1999-02-173912REPS294701999-02-17Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills2947r7272947Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.294709:31:002947Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill gives effect to a number of measures from the 1997-98 and 1998-99 budgets and the `Staying at home' package announced on 2 April 1998 that aim to improve assistance to carers of those with a disability and the elderly.As part of its 1997-98 budget, the government announced that it would extend carer payment to a new category of people. The new category will be people who are caring for an adult with a level of disability that is not sufficient to qualify their carer for income support. From 1 July 1999, carer payment will be payable to that carer if the adult, because of his or her disability, is unable to look after his or her own child or has a child with a disability for whom he or she is unable to care because of the child's disability, and, as a result, the carer is also looking after the child. The aim is to provide help for people who are not caring full time only for the adult with a disability, but are in fact engaged in full-time care because they are required to look after the child as well.In the `Staying at home' package, the government reinforced its commitment to carers by announcing that it would introduce a simpler and more consistent system of income supplements for carers. This initiative involves the introduction of a new payment called carer allowance, which will be available to carers from July 1999.Carer allowance brings together two payments—child disability allowance and domiciliary nursing care benefit—to provide a single income supplement for carers of adults and children. The qualification rules for carer allowance will mean that it will be more easily available to carers of adults with disabilities than is presently the case for domiciliary nursing care benefit. Carers will be able to claim carer allowance from any Centrelink office. It is expected that 14,000 carers of adult relatives will qualify for assistance for the first time.The government announced in the 1998-99 budget that it will expand the scope of carer payment and carer allowance to increase assistance that is available to carers. Where the person for whom a carer is caring is hospitalised and the carer is involved in the person's treatment plan, the carer will now be able to claim and receive carer allowance. Previously, carers could not claim child disability allowance, domiciliary nursing care benefit or carer payment when the person they were caring for was hospitalised. From 1 July 1999, in cases where the person cared for has a terminal illness or is expected to return home after hospital treatment, the carer will continue to qualify for carer payment or carer allowance for a period of hospitalisation for up to 63 days in a calendar year.The current assessment of an adult's disability for the payment of domiciliary nursing care benefit has been criticised as being subjective and unduly restrictive. As part of its `Staying at home' package, the government announced that, from 1 July 1999, it would introduce a simpler and more objective assessment mechanism, the Adult Disability Assessment Tool. It will be much easier for many carers to qualify for carer allowance, particularly those caring for people with intellectual, psychiatric and neurological disabilities. Fewer medical assessments will be needed for recipients with severe and permanent disabilities. The Adult Disability Assessment Tool will also be used to decide qualification for an existing social security payment, the carer payment. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills2948r7332948Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.294809:36:002948Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 is the result of a detailed examination by the government of the structure and operations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government's examination found that the current structure of the commission is inefficient and top-heavy, and does not always operate in the best interests of the entire Australian community.The bill provides for the reorganisation of the commission's membership, which will comprise a president and three deputy presidents. The commission and its members will have a common responsibility to protect and promote human rights for all Australians. In order to maintain areas of expertise, each deputy president will also have responsibility for particular subject areas. One deputy president will be responsible for human rights and disability, one will be responsible for social justice and race, and one will be responsible for sex discrimination and equal opportunity.Most importantly, this bill will be the catalyst for a fundamental cultural change in the commission. The bill makes it clear that the new commission's priority will be to educate Australians about human rights and discrimination, and to help them to understand their responsibility, as members of the Australian community, to respect other people's human rights. The bill also emphasises the commission's role to assist business and the community to avoid discrimination by issuing practical guidelines for that purpose. This refocusing of the commission's functions is reflected in its new name—the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.Consistent with this cultural change, the bill will make the commission's power to intervene in court proceedings which raise human rights issues conditional upon it first obtaining my approval. The bill provides very broad criteria for the granting of my approval, which will enable me to ensure that every intervention by the new commission is in the best interests of the Australian community as a whole. The bill provides further evidence of this government's commitment to the effective and equitable protection of the human rights of all Australians. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills2948r7112948Debate resumed from 9 December 1998, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:39:002948McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The Attorney-General, in introducing the Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998 , was relatively brief in his second reading speech. The issue is really quite a simple issue but it is, nonetheless, one which the opposition opposes, for reasons which I will advance.The bill separates the office of the Privacy Commissioner from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—as it is still named. The Attorney-General said in his second reading speech that none of the Privacy Commissioner's functions will be altered—the rationale being essentially to increase the profile of the Privacy Commissioner. We have our reservations as to the extent to which such a profile would increase. We note, in particular, that the previous Privacy Commissioner, Ms Moira Scollay, was extremely active and diligent in her role and, accordingly, through those efforts the office received substantial public recognition.Our concerns, however, are broader. They relate to the general downgrading of the human rights emphasis of this government. We say that privacy is fundamentally a human rights issue and that it should remain a part of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—which administers a wide range of acts dealing with various human rights, including discrimination and, currently, privacy issues.We are concerned that the government's reduction in resourcing of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the restructuring—which was the bill the House has just considered—are designed to downgrade the role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, it being seen by the government that these matters are part of a political correctness culture. Our concern is about the government's assault on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and that the hiving off of the Privacy Commissioner may have as its non-disclosed rationale the fact that privacy is increasingly becoming not only a human rights issue but also an issue which affects the business community—in particular, trade with the European Community.This association with business may, at a subsequent time, provide a justification for the government resourcing the area of privacy while at the same time allowing the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission functions to wither. That is a real concern. It is our position that the government should keep the Privacy Commissioner within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and properly resource the commission—indeed, to restore the cuts that have been made to the commission.Those cuts are certainly well worth noting. They have been significant. There was $20.5 million provided in 1996-97 and it has been reduced to $17.9 million in 1997-98, $12.3 million in 1998-99, and, on average, $10.7 million a year over 1999-2002. That is a significant reduction. Not counting for inflation, that represents a cut of about 48 per cent in the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. That is of real concern. In fact, as a result of those cuts, the staff of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has been reduced from some 180 down to 60. In our view, that is a shameful reduction in the capacity of an essential human rights agency in modern Australia. Our argument is that, if the government is serious about human rights issues, it should be resourcing the entire area of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It should not be hiving off one of its functions, to let the balance wither.In terms of what the government is about achieving, there will be some staff who go with the Privacy Commissioner but, as I understand it, the public interaction will still be through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. If anything, there will be some administrative complexity in that arrangement rather than a benefit. These issues are evenly balanced. The fundamental issue is not the hiving off; it is properly resourcing the Privacy Commissioner so that the human rights issues generally can be conducted in areas where public inquiry and public consultation, and also public education, are important. These issues at a human rights level, including privacy as a fundamental human right, are vitally important.In summary, there is no appreciable financial benefit to be gained by the government. From our point of view, there will be long-term financial disadvantage to the general human rights area because of the hiving-off of the Privacy Commissioner function, and that is of concern to us.I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the government's approach generally in respect of the area of privacy. I note that in December of last year the government finally indicated that it would proceed with legislation to protect private privacy rights. But the legislation is still to come and I understand that it will not be introduced until late in the year. That is too long—far too long.The government went to the 1996 election promising a tough legislative stand to protect private privacy rights. In April 1996, under pressure from the then Privacy Commissioner, Kevin O'Connor, the government acknowledged that legislation was an issue. The Attorney-General acknowledged the need for privacy legislation and, on 6 June 1996, he made a speech pledging such legislation. That pledge was renewed on 12 September 1996 with a formal media release indicating that legislation would be introduced during 1997.We are now into 1999. The reason I suspect that the legislation has not been before the parliament is that the Prime Minister torpedoed the work of the Attorney-General. In a speech made on 21 March 1997, the Prime Minister declared that the government would not introduce privacy legislation. So I surmise that the Attorney-General was forced to accept that position and on 22 May 1997 he appeared to accept that changed stance, saying that federal legislation was unnecessary and that the absence of a legislative scheme would not affect our trade with other nations—in particular, the European Union.What occurred after that was an interesting series of lobbying not only from the business community, the legal profession and the accountancy profession but also from the Law Council of Australia itself, which indicated that the government's failure to act in this area was of real concern not only from a human rights point of view but also from the point of view of Australia's business relationships with the rest of the world. Indeed, in a neat summary of the position, it said that the government's or the Prime Minister's desire to relieve Australian businesses of red tape was effectively putting Australian businesses at peril of foreign regulation.That prediction has certainly come to light, with the European Union late last year issuing its directive in respect of conducting business with countries that do not have an appropriate privacy regime. Indeed, several of the states saw that situation coming. Victoria, in particular, moved in quite a sophisticated way to introduce its own privacy legislation, and New South Wales was also taking steps to address the matter.What happened then was that the business community was rightly concerned that they would face, throughout Australia, a number of different regimes applying to their obligations regarding privacy, and they increased the extent of pressure on the government to introduce federal legislation. In response to that pressure, on 16 December, as I have mentioned, the Attorney-General announced that the government would introduce a light touch legislative regime based on the Privacy Commissioner's National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information.We say that those principles are sound and that they form the basis of sound legislation. But things must move quickly. For instance, the Financial Review as recently as 8 February of this year quoted a lawyer from Gadens, solicitors, as commenting that the European directive which was issued at the end of last year treated privacy as a fundamental human rights issue—which indeed it is—and required European Union member states to adopt national legislation to ensure its protection. It was commented that the directive prohibited the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union which did not guarantee adequate protection.Without Australia having its federal legislation in place, there is a significant risk that European Union companies will not regard Australia as having in place adequate protection and will themselves be concerned that they could face penalties under their own regimes. So, until federal legislation comes down, we are facing the situation where Australian business is at risk; and the government needs to look very quickly at this issue, particularly in light of the procrastination that has occurred to date.The opposition has indicated, and I can state it for the record, that we will certainly cooperate in the process. We will do all we can to support the implementation of federal legislation, but we would be insisting on a scheme which is based on world's best practice rather than on a superficial approach being taken. Indeed, there are many indicators that assist the process. The Victorian model is quite sophisticated. The government also has the benefit of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee report on the matter, which provides some helpful indicators.From the opposition's point of view, these issues have been looked at for three years, and it is time for the government to act, and act quickly. I indicate to the government that the opposition will assist in expediting that process which, in our view, should be a real priority rather than this tokenistic gesture of simply hiving off the Privacy Commissioner's function from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.09:NaN:002951Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—At first glance the Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998 appears straightforward, and it is. Its purpose is to establish an office of the Privacy Commissioner, independent of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is creating the separate statutory office of the Privacy Commissioner against a background where the Privacy Commissioner has, in general terms, always operated separately from but within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Privacy Commissioner will now act and function as the head of his or her own office and will employ staff, for staff are currently employed by the commission.However, the significance of this legislation should not be underestimated. It underscores the government's commitment to the protection of privacy. Privacy is deemed to be a fundamental human right. It is recognised in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of recent times. The proposed establishment of a separate office of Privacy Commissioner reflects the growing importance, diversity and complexity of this fundamental right of privacy. It is not, as the member for Barton suggests, some act of hiving it off and casting it adrift. It is a recognition of the government's commitment to the protection of privacy.Of all the human rights in the international sphere, perhaps privacy is the most difficult to define and circumscribe. It does have its roots deep in history, and I could not resist looking up the earliest laws of privacy. I think they can be traced back as far as 1361 when the Justices of the Peace Act in England provided for the arrest of peeping toms and eavesdroppers. Various countries developed specific protections for privacy in the centuries that followed, including France in l858 which prohibited the publication of private facts.In 1890, the American lawyer and future US Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, wrote a seminal piece on the right to privacy as a tort action describing privacy as `the right to be left alone'. He argued that privacy was one of the most cherished of freedoms in a democracy. Although privacy can be described as a fundamental human right, it is not an absolute one. The protection of privacy gives rise to the inherent conflict—a classic one between individual rights and the public good, between the demands of law enforcement and the preservation of private spheres.The modern privacy benchmark at an international level would be the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in article 12, specifically protected territorial and communications privacy. Numerous international human rights covenants give specific reference to privacy as a right. But interest in the right to privacy increased in the 1960s and the 1970s with the advent of information technology. During the 1970s, in particular, the genesis of modern legislation in this area can be traced to the first data protection laws enacted in Germany, Sweden, the United States and France. Two crucial international instruments evolved from these laws—the Council of Europe's 1981 Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data and, more particularly, the OECD guidelines governing the protection of privacy and transported data flows of personal data.The rules from these two documents form the core of the data protection laws of dozens of countries, and they describe personal information as data which is afforded protection at every step, from collection through to storage and dissemination. The right of people to access and amend their data is a primary component of these rules. In Australia, the Privacy Act was passed by federal parliament at the end of 1988. The act gave effect to Australia's agreement to implement the OECD guidelines as well as its obligations under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Under the Privacy Act, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, as a member of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, was created with the functions vested in the office rather than in the commission. Over the years, since the commencement of the act, there have been a number of additions to the Privacy Commissioner's jurisdiction, including functions in relation to spent convictions information, and to credit reporting and data matching. It should be noted that its credit reporting jurisdiction was the first major extension of the act to a private sector area of activity.The Privacy Commissioner then acquired additional functions under amendments to the National Health Act in 1991 and more recently the Telecommunications Act in 1997. I would suggest that this is not the end to the extent to which the Privacy Commissioner's jurisdiction will be invoked, and it underscores the necessity to give the office of the Privacy Commissioner the necessary clout and profile and effectiveness to cope with rapidly changing circumstances in this area.Increasing sophistication of information technology, with its capacity to collect, analyse and disseminate information on individuals, introduces a sense of urgency to the demand for legislation able to meet this advance. New developments in medical research and care, telecommunications, advance transportation systems and financial transfers have dramatically increased the level of information generated by each individual.There is no doubt that computers linked together by high speed networks with advanced processing systems can create comprehensive dossiers on any person without the need for a single central computer system. It is not surprising that people's concerns over the potential invasion of privacy are now greater than at any time in recent history. I think it is fair to say that populations throughout the world express fears about encroachment on people's privacy and of course that has resulted in a number of nations passing laws which specifically protect the privacy of their citizens.It is common wisdom that the power, capacity and speed of information technology is increasing rapidly. The extent of privacy invasion or certainly the potential to invade privacy increases correspondingly. There are a number of important trends that contribute to the potential to invade privacy, and thus the necessity for adequate protection. These trends include globalisation, which removes geographical limitations to the flow of data convergence—I will come back to the development of the Internet as perhaps the best known example of global technology—which leads to the elimination of technological barriers between systems, and multimedia which fuses many forms of transmission and expression of data and images so that information gathered in a certain form can be easily translated into other forms.I will turn for a moment to the Internet as an example of the dramatic increase in the quantity of information available in digital form which of course has resulted in a proliferation of uses of personal information.The Internet is an important tool for communication and research and it is growing at an exponential rate. We are told that millions of users go online each year. The Internet is also used increasingly for commercial transactions. There are seemingly constant developments of new uses for the medium. Encryption has become the most important tool for protection against surveillance, and PGP—Pretty Good Privacy—is perhaps the best known encryption program. However, the recording of information about specific Internet activities has become one of the biggest emerging threats to Internet privacy. Every time a user accesses a webpage, the server holding the page logs the user's Internet address along with the time and date.In recent times I have learned about the practice of placing `cookies' on a user's machine to help track people's activities at a much more detailed level. As all honourable members will know, a `cookie' is a piece of information that an Internet web site sends to your browser when you access information at that site. Upon receipt of the information, your browser saves the information on your hard disk and, each time you use your com puter to access that same web site, the information that was previously received is sent back to the web site by your browser.One might well ask: `Why are cookies used?' Cookies indicate to a web site that you have been there before and can be used to report what part of a web site you visit. While cookies in themselves may not identify you in the same way that a name or address does, a cookie could potentially be linked with other identifying information and used to track people's activities at a much more detailed level.I am pleased to report that when I visited the Australian Privacy Commissioner's web site this morning, under `Privacy Policy' it said:This is a cookie-free site. When you look at this website, our Internet service provider, Dow Digital, makes a record of your visit and logs the following information for statistical purposes:- the user's server address- the user's top level domain name (for example, .com.gov.au etc.)- the date and time of the visit- the pages accessed and documents downloaded- the previous site visited- and the type of browser usedNo attempt will be made to identify users or their browsing activities except in the unlikely event of an investigation where a law enforcement agency may exercise a warrant to inspect the Internet service provider's logs.So that is a cookie-free site. But of course the technical people are on top of the potential for cookies to take over the world, and some solutions have been devised to counter cookie activities. What have become known as `cookie cutter' programs stop sites from putting cookies on a user's machine and are now built into most browsers. I can also report to the House that there are many software products that you can purchase which will reject or manage cookies for you, including Cookie Cutter, Cookie Crusher, Cookie Pal and Cookie Master.I find that all very interesting, and it highlights just some of the aspects of the technologies which are causing new and increasing concerns about the protection of privacy. It is just one example where legislation needs to keep up with changing technology, which is presenting new and complex challenges. This is why this government is giving the appropriate level of recognition, profile and effectiveness to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.There are currently several major models for privacy protection around the world. The Australian regulatory model, that of a public official in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, who enforces a comprehensive data protection law and the like, is the preferred model for most countries adopting data protection law. It is also the model favoured by Europe to ensure compliance with its new data protection regime. It is interesting to note that, under the recent European directive, transfer of sensitive information to countries with inadequate privacy laws would not be allowed—a powerful incentive to ensure that legislation at least meets international guidelines. The directive imposes an obligation on member states to ensure that the personal information relating to European citizens is covered by law when it is exported to, and processed in, countries outside Europe.It is worth reading in detail the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information, which were issued by the former Privacy Commissioner in 1998 and reviewed again in January 1999. In issuing these guidelines, the then Privacy Commissioner said:Protecting information privacy is a national issue. There is no doubt that Australians are concerned to protect their privacy, and that, as we move into the information age, this concern is increasingly having an impact on Australian business. It seems to me that it is in all our interests to respond to this concern.She continued:My aim has been to devise a benchmark which is relevant and flexible in the business context without compromising core privacy standards. Overseas developments, especially in Europe, make it important that these principles meet international best practice.On 16 December 1998, the federal government announced that it intended to legislate to support and strengthen self-regulatory privacy protection in the private sector and that a `light touch' regulatory regime would be introduced, based on these national princi ples. I welcome and support this initiative to focus the attention of business and other private sector organisations on information privacy issues. This government is keeping up with international trends in this area.The member for Barton maintains opposition to this bill on the one hand and yet on the other hand says the opposition will support further privacy legislation. As to this particular bill, the creation of a separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner formalises the practical arrangements that have been in place to date, in that the Privacy Commissioner has always operated with dedicated staff but with a focus that is somewhat different—necessarily so—from that of the other human rights and equal opportunity commissioners.The Privacy Commissioner has audit powers which are used to fulfil an educative function and to focus on preventative measures. The commissioner has a role in settling complaints between the parties as well as the ability to use formal procedures for hearing complaints under the Privacy Act. This bill will provide the Privacy Commissioner, and the office, with the opportunity to further increase the effectiveness of their work. It recognises the fact that there is an emerging global digital economy and it recognises the need for strong protection of privacy as a fundamental right. I commend this bill to the House.10:07:002954Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—The bill presently before the House, the Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998 , separates the Privacy Commissioner from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by creating a statutory Office of the Privacy Commissioner. This bill will not alter any of the Privacy Commissioner's functions and responsibilities and the commissioner will continue to be involved with both the public and the private sector. Creating a separate unattached office for this important position will lend itself to a higher public profile for the work of the commissioner. Raising the commissioner's profile is, in itself, a form of awareness campaign. If the public are regularly reminded about the existence and work of the Privacy Commissioner, it is more likely that people will think through the possible consequences of disclosing unnecessary information.The creation of a separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner will formalise the practical arrangements previously in place. The position of Privacy Commissioner has always operated with its own dedicated Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission staff. Creating a separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner will foster greater efficiencies and opportunities to promote good information handling practices across agencies and organisations. It will also improve the office's educative function and allow the commissioner to focus on preventative measures.Formalising the separation of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission brings Australia into line with the practice of many other countries. However, that is not to say that Australia should always follow the privacy protection principles of other countries. In fact, I believe that with an inventive government policy Australia has the potential to be the world leader in innovative and effective privacy protection practice.It is universally accepted that we are living in a more intrusive world. It is the voluntary price we pay as individuals when we avail ourselves of the technology that is now available to us. The convenience of using automatic teller machines, for one example, is to a certain extent tempered by the knowledge that the details of the transaction such as the time, date, location, amount and balance of the account become a matter of record. Some automatic teller machines are equipped with hidden cameras. Although they primarily are for security purposes, they do record other matters which are peripheral to security needs.Similarly, with the convenience of the Internet comes the inevitable intrusion in our daily lives which the member for Curtin raised in her own speech. The passive sounding term `browsing the web' belies the privacy intrusions that a web browser is potentially exposed to. Establishing a web site for the educational benefit of others can also leave you exposed to privacy intrusions.The tampering with the Liberal Party web site in 1998 by a staff member of the Leader of the Opposition is probably an event most of us would rather forget. However, this unfortunate circumstance does raise some very legitimate concerns. What protection is afforded to individuals from unauthorised appearances on web sites? What regulations or mechanisms are in place to prevent someone constructing a web site which contains personal information about an individual?Ever since the 1950s when the United States government began entering individuals' data onto enormous mainframe computers there has been a public suspicion of the collection of personal information. There exists a substantial body of anecdotal evidence to suggest that these fears are not without foundation. In the United States a Maryland banker abused his position on the State Health Commission by accessing a database of cancer patients which was then cross-referenced with his bank's database of loan customers. Clearly, in the United States technology has outpaced the protection of privacy legislation.In Australia, striking a sensible balance between the social benefits of technological advancement and an individual's right to privacy has been the challenge of successive governments. Today, the gravity of that challenge has never been greater.The Australian electorate has been acutely aware of the issues surrounding individual privacy since the 1980s when the Hawke government attempted to introduce the insidious Australia card. The electorate overwhelmingly held the view that the search for our national identity did not extend to allocating each citizen his or her own very special number. In reaction to Labor's ill-fated attempt to introduce the Australia card, the Privacy Act was passed in 1998 to allay some of the fears people held about identity cards. But at the same time the act allowed increased scope for information gathering and sharing in order to reduce tax and welfare fraud. However, the emergence of contemporary marketing techniques has added another dimension to the challenge of privacy protection. In today's competitive private sector marketplace, marketing gurus solicit qualified leads: people who have purchased goods or services or spent a sum of money that suggests they might be suitable targets as potential clients and customers. Where do they find such leads? There are thriving companies whose sole business is the buying and selling of names and contact details of people who have purchased goods or services, belong to a certain income tax bracket or read particular magazines. The more qualified the list, the greater its value.Occasionally we invite these intrusions upon ourselves. How often have we been lured by a valuable lottery prize? Entering such lotteries is usually free; the only requirement being to fill out a card telling the company a little bit about ourselves. The footnote on the card usually inquires if we object to the information supplied being passed on to other organisations who might have products to interest us. With eyes firmly on the prize and away from the fine print we usually do not mind. But how often do we regret that decision when our mailbox spills over with unsolicited mail proclaiming `once in a lifetime unrefusable offers' from companies we never knew existed?In November 1998 I drew the attention of the House to a report in the South Australian newspaper the Sunday Mail. According to the report, Australia Post has compiled detailed information on their clientele. Details include their client's name, address, telephone number, occupation, recreational leave habits, alcohol consumption, health and home insurance, monthly bill payments, annual income and motor vehicle use. This information was allegedly obtained by communicating with five million households through state government literature—for example, motor vehicle registration renewal forms.Induced by prizes such as luxury cars and Internet access, people are completing these forms and returning them to Australia Post. Australia Post, through Custom Select, are allowing this information to be made avail able to organisations that compile market profile databases. According to the report, these databases are valued at approximately $1,200 each. Compounding this concerning development is the fact that a proportion of these databases have fallen into the hands of practitioners of sharp practice. Regrettably but predictably these unethical merchants target the elderly and the vulnerable.Complicating the issue is the fact that the increasing prevalence and flourishing success of direct mail marketing and telephone canvassing indicate that many consumers respond favourably to and appreciate this form of marketing. Indeed, merchants who use direct mail and telephone canvassing are generally compliant with all consumer protection legislation and regulations. It is also true that merchants have a right to contact potential clients who may benefit from or be enriched by the service or product they provide. Some would argue that it is just a question of freedom of speech. But in these cases, if we do not volunteer information, we will not be harassed. It is a personal choice. Depending on the degree of privacy we wish to achieve, we also have the option of silent phone numbers and silent electoral enrolments, to name just two measures.I do not believe that a specific public education program to create awareness of the compilation of mailing lists and profile databases and its consequences is the answer. Rather, we need to build the profile of the Privacy Commissioner through measures like this bill. But adopting proactive privacy protection measures is not a realistic option when we deal with government departments or utilities. We have even less control over a government department or its employees passing on information that we surrender, we are told, for the greater common good. Even the strictest civil libertarian would not argue against the need for governments to maintain detailed databases. It defies commonsense to issue Medicare cards, drivers licences and Commonwealth seniors health cards if no record is kept of their issue and they cannot communicate with each other. But there exists a very real possibility of invasion of privacy when this information is illegitimately passed on to a third party.The ability to exchange information between departments has aided efficiency, eliminated unnecessary duplication and reduced fraud. It makes perfect sense that the Australian Taxation Office should match data with Centrelink, or Centrelink with the department of immigration. But, having acknowledged the need for such data procurement, we must also expect that the rules governing the use of such data will provide sufficient protection for all Australians. It is also important that the government provides the Office of the Privacy Commissioner with the necessary power, profile and resources to provide privacy protection. The Privacy Act of 1988 attempts to provide protection against abuse of personal information collected. But the evolving nature of privacy protection requires us, as legislators, to ensure that privacy laws evolve with the times and circumstances.The coalition government has worked diligently to keep pace with this evolution by introducing a number of amendments to the Privacy Act and associated legislation over the last three years. But there are still many more challenges to be met—in fact, some challenges have yet to evolve. There are a number of ambiguities in the information privacy principles that form the basis of the Privacy Act. The interpretation of some of the terms of information privacy principles is the subject of some debate. For instance, the term `protection of the public revenue' is used as an exception in these principles. What is meant by that term? More importantly, how liberally is that term currently being construed? Other acts of the Commonwealth address disclosure and protection of information issues specifically relevant to a particular area, but it is the case that certain information and privacy principles in the Privacy Act may provide overriding grounds for disclosure. This is an anomaly that should be addressed.There is also disturbing anecdotal evidence concerning some of the legitimate methods of information collection practised by the Australian Taxation Office. The collection of taxation revenue is an extremely important task. However, some of the alleged information collection practices of the Australian Taxation Office—which include information gathering from law abiding taxpayers—make very sobering reading. It has been suggested that the ATO is wired into electric and gas authorities, motor vehicle registries, land titles offices, the Securities Commission, and even the Yellow Pages—that is in addition to Centrelink and other federal departments it uses to aid its tax collection. I am not in a position to judge how essential such a wide network might be, but the Commissioner of Taxation should be acutely aware of the need and should be able to justify ongoing necessity for such a network.We have already seen an egregious abuse of the system. A tax officer accessed the confidential taxation records of a prominent sporting identity on 156 separate occasions over a two-month period. She claimed she had no motive for doing so other than having a crush on the athlete. I am not sure what her explanation was for the other 309 individual files she accessed over the same period, unless she was particularly amorous.Governments collect information on citizens, who are told that in surrendering such information it may be used by other government bodies. In reality, there is not much choice—receipt of benefits is usually conditional on giving up a tax file number and other personal identification details. In other words, people exchange freedoms for assistance. But in doing so they still retain the fundamental right to expect that the information will be kept in safe hands. The Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales found that over 30 officers of the Commonwealth had been involved in the sale, supply or purchase of confidential information. These officers were employed across the spectrum of government service: in Customs, Defence, health insurance and the former Department of Social Security. In addition to those areas, the data supplied in the trade of information came from Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Australia Post. The commission had no reason to believe these were isolated incidents of the illegal and unauthorised trading of data. In another breach of trust, an Australian Federal Police officer was convicted in 1995 for disclosing confidential information to a credit management company. The penalty for this was judged to be a six-month good behaviour bond, though the $4,200 bill for witness costs probably had more of an impact as a deterrent.These revelations raise serious concerns about access, security and penalties for those who are guilty of breaching established guidelines regulating the collection and use of personal information. The government has a moral obligation to ensure that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has the resources to ensure that collected data is accessed by authorised persons and only on a need-to-know basis. As the nature of privacy breaches evolves and the potential for abuse of this information becomes more pronounced, so too must the punishments and penalties provided by legislation. The rewards through unjust enrichment by abusing privacy protection legislation are often too tempting when compared to the relatively economical penalties that can be administered by the courts.Unlawful collection or disclosure of confidential information needs to be the subject of general offence provisions in the Crimes Act 1914. The Crimes Act should undergo partial consolidation, and penalties set out for conduct deemed an offence. With a partial consolidation, various departments could retain the responsibility for determining what information needs to be protected. There is little evidence to suggest that a modestly funded education program would dramatically address the lack of public awareness. A lateral approach to increasing public awareness is to elevate the role of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to give it a higher profile in the community.We must be ever alert in ensuring that checks and balances are placed on governments in data collection and disclosure. Corporations, particularly those which participate in public-private partnerships, must be held to the same stringent standard. In 1998 the coalition government passed legislation to ensure that private companies comply with these standards with government contracted services. As a Liberal, I believe in the primacy and the privacy of the individual. This bill not only demonstrates the government's commitment to protecting individual privacy but also acknowledges that privacy legislation must continue its evolutionary cycle if it is to keep pace with technology. I commend the bill to the House.10:23:002958Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—Although there have been only three speakers in this debate on the Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998 , the debate has been very wide ranging. On the face of it, a peeping Tom in 1361 might have little to do with a tax office engaging in data matching in 1999 but, at the bottom of it, there are common features. A common feature of this debate is that all speakers agree that the Privacy Commissioner plays and should continue to play an important role in the protection of personal privacy in Australia. In the light of that, it is not altogether clear why the opposition is opposing this unless this is due to what was customary in the previous parliament, an obstructionist approach.The member for Barton expressed concern about the separation of the Privacy Commissioner from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but did not really offer, in opposing that separation, any reasons which were not of a broad nature more related to privacy protection or human rights in general. The simple fact of the matter is that, ever since the Privacy Commissioner position was created, the commissioner has operated separately. There have in fact been only two commissioners, both mentioned in the debate—Kevin O'Connor the first and Moira Scollay the second. Moira Scollay having recently left the position, it is currently vacant.The Privacy Commissioner has also always been supported by dedicated Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission staff. Complaints about privacy issues have always been handled separately from complaints dealt with by the rest of the commission. In fact, the record in relation to the conciliation of complaints is a remarkable one. There has been virtually no complaint made in relation to privacy that has not been the subject of a successful conciliation by the Privacy Commissioner.The bill seeks to simply recognise what is already fact. The bill brings the Australian Privacy Commissioner into line with similar officers in other countries where a privacy commissioner or a data protection commissioner is generally in a separate office. Despite the doubts of the member for Barton, the establishment of a separate office does provide the opportunity to increase the profile of the commissioner further and the work and the effectiveness of the commissioner and his or her office. The budgetary impact is virtually nil. It is anticipated that co-location with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will continue and that undoubtedly there will continue to be cooperation and assistance provided between the two organisations.The basic arguments that seem to have been put by the member for Barton against what is proposed to be done go much broader than appear to be relevant to the bill. The member for Barton mentioned the funding of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and asserted that the commission had suffered a 48 per cent budget cut since the government came to office. There have been budget cuts, and we do not deny that fact, but what we do say is that the government remains strongly committed to maintaining a strong national human rights institution.In the context of the budgetary situation which the coalition government inherited on coming to office in 1996, the budget cuts were entirely justified. