l' liberal approach or even a conservative approach which argues that a level playing field should mean that people are not treated differently. Particularly in an area of economics, I would have thought there were good reasons for conservatives to support my bill.I introduced my bill, the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill 1998 , into the House, firstly, on 22 June 1998. I then reintroduced the bill on 7 December after the proroguing of parliament and the federal election. It aims to amend the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Act 1993 to define de facto relationships as couples who live together on a genuine domestic basis, regardless of their sexuality. The bill, if successful, will allow gay and lesbian workers to properly provide for their surviving partners and children in the event of their death. Once again, this is not about special rights for gay and lesbian couples. It is simply about equal rights, nothing more, but I do not believe that same sex couples should accept anything less either.So, while the bill before the committee today may allow in some cases same sex couples to access death benefits, it does not address the basic issue of discrimination that is present in the current legislation. It is not enough for same sex couples to be able to access loopholes in the legislation. Loopholes should not be necessary. In 1999, legislation should be genuinely non-discriminatory.This bill should not be just about making it possible for gay and lesbian couples to obtain the same benefits from superannuation as other couples; it should be about equal rights. The only way that this can be achieved is by changing the definition of `de facto couples' in this legislation, which is what I am seeking to do with the private member's bill I have introduced into the House. At this stage, unfortunately, the progress of the bill has stalled. It has had its second reading before the House, but at this stage it is not listed for return.I hope that those opposite in the government, whether they agree with the bill or not, will support that bill being brought on, debated and voted upon in the House so that people can have an opportunity, if need be through an exercise of their conscience, to vote on this issue because it is an issue which should not be ducked. John Howard has indicated he does not believe there is any need for reform.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.19 p.m. to 12.30 p.m.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Before being interrupted by the division, I was indicating that the advice we have had from the Prime Minister is that he does not believe there is a need for legislative reform. But I say to the government: whilst this bill does go some of the way, it is in fact an acknowledgment of the need for reform. Therefore, the logic of the government's stance on this should be that, if we are to have reform, it should be done properly.I have had frequent dealings with many social justice groups in the community on this issue, and I have been encouraged by the strong support I have received in pursuing this issue of discrimination against same sex couples. I might note that I have received not a single letter, piece of correspondence or phone call in opposition to my private member's bill, because the community does understand that a fair go for all is one of the principles of Australia.We have embraced the principles of multiculturalism. We have anti-discrimination in place that protects us in most areas of our lives. So why is it that discrimination against same sex couples remains entrenched in so many areas of the law? As a nation that prides itself on its human rights record, we are lagging behind when it comes to homosexual law reform.There are a number of other areas in which we lag behind. One of those areas is the age of consent, which in some states varies between homosexual and heterosexual couples. In June of last year, with 336 votes to 129, Britain's House of Commons passed a bill to lower the age of consent for sex between homosexuals from 18 to 16 years so that there was uniformity. It is about time that Australia followed the lead of Britain and other countries around the world that are concerned with eliminating all forms of discrimination.Whilst I acknowledge that this bill does go some way towards addressing the problems, it fails to address discrimination which occurs when the contributor retires. Even in relation to death benefits, I would still question whether this bill will do much to help same sex couples. There are several reasons for this concern.Firstly, this amendment will only apply where superannuation funds choose to amend their rules to accept binding death benefit nominations. If they choose to take no action, contributors will be left in the same situation they are in at present where, unless they have picked the right type of beneficiary, their death benefit nominations will be totally meaningless.I have no doubt that this legislation will lead to those in the gay and lesbian community, and those also concerned with non-discrimination in the community, having direct contact with superannuation funds and lobbying them to accept the provisions which will now be available under the amendments moved today. They will then be able to advise members in their community who wish to take up this option of which superannuation funds will, indeed, allow them to do that.The potential will exist for there to be a two-tier system for superannuation funds: some discriminating, and some ensuring that nominations for death benefits will be accepted. Surely that is really not a good situation to occur where it is up to the individual to choose a superannuation fund which will not discriminate against him or her and their partner. I think, whilst it is a step forward, that is clearly not the most appropriate way of removing this discrimination.Secondly, even where superannuation funds do choose to amend their rules, they will still be subject to the sole purpose test. That test requires the trustee to ensure that the fund is maintained solely for one or more purposes listed in the act. These purposes include the provision of benefits to the fund member's dependants, but the current definition of `dependants' excludes same sex partners. It will be interesting to see how superannuation fund trustees interpret the legislation, once amended. But I fear that same sex couples will still be subject to the terrible discrimination that I have described today and have campaigned against since my election in 1996.The failure to recognise same sex relationships can have devastating effects, for the dependants of a salary earner, where that person dies, can be cut off from financial support overnight. These problems are compounded by discrimination at a state level which, in most states and territories, denies inheritance rights to same sex partners.There was a case recently in New South Wales, Matthew Howard v. Andrews, where the person's long-term partner died; there was no will. There was clearly, however, a financially dependent relationship, and legal action was taken. It was found that, indeed, a relationship did exist of dependence. The outcome of that case was that the person's apartment, where they had lived with their partner, was granted to the surviving partner, plus a small amount of money.That decision is currently being appealed. There are two superannuation funds in this particular case which have been locked up with access to those funds being denied, because of this decision being under appeal. The real winners in all this are, of course, the lawyers who were engaged in that case and who now will have to engage in the appeal.Heartache occurs as a result of such a case, as it does in cases such as that of Greg Brown, to which I have drawn the House's attention in the past. Greg Brown and his partner, Robert Corva, had been in a relationship for over 10 years when Robert died in 1993. Robert Corva had worked for the Department of Defence for 17 years. Greg Brown took action before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1995, unsuccessfully. He then took the matter to HREOC, who found in November of last year that, while he had been treated unequally, under the current legislation the discrimination was legal. How in 1999 can anyone in this House accept that discrimination can be legal and sanctioned by the parliament of Australia?Although I support this bill, I fear that it falls far short of the changes which are required in order to recognise the reality of the number of people in Australia living in same sex relationships. Once again, I draw the attention of members of this House to my private member's bill, which will address the inequalities by simply recognising same sex couples within the definition of `dependant' in the act. My private member's bill would not deliver any special rights; it would simply deliver equal rights, without imposing any requirements about how people live their private lives.I say to people such as the member for Parramatta, who has different views from mine and who is a self-confessed conservative, that you do not have to sanction or agree with people's lifestyle choice; that is up to them. All you have to do is accept that people have the right to choose how they live and to expect that, if they make a choice which is different from that which other people make, they will not be discriminated against on the basis of that decision. As a mature country, heading towards the year 2000, we need to celebrate our diversity.I noted last week in the Sydney Morning Herald—a big step forward—a large lift-out on the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in the mainstream press. This Mardi Gras, which began as a human rights demonstration with people being arrested 21 years ago, is now something that is very much accepted as a part of the diversity that makes Sydney such a great city to live in. If we can accept the economic benefits that come from something like the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, we should also accept that areas of economic discrimination should be removed. I would ask that those in the government ensure that my bill is brought on for debate in the House as a matter of priority.12:41:002604Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—in reply—I would like to thank members of the Main Committee here for their indulgence in allowing us to intrude into adjournment time. I want to wrap up what is a very important bill by thanking all the members that have made a contribution: the member for Curtin, the member for Parramatta, the member for Grayndler and the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Wills. All the members have put considerable effort into their speeches and that has been important, because, as a minister, I certainly take the debate in both the House and the Main Committee very seriously. That is why I sit in the chambers through the debate on those bills I have responsibility for. I certainly take the comments on board.The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the superannuation supervisory framework in relation to two matters in particular. The first is the improved enforcement powers of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and what that means for flexibility in relation to supervision. The second is the improvement in the certainty and efficiency of existing arrangements in the processing of death benefit claims by superannuation trustees. We will be watching superannuation trustees very carefully so that they can be assured—and the beneficiaries can be assured—that a predictable, efficient and flexible program is put in place that ensures that a binding nomination from a member for the payment of death benefits is as described and promulgated rather than simply an abuse of existing arrangements. Importantly, this bill also finetunes some of the details of the supervisory framework.I wish to refer to a number of matters raised by the member for Wills. He said, as did the member for Parramatta and various others, that we should focus on increasing domestic savings. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I urge the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats, the Greens and the Independents in the Senate that, if they are serious about increasing the level of domestic savings in Australia, they can do it by one vote—and that is to pass the Telstra sale bill, because the Telstra sale bill will wipe out government debt. One bill can wipe out government debt and still ensure that Telstra remains a vibrant, energetic and growing Australian company with Australian shareholders into the future.It is very significant that, at the same time, we have the taxation bills before the Senate which will increase domestic savings and which will contribute significantly to greater consumer choice in relation to their savings. I urge the Labor Party again to support the tax package. If they are serious about improving the flexibility and liquidity of Australian financial markets and if they are serious about increasing savings, then they can do it by two votes—pass the Telstra bill and pass the tax package. I thank all of those people that have made a contribution to the bill. I wish it a speedy passage in the Senate, although very few things pass in any speedy way through the Senate these days. I ask that the Main Committee support the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment2605Motion (by Mr Hockey) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.260512:46:002605Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—On Monday this week, a trial commenced in London's Old Bailey Court of a man accused of participation in crimes against humanity committed in 1942 in Nazi occupied Belarus, part of the former Soviet Union. Soon, the Lithuanian government may be asked to extradite an Adelaide resident to stand trial over allegations that he was involved in the murder of thousands of innocent non-combatant men, women and children in 1941.Late last year, the Australian government, quite appropriately, sent a delegation to participate in an international conference in Washington on assets stolen by the Nazi regime. As this century draws to a close, there is still unfinished business relating to those years in Europe during the Second World War.In our Australian community, we have a disproportionate number of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust. Any member of this place who visits my electorate of Melbourne Ports I would urge to visit our Holocaust Museum in Elsternwick, so movingly run by our remaining few survivors.Prompted by what appeared in 1985 to be the imminent conviction in a US court of Konrad Kalejs—the deputy head of an SS auxiliary, the Arajas Kommando—this parliament has responded. Early in 1986 the Commonwealth parliament began to re-examine Sir Garfield Barwick's decision in the early 1960s not to pursue Nazi fugitives from justice who came to Australia under the guise of refugees during our mass postwar immigration. After almost three years of debate, including a three-day debate just prior to Christmas 1988, the then government, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke, enacted legislation which allowed Australia for the first time to conduct trials if individuals, who allegedly committed crimes against humanity in Europe under the aegis of the swastika, had come into Australia.The Australian legislation was framed in such a way as to make it very difficult to obtain a conviction in this country and more difficult than in any other Western democracies for this kind of crime. The legislation, and particularly its administration, was unfortunately unable to redress the problem. Even now we should reconsider the way this country has dropped this issue while there are still witnesses left to the crimes of Nazism. In the late 1980s, Australia did not want to deport residents to countries under communist rule, where no fair trial was likely.The situation, however, in the Baltic states has changed. These democratic states are able to deal with the ugly past. Konrad Kalejs for years avoided deportation from the United States, while the Australian legislation was active. He was eventually deported from both the United States and Canada after convictions in their courts. Yet our law enforcement agencies have told us that there is not sufficient evidence for the high standards of prosecution under Australian law.Also safe and cosy in Melbourne is Karlis Ozols, internationally regarded as one of the most serious Nazi war criminals to have escaped justice. In Ozols' case, this place was wrongly told that the prima facie evidence was not enough to secure a conviction under the law as it was then framed. Later, the truth emerged that this was purely a financial decision to allow the investigation to end prematurely.In my view, there is clearly a case for the Australian government sending back to their countries of origin Ozols, Kalejs and the Adelaide man, all of whom lied their way into Australia. It is simply a slur on the Baltic democracies to say they are unable to provide a fair trial for these individuals.If it is the case that a war criminal's chilling efficiency in murdering potential witnesses renders Australian law as currently framed inadequate to deal with these cases, we can find other methods of dealing with them—if, indeed, we take these matters seriously enough. Individuals who were involved in these crimes against humanity and who have been convicted in other Western democracies should be deported from this country or, at the very least, lose their citizenship.It is clear that an element within the bureaucracy has ensured that it is no longer possible to re-establish the Special Investigations Unit, which had the power and ability to investigate and gather evidence concerning these allegations of crimes against humanity in Australia. At the time the unit was first established with a sunset clause, no-one was predicting that we would soon have a world in which the Soviet Empire no longer dominated Eastern and Central Europe. That is no longer the case, and we have an alternate action. No-one would urge, if the murderers of Port Arthur, Wanda Beach or Anita Cobby were discovered years later, that we should leave these people alone just because they were old pensioners. I urge the Australian government to act in these three cases.260612:50:002606Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I stand in this parliament this afternoon to acknowledge the excellent work provided to our communities by Quota International, and I am sure I would have bipartisan support. Twenty-six years ago Shirley Moore and Moya Steedman enthused 31 other businesswomen to form the Beenleigh Quota branch. I am sure this club started out with the standards that they live by in Quota—their objectives are to serve country and community—but they would never have envisaged that they would spread their wings wide and far over the past 26 years. They have provided aid and support to flood, cyclone, drought and emergency relief victims. They financially support disabled welfare organisations, sporting clubs, Blue nurses, schools and hospitals, Meals on Wheels, churches, our youth and particularly our elderly—all within the Forde electorate.They have also supported many national and international projects and our very well-known Vial for Life that has helped many people and saved lives throughout Australia. One could only imagine the savings in the costs borne in our community by this band of voluntary professional women and their families. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the Quota club and to other Quota clubs within my electorate of Forde.The reason I have singled out the Beenleigh Quota is because of an extra project that they organise each year, and that is to provide an ongoing cultural opportunity for personal development of our youth. The Beenleigh Quota conducts an eisteddfod that runs over 25 days, which adds up to 1,700 hours of voluntary work by dedicated Quotarians and their families. Over those 25 days, 18,000 young people are given the opportunity to display their many talents in music, dance, speech and drama. I would like to personally thank all members and their families for the enormous responsibility they undertake every year, which I have had the pleasure to enjoy along with many others within our community, and, more importantly, for the many talents they have uncovered, nurtured and supported in the youth of our electorate.Last Saturday, Quota International celebrated 80 years of service to the community, and Beenleigh Quota invited a group of citizens who have turned or will turn 80 this year. They put on a special afternoon tea to celebrate their 80th birthday. We were entertained by a number of performers from the eisteddfod and the pleasure they gave could be seen on the delightful, happy faces of the audience. I would like to record on behalf of the Forde electorate my sincere thanks to all Quota women and their families. I extend a special thanks to Moya Steedman, for the many hours preparation each year that she does on the eisteddfods; and to the president, Karen Murphy, and her members for the continued support of our community and the eisteddfods.260712:53:002607Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise to speak about the Brisbane Airport Corporation and its plans to construct to a parallel runway at Brisbane airport. The Brisbane Airport Corporation submitted this proposal to the federal government in 1998. In August of last year—in fact, on the eve of the federal election being called—the then transport minister, Mr Vaile, decided to reject that master plan on technical grounds. The consequence of that decision—one would suspect cynically timed to coincide with the federal election—was to put it on the backburner for a few months until the result of that election could be determined. The ball is now back in the current federal minister's court. Minister Anderson is required to make a decision on whether that runway will proceed by 23 February 1999.The people of the south side of Brisbane, and in fact many residents across the inner suburban areas of Brisbane, are fundamentally opposed to this runway proceeding. Their reasons fall into two sets of categories. The first is that the master plan which has been produced has not adequately tested any alternative runway option. What we have instead is a document which presents us all with a fait accompli—basically, like it or lump it. It does not actually unpack the logic of the alternative runway options which exist and certainly has not extended to them fair treatment in the documentation which has been provided.The second set of reasons why the community objects to this is that at a fundamental level this runway, if it were to proceed, would totally impair the quality of life of the residents of the southern suburbs of Brisbane. In addition, it would have a significant impact on the ability of at least 10 schools in my electorate to effectively perform their functions, so close are those schools to the proposed instrument landing system approach of the new runway.Finally, there is the impact on the property values of tens of thousands of local residents. The decision, therefore, to be taken by the federal transport minister by 23 February is of enormous significance to my community. For that reason, the provisions of the Airports Act on this issue are of great importance. Under the Airports Act it states that there is a two stage approval process. If a master plan is first approved, it then proceeds to a major development plan for further approval. However, the act also states in section 94, subsection (5):If a final master plan is in force for the airport, the Minister must not approve the draft major development plan unless it is consistent with the final master plan.This is a very significant provision of the legislation. The minister, the Brisbane Airport Corporation and his officials constantly tell the community of the southern suburbs of Brisbane: `Don't worry. Bob's your uncle. If this thing gets approved, it's not all over, red rover. There is a second bite at the cherry. We have this thing called the major development plan and all other factors can be taken into account at that stage.' However, my reading of the act suggests that, if a master plan is approved, it fundamentally constrains the parameters within which the major development plan can be developed. It cannot, for example, examine a runway alternative which is, to quote the act, inconsistent with that which has been endorsed in a master plan. Therefore, the decision to be taken by the minister by 23 February is of great importance to my community.The logic is simple. If the minister in his decision endorses a master plan which contains within it a recommendation for a parallel runway, it follows that in the major development plan the Brisbane Airport Corporation would not be required to test and examine and advance non-parallel runway alternatives. Therefore, my challenge to the minister is very simple. Given this provision of the act, if he proceeds by or on 23 February to endorse this master plan, will he require the Brisbane Airport Corporation explicitly to examine fully all alternative runway options, so that when the major development plan is put back to the minister for final decision he will have before him a raft of runway alternatives, not simply the one which has been put up to him already?My final point is this: I have invited Minister Anderson to visit my electorate to inspect the impact of this runway on the community which would be affected by it. To date—and we only have 10 days to go—the minister has been unable to respond to my invitation. This would not be a political visit; it would simply be to show him how this runway proposal would affect my community. (Time expired)260813:00:002608May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—In this the United Nations declared International Year of Older Persons we pay tribute to the contributions of older Australians. I am proud to say that my electorate has embraced this special year with zeal. The Gold Coast International Year of Older Persons Committee has developed a jam-packed, all year program of events. To kick-start this program, on 16 January I was delighted that Bronwyn Bishop, the Minister for Aged Care, accepted my invitation to launch the Gold Coast activities for this special year, designed to acknowledge the value of older persons in our society. More than 120 special guests were delighted to share their ideas and to hear the minister speak with sincerity about the opportunities for older persons to contribute to the host of activities planned throughout this special year.The Gold Coast planning committee for the International Year of Older Persons wants to raise the awareness of the value of older people to society and their communities, acknowledging their skills, addressing issues concerning older people and, best of all, celebrating their worth. Like me, they want to see the problems of loneliness tackled seriously. They want to know that they are appreciated and recognised in society, and that they are safe in their homes.The Gold Coast has long been a haven for retirees, many attracted to the coastal strip and to the city's hinterland suburbs because of the area's relaxed lifestyle and warm climate. One in every five people in my electorate is aged over 65. It is encouraging to see such a strong, united effort by so many members of our community to acknowledge and embrace the International Year of Older Persons.On Australia Day the committee set up an `awareness stand' during the Gold Coast City Council's activities celebrating our national day. A retirement and lifestyle seminar is run monthly through Robina Centrelink and the 60s and Better Program. The 60s and Better coordinator, Anita Brennan, and her band of workers plan not to miss an opportunity to promote older persons in our community.Recently I attended the first Mates for Plates morning, another initiative providing an opportunity for older persons to meet weekly and network with each other. Other activities planned throughout the year include a Life Options festival and a Wake Up and Walk celebration. The Southern Gold Coast 60s and Better Program and the Older Women's Network have banded together to hold an Art of Seniors exhibition for people 60 years and over. This exhibition will embrace paintings using any medium, and 10 per cent from the sale of all paintings will go to the Queensland Cancer Fund appeal. It is the aim of the group to raise the community's awareness of the creative skills and diversity of the older person.I want to draw attention to another innovative project which extends across the nation, the Garden of Life schools project. The project encourages school children, particularly at primary level, to invite their grandparents to a special Internet day. The children record the reflections of their grandparents' gardens on the Garden of Life web site. All schools can take part by registering on the site, which will be promoted on 1 March nationally to create an awareness of the project. This project is an example of one way in which the barriers of age are broken down and different generations recognise and act upon their common interests.I believe that as we stand on the verge of a new millennium the theme for this year is apt: Towards a society for all ages. I remind the House of the words of Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his address to launch the International Year of Older Persons. Mr Annan said that a society for all ages is one that does not caricature older persons as patients and pensioners, but instead sees them as both agents and beneficiaries of development.The International Year of Older Persons gives people of all ages a chance to recognise the vital role of older persons in our society. I encourage all Australians to get involved in the programs held in their community and to join with others such as schools, businesses, community groups, local government and policy makers in planning events for their area.I urge children and adults to speak with our elderly members about ageing and about the issues which affect us as we grow older. To the elderly: I challenge you to share your experiences and your positive life lessons, to offer your wisdom and to make an impact on a young person's life. It is by learning from those people who are willing to share their knowledge that we can grow as individuals and our society can prosper. One of my constituents reminded me of a beautiful quote by Oscar Wilde: `I am not young enough to know everything.' (Time expired)261013:04:002610Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Last year I brought to the attention of the House the problems which residents living in the Shortland electorate, the electorate I represent, were having with Telstra. I detailed some of the problems residents were experiencing having new telephone lines connected since the government partially privatised Telstra. I also spent time detailing the experience of a young woman who had waited three days to have her phone service restored. Unfortunately, I had insufficient time to detail the problems some residents of Belmont were having with Telstra.Residents in that area have recently bought newly constructed units and have waited between two and three months for a telephone service to be connected. They finally contacted my office because they were desperately in need of a telephone. Telstra kept telling them that no lines were available. You could hardly say that was good business practice.As we all know, Telstra enjoys a very special position in the market and, now it is partially privatised, it is exploiting that position and putting profit before service. Instead of ensuring that all Telstra users have good service, or in some cases a service, Telstra is now more concerned with profit than service. This was clearly demonstrated to me during the recent election campaign. A person who lived in Gwandalan, which is part of the Shortland electorate, contacted me. She had been waiting for three days to have her phone connected, and so had a large part of Gwandalan.The majority of Gwandalan was without a telephone. Only a couple of hundred homes had a telephone. All the shops had been without a telephone service. The Gwandalan Bowling Club, the post office, the lottery agent and the general store in Gwandalan had no access whatsoever to electronic services. All the homes and residents were also without service. There are a number of elderly people who live in that area and they felt they were definitely being put at risk because if they needed to contact an ambulance or such they had no telephone access. This was an enormous problem for the businesses in the area because they had to provide services through the electronic banking system and they needed computer access to be able to do this. The problems were purportedly caused by the keel of a yacht breaking the underwater telecommunication cable across Lake Macquarie. I found it most interesting that Telstra were unable to find the break in the cable yet attributed the problem to a yacht breaking it. Telstra spent three days looking for it. In the end they gave up looking for the break and just laid a new cable.There are two things I would like to put. Firstly, I do not think the problem would have been solved if I had not brought it to the attention of the media. Telstra were very slow to respond to the needs of the people of that area. It was only when the media got hold of it that they actually did something to help the people of Gwandalan. Secondly, now Telstra are refusing to pay compensation to those businesses that were affected by this breakage.One person, Mr Greg Campbell, the owner of the store that has the lottery agency, lost $9,240. Telstra said: `We regret that we have caused inconvenience to you in this matter', but felt that the matter was dealt with quite effectively. They said that the incident occurred on 20 September and on 25 September the service was restored, and they put the problem down to the breaking of the cable by the yacht. But no evidence whatsoever was found that the cable was broken. No evidence was reported of a yacht. No yacht was identified as saying that the cable was broken.I do not think the way Telstra has responded to the problems of Mr Campbell and all the other residents in that area is good enough. It was not until the media became involved that Telstra supplied the residents and businesses with mobile phones. This is what we can expect in the future if there is full privatisation of Telstra. I urge members of the government to reject that. Do not go ahead with the full privatisation of Telstra. I know that you have the same problems with privatisation that I have.261113:10:002611Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise to pay tribute to three extraordinary women from my electorate in Parramatta. These are women who make a selfless contribution to the local community but who would not necessarily expect to receive the sort of acknowledgment they deserve and would certainly never seek the limelight or praise.The first of those is Mrs Betty Holland, who has been the President of the Wentworthville Pensioners Welfare Association for the last nine years. Her husband, Ted, has been the Treasurer of that association for the last five years. The two of them together look after the pensioners of Wentworthville with the most extraordinary dedication and pastoral care.I have had numerous occasions to address the throng who meet to play bingo and carpet bowls and to generally catch up with each other. There is a marvellous atmosphere there, largely created by Betty. All political persuasions are represented, and I often have my fiercest partisan debates and disputes with the members of the association who are not of my political persuasion, but it is always conducted in good spirit and good faith. Betty's husband, Ted, is very ill at the moment and has just come home from hospital. He has been diagnosed with cancer. There are still elements of optimism about his prognosis and we do wish Ted all the best. Betty and Ted are making and have made an extraordinary contribution to their peers in Wentworthville, and I just want to acknowledge that today.The second woman is Envoy Esselina van Leusden, who is a soldier in the Salvation Army and who I first met on Pendle Hill Station at 6.30 a.m. one day in the midst of the last election campaign. I came to know Envoy van Leusden because she appears every morning, five mornings a week, from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. at Toongabbie, Wentworthville and Pendle Hill stations. She has been doing that five days a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last 15 years.She is constantly cheerful and never flustered. She simply sits quietly with her little box. The thing I noticed was the pleasure on the faces of the men and women, the daily commuters, who get on the train and especially have a few coins in their pockets to put in Envoy van Leusden's box. She receives from them by name. She asks them how their family is going. She is a permanent feature of their lives and is just a bright spark of cheerfulness at the start of the day for literally thousands of commuters in my electorate. I think she is the sort of person who makes our community worth living in. She is making an unbelievable sacrifice. One day I asked her why she did it and she said, `I do it because it gives me great pleasure. I wouldn't do anything other than serve the Lord in my small way.' So I want to salute Envoy van Leusden.The final local hero of Parramatta is Mrs Betty Schofield OAM, who was the somewhat stern and certainly commanding matron of Parramatta Hospital for 15 years. Betty Schofield is a woman not to be taken lightly. She is a formidable presence. When she indicates to the local federal member that she will be paying him a visit, my whole staff goes into tremors of trepidation. She usually comes to see me about some matter of maladministration to do with the quality of patient care. She brings to bear on those representations her lifetime of public service as a very senior nurse and matron of one of the oldest and, up until it was replaced by Westmead Hospital, busiest hospitals in Sydney.Betty Schofield commanded and rallied the nursing troops on the occasion of the Granville train disaster, in which over 100 Australian commuters lost their lives in the worst train disaster in our history. It was Betty who oversaw the nursing response to that terrible tragedy and crisis. She still serves on the Arts Advisory Committee of Parramatta City Council. She is getting somewhat frail, but her mind is razor sharp. I think it is fitting that this parliament acknowledge the contribution of those three extraordinary and completely selfless women who make Parramatta the great pleasure it is for me to represent.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The debate having concluded, the Main Committee stands adjourned until a date and time to be announced by the Deputy Speaker.Main Committee adjourned at 1.14 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing2613The following answers to questions were circulated:2613(Question No. 4)42613McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:Is the Sydney Airports Corporation Limited seeking tenders for the provision of security services at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, will the Commonwealth Government's competitive neutrality principles apply to the tendering process and, if so, what are the implications of the principles.2613Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Commonwealth has agreed to allow major airport operators some choice in the agency that can provide Counter Terrorist First Response (CTFR) services at their individual airports. This choice is limited to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Protective Service (APS) and the relevant State/Territory police force. Consistent with this policy, Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) has sought expressions of interest from the AFP, the APS and the NSW Police for the provision of these services at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.Treasury has advised that this process is subject to the Commonwealth's competitive neutrality principles and that all bids are required to comply with the principles.Complaints concerning the application of the competitive neutrality principles can be made to the Commonwealth Competitive Complaints Office within the Productivity Commission.2613(Question No. 12)122613Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) For what social security entitlements are New Zealand citizens in Australia eligible under the terms of the International Social Security Agreement between Australia and New Zealand. (2) Does the waiting period for social security entitlements for New Zealand citizens in Australia differ from that applying to citizens from other nations; if so, (a) how and (b) why.(3) Are persons entering Australia from Pacific island nations covered by the International Social Security Agreement between Australia and New Zealand.(4) Under the agreement, what are the entitlements of Australian citizens entering New Zealand.(5) What is the basis of the entitlements referred to in part (4) and how do they differ from those of New Zealand citizens entering Australia.(6) Does the basis of the entitlements of Australian citizens entering New Zealand differ from citizens of other nations.(7) For each category of social security entitlement for persons entering Australia and covered by the agreement, (a) how many recipients are there (i) in total and (ii) from each nation if the entitlement extends to Pacific island nations beyond New Zealand and (b) what was the cost to Australia in 1996-97.(8) Is the Minister able to say how the costs to Australia referred to in part (7) compare with the corresponding costs in 1996-97 to New Zealand (a) in total and (b) for each comparable entitlement.2613Truss, 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) NZ citizens who have been NZ residents for at least 10 years can use this NZ residence to meet minimum residence requirements for the following Australian benefits:. Age Pension;. Disability Support Pension;. Parenting Payment—only sole parents (subject to a 6 month waiting period if they are not widowed)—and women whose partners receive age or disability support pensions.Australian Wife and Widow B Pensions are also covered under the agreement but these pensions can no longer be granted.(Note that the agreement is based on residence and not only NZ citizens are covered.) (2) (a) For the following Australian payments, NZ citizens must serve the same waiting period as other new arrivals (104 weeks):. Special Benefit;. Carer Payment;. Widow Allowance;. Youth Allowance;. Austudy Payment.There is a 104 week waiting period for the following entitlements, but NZ citizens do not serve it:. Partner Allowance;. Mature Age Allowance;. Sickness Allowance;. Mobility Allowance;. Seniors Health Card.There is a 104 week waiting period for Newstart Allowance but, under the terms of the social security agreement, NZ citizens currently only serve a 6 month waiting period.(2) (b) The 104 week waiting period for Partner, Mature Age, Sickness and Mobility Allowances and the Seniors Health Card applies only to new arrivals who have been issued with permanent visas. New Zealand citizens entering Australia are special category visa holders.