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission grew over some 10 years prior to the Howard government coming to office and in that time the budget grew by some 400 per cent. Each time there was a new function added, there was a new budgetary entitlement given and the staff increased. The member for Barton mentioned that the staff numbered some 160. We got to the point at one stage where in fact it numbered in excess of 220. One of the problems that we recognised, in looking at the com mission, was that it was a top-heavy organisation.It was also a divided organisation. We had a situation where there was a president and then there were six separate portfolio commissioners, each operating in effect independently, each an officer engaged at a very high level, each developing a constituency and each not necessarily cooperating in an appropriate way with the other commissioners. The funding was in line with that sort of un-unified, divided operation.The budget cuts that have been introduced have required the commission to rationalise its staff. They have required the commission to rationalise its operations. At the moment it is currently operating under an administrative arrangement that we hope will come to pass in legislation on the passage of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , which was introduced this morning.At the same time, it was envisaged that, as a result of the decision of the High Court in the case of Brandy and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the commission would cease to engage in hearings for determination of human rights issues as distinct from conciliation of them and that this function would, under the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill, which is to be debated later today, be transferred to the Federal Court. That would result in some significant part of the budget being transferred.Another factor relevant to the budget is that, in the commission's 1997-98 annual report, there was a decrease of 32 per cent in the number of complaints over the figure for the previous year. We would argue that, to a considerable degree, that reduction in the number of complaints is a result of a refocusing of the commission in line with what is proposed in the No.2 bill—namely, a focus not so much on the rights of the small number of individuals who bring complaints but on the responsibilities of employers and others in the community to all those with whom they are associated.This focus on education and responsibilities is something that the commission has already taken up in its operations and has engaged successfully in on a number of fronts. One is their so-called `bush talks', where they visit rural and regional areas and educate communities on human rights. Another is their focus upon human rights and, in particular, racial discrimination in the employment context. In this, they have achieved considerable cooperation with business. In that respect, there has been a successful refocusing of the commission on its role.The honourable member for Barton has given a somewhat skewed history of proposals on the part of the coalition for legislation in relation to privacy protection in the private sector. It is true that, at the 1996 election, there was a commitment to legislation. In September 1996, the coalition issued a discussion paper seeking the views of business. As a result of a considerable number of submissions and representations, exceeding 100, it was decided in March 1997—not, as is asserted, by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) alone but by the cabinet—that it was more appropriate to try the self-regulatory route and not seek to impose additional red tape on business.Subsequent to that, the Privacy Commissioner engaged in a lengthy and very successful consultation process with business, as a result of which there was developed the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information, which have been referred to in the debate. They have been picked up by a number of industry sectors and seem to have widespread support. The commissioner then commenced engaging in a second round of consultation with a view to identifying appropriate mechanisms for enforcement of codes of practice developed using the national principles.It then became apparent that there was a need to legislate to provide some light-touch legislative arrangements to support and strengthen self-regulation in the private sector. The sort of thing envisaged is the empowering of the Privacy Commission to act as a conciliator in relation to complaints under industry self-regulatory codes.That bill is being developed. Consultation with business is being engaged in as of today. I look forward to the opposition supporting the approach that the government will be taking when it introduces legislation on that subject later in the year. The government is, of course, committed to introducing that legislation as soon as possible, but we wish to get it right and not rush it through.The scope of the bill under consideration is really very narrow. It will establish a separate statutory office of the Privacy Commission and will create an administrative structure that will assist the Privacy Commission to play a meaningful role in the protection of privacy across the public and private sectors. I am sure that the office established under the legislation will build and expand on the good work done to date by the two occupants of the position of Privacy Commissioner. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2960Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Bills2960r6962960Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.10:36:002960Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 has been introduced by the government under the guise that it pretends that it simply removes some administrative red tape from the operation of superannuation. In fact, this bill goes well beyond the question of administrative difficulties and goes to the very heart of the operation of superannuation for many millions of Australian workers.The bill has four effects. Firstly, it removes superannuation as an allowable matter from federal awards under section 89A(2) of the Workplace Relations Act. Secondly, it prevents the Australian Industrial Relations Commission from arbitrating any disputes about superannuation and precludes the commission from making any exceptional award orders pertaining to superannuation.Thirdly, it includes transitional provisions which will mean that the existing superannuation provisions that are in awards that Australian workers currently have as entitlements will cease to operate after a six-month transitional period. The commission will then be required by this legislation to remove all of those superannuation provisions from those awards.Finally, the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to enable the notional earnings base that exists under the current award arrangements, even though those current award arrangements are to be removed, to be used in determining the obligation of employers for the level of contributions under that act.This bill has absolutely no redeeming features—none whatsoever and the Labor Party will oppose it. It is an indication of the nature of this bill that there is but one member of the government willing to speak in support of it.Let me turn briefly to a quick examination of how we got to this point in the development of superannuation in Australia. Prior to 1986 there was something in the order of 30 per cent of Australians who had any superannuation entitlement whatsoever. That 30 per cent was made up nearly exclusively of business executives and public servants. Prior to 1986 it was extremely rare for an ordinary wages employee in the private sector to have access to any superannuation whatsoever. That presented both a major difficulty for the nation in terms of its national savings and a dilemma for people in the work force who had no security of income in their retirement years.In 1986 an understanding was reached by the trade union movement and the government—and by most people in the community—that, with an ageing skew in the population which would result in a dramatic increase in both the number of people of retirement age and the percentage of the population of retirement age in about 2020 to 2025, some thing needed to be done. The groups within our community that sought to rectify that problem were the then Labor government and the trade union movement of this country. So in 1986 we saw for the first time on a widespread basis federal awards including superannuation as a result of the national wage case of that year. That was a decision to substitute a payment for superannuation in lieu of a productivity wage increase which would have otherwise been paid.That saw the number of people in Australia who had access to superannuation just about double—it went from about 30 per cent to about 60 per cent of the population. That was still too low to address the critical problem that this nation confronted. As a result of that the Labor government in 1992 enacted the Superannuation Guarantee Act that required employers to make payments for superannuation for those employees whose wages exceeded $450 per month. That has seen superannuation cover rise to in excess of 90 per cent of the Australian population. It is from every standpoint good public policy that that should be so, and it is a matter of some disgrace that this Liberal government has decided in this bill to attack the very heart of that system and to punish those people who at the outset—in 1986—were the ones who made the sacrifice to establish that superannuation growth.It is important to appreciate that, if this bill is passed through the parliament, there will be significant loss suffered by many Australian workers whose superannuation entitlements are either wholly or in part through their federal award. In some cases the award provisions differ quite substantially from the legislative provisions that they would be left with. They differ in relation to the choice of funds. Importantly, they differ in relation to the threshold, that is, how much money you have to earn each month before you are entitled to have superannuation. They differ in relation to qualifying periods for the entitlement. The membership requirements are different in many cases and the payment intervals—the time at which your contribution to superannuation is made—differ between many federal awards and the provisions contained in the act.These differences did not come about by chance. These differences came about by conscious discussion and negotiation between unions and employers, industry by industry, enterprise by enterprise. In those awards and agreements they struck conditions that suited their purposes, which they believed were fair and reasonable—conditions which this bill and this government will strip from those people.In 1996 when the Liberal government was first elected, they introduced their workplace relations bill. At that time the government sought to remove superannuation as an allowable matter. They did not succeed because they could not convince the Senate that workers should be denied their entitlements to superannuation. You will recall that there was an agreement reached with the Democrats that saw an amended version of the 1996 government bill finally passed. That agreement with the Democrats included specific reference to the operation of superannuation. It extended the scope of allowable matters to include superannuation on the basis that it would be removed when it was superseded by legislation, provided that:The legislation must ensure that workers are not made worse off as a result of any overriding or repeal of award superannuation clauses.That is from the agreement and the letters exchanged in October 1996 between the minister and the Democrats.In December the following year, 1997, Minister Reith introduced a bill that was very similar to the bill that is currently before the House. That bill went through the House on the numbers—the government pushed it through this place. It was then considered by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and, as a result of the Senate's own deliberations, rejected on the basis that it did not meet the test that I just outlined was agreed to with the Democrats. It still does not meet that test. This bill will ensure that many Australian workers suffer a reduction in their superannuation entitlements. Let us look at a couple of those examples. I mentioned that the legislative requirement is $450 per month before you have an entitlement to superannuation. This is going to affect many members in the work force.In the Senate hearings last year, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia gave a submission in which they acknowledged that this would affect the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our work force—the low paid, the women, the migrant employees, the low skill based people, those with minimal education, those who are in casual, part-time or itinerant work—the very people who require the support of superannuation most in our society are going to be denied access to it by this government. Even the department's own evidence to that Senate inquiry demonstrates the narrow-minded harshness of this government in pursuing this legislation.The Assistant Secretary for Labour Relations Policy in the department of workplace relations gave evidence in May last year to the Senate when they were looking at the number of awards that would be affected by this. He conceded, under questioning before the Senate inquiry, that the number of persons employed under these awards was, by his definition, significant. The department's own advice to the Senate says there are a significant number of Australians who will be worse off under this, and yet this minister justifies it in his second reading speech and elsewhere by saying it is but an administrative change. He says they are removing `the burden of complying with an extra set of obligations.' But what about the burden to the low paid? The minister makes no comment about that, and this government glosses over it. For them, this is just relieving a bit of paperwork on behalf of the bosses and if that means that some millions of Australian workers have their superannuation benefits cut then that is of no consequence. I can tell you that it is of concern to the Labor Party and we will be doing what we can in this place to defeat it.The entitlements of these workers are considered by this government as—I again quote the minister—`nothing more than adding to the complexity of superannuation administration.' I will say something about the complexity of superannuation administra tion shortly, when we get to the actual operation of the legislation.Let us have a look at what the government's own senators had to say about that. When this was reviewed in the Senate, even the Liberal and National Party senators could not escape the facts. In their report of the Senate select committee in May of last year they said that the amendments `may disadvantage some people who currently enjoy greater benefits of superannuation by virtue of some awards'. The senators considered that the `contributions involved are small . . . (but) at the low income levels in question the amounts forgone may still be considered significant.' They were dead right. The minister for workplace relations may not understand this. This is the fellow who thinks it is all right to pick up the phone, ring up his Liberal mates, and get a $45,000 discount on his penthouse in Melbourne. It is easy to go and do that, very easy to get a $45,000 discount on your penthouse from your Liberal mates in Melbourne but, when it comes to the superannuation entitlements of workers, those entitlements should be dispensed with as nothing more than adding to the complexity. Thankfully, the Liberal senators in the inquiry looking at this last year had the decency to acknowledge that for those people affected this amounts to a significant impost.The Adelaide Advertiser last year ran in article in relation to this in which they made an estimate of the impact this would have in South Australia. I quote from it:More than 50,000 South Australians could lose a total of $50 million in superannuation entitlements under federal legislation being considered by Parliament this week.The reason for that is that those people who have a three per cent superannuation entitlement in their award from the early 1986 to 1990 period, those people who traded off some of their wages for superannuation, are about to lose that three per cent entitlement.I happen to know a little about that, because I was a union official at the time, and I was one of those people who went to members of my union, the teachers union in Queensland. Like any other group of people they wanted a wage increase. We had a national wage case, and we were arguing for three per cent. I had to convince those workers, those members of my union, that they should not get three per cent in their hand, that the better thing for them and for our nation was to defer that and put it into superannuation. I well recall going to many meetings—and they were not all universally pleased with the proposition we were putting—to put the case that they should give up their three per cent wage increase and put it into a superannuation fund for their future and for the nation's savings. At the end of those discussions, overwhelmingly they endorsed it. The truth is that at that time it was only the trade union movement and the Labor Party that understood the problem and were willing to do something about it. Those people I spoke to who in good faith gave up a wage increase are now going to have that taken from them by this government in this piece of legislation, because this piece of legislation will require the commission to remove all of those award clauses. They will no longer have an entitlement to that three per cent. And the government says, `Oh well, they can renegotiate it if they want. They can put it into an AWA or into some other form of contract.' That is cold comfort for those people. And why should they have to? They have negotiated this in the past. They have given up their three per cent pay rise for that superannuation. Why should they have to negotiate it again? And if the whole purpose of this is to streamline things, to reduce the red tape, to reduce the paperwork, to reduce the burden on employers, what are those employers going to think about going through another round of negotiations to put things back in that they settled 10 years ago? That is the effect of this bill.Let us look at a couple of specific awards where people are going to be worse off. Let us take people who are casual employees currently employed under the vehicle industry repair services and retail award. At the moment they are entitled to superannuation if they earn more than $200 per month. If this legislation is passed, they will no longer have that right. If this legislation is passed, all of those people who earn between $200 a month and $450 a month will lose their right to any superannuation at all. What is the sense of that? How does that improve the national savings? How does that improve their security for themselves and their family in later life? The inescapable conclusion is that it does neither. So you ask yourself why a government would move in this direction. Frankly, the only answer I come to is that this minister and this government are so mean-spirited and so vengeful in their approach to unions and those things associated with unions that they are blind in their pursuit of it.Another example is the Hospitality Industry Award. At the moment, if you earn $450 a month or more you are entitled to superannuation. You will not be if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, and this government have their way. If Mr Reith has his way, those workers will lose their superannuation cover. Many awards provide for superannuation contributions to be made for workers who are absent from work due to work related illness or injury and things of that kind—make-up pay occurs under those awards. Make-up pay is where the employer makes up the difference between the compensation an employee receives when they are away ill and their normal rates of pay. Those people are going to find themselves worse off because they will not be protected by this legislation; they will lose superannuation cover in that circumstance.Similarly, a part-time employee under 18 can at the moment qualify for superannuation in many awards, but this bill will deny them that. It will take money away from those people as well. For people over 70, in many awards that is now not a bar to contributing to superannuation, but it is under the bill. People over 70 who have employment under an award will also lose their entitlement. So there is a range of people, but most notably those who contributed first to superannuation, those who contributed through wage sacrifice—that was their money, their wage increase—will lose that three per cent if this government has its way.No doubt some people in the government ranks and amongst employers will say, `That's no problem, we'll look after them— trust me, I'm Peter Reith, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.' The workers of Australia do not take to that too well—and nor should they. The simple fact of life is that there has already been public comment about employers trying to manipulate their employment arrangements to avoid contributions to superannuation. An interesting article in the Australian Financial Review of 5 May last year dealt with this point. Quoting a restaurateur, it said:She said one restaurant owner was thinking of compensating for the wage rise by avoiding the superannuation levy. If he doubles the number of casual employees, then halves their hours, they would not be eligible for it.Employers are already out there trying to contrive circumstances to get out from under their normal responsible obligations to their workers. That is unfortunately too common. The minister for workplace relations and this government want to extend the loophole. They want to make the loophole bigger so you can drive your semitrailer through it.Let me turn to some of the specifics. Firstly, on the frequency of payments, if this bill goes through people will have their contributions paid on an annual basis. That has a number of effects on the contributions. Most workers now have their superannuation payments made as they are paid—if you are paid fortnightly your super goes in fortnightly, and if you are paid monthly it goes in monthly. If this bill is carried, many workers will find themselves shifted from that to annual payments.The Institute of Actuaries Australia has given evidence that, if you make a change from a monthly contribution to an annual contribution, you lose between 3½ per cent and four per cent of your benefit just by making that one change. That is not my guess—that is the assessment of the Institute of Actuaries. People in Australia know that. The banks run ads every second week to encourage people to pay their home mortgage off fortnightly rather than monthly for exactly the opposite effect. The simple arithmetic conclusion is that, when they make the change from monthly to yearly contributions, those workers will lose about 3½ per cent to four per cent of their superannuation entitle ment. This does nothing to assist their security. This does nothing to assist national savings.Most superannuation schemes for workers include insurance cover for death and disability. For many workers, this is the only cover they have for death and disability outside any statutory right they may have through workers compensation. If they are injured at work—or worse, permanently disabled or killed—at least they have the knowledge that their family will have some cover through superannuation. If the payments are going to be made annually, what does that mean for people in their first year of employment? For the first year of employment they will have no such cover, and for many workers that is their only cover.An interesting comment was made by the Association of Superannuation Funds Australia in its submission to the Senate committee last year. It said:For those employees in the manufacturing, textile, clothing, footwear and hospitality industries, where workplace death and accident rates are high in comparison to other industries, insurance cover is essential. The financial burden of those without insurance will inevitably fall to other family members or social services.That is what will happen. For those people who are denied death and disability cover as a result of this legislation, the costs will come back to their family and to the public purse. That is a pretty dumb approach to national savings and personal security.However, there is an even more alarming aspect of this. What happens with annual payments of superannuation if your company goes broke? There are too many examples of firms that have gone broke and have denied their employees their normal entitlements. Let me list some that have been in the headlines of late. At Cobar, 270 workers lost $6 million in entitlements. At Woodlawn, 160 workers lost $6 million. At Grafton, 250 meatworkers lost $3 million. At Rockhampton and Yeppoon, where a private hospital service went broke, 157 workers lost $1½ million, and when Sizzlers restaurants went broke 2,000 workers lost $2 million.If you shift from the current award basis to the legislative framework that this government intends, when companies go to the wall there will not be a superannuation fund for workers. Many of them struggled to get their pay and long service leave entitlements, but at least their superannuation was intact if the company had been doing the lawful thing. This government will make it quite okay for that company to use the workers' superannuation all year long as part of their cash flow and then, hopefully, at the end of the year they will put that superannuation into the employees' accounts. But if the company goes belly up before they get there, if the company goes broke—as those I have mentioned did—then those workers will lose their superannuation as well. Even the government members in the Senate understood this problem. They said in their report:Government Senators consider there is also a case for requiring SG payments to be made quarterly.Quarterly is better than annually, but it is still not as good as monthly. At least the Liberal and National Party people in the Senate were decent enough to acknowledge the problem. This minister is not.The bill also removes from the Industrial Relations Commission the power to settle any disputes at all about superannuation. If the government pretends that superannuation will cease to be an industrial matter, they are kidding themselves. It will continue to be an industrial matter and, from time to time, there will continue to be disagreements between employers and unions about it.The Chamber of Commerce understood that. They said to the Senate inquiry:There has been a history of disputes in relation to superannuation between employers and employees.The ACTU identified some industries in which, they said, if this were to be done, there would no doubt be a resurgence of industrial activity.Against that background, the government's own senators expressed their concern. They said they were—. . . concerned that there will be no effective dispute resolution mechanism available to employees in respect of disputes with employers about superannuation. Again, the Liberal and National party senators understood the problem. A public report said, `Listen, you should do something about this.' But what does Mr Reith—the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—do? He ignores it and presses ahead with his dogmatic, divisive and biased approach to workplace relations.That brings me to another matter—the red tape. Let us have a look at what will happens with red tape, because this is the basis of the government's argument—`This is why we have got to get rid of these things. Don't worry about the workers' entitlements; just make it a bit easier on the paperwork.' So what does it do to the paperwork? For a start it does nothing for state awards; those people who have superannuation entitlements under state awards will continue to have them.I have to say there is a little bit of confusion about the entitlements of people under state awards as opposed to federal awards. The jurisdictional argument presents problems for all sorts of people. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry told the Senate that it—could be confusing for employees working more than one job under both state and federal awards.I pose this question: what about the employer who has some workers under state awards and some under federal awards? That will require a little bit of paperwork in the office to sort out. If they think that is not a problem, then I challenge the minister and his department, because they do not understand the difference.A couple of weeks ago there was an inquiry in the Senate into unfair dismissals. The minister and the department broke with convention and thought they would bring along a couple of small business people as government representatives to talk to the Senate inquiry. So they trotted along two people to give evidence, and, wouldn't you know it, one of the two they brought along was actually affected by state jurisdiction, not Commonwealth jurisdiction. Even the department and the minister could not get it right. They could not even pick out two small business people affected by federal acts. They goofed and got someone affected by state legislation. If you think this will reduce paperwork, I can tell you it will not. It is going to add to the confusion; it is going to add to the complexity.Again on red tape, because it was such a big issue for the government, major employer groups were asked to give evidence on it to the Senate inquiry. The Business Council of Australia, the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Metal Trades Industry Association all were asked to tell the Senate inquiry, `What do you think about red tape?' Every single one of them declined to even express a view. It is such a major worry to the business community that, when asked to give evidence, they did not.This has been a smokescreen produced by this government to try to divert attention from the real effect of this legislation. The real effect of this legislation will be to reduce the superannuation entitlements of millions of Australian workers and, in a most disgraceful way, to punish most severely the unionised section of our society who were the first people in this nation to move to get superannuation and who gave up a wage increase in order to get it. Were I one of the people I spoke to who had been at the meetings, frankly, I would be ringing up that union official and saying, `Hey, you said we were giving up a three per cent wage increase to put it into our superannuation. Now that the government has taken the superannuation off me, I want my three per cent wage increase back, thank you very much.' And they would be entitled to it.I wonder what the minister would say if they put in for a three per cent wage increase because he is taking the superannuation off them? I know what he would say. He is down in the commission now arguing against a minimum wage increase—that is, he is saying that $20,000 a year is too much to pay someone as the lowest income in our country. It is only half what he can get as a discount on his unit in Melbourne, but it is too much to pay someone to live on for a year. The simple fact of life is that the red tape under this proposal will increase, not decrease.The government wants employers in this scenario to have their cake and eat it too. I said at the outset that, although they are removing award provisions for superannuation, they are going to keep one aspect, and one aspect only, which is the calculation of what are ordinary time earnings. Effectively what the government is going to do is allow employers not to have to pay award superannuation but to still use an award definition of `ordinary time' which will amount to less than what many workers will otherwise get as the calculation of their weekly wage.So it is all right for workers to be worse off, but not for employers. How is that fair? What it does is confirm for me the comments that the minister made last year at a business lunch in Perth when he said:We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.The minister certainly belled the cat with that comment. That is exactly where he is. He is on the side of making profits and does not seem to care about the impact on ordinary workers.Mr Deputy Speaker, time is just about out. I simply conclude by saying that this is a bad piece of legislation which deserves the condemnation of—not just defeat by—this parliament. It has previously been rejected in the Senate, and we in the Labor Party will be doing all we can to defeat it in this House and to oppose it publicly.11:06:002966Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise to support the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 . This is a good reform, a good and much needed innovation. This bill will wind back yet another large body of detail and prescription which has been built up in the award system over many years. This is another natural evolutionary step in the simplification of Australia's industrial environment which must remain a key objective of any government concerned about creating employment.The Treasurer recently set out what he regarded as the four key aspects of Australian cultural, institutional and regulatory arrangements which needed to be changed if we wanted to make a substantial impact on the problem of unemployment. The first of those was to produce the climate for a growing, strong, domestic economy. Australia currently leads the world in its level of economic growth, exceeding even the Treasurer's own—at the time—allegedly optimistic expectations. This government has satisfied the first of those four criteria.A second is to produce an incentive based, widespread, low rate tax system which delivers greater equity, greater simplicity and greater efficiency in the way tax is levied in this country. We are courageously taking on that task and we can only hope that our colleagues in the other place take up the challenge. The third thing we must do to improve the employment prospects of young Australians is improve the interaction between Australia's tax and welfare systems to remove the disincentives to work, while at the same time ensuring those genuinely in need are provided for. But the fourth critical element in this task is how we produce a modern industrial relations environment in this country. We have to wind back the years of accretions and calcification in the relations between management and workers, in particular the growth of unnecessary duplication in regulation. It is at this fourth point which this bill is squarely directed.The bill removes superannuation as a matter which can be the subject of an industrial dispute. In that sense, it limits the role of the Industrial Relations Commission. The previous speaker, the member for Brisbane, has argued that that removal represents a diminution in the rights of Australian workers. Deputy Speaker, I am here to tell you that that is not in fact the case. On the contrary, this bill will actually enhance the prospects of Australian workers and I am happy to explain why that is the case.Superannuation, particularly occupational superannuation, was rightly regarded as a good and positive step for Australian workers. During the mid-1980s, it was increasingly included in various industrial awards for different industries. It was somewhat disorganised and inconsistent, and it was done in an often overly complex way. There were many anomalies which created confusion in the minds of employers and that produced a level of inefficiency. Nonetheless, there was a general recognition that occupational superannuation was a positive thing for Australian workers and that it ought to be the subject of industrial awards.In 1992, the former government—not this government—introduced the Superannuation Guarantee Act. What that act did, by legislative prescription, was to set the benchmark for employer obligations in relation to workplace superannuation. This government has continued that regime and has recognised the extent to which that has taken its place in the psyche of the Australian workplace, that it is a good thing for national savings and that it ought to be encouraged. The difficulty is that you then had these two discrete and in many respects competing, very often inconsistent sets of regulations governing the treatment of superannuation in the Australian workplace. It is that double regulation, that double layer of complexity, which this bill addresses. We are seeking to restore the simple principle that the legislation of this House ought to govern the superannuation obligations of Australian employers. That is the purpose of the bill. That is what it will achieve.The member for Brisbane put the proposition that this is going to reduce worker entitlements and is a rolling back of worker rights. That presupposes that the superannuation provisions contained in Australian awards actually act to the benefit of Australian workers. I think that is a proposition which we can fairly easily and simply dispel. The principal role of superannuation provisions in Australian awards is to limit choice because the Industrial Relations Commission, in its cosy relationship with the ACTU, has consistently acted in awards to limit the availability of choice of fund to Australian workers. Its rulings have consistently said that workers can only have access to one fund; if there is an industry based fund, that that is the only fund which ought to be offered to workers by employers, and if there is an employer operated fund in an industry, that that is the only fund which ought to be offered to workers.That is the subject of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 , which was re-introduced into the House yesterday, and on which both the member for Wills—I note he is in the chamber—and I had the opportunity to speak. I roundly endorsed the introduction of that choice of fund legislation as a strengthening of the hand of the Australian worker.These two bills are really companion bills—they go side by side. The effect of both of them is to strengthen the rights, the opportunities and the freedom of choice of the Australian workers, while reducing this layer upon layer of regulation and complexity which is making the Australian workplace inefficient and which, in total, is reducing opportunities for new employment which job seekers around the country might have access to.In this regard, it is interesting to note that the government's policy of removing this duality, this double layer of regulation, was contained in the government's original legislation introduced in this place—the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1996. The provision was actually retained, however, by amendment because the Democrats in the other place felt, until the choice of fund legislation had been introduced, that the duality of regulation should continue. It was one of the subjects of that monumental negotiation which took place between the then leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Cheryl Kernot, and the then Minister for Industrial Relations in this place. At that time, Senator Kernot agreed that the Democrats would `be prepared to support consequential amendments to the Workplace Relations Act to repeal award coverage of superannuation' if appropriate choice of fund legislation could be introduced into the parliament.So here we stand, a day after that choice of fund legislation was introduced and debated in this place, and I note with interest that the member for Dickson is not one of the speakers on the list for debate on this bill. I note, having given a personal, rock solid undertaking that the Democrats would support the repeal of superannuation from award arrangements if choice of fund legislation was introduced, that the member for Dickson has declined to speak on the bill. And well she may. What an invidious position she is in, having recognised the essential logic and commonsense of repealing the use of awards to regulate superannuation if choice of fund legislation could be introduced.I congratulate the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business for his continuing commonsense, evolutionary approach to the improvement of efficiency in the Australian workplace. This bill is part of that evolutionary approach.The member for Brisbane suggested that, in relation to efficiency, red tape and the complexity of the current arrangements, no evidence was put before the Senate inquiry into choice of fund. I have before me some of the testimony that was given to that committee, and it does not support the proposition advanced by the member for Brisbane. Tony Aveling, the then Chief Executive of the Australian Bankers Association, noted:Lack of member choice is an important reason why competition and efficiency in this marketplace are not as strong as they should be. Allowing member choice of fund will increase competition between funds, it should enhance efficiency, and it will put downward pressure on costs and encourage rationalisation of the industry. This is important when saving for retirement, as a reduction in cost translates into higher returns, the benefits of which should compound.I note that they compound to the benefit of the Australian worker. While the member for Brisbane is alleging this cacophony of silence in the other place on the question of efficiency, here we have a lucid, simple, direct statement by Mr Tony Aveling on the inefficiency and complexity of the marketplace at the moment because of the lack of discipline which comes from member choice. This reform, with its companion piece of legislation reintroduced yesterday, will drive down costs in this sector. It will lead to greater efficiency, and it will flow into a reduction of red tape.I note that Senator Allison in the other place likewise endorsed this principle of member choice. I go back to the role of the Industrial Relations Commission, which this bill is addressing. The role of the AIRC, overwhelmingly, was to limit worker choice to the industry funds. It is on that point that Senator Allison made some remarks when the choice of fund legislation was on the table in the other place. Senator Allison said:Of course, there are duds. Workers do need to be able to exit industry funds that are not performing. Further, industry funds are not sufficiently portable. There remains the problem that moving from one industry to another too often results in moving from one industry fund to another.Now that this government has delivered on its undertaking to introduce that breath of fresh air in choice of fund, I look with some encouragement to the Democrats in the other place to come to the party and agree to the natural corollary of that bill, which is the repeal of superannuation as an allowable award matter.The member for Brisbane also suggested the bill would place in jeopardy—for all of those workers who, in their pioneering way, had negotiated it—the three per cent superannuation contribution. In fact, that is not the case. The Superannuation Guarantee Act 1992 specifically enshrined that three per cent employer contribution as an employer obligation. It was not circumvented by the Superannuation Guarantee Act. In fact, it was enshrined in legislation that employers would have to make that three per cent contribution to ensure that worker rights were not diminished. Under the superannuation guarantee provisions, the level of employer contribution has continued to increase—more than doubled from the original three per cent—to the benefit of Australian workers. The suggestion that this bill will somehow wipe away the industrial gains of previous decades is simply incorrect.We have a great challenge as we face the next century. We have to be tough enough to take on the vested interests who seek to preserve a narrow special interest at the expense of the national interest and, in particular, at the expense of Australian workers. I want to remind the parliament of the fundamental conflict which exists in the culture of the ACTU, which holds itself out as being the advocate of the interests of workers. In case after case, the interests of the ACTU and the interests of Australian workers do not overlap but are very specifically and directly in conflict. We see the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, time after time, siding with the workers against the union bosses.The member for Brisbane suggested that these measures would have no impact on the level of national savings. He suggested that they would tend to reduce national savings, but that is not what the evidence before the Senate committee indicated. The evidence before the Senate committee indicated that the introduction of member choice would make workers more aware of their future obligations in providing for their own retirement. He said that evidence before the committee suggested that this would be likely to lift the level of national savings by lifting the level of private savings.The member for Brisbane quoted the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. That was not the only evidence of the Association of Superannuation Funds. Rosemary Vilgan, the federal president of the association said, in relation to the government's choice provisions:. . . ownership by the members of this superannuation benefit, we believe, is likely to increase. That is, their sense of belonging and their understanding of their superannuation benefit is likely to increase. We believe there will be benefits from competition in the industry and also that there are people in funds now which are not suitable for them, and those people should be allowed to leave those funds.They are not allowed to leave them now because their awards direct them and dictate to them that they have to stay