(3) People from Pacific island nations (or from any other country) are covered by the social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand for early access to Age and Disability Support Pensions and Parenting Payment if they have had 10 years residence in NZ. The definition of residence in NZ does not include residence in the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau or any other Pacific nation.People from the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau are New Zealand citizens and are covered by the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement when entering Australia. They are subject to the agreement's 6 month waiting period for Newstart Allowance and Parenting Payment for sole parents.(4) Australian citizens who have been Australian residents for at least 10 years can use this Australian residence to meet minimum residence requirements for the following New Zealand benefits:. NZ Superannuation;. Veteran's Pension. Invalid's Benefit;. Widow's Benefit;. Domestic Purposes Benefit for Sole Parents (subject to a 26 week waiting period if they are relying on their Australian citizenship or former Australian residence for the right to remain in NZ). Under the agreement, Australian citizens can claim NZ unemployment benefits after serving a 6 month waiting period instead of the 2 year waiting period applying to citizens of other countries.(5) NZ Superannuation is paid to those who have reached 63 years of age (rising to 65 by 2001). Australian Age Pension is paid to men at age 65 and women at age 61 (rising to 65 by 2013). NZ Superannuation is not subject to income or assets tests but all payments are taxable and there is no "tax free area". New Zealand Superannuation is subject to a dollar for dollar reduction of any foreign pension. Australian Age Pension is subject to a dollar for dollar reduction of foreign pensions only when the Australian pension is paid under an international agreement. NZ Superannuation can be paid at the married rate when only one of a couple qualifies for the payment. Australian Age pension cannot be paid at the married rate in such cases. NZ Superannuation maximum rates are $422.001 a fortnight for a single person and $316.30 a fortnight for each member of a couple. Australian Age Pension maximum rates are $357.30 a fortnight for a single person and $298.10 a fortnight for each member of a couple.NZ Veteran's Pension is for ex-service personnel of 63 years of age or more and who qualify for a war disablement pension of at least 70% or more (or who are not yet 63 and unable to work for a long time). This is an alternative to NZ Superannuation, like Australian Service Pension is an alternative to Age Pension.NZ Invalid's Benefit is equivalent to Australian Disability Support Pension. For the former, a claimant must be totally blind or both permanently and severely restricted in the capacity to work. For the latter, a claimant must be permanently blind or have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment of 20% or more under the impairment tables and a continuing inability to work. NZ Invalid's Benefit can be paid at a married rate when only one of a member of a couple qualifies. Australian Disability Support Pension cannot be paid at the married rate in such cases. The basic single rate of NZ Invalid's Benefit is $304.46 a fortnight for a single person and $253.71 a fortnight for each member of a couple. Australian rates are $357.30 a fortnight and $298.10 respectively.NZ Widow's Benefit is for women over 18 whose husbands have died (there are also a number of more specific eligibility requirements). It is no longer possible to be granted a direct Australian equivalent under the agreement.NZ Domestic Purposes Benefit for sole parents is available only to those who are or have been legally married or have attained the age of 18 years. There is no minimum age for Australian Parenting Payment for sole parents but a claimant under the agreement with NZ must have reached the minimum age required by NZ. A recipient of Domestic Purposes Benefit for sole parents must have a dependent child under 18. A sole parent receiving Australian Parenting Payment must have a dependent child under 16 or a child who attracts Child Disability Allowance. NZ beneficiaries with a child aged 7-13 are required to attend an interview once a year. Those with a child aged 14 or over must seek part-time work. Australian Parenting Payment is not activity tested. The basic rate of Domestic Purposes Benefit for a sole parent with one dependent child is $348.88 a fortnight. The Australian equivalent rate is $357.30 a fortnight plus a maximum of $96.40 a fortnight family allowance and $36.70 guardian allowance (total $490.40).NZ unemployment benefits have a 24 month waiting period for new arrivals, but Australian citizens entering NZ only wait 6 months. Similarly, Australian Newstart Allowance has a 104 week waiting period for new arrivals, but NZ citizens entering Australia only wait 6 months. In NZ, if the partner of an unemployed person is not granted a benefit, the unemployed person may (subject to certain conditions) get the married rate of payment. This is not possible for recipients of the equivalent Australian benefit.(6) Yes.Under the social security agreement with Australia, early access to specified payments is possible, for people (including Australian citizens) who have specified periods of Australian residence. The waiting period for NZ unemployment payments is reduced from 2 years to 6 months for Australian citizens and former Australian residents.(7) The cost of paying base pensions to NZ Agreement pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $52 million. The total cost of paying social security entitlements (including base pension plus auxiliary payments eg. Rent Assistance, Family Allowance) to all NZ Agreement pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $62 million. These costs were offset by $26,084,695 in reimbursement from New Zealand. This is only part of the total New Zealand reimbursement figure for 1996-97 as explained below.The Social Security Agreement with New Zealand also requires New Zealand to reimburse Australia for selected pensioners whose entitlement does not depend on the Agreement, but arises under domestic law. The total amount of reimbursement received from New Zealand in 1996-97 for all reimbursable pensioners was $46,329,427.Age Pension:At June 1997, Age Pension was paid under the New Zealand Agreement to people with the following countries of birth recorded:Cook Islands29Fiji31Kiribati1Niue2Samoa135Tokelau4Tonga13New Zealand3,978Oceania13United Kingdom1,376Other725TOTAL 6,307The cost of paying pensions to NZ Agreement Age Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $39.4 million.The total cost of social security entitlements for NZ Agreement Age Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $42.5 million. These costs were offset by $21.8 million in reimbursement for Age Pensioners from New Zealand.Disability Support Pension:At June 1997, Disability Support Pension was paid under the New Zealand Agreement to people with the following countries of birth recorded:Cook Islands10Fiji7French Polynesia1 Oceania4Samoa43Tonga4New Zealand711United Kingdom49Other36TOTAL865The cost of paying pensions to New Zealand Agreement Disability Support Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $5.5 million.The total cost of social security entitlements for NZ Agreement Disability Support Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $6.4 million. This cost was offset by $2.5 million in reimbursement for Disability Support Pensioners from New Zealand.Wife Pension:At June 1997, Wife Pension was paid under the New Zealand Agreement to people with the following countries of birth recorded:Cook Islands2Fiji3Oceania1Samoa10New Zealand169United Kingdom38Other49TOTAL272The cost of paying pensions to New Zealand Agreement Wife Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $1.9 million.The total cost of paying social security entitlements to NZ Agreement Wife Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $2.2 million. This was offset by $0.8 million in reimbursement for Wife Pensioners from New Zealand.Widow B Pension:At June 1997, Widow B Pension was paid under the New Zealand Agreement to people with the following countries of birth recorded:Cook Islands1Oceania1Samoa8New Zealand68United Kingdom7Other13TOTAL98The cost of paying pensions to New Zealand Agreement Widow B Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $722,000.The total cost of paying social security entitlements to NZ Agreement Widow B Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $0.8 million. This cost was offset by $0.4 million in reimbursement for Widow B Pensioners from New Zealand.Sole Parent Pension:At June 1997, Sole Parent Pension (now called Parenting Payment) was paid under the New Zealand Agreement to people with the following countries of birth recorded:Cook Islands27Oceania1Samoa78 Solomon Islands1Tokelau1Tonga7New Zealand848United Kingdom15Other36TOTAL1,014The cost of paying pensions to New Zealand Agreement Sole Parent Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $4.4 million.The total cost of paying social security entitlements to NZ Agreement Sole Parent Pensioners in 1996-97 was approximately $10.3 million. This cost was offset by $0.6 million in reimbursement for Sole Parent Pensioners from New Zealand.(8) The New Zealand Department of Social Welfare is unable to provide figures which are exactly comparable to those provided for Australia in part (7) of this question.The New Zealand Department of Social Welfare keeps records of amounts paid to pensioners who are reimbursable by Australia. Most, but not all, of these are Agreement pensioners. In 1996-97, New Zealand paid a total $NZ1.6 million to 189 reimbursable pensioners. (This amount does not include supplementary payments such as accommodation supplement, disability allowance or special benefits.) In 1996-97, New Zealand received $NZ791,284 in reimbursement from Australia.The above amount breaks down into the following specific entitlements. New Zealand paid $NZ1,500,644 in New Zealand Superannuation to 171 reimbursable superannuitants, and received $NZ717,015 in reimbursement from Australia. Veterans Pension is not shown separately to New Zealand Superannuation. $NZ86,602 was paid to 13 reimbursable Invalid's Beneficiaries and $NZ62,487 was received in reimbursement from Australia. $NZ3,308 was paid to one reimbursable Widow's Beneficiary and $NZ2,227 was received in reimbursement from Australia. $NZ18,750 was paid to four reimbursable Domestic Purposes Beneficiaries and $NZ9,555 was received in reimbursement from Australia.Note: 1 All NZ fortnightly payments are quoted in Australia dollars, converted from NZ dollars using the on demand airmail buying rate for cheques as at 26 November 1998.2617(Question No. 13)132617Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Will he provide a list showing for each (a) office or (b) outreach office established after 1 May 1998 by (i) Employment National and (ii) a Job Network member the (A) exact address, (B) telephone number, (C) federal electoral division in which it is located, (D) name of the manager and (E) days and hours of opening.(2) Will he provide a list showing which (a) office or (b) outreach office originally established by (i) Employment National and (ii) a Job Network member was not fully operating at 3 October 1998.2617Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) See my answer to Parliamentary Question on Notice Number 15.The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is able to provide a list of current Job Network sites for items (A), (B) and (C). This list as at 11 January 1999 runs to more than 30 pages and has been provided to the honourable member separately on a disk.(D) The Department does not have a record of the names of individual site managers.(E) The accessibility of services was considered in the assessment of tenders and Job Network members are contractually bound to the days and hours stated in their tenders. However, as the days and hours of opening vary to suit local conditions and may vary seasonally, it is not possible to provide such detail.(2) As at 3 October 1998 one Job Network member, Job Futures, had unopened sites as follows:StateLocationNSWMayfield, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour and GraftonVictoriaMoorabbin, Springvale, Sale, Bairnsdale, Traralgon, QueenslandTaringa, Toowoomba, Warwick, Dalby, Roma, Mackay, Gladstone, Rockhampton, EmeraldWestern AustraliaEsperance, Northam, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Carnarvon, Broome.2618(Question No. 20)202618Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, 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.2618Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2). The Treasury portfolio does not operate programs categorised as positive discrimination programs in the sense conveyed in the question. However, there are some programs of limited size in the consumer affairs area that target particular groups in the community.The Government set aside an additional $1 million in the 1998-99 Budget to support national consumer information initiatives to be drawn down over the next three years. This is in answer to recent Government research which reveals that many consumers such as those living in rural and remote areas, people on low incomes, those with limited English and older Australians have trouble accessing useful consumer information in our fast changing marketplace.Under the Commonwealth Financial Counselling Program approximately $2 million has been allocated in 1998/99 to 45 agencies throughout Australia to provide free financial counselling to consumers in low income households experiencing serious financial difficulties.One service under the Program primarily targets the Aboriginal community at Alice Springs. The service is provided under the auspices of the Tangentyere Council and 95% of its clients are Aboriginal people. An amount of $48,858 has been provided in 1998/99.2618(Question No. 28)282618Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, 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.2618Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) My Department is committed to ensuring the equitable delivery of high quality health and aged care and in doing so, takes account of the need to make services available which are appropriate to the particular needs and culture of people using the services.The Government has focused its priorities on those most in need within Australian society.(2) Full details of appropriations for specific programs are included in the Portfolio Budget Statements for the Department.2618(Question No. 50)502618Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Does he support the construction of Sydney's second international airport at Badgerys Creek on the outskirts of Sydney's western suburbs; if so, why; if not, why not.(2) Has the Government's environmental impact study (EIS) on constructing Sydney's second international airport at Badgerys Creek been conducted in a manner which is (a) transparent, (b) comprehensive and (c) above reproach; if so, why. (3) Will constructing Sydney's second international airport at Badgerys Creek add value to (a) Sydney's, (b) NSW's and (c) Australia's (i) transport and (ii) tourism infrastructure; if so, why.(4) Did the NSW Environment Protection Agency (NSW EPA) find that (a) Badgerys Creek will have a disproportionate impact on photochemical smog in the area and would be a major source of the air pollutant nitrogen dioxide, (b) Badgerys Creek will generate noise that would expose many persons to levels which would exceed Australian standards, and (c) the draft EIS summary on Badgerys Creek did not demonstrate the real impacts on the community for any particular site option; if so, what is his response to the finding.(5) Did Mr Neil Shepherd, the Director-General of the NSW EPA, state that there are serious deficiencies in the Commonwealth's approach to conducting an EIS on Badgerys Creek and that the EPA is concerned about the implications of this development for air quality in the Sydney basin; if so, what is his response to the statements.(6) Have the NSW Government and Opposition both withdrawn their support from the construction of Sydney's second international airport at Badgerys Creek; if so, how will the airport be constructed without the support of the NSW Government.(7) Did the independent auditor of the Badgerys Creek EIS find that the EIS was (a) deficient, (b) limited, and (c) ambiguous and that as a result of time and cost constraints imposed by the Department of Transport and Regional Development, it generally does not go into the degree of detail that could reasonably be expected for such a major proposal; if so, what is his response to the findings.(8) Did the independent auditor of the Badgerys Creek EIS find that the EIS had failed to (a) examine the environmental effect of not building a new airport, (b) provide an adequate economic analysis of the development, (c) build community confidence in the EIS, (d) identify how Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and a new airport at Badgerys Creek would operate together and (e) satisfactorily examine the impact that noise generated by the airport would have on Sydney's population, especially those living in Sydney's west; if so, what is his response.(9) Will he reopen the process of evaluating proposals for building the Sydney-Canberra Very Fast Train (VFT) to ensure that the Transrapid proposal is given further consideration alongside that of the Speedrail consortium; if not, why not.(10) Will he conduct an EIS into building Sydney's second international airport outside the Sydney basin and being served by the Sydney-Canberra VFT; if not, why not. 2619Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government is committed to conducting a thorough and transparent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process on the proposed second airport site at Badgerys Creek.A second airport will be required to handle the growing demand for air travel and to manage the level of aircraft noise experienced by Sydney residents. Additional airport facilities are essential to Sydney's continuing role as a major commercial and employment centre. The major users of Sydney Airport have endorsed the need for additional airport infrastructure in the Sydney basin, and have acknowledged that a second airport is needed.(2) The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974.These requirements have been supplemented, for the first time, by the appointment of an independent auditor to scrutinise the entire EIS process. This clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to a transparent and rigorous environmental assessment process.(3) A second airport will be required to handle the growing demand for air travel to Sydney, NSW and Australia. This will have flow on benefits for the tourism industry.A major airport at Badgerys Creek would be one of the biggest employers in western Sydney and would bring with it major infrastructure improvements in road and rail networks.(4) The NSW Government submission on the draft EIS, which incorporates comments from the NSW EPA, has raised a number of issues related to information contained in the draft EIS.A response to the issues raised by the NSW Government will be contained in the Final EIS that is currently being prepared.(5) See answer to (4).(6) This question is a matter for the NSW Government and opposition. No decisions will be made about the second airport until the EIS process has been completed.(7) The independent auditor has raised a number of issues related to information contained in the draft EIS.A response to the issues raised by the independent auditor will be contained in the Final EIS that is currently being prepared.(8) See the answer to (7).(9) No.The Prime Minister's announcement of 4 August 1998 that the Commonwealth, NSW and ACT Governments had accepted the VHST Project Control Group's recommendation to proceed with a Proving-Up Stage with Speedrail followed a very detailed examination by the three Governments. In 1997 the three Governments established a Project Control Group (PCG) to assess the proposals and to make recommendations to the Governments. The four proponents that proceeded to the final stage of the VHST process all submitted detailed proposals. These proposals were then each assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria, as is standard practice for infrastructure projects.The PCG established a committee called the Project Evaluation Committee (the PEC) to examine the proposals in detail. The PEC consisted of representatives of the three Governments as well as technical and financial experts. It also drew on work done by a number of other experts, in such areas as economics, patronage estimations, rail operations and design, and the environment. The PEC scored the proposals according to their compliance with the terms of the project brief and also examined the economic viability and the net cost to Government of the proposals closely. The PEC found that the Speedrail proposal complied best with the project brief. The PCG's recommendation that the three Governments consider agreeing to a proving up stage with Speedrail drew on this work.(10) No decisions will be made about the airport until the current EIS on the Badgerys Creek proposal has been completed and considered by Government.2620(Question No. 55)552620Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) Is it important after events of international significance regarding human rights for him or a representative of the Australian diplomatic corps to state the Commonwealth's view of the event; if not why not.(2) Following the arrest of the former dictator of Chile, General Augusto Pinochet, in London on 17 October 1998, has (a) he, (b) the Australian High Commissioner to the UK or (c) a member of his Department expressed the Government's support to the British Government for the action it had taken; if not, why not.