in the fund they are in. The introduction of member choice and the removal of superannuation as an allowable award matter are the measures that will allow members that freedom of movement which they do not currently enjoy. It was on this same subject of lifting national savings that John Maroney, who is from the Investment and Financial Services Association, said:. . . the introduction of choice could have beneficial effects beyond compulsory minimum superannuation guarantee contributions and lead to greater voluntary contributions once people have a greater understanding of how much they really need to put away to save for an adequate level of retirement income. So what you are hearing from the Investment and Financial Services Association is that they welcome these changes. They welcome the removal of superannuation from the award system because they recognise that the principal impact of regulation of superannuation under Australian awards is to limit member choice. That is the principal impact. By removing the power of the Industrial Relations Commission to regulate these matters, we are removing the persistent tendency of the commission to limit member choice.As I said yesterday, this does not pose, and should not pose, some kind of intrinsic threat to the industry based super funds. If those funds are working well, they will continue to attract the support and patronage of Australian workers. But if they are not working well, the workers must have the freedom to move. That is what these two measures together will achieve. This bill does nothing to reduce workers' rights in relation to the amount of the superannuation contribution that employers must make. That will continue to be governed by the superannuation guarantee provisions. So workers need have no apprehension or fear in that regard.In summary, what the bill does is take another step towards creating a modern, efficient and equitable industrial environment in this country. As we look around the region and see a country like Japan, which is now in depression and its fifth consecutive quarter of negative growth, we ask: why is it that such a powerful economy is in depression? The reason is that Japan has lacked the political will to take on the vested interests of inefficiency. It has lacked the political will to provide leadership where it has been needed to make the Japanese economy internationally competitive.In sector after sector in the areas of tax and industrial relations and, generally, in creating economic growth, this government is providing leadership. This government is doing the things that need to be done. This government is doing the things that, in a generation's time, people will look back and say, `Thank goodness we didn't listen to the bosses of the ACTU who prescribed Labor culture in this place. Thank goodness we listened to the workers instead of the institutional interests of the Industrial Relations Commission and the ACTU. Thank goodness we were prepared to instil a culture of private savings in a country which has lacked it. Thank goodness we were prepared to resist the allegations of bad faith and the conspiratorial mutterings of the opposition and do the simple, practical, commonsense, evolutionary things that needed to be done.' With those remarks, I warmly endorse the bill to the House. (Time expired)11:26:002970Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In debating the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 , it is perhaps timely to reflect on the history of superannuation and just how we have come to be where we are today. If we go back to 1983, before the advent of the Labor government, about 39 per cent of the work force were covered by superannuation and, because of a lack of portability, probably only about 15 per cent of workers actually benefited from their superannuation entitlements.The system was heavily biased against women, blue collar workers and, indeed, against private sector workers. It was based on individual companies. At the same time, back in 1983, we faced, and we still face, some socioeconomic imperatives: the need to provide for a rapidly ageing population, exacerbated by a reduction of the average time spent in the work force; and the need to create a much larger pool of domestic savings in order to reduce our reliance on foreign debt and to loosen the external trade imbalance constraint.The trade union movement took up this challenge. There were skirmishes involving the storemen and packers, pulp and paper workers, meat workers, seafarers and crane drivers. We saw a campaign commence in 1984 in the building industry, which moved on from there to the metals and transport industries. By 1986, the Industrial Relations Commission was forced to intervene in a significant way to resolve disputes concerning choice of fund—where workers' superannuation money should go. Following that, we saw the Labor government legislate to create a truly universal system of employer funded superannuation.It ought to be said that the Labor government was empowered to do this because the union movement, about which this government is embarking on a campaign of vilification, had already, by the end of the 1980s, secured industrial awards and agreements covering in the order of 80 per cent of the work force. That fine achievement has seen superannuation fund assets grow from around $60 billion in the mid-1980s to $360 billion today, and they should exceed $450 billion by the end of the decade. To put that in perspective, that is approximately the total current market capitalisation of all the companies listed on the Stock Exchange. That in turn means that the assets of Australian businesses and governments are to a large degree owned by employees—held in their superannuation funds. I think that kind of asset backing has helped Australia through the difficulties we have seen in Asia and other parts of the world, and it has helped us meet the gaze of the markets.Within this, industry funds are a quite recent phenomenon. They are a uniquely Australian phenomenon, increasingly providing a model for social policy developers around the world. They provide fully portable benefits in industries where, just 15 years ago, this was considered an impossibility—areas like the hospitality, building, construction and retail industries, where casualisation and lack of continuity were endemic problems.The industry funds have succeeded because they are simple. The employers contribute to an account which is maintained in the name of each worker and which receives interest based on fund earnings. In that atmosphere of employer-employee cooperation, they have received considerable interest from around the world. I know of many people from other countries who have examined Australia's superannuation system and have seen in it a model for their own future directions. It was notable that President Clinton devoted much of his recent State of the Union address to the issue of what he called `saving social security'—which in the US translates to retirement incomes to pensions. I know that in the US there is considerable interest in what Australia has been doing.There is, however, absolutely no room for complacency in this country. More Australians are going to retire between 2010 and 2050 than at any other time in Australia's history. They have experienced higher living standards than the generations that preceded them; they will expect a higher standard of living in retirement. They are going to live longer than previous generations, and their savings will need to be stretched further. As a result we are no doubt going to see pressure on government pension outlays. The cost of health and related care will rise as new technology extends the lives of many people into their nineties.We have seen the household savings ratio fall from 15 per cent in the mid-1970s to 4.7 per cent in 1996-97, and this year it is expected to be less than three per cent. We have two million baby boomers about to enter retirement—most of whom have not saved enough for a secure future. Treasury projections reported by the Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, Philippa Smith, are that by around 2030 the government will need to spend 22 per cent of gross domestic product on age pensions and health care, compared with the 10.5 per cent that is spent now. If you combine that with an ageing population and declining labour force participation, we will have a real problem further down the track. So there is no room for complacency whatsoever.Against that background, what has been this government's contribution? In August 1995, then opposition leader John Howard, when defending coalition superannuation policy, said:That is a complete Labor lie. Australian workers will not be worse off superannuation-wise under us. It's just part of the litany of Labor lies. There's nothing left. They're going to tell lies from now on to the election about anything and everything and the Australian public should disbelieve it, just as they should disbelieve the lies they've told about our industrial relations policy. I give an absolute guarantee that people will not be worse off superannuation-wise under us. Absolute, full stop, end of story. That was opposition leader Howard.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—How long ago was that?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—It was August 1995. Since then we have seen a full-blooded attack on superannuation. The government refused to proceed with Labor's government co-contributions to superannuation, which would have been worth billions of dollars to Australian workers. That was turned into the savings rebate, which lasted six weeks and has now disappeared somewhere into GST compensation.The coalition government inflicted the superannuation surcharge on workers, ostensibly to hit higher income earners. In fact, it hits low and middle income earners who fail to submit their tax file numbers. It is also costing superannuation funds handsomely in administration costs and therefore leading to lower retirement incomes. They are also attacking the superannuation of workers through the bill before the House, and in just a moment I will come to the ways in which this bill will adversely affect Australian workers.First I want to draw the attention of the House to the skulduggery of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who has endeavoured to introduce exactly the same provisions we are seeing in this bill without reference to parliament. Towards the end of last year, the Commonwealth government proposed new superannuation clauses for the national building and construction award of 1990 and the plumbing trades agreement. They went to the Industrial Relations Commission and sought to remove reference to the fund trust deed and to make the payment cycle the same as for the superannuation guarantee legislation. They were endeavouring to remove award superannuation provisions in the building and construction industries and, in so doing, they were removing protection for worker choice of fund.This legislation has been before the House before; I spoke about it on April Fool's Day last year. The government decided that, because they could not get it through the Senate, they would sneak up through the Industrial Relations Commission and see if they could get the provision through there and get the commission to vary these awards. If they had been successful in that, we would have employers choosing funds which require contributions to be made annually rather than monthly as at present. We would see employees being steered towards high fee superannuation products where they are paying for agents' commissions and shareholder profits, and we would see employees joining several funds as they move around in employment, with lack of portability meaning that they pay a number of administration fees.Fortunately, the Industrial Relations Commission, along with both unions and employers associated with those applications, were unimpressed with the government's proposal. As they have so often done with superannuation and other industrial areas, they were able to sit down and work out a satisfactory resolution of the issue, and the government's claim was essentially rejected. This is just one more example of a weak and sneaky industrial relations minister seeking to achieve through the back door what he is unable to achieve through this parliament. We saw exactly the same thing with the MUA dispute when the government endeavoured to foment industrial disputation while at the same time coming into parliament and saying, `No, we've got nothing to do with it. We're just innocent bystanders here.' We saw exactly the same thing with the unfair dismissal laws when they put into effect a regulation after the parliament had finished at the end of sittings last year. This is a minister who treats the parliament with contempt. He skulks surround the corridors of the employers like Mr Sheen's evil twin brother. Unlike Mr Sheen, this minister creates messes. He tries to foment industrial disputes and make it easier to sack workers and reduce their incomes and working conditions.If this bill were to get through the House it would lead to increased industrial disputation. If you go back to the time before the Industrial Relations Commission was solving disputes in this area that is precisely what happened in disputes such as that between Woolworths and the storemen and packers—disputes over where workers superannuation funds should go. If the Industrial Relations Commission has no power to solve these disputes and matters are left to bodies like the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal or the tax office, which have no effective power to solve them either, inevitably we will see a rise in industrial disputation.This is a bill which will leave workers worse off in flagrant breach of Prime Minister Howard's pre-1996 election promise. I say that because, firstly, the superannuation guarantee simply does not apply to workers who earn less than $450 per month. They depend on awards to give them some superannuation entitlement. If you take away the award provisions they will get no superannuation at all—so it will be the pension for them. Secondly, superannuation guarantee payments are made only once a year compared with awards which generally prescribe monthly or quarterly payment of superannuation entitlements. The more frequent payments are valuable to workers over the course of a working lifetime. Actuarial calculations indicate that at the end of a 40-year working lifetime you would be $16,000 better off under the arrangement for monthly contributions than you would under the arrangement for annual contributions. So the interest is worth money to you in its own right.There is also the issue of company insolvency. All too often we see companies become insolvent and workers miss out on superannuation guarantee entitlements as a result. We have seen that in cases like Cobar, Woodlawn and others. It happens far too frequently. So, if you have got the more frequent contributions, you have a better guarantee that your superannuation payments will actually be paid.We have also seen cases like the one referred to by the journalist from the Adelaide Advertiser Shauna Black. In an article in March last year she pointed out that more than 50,000 South Australians could lose a total of $50 million in superannuation entitlements if this particular bill were to be passed. She made reference to awards covering areas such as banking and finance, universities, the gas industry and local government which contain provisions for superannuation which include a three per cent extra entitlement granted in the late 1980s in lieu of a wage increase. Employers operating with these awards have been paying the three per cent on top of the superannuation guarantee and, if the award entitlement disappears, in all probability those workers would lose that three per cent. Clearly, a whole swag of employees will be worse off if this legislation is successful. This is part of the government's agenda to drive down wages. I note that the Business Council and the Treasurer have recently discovered the problem of unemployment. The opposition pleaded with the government to think about unemployment when they were adopting slash and burn industry policies and pleaded with them not to garrotte the public sector. We pleaded with them to have an unemployment objective, an unemployment target, when they wrote to the Reserve Bank saying, `We don't really want you to take any notice of unemployment. All we want you to think about is inflation.' We have been pleading with them to be interested in unemployment. But what people have to understand is that their agenda here is simply to drive down wages; to use unemployment as a stalking horse to get rid of the minimum wage in order that wages generally can fall. This legislation reducing people's superannuation entitlements and taking superannuation away from awards is simply part of that agenda.I think there are a number of questions that we ought to be asking the government minister. How will workers who receive monthly or quarterly payments be better off when the Institute of Actuaries has calculated that workers receiving monthly contributions as opposed to yearly contributions would be around $16,000 better off over their working life? That is almost twice the age pension. How will part-time and casual workers who currently receive superannuation under their industrial award because it has a lower minimum wage threshold than the superannuation guarantee level of $450 be better off? This is something that particularly will impact on women workers who tend to be more heavily concentrated in part-time and casual work. How will employers who pay employees' superannuation contributions via payroll deductions because the award allows it be better off? Employers who can no longer use payroll deductions to pay their employees' superannuation contributions will have to resort to other payment methods which can involve substantial transaction costs. This from a government which has promised to reduce red tape for small business!How will employees who have a dispute with their employers over superannuation have recourse to the AIRC? Clearly, the AIRC will no longer have jurisdiction, so where are they to go if they have a dispute with the employer over superannuation matters? The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal has been gutted by the Bishop decision, and the tax office only has the power to handle certain matters; it cannot handle where superannuation contributions go.To conclude, let us review what award based superannuation has achieved. It has extended the benefits of superannuation to many more employees who did not have access to superannuation previously; they did not have superannuation coverage. It has seen thousands of employees have access to additional funds to supplement their retirement incomes. It has provided many employees with death and disability insurance coverage at a low cost, which low and middle income employees would never have been able to access otherwise. It has extended superannuation coverage to part-time and casual employees, including thousands of women. It has benefited employers through productivity and wage trade-offs which were paid into superannuation accounts.We are absolutely opposed to this bill. We are absolutely opposed to withdrawing from workers the right to have superannuation included in awards. We believe that the steps that both the Labor government and the trade union movement took during the 1980s were very much in the best interests of both workers and the Australian nation. This government's steps, including the bill before the House, to wind back the clock represent a retreat to the past, a retreat to circumstances where workers will be worse off and will not have the money to fund their retirement incomes to which they are entitled, so they will end up dependent on the pension. We will be opposing this bill, and we look forward to the support of parties elsewhere to ensure that it is defeated.23:46:002974Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am very pleased to be here today to follow the comments made on the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 by the member for Wills, who has outlined the benefits that have come particularly to many women workers as a result of the efforts of the trade union movement and the Labor government as far as superannuation is concerned. This bill aims to remove superannuation from being an allowable award matter under the 1996 Workplace Relations Act. As the shadow minister said earlier, this is the government's own legislation. It is not a piece of legislation that we agreed to, it is not something that Labor would feel proud of at all; it is the government's own legislation. As the member for Brisbane said earlier this morning, the issue of superannuation being an allowable award matter was in fact debated and agreed upon when the government pushed the Workplace Relations Act through the Senate some years ago.This government has the gall to argue that these changes which we are debating today are in the interests of workers. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the member for Wills has so ably set out. But it is the case that the proposed amendments, if they are passed, will impact on some workers more than others. The amendments do attack the rights of all workers to have superannuation in their awards, but they will particularly attack those who are low income workers working in casual or part-time jobs with little negotiating power with their employers.I want to talk mostly about those casual and part-time workers, who in the main are women. It is still the case in Australia that men and women have very different income patterns and employment patterns. Women are still more likely to be more dependent on government pensions and benefits and still much less likely to have superannuation cover or any other source of income. In 1997, 73 per cent of women had a pension or benefit as their main source of income. In that year, of the people receiving superannuation payments, 76 per cent were male and only 24 per cent women. It could be expected that this will change as more and more women enter the work force and take up superannuation. But, as we all know, it is still the case that women are more likely to have broken periods of employment over their working lives, which reduces their earning capacity and therefore their capacity to generate superannuation savings.If this government was actually serious about making sure that women in their retirement could look forward to a higher standard of living, the public policy that we would be debating today would be how to encourage and support through government legislation efforts by working women to save for their retirement. This bill will not result in that public policy outcome; it will do the reverse.It is the case, as I have already said, that women are, and I think will continue to be, a large proportion of the part-time and casual work force, so we know that their opportunity and potential to save for retirement is reduced when compared with full-time, higher paid workers. Of course, we are not talking about a small number of people—about one in five Australian employees are employed as casual workers. It is the case that Australia has one of the highest rates of temporary employment in the OECD. Nearly 10 per cent of full-time employees are employed on a casual basis and 65 per cent of part-time employees are casual. Forty-one per cent of all women workers work on a part-time basis and women make up 75 per cent of the part-time work force. It is still the case that women's wages have a long way to go. Women are still earning just under 55 per cent of men's overaward payments, for example. It will be the case, if this legislation proceeds, that women will fare badly if superannuation is removed as an allowable matter under this act.As previous speakers have said, the bill also takes away the capacity of the Industrial Relations Commission to deal with disputes that arise between workers and their employees in relation to superannuation. Those who are in more vulnerable positions in the work force, those part-time and casual workers, will as a result find it much more difficult to negotiate with their employers about their superannuation. As the member for Wills said, it does seem that this government is intent on destroying the superannuation system negotiated by the trade union movement and established by the Labor government in the late 1980s. It seems they want to return to a situation that existed before Labor introduced the retirement incomes policy, to a time when the majority of workers were not entitled to superannuation as an award right of their employment.Women, of course, were very much affected by the lack of retirement income and Labor sought to turn that around. We had to take a very long-term view, given the earnings capacity and the savings capacity that women workers have, in seeking to improve the living standards of so many low income working women. It is only now that some low income women can actually, for the first time, look forward to a future retirement with some improvement—not a massive improvement—to their financial security in their retirement.There are real concerns in addition for women if this bill goes through. If it is to be the case that women will not have the security of any superannuation income in their retirement, they will have to rely either on their families or on government pensions. Of course, that is in keeping with other changes that this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, has put forward. One of these, which has been commented on already by the member for Brisbane and the member for Wills, is the proposal by this minister to allow those employees earning between $450 and $900 a month to opt out of superannuation. I think that demonstrates what this government is all about.If this opting out is put into practice, superannuation will be even less relevant to the large proportion of casual employees who work part time or those who do not work every week. I would have to say that it is becoming a typical example of the government's policy to remove any security for low income earners, who are most in need of even some limited superannuation savings for their retirement.In some industries—for example, the retail and hospitality industries, where very many women are employed—this could apply to up to half of all the employees. Many of these people are employed not just on a part-time or casual basis but also by more than one employer and, of course, that is going to become a growing trend. If we pass the proposals set out in this legislation, it will become far more confusing for employers to make sure that these people do get some superannuation cover.Going back to the opting out issue, because it is a very serious matter, if the government were to give people earning just over $450 a month—so people who are on very low incomes—the opportunity to take the cash instead of continuing to contribute to their superannuation savings, I do not think any of us should be surprised about what those employees would do. What would a low income woman do when faced with that choice? It is more than likely that she will take the cash for her family's immediate needs rather than allocate it to her own long-term retirement future.But, as the member for Brisbane set out earlier, let us not forget that these superannuation contributions are made not only by employees but also by employers in lieu of wage increases. These are the two things that are important in this legislation. If women do decide to take the cash rather than their super, they will lose the employer contribution to their superannuation. I do not think too many women—particularly women on this sort of income of $450 a month—will be holding their breath waiting for this government to go down to the Industrial Relations Commission and put in an application for them to get a wage rise to compensate for them losing the employer contribution to their superannuation. I do not think that any woman worker in the hospitality or retail sector would be so naive as to think that this government would compensate them in this way.This is another attack on those workers who are at most risk of exploitation and who, in many cases, will not have organised representation to make sure that their incomes are not eroded by employers who will be in a much stronger position to do away with superannuation coverage. Can you imagine it being left to individual, temporary, casual employees earning less than $450 a month to stick their neck out at the risk of losing their job? The idea of that happening in order to protect their superannuation coverage is just fanciful.All that is contained in this legislation will in fact make sure that these women workers are left worse off as a result of this government's changes. They will not be able to look forward to some small improvement—let us not overstate it—in their retirement incomes, because they cannot save a massive amount given the incomes that they are on. The public policy question that Labor will address is to make sure that those women workers can look forward to some improvement in their financial security in their retirement. That is not what is being debated here, it is quite the reverse, and Labor will certainly oppose it.11:58:002976Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 is a fine example of the contempt with which the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business views this parliament, the moral imperative of keeping his word, and indeed the working people of Australia. This bill came before this parliament in substantially the same form in December 1997. The bill was the subject of an inquiry before the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, which took evidence from union and employer representatives as well as experts in the superannuation area.It is interesting to note that, while the government would have you believe that business is calling for the legislative change encapsulated in this bill, only one employer group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, bothered to appear before the inquiry. The Business Council of Australia, the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Metal Trades Industry Association were apparently so uninterested, despite being invited by the Senate select committee to appear, that they declined to appear and present their views.The minister for workplace relations, in presenting this bill to the House, has shown complete contempt for the views of this parliament as expressed by the Senate select committee. The Labor representatives on the committee found:The bill is neither in the best interests of employees nor employers and should be rejected.Clearly, their considered views have not been taken into account by this minister, though perhaps that is not surprising given this minister has a track record of ignoring the good advice that is available in the industrial relations area, a track record that has led him to the folly of the Dubai conspiracy and to the Federal Court.What may surprise—or, indeed, dismay—members opposite is the complete failure of this minister to act on the findings of government members of the committee. Those members found, in recommendation 5.16 which appears on page 26 of the Senate select committee report, in the following terms:Government senators further recommend that the government give consideration to introducing a requirement that superannuation guarantee contributions be remitted on not less than a quarterly basis.Recommendation 5.17 reads:Government senators further recommend that the government give consideration to introducing a dispute resolution mechanism within a reconstituted superannuation complaints tribunal or other body to deal with potential disputes concerning superannuation between employers and employees.Government members voting on this bill might like to take a moment to consider whether they are prepared to accept a situation where the views of three of their members—namely, Senators John Watson, Alan Ferguson and Julian McGauran—are treated with complete contempt. They might like to reflect on the precedent they are setting and on what grounds, if they accept this bill, they will be able to complain in the future when their views are treated with complete contempt by arrogant and out-of-touch ministers.This bill also shows the contempt which the minister for workplace relations has for keeping his word. As we are aware, the minister secured passage of his workplace relations legislation by entering into a written agreement with the Democrats about policy positions and future conduct. The presentation of this bill represents another occasion where that deal has been breached. It was breached by the presentation of the unfair dismissals legislation; it was breached by the presentation of the junior rates bill in this House last week; and now it is being breached on the question of superannuation.The agreement between this minister and the Democrats was contained in a letter and the following form of words was used about the foreshadowed legislation dealing with the superannuation choice of funds issue and the abolition of award based super. The legislation `must ensure workers are not made worse off as a result of any overriding or repeal of award superannuation clauses'. As I will detail, this legislation does make workers worse off and, as a result, it breaches the minister's undertaking to the Democrats.This continued pattern of behaviour by the minister of breaching his deal with the Democrats not only says something very loud and very clear about the standards of this minister, but also sounds a salutary warning to the Democrats and to others in the Senate about the prospect of the government keeping its word in relation to any future deals about legislation, including, most importantly, the GST.Perhaps most importantly of all, this bill shows this government's contempt for the needs of working people. Government speakers in this debate have tried to tell us that this debate is all about choice and have tried to paint the Labor Party position as being opposed to choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Clearly, we on this side of the House believe in maximising the options and opportunities for all Australians. But we understand one great, essential truth that our conservative opponents do not: maximising choice, maximising opportunity, will not be achieved by government withdrawing from intervention and simply allowing the market to rip. That is a recipe for maximising the choice and opportunity of an elite few at the expense of the many. Rather, the real strategy about maximising choice and opportunity is a more complex one. It requires government, in partnership with representative community organisations, including trade unions, to judiciously intervene to ensure that market power is not exploited, market failures do not continue uncorrected and each and every Australian is supported in their lives in a way which enables them to make real choices.In the superannuation area, working people are only going to continue to have real choices and real opportunities in a setting where superannuation is pursued as an industrial issue, with trade unions actively involved in ensuring that employers comply with their obligations.Prior to entering this place, I worked for eight years as an industrial lawyer at the law firm Slater and Gordon in Victoria. In particular, I worked for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union in Victoria in its various legal needs. Those opposite, particularly the minister for workplace relations and, indeed, the Treasurer (Mr Costello), would have us believe that there is some shame involved in having worked either for trade unions or on their behalf as a lawyer. Indeed, I was very proud to work in that setting in Victoria and very proud to assist the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union with its work.I note that the Treasurer, before entering this place, was also involved as an industrial lawyer, albeit on the other side of the fence, and is, in some senses, and perhaps as a result of his own self-promotion, most famous for his role in the Dollar Sweets case which, of course, was a case that did working people no good.WF6DANBYMr Danby—It was led by Goldberg.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I am reminded by my friend the member for Melbourne Ports that the lead lawyer in that case for the employers was Mr Alan Goldberg QC, but no doubt the federal Treasurer was busy marking up the precedents and carrying the bags—a way, of course, to establish a reputation prior to entering this place, if you put the correct spin on it.The correct spin on the question of trade union involvement—involvement whether as a unionist directly or as an industrial lawyer—is that the experience sears into you the difference, the vast chasm, that exists between the industrial relations rhetoric of choice and individual bargaining pursued by our conservative opponents and the industrial reality of many working people's lives. Indeed, it is certainly true that there are many progressive employers who understand that a partnership approach with employees, based on mutual respect, leads to the highest levels of productivity. I am sure that in this place there are many of us who are proud to have met and dealt with such employers.But the blunt reality is that there are also many employers who believe that their relationship with their employees is solely about determining whether a dollar goes into their pocket or into the pocket of their workers. On each and every occasion, they do all that they can to ensure that the dollar goes into their pocket. The reality is that in those instances the only limit put on employer exploitation is the limit put by industrial regulation and the active pursuit by the trade union movement of compliance with that regulation.In performing work for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union in Victoria, I have been in factories where the electrical cords for the sewing machines trail through puddles of water on concrete floors. I have heard of employers who keep their time and wages book in pencil, so that when they show it to the union organiser—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—Have you seen it?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I have actually seen them produced in court cases, to respond to my friend opposite. In particular, I was informed by a union organiser of a story where an employer kept his time and wages book in pencil and when the union organiser pointed out that the entry for the machinist's wage rate was wrong his solution was to take out his rubber, rub out the entry and pencil in the correct wage rate. What that means is that the time and wages book bore no relationship to the reality of what people were getting paid or the hours that they were required to work in that workplace.I have dealt with workers who, after years of loyal service, turned up one day at the factory to find the factory gate shut, the machinery moved, the boss gone and their basic entitlements, like last week's wages, holiday pay and redundancy pay left unpaid. Indeed, I prosecuted on behalf of the union many employers who made the collapsing of company structures to avoid liabilities to workers an art form long before anyone ever heard of Patricks, Chris Corrigan and the minister's Dubai conspiracy.In settings like this, the truth is that workers will only have superannuation contributions made on their behalf if their trade union focuses on ensuring employer compliance and actively pursues it. I have on a number of occasions as a lawyer been involved in disputes with employers where the union has ascertained that the employer has failed to make the relevant superannuation contributions and has pursued that and had that failure rectified in a timely manner.The compliance task is made infinitely easier by superannuation being an industrial matter regulated by awards and operated by industry funds. The reality is that the simplicity of the industry funds structure makes ensuring compliance easier. With the one fund it becomes easier to educate employers as to their obligations. With the one fund it becomes easier to familiarise workers with what they should expect from the fund in the form of statements. This makes it easier for workers to identify if something is going wrong and contributions are not being made on their behalf. Unions, due to their familiarity with and focus on the one superannuation fund can more easily follow up non-payment issues and, in the case of non-payment, immediate recourse can be had to the Industrial Relations Commission as a way of getting the employer in a situation where questions of non-payment can be discussed and hopefully resolved in a timely fashion between the parties.If this bill is passed, the reality is that in an industry like the clothing industry the winners will be the less scrupulous employers. Despite the government's puffery about choice, the only exercise of choice will be the choice exercised by the employer to get out of the industry fund and to dodge, duck and weave in any way that minimises the possibility of non-complying behaviour being identified. The reality is that this bill gives clothing workers and those in an industrial position like them only one choice: the choice to be forced out of their industry fund, which brings with it active trade union involvement in ensuring compliance, into new employer selected and defined arrangements aimed at avoiding being caught cheating on the system. So make no mistake about it—for workers who are already doing it hard, this bill, because of the loss of the industrial framework and regulatory setting, may well mean the loss of their superannuation entitlements.Indeed, the losses sustained by workers do not stop there. This bill, in lapsing workers effectively from award standards to the standards defined by the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, contemplates a series of direct and immediate losses for workers. Firstly, we have the situation where workers who earn less than $450 per month will lose their superannuation entitlements because there is a difference in the way in which many awards treat workers in such a position as compared with the superannuation guarantee legislation. Clearly many part-time and casual workers in areas like hospitality will no longer have superannuation paid on their behalf. If we think that this is a minor or confined problem, any brief look at the statistics dealing with the increasing casualisation of our labour force would indicate to thinking members in this place that this is a problem that could be very widespread. The most recent ABS figures—August 1998—indicate that we had in that setting 26.9 per cent of employed persons coming up as casual. Clearly not all of them are involved in the hospitality industry, and numbers of them may be working more hours than would gain them $450 per month, but by the same token there must be many thousands who are engaged in very casual work or intermittent work which will mean that their wages per month may, in all months or in a number of months in a calendar year, go under $450.In these circumstances, the economic theory advanced by members opposite would have us believe that these workers would get the superannuation money—it would no longer be put into a fund on their behalf but somehow there would be an amazing market device that would make sure that the money ends up in their pockets. The blunt reality of this—and we are all aware of it—is that in an industrial setting like, for example, an employer dealing with a casual waitress or waiter who may be intermittently employed, that worker will be offered a fixed hourly figure which will remain unchanged when the superannuation entitlements have changed. This is what will happen if this bill is passed. So the dollar that would have gone into superannuation will be a dollar that stays in the employer's pocket rather than being passed on to the worker. That is the first loss.Loss No. 2 is that many awards provide for superannuation contributions to continue to be made to workers who are absent from work due to work related illness. In particular, many awards provide for superannuation contributions to continue to be paid during what is referred to generally as the accident make-up pay period, that is, the period when workers still have a residual entitlement from their employer to a top-up payment to the amount that the workers compensation payments are giving them so that they are not sustaining a loss. In those circumstances they continue to have superannuation paid on their behalf. That is another loss if we lose superannuation as an industrial matter and lose the current regulatory regime provided by many awards.Loss No. 3 is that, under the superannuation guarantee legislation, we would have no coverage for part-time workers under 18 and no coverage at all for workers over 70. Under current industrial awards, that is not the case for all awards, so there might well be pockets of workers who experience a loss there.Loss No. 4—and perhaps it is the worst—is the loss of the regulation governing frequency of payments. Many awards, because of the nature of the industry involved, provide that the employer must remit superannuation contributions in a more timely fashion than the superannuation guarantee charge legislation contemplates. The proposed legislation contemplates a setting whereby you remit your annual premium after the expiration of the financial year in which that premium accrued. This is quite different from a number of industrial awards, where the superannuation contributions need to be remitted on a monthly or quarterly basis.Given my experience in the clothing industry and some of the fly-by-night operations in that industry, the reality is that the structure employing the workers will have collapsed many times and been replaced by a new corporate shell by the time the annual contributions become due. In such cases, those annual superannuation contributions will never be remitted on behalf of the workers involved. Not only will this have the effect of ensuring that the bundle of superannuation money in that worker's account is less than it should have been but also, because the superannuation contribution has within it the death and disability premium—if the contribution has been paid—the non-payment of the contribution will have the effect of ensuring that the death and disability benefits will not be available to a worker who, in these very unfortunate circumstances, becomes injured or dies.This bill should be rejected by the House for the reasons that I have outlined: for the fact that this legislation has been rejected in the past by the Labor members of a Senate select committee and doubts have been expressed by the government members; for the reason that it will prejudice the superannuation entitlements of working people, in that we will not have the same compliance regime that we currently have; and for the reason that a number of workers directly under this legislation will lose the entitlement they currently enjoy. I urge the government members opposite to do no less than their Senate colleagues on the Senate select committee did, and reject this bill in this unamended form.12:18:002981Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I have listened with a great deal of interest to the professional presentation from the opposition side—professional to the degree that people elected at the last election from the Australian Labor Party have come in here with a professional knowledge of industrial relations. What they have done is argue very competently the cause that they see and have worked in for such a long period.But what they have demonstrated by their argument is the needless complexity and involvement of bureaucracies—large numbers of unions and employer funded people, who have built a structure that has been referred to as the `industrial relations club'. This is a whole group of people pretending, in some instances, to have a great compassion towards the worker or to the needs of the employer, but absolutely confusing, complicating and legalising a process that should be a simple matter of relationship between employers and employees.This government knows that process needs an underpinning of certain standards, which should be there at all times to protect employees against bosses who may want to exploit their employees. There should be a minimum standard of conduct that everybody should employ and be forced to adopt. This legislation goes along a very commendable path. This legislation says, `There is blanket legislation Australia wide to cover the superannuation needs of employees in every industry.' The previous government set that in place with all of its shortcomings as described by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lalor. All of those shortcomings were in Labor Party legislation.The problems with small amounts and people moving on were all set in place by the Australian Labor Party when they set up this legislation in a deal with the ACTU. For years the government absolutely refused, despite pleas from the then opposition, to change the amount that people could have; they refused to see that those small amounts were preserved; and they refused to have the insurance companies acknowledge that their charges were extraordinarily high on small amounts, so that people were having declining benefits, instead of increasing benefits, from small amounts of superannuation.We sat on that side, where you in the Labor Party opposition now sit, and begged the government to change the processes. The government did nothing. Treasurer after Treasurer ignored these pleas for year after year and did nothing. The shortcomings that you have complained about have been changed, improved, modified by the current government. The small amounts management process has been changed and the rights of workers have been changed. The government has said, `We want to go on with the simplification program, by removing superannuation as one of the allowable matters under awards', reducing the allowable matters from 20 to 19—a huge change. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is entering the chamber, the capable man who instigated this as part of the changes that the government has introduced to industrial relations. We want to simplify the industrial award process but protect and continue consent agreements where they are in place. Nothing could be fairer.I believe that this government has bent over backwards. The crocodile tears that have come from the opposition spokesman and speakers on the opposition side are fallacious. You are trying to whip up a case amongst the union movement, union employees and union bosses when there is no case to be whipped up. The workers of Australia are going to be well looked after. This minister has been thoughtful in drafting this legislation not only to change and simplify the award arrangements but also to provide a transition period so the change can come into place easily and sensibly where award matters are affected.Having protected the employees of Australia with umbrella legislation that guarantees payments and contributions to their superannuation by employers, the government has now sought to simplify the factors that can be negotiated as part of allowable matters in awards. This is a very sensible and thoughtful process, and one that ought to be endorsed by the whole parliament because it moves Australia to a simpler and more humane process in the relationship between employers and employees. We are not in the Dark Ages of sweatshops. There are plenty of laws protecting that process. Where people transgress, they ought to be hammered hard—I agree with what speakers on the opposition side said in regard to that. That is the government's intention. The allowable matters protect employees. I thank the House for the opportunity to express a view and I welcome the minister to sum up.12:24:002982Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—in reply—The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 reflects a policy position that the government has pursued now for some time, going back to the legislation that we introduced as part of our big reform package in 1996. I thank honourable members who have spoken in the debate. I thank the member for Mitchell for his kind words. He not only has a strong reputation for his long and expert interest in workplace relations, but he has also made a particular point of supporting the interests of small business. That is very important because, if we can encourage our small businesses then our small businesses will give people jobs—and that is what we all want. It should be a matter of common interest on both sides of the House.This bill, combined with our choice of funds legislation, will deliver a package of genuine superannuation reforms. The new arrangements will make superannuation easier for employers to administer because they will only have one set of federal obligations to meet. The removal of superannuation provisions from all awards will remove a layer of complex detail and relieve employers of the burden of complying with an extra set of obligations which have done nothing more than add to the complexity of superannuation administration. I think most people would agree that superannuation is not a simple area to start with. Anything we can do to reduce the complexity of superannuation is furthering the interests of having a system that encourages people to save for their retirement and to be independent in their retirement.In the government's view, superannuation is most appropriately dealt with through the superannuation guarantee legislation and through agreements at the workplace or enterprise level. I remind honourable members that when we introduced legislation originally we did not have superannuation as an allowable matter. It was added to the allowable matters list by way of a Senate amendment moved by the government and the Australian Democrats as the result of an agreement between us. It was basically a compromise to try to find a reasonable way of dealing with the issue at the time. The Democrats, in particular, wanted the choice of funds legislation to be dealt with contemporaneously with this. That was not an unreasonable proposal on their part, and so we agreed to it. However, it was always intended by both us and the Democrats that this would only be a temporary measure and that superannuation would be removed from the allowable matters as part of the choice of funds legislative package.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Provided you didn't reduce benefits. Don't misquote the Democrats.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I note that the shadow minister had much to say about how workers would be worse off and how, given the choice of believing Peter Reith or Arch Bevis, they would be mad to believe Peter Reith and should therefore believe Arch Bevis. I actually have another person supporting me on this debate—none other than Cheryl Kernot, the member for Dickson.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Read the agreement.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I have it here. Don't worry, I am going to read it out. Why wouldn't I read it out? It is an embarrassment for you because you have on your front bench a Labor frontbencher who said that what the government was doing was fair enough in principle. She did not say that lightly. We spent hours discussing all the issues you raised in your scare campaign mini-speech a minute ago. We discussed all those issues with the member for Dickson. We gave her a full and comprehensive response to each and every issue. In the end, she wrote to us and said that the Democrats would be prepared to support consequential amendments to the Workplace Relations Act to repeal award coverage of superannuation.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What were the conditions?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Sure, she had some conditions, and I am happy to answer all those issues, but do not run around saying that workers are going to be worse off. Cheryl Kernot agreed with me that this was a reasonable proposal and something that should be continued and implemented.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Subject to conditions.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Her principal concern was—and as I was involved in the discussions I claim to be able to—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I have read it as well.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—But you were not in the discussions.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No, but I have read the outcome.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You have read the outcome, but she said that they could see merit in having one piece of legislation governing superannuation rather than having entitlements in two separate systems as at present. This is not a big deal. I will tell you why it is a big deal for you guys: because the trade union movement leadership—not the rank-and-file, not the workers, because they never get a look-in on these issues—the trade union officials, the trade union bosses like a system like this. They see this as their system. It has nothing to do with the interests of workers. It is very interesting when you look at who has turned up for this debate. The first time this issue was before the parliament we had McMullan, Thompson, Ferguson and Macklin—who are respectively members of the LHMU, AWU, the MWU and the Labour Resource Centre, and a member of the CPSU. Here they are—the living puppets.The second time around we have the same old faces again. This time we have the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister, who is an ex-Queensland Teachers Union member. Then we have Kelvin Thomson, a member of the AWU; Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, and we have the new member—Ms Gillard interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is right. She has more initials than most academics. They are in here. And why are they here? Are they representing small business in their electorates? Are they representing the 72 per cent of people who are not in a union? No way known! This is just a sectional interest group in here who have no interest in the broader public interest. The only one on their side who has actually recognised that what we are doing is a fair thing is none other than Cheryl Kernot, the member for Dickson. The opposition's criticisms of the bill are, therefore, unsurprisingly, without foundation. Once again they have embarked on their attack on award simplification.It needs to be seen that this is part of broader policy development which the government has been pursuing. I should say that award simplification was supported by none other than the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating. He was all in favour of it. It was just that when he came to implementing the idea he was unable to do so because the unions got hold of the process. They have made the same baseless claims about this issue as they have made about award simplification generally: they have branded it as award stripping.Award simplification is not about stripping. It is about making awards less prescriptive and detailed, removing obsolete clauses, providing for more flexible working arrangements and making awards more user friendly and easy to understand. For all their claims about the importance of award superannuation, the reality is that the unions simply have not bothered to keep their awards up to date. If they are so important—HV5WAKELINMr Wakelin—They are hopeless.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Just hear the facts. The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, unions have not been relying on awards at all. They have relied on the superannuation guarantee legislation and not on awards. The 1994 superannuation test case decision of the commission provided that awards could include the super guarantee levy on contributions. But, five years on, the vast majority of awards provide for three per cent contributions whereas the superannuation guarantee stands at seven per cent.It is clear that unions have not supported these award superannuation provisions and that they rely on the superannuation guarantee, the legislation—namely, the federal law—to establish minimum contributions. It is the superannuation guarantee legislation and not awards that establishes the minimum superannuation entitlement for the vast majority of workers in the federal jurisdiction. These workers no longer need award superannuation as the guarantee does the work previously done by awards. This will be all the more so with the introduction of choice of fund.I take the opportunity of reminding honourable members of the origins of the superannuation guarantee legislation. The previous government introduced the guarantee legislation following the rejection of the unions' application to the commission for an increase in award superannuation. The previous government was more than happy to override or sidestep awards at that time. The very people who are here defending this system either forget the history of this matter or have never understood it. It is incredible.The previous government—your government—was more than happy to override awards at that time, but you never had the courage to deal with the mess that had been created by letting award superannuation continue alongside the guarantee legislation, despite all the inherent problems of having two systems. What a nightmarish, red-tape, duplicated system we inherited from you people because, in the end, you just could not get on and do the basic work that was required to reduce red tape, reduce the cost to employers, reduce the complexity and reduce the confusion, which is what this measure will obviously do.When it is all boiled down, as with so many issues, the mess in this whole area of superannuation is something that you created. Yet, when we came along with a solution to fix it, you opposed it. It is the same with unfair dismissals. You lumbered this country with an unfair system. We came along to fix it; we got public support for what we were doing—it was voted on at the last election—and when we came up with a solution, what did you do? You opposed it. You created this genuine problem for young people with the junior rates system—a problem that you put in place, although you never implemented it because you yourselves, in government, must have known that it would be a problem—and then we came along with a sensible solution, but what did you do? You opposed it—right across the policy front.You left us with high unemployment. We put up a whole series of proposals to reduce unemployment, but what did you do? You used your numbers in the Senate because a few trade union bosses told you to do so to try and obstruct the government's program to create jobs.This bill will fix the problems created by the opposition. It will simplify superannuation regulations for employers in the federal workplace system by removing an unnecessary layer of regulation and provide for efficient and effective regulation through a single set of legislative requirements. Despite my strong objections to the scare campaign run by the opposition in their contributions, I thank even them for coming into the House—Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is a public document and you can box it. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I must say that we have also seen, through this debate in the last couple of days, how sensitive they are to the revelation that 52 per cent of Labor's frontbench are former trade union officials.When we started running through who the hereditary peers were the other day in question time, it sparked off quite a reaction. We had the member for Charlton, otherwise known as `The Lady Charlton', taking an objection.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What the minister is now going into is not relevant. What is relevant is the agreement with the Democrats. He said he would put the detail of the conditions in Hansard . He should do it, instead of now introducing an irrelevant matter.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! That is not a point of order. I call the minister.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The former ACTU President, the member for Batman, had to get up and register his objections. Then we had the member for Scullin. He was very unhappy with what had been said.Mr Danby interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, your attitude to this bill is determined by the fact that your party structure means that the people who have a disproportionate influence over your policy development happen to be the trade union movement bosses who dictate a lot of your policy. It is not just me saying that. The member for Melbourne makes a very good point. He says look at what happened when Gough was leader. In 1966, in the piece on the Whitlam years, Freudenberg said first of all you have to fix up the party. Then you have to fix up—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Here he is, the author himself. Do you want an application for a literary grant for your next book?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—No, an application for a literacy grant to teach you how to read.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—What is your point of order?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Clearly, what the minister is talking about has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the matter before the House and you should call him to order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sure the minister is summing up his point.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I certainly am. The point of order that the member for Melbourne takes just demonstrates the sensitivity of the Labor Party to this whole issue. The fact is—as it was back in the second half of the 1960s and as it is again now in the second half of the 1990s—your whole position on some of these critical issues is determined by the policy dictates of the trade union movement. You know that is right. I give you marks: it was a bold measure for a frontbencher to get up and tell the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, that he had to get his act together when it comes to the structure of the party.We went through this ourselves in the mid-1980s. This is not new for a political party. It is not easy to attack your leader and keep your place on the front bench at the same time. I understand all that. In the end, you are going to have to address these issues. I think the next book ought to be on the drawing board.I commend the bill to the House. This is a sensible measure. It should have been done years ago and it took the election of the Howard government to get on and fix many of the problems that Labor left us.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.The House divided. [12.44 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr D.P.M. Hawker) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Bill read a second time.2985Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Reith) read a third time.Bills2985r6722985Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time. 12:50:002986McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—This Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is part of a series of government legislation with respect to the human rights area. While part of this bill is necessary to overcome the ruling of the High Court of Australia in Brandy's case, the government's strategy in this whole area is regrettable.The government have become experts at mastering rhetoric while completely veiling the lack of substance to their policies. In this vital human rights area, we see the veiled rhetoric at election time, with government ministers out there rubbing shoulders with various ethnic leaders. We see all sorts of things. They will throw extra money towards setting up ethnic based schools but, when it comes to the issues of institutionalised problems that affect Australians of non-mainstream background—to use the Prime Minister's mainstream phrase—there is a complete lack of substance.When you pull aside that veil of rhetoric, there is a massive demolition exercise going on. There are jackhammers and pile-drivers in there assaulting the structure of human rights that has been built up over the last decade. These rights are fundamental to the standard of living of all Australians and, indeed, fundamental to the wellbeing of the international community—that each and every nation respects all citizens' fundamental rights.The Attorney-General earlier in the day seemed to acknowledge that there had been a 48 per cent reduction in the resourcing of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Whether he accepts that figure or not, I think he would accept that there has been a massive reduction in the resourcing of the commission. He said that one of the rationales of the government in so reducing the resources of the commission was the extent of expenditure over the last decade which I think he said had been some 400 per cent. Isn't it lucky that that expenditure was made when we have just gone through a period of seeing the One Nation forces with so much ignorance and so much bigotry—indeed, evilly so—capitalising on that bigotry and ignorance in the community for base political motives? Isn't it lucky that those resources were put into the human rights area by the former Labor government?The other rationale that the government relied on in cutting back expenditure is that, they say, last year's report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission showed that there had been a 38 per cent reduction in complaints. But as the commission itself noted at page 35 of its report:There is no developing trend in the overall number of complaints in central office and it appears that complaint numbers rise and fall from year to year with no obvious explanation.So to rely on that one year's aberration in figures is completely unjustified. Indeed, I would say that there may well be reasons why people have not made complaints which themselves require investigation. For instance, it may be general insecurity in the employment market. When there has been a reduction in unfair dismissal protections and the like, it may actually have made people apprehensive of pursuing their rights in the antidiscrimination area. Far from justifying a reduction in costs, it may indeed suggest a need for further investigation.In any event, the government has been entirely misleading in using that aberration in figures as justification. Why? Because the cuts were implemented before the annual report of HREOC was handed down. So it is complete and utter rubbish and entirely misleading and offensive to the Australian people for the government to now use that as justification for the massive cutbacks it has made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.And cutbacks there have been. In 1996-97, the budget for HREOC was $20.5 million. It was reduced in 1997-98 to $17.9 million; in 1998-99, to $12.3 million; and for 1999-2002, to $10.7 million—down from the 1996-97 level of $20.5 million. Effectively, that is a halving of the annual allocation to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. That is nothing short of an outrage to the people of Australia, particularly those who do not come from what the Prime Minister would regard as `mainstream', and an outrage in terms of the international standards that most civilised nations are meeting.The assault on the ability to obtain redress for breach of Australians' human rights must be seen in the overall context of a general depletion of the rights of ordinary citizens—for instance, the cuts to legal aid that I mentioned, which I will be referring to shortly; the additional filing fees of the Federal Court; and reduced accountability through the administrative review procedures in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Overall, there has been about a $400 million reduction in access to justice for ordinary Australians.I mentioned in a speech earlier today that, as a result of the government's massive assault on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the commission has reduced its work force by one-third—from 180 down to 60. Surely that has to affect its capacity. The following are not my words or the words of anyone who could be seen to have a vested interest in, or be part of, what this government has condescendingly described as the `Aboriginal industry' or the `ethnic industry'—to use its condescending phrases—but are the words of the former Commissioner for Human Rights, Sir Ronald Wilson. He had no hesitation in defending the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in a press release on 13 May 1997 when he said:At a time of great need for re-stating the values of inclusion, non-discrimination and tolerance in Australia, these cuts mean the Commission will be unable to continue to work at its current level.Indeed, he pointed out the work that had been done over the last decade by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is worth while to reflect on just what the commission has achieved for Australians as individuals and for Australian society as a whole. For individuals, the commission has:. successfully conciliated thousands of complaints;. improved protection of disability rights including access standards—which is a matter we will be addressing in this bill—. extended education and advocacy on racial tolerance and anti-discrimination in Australia; . protected the rights of the especially vulnerable including homeless children, the mentally ill, elderly people and Australians in remote areas;These are people who do not go to your average Liberal Party or Labor Party meeting to lobby politicians; these are very vulnerable people. To continue:. improved industrial and employment standards particularly for women.I note the indications in the media that the government is talking about including in the preamble to the Constitution concepts of gender equity but is not prepared to put its principles in place here. The commission has also:. established the Asia-Pacific Forum on Human Rights;. developed legislative proposals to protect the aged from discrimination;. acted on increasing public concerns about privacy protection;. promoted the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people . . . Sir Ronald Wilson, of course, received the applause of the entire Australian community with his chairmanship of the inquiry which produced the report, Bringing them home .All these things have been achieved by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, but the government tends to regard this whole human rights area as being an aspect of political correctness that the Prime Minister so condemned—until he saw the consequences of the Hanson and One Nation phenomenon taking off and nearly sinking the prospects of his government's re-election.We are talking about an essential institution which perhaps does not receive the media attention that it deserves, and about principles that certainly do not receive the media attention that they deserve. It is absolute hypocrisy for the government to assert that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has not been affected by the extent of its cuts. The present Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Sidoti, who is also the Disability Commissioner, has indicated in evidence to the Senate estimates committee that his work as a disability commissioner looking after the rights of the disabled has been significantly affected by government cuts. There you have a fellow at the coalface saying to the government, `My work in representing the interests of the disabled has been affected by your cuts.' For the government to stand up pretentiously and preciously and say, `We have not affected the human rights area' is a nonsense and, quite frankly, a lie.One of the other extensions of that lie was the suggestion made today that, because there will be the transfer of the hearing and determination function to the Federal Court, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will be saved money. But, when you look at it, even the explanatory memorandum to the bill says that only $0.6 million will be saved because of that transfer, yet the government has cut $1.5 million from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission budget in respect of this transfer. There is an absence of the necessary frankness and honesty about what is actually happening.What is happening to the human rights area has to be seen in terms of an overall access issue. It is inevitably going to be the case that complainants before HREOC, in moving to the Federal Court, will have considerable legal costs. Indeed, on the basis of filing fees, which I will mention, there is potentially $3,200 worth of filing fees, together with transcript fees of about $700 per day, for applicants in the Federal Court to enforce their rights if conciliation fails. In that context, legal aid is vitally important.The reality is that, because the government has cut about $120 million from the legal aid budget over a three-year period, there is very little aid—if any—available for the human rights area. Indeed, clause 5.1 of the joint Commonwealth-state guidelines published in July 1997 says that the commission `may grant assistance for equal opportunity discrimination cases where there are strong prospects of substantial benefit being gained not only by the applicant but also by the public or any section of the public'. So we are looking at a situation where there must be strong prospects of success and of substantial benefit not only to the individual applicant but also to the community.If it is not perceived that the community is going to benefit, but the individual will be severely affected as a result of the discrimination, hard luck! They miss out. There is no other area of litigation where such a restrictive approach to the granting of legal aid has been implemented. That again speaks volumes about this government's approach to enabling ordinary Australians to enforce basic human rights.In terms of the objects of the bill itself, the Labor Party acknowledges that measures are necessary, and that the bulk of the measures to overcome the decision of the High Court in Brandy's case are appropriate. The decision of the High Court was that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission could not exercise administrative power and judicial power at the same time. It is adopting the principles of the famous boilermakers case, which referred to the division of functions that we have in our Westminster system between the executive, the parliament and the judiciary—the executive being empowered to take administrative steps; the judiciary, to actually adjudicate in disputes.We can see that there needs to be a structure to get the final adjudication of these matters to the Federal Court, which is actually empowered to make orders, but we are concerned about the facilitation of access for ordinary Australians to Federal Court procedure. We agree, I have to say, with the establishment of judicial registrars as part of a human rights registry in the Federal Court. We think that is sensible and that the hearing procedures through judicial registrars will be less formal and ultimately less complex than hearings before judges are.The fact that they are judicial registrars, as opposed to judges, necessarily means that there have to be appeal rights to the judges of the Federal Court, and that is also acknowledged by the opposition. The fact that the Federal Court structure is in place to actually make orders and determinations is not inappropriate and, indeed, is supported by the opposition. There are a number of amendments that we will be moving, but they are not amendments moved in an obstructive or negative sense. They are genuinely moved to make the bill and the system much more constructive. Firstly, we are saying that the specialist commissioners of HREOC should be able to continue to conciliate complaints. The government proposes to have the conciliation function undertaken by an executive president only, but with the specialist commissioners—that is, the commissioners who deal with sex discrimination, racial discrimination and disability discrimination—coming into the role of amicus curiae, or person assisting the Federal Court, when it gets to that particular stage.We say that that is short-sighted. These specialist commissioners have obvious expertise in their areas, and their expertise will actually enhance the prospects of having a conciliated outcome; so we will be moving amendments to enable the executive president to be able to delegate his conciliation function to those specialist commissioners. We are also of the view that it is inappropriate for the executive president—or any other commissioner, for that matter—to give individual reports on matters that they have conciliated. We are of the view that any reporting to parliament should be by the commission as a whole, and that will be addressed when we move our amendments.We are also strongly of the view that commissioners themselves should be empowered to bring complaints. The nature of litigation, particularly in the Federal Court area, is that it is incredibly expensive—and the government has made it more so. For instance, the cost of filing an initiating process in the Federal Court is $500; and of filing a notice of motion, $246. The fee for the hearing of a notice of motion is $400; for issuing a subpoena, $40; for setting down a proceeding for hearing, $1,000, with a daily fee after the first day of $400—together with, as I have said, $700 per day for transcript so that you can properly present your case. So the costs of proceeding in the Federal Court are prohibitive, and for that reason we say the commissioners should be empowered to bring complaints themselves. We note that the ACCC has the power to do so and we have seen it more recently, in more dramatic circumstances, with the waterfront dispute.We also say that the Commonwealth being a good citizen, or a model citizen, should willingly accept the conciliation outcomes of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and that the Commonwealth should not compel a further stage of litigation to the Federal Court of Australia. We think it should set an example as part of a cooperative approach to resolving issues of discrimination.We will be moving amendments to break down the formalities of the procedures between HREOC and the Federal Court. For instance, while it is possible for an applicant to amend their complaint before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, it will not be possible to amend it before it gets to the Federal Court. We say that that is unreasonable, that there may be events which have occurred which require documentation to be amended and that it is overly technical to prevent that occurring. The court is well placed to consider the merits of permitting an amendment. It already does that in many other areas of its jurisdiction.Obviously, there need to be strong provisions regarding confidentiality of compulsory conference and conciliation proceedings. Indeed, it could be prejudicial to both sides if there was not that confidentiality. For instance, an applicant, in their affidavit evidence to the Federal Court of Australia, could prejudice the fair hearing by the judicial registrar if they put in prejudicial material concerning recommendations which may have been made by the conciliation commissioner at an earlier stage before HREOC, and there should be specific provisions regarding confidentiality.We also say that there should be a greater thrust in the act to encourage the parties to record their agreements. Indeed, the HREOC commissioners should be empowered to assist parties to reduce their agreement to writing so that it is recorded and everyone is sure of their position.Currently, it is the situation that only matters relating to sexual discrimination can be referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or the Remuneration Tribunal or the Defence Force Tribunal, and we say that that is too narrow. If there is an order or an award in place that affects one of those areas, we say there should be a possibility for sex, race or disability issues to be referred for review by those tribunals.We will be supporting a number of amendments that arise from the majority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The committee as a whole gave a report in this area in respect of this bill for which it should be congratulated. The Labor senators took a different thrust but, on the whole, the committee took a detailed and constructive approach in its consideration of the bill. I say in passing that that is a process which the parliament and the Senate should encourage. Coming out of that report were a number of recommendations which should be implemented and we will be moving amendments to that end.We say that a legal representative or next friend of a disabled person should be empowered to represent that disabled person at a conciliation conference or in other areas of litigation, and that there should be provisions to enable an individual complainant to obtain legal representation if the person that they are making the complaint against is legally qualified. We say that there should also be provision for the Federal Court to continue dealing with the complaint even though the parties may have requested its withdrawal.That already occurs with election inquiries in industrial organisations. The rationale being that it is in the public interest that industrial elections are conducted fairly and reasonably. Even if both parties wish to discontinue there may nonetheless be matters brought to the court's attention where the public interest requires them to be further pursued. We say that should be provided for in the legislation and we will be moving appropriate amendments.We will also be moving amendments to relax the application of the rules of evidence in the Federal Court. That happens in several areas and, in particular, again, in the election inquiry area, which gives a much freer rein for the court to consider broad ranging issues where there may not be strict technical evidence to formally prove issues. So we will be moving an amendment for that.I have previously referred to the extent of the Federal Court filing fees. I will not go over that again but just say that there should be greater provisions for waiver. There are some provisions but they are far too limited in terms of the discretion that they give. At the least there could be an amendment to have, in this area, only nominal fees.We are also concerned with the overall costs, as I have indicated, for applicants. If an applicant wishes to pursue their rights in the Federal Court it is literally the case that if costs follow the event—that is, if they lose and are ordered to pay both their costs and the respondent's costs—it could literally bankrupt them. The risks in that situation for individual litigants are so great in many cases that that could itself be a restriction on their access to justice. We say it is not appropriate for costs to follow the event and, again, we refer to the industrial relations model contained in the Workplace Relations Act where costs follow the event only in respect of proceedings which are held to have commenced vexatiously or unreasonably.We have indicated to the Democrats that we will give consideration to their amendments. In so far as an applicant may elect to seek to recover costs, should they win their case, then in those circumstances it could be said that they may be consenting to expose themselves to the costs order but, at the same time, may be able to recover costs if they are successful.We will be moving amendments to provide greater flexibility for class actions in the Federal Court. Currently, in excess of two applicants are required for a class action before the HREOC but, in the Federal Court, in excess of seven applicants are required for a class action. We will also be moving amendments to facilitate the replacement of complainants if one drops out, and also to facilitate complainants coming together even though they may be seeking different remedies, providing they are complaining about the same act of discrimination.We will also be moving amendments to facilitate representative complaints, whether that be by a trade union or by other agent. Again, the costs of this litigation, which I have discussed, are so prohibitive that it may be that rights can only be pursued by properly resourced organisations such as a trade union which may represent, for instance, a worker in a situation of workplace discrimination.These are amendments which I will speak to when we come to the consideration in detail stage of the bill. We have moved them in a constructive and thoughtful sense, having regard to the majority and minority reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which I have referred. We hope that the government will take on board those amendments. We circulated recently two additional amendments. One includes, in particular, facilitating greater access to buildings for disabled people. I understand that those later two amendments are receiving sympathetic consideration.We are working in this vitally important area of human rights—an area where I initially castigated the government for its harshness and lack of sincerity. At the same time, while pleading for this area to be properly resourced, we are trying to work with the government to get a sensible, workable framework which facilitates the necessary access for individual complainants to the Federal Court to enforce their orders, if needed.The final point I would like to make is that in preparing for this speech I noted at least one media release in which the Attorney-General criticised my predecessor for delaying the introduction of this legislation. Nothing is further from the truth. The Labor Party does not oppose the thrust of the legislation to overcome Brandy's case. The only reason this legislation has taken so long is that the government, on each and every previous occasion on which the legislation has been due to come into the House and the Senate, has put it so far down in the queue that it has not been reached or concluded. So there is no justification at all for the government to say that any delay has been the result of the action of the opposition. Again, we are prepared to cooperate and will be moving amendments in that light. We would hope that the government would sincerely examine the propositions that we will be putting to them. (Time expired)13:20:002991Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I wish to support the general thrust of the shadow minister in his comments on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I have been concerned for a number of years about the importance of ensuring that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in this country should have the ability to express itself, to be aboveboard, and to be independent. When the Howard government was elected, funding was significantly reduced to the point now where we have reached nearly a 50 per cent reduction in the funds for the commission.In the light of the fact that the government is talking about its wonderful surpluses and how much money it has, this cut to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is totally unjustified on economic grounds and is obviously totally unjustified on social equity grounds. The Prime Minister does not understand the importance of Australia's reputation internationally in these matters. It is very important, when it comes to issues of human rights, not only that there are laws in place, but also that the laws are implemented.I was saying earlier today, in the Main Committee in fact, that it is all very well to talk about human rights or people's rights or non-discrimination in a number of areas—including, for example, migration—but it is the practice which is important. And just as in our migration program and in our visitors visas program we have very serious questions about whether the practice is resulting in a non-discriminatory situation, we also have the problem here now with these cuts to the commission as to whether they are going to be unable to carry out their duties in an independent way to actually in practice fairly deliver what they have been set up to do.Of course, we did have a problem with the Brandy case, so the government decided that it was going to bring in this legislation to fix up the matter. We support that. But the government failed to take the opportunity to put in place a number of other provisions that would show the people of this nation and internationally that it was real and fair-din kum about the issues concerning anti-discrimination legislation.I might say that we used to have a totally independent Race Discrimination Commissioner. That has gone. We now have a commissioner within the act. But that commissioner has limited powers, as do the Disability Discrimination Commissioner and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. So we have got rid of the previous system and put in place a pale shadow of that system. And we have cut the resources and then we go around saying, `Of course, in Australia we have great human rights legislation.' We do not. And this bill does nothing to fix that up.I want to commend the shadow minister on the amendments he wishes to move, because these amendments are important and substantial. These amendments will try, within the context of what is possible now, to fix up some of the problems that have been referred to. That will show that we are serious about taking up some of the issues that have arisen, such as the question of class actions in the Federal Court. It seems to me that when it comes to the issue of human rights you have to have a process not only for an individual who feels aggrieved but also for communities, for groups of people who have something in common and feel their rights have been trampled on.We must go forward into the 21st century with Australia having a reputation for being a country that is fair and just in the area of human rights. And let me tell you that those countries that are not going to do this are going to see an international response to the failure to put into place real, genuine, human rights provisions.The human rights commission produced the report Bringing them home about the lost generation. That highlighted to the world one of the big problems that had occurred with our indigenous people. That report was discussed by this parliament, and many people expressed profound regret at what had happened. We developed the idea of saying sorry to the indigenous people about this matter. All this came out of the good