(3) Has (a) he, (b) the Australian Ambassador to Spain or (c) a member of his Department expressed the Government's support to the Spanish Government for the steps it is taking to bring General Pinochet to trial on charges of mass murder; if not, why not. (4) Has (a) he, (b) the Australian Ambassador to Chile or (c) a member of his Department expressed the Government's support of the steps the British and Spanish Governments have taken to bring General Pinochet to trial on charges of mass murder to the Chilean Government; if not, why not.(5) What is the Government's position on the arrest of General Pinochet and the attempt by the Spanish Government to extradite him to Spain to stand trial for the mass murder of Spanish citizens during his rule.(6) Does the Government support in principle a judicial inquiry by either the Spanish or Chilean Governments into General Pinochet's role in the disappearances and deaths of over 3000 persons in Chile between 1973 and 1990.2620Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows(1) The Australian Government regularly makes known its position regarding human rights, including its views on events of international significance. A recent example is the Parliamentary motion moved by the Prime Minister and passed by the House of Representatives on 10 December 1998 to mark the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which reaffirmed Australia's enduring commitment to the principles enshrined in the UDHR.(2) (3) and (4) Following the arrest of Senator Pinochet, neither the Australian government nor its diplomatic representatives have made representations to the governments of Spain, the United Kingdom or Chile. The Australian Government believes that it would be inappropriate to comment on a matter that is being considered by the British legal system.(5) The Australian Government recognises that there were many serious human rights abuses in Chile during Senator Pinochet's Presidency. The Government is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights as an integral part of its foreign policy. However, the Australian Government accepts that the issue of whether Senator Pinochet should be extradited to Spain is for the relevant British authorities to decide. Senator Pinochet's rights and obligations will be determined in accordance with existing arrangements under British and Spanish law.(6) The Australian Government is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and welcomes efforts by other governments to advance these goals. The Australian Government recognises the right of the Spanish or any other government to seek extradition of persons alleged to have committed human rights abuses. The Australian Government also recognises the sovereign right of the Chilean people and Government to determine the most appropriate means of delivering and consoli dating a transition to full democracy. The Australian Government does not believe that it would be appropriate or helpful to comment on the means chosen by Chile to attain this goal.2621(Question No. 57)572621Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1)How many staff were employed at the (a) Fairfield and (b) Cabramatta offices of the Department of Social Security on 2 March 1996.(2) How many staff were employed at the (a) Fairfield and (b) Cabramatta offices of the Department of Social Security (i) immediately before and (ii) following the restructuring of the offices into the Centrelink network.(3) How many staff are employed at the (a) Fairfield and (b) Cabramatta offices of Centrelink.2621Truss, 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) (a) On 2 March 1996, 88 permanent full time staff and 2 permanent part time staff were employed at the Fairfield Office of the Department of Social Security.(1) (b) On 2 March 1996, 61 permanent full time staff and 3 permanent part time staff were employed at the Cabramatta Office of the Department of Social Security.(2) (a) (i) On 30th April 1997, 78 permanent full time staff and 4 permanent part time staff were employed at the Fairfield Office of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency.(a) (ii) On 2 May 1997, 85 permanent full time staff and 4 permanent part time staff were employed at Fairfield Office of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency.(b) (i) On 30th April 1997, 61 permanent full time staff and 4 permanent part time staff were employed at the Cabramatta Office of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency.(b) (ii) On 2 May 1997, 72 permanent full time staff and 4 permanent part time staff were employed at the Cabramatta Office of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency.(3) (a) On the day the honourable Member asked the question, 11th November 1998, 91 permanent full time staff and 10 permanent part time staff were employed at the Fairfield Centrelink Office.(b) On the day the honourable Member asked the question, 11th November 1998, 75 permanent full time staff and 10 permanent part time staff were employed at the Cabramatta Centrelink Office.2621(Question No. 76)762621Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veteran's Affairs, upon notice, on 12 November 1998:(1) How many Vietnam veterans live in the Far North Queensland region.(2) Is there an outposted office of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service at Smithfield in Cairns; if so, (a) when was it established and (b) has a full-time staff position at the office become vacant; if so, (i) when and (ii) has the Government decided not to fill the position; if so, why.(3) What is the location of the nearest office of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service to residents of Cairns.(4) If there is an office at Smithfield, (a) who owns the premises, (b) what annual rent is paid and (c) what is the duration of the lease.2621Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Based on the Vietnam Veterans Mortality Study there are 714 veterans living in the area bounded by Tully, Mt Isa and Thursday Island.(2) No. The Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service has never established an outposted counselling centre in Cairns. Rather, the service leased premises at 11 Stanton Place, Smithfield as a base for the operations of an officer employed as a member of the Townsville staff. This officer was engaged to coordinate the services provided by contract counsellors for Far North Queensland, including but not exclusively those in the Cairns region. With the resignation of this officer, and the appointment of a Townsville-based incumbent, the premises are no longer required.(3) The nearest Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service office to the residents of Cairns is Townsville. However, 12 contract counsellors service the region directly with 113 referrals being made to them in the past 9 months.(4) (a) The owners of the Stanton Street premises are Bruno and Serafino Data. (b) The annual rent was $11,644 for year 1, $12,125 for year 2, and $12,610 for year 3. (c) The lease was for 3 years. As the premises are no longer required, DVA Corporate Services attempted to negotiate a payout of the lease. This was rejected by the owners. Although the premises have cost $12,610 for the current year the relocation of the Country Outreach Coordinator position to Townsville has resulted in additional savings to the Department of $30,500 through the transfer of office equipment and fittings, and the relinquishment of the Commonwealth car.2622(Question No. 80)802622Martin, Stephen, MPMr Martin8I4CunninghamALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the ADF assist or take part in the staging of the 1998 Australian Football League (AFL) grand final; if so, (a) what form did the assistance or participation take, (b) what was the cost of each component of assistance or participation, (c) was the AFL asked to pay and (d) did the ADF or his Department receive any benefits from the AFL.2622Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Australian Defence Force (ADF) did provide assistance to the 1998 Australian Football League (AFL) grand final. It was included as part of the Public Events of Significance program, which is a series of selected events in which the ADF wishes to be involved because it provides a substantial public relations, recruiting and/or training opportunity for Defence.(a) and (b) Assistance provided and associated direct costs to the ADF were:Roulettes aerobatic display team—$9,180;F/A 18 display—$20,856;Army Band for Grand Final Parade (Fri 25 Sep)—$3,885;Fanfare trumpeters (tri-service) in full dress uniform (22 personnel)—$8,843;Tri-service Band for National Anthem presentation (24 personnel)—$3,959.Total direct cost was $46,723, $20,000 of which was a salary component.It is estimated that approximately 120 military personnel responded to a request from the AFL for volunteers to help with general support for the staging of the Grand Final. These personnel were volunteers acting in a private capacity, they were not on duty and were not in uniform. As volunteers, they were provided with lunch by the AFL and with seating to watch the match.(c) The AFL was not asked to pay the cost of the support provided.(d) No benefits were received from the AFL by ADF personnel or by Defence generally as a direct result of the support provided. Defence expected to derive Public Relations and Recruiting value from performing in front of the large audience in attendance and from the National television coverage.2622(Question No. 88)882622Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998 the following question:(1) How many APS staff were employed (a) in total and (b) at each APS staff level in the Centrelink National Support Office in Tuggeranong, ACT, on (i) 1 July 1998, (ii) 1 July 1997 and (iii) 1 July 1996.(2) What area of office space was used by the Centrelink National Support Office in Tuggeranong on (a) 1 July 1988, (b) 1 July 1977 and (c) 1 July 1996.2622Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Centrelink was established on 1 July 1997. The average staffing level (ASL) of APS staff employed in National Support Office including Tuggeranong, and a number of other locations within the ACT was as follows:(i) 1 July 1998—2,027; (ii) 1 July 1997—1,411; and (iii) 1 July 1996—not applicable.(b) The average staffing level (ASL) at each APS staff level in Centrelink National Support Office, ACT, is set out in the table below.AVERAGE STAFFING LEVEL (ASL) BY STAFF LEVEL IN CENTRELINK NATIONAL SUPPORT OFFICE, ACT(i) 1 July 1998Aboriginal Cadet Professional Officer3Administrative Service Officer Class 110Administrative Service Officer Class 229Administrative Service Officer Class 363Administrative Service Officer Class 4155 Administrative Service Officer Class 5346Administrative Service Officer Class 6436Information Technology Officer Class 169Information Technology Officer Class 2162Public Affairs Officer Grade 13Public Affairs Officer Grade 28Public Affairs Officer Grade 35Professional Officer (Occupational Therapy) Class 21Senior Executive Band 132Senior Executive Band 25Senior Executive Band 31Secretary (Chief Executive Officer)1Senior Information Technology Officer Grade A14Senior Information Technology Officer Grade B42Senior Information Technology Officer Grade C163Senior Officer Grade A13Senior Officer Grade B135Senior Officer Grade C321Senior Public Affairs Officer Grade 11Senior Public Affairs Officer Grade 21Senior Professional Officer (Occupational Therapy) Grade C1Senior Professional Officer (Social Work) Grade A3Senior Professional Officer (Social Work) Grade C4(ii) 1 July 1997Administrative Service Officer Class 113Administrative Service Officer Class 217Administrative Service Officer Class 356Administrative Service Officer Class 478Administrative Service Officer Class 5178Administrative Service Officer Class 6255Graduate Administrative Assistant4Information Technology Officer Class 158Information Technology Officer Class 2178Public Affairs Officer Grade 15Public Affairs Officer Grade 27Public Affairs Officer Grade 37Professional Officer (Occupational Therapy) Class 21Professional Officer (Social Work) Class 21Professional Officer Class 21Senior Executive Band 122Senior Executive Band 25Senior Executive Band 31Secretary (Chief Executive Officer)1Senior Information Technology Officer Grade A12Senior Information Technology Officer Grade B37Senior Information Technology Officer Grade C156Senior Officer Grade A 5Senior Officer Grade B89Senior Officer Grade C215 Senior Public Affairs Officer Grade 11Senior Public Affairs Officer Grade 21Senior Professional Officer (Occupational Therapy) Grade C1Senior Professional Officer (Social Work) Grade A1Senior Professional Officer (Social Work) Grade B4Senior Professional Officer (Social Work) Grade C1Note 1 Staffing Numbers reported do not include Customer Service Centres in the ACT, which form part of the Service Delivery Network.Note 2 ASL = Average Staffing Level which is full time equivalent.(iii) 1 July 1996—not applicable. Centrelink National Support Office was not created until 1 July 1997(2) (a) The area of office space used by the Centrelink National Support Office in Tuggeranong on 1 July 1998 was 21,064 m2. In addition Centrelink National Support Office occupied a number of locations outside of Tuggeranong.(b) The area of office space used by the Centrelink National Support Office in Tuggeranong on 1 July 1997 was 21,876 m2. In addition Centrelink National Support Office occupied a number of locations outside of Tuggeranong.(c) Centrelink National Support Office was not created until 1 July 1997. Office space figures are therefore not applicable.2624(Question No. 89)892624Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) How many case managers were employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in (a) Tuggeranong, ACT, and (b) Woden on (i) 1 July 1998, (ii) 1 July 1997 and (iii) 1 July 1996.(2) How many clients were managed by each case manager employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in (a) Tuggeranong and (b) Woden on (i) 1 July 1998, (ii) 1 July 1997 and (iii) 1 July 1996.(3) Under the new service delivery model announced by the Minister on 9 November 1998, how many (a) case managers will be employed and (b) clients will be managed by each case manager in the Centrelink customer service centres in (i) Tuggeranong and (ii) Woden.2624Truss, 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) and (2) Nil. Centrelink does not employ case managers.(3) The number of customers in any officer's pool will vary, depending on the intensity of assistance required by different customer groups. 2624(Question No. 94)942624Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On most recent data, how many Family Allowance Supplement recipients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, and (x) 3752.2624Truss, 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:Family Allowance Supplement has been discontinued since 31 December 1992 and has been replaced by Family Payment Greater than Minimum.(a) The number of Family Payment Greater than Minimum recipients in Victoria at 11 September 1998 was 212,070.(b) The numbers of Family Payment Greater than Minimum recipients in the requested Postcode areas at 11 September 1998 were:Postcode3074307530763082308330873088308930903752TOTALCustomers1,4811,3661,0211,5628293707903271912878932625(Question No. 95)952625Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On the most recent data, how many disability support pension recipients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, and (x) 3752.2625Truss, 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:(a) The number of disability support pension recipients in Victoria at 4 December 1998 was 130,034.(b) The number of disability support pension recipients in the requested postcode areas are:Postcode3074307530763082308330873088308930903752TOTALCustomers1,2931,19146569291523645810195054102625(Question No. 96)962625Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On the most recent data, how many sole parent pension recipients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, and (x) 3752.2625Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The number of sole parent pension (parenting payment single) recipients in Victoria at 4 December 1998 was 81,948.(b) The number of sole parent pension (parenting payment single) recipients in the requested postcode areas are:Postcode3074307530763082308330873088308930903752TOTALCustomers401418384497305178349138114827292625(Question No. 97)972625Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On the most recent data, how many age pension recipients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, and (x) 3752. 2625Truss, 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:(a) The number of age pension recipients in Victoria at 4 December 1998 was 429,999(b) The number of age pension recipients in the requested postcode areas are:Postcode3074307530763082308330873088308930903752TOTALCustomers2232213662110332034848163339455205111912626(Question No. 98)982626Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On the most recent data, how many Newstart allowance recipients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, and (x) 3752.2626Truss, 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:(a)The number of newstart allowance recipients in Victoria at 6 November 1998 was 165,643(b) The number of newstart allowance recipients in the requested postcode areas are:Postcode3074307530763082308330873088308930903752TOTALCustomers12141132547732557220482119144450612626(Question No. 99)992626Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On the most recent data, how many youth allowance recipients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, and (x) 3752.2626Truss, 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:(a) The number of youth allowance recipients in Victoria at 6 November 1988 was 102,931(b) The number of youth allowance recipients in the requested postcode areas are:Postcode3074307530763082308330873088308930903752TOTALCustomers74971838159654219242012817737802626(Question No. 101)1012626Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:What percentage of Medicare services was provided at or below the scheduled fee during (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin.2626Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Medicare statistics can be compiled by region of provider or by region of patient.Details of the percentage of services that were billed at or below the scheduled fee during (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin, based on region of provider and region of patient, are as follows:VictoriaScullinProv RegPatient RegProv RegPatient Reg1995-9681.0%81.1%90.9%88.3% 1996-9781.5%81.6%91.0%88.7%1997-9881.3%81.2%91.0%88.6%Medicare data are captured at the postcode level. In compiling Medicare statistics by federal electoral division, since some postcodes overlap electoral boundaries, data were mapped to electorate using data from the 1996 Census of Population and Housing showing the proportion of the population in each postcode in each federal electoral division.The statistics, by year of processing, relate to services rendered on a `fee-for-service' basis for which Medicare benefits were paid. Excluded are details of services to public patients in hospital, to Veterans' Affairs patients and some compensation cases.2627(Question No. 102)1022627Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:How many Medicare services were provided per capita during (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin.2627Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Medicare statistics can be compiled by region of provider or by region of patient.Details of the number of Medicare services per capita in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin, are as follows:VictoriaScullinProv RegPatient RegProv RegPatient Reg1995-9610.710.77.711.71996-9710.910.87.912.21997-9810.810.88.112.4Medicare data are captured at the postcode level. In compiling Medicare statistics by federal electoral division, since some postcodes overlap electoral boundaries, data were mapped to electorate using data from the 1996 Census of Population and Housing showing the proportion of the population in each postcode in each federal electoral division.ABS population estimates at 30 June 1996 and 30 June 1997 and ABS population projections at 30 June 1998, were used in compiling Medicare services per capita for Victoria. Since ABS population estimates by federal electoral division have only been published from the 1996 Census, these estimates have been used in compiling Medicare services per capita in the electoral division of Scullin in each of the years in question. The statistics, by year of processing, relate to services rendered on a `fee-for-service' basis for which Medicare benefits were paid. Excluded are details of services to public patients in hospital, to Veterans' Affairs patients and some compensation cases.2627(Question No. 103)1032627Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:What was the total number of Medicare services provided during (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin.2628Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Medicare statistics can be compiled by region of provider or by region of patient.Details of the total number of Medicare services in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin, are as follows:VictoriaScullinProv RegPatient RegProv RegPatient Reg1995-9648,672,12448,659,076914,0621,388,430 1996-9750,008,47649,935,371945,6681,446,9671997-9850,411,85850,320,984963,2571,476,922Medicare data are captured at the postcode level. In compiling Medicare statistics by federal electoral division, since some postcodes overlap electoral boundaries, data were mapped to electorate using data from the 1996 Census of Population and Housing showing the proportion of the population in each postcode in each federal electoral division.The statistics, by year of processing, relate to services rendered on a `fee-for-service' basis for which Medicare benefits were paid. Excluded are details of services to public patients in hospital, to Veterans' Affairs patients and some compensation cases.2628(Question No. 119)1192628Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment, (ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, (E) what fees were applicable and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles, (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.2628Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department does not have a systematic process to collect this information. Owing to the large number of statutory appointments, consultants and/or other appointments to government boards or posts, the compilation of this information would require considerable time and resources and I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert them at this time.2628(Question No. 129)1292628Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) On most recent data, how many participants in work-for-the-dole schemes reside within each federal electoral division.