work of the commission. Of course we had the unfortunate fact that the Prime Minister to this day refuses to say sorry and express regret in relation to that generation of Aboriginal people who were taken from their homes as children, brought up in a foreign culture, and not given the opportunity to connect with their own families or even to understand and learn about their own backgrounds.But the whole range of issues which the human rights commission deals with are important within the whole meaning of democracy. Democracy is nothing without rights. What distinguishes democracy is not just elections; it is respect for people's rights within the democratic state, within the structure—their rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or ethnic background, on the basis of any disability that they have, or on the basis of their gender. And all of these issues are still being confronted in this society. There still is discrimination on the basis of race and on the basis of ethnic background.The reports of the commission over the years have indicated this, especially the report, for example, of the Race Discrimination Commissioner. And these discriminations are not just the blunt discriminations of racial abuse that were encouraged unfortunately by the One Nation Party and others. It is more than that. It is the subtle discriminations. It is the discrimination in the workplace. It is the discriminations in the promotion process. It is the discrimination, for example, even in the Public Service itself, where we still have discrimination against women, we still have discrimination against people of ethnic background. There was some progress made under the previous Labor government in relation to tackling these matters—the access and equity program, the equal opportunity program. But these programs have been emasculated by the current government. And the body which is responsible for bringing these issues to public attention, for negotiating issues, and for dealing with complaints has also been dramatically cut.It is not as if—notwithstanding what the Treasurer might say—we are in a situation where the Treasurer cannot afford to fund this commission to the level at which it was previously funded. Of course he can, and he knows that he can. And so does the Prime Minister. They are in a situation where they ought to do this and I am hoping that they will in the future.I am hoping that they will rethink their position, even in relation to the amendments being moved by the opposition and also being moved in the Senate. Let us hope that the government will rethink their position and adopt these amendments. I should point out that some of these amendments were actually recommended by the joint parliamentary committee on these matters but, while some minor amendments were adopted, the majority were not adopted.I urge the government to consider these, and to keep in mind what I have said. It is not really a costly exercise to restore the funding of the commission, in light of the total budget, but it is an important symbolic exercise, and it is important for those who have suffered from discrimination and who have complaints. It is very important to them. It is very important that we have an image as a fair country, not only internationally but to the people concerned.I have had people come to my office who have presented the most anguished cases of clear discrimination on the basis of race, gender and disability. You feel in a helpless situation when you try to put into place the processes that are supposed to be there to help these people, because it is so difficult. As the member for Barton has said, we are going to try to simplify the process. We are going to try to assist the people to have some resources to have their complaints properly heard.On the basis of fairness, on the basis of equity and on the basis of a set of other principles, I think we need to be in a situation where we can do something to show the community—and the international community—that we support these principles of human rights.I remember the reports of the Race Discrimination Commissioner over the years. What each commissioner has had to say has been very valuable because each time the commissioner has presented to the parliament a full report of the problems that we as a society have in terms of race discrimination. The previous commissioner, Zita Antonios, did a very good job in presenting those issues to us.We need to take up those questions in a serious way as a society. It is no good pronouncing ourselves a multicultural society and then not being in a position to actually implement the meaning of multiculturalism in terms of nondiscrimination. Similarly, it is no good our saying, `We are a society in which men and women are to be treated equally,' while allowing situations where there is blunt discrimination—for example, the discrimination against women in the armed forces that has been recently revealed.Disabled people suffer a lot in our community. In some of our states they have been discarded. We have shifted a lot of responsibility for issues concerning disabled people to state governments—something that some people want to do in a range of areas. For example, we complained about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill that went through the House of Representatives the other day, because it gives away the constitutional power of the Commonwealth in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues and moves the responsibility to the states.A lot of that has happened in relation to the disabled. And what have we got? In some states people who are suffering from disabilities are in a very serious situation. This is true especially of people with mental disabilities. Some of them have been kicked from pillar to post and have ended up in the most inhumane circumstances. In Melbourne, for example, some people have ended up in various hostels, homes and second-rate hotels where they are not looked after, because their relatives have not had the economic support to be able to support them. They have ended up being abused by people and, in some cases, suffering from gross poverty of the kind that we do not want to see in this country: malnutrition and other such circumstances.We need a powerful commission. We need a commission that has teeth, that is able to act on behalf of people and give them resources to pursue their cases so that they can achieve justice when they have been discriminated against. The government has failed in this matter. It should restore the funding of the commission, and it should support the amendments of the opposition to strengthen the commission so that we can hold our heads up high and say that in Australia we have human rights legislation and a commission that is able to do the job in a fair way for our people.13:37:002994Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As earlier speakers have indicated, the arrangements that are currently in place to deal with discrimination matters are not effective. The determinations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission are not legally enforceable and, as others have said, they operate on the goodwill of the parties concerned. So the Labor opposition certainly agrees that amendments are necessary.Under the current legislation—not the legislation that is before us—a person being discriminated against will have to take their case before the Federal Court for a determination to be legally enforceable. This of course is to the disadvantage and frustration of everybody involved.Labor does support the two main elements of the bill in the interests of those needing to access complaint procedures and determinations in cases of discrimination. However, as the shadow minister has indicated, we do not support the way in which this government has attacked the rights of those who are the most disadvantaged and who experience discrimination by limiting the role of commissioners, by severely cutting back funding to the commission and by cutting funding to legal aid.This bill proposes to fundamentally change the role of the commissioners as specialists in their field, separating out the roles of policy development and inquiry functions from complaints handling. To my way of thinking, this will downgrade the ability of the commission to act effectively in all areas. Inquiry and policy work will be developed in isolation from the complaints role of the commission. Commissioners will not be able to apply their expertise to the complaints process, and likewise the knowledge gained from complaints handling will not be as readily gained by those responsible for policy and inquiry work.The executive president appointed under the bill will have the responsibility of handling complaints without the specialist knowledge that commissioners currently have. For these reasons, Labor opposes these changes. Very importantly, when we are dealing with issues of discrimination on the basis of gender, the systemic discrimination questions can only be dealt with if all the roles of the commission are fully integrated and mutually informed.A related issue is the significant cuts that the commission has experienced since this government came to power. As I understand it, it is a cut of about 48 per cent—48 per cent of the commission's budget has been cut since the Howard government came to power. As a result of these cuts, of course, the capacity of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to provide people with access to a process of justice in cases of discrimination has been overwhelmingly reduced. As a result of the cuts to the commission by this government, the commission has been forced to sack approximately one in three of its staff, and this too has seriously curtailed its ability to be an effective body of inquiry.The government originally estimated that transferring the hearing function from the commission to the Federal Court would cost $1.5 million a year from 1996-97, but I understand that recent Senate estimates hearings have been told that the real cost was around $600,000. I gather the government knows this, and yet it has persisted in further reducing the capacity of the commission by reducing its budget on the basis of the original estimates.In addition to the cuts to the commission's funding, there have also been substantial cuts to legal aid since 1996-97. The government originally announced that there would be cuts totalling $120 million over three years from 1 July 1997, but the budget cuts expected over six years on the basis of forward estimates totals $232 million in cuts to legal aid funding. This will seriously limit access to legal aid and many of the people who would have been able to take their cases to the Federal Court will be prevented from doing so.While this bill makes the process of getting a legally enforceable outcome in the case of discrimination less wieldy, in practice the actions of the government in cutting back the capacity and functions of the commission will limit people's access to a just and fair hearing. The fact that the commission has lost the capacity to fulfil an inquiry role is a disgrace. It is an outcome which will be detrimental to the fundamental rights of all Australians for a fair and equitable go.In relation to legal aid, under the Commonwealth-state legal aid agreements that came into effect on 1 July 1997, the guidelines state, and I quote:The Commission may grant assistance for equal opportunity/discrimination cases where there are strong prospects of substantial benefit being gained not only by the applicant but also by the public or any section of the public.Labor rejects this attempt to limit individuals' rights to access the courts when they believe they have been subject to discrimination. There is no point in passing a law to enable people to pursue their cases in the Federal Court and then limiting, or not providing at all, any access to the funds that would enable them to pursue their cases of discrimination. It will be the case, I would suggest, that limiting access to legal aid in this way will result in fewer cases becoming before the Federal Court. People will just have to wear the discrimination and what that will do is give a clear signal to those who do discriminate that they are more than likely to get away with it.These actions will particularly affect women. We do know that women are more likely than men to be discriminated against, whether it is in their place of work or elsewhere in the community. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have provided an extremely important role in the field of equal opportunity for women. They have done this both in individual cases and, I would say just as importantly, in pursuing this issue of systemic discrimination against women. It is now accepted in Australia that discrimination against women is not accept able. I think the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should take a good deal of the credit for pursuing that issue of across the board discrimination.The commission has set standards and community expectations about how women can expect to be given equal opportunity in our society. Of course, we all know that it does not always happen, and there will always be the need for people to take individual cases before the commission and to pursue particular examples of discrimination on the basis of gender. Nevertheless, we must never see a reduction in the activity of the commission as far as across-the-board discrimination is concerned.Another issue that the shadow minister referred to earlier today is what will happen when people take these cases before the Federal Court. As we know, the purpose of this legislation is to enable the Federal Court to determine discrimination cases. People seeking redress before the court will have to meet the costs. Due to a government measure in the 1996-97 budget, there have been significant increases in the fees for people accessing the Federal Court. This will further limit people's ability to get a fair hearing and a legally binding decision.The Sackville report on access to justice revealed that one of the greatest problems with our justice system is the ability of ordinary Australians—who do not qualify for fee exemptions but who, nevertheless, do not have the means to pay court fees—to access justice. A typical discrimination case lasting two days would cost more than $3,200 in court fees alone. Accordingly, the Labor opposition will be moving an amendment to the bill to apply no more than a nominal filing fee for discrimination cases.When this bill was introduced into the House in 1996, it was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The committee considered that several amendments were necessary and, as the shadow minister outlined earlier, a number of amendments will be moved. As he also said, they are moved in the spirit of improving the legislation, not in an antagonistic way. We do support the central elements of the bill: the creation of a specialised human rights registry within the Federal Court of Australia and the provisions that will give the commissioner power to mediate disputes. For all these reasons, amendments are clearly needed. When cases of discrimination go to the Federal Court, we need to make sure that people can actually afford the justice that we are here debating today—that the filing of fees is not prohibitive and that legal aid is available.If we are serious about equal opportunity being pursued, the role of the commissioners in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission needs to cover both individual and systemic complaints. It is a commitment to both that has enabled discrimination and human rights issues to be dealt with effectively by the commission. I commend them for the enormous contribution they have made and suggest that we pursue the amendments that the Labor opposition will be doing in the best interests of those who are discriminated against.13:48:002996Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I also rise to speak in support of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . As has been made clear by previous Labor speakers on this bill, it is an important bill and it is something that is necessary as a result of the Brandy decision in the High Court. However, in supporting the bill—again, as other speakers have already made clear—the Labor Party has certain reservations about it, and significant amendments will be moved to make this bill actually fairer and more constructive for the community.The area of discrimination is very important, particularly to my electorate. We have a large number of migrant groups that have a very keen interest in the race discrimination laws and a growing interest in the combined impact of the sex and race discrimination laws, particularly for the Islamic communities and the women in those communities who are facing discrimination regularly in employment and, in some circumstances, in education.It is very close to my heart and to the electorate's heart that these changes will make it easier for a person bringing a complaint to have their decision, if the Federal Court is to find in their favour, made enforceable. The situation that has been in place for the last couple of years has clearly not been a constructive situation for anyone who was seeking to have a decision enforced.Of course, that system also favoured those with money. It meant that, if a respondent chose to ignore a decision of the commission, they could happily refrain from paying any compensation which might have been awarded by a sex or race discrimination commissioner and insist that the matter be heard de novo in the Federal Court. That, of course, is a system that nobody could support. Whilst the opposition is supporting this bill, we have raised some concerns that we do not want to be in the position where this bill continues some of those difficulties for people who may not have sufficient funds to be able to pursue their claims.The shadow minister has already raised the issue that matters will be able to be heard under this bill, if it becomes law, by judicial registrars. However, there is a note of caution about whether that will also include an automatic right of review, which again may favour those with sufficient money to require a second hearing and require complainants to fund the costs of a further trial. Certainly the proposals could lead, and hopefully will lead, to a system which is quicker and cheaper and which will be prompt and less technical for those who are involved.There are a number of concerns that must be looked into in the handover to the Federal Court of this jurisdiction. There are concerns not only with registrars dealing with complaints but also that other Federal Court rules should not automatically apply to those discrimination complaints in the same way that they might apply for tax or trade practices matters, which certainly deal with completely different litigants in completely different financial circumstances.Issues have also been raised in respect of the capacity to bring a class action or a representative action. It has been made clear already that the current system makes it possible for a person who has been discriminated against to join with simply one other person who has suffered similar discrimina tion to bring a class complaint. Under the Federal Court's current rules, it is necessary to have seven people who are prepared to bring such a complaint for a class action to be processed. It is a concern that this is actually more restrictive in a situation of discrimination where we are all aware that it is often difficult to find complainants who are prepared to speak out against the discrimination that they might be suffering, whilst there may be a class that could still benefit from action being taken.Again, with representative actions, it is a slightly different situation where there may also be a large class of people who are being discriminated against and an interested party who is prepared to take action on their behalf. Most commonly we see the trade unions taking action in general on behalf of a group of their members, not necessarily named and specified in detail. Our concern is to ensure that representative action can be taken by trade unions or other interested advocacy groups, such as the disability advocacy centres that are doing some great work in Melbourne at the moment.Further, we have some concerns that, if ordinary Federal Court fees apply, this could also be a disadvantage to persons seeking to bring a complaint. Currently, to file a complaint in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission there is no cost. There are, however, costs involved in filing any applications in the Federal Court. There are some exemptions provided, but they are provided only to the most needy in our community—which, of course, is supported. There are, however, large numbers of people who cannot afford legal representation or expensive court fees and who may not qualify for those exemptions.We are also very supportive of the theory and, I must say, some of the rhetoric that has come from the government in the introduction of this bill. The bill does place much greater emphasis on the educational role that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission could play and its capacity to promote understanding and acceptance of the act, to conduct and foster research in areas that might have some impact on discrimination, to make inquiries that can deal with systemic discrimination, and to campaign and advocate on behalf of those who may have been discriminated against, including intervening in court hearings in the public interest.This development of being able to intervene in court hearings was referred to by our shadow minister—the process of amicus curiae. This is picking up an American idea whereby interested parties or advocacy groups would be able to be represented before the court to provide information which may not be available to an individual complainant but which has an impact on whether or not they have been discriminated against. It covers a large number of other systemic issues that should be taken into account.This focus on human rights and discrimination issues and the role of the commission in bringing the public's attention to issues that exist are extremely important, as I think everyone in this House would acknowledge. The difficulties of a narrow, complaints based system are ones that we have all been able to see if we have been involved in helping any of our constituents in cases of discrimination or, in our previous lives, advising clients on their discrimination claims. In fact, we know that a complaints based system has been notoriously incapable of properly dealing with many discrimination issues, not just because it involves individuals but because of the difficulty in quantifying damages for such discrimination.The point I am trying to make is that I can strongly support the idea, and the Labor Party strongly supports the idea, of the commission being given a stronger role to pursue and promote public issues and public awareness and concerns with discrimination. On policy grounds, it is a good and positive policy. It is close to my heart, as I have said—issues that I raised in my first speech being an area that I practised in for some time and an area of great concern to the electorate.However, it is impossible for us to reconcile this theory with the government's actions in dramatically cutting funding to HREOC's budget. We must remember that the commission is already currently massively underresourced and understaffed. That is part of the reason why the commission, although it currently has a role to play in education and public policy, cannot focus on that role.Whilst removing the hearing component of the commission's role to the Federal Court, as indeed was required following the Brandy decision, will have some impact on HREOC's capacity to deal with other issues, it will not actually reduce the workload in assessing and conciliating complaints. Even with existing staff, it would leave only very limited time to pick up the roles that to date have been difficult for the commission to fulfil. Given this, slashing existing funding will simply ensure that the commission continues to be in the position that it cannot adequately fulfil these roles. Its public education role and its capacity to deal with systemic discrimination will not be improved merely by the introduction of this bill.It is impossible to speak in support of this bill without drawing attention to the government's hypocrisy in making significant budgetary decisions that effectively curtail the commission from doing the very things that the government says it wants to achieve through this legislation.It is policy by stealth: put one position on the record but make a budgetary decision which ensures that it cannot be successful. It is the same sneaky type of position the government took on the resignation of the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Sue Walpole, and its failure to appoint a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner for over a year—13 months in fact—until the pressure got too much and finally a replacement was appointed. It is a constant undermining by this government of discrimination issues and human rights but without the preparedness to acknowledge it.So whilst this bill is needed overall and is supported by the opposition overall, it cannot ensure that the commission fulfils a constructive role if it is not funded sufficiently to do so.There are other budget decisions that have an impact on the effectiveness of this bill—those concerning legal aid. The laws cannot be effective and moving the hearing role to the Federal Court from the commission will not be effective if, when discrimination occurs, a person cannot afford to bring a complaint. Limiting access to legal aid, charging fees in the Federal Court and prohibiting the recovery of costs or damages have that effect.The legal aid requirements which will be applied to discrimination cases sought to be brought before the Federal Court require prospects not just of success but of substantial benefits being awarded to a complainant. There are not many discrimination cases, as many people should know, that can fit within this because, although a subject of discrimination may suffer great damage and hardship and certainly much personal offence, they often will not be able to be paid significant amounts of compensation. The quantities are notoriously low, although we have had a few recent exceptions to this. However, for the purposes of legal aid, it would be highly unusual for a case to be able to meet that requirement.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 Arrangements299814:00:002998Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be absent from question time today. He is travelling to the flood stricken areas of North Queensland, together with the members for Kennedy, Leichhardt and Corio. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation will answer questions on his behalf.I should also inform the House that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services will be a few minutes late for question time today as he is speaking at the Press Club. As a matter of courtesy, the member for Dickson, the relevant shadow minister, was informed of this. There is an understanding that any questions the opposition may wish to ask of that minister will be held until his return.Questions Without Notice299929992999Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm a meeting at the Lodge on Monday night with 15 leading businessmen seeking changes to business taxation, in particular, the dividend franking proposals in your package, a measure which would raise $1 billion over three years? Given you have been vocal in quickly ruling out other substantial changes to your package, will you rule out the change sought by this group?2999Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I certainly can confirm a meeting at the Lodge with a large number—perhaps 15—of leading Australian businessmen; an indication of the confidence of the business community in the government's policies. Of course we discussed a whole range of things, including the Australian taxation system. I can assure the honourable member that like all other policy it will be a taxation policy for all Australians.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Is the Prime Minister ruling out a $1 billion tax break for business while slugging consumers at 10 per cent tax on almost—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.29992999Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the government's approach to generating jobs for all Australians? What plans does the government have for maximising employment opportunities for the unemployed?2999Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The government has a variety of approaches and policies for reducing unemployment in Australia. The first and most important policy is to maintain a high level of economic growth. I am proud to say that under the government I lead Australia's economic growth is world class. Australia's economic growth is ahead of virtually every other nation. Thanks to the extremely good stewardship of the Australian Treasury by my colleague the Treasurer, we have a level of economic performance in this country which is the best for 25 or 30 years.The major way in which you generate jobs is to have a strong and growing economy. One of the ways to maintain a strong and growing economy is to constantly be at the task of continuing reform. That is why we remain committed to reform of the Australian taxation system. That is why we have reform of the Australian labour market. That is why we are removing the work disincentives in the welfare system. That is why our tax package eliminates poverty gaps. That is why we are trying to take the burdens off small business by further reforms to our unfair dismissal laws.But over the last 24 hours in the Australian Senate the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats have resolved to destroy 50,000 Australian jobs. The Australian Labor Party, by voting down the unfair dismissal law, has sent the message to the Australian small business community that basically it does not believe in small business, that basically it is prepared to burden the Australian small business community with an unfair dismissal law which, although better than the one we inherited in March 1996, is still inadequate.The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats will have another opportunity in a short period of time to vote to save the jobs of 230,000 young Australians because we are seeking to entrench in the law of this country the maintenance of junior wages within the award system. It is the view of the retail industry, which is a major employer of young Australians, that if that entrenching does not take place, if that measure is not passed into law, then the job security of 230,000 young Australians will be lessened. I cannot believe that a party which has always said that it is concerned about unemployment, that always says that it is concerned about the young, would be prepared, on top of what it did in the Senate last night on the unfair dismissal law, to vote against the measures relating to youth wages.I have just one message for the Australian Labor Party on this, and that is that every time employment figures come out in this country the Australian public will be reminded that the Australian Labor Party last night voted to destroy 50,000 jobs in the small business community in Australia.30003000Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I will continue to assure the Prime Minister that we will support his unfair dismissal legislation that he was so happy with when he passed it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question, as he knows. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, I seek clarification of part of the GST legislation and ask why the ACCC price surveillance mechanism proposed does not contain a specific reference giving the ACCC power to monitor price changes as a consequence of the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme. Do you stand by your promise, given on the 7.30 Report on 9 September 1998, when you said, `As part of the coalition package, we will empower the ACCC to see that fuel savings will flow right across Australia'? How can your promise that all fuel savings will be passed on be believed?3000Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—In fact, I am advised the ACCC has full power but, further, I affirm exactly what I said in the course of the election campaign: the Liberal and National parties will deliver $3½ billion of fuel tax reductions to country Australia and all Australians. The ACCC activity is part of what was detailed in the course of the election campaign. I stand by that. I might add that every day the Labor Party delays the passage of the tax package is a further kick in the guts of our exporters, doing it hard enough on a very unlevel playing field, because you are delaying a benefit for our exporters.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. He was asked a question as to why there were no guarantees in the bill such as he anticipated there would be. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister has completed his answer to the question.30003000Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the small business community has repeatedly called for exemptions from unfair dismissal laws. Is this stance consistent with international standards, and are you aware of recent media reports highlighting the different approaches to this issue?3000Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Longman for his question. There is no doubt that the small business community has repeatedly called for a fairer deal. Whether it is by independent surveys or surveys carried out by the employer organisations or whether it is just talking to people who are actually running their businesses, they are saying right across the Australian small business community that if they had a fairer deal they would go out and create jobs. The action of the Labor Party last night has cruelly dashed the hopes of literally tens of thousands of Australians who look to the parliament to provide a system which will give them a chance of a job.I am asked whether or not this measure is consistent with international standards. Even the ILO recognises the real need for small business exemptions. Article 2 of the Termination of Employment Convention 1982 plainly allows for exemptions based on the size of an enterprise and exclusions based on a probationary period of a reasonable duration. It is a pretty important point, because this whole unfair dismissal fiasco put in place by the Labor Party was legislated for on the basis of the ILO conventions. The whole justification of Labor's policy was that this was the international standard and they were going to foist it on the small business community. If you reckon that the ILO convention establishes a reasonable standard for Australia, why is it that when it comes to the interests of small business you disregard the very convention which you used as an argument for this whole fiasco in the first place?Yesterday, as the Labor Party was knocking these exemptions out, including the filing fee and the probationary period, we found out that in New South Wales the union movement was once again pulling the strings of the Labor Party. In a quite amazing decision, the minister, Mr Shaw, has announced that, in respect of applications for unfair dismissal, if you are a non-unionist you have got to pay the filing fee but if you are a unionist you are exempt. This is disgraceful discrimination, and it is just another example of a Labor Party frontbench doing what it is told by trade union bosses. Who ends up paying the price for this disregard of the national interest? It is the very unemployed that you would claim otherwise to be attempting to support.Jeff Shaw has got his preselection because of what the unions say, because of the unions' control in the New South Wales Labor Party, in exactly the same way as the New South Wales trade union movement controls the preselection of so many of Labor's frontbenchers and backbenchers. As Bob Carr said in respect of electricity privatisation and the ETU, `I have had lunch after lunch with the appropriate delegates from the ETU, but the union's leaders are putting their own jobs and superannuation before me and the best interests of the state.' That is yet another example. When it comes to good policy, the fact of the matter is that the Labor Party frontbench, whether it is New South Wales or federal, do what the unions tell them. The people who pay the price are those people who are today trying to run a small business or the thousands of unemployed who have had their hopes cruelly dashed by your policy failure.30013001McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and relates to the housing industry. Is the minister aware that the government's modeller of choice, Chris Murphy, has prepared confidential advice for the housing industry on the impact of the tax package on housing prices? Is he aware that, according to Mr Murphy, the GST will increase the cost of an average Sydney house by $15,128 and increase the monthly mort gage repayment by $84? Doesn't this show that even first home buyers who qualify for the $7,000 First Home Owners Scheme will be out of pocket?3001Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—One thing I am aware of is that the government has reduced monthly payments on housing by $350 a month. That is a direct consequence of government policy. If the GST and the total tax package are passed by the Labor Party in the Senate, all Australian householders will be better off.30013001Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House if he is aware of any recent statements in relation to tax reform by church groups? Can the Treasurer detail his response?3001Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware that a task force prepared a report for the Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia yesterday in relation to the government's tax package. As would probably be known, at least going back to 1993 the church has strongly opposed tax reform. But I welcome the fact that I think this probably represents the most open statement to date by the Anglican Church and by the churches generally of support for tax reform in this country. The news release which was put out by the Primate of Australia was headed `Anglican Church says yes to GST but questions adequacy of compensation package'. The statement says:The Anglican Church of Australia generally supports the Australian Government's goods and services tax initiative and other reforms to the taxation system.We welcome that as a positive contribution. The Australian Labor Party, of course, has a closed mind on tax reform. If there is one group in Australia that will oppose every reform, it is the Australian Labor Party. So I welcome the fact that the Anglican Church says that.The subcommittee was divided on the question of whether or not GST should extend to food. It did not in fact find that GST should not apply to food. It divided on the question. It then went on to say, as the government says, that compensation for tax changes is necessary. It raised a number of things that would have to have been done if GST were not applied to food. It raised the possibility of taking back income tax cuts. This government won't be taking back income tax cuts.It raised the possibility of increasing the GST rate from 10 to 11 per cent. This government won't be increasing the rate of GST. It said that the important thing was to make sure that there was adequate compensation—a point that this government completely agrees with. This government is going to be increasing pensions by four per cent. We are going to be introducing bonuses for aged persons to look after their savings. We are going to be increasing the amount of family allowance, lifting the means test and reducing the taper rate. We are going to be lifting the value of all allowances.After—what is it now? Since August of last year—some six months of every interested group in Australia going backwards and forwards through the government's tax proposal, they have not identified one demographic that will be worse off as a result of the tax changes. In fact, ACOSS found that all demographics, including pensioners, would be better off.This contrasts of course with 1993 when the Australian Labor Party, on the votes of the Australian Democrats, and it is their economic spokesman who is now a Labor frontbencher, hiked all indirect taxes in this country, including petrol taxes, and paid compensation of zero—not one single dollar—and took away income tax cuts, again on the urging and with the support of the Australian Democrats.These must be the only tax changes, at least in the last decade and probably for decades in Australian politics where there has been compensation—and more than adequate compensation. That is what makes this tax package different, and that is why the Australian public are entitled to have a new tax system, their income tax cuts in full, their increases in allowances and benefits; and every day that the Labor Party engages in cheap populist nonsense is a day they hold back a new tax system for Australia.30023002Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why he purchased a $10,300 lounge suite for his office when he is only prepared to give low income families $400 a year and pensioners $150 a year as compensation for the GST? How does the Prime Minister justify the fact that his $10,300 lounge suite is worth exactly the same amount as the total GST compensation for 68 pensioners or the total GST compensation for 25 poor families? Doesn't this indicate that you would rather buy yourself an expensive lounge suite than provide adequate compensation for an unfair tax to the nation's neediest?3002Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the honourable member for Cowan, I would say two things. I do not think I am the first, nor would I be the last, Prime Minister of Australia to have authorised some perfectly defensible expenditure in relation to furniture in my office or any other things. I would counsel those who sit opposite not to start going down the path of helping yourself to taxpayers' support. I would counsel you, friend, warmly not to do it. I would counsel you not to.In relation to the particularity of the question asked by the honourable member for Cowan, the refurbishment of the previous furniture was clearly deemed appropriate by the Joint House Department because I am advised that it commissioned a consultant's report in relation to the refurbishment of furniture that had been there for 10 years.The alternative which was urged upon me by those in the design integrity group of the Joint House Department—and I think one or two of those people are unhappy with my decision, not because of the cost but because of the style of the furniture—and which I inform the House I rejected would have cost $24,000 or more. I rejected it in favour of a cheaper alternative. It was not only $14,000 cheaper but I am very proud to say that it was Australian made.30023002Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of any recent indicators of the strength of the Australian economy? How have the policies of this government contributed to this situation?3003Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question about the state of the economy. The opposition has not asked a question about the state of the economy this year. So I am very grateful that the member has asked me. The Reserve Bank bulletin released yesterday stated:The growth performance of the Australian economy exceeded most expectations in 1998. In a year in which growth in the world economy halved, and in which the economies of many of Australia's trading partners experienced large outright contractions, Australia's GDP grew, according to the latest data, at above its trend rate.To put this in context, we are living in a region which has gone through the largest financial contraction in our lifetimes. Outside of China, the whole of the Asian region is in recession or depression. The Australian economy not only survived recession, not only grew, but grew at above trend rate and became one of the fastest growing economies in the world.Today, the Westpac Consumer Confidence Index was released. Under the heading `Consumer confidence surges again', it states that the combined two-month jump in confidence—that is this month and last month—is the largest since October-November 1993, coinciding with Sydney's successful bid for the Olympic Games. The last high surge—about as high as the jump that the then Premier of New South Wales made when Sydney won the Olympics.Since this government came to office, inflation has averaged about one per cent per annum compared to 5.2 per cent per annum under Labor. I repeat: one per cent compared to a Labor average of 5.2 per cent. Productivity growth has been three per cent compared to 1.5 per cent under Labor. Real wages have grown by 2½ per cent under the coalition when the figure averaged 0.5 per cent under Labor. One of Labor's great successes in office was to depress real wages. That, of course, was one of its policy objectives. Employment has grown by 2.1 per cent and nearly 400,000 new jobs have been created in Australia since the government came to office.DT4CREANMr Crean—What about our last three years? Make that comparison, you fraud.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The shadow Treasurer interjects. He has been shadow Treasurer for four months—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ignores the chair. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He has been shadow Treasurer for four months and he has yet to make a speech on the Australian economy. His colleagues can write a book faster than he can make a speech.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There we have the Count of Hotham, the Earl of Brand, the hereditary peers of the Labor frontbench. What do you have to do to get on in the Labor Party these days? Get born in the back of a Comcar, I suppose! He has not made one speech on the back of the economy. He has not asked one question on the economy in the course of the last two weeks. The Labor Party was forecasting before the election that there would be a recession in Australia—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Apart from tedious length and tedious repetition, I would have thought the question that was asked of him did not allow him to do a gallivant through what he thought about our policies.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They were basically there to deal with his own.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He has got growth that he had nothing to do with.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! Before I call the Treasurer, I point out to the House that I ignored the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he came up to the chair. I have also allowed the Treasurer to range more widely than I would normally tolerate. I invite him to come back to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—When this government came to office we said that the Australian budget should be brought back into surplus, and we were fought every step of the way by Labor. Every single step of the way, the Labor Party fought us in fixing the Australian economy. The good news is that they failed. They are trying the same tactic in relation to tax. They want to fight the government every step of the way, not because they believe in something but because they believe in nothing. You cannot gallivant through the opposition's policies; there are none.30043004Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Can the minister confirm that yesterday the Department of Industry, Science and Resources issued a ministerial press release in Senator Minchin's name recommitting the government to its pre-election promise not to repeal the petroleum sites and franchise acts until an agreed oil code is in place? Can the minister also confirm that the department this morning emailed a note to all media outlets asking them to `disregard the earlier media release'? Minister, can we now assume that it is the government's intention to break a clear election promise not to repeal the sites and franchise acts until an agreed oil code is in place?3004Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—The government intends to honour all election commitments.30043004Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware of claims by the New South Wales Premier, Mr Carr, that the Commonwealth is holding up agreement of new home and community care funding until after the New South Wales election? Minister, can you inform the House of the facts about HACC funding in New South Wales?3004Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I certainly can tell you what the correct position is. I heard a report of a carping complaint by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, relating to the fact that the plan submitted by Mrs Lo Po' had not been signed. And it has not been signed for a very good reason: it is incomplete; it does not comply with the agreement signed last year.Let me say something about the timing. The last three plans have come in in the months of April, May and June. This year they have come in in February. Why on earth do you think that might be so? It could not possibly be, of course, that the Premier would want it to come forward before the election in March, would it? That would not be the reason that they brought it forward from the months of April, May and June as in previous years.Mr Beazley interjecting—SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—When I asked for the financial details that have to be provided under the agreement, which I received at 4.30 yesterday afternoon, I immediately checked. What do you think I found? I found $2.7 million missing.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh! Say it in Morse Code.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair allows the Leader of the Opposition a great deal of tolerance in terms of interjections. He is, however, stretching that tolerance beyond its limit. The minister has the call.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition needs all the help he can get from you. As I said, what do you think I found when I had the figures analysed? I found that there was a missing $2.7 million—unaccounted for. Where do you think that money has gone? Would Mr Carr like to tell us? Did it go into another program? Did it go to the Olympics perhaps? Where did the money go? This $2.7 million is in addition to another $12.6 million that New South Wales failed to get for the older people of New South Wales and people with disabilities because they have failed to match the Commonwealth offers in the first two years of this Carr government. In other words, under HACC agreements the New South Wales government has cheated New South Wales needy people out of $15 million worth of assistance. Where did the money go, Mr Carr?The answer is: don't carp that the agreement has not been signed—provide the information. Victoria managed to get the information in in time. Their agreement has been signed. I would simply say that perhaps Mrs Lo Po' could get a bit of help from Mr Knowles.30053005Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware that his department advised the Brisbane Airport Corporation in relation to its airport master plan:In the interests of informing the local community about the potential impact of the proposals in your draft Master Plan you should consider providing information additional to the simple Australian noise exposure forecast system—including indicative flight paths? Minister, given that the Brisbane Airport Corporation did not act on this advice, and did not provide any information on indicative flight paths, why did you last Friday legally endorse that master plan?3005Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The short answer is that my approval of a master plan does not provide approval for any major projects such as a new runway. It in no way forestalls or prejudges any consideration of further matters in relation to the development of the airport, including matters relating to noise.30053005Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Could the minister inform the House what action the government is taking to assist the 70 per cent of young people who are not going on to university? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies to assist these young Australians? What is the minister's assessment of these alternative policies? 3005Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for his question. He draws attention to a very significant feature of education in Australia, and that is that 70 per cent of school leavers in this country do not go from school direct to university. It is the view of this government that all these young people are entitled to a proper pathway from school to post school employment, education and training. As a result of the commitment of this government, we are now seeing increasing numbers of these young people going into school based apprenticeships and undertaking vocational education programs in schools.I am aware that there are alternative attitudes to the prospects of these young people. So far as the Labor Party on the other side of the House is concerned, there is no doubt at all that there is a massive blind spot which exists in relation to the 70 per cent not going on to university. This indeed was recognised by Peter Baldwin, the former member for Sydney, who made the point, `Accommodating the needs of those not intending to proceed directly on to university education in the final years of schooling is something that we did not do enough about in government.' All one can say is that looking at the Labor Party at the present time they have no intention of doing anything about it in opposition either. There has not been a single question about apprenticeships from the member for Batman, the shadow minister for training, since December 1977—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Oh!BT4Dr KEMP—Well, probably since 1977, but certainly since 1997. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. The member for Melbourne, one of the two thinkers on the other side of the chamber, seems to share the blindness in this regard because in his 250-page book he devoted just one page to young people leaving school.I have to say that the member for Werriwa, in his 390-page book, managed not a single reference to apprenticeship training, which is of great importance to 70 per cent of young people. Members may well wonder why the Labor Party has this massive blind spot. It has this blind spot because the trade union move ment has shown it is not interested in genuine training opportunities for these young people.MG4LEEMr Lee—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance. The minister is not referring to matters that pertain to the question asked by the honourable member.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call and the minister is being relevant to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—The interest of the member for Dobell in this matter does not seem to extend beyond Norfolk Island. This is the only issue concerning the education of these young people that he has raised in the House since the start of this year. The massive blind spot that the Labor Party suffers in this area is ultimately because every member on the other side of the House owes their preselection to the Australian trade union movement. They are a sectional party representing the interests of organisations which, when they were in government, sought to destroy the apprenticeship system.MG4LEEMr Lee—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: how can trade union backgrounds of the opposition be relevant to such a question?2V5SWANMr Swan—What about your educational background?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lilley. The member for Dobell makes a perfectly valid—Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is also warned. The member for Dobell makes a perfectly valid point of order and I ask the minister to come back to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, I was referring to the lack of interest in this issue by those opposite—which I was asked about. The reason is that the union movement in Australia took an attitude—MG4LEEMr Lee—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell did not have the call. The minister will resume his seat. I call the member for Dobell.MG4LEEMr Lee—The point of order is that the minister is defying your ruling by immediate ly getting back to the statement he was making before you ordered him to return to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. If the minister were to drift from the Speaker's ruling, I would draw him into line.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am heartily sick of the free advice given by him on an almost minute by minute basis.BT4Dr KEMP—I was asked about alternative policies to the government's. We remember that in 1995 the number of young people in apprenticeships and traineeships as a proportion of the work force was the lowest for three decades. Small and large businesses in this country want to help train young people in the skills this country needs. They will do so only when they have an apprenticeship system in place which is friendly to small businesses, which gives young people the opportunity to undertake the flexible courses that will allow those businesses to be competitive. The Labor Party and the trade union movement have consistently opposed this. That is because they are a sectional party. Because we represent all Australians and we represent young people, we are putting these constructive policies into effect.30063006Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The minister wrote his first book in 1977 and his ideas have not changed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will come to his question.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, have you, your office or your department given consideration to eliminating the role of the Industrial Relations Commission in living wage cases and replacing it with a living wage panel, including representatives from the Productivity Commission, the Reserve Bank and the Treasury?3006Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker— Government members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—I will not repeat the interjections from our side.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.WI4Mr REITH—This is not the first question I have had on our policy. The government has a policy in respect of workplace relations. It is a policy that we put together based on the national interest and that policy was announced at the last election.30073007Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what steps the government has taken to honour an election promise to sponsor a pilgrimage to Sandakan, Malaysia, the scene of some of the worst death marches during World War II?3007Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I know he has a very large veteran population in his electorate. I think this pilgrimage is of interest to members on both sides of this parliament. Prior to the last federal election, the coalition gave a commitment that we would be upgrading a commemorative area at Sandakan and also sponsoring a pilgrimage back to Sandakan-Ranau, the site of the death march in the Second World War.I am pleased to report to the House today that there is a $750,000 upgrade of the site at Sandakan which unarguably, I think, is the site of the worst atrocity in the Second World War where Australians suffered. I am also pleased to advise the House today that a pilgrimage will be sponsored and will take place next month to Sandakan-Ranau. That is sponsored under the government's Their Service-Our Heritage commemorative program.Mr Speaker, 1,800 Australians died in the death march, either in Sandakan prisoner of war camp or on the march to Ranau. There were six survivors. They survived only because they escaped the march and were fortunate, with local help in some instances, to survive. They were able to tell the nation and the world of the horror of Sandakan and the death march. Unfortunately, only one of those six survivors is with us today. He lives near Brisbane in the electorate of the member for Longman. I have had the great privilege of meeting Mr Owen Campbell. He will be one of the members of the pilgrimage back to Sandakan, along with his wife.Far too few Australians fully understand some of the atrocities of war. That is why these pilgrimages are extremely important not only to us here in parliament but also to all Australians. I think they do create that awareness in our community. They keep alive the memory of those who lost their lives, those who suffered and those who still lie buried missing on foreign soil. It is a very important part of a government's responsibility to keep alive the memory and to remember the lives of those who did suffer.As I said earlier, the pilgrimage will include Mr Owen Campbell, the sole survivor of the death march. It will also include ex-prisoners of war. It will include the next of kin and widows of prisoners of war of Sandakan. I will be leading that very historic pilgrimage and it will be my great privilege to lead them back to Sandakan and Ranau next month. An invitation has also been issued to the shadow minister. He has indicated to me that, subject to his leader's approval, unless he nominates someone else, he will be joining that pilgrimage. I commend the history of Sandakan-Ranau to all members of this House and, indeed, to all Australians.30073007Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, have you, your office or your department given consideration to watering down the current no disadvantage test and replacing it with a single stripped-down benchmark award for the no disadvantage test?3007Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—In the last election, the government had a detailed policy which we released.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Did you change it? Are you working on it now?WI4Mr REITH—I am very happy to answer that question and, in fact, that is exactly what I was going to inform the House. Members will appreciate that when a government has a policy position we need to take that policy position and to transform the general policy, as outlined in the election, into a bill. It is public knowledge that the government intends to introduce a workplace relations amendment bill at some stage in the middle of the year—perhaps June or thereabouts. Obviously, we have been discussing how we will go about the implementation of the government's policy.In terms of what is our policy, the policy is as announced. Obviously, there are the usual processes of discussion about how we will ensure that that legislative package, when it is introduced into the House, reflects the policy position of the government. That is just a normal conventional process which we are sensibly going about.To answer your question further, last year we put out discussion papers—for example, on the role of the commission. We put out discussion papers on secret ballots. We have had submissions on those issues and we have had discussions on them, obviously, between me and my department. You would hardly expect otherwise.30083008Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Has the minister seen the latest reports of the effectiveness of the government's Work for the Dole Scheme? Could the minister outline to the House the findings of the study? How does Work for the Dole compare with the former government's labour market programs? Why are some observers continuing to undermine the scheme?3008Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Grey for the question and for the close interest he takes in the Work for the Dole projects in his electorate. Based on encouraging early results, the government expanded Work for the Dole from a 10,000-place pilot scheme to 125,000 places over four years. I am pleased to say that further evaluation has confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Analysis of that initial pilot program shows that 32 per cent of Work for the Dole participants have gone on to unsubsidised work or to further education or training at a cost of $3,900 per success.This compares very favourably with the Working Nation programs under the former government. For instance, the LEAP program had a 26 per cent success rate at the cost of $26,900 per outcome. The Jobskills program had a 30 per cent success rate at the cost of $36,000 per outcome. The New Work Opportunities program, which was really the flagship labour market program under the former government, had a 21 per cent success rate at the cost of $52,000 per outcome. It is clear that, compared with Working Nation programs, Work for the Dole is getting results which are significantly better for job seekers, and far better for taxpayers.Work for the Dole is not so much a training program as a work experience program, because this government believes that the best training for work is work itself. That is what the government believes, and that is what the member for Melbourne believes because the member for Melbourne said of the former government's Working Nation programs, `They led to perverse outcomes, with some unemployed people forced to undertake inappropriate and even demoralising training.'I have been asked why some observers are still undermining this scheme. The answer is quite simple: members opposite are slaves to the union movement and quite unrepresentative of the Australian people. Some 14 per cent of Australian adults are members of the trade union movement. The percentage of members opposite who are members of the trade union movement is not 30 per cent, it is not 50 per cent, it is not 70 per cent—it is 100 per cent. Every one of them is a trade union member because they are required to be by the Labor Party.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: this is just about as relevant as if I said that the majority of you had family trusts—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I respect the Leader of the Opposition's point of order and I was about to rule. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my right. The minister has the call. The minister will come back to the text of the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I was asked, `Why are some members opposite continuing to undermine this scheme?' They will never get anywhere with the Australian people while they believe in government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions.30093009Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr Speaker, I am a trade unionist and proud of it. My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Does the minister recall his response to the tax credits proposal of 8 November last, and I quote:Well it's not one which we're leaping to accept.Does this remain the case or has the minister, his office or his department considered introducing an earned income tax credit over a range of family incomes?3009Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Tax matters are a matter for the Treasurer. In respect of the tax credit, I can tell the honourable member that the BCA this week came to Canberra and gave me a briefing on their tax credit proposal. I have otherwise nothing to say.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will recognise the member for Batman.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—With respect, it was a very specific question to the minister—not the Treasurer; the minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will have to have a point of order.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What is he up to?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will resume his seat.30093009Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister outline the current situation regarding the deadline to access the government's waterfront reform funds?3009Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question in relation to waterfront reform. The 12 stevedoring companies which submitted restructuring plans by 31 December last year have in fact until 30 April to implement those plans and access funds provided under the government's reform package announced on 8 April last year. Two of the companies, Strang Stevedoring and Northern Shipping and Stevedoring, have qualified for redundancy related payments, and the details of those payments are now being settled.Stevedores were advised of that funding deadline in December. The clock is ticking. Those elements of the MUA which seek to continue to frustrate reform would be well advised, I think, to look to the longer term interests of their members. It is time indeed, I think, for some constructive action and commitment from the MUA. Too many jobs in the maritime area have been lost because reform has been opposed.With regard to stevedoring reform and the deadline to access funds, I believe we have been firm but absolutely fair. The government is not in any way threatening the parties: we are simply stating the facts. Our obligation is to see that waterfront reform is delivered as soon as possible, and that is to the very great advantage of this entire community.30093009Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the issue of earned income tax credits was considered last year by the employment committee of cabinet and the Taxation Reform Task Force but was deferred for later consideration? Isn't the fact that some ministers are now actively reconsidering tax credits proof that your new tax system is deficient? Will the Prime Minister rule out introducing an earned income tax credit?3009Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. Can I just confirm to him and to the Australian public that the government I lead is committed to a fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system. The reform to which we are committed is the one we took to the last election, and the sooner that you get on and pass the legislation the more respect you will earn.30103010Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. I refer to a number of press reports suggesting that the Commonwealth's commitment to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games may be wavering. What is the federal government's role in the promotion of Australia, its sporting prowess and its expertise that we are going to give the world?3010Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for the question and for his interest in tourism. It is a recognition of a well-known trend in tourism that sports events and attractions get people to come to an area and to spend money in an area. That is something that the previous government of New South Wales recognised when it sought to get the Olympics, and it is something that the Victorian government has recognised in its pursuit of the Bledisloe Cup, the State of Origin, the Grand Prix and, now, the Commonwealth Games.As a federal government, we support those sorts of initiatives by state governments. We have not noticed any such initiative in recent times from the current New South Wales government. In relation to the Olympic Games, we have seen nothing from the Bob Carr state government in pursuit of event tourism. This government is spending in excess of—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—If I could take a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker, has the minister not heard of the Australian Masters Games which the New South Wales government has just secured for Newcastle?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will resume his seat. I warn the member for Hunter. That was, as he knew from the moment he left his seat, a frivolous point of order.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—Whilst it is important to note that state governments do carry the risk for these games to make sure they are financially viable and successful, this government is spending in excess of half a billion dollars—that is half a billion dollars, Mr Speaker—to make sure that Australia positions itself to gain the greatest benefit and the most successful image for Australia into the next millennium from the Olympic Games.The Commonwealth has already provided $150 million for games facilities and they are lasting edifices that will benefit the people of Sydney. We have seen the situation where the State of Origin between New South Wales and Queensland has in fact been played out in Victoria where they have a stadium with a capacity of 80,000 people. We now see New South Wales and Sydney finally getting a stadium which befits a city of four million people. We have also spent $25 million on the relocation of the RAS showgrounds to Homebush. In February 1996, we saw the Prime Minister commit the incoming coalition government to the remainder of the $135 million to the Olympic Athlete Program, and that is for our Paralympians as well as for our Olympians.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne has been warned.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—We are looking to see our athletes be more successful at the 2000 Games than they have ever been before. That is quite an achievement, given the medal tally that we got at the Atlanta games. We are also looking to give a $5 million investment into drug research and drug testing to catch any drug cheats at the 2000 Games. We are sending a very strong message to athletes that they are role models and that it is important that, if they think about taking drugs during the Sydney games, they will be caught. We are taking a very tough line on drug cheats.We expect overall from the Olympic Games to get an extra 1.6 million visitors to Australia because of the images that we can portray successfully overseas. We also expect to generate from those visitors $6.1 billion of additional revenue, and this will create 150,000 new jobs. That is something that even the opposition cannot carp about.I recently launched a $150 million campaign by the Australian Tourist Commission looking at how we market Australia. In addition to that, we are spending $7 million to promote business links from the Olympic Games. We are looking at an Olympic visitor program and we are looking at a business links program where we will host an Incat catamaran in Darling Harbour and have a business club for international visitors to our shores who are looking to do business in Australia and formulating links for them. We expect to see a lot of spin-offs for Australian manufacturers in the sporting industry, as well as in Australian business.Mr Danby interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports.Mr Danby interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports chooses simply to ignore the chair and can consider himself warned.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—This government is spending in excess of half a billion dollars to make sure that Australia positions itself in the best manner possible. We are looking at further issues of security, immigration, customs, media activity, defence and health care associated with the games. This government is really making sure that Australia positions itself very well in the year 2000.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker301130113011McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—During question time, the Prime Minister advised the House that the Joint House Department, which is administered by you, commissioned a report from the architects Mitchell, Giurgola and Thorp on the refurbishment of his office. As you are responsible for the Joint House Department, will you table that report and any correspondence between the Joint House Department and the Prime Minister's office relating to this matter?3011Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I indicate to the member for Watson that I will take this matter up with the Joint House Department. I have, however, made some preliminary inquiries and indicat ed that the Prime Minister's action could scarcely be said to have set a precedent.30113011McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, my further question to you is: will you table this report, for which you have responsibility, and any correspondence between the Joint House Department and the Prime Minister?3011Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have indicated to the member for Watson that it is my intention to seek a report from the Joint House Department. I will then determine whether or not it will be tabled and, as I have said, in the preliminary inquiries I have made, I would have thought that what the Prime Minister has said is consistent with the past practice of Speakers and the Joint House Department.Personal Explanations301115:05:003011Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler may proceed.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Yesterday, the member for Eden-Monaro issued a press release headed `New South Wales Labor's Real Forest Policy Revealed', in which he took a sarcastic interjection by me towards this incompetent minister over here out of context. I support the forest and jobs legislation passed by the Carr Labor government with the support of the Liberals and the Nationals in the New South Wales parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.15:06:003011Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim to be misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes, I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—In question time today the Treasurer, again misleading the parliament, said I had made no speeches on the economy. I have made a number of speeches on the economy, and if the Treasurer would like to come along on Friday he can hear another one.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Documents30123012Reith, 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:The Health Insurance Commission Equity and Diversity Program Annual ReportDebate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance3012301210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Batman proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's lack of original and positive proposals to respond to the unemployment crisis.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—15:08:003012Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this afternoon to speak on the most important issue of jobs, and in addressing that issue, to discuss the lack of original and positive proposals in response to the unemployment crisis that confronts Australia at the moment. I will deal with the agenda of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and Leader of the House. We should look at the agenda of the minister as he escapes the House.Born in July 1950, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Busi ness likes to think of himself as a modern man. He was elected to parliament on 4 December 1982, put out to pasture in 1983 and returned in 1984. I think it is fair to say that the minister is a person who likes to collect titles. We only have to look at the recent election to see how he goes about collecting titles. Since the election in March 1996, he has added workplace relations, employment and small business to his original responsibilities of industrial relations and Leader of the House.Not only does he like to collect titles but, unfortunately, he is not a person you would describe as a team player or a very loyal person. This is borne out in a document that I want to address this afternoon. The whole thrust of the document is not about trying to create an environment that will lead to sustained jobs growth in Australia but, unfortunately, is an endeavour to engender and encourage class war and division in Australia.When you read this document, you get the thrust of the real Peter Reith, Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—and, I must add, Leader of the House. He wants to create the feeling that he is urbane and friendly, and from time to time we see a smiling image. He is even trying to teach his apprentice, the Minister for Employment Services, this approach to political life, but we all know from question time that that approach is wearing very thin.Under the smiles and the friendly, hail-fellow-well-met style, we find an old class warrior, who, unfortunately, is the worst type of class warrior. I would have thought that a minister of the Crown, when elected to that high office, should adopt the approach that his responsibilities are to seek to put aside what he might believe in his heart, to try to develop a sense of decency and to adopt the approach, `I hold this high office because I am here to try to work out what is in the best interests of all Australians.'The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business approaches his job on the basis of class war. It is in that context that I draw the attention of the House to a speech that the minister gave at a busi ness lunch in Perth last year. In that speech, he said:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.I want to repeat that quote because it goes to the heart of the series of questions that the opposition put to the minister this afternoon. Again, I quote:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.It is against that backdrop that we are debating a real issue of public importance today. We could debate the issue on the basis of scorn and derision. We could throw up issues of who on the frontbench has trusts, why they have trusts, and why, through their minimisation of tax, they are seeking to make it harder for governments, from a revenue point of view, to deliver services which the Australian public expects.On 5 February, the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised, at long last, the need for a bipartisan approach to the most important issue in Australia at the moment, which is jobs growth and, more importantly, an equitable share of those jobs across the length and breadth of Australia. I say that with some strength, not because of our backgrounds—some of us are trade union officials and proud of it—and not because some of our parents were formerly politicians, but because of the nature of the electorates that we represent. For whatever reason, we tend to represent areas of disadvantage. How easy it would be to represent a seat in the northern suburbs of Sydney, such as that occupied by the Minister for Employment Services. What an easy job it would be—decent levels of employment, a fair level of prosperity and not a bad quality of life.I compare that with the types of seats represented on this side of the House. We can go through them: the problems of Western Sydney, such as in the seat of Werriwa; the problems of Fowler; the problems of Throsby on the New South Wales South Coast; the problems of the northern suburbs of Mel bourne—my own seat of Batman—where we have unemployment far higher than the national average.So we raise these issues today not on the basis of mere point scoring but on the basis that the time has come for the government and, more importantly, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, to come clean. That is what it is about: honesty in government. That is what the questions today went to. They went to the heart of why we were elected here—and this applies to the majority of us on both sides of the House. We were elected not only on the basis that, irrespective of backgrounds, we want to do the best job for the people we represent; we were also elected on the basis that we would seek to bring honesty to government, and that there would be no secret plans based on punishment which, unfortunately, is the thrust of the minister's secret agenda—you know, the scribblings from the penthouse on St Kilda Road.I am not worried about people writing books and putting ideas forward. The Minister for Employment Services has been known to write a few books and a few speeches on the way through. The problem with respect to some of those people is that we are now operating in the real world, the tough world of decision making—we have left university—unlike the petty point scoring of the Minister for Employment Services.We live in a dynamic world. We learn from our mistakes and we seek to improve our performance in government. I therefore suggest that, yes, we do need a bipartisan approach to government. We are vitally concerned about looking after the unemployed in Australia at the moment, not just the young people but also the mature age people, many from a blue collar background with family responsibilities who are doing it awful tough at the moment.The Minister for Employment Services has not read the document that I will make available this afternoon. I am offended by suggestions in this document from his senior minister that there is no real major problem in Australia when it comes to mature age unemployment. He goes on to suggest—and this is driven by their mate Mr Textor—that `for appearances sake we might badge a few programs and make it look as if we are trying to do something.' That is just not good enough. Australia's unemployed and their families deserve better, and I will tell you what they also deserve better. If we are to get a sense of bipartisanship on the issue of unemployment, we deserve better than a third-term agenda that is based on bombs, grenades, balaclavas, dogs and really bad booby traps. That is the basis of this document: it is a return to the division that we saw last year on the waterfront.The minister likes to question our trade union background. I simply say that in the history of the trade union movement there were excesses, but this side of the House was part of the modernisation of the Australian trade union movement. We learnt that there was a new world order. We learnt about globalisation and the need for Australia to be able to compete internationally in order to try to advance the standard of living of not only trade unionists but, more importantly, all Australians. That is what the trade union movement is concerned about. It is not concerned about inward looking class statements such as that made by the minister for workplace relations in Perth last year. It is concerned about a program of action that is based on compassion and aggression internationally to create decent jobs in Australia, based on Australia competing on fair wages and conditions of employment for a fair day's work but, more importantly, based on developing in Australia through a relevant training agenda the most skilled work force in the world.That is why I say it sickens me, as someone who had to be part of those hard decisions. The minister talked about me in 1977. I started with the union movement in November 1975. I went through it all—the class war of the Fraser years and the sense brought to government by Keating and Hawke, with the support of all Australians, of one Australia—us all pulling together and facing up to some of the mistakes and excesses of the past. That was not easy. When it comes to populism, I can think of disputes such as one just before I came into parliament. I was standing at a mass meeting of over 2,000 workers at Mt Isa who were screaming for my blood, addressing them on the basis that they had to get back to work, modernise their workplace and look at how they could cooperate with employers. And who did I have running around the picket lines trying to undermine me in my desire to develop a sense of cooperation in Mt Isa? None other than a member of the government, the member for Kennedy. Class war and division—we know on which side of the House it operates.The deputy leader, with the support of the whole of the Labor Party Australia wide is right: unemployment is at a crisis point. We need a bipartisan approach to this issue. Where are the ideas coming from? They are coming from this side of the House. We understand about workplace relations and cooperation. We also understand about protecting the disadvantaged in the work force—many of whom are women and others who, unfortunately, are workers with a disability. We also understand about the poverty traps and tax credits. We understand about training and we understand about regional development.But we cannot understand a poisoned, narrow-minded approach to Australia as we move into the 21st century that says that the second-form agenda, based on the work of Mr Textor and a poll-driven government is as follows: we completely sideline the award system; we sideline the Industrial Relations Commission; we abolish the living wage case before the commission and we replace it with living wage panels made up of those really friendly people from the Productivity Commission, the Reserve Bank and Treasury.It gets worse. This is, I suppose, the issue of reciprocal obligation. I believe in it. I was a trade union official when the Labor Party came to talk to the union movement about its responsibilities to the unemployed. Not only did we embrace the reciprocal obligation; we also brought in the training wage in acknowledgment of the fact that some of the long-term unemployed are not necessarily as skilled as those at work with a work history.I move on to their agenda for reciprocal obligation: people pulling their weight. Two sides to the bargain. The unemployed are good people. They want to work. But they are limiting access to social security allowances to no more than six months. They are limiting access to youth allowances and hiding real unemployment numbers by rapidly expanding compulsory work for the dole. I end on this point: we have exposed the real agenda. Australia deserves better. I say, on behalf of the Labor opposition, that we are part and want to be part of the future direction of Australia. We want a bipartisan approach to unemployment, and we want to put to bed the class war. We have learned. When will you learn?15:23:003015Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I am perfectly prepared to concede goodwill, enthusiasm and dedication to the member for Batman and other members opposite as long as they will return the compliment to members of the government. I will welcome the statement today by the member for Batman about the dedication of the opposition in tackling the unemployment cancer provided he will also welcome the dedication that we on this side have to doing precisely the same thing. There is no higher cause, there is no more important issue, there is no more urgent national task than bringing unemployment down and keeping it down. I welcome many of the things that were said by the member for Batman today, but I wish that he had been prepared to concede to us the same goodwill, the same generosity of spirit, the same dedication to our country that he takes for himself. We are all Australians in this place. We all want to bring unemployment down.The member for Batman began with some cheap shots at my senior colleague the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. The minister is not nearly as tough on members opposite as is the Labor Party on itself. The member for Werriwa has been responsible for some pungent utterances against his colleagues. The member for Melbourne has made equally sharp criticisms of his colleagues. I seem to recall the former Prime Minister Mr Keating describing the former member for Fraser as a `complete buffoon' in an interview he gave to Gerard Henderson some years ago. Former Senator Jim McClelland was a legendary acid-tongued individual. It was said by one of his former New South Wales Labor colleagues that his greatest fault was that he said the first vicious thing that came into his head. One of the things that he recently said, just before he died, was that the Leader of the Opposition was nothing but an overweight lightweight. The mere fact that there are robust exchanges in this parliament should not be allowed to mask the complete dedication that this government and members of the coalition have to tackling the cancer of unemployment.As the Treasurer said today in answer to a question during question time, under this government inflation has averaged one per cent. Under the former government it averaged over five per cent. Under this government productivity growth has averaged three per cent. Under the former government it averaged 1.5 per cent. Under this government real wages have on average grown by 2.5 per cent. Under the former government they grew on average by just half a per cent.This government has a good story to tell. This government has a proud record. Sure, we would like it to be better—who would not? But the fact is it is a good record, and certainly it stands comparison with the record of members opposite who had 13 years in which to address this problem. Since this government came into office total employment has risen by nearly 400,000. In 1998 alone nearly 200,000 new jobs were created in Australia. That represents annual growth of 2.1 per cent compared with an average of under one per cent for the whole of the OECD area.At present unemployment is 7.5 per cent, the lowest since September 1990. It is still too high. Of course we concede that. We would be crazy not to concede that. We would betray the Australian people if we did not concede that. But it is heading in the right direction. I should point out to the member for Denison that the rate was, I think, 8.5 per cent in March 1996, so things are going in the right direction. It peaked at 11 per cent in December 1992. That was the former Prime Minister's worst gift to Australia. Youth unemployment is still far too high, but it is now 24 per cent which is a significant, although not satisfactory, fall from March 1996. I should also point out that youth unemployment as a percentage of the teenage population is just 5.4 per cent. Long-term unemployment is also coming down. It is now about 230,000 which is well down from a peak of 350,000 during the former government's recession that we had to have.I would hate to give the impression that this government is complacent or triumphant about employment and unemployment issues. We must always be doing more. We are doing a very great deal. The problem with members opposite is that despite the enthusiasm and the sincerity, despite the fact that there were some good ideas and some innovative policies under the Keating government—of course we must concede that—there is this mighty sacred cow that members opposite have never been prepared to slaughter—that is, government in the interests of the trade union movement. It has been pointed out by me and by others in this parliament that 50 per cent of the Labor Party's 1996 parliamentary intake are former union officials. There is nothing wrong with trade unions. I was a member of a trade union for some years when I was a journalist. I recall one day at Australian Consolidated Press proposing a motion to go on strike when the employer had, in my view, unfairly dismissed a number of my colleagues. I have a lot of respect for the union movement. I just think that the union movement should not be privileged. The union movement should have no special standing or status beyond that attributed to any other sectional group in our society. That is the problem. Fifty per cent of the new intake are former union officials, and 52 per cent of the frontbench are former union officials. If you listened to the maiden speeches of the new intake you would think that Paul Keating had never been Prime Minister and certainly that he had never had an economic policy. You would think the Berlin Wall had never fallen, reading through their maiden speeches. The problem is that they are slaves to the unions and slaves to the public sector. They totally believe in government of the unions, by the unions and for the unions. This government has pursued three broad strategies to bring unemployment down. The first strategy is obviously to produce a more buoyant economy. To that end we have, at considerable political cost and not without pain in the general community, substantially reduced federal government spending. We have shaved about $10 billion off federal government outlays since we came into office. We have not done it because we enjoy being Uncle Scrooge. We have not done it because we like the screams of pain and suffering, some real and some confected, that welcome policies of this sort. We have done it because it is the only way to get interest rates down, and low interest rates and a more buoyant private sector economy are the best gift that we can give to the unemployed people of Australia, because that is where the jobs are generated to give them the life, the future and the hope that they need.The second thing we have done is try to produce a more productive work force. That is why my senior colleague has pursued so tenaciously industrial relations reform, even in the teeth of obstruction from the former Leader of the Australian Democrats and current Labor frontbencher, the member for Dickson. We want those people who are in work to be able to work more efficiently and more productively because that is the way that they can be paid more, that is the way that our company profits can increase and that is the way that the economy can expand.We have also pursued heroically, in the person of the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, a strong reform of the education and training sector. The member for Goldstein is a great and distinguished academic, yet he has taken to heart the interests of those 70 per cent of Australians who never go near a university. Thanks to the reforms that he has implemented, there are now more apprentices and trainees in Australia than at any time in our history. I do not want to blow my own trumpet on this; I simply want to say that one of the other great legacies of the member for Goldstein is the Job Network. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Senator Vanstone, now Minister for Justice, deserve enormous credit for having the vision and the courage to put in place a Job Network which is working far better than the old CES at the vital task of ensuring that what jobs are available are filled as quickly as possible by the best possible people.The third broad strand that we have pursued is creating a culture of work in this country. The most important single change that we have made is introducing the principle of mutual obligation. This is a much maligned and much misunderstood principle. Mutual obligation is not about punishing unemployed people, it is about empowering them. If someone cannot read and write, if they cannot count, if they cannot think, they are no good to themselves, they are no good to their community and they are no good to their families. They need the help that this government is giving them through the programs that we have put in place under mutual obligation. There is nothing good in telling people that a life of idleness is acceptable. The only preparation for work is work, and mutual obligation is giving people the work experience that they need if they are going to make the most of the rest of their lives. Telling people that they can sit idly by and lead a good life, telling people that the world owes them a living or telling people that someone else will do it all for them is not doing them any favours. It is condemning them to a life that no member opposite, if he or she was to think clearly about it, would want.I think there are a great deal of original policies in our program. As I said, the Job Network is a world first. No other country anywhere in the world has taken this step. No other country anywhere in the world has put the provision of employment services completely into the hands of the community sector and the private sector. We have done this because we trust the people, because we trust organisations like the Salvation Army, Mission Australia, Centacare and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. We trust them to do a better job than bureaucracies, however hard-working and however decent. We trust them because we know that they are close to the people and we know that they have the welfare of those they serve at their heart. They are not clock watchers, they are not people who follow pettifogging rules, they are not people who knock off at five o'clock whether or not there is a problem to be solved—they are people who will go the extra mile for those they seek to serve. That is why we have given them the prime responsibility for delivering these very important services to their fellow Australians.I am delighted that our Job Network is attracting international attention and international interest. In fact, we recently had a large delegation of British members of parliament coming to Australia to learn about the Job Network and to see what aspects of that they could implement in Britain. As this parliament can guess, I am myself an Anglophile, but I am delighted to see that these days we have much more to teach them than they have to teach us.I will concede that mutual obligation is a development of the principle of reciprocal obligation put in place by the former Labor government. We have taken it further. We have said to young people that it is not enough simply to look for work. We have said, `If, having looked for work, none is available, we will empower you by offering to you programs and projects that will enable you to make the most of your lives.' I fail to understand the self-righteousness of members opposite over this. We have taken a good idea from Labor and further developed it. We have done to this principle what the Labor Party should have done if it had had more time in office.To the extent that our ideas are supposedly not original, it is only because we thought of them before this stint in government. Work for the Dole has recently been attributed in the press to American academics. In fact, the first publicly formulated work for the dole plan that I can find was the policy of the community service scheme that we took to the election in 1987.Our policies are original and positive. We are not pursuing in respect of unemployment the classic textbook theories. We are not just cutting wages. We are not cutting wages at all—they are going up by 2.5 per cent. Some wages are going up by much more if productivity increases. We are not just mindlessly boosting spending. We are selectively increasing spending in areas where it will help rather than simply spending first and thinking later, which all too often was the policy of the former government. Our policy is smarter work and more clever spending. The beauty of all of that is that it is working, and members opposite should acknowledge that. (Time expired)15:38:003018Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The Howard government is a no-ideas government. It lacks any original thoughts or positive proposals to respond to the unemployment crisis faced by Australia. It has not come up with one new idea, policy or initiative to help the unemployed or to reduce the unemployment problem. To the government, it is business as usual and more luck to those who can survive on their own. This government's agenda is simple: it is about lower wages and higher taxes. That is the only agenda the government has. This is its vision. This is where it wants Australia to be in the future.We on this side of the House have been heavily criticised because we have original ideas. We have been criticised because we write books. We have been criticised because we are prepared to challenge the status quo, unlike the government, which dredges up outdated systems from Europe and America and hopes that no-one will notice. It would be a sad day if we were to give up trying to do better for the people of Australia. We cannot accept that nothing more can be done and, therefore, people should just accept what they are given. We will never be satisfied that all that can be done has been done. I am proud to belong to a party that has this fortitude and courage.Where are the new ideas from the front bench on the government side? Where are the new ideas from the back bench? Where are any new or positive ideas from this whole government? In fact, there are none: no new ideas and no books, unless of course you want to include the only recent book of note, and that was written by Bob Ellis.This government is living in the past in a policy vacuum with a back to the future approach to policy. Instead, this government should be investing in people, industry and innovation. We should be investing in education and training. We should be looking to our youth for new ideas and inspiration. We need to value the contribution that can be made by our older citizens and we need to accept that, with adequate training, workers can have long and meaningful employment in ever changing industries.We need a government that has the courage to commit resources and funding to where it will do the most good. There is a huge role for government to play in achieving all of these goals—and it can be done. Reciprocal obligation means the government has a responsibility also. The Labor Party is committed to all Australians who want a guarantee for a better future.No-one has been fooled by the systematic program of attacks on ordinary workers and families. The attacks on workers have been thorough and deeply felt. The government's idea of reform is dogs and balaclavas on Australia's wharves. To them, reform is about punishing those with literacy problems who have been let down by the education system, a system reeling from slashed budgets. To the government, reform is about making it harder for people to qualify for assistance and decreasing the availability of services provided. It is about shifting the goalposts of eligibility.When the government talks about sound financial management and the budget surplus figures, it is really talking about how many more dollars they have scrooged from the pockets of ordinary workers and families. Literacy programs should be used to assist the unemployed to get jobs, not as a means to reduce welfare numbers. Where is the government's responsibility to mutual obligation when it only hands out the stick and definitely not the carrot?They have cut funding to Centrelink and want 5,000 more jobs to be cut. The system by which the unemployed are supposed to get help and find work has failed. Up to 80 per cent of people that try to get through to Centrelink are failed by this government's system. So, when the unemployed try to get assistance with literacy programs, the government will fail them before they start because of the lack of resources at Centrelink. This is just another example of the Howard government's push polling approach, a policy devoid of commitments and concern for those in need.The government needs to explain the theory of economic growth to the six million customers of Centrelink who are increasingly becoming disenfranchised as their calls go unanswered. The only growth they see are the debts of trying to provide for their families. It is not good enough for a government to scapegoat or punish the unemployed for a problem they did not create, while this government eats caviar and drinks champagne. This government has not yet realised that the people they attack may be unemployed, and some may have problems with literacy, but they will not have any problems filling out the ballot paper at the next election.The government's approach to the Work for the Dole scheme has been based purely on popular opinion and polling than on any new idea or credible approach to assisting the jobless. In 1996 the Howard government slashed $1 billion from training programs and undermined the highly effective Skillshare system. Their solution is to reinvent Work for the Dole by providing no training and no jobs. Again, it is a matter for the government to blame the unemployed but do nothing to help.The government is devoid of any new ideas or positive approaches to solving the unemployment problem in Australia. The government has persisted with an ideologically driven class division by its attempts to remove unfair dismissal laws. This is another example of the job destroying old ideas of the past coming from this conservative government. The attacks by this government on the unfair dismissal laws are designed to make it easy for unscrupulous employers to sack people at will.This is a job destroying policy. The very fact that an arbitrary limit of 15 employees has been set is in itself an incentive for small business not to employ more than this number so as to fall within the regulations. This will stunt business growth and it will ensure that some businesses will go to extremes to find loopholes. Small business, when asked what they would like to see most changed, usually respond by saying `less paperwork'. So what does the government do? It proposes to introduce the paperwork nightmare called the GST.The government justifies its position by saying that the passage of these regulations would create jobs, yet the minister refuses to use his own department's research showing that less than one per cent of businesses see the unfair dismissal laws as any reason not to employ someone. Time and time again this government trots out dodgy figures produced by an even dodgier methodology, figures that are a result of nothing more than push polling. The government's claim that this will create 50,000 jobs is totally baseless and it flies in the face of the reality of the many more jobs destroyed by the government to date—the countless jobs from the Public Service, our schools, our universities and government service provision agencies.The future for many workers is in rapidly changing industries, and that future is in training. It is expected that workers will have to learn new and different skills and will then have to retrain to keep up with changing technology. They will need support through government training programs and assistance—in particular, those who find themselves out of work. But instead of there being more emphasis on training and the skilling-up of workers, they slash programs and blame the unemployed for their situation. Again, this is a no-ideas government with no positive approach to fixing the problems of the unemployed.Mr Deputy Speaker, John Howard's government has broken so many promises that it is difficult for me just to pick a few, but indulge me for a moment. The Prime Minister and the government promised that a GST or anything like it was completely off the coalition's agenda. But, in fact, the Prime Minister spoke those now infamous words, `Never, ever.' `Never, ever will we introduce a GST.' Now they tell us that a GST will be good for the country; it will be good for the economy; it will be good for the unemployed; it will be good for absolutely everything.The government's chosen economic modeller, Chris Murphy, no longer agrees. He has cut his estimated benefit to Australia from $1 billion to $607 million. That represents just 65c per person per week. But wait: this is under the most favourable assumptions by the government's chosen modeller. So the economists have now agreed that it will not create jobs; in fact, it will destroy jobs. It will create more paperwork for small business. It will hurt charitable organisations. In fact, the Royal Lifesavers Association of Australia recently said that it may even cost lives. At the end of the day, there is nothing in it for the rest of us, either. So this is what this government calls reforms. This is what they call new ideas. This is what they call a positive approach.Minister Reith has made his leadership ambitions very clear. He thinks that the way he can do this is to destroy unions. And if workers get caught up along the way, he does not care. The Prime Minister's support for this is to the detriment of workers, whom he will also hurt with his `never, ever' GST.The government's attacks on unions and their members have far-reaching implications. Their attacks result in all workers being disadvantaged by the policies and decisions made by this government. This, unfortunately, is the only vehicle that Minister Reith has to bolster his public profile and fuel leadership pretensions. So what the rest of us get is a stage performance of Montague and Capulet in Romeo and Juliet. The only things missing are the swords, and the Australian workers are caught in the middle, with their award conditions being slashed and burned.The government's consistent ideological attacks on members of the opposition about unions are an absolute joke. We are from diverse and more representative backgrounds than this government's reserve grade frontbench. We are proud of our union history and standing up for the rights of workers. Unlike the government, we represent the interests of ordinary Australians. Our bosses are the people of Australia.The government have been in power now for about three years, with a dismal record of cutting programs, attacking workers and scapegoating the unemployed or anyone else who gets in their road. They have tried to introduce nursing home fees, persecuting old people and making sure that almost all Australians are far from being comfortable and relaxed.The policies and attitudes of the government frontbench are like reruns of Gilligan's Island. The story never changes and they never get off the island, but unlike Gilligan's Island, the characters are running around with balaclavas, Rottweilers and a `sack the workers' attitude. They still have no new ideas, they still have no new approach and they still will not do anything to fix the problems of the unemployed. (Time expired)15:48:003020Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I thank the member for Batman for delivering me the opportunity to speak on this MPI. Frankly, I was absolutely stunned that the opposition would choose to speak on this issue. It is absolutely unbelievable, with their record on unemployment, that they would choose to attack the government on unemployment.The first speaker, the member for Batman, in delivering an MPI on unemployment, gave us a five-minute dissertation on the biography of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. He had nothing to say. He went on to talk about bipartisanship. To me, bipartisanship requires something given from both sides. There is nothing coming from the other side. Bipartisanship means two people contributing. As far as I can tell, there are contributions coming from only one side of this parliament.One of the most amazing things that comes from the other side is the way that they consistently knock. The member for Batman knocked Mr Reith's statement about people making profits and owning private capital. What the hell is wrong with making profits? Where do you get wages from? How do you pay workers if you do not make a profit? If we knock everybody who makes a profit and invests in private capital, what jobs will you have? Zero. It is ludicrous to spend time knocking people who make profits.In no way am I—or, I am sure, anyone in the government—denying that more and more creative solutions need to be applied to this difficult problem. I am afraid that I do not have any magic answers. The opposition would lead you to think that they have magic answers. I do not think that they do, either. The reason I was so amazed that the opposition would propose an MPI on this matter is that it shows they have learnt nothing in opposition. They have not learnt that it is simply unsustainable to pour money, without any thought, into welfare and work programs. What happens when you do that? You get a $10 billion deficit. You spend more than you have got. You get record inflation and record high interest rates.What happens when you have these parameters? You get small businesses closing down, you get larger businesses downsizing and you get record high interest rates. What happens when you need to increase employment? You need small businesses opening up, you need large businesses upsizing and you need people investing in new projects.I am no economist, but I am amazed at the questions asked by the opposition during question time about the effect of the new tax system on employment. If there is clear evidence that the GDP is going to increase substantially, doesn't this mean that we are producing more? If we are producing more, doesn't that mean that somebody has to produce it? Doesn't this mean that people are working in new jobs?I make no apology for saying that we have to cost welfare and work programs. I also do not apologise for saying that there are some places where we need to spend money on capital input for some Work for the Dole schemes. But you cannot just spend, spend, spend, for the reasons I have outlined. The Job Network in my electorate is a resounding success in most places. Where there are jobs to be had, they are filling them far better than the CES did. Where there are no jobs and no prospects of jobs—and there are some areas in my electorate that do have that problem— we must be prepared to invest a little more to achieve better outcomes than just Work for the Dole.The government recognises that the current situation is not yet quite right. It was a huge culture shift for Australians to embrace the Job Network and I am amazed that it has been accepted so readily. It shows that Australians are prepared to embrace change where there is a long-term gain if perhaps a little short-term pain. Perhaps all Australians embrace this except for the Labor Party. It seems, though, that it is not all of the Labor Party. It seems that there is a fairly high degree of understanding of the real world amongst their ranks. I was heartened to hear the member for Canning last night at least speaking from a small business perspective. I disagree entirely with her logic, but at least there is someone over there who has some concept of what it is like to employ someone. Perhaps she might indicate to the leaders whether her business would employ a 16-year-old school leaver instead of a much more mature, settled and experienced 35-year-old, if she had to pay them the same amount.It is preposterous to suggest that abolishing youth wage rates will not impact on unemployment. Where do you guys come from? Where do you get your understanding of the real world from? Have you ever employed and trained someone? Paid their wages, their super, their workers comp? I have enjoyed working with my young employees over the years. I have seen them fall asleep at the front counter on a Saturday morning after a late night. I have helped them bend over the sink out the back and I have tried to get them to keep something down when they have had an enormous hangover. They were great days, but I assure you that they were more frequent with the young team than the more mature workers. These were great days, but you cannot afford to pay these guys the same as you pay someone who is more productive—who has a stronger grip on life and more responsibility.When I finished my pharmacy degree I was about 22. Even at that age, and having a degree from university, I started on a wage of $8,000 and progressed from there. I recog nised that I was not as useful to my boss as I would be in the future.The concept of mutual obligation is one area that will lead to more jobs and more employable young people. The Work for the Dole scheme, as the previous speaker from the government said, has led to 30 per cent or 40 per cent of these people going on to paid work or further education and training. We have allowed successive generations of people to come to expect that they can collect money without making any effort on their part. There is a group of Aboriginals up in the northern part of Queensland who call this `sit down money' and refuse to take it. This attitude itself contributes to the unemployment problem because we have allowed people to become unemployable. Projects such as Green Corps and the literacy and numeracy training prepare these people for the work force.I hear the argument that their self-esteem has been battered, why subject them to more trauma? This is a valid point. The last thing any of us would want to do is belittle someone who is struggling to read or write. However, aren't we doing them more harm by dooming them to a life of unemployment? Wouldn't giving them the ability to be able to check their change in a shop, read a street sign or fill in a job application form be a better way to try to help them obtain employment?If we continue down this track, it means we are striving for mediocrity not excellence. Adult life is full of striving and failing and learning what we are good at. Everybody has talents but if we do not challenge ourselves we may never learn what our talents are. Let us recognise that the system has let some Australians down and try to make it up to them. Let's not take the easy way out and say `near enough is good enough'. We owe it to these people to give it a try. We owe it to them to share the feeling of battling through and achieving something worthwhile.There should not be losers with this literacy and numeracy scheme. There will be many who come out at the other end with a great skill. There will be some who have given it a shot and that is all.We talk about unfair dismissal. Labor again refuses to admit that the unfair dismissal laws will have no impact on employment. They have no idea of the intrigues facing small business. They assume that all small business owners are ogres and all employees are angels. Most small business owners are people too. Most of them have a cooperative and mutually trusting relationship with their employees. If they cannot employ someone who will not steal, if they cannot employ someone they feel comfortable working with every day, who can they employ and why should they employ them? There is nothing worse, as an employer, than not looking forward to going to work every day because there is someone who is in your place of work with whom you do not get on, who hassles customers, who is obnoxious. Yet the owner of the small business has to go in and front that day after day and is able to do nothing about it.The Federal union party—UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Ha, ha!834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—Oh dear, I get mixed up when I look at the front bench over there. I meant to say the Federal Labor Party—I urge you: please stop your knee-jerk scab-lifting ways. Listen to those who know something of small business. Stop being obstructionist and do something positive for this country.Committees3022302230223022Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 8 March 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Amended report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reportsand private Members' business on Monday, 8 March 1999The Selection Committee has amended its determinations relating to the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 8 March 1999. The amended order of precedence and allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—STANDING COMMITTEE: Interim report on Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 1997-98.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 25 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1MRS CROSIO: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for the establishment and administration of a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and certain other liabilities owed to employees in the event of employer insolvency and for related purposes. (Notice given 9 December 1998. )2MR M. J. 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. (Notice given 11 February 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3MR CADMAN: To move—That the House:(1) notes with deep concern the high level of suicide in Australia;(2) expresses its dismay that young males, drug takers and residents of rural areas are particularly prone to take their lives;(3) conveys its sympathy to the families and friends who have been touched by the tragedy of suicide; and(4) commits itself as individuals and as a representative group of Australians to do everything possible to reduce the high level of suicide. (Notice given 15 February 1999. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4MRS HULL: To move—That this House calls on the Government to make provision for recurrent funding for student hostels servicing the school access needs of students in remote areas of Australia. (Notice given 15 February 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Garry NehlChair17 February 1999Report—by leave—adopted.Bills3023r7253023Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3023Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey) read a third time. Bills3024r6763024Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3024Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous3024Miscellaneous3024Motion (by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No 5, private members' business, being called on forthwith.302416:02:003024Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I move:That the amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations, as contained in the Statutory Rules 1998, No. 234, made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, be disallowed.These amendments represent the first step in the Howard government's plans to privatise air traffic control services and firefighting services at certain airports. The problem with this is that no-one knows exactly what those plans are—not the air traffic controllers, whose jobs and futures may be at stake; not the aviation industry; not the travelling public; and certainly, and most importantly in matters of public accountability, not this parliament.When it comes to air safety, in this country at the moment we simply do not have sufficient transparency and openness in decision making. Nevertheless, the government are asking us to sign off today on something for which they give us an assurance that the plans are well under way but the government have not made a decision yet. What we do know is that the government have asked CASA to develop standards for potential private provid ers. We know that the government have carried out a structural review of Airservices Australia, in which they look at how they will go about what they like to call `alternative sources of supply in air traffic control'. We know that they expect more than 1,000 jobs to be lost as part of the process. We also know that the government do not plan to publicly release the report of that structural review. We have no information on how the government plan to guarantee safety, price and standards of privatised air traffic control services. I do not think it is enough for the minister to say, as he did at the National Press Club a couple of hours ago, `Don't worry'; that he can tell you that these things are guaranteed.I do not think the privatisation debate has been won in this country. I think Australians are still, rightly, very sceptical of all the promises of what privatisation will provide and measure it against the evidence. Consequently, we have a lot of euphemisms flying around. We have `alternative sources of supply for private providers'; we have `introducing competition'; and—I like this one—we have `making tower services contestable'. We are probably going to have two airport control towers contesting each other to see who can get the business.At the Senate estimates hearing last week, Mr Dick Smith told us that he did not call it `privatisation'; he called it `local ownership'. At those same hearings, Mr Bill Pollard, the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia, made a very quaint observation. He said, `Look, when you say "privatised", to a lot of people that means different things.' You can make a survey of what has gone on around the world in different stages of privatisation: usually it means job losses; usually it means higher costs; usually it means lower levels of service, especially in the early years; and usually it means that standards are compromised because governments wanting to sell off public entities are worried that they will scare off potential buyers if they ask them to give too many guarantees, which will cost them money.There is a very important question here, about why we are being asked to allow these regulations to go through today, when the minister told the National Press Club that a final decision has not been made, and when we do not know the details of what the government is asking us to sign up to. We are being asked, yet again, to give some kind of blank cheque.We have had the lessons in this country. If you want a lesson in how to privatise by stealth, do what these amendments are doing. Step No. 1, you redefine. These regulations redefine air traffic service as including Airservices Australia or `a person providing air traffic services in cooperation with' Airservices Australia or `a person providing air traffic services under an arrangement with' Airservices Australia. In effect, these little or's, and their additions, ultimately require pilots to take instructions from someone other than Airservices Australia, and that paves the way for air traffic control services in this country to be provided by a private corporation. We have the government saying to us, `Just sign off on this pretty significant, open-ended proposition, and we'll get around to filling in all the details and telling them to you in our own good time.' You have got the timing the wrong way round, Minister. We have to have the details first and then we will seriously consider them. But please do not ask us to vote on them today, taking in trust the minister's words, `Don't worry, we'll look after all the guarantees'. That is a failure of accountability. It is treating parliament with a certain amount of contempt.The government has failed to address some serious concerns in a lot of key areas. The most serious is the question of guaranteeing aviation safety. Australians take our reputation for aviation safety very seriously indeed. We are told that CASA is drawing up licensing and operating standards for private providers of air traffic control services. Again, we have no knowledge of the details of those standards. Quite frankly, I find it very hard to believe that anyone in the coalition seriously believes that there is absolutely no safety risk at all in handing over air traffic control services to private operators who, by the very nature of being private, need to be motivated primarily to make money out of their operations. They are not in it through a sense of public responsibility.The other issue that you have not adequately assured us about is cost. We are told that costs will go down, but we have not seen any evidence to that effect. We do not know if there will be a price cap mechanism. We do not know if there will be a prices surveillance regime. What we have on the record for comparison is that airport owners around this country—and these are the people who, in some instances, are in line to take over air traffic control services—are already coming under fire for attempting to get around existing price cap mechanisms on aeronautical charges. You have put in place a process which you say will deliver some of these guarantees on prices, and already this one example of the process is breaking down. I do not think it is surprising that we say to you, `How can we have any confidence that the same thing will not happen with prices with respect to air traffic control services?'We also do not know about the effect of these regulations and this step towards privatisation of regional airports where air traffic control services cannot be run at a profit. Mr Pollard admitted last week that Airservices Australia was making a loss at regional and general aviation airports. He said, `The only reason it is not showing up in our bottom line is because of the government subsidy.' That is important, but we do not know whether that subsidy is going to continue if Airservices Australia no longer provides the services. We do not know whether loss-making towers may end up being closed, and we do not know whether or not these changes may exacerbate the pressure that already exists on smaller regional airports and regional operators that are already battling to maintain services.Finally, there is the very fundamental question of public responsibility and accountability, and the role of government. Labor is saying in no uncertain terms that this issue is not primarily an issue of service provision. This is an issue of public safety and public responsibility. This is a government responsibility. This is a core role-of- government responsibility to protect our reputation in international eyes and in domestic eyes for the very highest level of aviation safety. It is a responsibility of government, and it should remain a responsibility of government because it has to be motivated by the need to protect public safety, not by the need to make a profit.It is not about competition. It is not about air traffic control towers being duplicated at airports. It should not be about airlines and private pilots choosing to fly to one airport over another because its air traffic control services are cheaper. There might be some competition to provide services in the first place to see who gets the right to do it but, once that is done, we will yet again in this country simply be trading a publicly provided service for a private monopoly. And we will be doing that with no guarantee that safety will not be compromised, no guarantee on costs, no guarantee that the services themselves will be maintained at their current level, and no guarantee about the public's capacity to control, direct and scrutinise these services through their members of parliament.In conclusion, Labor believes that accountability and safety will be compromised by allowing these regulations changes to go ahead. We are not prepared to give the government the right, albeit a slightly disguised one, to take this very first step down the path to privatisation in this fundamental area of government responsibility.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?16:12:003026Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I second the motion. Open and accountable government means that government must get close to the people. People are sick and tired of the top-down approach of authorities. They want a bottom-up approach where policy comes from the community and not just from experts or elites. There is a serious question in these regulations guaranteeing aviation safety. I find it hard to believe that anyone in the coalition seriously believes that there is absolutely no safety risk at all in handing over air traffic control services to private operators.We have another example of this elite approach with the approval of the Brisbane airport master plan by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The community has been excluded and its views have been ridiculed. Nobody in my community doubts the importance of the airport to Brisbane's economic future, nor do they expect to be excluded or held hostage to a development proposal whose fundamental details have been deliberately hidden from them.The impact of the current proposal cannot be assessed because the flight paths have not been published. Simultaneously, we have proposals for privatisation of flight control. Not providing the flight paths is like announcing a new freeway without identifying the on and off ramps and the arterial roads that feed the freeway. These flight paths exist and have been deliberately withheld. I believe there must be a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all possible options, including a second airport for south-east Queensland, covering the economic, social, environmental and public health impacts.At the end of that process, we may or may not end up with a parallel runway after a comprehensive analysis, but essential information has been withheld and thus it is not possible to make a sensible and rational judgment now. As it stands, the master plan leaves the community in the dark. In a document of some 240 pages, only three pages superficially examine the options. The whole document was rigged so that only one conclusion could be reached: that is, a new parallel runway located 2.1 kilometres west of the existing runway. In his statement of approval, the transport minister claims that the master plan does not set in concrete a parallel runway. This is wrong. His Airports Act 1996, at section 95(5), says:. . . if the final master plan is in force for the airport the minister must not approve a draft major development plan unless it is consistent with the final master plan.Many suburbs in north-east Brisbane, as well as southern suburbs, will be affected by this parallel runway. Late in 1996, Airservices Australia announced new flight paths over the north-eastern suburbs. These changes were supported by the then Liberal member. They concentrated an extra 45 northern departures a day over the suburbs of Gordon Park, Kedron, Wavell Heights and Boondall. This traffic must increase with the new runway, as well as traffic arriving from the north over the suburbs of Aspley, Chermside, Kedron, Gordon Park, Wooloowin, Clayfield, Ascot, Albion, Hamilton and Hendra. The location of a new runway close to Shorncliffe, Deagon, Banyo, Nudgee Beach, Northgate, Nundah and Hamilton continues this policy of noise concentration in the north-eastern suburbs.The location of a new runway close to Shorncliffe, Deagon, Banyo, Nudgee Beach, Nudgee, Northgate, Nundah and Hamilton continues this policy of noise concentration in the north-eastern suburbs.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether you could instruct the member opposite to return to the subject at hand, that is, a disallowance motion in relation to some of the activities engaged in by Airservices. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Brisbane airport.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable minister. The honourable member for Lilley will speak again, and of course will speak—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am doing that because all of these suburbs are affected by air traffic control and all of these suburbs lie beneath the flight paths which are controlled by air traffic control towers which this government is trying to privatise. Claims by the airport authorities and the former Liberal member that northern suburbs will not be significantly affected by noise from a new parallel runway because more flights will fly in and out over Moreton Bay are completely deceitful.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—What have they got to hide?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Before I call the honourable minister, I would like to say to the member for Lilley that when he is told to resume his seat he should not continue speaking.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I am having my time chewed up by frivolous interjections.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services on a point of order.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Mr Deputy Speaker, the member opposite knows that in fact he is the one being frivolous in this. This is absurd. He cannot claim that he is being relevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—What is your point of order, Minister?4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—The point is that he needs to return to the matter at hand which is the disallowance motion in relation to the services provided by Airservices. The issue of traffic controllers determining how those services will be run is not relevant to this debate.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Air traffic controllers do not just serve airport users. They are responsible for the safety of all the people living under flight paths and for ensuring aircraft noise is minimised, not maximised, which is what some of your proposals may well do.In January 1995 I published a long-term plan to control aircraft noise in the northern suburbs, including a call for the identification of a new site for a second airport to minimise noise and tougher regulations governing aircraft arrival and take-off.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: as to the relevance of this particular speech, the government has facilitated the member for Dickson in putting up a disallowance motion. We are suddenly getting a policy statement from the current spokesman. All we ask them to do, having facilitated them in this fashion, is to address the issue.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—In the last 2½ years there has been a steady deterioration in noise management procedures surrounding the Brisbane airport—to which the minister is completely indifferent—and this noise will be exacerbated by the regulations that are currently before this House.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I will be brief. These regulations which are the subject of this disallowance motion have nothing to do with noise regulation as they are to do with other matters. The member has been given the opportunity to address the motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am listening very carefully to what the honourable member is saying, and I can see that there is some relevance2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Mr Deputy Speaker, you, as a regular traveller, know the importance of those who control air traffic and the relationship of that to the safety of people both in the air and on the ground. The concern that I have—which is very relevant to this regulation—is that, if the authorities cannot effectively police current regulations, how can anybody accept their claim that they will have world's best practice noise minimisation procedures for additional flights associated with a new runway? Since the release of the master plan I have received correspondence from hundreds of people in my electorate about these regulations and the master plan.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this is absurd. If the member opposite had a look at what he was debating he would see this is not an amendment. The thing that they are proposing to remove does not go to the issue of privatisation of services anyway; it goes to the issue of Airservices being allowed to contract out air services. If they actually had a look at their original act—Labor's original act—they would discover that that act allowed for the contracting out of air services. I submit that the member opposite is being entirely frivolous here. He is swallowing up time in an attempt to pursue another matter which more relevantly and appropriately should be taken up elsewhere. He should be instructed to return to the disallowance motion that they have put before the House and which we are facilitating.