(2) What is the name of each organisation running work-for-the-dole schemes in each federal electoral division and what are the (a) objectives and (b) location of each scheme.2628Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The number of participants in Work for the Dole schemes residing in each federal electoral division is provided in the attached printed tables. (Copy provided to member)(2) The name of each organisation running Work for the Dole schemes is the sponsor name provided for each project in the printed tables.The overall objectives of the Work for the Dole scheme are: . to develop work habits in young people;. to involve the local community in quality projects that provide for young people, and help unemployed young people at the end of the projects; and. to provide communities with quality projects that are of value to that community.A description of each project is provided in the printed tables.(b) The location of each project is provided in the printed tables.2629(Question No. 133)1332629Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) What resources and funding are used to promote the code of conduct to Job Network clients.(2) How many staff in each region and State are allocated by his Department to monitor adherence to the code of conduct by Job Network members.(3) Do the staff referred to in part (2) have responsibilities other than monitoring adherence to the code of conduct; if so, (a) what are the other responsibilities and (b) what proportion of working time is spent on the other responsibilities.(4) What complaints have been lodged with his Department against Job Network members in each region and State on the basis of the code of conduct and what was the nature of the complaints.(5) How many Job Network contracts has his Department cancelled since 1 May 1998.(6) How many Job Network members have had allocations decreased since 1 May 1998 because of non-performance at specified milestones.2629Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In addition to the promotion of the Code of Conduct by Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business staff, the Code of Conduct is promoted through the production and distribution of brochures, leaflets, posters and `complaints, queries and feedback' forms. These products describe and promote the quality of services that all job seekers and employers can expect from Job Network members. They are provided to Centrelink and Job Network members to distribute and display and are freely available to job seekers and employers. To end November 1998, the total cost of printing and distributing these products has been approximately $100,000. Further print runs of these products will be undertaken as needed. (2) and (3) All DEWRSB Job Network contract management staff have some responsibility for promoting and monitoring compliance with the Code of Conduct. Other contract management activities include:. contract monitoring and compliance;. performance monitoring;. payments to Job Network members; and. operation of the Customer Service Line and investigation of complaints.At the end of November 1998, there were more than 160 staff located in State and regional offices Australia-wide involved in Job Network contract management activities. It is estimated that management of the Code of Conduct is undertaken by the equivalent of 30 full time staff. A State by State breakdown of this estimate is in the table.STATECODE OF CONDUCT STAFFNSW7Queensland 6Victoria6South Australia4Western Australia4Tasmania2Northern Territory1TOTAL30(4) In the period 1 May 1998 to 18 December 1998, 6853 callers have contacted the Job Network Customer Service Line with a complaint, query or feedback. It is estimated that about 60% of callers have been requesting information and advice about Job Network. A number of comments have been received on the Customer Service Line regarding the quality of service provided by Job Network members and in some instances these related to the Code of Conduct. However, there is no precise record kept about whether the caller's issue relates to the Code of Conduct.A breakdown of callers to the Job Network Customer Service Line on a State by State basis is provided in the following table.STATENO. OF CALLERS NSW2142Queensland 1383Victoria1367South Australia825Western Australia700Tasmania353Northern Territory83TOTAL6853Nil if `cancelled' is defined as Departmental initiated action to terminate a contract from a Job Network member.(6) None.2630(Question No. 143)1432630McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Do the majority of aircraft accidents occur within a 10 kilometre radius of the point of take-off if so, what does the statistic reveal.(2) Have the probabilities of an aircraft accident occurring at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport been researched; if so (a) what does the research reveal and (b) what are the probabilities of an accident occurring during (i) take-off and (ii) landing.(3) How many aircraft accidents have occurred at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in the last 40 years.(4) What advice has his Department received on the probabilities of an aircraft accident occurring at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) airport during the next 40 years.(5) If his Department maintains that it has not received any specific advice on these matters would he provide his reply on the basis of the information of which his department is aware.2630Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Data derived from the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) electronic Occurrence Analysis and Safety Information System (OASIS) indi cates that between 1 January 1987 to 31 December 1996 there were 1,964 reported fixed wing aircraft accidents in Australia. During this period, 1,557 (79%) accidents occurred within 8 kilometres (the closest appropriate database search parameter) of an aerodrome.In addition to the BASI statistics, The Boeing Commercial Airplane Group conducted a survey of Hull Loss Accidents involving the worldwide commercial jet fleet between 1959—1994. The results of the survey revealed that 24.8% of accidents occurred during take-off and initial climb and 43.4% occurred during final approach and landing.(2) The risk of an aircraft accident at Sydney Airport was researched as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the third runway. The EIS stated that take-offs and landings are the most hazardous phases of flight, however, no separate calculations were made of the probabilities of accidents occurring during take-off and landing (p 25-13, Supplement to the draft EIS).(3) The BASI OASIS system indicates that during the period 1 January 1969 to 8 January 1999 there were twenty-seven reported accidents at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Of these, 16 involved aircraft engaged in commercial passenger operations.(4) No specific studies have been made into the probabilities of an accident occurring at Sydney Airport during the next 40 years. Given the rapid rate of technological change it is not considered feasible that meaningful projections could be made over a 40 year time horizon.(5) See above. 2631(Question No. 144)1442631McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Did an incident occur at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport during the afternoon of 21 March 1998 involving an Ansett aircraft which was required to abort its landing; if so, (a) what were the circumstances in which the aircraft aborted its landing, (b) what were the cross and down wind components at the time and (c) has the appropriateness of the selected operational runway in the prevailing wind conditions been investigated; if so, with what outcome.2631Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation has advised that it has no record of an occurrence at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport involving an Ansett aircraft on 21 March 1998.Ansett Airlines has also advised that it has no record of an occurrence at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport on 21 March 1998.2631(Question No. 145)1452631McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 99 (Hansard , 20 August 1996, page 3289), would he bring up-to-date the information which was provided on the number of (a) air safety incidents at or over Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and (b) occasions that the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew has been breached since 3 May 1996.2631Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Air safety incidents at or over Sydney (Kingsford- Smith) airport since the east-west runway was re-opened [update from information provided to 3 May 1996].Since 3 May 1996, BASI has received 718 safety incident reports involving air traffic at or over Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.- 538 of these were assessed as Category 5 occurrences. Category 5 occurrences are those which are primarily of statistical interest and are recorded on the BASI database for future trend analysis. The information as reported to the Bureau is available to the public on request.- 178 were assessed as Category 4 occurrences. Category 4 occurrences are those where the facts either; do not indicate a serious safety deficiency but the circumstances are sufficiently complex to require detailed information from the pilot, operator and/or other interested parties; or, some investigation is needed to expand and/or substantiate the initial information. Reports are available to the public on request.- 2 were assessed as Category 3 occurrences. Category 3 occurrences are those where the initial indications suggest potentially serious safety deficiencies. Consequently, an in-depth investigation is required to satisfy the concern for public safety. The report will include a Safety Action Statement detailing the relevant safety actions. Reports are available to the public on request.The first Category 3 incident occurred on 15 October 1997.A Boeing 747 aircraft (B747) arrived at Sydney 35 minutes prior to the end of the curfew. The aircraft was being operated in accordance with a concession which permitted arrival prior to the end of the curfew, subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions was that the aircraft should use only runway 34L for arrival.Enroute to Sydney and after passing the point at which the aircraft could divert to an alternate aerodrome with sufficient fuel remaining, a change in the wind direction, different to that which was forecast, passed through the Sydney area. This wind change made conditions on runway 34L operationally unacceptable to the crew of the aircraft. The crew elected to continue to Sydney and notified air traffic services that they had a requirement to land prior to the end of the curfew as the aircraft had insufficient fuel to divert to an alternate aerodrome. The aircraft subsequently landed on runway 16R.The second Category 3 incident occurred on 22 July 1998A Fairchild Industries Inc SA227-AC (Metro) aircraft landed on runway 34R, with an instruction to exit on taxiway Tango 1 and taxi via taxiway Juliet (for identification purposes, taxiways are named in accordance with the international phonetic alphabet). When approaching a mandatory holding point on taxiway Juliet, the pilot contacted the surface movement controller (SMC) and was instructed to taxi via taxiway Bravo and hold short of runway 25. This instruction was read back correctly by the pilot. Tower controllers subsequently observed the Metro taxiing along taxiway Juliet, past the entry to taxiway Bravo, towards runway 34L. At that time a Boeing 737 (B737) was touching down on runway 34L. The SMC instructed the pilot of the Metro to stop. As there was no reply the instruction was immediately repeated, and was subsequently acknowledged by the pilot. The Metro came to a stop at the edge of runway 34L. The pilot of the B737 was also instructed to stop immediately, but the aircraft was too close to the intersection of the runway with taxiway Juliet to comply. The pilot steered the B737 to the left of the runway centreline to increase its separation from the Metro, subsequently passing about 25 metres in front of that aircraft, at about 80 kts.At the time of the occurrence the weather was fine, there were no works taking place in the vicinity of the runway/taxiway intersection, and all relevant taxiway lights, runway holding point lights and movement area guidance signs were reported to have been functioning normally.The investigation is continuing. A copy of the final report can be sent to Mr McClelland if required.(b) Occasions that the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew have been breached since 3 May 1996. On 8 February 1997 a Russian Presidential Ilyushin aircraft departed Sydney Airport at 23:34 without approval. In addition, since 3 May 1996 there have been three occasions when aircraft landed at Sydney Airport up to two minutes before the end of the 11pm to 6am curfew and one occasion when an aircraft landed two minutes after the start of the 11pm to 6am curfew. Summary details of these incidents have been included in reports provided to the Sydney Airport Community Forum.2632(Question No. 156)1562632McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2618 (Hansard , 28 May 1998, page 4224), what was (a) his Department's and (b) Airservices Australia's response to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation report published in January 1997 entitled `An analysis of incidents involving air crew failing to comply with air traffic clearances: June- August 1996.'2632Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:There were two recommendations arising from this report. Neither of the recommendations was directed specifically at the then Department of Transport and Regional Development:The following recommendation, reference R970010, was issued to Airservices Australia on 31 January 1997 and stated:The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation recommends that Airservices Australia:1. Review the current methods of flow control management with the aim of minimising the need for vectoring aircraft within the STAR environment. (STAR—Standard Terminal Arrival Route).2. Minimise the practice of instructing aircraft to resume a STAR once vectored off the STAR.3. Ensure that SIDs and STARs, at all locations, are developed in accordance with consistent design principles. (SID—Standard Instrument Departure).4. Maximise the use of ICAO standard radio phraseology in accordance with accepted worldwide practice.5. Ensure that STAR design is compatible with aircraft FMS programs, especially for STARs which are not runway specific. (FMS—Flight Management System).The response to R970010 was received from Airservices Australia on 13 June 1997:`I am writing to provide Airservices' response to Recommendation R970010 from the above report [An analysis of incidents involving air crew failing to comply with air traffic clearances: June- August 1996].Prior to the release of the report, Airservices' had been conducting independent reviews of many of the issues raised in your report. These reviews have included functional workshops in which BASI representatives have participated. The most recent workshop was convened for the purpose of discussing STARS, particularly in the Sydney environment.As a result of these reviews, the following has occurred:1. Airservices is currently progressing the development of an East Coast traffic management plan. The concept involves strategic and tactical planning to meter aircraft into Terminal areas and hence to place less reliance on vectoring in that airspace.2. Prior to commencing any proposed vectoring, Air Traffic Control are required to advise the pilot of any expectation to resume the transition phase of a STAR. A requirement to resume a STAR can only be exercised during the transition phase.3. Airservices STARS are designed in accordance with the Air Traffic Services STARS policy document which in turn states that they must be designed in accordance with ICAO specifications. The Operational Policy Branch of Air Traffic Services has undertaken a program to standardise STAR design locally and in the Asia-Pacific forum.4. Phraseologies were the subject of a specific workshop in 1996 involving representation from the industry, CASA and the Australia Defence Force. This workshop recommended the adoption of ICAO standard phraseologies to the maximum extent possible. Where ICAO was silent on the issue the situation was to be resolved with international best practice, Australian specific phrases or plain language. Recommended phraseologies resulting from this forum have been incorporated into the AIP/MATS amendments effective 14 August 1997.5. The Air Traffic Services STAR design document requires STARs to be developed in consultation with all users which includes ATS service providers and those flying the procedures. The intent of this consultation is to:. ensure that operators are familiar with the development program;. provide an opportunity for users to add value to STARs;. determine pilot/operator acceptance; and. ensure FMS compatibility where applicable.As part of the development process, STARS are "flown" in an approved airline simulator to confirm that the proposed STAR is both flyable, and acceptable for the aircraft type(s) used on that sector. This simulation normally includes FMS equipped operations.Airservices will continue to review the issues raised in your report to ensure the continued safety health of the Australian air traffic service system.'The following recommendation, reference R970011, was issued to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 31 January 1997 and stated:The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority require all international RPT AOC holders to include comprehensive route briefings in their General Operations Manual and require their aircrew to review comprehensive route briefing material prior to each flight to Australia.The response to R970011 was received from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 24 April 1997:"I refer to BASI Investigation Report "An Analysis of Incidents Involving Aircrew Failing to Comply with Air Traffic Clearances—June to August 1996: which incorporates Recommendation R970011. The recommendation is that CASA require all international RPT AOC holders to include comprehensive route briefings in their General Operations Manual and require their aircrew to review comprehensive route briefing material prior to each flight to Australia. Our response is as follows:Holders of international AOCs are required to comply with the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act, Regulations and Orders. Taken together, CAR 218 (Route qualifications of pilot in command of a regular public transport aircraft), CAR 233 (Responsibility of pilot in command before flight) and CAR 239 (Planning of flight by pilot in command) clearly require flight crews to be familiar with Australian procedures. It is also a condition of the AOC that operations be conducted in accordance with the requirements and procedures published in AIP.CASA does not believe that the analysis presented in the report justifies the implementation of recommendation R970011 at this time. Such a requirement would be difficult to police and is open to wide interpretation as to the acceptability of individual route briefings. We will monitor pilot briefing material during foreign operator ramp checks, and keep the situation under review. However, if the recommendations of R970010 are implemented by Airservices Australia, CASA believes that the incidence of failure to comply will markedly reduce.'BASI considers those recommendations 970010 and 970011 as being CLOSED—ACCEPTED, which means that the Bureau accepts the response without qualification.2633(Question No. 159)1592633McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority responsible for reviewing the operation of the airline industry with respect to the safety of persons on the ground; if not, will he ensure that the responsibility is included in the authority's charter.2633Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is responsible for enforcing legislative provisions which have been created, inter alia, for protecting the safety of persons on the ground.These include section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which prohibits careless or reckless aircraft operations that would endanger the life, person or property of another person. Other examples are Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR)155 relating to acrobatic flight, CAR 156 relating to flying over public gatherings and CAR 157 relating to low flying. 2634(Question No. 160)1602634McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Are Mr David Lidbetter and Mr Kevin Hill community representatives on the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) Implementation Monitoring Committee for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.(2) Is it a fact that Mr Lidbetter resides in an area affected by air traffic to the north of the parallel runways and Mr Hill in an area affected by air traffic to the south of the parallel runways.(3) Is it also a fact that no member of the committee resides to the east or west of the airport.(4) Have Messrs Lidbetter and Hill consistently and vigorously advocated implementation of the LTOP so that air traffic is removed from the parallel runways to the east-west runway.(5) Who would be responsible in the event of an aircraft accident occurring as a result of the implementation of the LTOP.2634Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) Yes(3) No(4) The role of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee, of which Messrs Hill and Lidbetter are members, is to oversight implementation of LTOP to provide a more equitable distribution of noise generated by Sydney Airport in accordance with Government policy.(5) As with all civil aircraft accidents, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) would investigate any accident at Sydney Airport to ascertain the causes.2634(Question No. 161)1612634McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Did his predecessor state about 28 July 1998 in connection with the fatal seaplane accident on 26 July 1998 that if persons were found to be responsible for the accident or negligent they would be dismissed.(2) Who accepts responsibility for the development and implementation of the Long term operat ing Plan (LTOP) for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.(3) Will he dismiss the person or persons referred to in part (2) if a fatality occurs in and around the airport as a result of the operation of the LTOP.2634Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Mark Vaile MP, indicated in relation to the seaplane accident that if there were people within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority who have been responsible or negligent in reissuing the air operators certificate they would be dismissed.(2) The former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp, directed Airservices Australia and the Federal Airports Corporation to implement the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in a manner that would not compromise the safety of aviation operations. LTOP was developed through an extensive consultation process which involved affected communities, Government agencies, and the aviation industry.(3) I would expect that whatever action is considered to be appropriate would be taken. As with all civil aircraft accidents, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) would investigate any accident at Sydney Airport to ascertain the causes.2634(Question No. 178)1782634McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Is it a fact that Commissioner Frank Palmer has retired from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC); if so, (a) is it also a fact that no member of the AIRC has been based in Adelaide since his retirement and (b) what additional costs have been incurred in airfares and accommodation allowances for members of the AIRC and their staff in travelling to and staying in Adelaide to conduct AIRC hearings since his retirement.2634Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes. Mr Palmer resigned with effect from 30 June 1998.(b) There has been no member based in Adelaide since that time whose primary appointment is to the AIRC. There are, however, nine concurrently appointed members of the AIRC whose primary appointment is to the Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia (IRC of SA). It should be noted that in 1998 three concurrent appointees from the IRC of SA were assigned by the President of the AIRC under section 37 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to AIRC industry panels. Arrangements for other concurrent appointees from the IRC of SA to carry out unfair dismissal hearings in that State were also introduced in September 1998. This type of work is not assigned to industry panels.(b) The only relevant financial information available from the Australian Industrial Registry (which provides administrative support to the AIRC) regarding costs incurred in airfares and travelling allowance is actual expenditure. As explained below, the reasons for travel are diverse.Total monthly airfares and travelling allowance payments for members of the AIRC and their staff travelling to Adelaide during 1998 are set out in the following table.MonthExpenditure January$984.00February$8,548.00March$19,058.00April$29,279.00May$28,497.00June$21,987.00July$23,060.00August$26,214.00September$10,608.00October$25,252.00November$10,792.00The reasons that members of the AIRC travel to other States and Territories, including South Australia, are numerous. Matters arising in the federal award system often require hearings in more than one State because many awards cover employers and employees in a number of States and/or Territories. In addition, applications requiring hearings by Full Benches (which consist of three or more members) generally necessitate travel by at least some members of the Bench concerned.Of particular significance since February 1998 has been the work of the Award Simplification Panel. This has required a small group of members who deal solely with the simplification of awards to travel to the various States and Territories in which such awards apply, including South Australia.2635(Question No. 186)1862635McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to his answer to question No. 2236 (Hansard , 12 Mary 1998, page 3018) concerning the establishment of Medicare customer service centres, were the factors identified in the answer which are taken into account when evaluating whether to open a Medicare customer service centre applied in respect of the decision to close the Rockdale, NSW, Medicare Customer Service Centre; if so, what material facts did the Health Insurance Commissioner consider as relevant in apply each of the factors which they took into account; if not, (a) what factors were taken into account and (b) what were the relevant facts considered to be relevant to each factor.2635Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.(a) The criteria which were taken into consideration when identifying Medicare Offices for closure were:- Claiming patterns including cash service workloads (less than 400 per day);- Proximity to other branch offices (within 12 kms);- Capacity to redeploy staff; and- Leasing and other property issues.(b)- Total patient services at the Rockdale Medicare Office for 1996/97 were 78,698 (less than 400 per day; direct bill for the June 1997 quarter was over 84 per cent;- The nearest Medicare office to Rockdale is 4.5 kms at Hurstville; - The Rockdale lease expired on 14 April 1997 and the Medicare Office closed on 10 October 1997.2636(Question No. 189)1892636McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2832 (Hansard , 25 May 1998, page 3664), did his Department or the Health Insurance Commission undertake an inquiry, review or otherwise consider the quality of service provided by Medicare customer service centres in New South Wales; if so, (a) what inquiries, reviews or consideration and (b) was the Hurstville Medicare Office included; if so, (i) when was it undertaken and (ii) what was the result.(2) If no study, inquiry, review or consideration has been made of Medicare customer service centres, will he ensure that one occurs and that the Hurstville Medicare Office is included and the consequent demands made upon it resulting from the closure of the Rockdale and Sylvania Medicare Offices.2636Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Each year the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) undertakes customer service research to guide the organisation towards its ongoing goal of greater customer focus. The research looks at the service the HIC provides in the administration of its main programs. The research includes questions on the overall quality of service provided by Medicare Offices, but does not include questions about the quality of service in specific Medicare Offices.(b) The research was conducted door-to-door on a random basis in both metropolitan and rural areas nationally. Participants are not asked which Medicare Office they usually attend. (i) Customer Satisfaction Research is usually undertaken annually and was last completed in June and July 1998. (ii) The satisfaction of customers with the programs managed by the HIC has continued to be very high and in line with budget expectations. The result of the 1998 Medicare customer satisfaction in the community is 88 per cent.(2) The closure of metropolitan Medicare Offices did increase customer traffic in neighbouring Medicare Offices that remained open. However, workload and administrative procedures have been adjusted to meet the resulting demand. Occasionally there are high levels of customer traffic that produce long queues. These queues do not necessarily translate into lengthy waiting times and in most cases the time does not exceed 10 minutes. Medibank Private has now opened its own network of offices and agencies and from 1 July 1998 Medicare Offices no longer have to deal with lengthy private health insurance inquiries, sales and payments.2636(Question No. 190)1902636McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2942 (Hansard , 30 June 1998, page 5536), did the National Health and Medical Research Council in its report on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD) refer to an inconsistency between funding provided to parents to acquire the medication Ritalin, which is commonly prescribed in the treatment of ADD, but not to purchase the medication Dexamphetamine; if so, will the Government address the inconsistency.2636Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The National Health and Medical Research Council's report on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder did refer to the fact that Dexamphetamine was available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and methylphenidate (Ritalin) was not. The page reference is 50.Ritalin has been recommended for PBS subsidisation by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee on the basis of its similar clinical effectiveness and safety to Dexamphetamine. Therefore a similar price was recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority. However, the sponsor of Ritalin has requested a substantially higher price and has not been prepared to lower the price sought. As a result it has not been possible to list Ritalin on the PBS to this point.2636(Question No. 196)1962636McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Is it a fact that war widows in the USA and UK lose their benefits upon remarriage but regain them following divorce from or the death of the subsequent spouse.(2) Will he introduce similar measures for Australian war widows. 2637Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that with respect to war widows in the UK the answer is yes. I am however advised that war widows in the USA who have remarried lose their Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) permanently unless their spouse died or they commenced legal proceedings for divorce prior to 1 November 1990. DIC is similar to the war widow's pension.(2) The Government is aware of longstanding concerns within the ex-service community that war widows who remarried prior to 28 May 1984 relinquished their pensions and, in accordance with announced Government policy, is reviewing that and other veteran priorities as budgetary resources permit.2637(Question No. 198)1982637Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:What percentage of Medicare services by broad type of service were direct billed during(a) 1994-95, (b) 1995-96, (c) 1996-97 and (d) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin.2637Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Medicare statistics can be compiled by region of provider or by region of patient.Details of the percentage of Medicare services by broad type of service that were direct billed in (a) 1994-95, (b) 1995-96, (c) 1996-97 and (d) 1997-98 in (i) Victoria and (ii) the electoral division of Scullin, are as follows:Year/Broad Type of ServiceVictoriaVictoriaProv RegPatient RegProv RegPatient Reg1994-95Unreferred attendances—GP/VR76.076.185.885.4Other85.685.696.595.3Specialist attendances31.731.754.146.0Obstetrics35.635.958.549.9Anaesthetics9.49.2n.a.12.3Pathology70.771.0n.a.83.3Diagnostic imaging52.452.5n.a.86.0Operations36.937.174.050.6Assist at operations2.62.61.90.8Optometry93.693.797.498.4Radiotherapy etc19.519.9n.a.7.7Other48.949.181.662.9Total67.567.687.080.61995-96Unreferred attendances—GP/VR77.877.888.087.3Other87.387.397.596.2Specialist attendances31.931.953.446.4Obstetrics24.924.829.233.9Anaesthetics10.210.1n.a.14.4Pathology73.373.6n.a.85.5 Diagnostic imaging55.555.6n.a.86.4Operations38.638.971.451.5Assist at operations1.51.50.00.7Optometry95.195.397.298.5Radiotherapy etc16.716.9n.a.3.1Other48.548.781.262.6Total69.069.188.182.01996-97Unreferred attendances—GP/VR78.478.589.488.6Other88.788.697.796.7Specialist attendances32.432.450.646.3Obstetrics21.821.829.528.2Anaesthetics11.311.3n.a.16.3Pathology75.976.0n.a.86.4Diagnostic imaging58.658.7n.a.82.6Operations39.539.771.053.3Assist at operations1.01.00.30.4Optometry95.996.097.698.6Radiotherapy etc15.215.3n.a.3.1Other50.250.478.763.0Total70.370.388.482.61997-98Unreferred attendances—GP/VR77.577.690.689.1Other88.388.297.396.0Specialist attendances32.032.054.246.6Obstetrics22.622.648.434.3Anaesthetics11.511.4n.a.15.5Pathology76.776.8n.a.87.2Diagnostic imaging59.960.0n.a.78.3Operations38.738.969.553.1Assist at operations0.40.4n.a.0.1Optometry95.695.797.698.2Radiotherapy etc15.815.8n.a.4.3Other51.551.774.162.8Total70.170.288.682.8n.a. not available, due to small numbers of providersMedicare data are captured at the postcode level. In compiling Medicare statistics by federal electoral division, since some postcodes overlap electoral boundaries, data were mapped to electorate using data from the 1996 Census of Population and Housing showing the proportion of the population in each postcode in each federal electoral division.The statistics, by year of processing, relate to services rendered on a `fee-for-service' basis for which Medicare benefits were paid. Excluded are details of services to public patients in hospital, to Veterans' Affairs patients and some compensation cases.2639(Question No. 199)1992639Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998 :(1) Has his attention been drawn to a call by the NSW Farmers' Association for Medicare provider numbers to be allocated to match population numbers in specific geographic areas; if so, (a) what is the feasibility of the proposal and (b) will he introduce it.(2) Is it fact that existing incentives to attract medical practitioners to rural areas have failed.2639Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government has acknowledged this and other health policies proposed by the NSW Farmers' Association including the proposal to link provider numbers to specific geographical areas as a mechanism to address the maldistribution of the medical workforce.There is a shortage of doctors particularly General Practitioners in rural and remote areas of Australia. While approximately 30% of Australia's population live outside capital cities and metropolitan areas, only 23% of General Practitioners work in rural and remote areas. Maldistribution of the medical workforce is not unique to Australia, in that it is a worldwide problem.The Government has carefully considered geographical control of provider numbers and believes that there are more effective means of addressing workforce maldistribution. Rather than force doctors to work in rural areas, it is preferable to provide incentives such as rural locum relief for rural practitioners, scholarships, the funding of regional clinical schools and the encouragement of rural students into medical schools. Research has shown that these students are more likely to return to rural areas upon completion of training. Furthermore, there may be constitutional barriers preventing the Commonwealth from taking such action. Australia already produces enough medical graduates to meet the country's overall requirements and introduction of section 19AA of the Health Insurance Act (1973), known as the "provider number legislation", ensures a high standard of health care delivery by requiring all doctors to obtain postgraduate qualifications. The introduction of "area of need" access to Medicare rebates for temporary resident doctors and overseas-trained doctors has provided rural communities and public hospitals with an increased supply of medical practitioners and is an effective and longer-term solution for rural communities.(2) Existing incentives to attract medical practitioners to rural and remote areas have not failed.The General Practice Rural Incentives Program (GPRIP) which began in 1993 sought to improve the recruitment and retention of GPs in rural and remote communities. This program is now known as the Rural and Remote General Practice Program (RRGPP) and was devolved to Commonwealth funded Rural Workforce Agencies in July 1998.The GPRIP and now RRGPP programs have provided support to the rural and remote medical workforce and the communities they service in the following ways:- During the period 1992/93 to 1996/97 the overall number of GPs and `other medical practitioners' practising in small rural centres in Australia grew by 7%, from 867 to 925;- The Continuous Medical Education/Locum Grants component demonstrated that the grants were well regarded as an effective mechanism to support rural and remote GPs and succeeded, in some states, in establishing locum support networks where previously none existed; and- Relocation grants as a mechanism to support rural doctors are available, with an increase from 50 to 113 grants approved during the period 1994/95-1996/97. Around 30% of those who received the funds say they would not have moved without it. Around 60-70% say that it helped and will make a difference to the length of time they stay.Retention is an important objective of this program and these support mechanisms for practising rural GPs. This objective has been met with available data demonstrating a reduction in drop out rates and an increase in medical practitioners entering rural and remote practice.Other rural incentives and support mechanisms are provided within the General Practice Strategy and include:- the Better Practice Program; - RACGP training program;- Rural Division Coordinating Units; and- the Rural Divisions of General Practice.In addition to this, the Government has sought to increase the training and supply of Australian medical students via:- an increase in the level of rural health training for students of medicine within Australia. Coordination and support of this strategy is also recognised by many state and territory health departments. The University of Newcastle has demonstrated a commitment to this strategy through the introduction of a compulsory rural placement within their course structure;- the development of a clinical school at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, for medical students undertaking training through the University of New South Wales. Through exposure to rural health care settings with appropriate levels of support, it is felt that this initiative will equip Australian medical graduates with both the skills and interest in working in rural areas;- the Commonwealth has agreed to provide funding to establish a medical school at the James Cook University, Townsville. The geographical location of this university offers an opportunity for medical students from rural or indigenous backgrounds or students wishing to gain experience in rural health, to undertake a clinical placement in a rural setting. The school will offer students appropriate levels of support during their placement, using clinical advisers and medical practitioners who possess skills and experience in rural health care;- the Government is supporting university initiatives to increase numbers of students from rural communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds in Medicine. This focus is particularly evident in the admission profile at the University of Newcastle, Monash University, The University of Queensland and The University of Tasmania. The Government recognises that medical students from rural or remote communities are more likely to return to these communities to practice medicine upon completion of their training when compared to students from urban backgrounds;- John Flynn Scholarships to provide medical students with rural experience during their undergraduate training; and- as part of its measures to enhance the training and experience of young doctors in their early postgraduate years, the Medical Training Review Panel (MTRP) has recommended that all doctors in their first two years post-gradu ation have at least one term of experience in a community setting. My department is working with the States and Territories to implement this recommendation. As many as possible of these rotations will be in rural areas.2640(Question No. 205)2052640Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:Is the Minister able to say when Telstra will erect a digital mobile telephone base station to serve Kandos and Rylstone, NSW.2640McGauran, 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:Telstra advises that it has no plans to provide a digital mobile telephone base station to serve Kandos and Rylstone, NSW, in this financial year.However, Telstra has indicated that it will keep the matter under review when considering future plans for mobile coverage in the area.2640(Question No. 225)2252640Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:Will the Government provide advice it has received concerning the effect of the GST on interest rates.2640Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In considering the effect of the GST on interest rates, the key issue is the effect on inflation. This is covered in Chapter 5 of Tax Reform: A New Tax System.2640(Question No. 228)2282640Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Does his Department keep accurate records of travel by Members, Senators and their staff on civilian commercial flights at Commonwealth expense. (2) How are bookings on civilian commercial flights made for Members, Senators and their staff travelling on official business.(3) If a centralised booking system is used, are preferences shown towards particular carriers(4) Does the Department negotiate with various carriers for the least expensive service when approving travel on official business for Members, Senators and their staff.(5) How many journeys did Members, Senators and their staff travelling on official business make from (a) Canberra to Newcastle and (b) Newcastle to Canberra (i) in total, (ii) by direct route and (iii) through Sydney, (A) in 1995-96, (B) in 1996-97, (C) in 1997-98 and (D) from 1 July to 31 October 1998.(6) What was the (a) arrival time in and (b) departure time from Sydney for each flight by Members, Senators and their staff travelling on official business from (i) Canberra to Newcastle and (ii) Newcastle to Canberra, (A) in 1995-96, (B) in 1996-97, (C) in 1997-98 and (D) from 1 July to 31 October 1998.2641Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. However, travel records prior to the commencement of the Jetset contract in September 1997 reflect ticketed travel intentions and not necessarily actual travel undertaken.(2) All travel by Senators, Members, their families and their staff travelling on official business is arranged through the Jetset Parliamentary Travel Service located in Parliament House.(3) No. Bookings are made with the airline requested by the traveller.(4) The Jetset contract specifies that the best fare of the day is provided for each booking.(5) and (6) The information requested in respect of parts (5) and (6) is not readily available. The time and resources required to extract this information and provide it to the honourable Member would be considerable and such expenditure would not be in the best interests of the use of departmental resources.2641(Question No. 242)2422641Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:How many private health insurance members resided in the post code areas of (a) 2600, (b) 2603, (c) 2605, (d) 2606, (e) 2607, (f) 2900, (g) 2901, (h) 2902, (i) 2903, (j) 2904, (k) 2905 and (l) 2906 on 25 November 1998.2641Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The data required to answer this question is not readily available and to provide a complete answer would require considerable time and resources. I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert resources at this time.2641(Question No. 246)2462641Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Has the National Competition Council recommended in a draft report of its review of subsections 51(2) and 51(3) of the Trade Practices Act that the exemption relating to standards contained in paragraph 51(2)(c) of the Act be removed.(2) Did the Commonwealth and the Standards Association of Australia enter into a new memorandum of understanding in February 1998 covering the preparation of standards in Australia.(3) Will the Government implement the recommendation referred to in part (1).2641Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 11 November 1998, the National Competition Council released its draft report of its review of subsections 51(2) and 51(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). One of the draft recommendations in the report is to abolish section 51(2)(c) covering standards.(2) Following the report in 1995 of the Kean Committee (Committee of Inquiry into Australia's Standards and Conformance Infrastructure 1995), the Commonwealth Government and Standards Association of Australia entered into a new memorandum of understanding in February 1998. This understanding covers:. preparation of Australian Standards by the Standards Association of Australia (SAA) and by bodies accredited by the Standards Accreditation Board of the SAA;. participation by the SAA in international and regional standardisation; and. preparation of standards by Commonwealth agencies and authorities that may or may not involve the participation of the SAA or the reference of Australian Standards.(3) The Council's review examines the costs and benefits of this exemption provision, among others, and the Council will make final recommendations on whether they should be maintained, modified or abolished. The Council will consider further submissions before forwarding its final recommendations to the Treasurer by 5 March 1999.Upon receipt of the Council's final report, the Government will consider the recommendations made and announce what action is to be taken as soon as possible.2642(Question No. 250)2502642Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Will the SAS play a crucial security role during the Sydney Olympics.(2) Will the SAS undergo intense counter-terrorism training in preparation for the Sydney Olympics.(3) What stress debrief and support programs will the Government make available to members of the SAS after the Sydney Olympics.2642Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) SAS will continue training in their ongoing role, however, they will also undertake special training for their security role for the Sydney Olympics.(3) SAS members will receive, on a needs basis, the same Critical Incident counselling which other members of the Australian Defence Force receive.2642(Question No. 256)2562642Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:What was the cost of (a) production and (b) distribution of his Department's publication entitled Vetaffairs and how many persons were employed in its production in each year from 1993.2642Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:BackgroundSince 1998, considerable changes have been made to Vetaffairs. Previously it was published 11 times a year but distributed to only approximately 40,000 veterans per issue, largely through intermediary organisations such as ex-service organisations and nursing homes, with just a few thousand delivered to individuals who had asked to go on the mailing list. In 1998, it was decided the number of issues of Vetaffairs would be reduced to four per year. This allowed the distribution for each issue to be increased to over 400,000 veterans and war widows and widowers in receipt of a payment and/or a health benefit through my Department. The much larger printing runs of Vetaffairs mean some economies of scale have been achieved regarding printing costs, but because the distribution method now has become more sophisticated with direct mailings to over 400,000 households, overall costs are not easily compared to previous arrangements.In the recent Veteran Satisfaction Survey, 93% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the most recent issue of Vetaffairs. The majority of respondents said they read all or most of the paper (over 86%) and rated the various aspects of the paper as good or very good.(a) and (b)Complete itemised cost data dating back to 1993 is unavailable due to the joint recording and consolidation of Vetaffairs costs at various times with a range of other departmental printing and publication costs. However, analysis of 1996/97 information provides a reliable "per issue" cost expenditure estimate which would also provide a good indication of "per issue" production and distribution costs in earlier years. This analysis indicates that each monthly issue of Vetaffairs cost just under $24,000, amounting to $260,000 for 11 issues in a calendar year.After the change to the new arrangements in 1998, three issues of Vetaffairs were published in March, June and November. Production costs for the first two expanded issues totalled about $144,000 and distribution costs were about $440,000 (plus a small amount of postage incurred by my Department's State Offices sending copies on request to individuals/organisations). This equates to a total of about $292,000 per issue, or around 73 cents per veteran household including postage. Invoices on hand for the third issue in November 1998 indicate that production and distribution costs will again be of this magnitude for this and future issues.A full-time editor at the Public Affairs Officer Grade 3 level works on the publication and there is some input (about three days per issue) from my Department's graphic designer together with some general administrative support. Similar arrangements have applied in earlier years. Printing and distribution are carried out under contract by a printing firm and a mail house. 2643(Question No. 257)2572643Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:How many officers were employed by his Department in Western Australia in each financial year since 1992-93.2643Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The following number of officers (in terms of full-time and part-time operative officers) were employed in Western Australia:1992-93—1,321*; 1993-94—292; 1994-95—268; 1995-96—278; 1996-97—205; 1997-98—185.(These figures include all Veterans' Affairs-related functions in Western Australia, including the Western Australian State Office, the Repatriation General Hospital Hollywood, Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, Veterans' Review Board and Office of Australian War Graves.)* NB: RGH Hollywood was sold to the private sector on 24 February 1994. Consequently, staff employed at the hospital ceased to be employees of my Department from that date.2643(Question No. 260)2602643McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:What projects did the Australia Council fund in the Sydney 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.2643McGauran, 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:The Australia Council has provided details of the projects it funded in 27 Federal electorates covering the Sydney metropolitan area during 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Because of its volume, this information has been given to the honourable member and a summary is provided below.(ii) Location (Federal electorate(a) 1995-96(b) 1996-97(c) 1997-98No. ofprojects(i) Total expenditure ($)No. ofprojects(i) Total expenditure ($)No. ofprojects(i) Total expenditure ($)Banks114,280215,78514,215Barton327,180447,000Bennelong7154,2504132,2245135,175Berowra5194,1003152,6043152,624Blaxland544,922234,000486,561Bradfield666,132657,888873,038Chifley363,004260,4394105,152Cook230,000219,785111,484Fowler7107,447688,2716116,908Grayndler731,542,312601,646,047661,942,030Greenway565,781452,740451,540Hughes14,500140,000140,000Kingsford-Smith17358,42710228,9048147,735Lindsay4189,2303115,075230,615Lowe9114,790694,000581,000Mackellar8174,9803109,4497192,862Macquarie16284,3187120,1007130,440 North Sydney16480,81425461,78013204,910Parramatta454,9005151,9005137,466Prospect772,906125,676360,073Reid694,394250,000465,334Sydney27814,402,47820413,792,75118713,954,879Warringah9170,0368119,003335,202Watson451,9005135,5005110,300Wentworth37580,63327539,05330584,994Werriwa16428,23310424,4597353,237Total54919,781,94741218,714,43438918,807,773The 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.2644(Question No. 288)2882644Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) Has Natural Heritage Trust funding been allocated to the (a) Melaleuca Park Riparian Enhancement Project ($9 300), (b) Moggill Creek Catchment Project ($74 000) and (c) Bushlands to Bay Corridor ($31 250); if so, in each case, (i) on what date was the decision to allocate funds made, (ii) what procedures were followed in making the decision, (iii) what involvement did the Minister or his staff have in the process, (iv) on what date was the funding announced and (v) who made the announcement.(2) Did the Government identify each project referred to in part (1) as being entirely within the electoral division of Brisbane; if so, why, given that they are located in other electoral divisions.2644Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) Melaleuca Park Riparian Enhancement Project as proposed by Lota/Manly West Community Association. Natural Heritage Trust funding was $9 300 under the Bushcare Program.(i) 25 August 1998. (ii) As with other projects announced as part of the first round of 1998-99 funding under the Natural Heritage Trust, the project was assessed through the Trust's One-Stop-Shop process. Under this arrangement, the project was assessed by the relevant Regional Assessment Panel, the Queensland State Assessment Panel, endorsed by the Queensland Natural Heritage Trust Committee of Ministers and reviewed by Environment Australia. Assessments were undertaken in accordance with the `Natural Heritage Trust Guide to New Applications 1998-99'.(iii) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage makes the final decision, in accordance with the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997.(iv) 24 September 1998.(v) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage.(1) (b) Ranges to River—Moggill Creek Catchment Project as proposed by the Moggill Creek Catchment Management Association. Natural Heritage Trust funding was $74 000 under the Bushcare Program.(i) 25 August 1998.(ii) As with other Projects announced as part of the first round of 1998-99 funding under the Natural Heritage Trust, the project was assessed through the Trust's One-Stop-Shop process. Under this arrangement, the project was assessed by the relevant Regional Assessment Panel, the Queens land State Assessment Panel, endorsed by the Queensland Natural Heritage Trust Committee of Ministers and reviewed by Environment Australia. Assessments were undertaken in accordance with the `Natural Heritage Trust Guide to New Applications 1998-99'.(iii) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage makes the final decision, in accordance with the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997.(iv) 24 September 1998.(v) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage.(1) (c) Bushlands to Bay—Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinator as proposed by the Moreton Bay Marine Association Inc. Natural Heritage Trust funding was $31 250 under the Rivercare Program (administered by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry).(i) 29 August 1998.(ii) As with other projects announced as part of the first round of 1998-99 funding under the Natural Heritage Trust, the project was assessed through the Trust's One-Stop-Shop process. Under this arrangement, the project was assessed by the relevant Regional Assessment Panel, the Queensland State Assessment Panel, endorsed by the Queensland Natural Heritage Trust Committee of Ministers and reviewed by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Assessments were undertaken in accordance with the `Natural Heritage Trust Guide to New Applications 1998-99'.(iii) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage makes the final decision, in accordance with the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997.(iv) 24 September 1998.(v) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage.(2) Following the recent Federal Election, successful projects were assigned to electorates based on the site location data provided in the project application.2645(Question No. 289)2892645McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) What progress has been made in (a) withdrawing or (b) modifying the declaration that Australia made on 30 September 1975 in ratifying the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (2) What other countries have made a similar declaration.(3) On what dates and in what terms did they make their declarations2645Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on 30 September 1975, Australia made the following declaration:"The Government of Australia . . . . . . .declares that Australia is not at present in a position specifically to treat as offences all the matters covered by article 4(a) of the Convention. Acts of the kind there mentioned are punishable only to the extent provided by the existing criminal law dealing with such matters as the maintenance of public order, public mischief, assault, riot, criminal libel, conspiracy and attempts. It is the intention of the Australian Government, at the first suitable moment, to seek from Parliament legislation specifically implementing the terms of article 4 (a)."The declaration was last considered in 1995. Withdrawal of the declaration is not possible at this stage. Article 4 (a) of the Convention contemplates the enactment of criminal offences for racial hatred and incitement to racial discrimination. As the Racial Hatred Act 1995 contains only a civil prohibition on such conduct it does not fulfil Australia's obligations under Article 4 (a) and therefore is not sufficient to allow Australia to withdraw its declaration. At this point only the ACT Discrimination Act 1991 makes serious racial vilification a criminal offence.(2) I refer you to the UN Publication "Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: status as at 31 December 1997". An updated version of this publication is available on the internet: http://www.un.org/depts/treaty(3) See (2) above2645(Question No. 290)2902645McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) What progress has been made in (a) withdrawing or (b) modifying the reservations and declarations that Australia made on 13 August 1980 in ratifying the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.(2) What other countries have made similar reservations or declarations.(3) On what dates and in what terms did they make their reservations or declarations 2646Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) When Australia lodged its instrument of ratification on 13 August, 1980, a number of declarations and reservations were lodged. On 6 November 1984 Australia withdrew the reservations and declarations made upon ratification with regard to Articles 2 and 50, 10, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 5Australia has maintained the following reservations:Article 10"In relation to paragraph 2 (a) the principle of segregation is accepted as an objective to be achieved progressively. In relation to paragraph 2(b) and 3 (second sentence) the obligation to segregate is accepted only to the extent that such segregation is considered by the responsible authorities to be beneficial to the juveniles or adults concerned."Article 14"Australia makes the reservation that the provision of compensation for miscarriage of justice in the circumstances contemplated in paragraph 6 of article 14 may be by administrative procedures rather than pursuant to specific legal provision."Article 20"Australia interprets the rights provided for by article 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with article 20; accordingly, the Commonwealth and the constituent States, having legislated with respect to the subject matter of the article in matters of practical concern in the interest of public order (ordre public), the right is reserved not to introduce any further legislative provision on these matters."Declaration"Australia has a federal constitutional system in which legislative, executive and judicial powers are shared or distributed between the Commonwealth and the constituent States. The implementation of the treaty throughout Australia will be effected by the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise."The question of withdrawing or modifying the reservations made when Australia ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is considered every year when Australia's National Action Plan on human rights is updated. Paragraph (c) of the National Action Plan requires Australia to indicate human rights treaty reservations we intend to remove.In relation to the reservation to Articles 10 (2) and (3) of the Covenant, due to Australia's demo graphic and geographical features it is difficult to achieve the total segregration of accused and convicted prisoners, and children or juvenile prisoners from adult prisoners. Furthermore the Australian Government remains convinced that it is appropriate to allow the responsible authorities discretion to determine whether it is beneficial for a child or juvenile to be imprisoned with adults. However the Government is committed to achieving the goal of separation of accused and convicted prisoners and has taken some steps in this direction. For example, under the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia, accused persons awaiting trial are separated from convicted persons as far as practicable and remandees are accorded different treatment from convicted persons. There are no present intentions to withdraw or modify Australia's reservations.In relation to the reservation to Article 14 of the Covenant, there are administrative procedures available in all Australian jurisdictions to provide compensation for miscarriages of justice in the circumstances envisaged in paragraph 6 of this Article. The reason for maintaining Australia's reservation to Article 14 was the requirement in paragraph 6 of that article for statutory compensation in cases of miscarriage of justice, whereas in Australia the procedures for granting compensation do not necessarily have a statutory basis. Accordingly, the reservation to Article 14 is still considered appropriate.The reservation to Article 20 reflects Australia's strong tradition of freedom of expression. Where there is a clear necessity to restrict that right in the public interest or for foreign policy reasons, the Federal Government will take the necessary legislative action. The Government has acted to prohibit or suppress propaganda in the past and has passed the Racial Hatred Act 1995. The Racial Hatred Act 1995 strikes a balance between the right to freedom of expression and rights of all persons to live free from fear of violence and racial hatred. Accordingly, there are no present intentions to withdraw Australia's reservation to Article 20.(2) I refer you to the UN Publication "Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: status as at 31 December 1997". An updated version of this publication is available on the internet: http://www.un.org/depts/treaty(3) See (2) above.2646(Question No. 291)2912646McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) What progress has been made in (a) withdrawing or (b) modifying the reservation that Australia made on 17 December 1990 in ratifying the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.(2) What other countries have made similar declarations.(3) On what dates and in what terms did they make their declarations.2647Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 17 December 1990, Australia made the following reservation:"Australia accepts the general principles of article 37. In relation to the second sentence of paragraph (c), the obligation to separate children from adults in prison is accepted only to the extent that such imprisonment is considered by the responsible authorities to be feasible and consistent with the obligation that children be able to maintain contact with their families, having regard to the geography and demography of Australia. Australia therefore ratifies the Convention to the extent that it is unable to comply with the obligation imposed by article 37 (c)."The question of withdrawing or modifying the reservation made when Australia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child is considered every year when Australia's National Action Plan on human rights is updated. In relation to the reservation to Article 37 (1) of the Convention, Australia's demographic and geographical features often make it difficult to achieve the total segregration of children or juvenile prisoners from adult prisoners. However, the Government is considering the recommendation made by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, in its 1998 Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Government withdraw the reservation to Article 37 (3) of the Convention. A Government response is currently being formulated.(2) I refer you to the UN Publication "Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: status as at 31 December 1997". An updated version of this publication is available on the internet: http://www.un.org/depts/treaty(3) See (2) above.2647(Question No. 292)2922647McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) What progress has been made in (a) withdrawing or (b) modifying the declarations that Australia made (i) on 14 October 1958 in ratifying the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protec tion of Civilian Persons in Times of War and (ii) on 21 December 1991 in ratifying the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the 1949 Conventions and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict.(2) What other countries have made similar declarations.(3) On what dates and in what terms did they make their declarations.2647Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The declaration made when Australia ratified the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War has not since been considered. No progress has been made on withdrawing or modifying this declaration, and there is no present intention to withdraw or modify it.The declarations made when Australia ratified Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions were last considered prior to ratification on 21 June 1991. No progress has been made in withdrawing or modifying these declarations. The declarations were considered appropriate at the time of ratification, and are still considered appropriate, as the circumstances ruling at that time have not materially altered. Accordingly there is no present intention to withdraw or modify them.(2) The parameters of this question are too broad to be answered in this forum. I refer you to the ICRC web site which has the full text of all State Party reservations and declarations in its international humanitarian law database: www.ICRC.org/UNICC/ICRCnews.NSF/DocInde x/Site_Tree?OpenDocument(3) See 2 above.2647(Question No. 295)2952647Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) Do parts 5 and 6 of the Airports Act 1996 require (a) aircraft noise, (b) air quality of emissions from aircraft in flight and (c) associated health issues to be included in the factors considered when developing an environmental strategy for an airport.(2) Did he advise the Sydney Airport Corporation (SAC) through their recently appointed consultants, Sinclair Knight Mutch Pty Ltd, to exclude (a) aircraft noise, (b) air quality of emissions from aircraft in flight and (c) associated health issues when preparing an environmental strategy for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport; if so (i) will he provide details of correspondence between the SAC, the consultants and other persons relating to the advice and (ii) does he have the power to have the factors excluded from consideration; if so, under what authority.(3) If he did not provide the advice referred to in part (2), which of the factors referred to in part (1) will be included in the environmental strategy for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.(4) If a factor referred to in part (1) is not at present included in the environmental strategy, will he ensure that it is included.(5) Will the environmental strategy be more effective if it includes the factors referred to in part (1).(6) Is he able to say what obligations parts 5 and 6 of the Airports Act 1996 impose on the preparation of the environmental strategy.2648Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Part 5 of the Airports Act 1996 regulates land use, planning and building control at leased Federal airports. It requires the preparation of an airport master plan, major development plans for significant airport developments and regulates building activities at airport sites. Part 6 of the Airports Act 1996 requires each airport lessee company to prepare a final environment strategy for an airport. A final environment strategy is a draft environment strategy that has been approved by the Minister. The matters which must be set out in a final environment strategy are set out in Division 2 of Part 6 of the Airports Act 1996. None of these relate specifically to aircraft noise, air quality of emissions from aircraft in flight and associated health issues (see (6) below).(2) My Department has provided advice to Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd (SACL) indicating that issues such as the noise and emissions generated by aircraft in flight fall outside the scope of the Draft Environment Strategy (DES). These matters are canvassed separately in The Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and Associated Airspace and the Proponent's Statement for the Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan, and currently fall within the responsibilities of other agencies including the Department of Transport and Regional Services and Airservices Australia. A copy of the correspondence can be made available to the member.(3) See (2).(4) No. See (2).(5) No. See (2).(6) Division 2 of Part 6 of the Airports Act 1996 specifies the matters that must be set out in a draft or final environment strategy. Part 3 of the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations sets out additional matters which must be specified in the strategy. The airport lessee company is obliged to specify its objectives for the environmental management of the airport. In particular, it must address impacts of on-site airport operations and include specific measures, and time frames for completion of those measures, which it proposes to adopt to prevent, control or reduce environmental impacts.2648(Question No. 297)2972648Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) Is it a fact that modes 6A and 8 outlined in the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport have not been implemented; if not, why not.(2) Will the combination of increased aircraft noise and north easterly winds during summer greatly exacerbate noise to the north of the airport, especially over the electoral division of Lowe, if the modes are not implemented before 1999.2648Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Mode 6A was not outlined in the Long Term Operating Plan. Neither mode 6A nor mode 8 have been implemented because relevant safety and operational clearances are not yet available.(2) Seasonal variations in prevailing winds suggest an increased likelihood of northerly winds during summer in the Sydney area. These conditions result in the use of runway modes that involve departing jet aircraft passing over the electoral division of Lowe.2648(Question No. 298)2982648Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:Is it a fact that implementation of the instrument landing system for the east-west runway of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would greatly improve the operation and use of the runway thus ensuring compliance with the Long Term Operating Plan; if so, has he expedited implementation of the system; if not why not.2648Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has recently provided me with a report on a study conducted by an independ ent consultant on the benefits and costs of installing an instrument landing system on runway 25 at Sydney Airport. The consultant's report concludes that the installation of the ILS together with a runway threshold relocation " could provide a significant increase in relative terms of the Mode [Mode 5]. . .". Mode 5 is an important noise sharing mode. The report will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Sydney Airport Community Forum to allow community representatives to discuss the merits of the proposal before a final decision is made.2649(Question No. 301)3012649Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:Following his announcement of a new chairperson for the Sydney Airport Community Forum, will the Forum meet before Christmas 1998 to urgently address the concerns of those Sydney residents who are being unfairly exposed to aircraft noise.2649Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am pleased that Dr Brendan Nelson MP has agreed to chair the Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF). Dr Nelson hosted an informal meeting of the SACF on 16 December 1998. All members of the Forum were invited to attend. I am advised that Mr Murphy discussed issues of concern with Dr Nelson.The next formal meeting of the Forum is due to be held on 26 February 1999.2649(Question No. 304)3042649Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:Did the Government offer contract variations to members of Job Network in August 1998; if so, (a) how many members decided not to pursue the variations, (b) were they from the not-for-profit community sector or the private sector, (c) what reasons did they give for not pursuing variations and (d) in which States, Territories and regions were they located.2649Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(a) Two.(b) The two organisations describe themselves as: (i) an incorporated association. (ii) an incorporated association/registered charity.(c) Reasons for the decisions were not provided.(d) The two organisations were located in: (i) Western Australia (Southern WA and balance of WA Regions). (ii) NSW (Inner Sydney, Western Sydney and North Sydney and Central Coast Regions).2649(Question No. 309)3092649Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) Have adequate steps been taken to monitor the appearance of prion-based diseases in meat products fed to poultry in Australia.(2) Does regular testing for the spontaneous appearance of prion-based diseases in meat fed to poultry occur in Australia; if so, what are the details.(3) What assurances can be given that prion-based diseases will not occur in Australia.2649Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There is no evidence of clinical prion diseases of animals (including poultry) in Australia. This status is monitored through a national surveillance program that has been implemented to meet international requirements for countries claiming to be free of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases in their cattle and sheep. Strict quarantine protocols are in place to protect Australia from prion diseases of animals.(2) As indicated, a national surveillance program is in place involving the examination of a set number of sheep and cattle brains, collected from animals with suspect clinical signs. As part of the program, general awareness activities as well as specialist training were instituted. Because Australia is free of clinical prion disease of animals, no specific testing is undertaken for such diseases in meat fed to poultry.(3) Existing strict quarantine provisions are designed to prevent the introduction of prion diseases to Australia through imported products. In the event of a spontaneous case occurring the national surveillance program and routine diagnostic sampling of Australia's animal populations should ensure the early detection and elimination, by implementation of an agreed national plan (AUSVETPLAN) of any individual animals that might be affected. 2650(Question No. 312)3122650Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) How many contributors to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme exited from the scheme (a) between 28 September and 26 October 1998 and (b) since 27 October 1998.(2) How many contributors in each category referred to in part (1) (a) preserved their lump sum member benefit in the scheme, (b) withdrew their member benefit as a lump sum or (c) withdrew their member benefit and subsequently repaid it into the scheme.(3) What was the (a) actual investment performance of the scheme from 1 July to 30 September 1998 and (b) applicable exit rate for each month since 1 July 1998.(4) Before the Opposition raised the matter in Parliament, what measures did the scheme's Board of Trustees put in place to inform members that a negative exit rate had been adopted and to advise them of their options.(5) What measures has he put in place to ensure that recent problems do not recur.2650Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 411 contributors exited from the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) between 28 September 1998 and 26 October 1998.(b) 559 contributors exited from 27 October 1998 to 14 December 1998.(2) (a) 17 members who exited between 28 September 1998 and 26 October 1998 preserved their member benefit; and 38 members who exited between 27 October 1998 and 14 December 1998 preserved their member benefit.23 members who exited between 28 September 1998 and 26 October 1998 and 30 members who exited between 27 October 1998 and 14 December 1998 have not yet submitted a benefit application. If an application is not received within 3 months of discharge the benefits will automatically be preserved.(b) 371 members who exited between 28 September 1998 and 26 October 1998 withdrew their member benefit as a lump sum; and 491 members who exited between 27 October 1998 and 14 December 1998 withdrew their member benefit as a lump sum.(c) 2 members withdrew their member benefit and subsequently repaid it into the scheme.(3) (a) The investment performance of the scheme from 1 July 1998 to 30 September 1998 was—1.1%.(b) Applicable exit rates since 1 July 1998 were:Exit ratePeriod of effect+ 8.3% per annum21 May 98 to 20 Aug 98+ 4.7% per annum21 Aug 98 to 30 Aug 98+ 7.3% per annum31 Aug 98 to 27 Sept 98- 0.059% daily compound28 Sept 98 to 26 Oct 98- 0.012% daily compound27 Oct 98 to 29 Nov 98+ 0.002% daily compound30 Nov 98 to 20 Dec 98 + 0.02% daily compound21 Dec 98 to next declaration(4) Through the Board's communications advisory group, a number of different approaches were adopted to inform members of the new exit rate policy adopted from 1 July 1998 and the MSB Board's decision on 30 October 1998 to amend the calculation program for preserved benefits. The approaches taken were:. details of the MSB Board's exit rate policy placed on the ComSuper website; . members advised of changes to the exit rate policy and the possibility of negative returns in the annual report to members, which was enclosed with each member's information package despatched in October. This package also included a booklet on the MSB Fund investment policy;. on 15 October 1998 an article appeared in the Army News and in November 1998 a similar article appeared in the Air Force News. The article was also submitted for inclusion in the summer edition of Sea Talk;. from 30 October 1998 members who contacted the ComSuper advisory unit were advised of the implications of a negative exit rate and the option to preserve their benefit until a more favourable exit rate was declared;. on 16 November 1998 letters were prepared to all members who had discharged on and after 28 September 1998 and before 30 October 1998 who had been affected by the negative exit rate to inform them that they had an option of preserving their benefit until a more favourable rate applied. Members who discharged from 30 October 1998 and were affected by the negative exit rate were contacted by ComSuper prior to payment being made to make sure they were fully informed of the implications of withdrawing their benefit; and. in early November an article was submitted for inclusion in the next issue of The Key, a publication of the Defence Personnel Executive. It appeared in the December issue.(5) I have asked the Department of Defence to look at ways of enhancing direct communication with members on superannuation issues. The Board and the Department have advised me that at the December meeting a communications strategy for 1999 was endorsed. The strategy is aimed at improving communications with members on superannuation matters of both immediate and longer term effects. It will be put in place in consultation with the Department of Defence and will include such new initiatives as:. a regular chat column in the Service newspapers;. having a team of suitably experienced people who can visit work locations to discuss issues with members on a face-to-face basis; and. developing a new interactive website with the ability to interrogate and develop options to suit a member's retirement needs.I have also been advised that a notice has been distributed to all Defence locations that deal with discharging members stressing the importance of members obtaining advice on their superannuation entitlements immediately before discharge.2651(Question No. 317)3172651Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:Has he introduced evaluation measures to ensure that funds allocated under tender documents and business plans for Job Network providers are being spent in line with the providers' commitments; if so, (a) what measures, (b) when will the measures commence and finish and (c) will the results be made public; if so, when; if not, what accountability measures are in place to safeguard the spending of public funds.2651Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) As Job Network members are primarily contracted to place job seekers into jobs, the ultimate measure of their success is the extent to which they place job seekers into jobs. The performance of Job Network members in the current contract period will be a consideration in assessing tenders for the next contract period, should those members choose to tender.The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has in place a Job Network monitoring strategy which has a number of components. It includes the assessment of the performance of each Job Network member against their allocated level of business, as well as monitoring of client complaints and compliance with statutory legal requirements.Job Network members are required, through the Employment Services Contract 1998-99 to provide the Department with access to their premises, financial accounts and records, employees and job seekers' records. This is obviously necessary as part of the Department's evaluation and monitoring of providers. The Contract is the legal agreement between the Commonwealth and Job Network members which protects the interests of the Commonwealth.A complaint mechanism also exists under the Contract. Job seekers, employers, apprentices and trainees are able to raise any concerns with Job Network members, or with the Department if there is no resolution of the concern. The Contract requires Job Network members to maintain a register of complaints which must be accessible by the Department.In August 1998 the then Minister announced the provision of Market Development Funding for Job Network members providing Job Matching services. Provision of this funding was dependent on the Commonwealth's acceptance of an appropriate Market Development Business Plan from the Job Network member. Departmental contract managers monitor progress by Job Network members against these business plans and funding must be acquitted at the end of the contract period.(b) Job Network contract monitoring measures are in operation for the duration of the Contract.Market Development Funding was available from 1 October 1998, with the final payment to be made in March 1999. Recipients of Market Development Funding are to provide the Department with an acquittal of expenditure by 31 March 1999.(c) The results of Departmental monitoring activities for individual Job Network members are commercial in confidence and as such will not be made public. The Job Network monitoring strategy, as outlined above, addresses the Department's obligations under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, which provides a framework for the proper management of public money.The Department meets its obligations under the Act through the Employment Services Contract 1998-99.