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—On the point of order, the chair has a difficulty in that the chair is trying to pick up the thread of the debate that has gone on before. I urge the honourable member for Lilley to be relevant to the disallowance motion before the House.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—In the northern and southern suburbs of Brisbane there are over half a million people who are directly affected by air safety, directly affected by the proposals to privatise air safety control and directly affected by the expansion of the airport which is contained in the airport master plan. The north-eastern suburbs of Brisbane are the apex of growth pressure in south-east Queensland. We are suffering from increasing noise pollution on the ground and in the air.This Sunday the Northside Airport Action Group will discuss the next stage of our campaign to highlight the problems caused by the government's approach to the airport, both in terms of air traffic control and the master plan. In addition to the action taken by the Northside Airport Action Group, Labor will seek the support of Senate minor parties for a wide-ranging Senate inquiry into the BAC's master plan. To this end I hope the inquiry is able to put local residents in Brisbane in the picture so they will not be left in the dark, as they have been by this minister, and so that they can participate and be informed.The only way the airport in Brisbane is going to grow and contribute to the economy is if it has a mature, productive, participatory relationship with the community. And if we have more of what we have had from this government—the hiding of essential facts, the failure to publish flight paths and, now the final indignity, the privatisation of air traffic control—public confidence in the airport and its operations will be shattered.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Mr Deputy Speaker, this really is absurd. I ask you to direct the member opposite to the matter at hand, the amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulation Act to permit the contracting out—not the privatisation—of air traffic control services by Airservices Australia. That is the matter before the House. We have in good faith facilitated the opposition in this matter. There is nothing to stop them using other forms of the House to pursue the matter of the Brisbane airport. They really, I think, have an obligation to behave in a more responsible way in relation to the matter they have put before us.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I understand the member for Lilley has finished his contribution.16:22:003028Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in support of the motion by the member for Dickson to disallow the amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1998, No. 234, made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988. In this debate, it is important to use plain language about what is being proposed. What we are facing is privatisation. Let us not mix words. This is not commercialisation, it is not corporatisation; it is de facto privatisation.Mr Anderson interjecting—Mr Swan interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The minister and the honourable member for Lilley will cease interjecting across the table. The honourable member for Griffith will continue.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I quote from the minister's response to a question from the member for Dickson on 12 November 1998 when he said:We have agreed to consider introducing competition into some aspects of Air Service's tower business. This will not occur until the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has developed appropriate operating and licensing standards . . . In terms of the question, the action that we have taken accords with a number of firm expressions of interest that the government has received from new airport lessees seeking to make tower services contestable.In other words, what we have here is the first step towards de facto privatisation of air traffic control services. Why? Because pressure has been brought to bear on the government from private concerns who are now lessees of various airport properties around the country in order to get a slice of the action. This is deleterious to the public interest; it is deleterious to the national interest.This comes to a core question addressed by the member for Dickson which relates to what are in fact the fundamental responsibilities of government, responsibilities which go to the heart of police powers, which go to the responsibilities of the armed services, the fire services and the ambulance services. Are we next going to see contracting out of things like the strategic and international policy division of the Department of Defence? Are we going to contract out the Army itself? I understand Sandline are looking for a job. Why do we not get them to take on the responsibilities of the Australian Defence Force because it might be cheaper? The bottom line is that this is an abdication of responsibility.There are at least four critical reasons why this particular motion is called for and why the privatisation of air traffic control services should be rejected. They relate to the points raised by the member for Dickson concerning safety. They relate to the question concerning provision of service across regional Australia. They relate to the question of the cost of the provision of these services to those who need them in regional centres.It also relates to the question raised by the member for Lilley about the adequacy of these new air traffic control services concerning the monitoring of noise. Noise goes to the heart of issues right across urban Australia where people are affected by proximate airports. That is what makes this whole issue of airport master plans and their recent considerations so germane to today's debate. That is why, for example, in the Senate today Labor has moved a motion establishing a Senate inquiry which will look into the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan and the government's handling of that master plan. The inquiry will address whether the Brisbane Airport Corporation has failed to adequately investigate alternative runway options, it will investigate whether the BAC failed to release flight path information to the community and why, and it will also investigate why the minister proceeded to endorse the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan when he had advice to the contrary from his own department concerning the failure of the Brisbane Airport Corporation to provide indicative flight path information to the community.That in turn leads to the discussion we had in this place earlier today concerning the matter of the advice provided by the minister's department last year—when he was not the minister—to the Brisbane Airport Corporation saying, `If you are going to proceed with this master plan, provide the community with indicative flight path information.' Why? Because the ANEF system is inadequate, according to the minister's own officials, to provide local communities with sufficient information about which to make intelligent judgments about how their streets and suburbs are going to be affected by this runway which is under consideration.This is not in my imagination. I quote from a letter from the First Assistant Secretary, Aviation Operations, of the minister's own department, Mr Paul Merner, where, referring to the 1995 Senate report on aircraft noise in Sydney—Falling on Deaf Ears—he advised the Chief Executive of the Brisbane Airport Corporation:. . . the ANEF system may be adequate for land use planning purposes, but it is not adequate for assessing the impact of changes and noise exposure.He went on to say that when the master plan was released to the community, in the interests of informing the local community, information on such things as indicative flight paths should also be provided.That was advice provided by the minister's own department to the Brisbane Airport Corporation prior to the release of that master plan. Yet what we had last Friday was the minister in question endorsing that master plan when the Brisbane Airport Corporation has said to the community of Brisbane, and indeed to the entire regulatory framework and structure available to the minister, `We don't give a damn about what your official says.' I think that is a complete dereliction of responsibility on the part of the minister because his own officials had provided contrary advice to the Brisbane Airport Corporation about how they conduct themselves.A Senate inquiry has now unfortunately become necessary because these matters have not been handled properly either by the Brisbane Airport Corporation or by the minister's handling of this matter when it has been put to him through the Brisbane airport master plan, which he endorsed last Friday.These are all relevant matters when we consider the whole question of the role of government as a regulator, as a custodian of the public interest and as a body which should have a central and continuing engagement in something as critical as the provision of air traffic control towers across the various airports of the Commonwealth.16:29:003030Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The first comment that I would make is that I find it absolutely extraordinary that those opposite can say that this is an example of how to privatise by stealth. This from people who, a matter of just a decade ago, were headed up by a Prime Minister who said, `All privatisation is abhorrent and absolutely frightful,' and then showed us the absolute textbook model of how to introduce something by stealth when they got into a bit of financial trouble with such little exercise—XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Not me. I didn't do it.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Oh! Not you, no!Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Labor says they are not going to do it anymore! That is exactly what they said about the Commonwealth Bank. That is exactly what they said when they privatised the first part of the Commonwealth Bank, `We're not going to do it anymore. Trust us.' Good grief! The transparency of it! The absolute transparency of it! The shadow minister might also contemplate that, in these matters—and I will come to it in a moment—their own act allowed for the contracting out, which, effectively, is what we are now arguing for.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—We don't like it!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You don't like it? You've shifted position! I see!Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—But you have shifted from your own position?Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—So, on privatisation, you would not do again what you did with the Commonwealth Bank?XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I am speaking about my portfolio.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You said a moment ago that you would not privatise that way again. In relation to this matter, you are saying now, as I understand it, that you would again intervene in matters of aviation safety when your own policy and your own act when you were in government made it impossible for you to do so—that in this instance you would also repeal this part of the act. But really, we may as well carry this right through. If we are saying that the private sector is never able to look after safety, it would be logical that the government should take over the manufacturing and distribution of 747s because we could not have one of these dreadful private sector companies building them.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I didn't say that. I said governments—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—No, but you might as well. That is a logical extent of your position, which is that only governments can ever act responsibly in relation to safety.In all seriousness, let me come to the matter before us, which is something that those opposite did not do. The regulation in question amends the current definition of air traffic service, which is limited to Airservices Australia in its capacity as provider of air services. Under this new regulation, this would be expanded to include other organisations in cooperation with or under an arrangement with Airservices Australia.There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the intention of the amendment of this regulation. Let me state quite categorically that this is not about the privatisation of Airservices Australia or any of its activities. This misunderstanding seems to be, largely, the result of material distributed by Civilair, which is the union representing the air traffic controllers. Nor is this a question of safety. Under the proposed amendments, Airservices will retain control of the service provider and will continue—I stress, continue—to apply current safety standards.Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—The question, with all the bleeding heart remarks about services in rural Australia, is one of providing tower services at regional airports at reasonable cost. The amendment would permit organisations—XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Oh! Affordable safety!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—We will come to that in a moment. The fact of the matter is that the courts have placed certain obligations on us which will, if they are not handled very carefully, result in more expensive services to country areas when that may not be neces sary. This amendment would permit organisations other than Airservices to provide air traffic services under contract.This means that, while Airservices maintains a regulatory responsibility of providing air traffic control tower services, somebody with better flexibility in their cost structure than Airservices, or with lower overheads or with the ability to operate different hours, would provide air traffic control services at an individual tower. But I repeat that the act will still require that the standard of provision of these services would be that of Airservices itself.Following a recent full Federal Court judgment, the subsidy provided previously by major capital city airports which went towards covering costs at regional airports and general aviation facilities cannot continue. While an appeal to the High Court is planned, the price restructuring will inevitably need to reflect the costs of each of the locations where the towers operate. It is worth remembering that the previous Labor government explicitly recognised the possibility that Airservices would contract out air traffic services.Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—We have just heard there has been a change of policy.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I said: I'm running this portfolio.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—So there is a change of Labor Party policy?XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I am in charge of this portfolio.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—And you would change the act in government?Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—So you would change your own act. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is worth remembering that, when your party was in power, you explicitly recognised the possibility that Airservices would contract out air traffic services. I wonder whether you knew your new star recruit was going to be an overarching regulationist of the sort that once stifled this country. That appears to be what you have got.The act allows Airservices to provide air traffic services itself, in cooperation with another organisation, or by arranging another organisation to provide the services on its behalf. In entering into any arrangements with any other organisation, Airservices would still be bound by the requirement in the act for Airservices to regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration in exercising its powers and performing its functions.In the short term, these regulations will enable owners and operators of airports to use organisations other than Airservices to provide air traffic services. This would allow airports to address the costs of their control towers, which the industry has subsidised for many years and which the government is currently subsidising heavily in an $11 million annual budget contribution.It is important to understand that the number of organisations with the expertise to provide these services is very limited. They are highly qualified and experienced and are certainly not fly-by-night operators. The main options would be SERCO—an organisation with experience in providing these services in the United Kingdom—and any Airservices air traffic controllers presently providing these services at an airport, who choose to form a corporation for this purpose. Beware, lest your own supporters are amongst those who would like to make alternative arrangements for providing the services they are currently engaged in.Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—There are also flow-on benefits if the opportunity for alternative service providers is open. CIRCO intends to use the option available under these regulations to set up an international training centre in Australia—something I would have thought you would have liked to have seen. If these regulations are disallowed, this opportunity for new business in Australia will almost certainly be lost.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—How many jobs will be lost on the way through? At least 1,000.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—That's an almost laughable suggestion. We are talking about a very isolated number of towers in the first instance. It may well be that local communities will decide to close the towers anyway if you move this amendment and force on them unacceptable price structures. To fully understand the implications of disallowing this regulation, consideration needs to be given to the current situation at the general aviation and smaller regional airports. It is vital that we understand which airports are most affected by any decision to allow these regulations, but currently subsidised airports are either capital city general aviation centres, which are major centres for small aviation businesses, or the Tasmanian airports or the regional airports in rural New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.Airservices has introduced charges for its services, including tower services in regional areas, which are based on the costs it incurs at each location. The Federal Court has ruled that Airservices must take this approach. Without the subsidy or changes to the cost structure at the individual towers, there would need to be huge increases in charges to pay for tower services; for example, charges at Tamworth airport would have to increase, horrifyingly, from $6.75 a tonne to $38.22 a tonne.In contrast, the government's approach offers significant savings for Australia's aviation industry and for rural and regional communities. Already CIRCO has indicated that it can provide as effective a service at a price significantly lower than that presently charged by Airservices at a number of locations, including Launceston in Tasmania. New airport operators have approached the government seeking to open up this option. They know that this is a process that has for many years operated successfully overseas, for example, by the FAA in the United States.Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—We keep hearing from those people who keep implying, the shadow minister at the table, that we do not have as good a safety record as the Americans.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I never said that.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Well, you are constantly casting aspersions on our safety record.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Dickson will cease interjecting. The minister will direct his remarks through the chair.2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is supposed to be talking about the regulations, not about the member for Dickson.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Lilley will resume his seat. The minister will remain relevant to the motion before us.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not comment any more, but I really think that that was a frivolous interjection given the absolute irrelevancy of what the member for Lilley had to say in this debate. The contrast serves only to condemn him for his flippant and very opportunistic approach to this debate.In conclusion, these regulations will not affect safety at regional airports. They will ensure that charges can be maintained at affordable levels.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—How can you say that?4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I cannot help responding to these interjections. This is the mob that gave the ultimate guarantee on tax cuts for the Australian people, l-a-w law, and did not deliver them. What is a guarantee from the ALP worth?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.2V5SWANMr Swan—I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you bring the minister back to the regulations, please?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The chair would be assisted if the level of interjections was reduced. That would enable the minister to make his remarks through the chair.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—The fact of the matter is that Labor's approach will increase the cost of air travel for Australians who live in rural and regional Australia. I commend the regulations to the House.16:39:003033Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I just want to add briefly to the remarks relating to air safety—Ms Kernot interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—And we are running the House.Ms Kernot interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You did make a comment about this. In the current operations of air safety, the most significant factor is of course the viability of an aircraft, its mechanical status. That has been certified in Australia, I think for the history of aviation, by a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer.2V5SWANMr Swan—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you direct the minister to address his remarks to the regulations?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The debate so far has been rather robust and there has been some latitude given to speakers. I am sure the minister understands that and he will be relevant to the motion in his continuing remarks.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, I am seeking to respond to the remarks already made in this debate and, in particular, the constant claims in debate that in fact it would be grossly unsafe and dangerous for the public if one component of the air safety operations were contracted out. The point I was about to make, and on which I wish to conclude, is that all licensed maintenance engineers are employed by the airlines, and there is apparently a difference that you would be a risk to public safety if you were in one part of the industry and employed privately.Ms Kernot interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I think air traffic control is extremely important. But if I had to make a choice between air traffic control and the engine falling off an aeroplane at 40,000 feet I have to say that, at the margin, I would be more concerned about the mechanical safety of the aircraft. The fact of life is that, as we stand here today, all people flying in aircraft have the safety of that aircraft certified by a private sector employee, and it has worked brilliantly for the history of aviation in this country.I do not want to go any further than that because the role of government with a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, as it might be with a licensed air traffic controller, is to issue the licence. It is a fact that, with a previous problem experienced by the former Labor government when they had aeroplanes crashing all over the place, it was licensed aircraft maintenance engineers who were providing the information as to what was going on. I really stood to conclude this debate as was arranged. I move:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Ms Kernot's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [4.47 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Committees30343034303416:52:003034Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the first, second and third reports of the committee for 1999 relating to CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies stage 2 development, Pinjarra Hills, Queensland; CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research, Bentley, WA; and Lavarack Barracks redevelopment stage 2, Townsville, Queensland.Ordered that the reports be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—The reports which I have just tabled deal with proposals referred to the committee in the previous parliament. The previous committee was unable to report on them due to the intervening election. The present committee considered the evidence assembled by the previous committee and resolved, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, that further public hearings on the proposed works were not necessary.The total cost of the public works covered in the reports is close to $200 million.The first report involves the proposed construction of the CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies Stage 2 development at Pinjarra Hills in Queensland. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal when referred to the committee was $22.3 million. The committee has recommended that the works should proceed.By way of background, the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies was established by an agreement between the Queensland government and the CSIRO to expand and diversify research and development in the mining, energy and related manufacturing industries in Queensland and nationally. The centre brings together resources from the state government, universities, CSIRO divisions and Queensland and Australia wide minerals, energy and manufacturing industries in collaborative activities.The proposal examined by the committee includes the construction of a research building, a technology transfer building, a number of new industrial type buildings, extensions to existing buildings such as the library and canteen, and site works, including new roads, car parking and environmental rehabilitation.The centre was originally designed to cater for research and development projects involving 130 staff. Since the centre was established, research activities have grown at a rapid rate and existing facilities will be inadequate to support planned increases in research personnel and projects. As a consequence, the committee has concluded that there is a need to provide additional facilities at the centre to house and support planned increases in personnel and research projects.The committee found that master planning studies of the site, undertaken by the CSIRO, have identified areas suitable for further expansion well into the next century. Based on the evidence, the committee also concluded that the extent of the proposed works will provide for the planned expansion of research and development projects and provide capabilities expected to stimulate their further expansion.The second report which I have tabled involves the construction of another national centre for the CSIRO. This one will be located in the Perth suburb of Bentley and will be known as the CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research. The Bentley Centre will provide a focal point for research excellence and collaboration between CSIRO, Cooperative Research Centres, university researchers, government agencies, resource companies and associated technology suppliers and providers.The proposal examined by the committee involves the construction of laboratories and research facilities, process bays, support and stores areas, staff amenities, public facilities, associated site works, roadworks, car parking, engineering and communication services and landscaping.When referred to the committee, the estimated out-turn cost of the proposed work was $31.8 million. The committee has recommended that the work proceed as proposed.By way of background I should mention that the CSIRO, or its predecessor organisations, has had a presence in Western Australia spanning more than 80 years. It now employs more than 400 staff at six locations in the state.The proposed work is a recognition of the fact that the mining, oil and gas industries are the mainstay of the Western Australian economy. For this reason, CSIRO and the Western Australian government have identified the need to increase substantially the state's research capability to support the sustained development of resource industries in an era of heightened international competitiveness. The CSIRO divisions involved in the mining, oil and gas industries have established research teams and formed alliances with other research and development partners to undertake projects in Western Australia and nationally. Based on the evidence, the committee has concluded thatreturns to the community and resource companies from investment in research and technology transfer can be significant and are highly influential in the creation of new investment and employment. The committee also concluded that the extent of the proposed work can be justified as providing modern facilities designed to enable CSIRO divisions and alliance partners to undertake research into minerals and petroleum research at increased levels and will overcome current unsatisfactory conditions.Two other significant factors also emerged from the committee's inquiry. Firstly, collocation of two key CSIRO divisions, Exploration and Mining and Petroleum Resources, will deliver cost savings and will maximise research effort in support of both oil and mining industry sectors. Secondly, the proposed site for the centre, adjacent to Curtin University of Technology and within Technology Park, Bentley, will provide the capability to foster collaborative research between the university and private sector research and development organisations. CSIRO has developed a master plan for the site which makes provision for further expansion of facilities and staff.The third report which I have tabled involves the second stage of the redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. There are nine major components in the proposed works. These comprise accommodation and messing, operational, logistic support and infrastructure development facilities. The main component consists of new living-in accommodation for 1,112 officers, senior non-commissioned officers and other ranks, associated mess complexes and a central food preparation facility.When referred to the committee, the estimated out-turn cost of the proposed work was $139.3 million. The committee has recommended that the works proceed as proposed.The committee has concluded that the provision of new airconditioned living-in accommodation should improve living standards for on-base personnel and should lift the morale of personnel.Similarly, the committee established that there is a need for new messes, on a scale commensurate with requirements identified in Department of Defence planning studies, to be provided at Lavarack Barracks adjacent to the sites proposed for new living-in accommodation. The committee believes there are uncertainties about the appropriateness of the cook-chill method of food preparation, based on its untested nature in the Australian Defence Force. For this reason, the committee recommended that the Department of Defence should report back to the committee on the operation of the cook-chill process after it has been fully tested at Lavarack Barracks, before its wider implementation within the Australian Defence Force.The report concludes that the remainder of the works, namely, a new communications centre, new transport facilities, the eastern deployment and assembly area, new heavy vehicle roads and waste collection facilities, will all provide substantial improvements to the functionality and environmental management of this, one of the Army's largest bases.I would like to take the opportunity in conclusion to thank the former chair, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, and the past committee in the last parliament for the work they did in preparation for the presentation of this report. I commend the reports to the House.3036303617:01:003036Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies stage 2 development, Pinjarra Hills, Queensland.As we have heard, the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, located at Pinjarra Hills, Queensland, was established by an agreement between the Queensland government and the CSIRO with the objective of developing a world centre of excellence to expand and diversify research and development in the mining, energy and related manufacturing industries in the state and the coun try as a whole. The centre aims to bring together resources from the state government, universities, kindred CSIRO divisions and Queensland and Australia wide minerals, energy and manufacturing industries in collaborative activities.Currently, the occupancy across the whole complex greatly exceeds the original planned complement and has led to an acute shortage of space and a demand for additional facilities. New initiatives and increased interest from commercial collaborators will further exacerbate the accommodation problems in the foreseeable future. In order to redress these accommodation problems, the CSIRO proposes a building development program which will significantly expand the existing facilities and in addition permit rationalisation of some of the existing resources.The proposed development comprises a research building housing lightly serviced laboratories, offices and open work areas; a technology transfer building providing office style accommodation for a number of independent rental suites; a number of new industrial type buildings; expansion of the existing library and canteen facilities; minor alterations to existing buildings to suit change of function; site works, including new roads, car parking, environmental rehabilitation and extension and modifications to site services; and relocation and modification of the existing sewage treatment plant.The estimated turnout cost is $22.3 million. It is anticipated that construction will commence in early 1999 and be completed by mid-2000. The Public Works Committee, in its report tabled today, as we have heard, recommended that this project proceed. The CSIRO agrees with the committee's recommendations, and I am very happy to commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.3036303617:04:003036Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research, Bentley, WA.The National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research is being established by the Western Australian government and the CSIRO to substantially increase Western Australia's technological capacity and its capability to support the sustained development of its resource industries. Located at Technology Park, Bentley, the national centre will provide a focal point for research excellence and collaboration among the CSIRO, cooperative research centres, university researchers, government agencies, resource companies and associated technology suppliers and providers.The national centre will provide a unique opportunity to bring together world-class scientific and engineering research groups to work closely with the petroleum and minerals industries. Collaborative research will embrace a wide range of activities aimed not only at providing solutions to current industry issues but also at providing the research leadership necessary to redress the key research needs and research issues of these industries now and in the decades ahead. The concentration of capability and expertise at the national centre will also provide a major incentive for leading edge companies and organisations to locate their operations in Western Australia, further enhancing the prospects for research collaboration and technology transfer and the delivery of innovative research solutions, services and products to the petroleum and minerals industries.The centre represents a marriage of the leading edge research in minerals and petroleum exploration and production within the industry sector. The proposed development will include laboratories and research facilities, process bays, support and stores areas, staff amenities and public facilities, and associated site works, roadworks, car parking, engineering and communications services and landscaping. The estimated turnout cost is $31.8 million. It is anticipated that construction will commence in early to mid-1999 and will be completed by late 2000. The Public Works Committee, in its report tabled today, recommended that this project proceed. The CSIRO agrees with the committee's recommendations, and I am pleased to commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.3037303717:07:003037Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Lavarack Barracks redevelopment stage 2, Townsville, Queensland.The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop Lavarack Barracks. The works now proposed are needed to overcome acute accommodation inadequacies, to improve efficiency and operational effectiveness, and to provide a sound infrastructure framework on which further development of the barracks can proceed.The works are in nine main components, consisting of accommodation and messing, operational and logistical support, and infrastructure development facilities. The main components comprise new living-in accommodation for 1,112 officers, senior non-commissioned officers and other ranks; associated mess complexes and a central food preparation facility. The estimated turn-out cost of the proposal is $139.3 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in September 1999 with the objective of completion by December 2001.The report of the Public Works Committee, as we have heard a moment ago, has recommended that this project proceed. Defence accepts and will implement the recommendations of the committee. I commend this motion to the House.17:09:003038Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—by leave—I will not detain the House long. I have absolutely no disagreement with the expediency motions, but I am concerned at the process. The chair of the Public works committee commenced speaking in this chamber at about 4.53 this afternoon, in presenting the first report, and finished speaking at almost two minutes past five. To this time these reports were confidential.These are confidential reports and no-one was supposed to have seen them until the chair of the committee presented them to this parliament. Yet, also at two minutes past five, we had the parliamentary secretary standing and moving the first expediency motion and proceeding to move the other two expediency motions and making quite a detailed speech.I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary—and I have a great admiration for him—has powers beyond what most people have, otherwise how could he have known what was in those reports? Perhaps someone could have presented him with a speech to make or he made the speech himself, so I am concerned that due process has not been followed.The other thing that concerns me is that it was in today's blue that the expediency motions were going to be moved and it was in today's Notice Paper, which I guess was printed last night—I don't know when it was presented. But I would like to know how those responsible for putting it in the Notice Paper knew what the committee was going to recommend, because with an expediency motion being moved the assumption would be that the committee was going to recommend that the work proceed.I have no argument whatsoever with the expediency motions and with the works proceeding. These are important works, especially the two CSIRO ones. They are of great significance to Australia. In pre-empting what the member for Herbert is going to say, I have absolutely no criticism of the chair of the committee or indeed of the parliamentary secretary who moved the expediency motions. I assume the member for Herbert is going to follow me. I thought I would perhaps speak after him and I have actually jotted down here, `I share his enthusiasm for the work proceeding at Lavarack Barracks. The redevelopment there is long overdue.'But I must say—and I must put it on the public record—that someone has been a little bit too clever by half with these expediency motions. We are constantly lectured in this House about the correct forms to follow and about the standards of this House and, quite frankly, the correct forms were not followed. I am amazed that these expediency motions have been moved so quickly and I cannot believe that a prepared speech gave such detail and some of the details that the committee recommended in agreeing with that. As I said, the chair completed the speech at two minutes past five. No-one was supposed to have seen the report by then, yet the parliamentary secretary could—also at two minutes past five—stand up and make a detailed speech highlighting some of the comments in it.Mr Nugent interjecting—DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—People might think that this is a joke but we on this side are constantly being lectured about the standards of this House and how they have to be adhered to. I am the last in this place to want to be niggly—I do not want to delay works at all—but I do think that, when there are forms, they should be followed. It would have been more appropriate, in my view, if the expediency motions had been moved tomorrow. It would have given the impression, even if it did not necessarily follow, that the reports had been considered over an appropriate time. In 30 seconds you cannot read three detailed reports. I am amazed that the chair can commence a speech at 4.53 p.m. and the parliamentary secretary can have the whole three recommendations through by 10 past five. Surely this would be a record for consideration of parliamentary reports—having them considered and expediency motions moved—within the parliament.17:14:003038Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The member for Throsby quite rightly assumed that I would want to say a few words about the Lavarack Barracks recommendation. The motion refers to Australia's largest army base, and probably its most important army base, because it really is the sharp end of the army in Australia.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Represented by one of the best members.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Thanks, Parliamentary Secretary. Lavarack, which houses the 3rd Brigade, is very important to the defence of this country. It contains the Ready Deployment Force—the force that responds within 24 hours if there is an emergency anywhere in the world. That force is situated in the electorate of Herbert.Work at Lavarack Barracks is urgently needed. I am pleased to see the recommendation to provide the expenditure to carry out the proposed work. The accommodation provided for the soldiers of the 1st and 2nd battalions is 30 to 35 years old. It is terrible, Mr Deputy Speaker; quite literally, you cannot swing a cat in a soldier's room. The accommodation is tiny and cramped. There are communal facilities and there is no airconditioning, even though it is located in the tropics. It really is bad. I am pleased to see that we are addressing new accommodation arrangements for Lavarack. The officers and men of the 1st and 2nd battalions—indeed, the whole 3rd Brigade—will appreciate this recommendation.There will also be modern mess facilities and a new internal road transport system. Incidentally, the Lavarack Barracks frontage on University Drive runs for about 4½ kilometres. That shows how big it is. So the internal transport arrangements are very important.This is a $139 million project. It is a massive project for Townsville and for Thuringowa. The flow-on from this investment into the local economy will be most welcome. I certainly hope—and the army has given me an assurance—that where local contractors can be used, the locals will benefit from this investment. I am pleased to see that this is programmed to start as soon as possible this year. I heartily support the motion.17:17:003039Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—At the outset, I congratulate the member for Herbert on the very strong representations he has made with respect to Lavarack Barracks. He has been an outstanding member. This new facility, which is in the process of construction, is yet another tribute to the excellence of his representation.The honourable member for Throsby was a little precious in his contribution a short while ago. I recall that, last time I spoke in relation to these public works matters, the member for Throsby criticised the government for dragging the chain, for not being expeditious, for, shall we say, not being as prompt as he would have liked. We, of course, rejected the false allegations then made by the member for Throsby. I suppose I should take his few words a moment ago as being a compliment for the very good level of productivity which the Department of Finance and Administration has been able to produce so that we are able to make sure that these very important works and very important expenditures are able to proceed as a matter of great urgency.We have got the reports; we have accepted the reports. We are proving that we are a government which is absolutely determined to make sure that government spending in these areas happens as soon as it possibly can. I commend this motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.3039303917:19:003039Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Replacement nuclear research reactor, Lucas Heights, NSW.The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation intends to construct and operate a replacement research reactor at the Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre. The new facility will replace the 41-year-old high flux Australian reactor, which is expected to reach the end of its operational life around the year 2005. ANSTO has engaged in the necessary and appropriate level of public consultation, undertaking—and I stress this—a full environmental impact statement on this project, which it has submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. Consideration by the Public Works Committee is the next step in the acquisition process and is a standard requirement for all significant Commonwealth construction projects.The replacement research reactor will meet the specific objectives of: maintaining and enhancing health care benefits provided to the Australian community; maintaining Australia's nuclear technical expertise; providing a neutron beam research facility that will meet Australia's scientific and industrial needs and serve as a regional centre of scientific excellence; providing research and research training facilities and programs to enhance the educational opportunities available to Australia's scientists and engineers; providing radioisotopes, for use in industry and environmental applications, and facilities for neutron activation analysis, irradiation of materials, and neutron radiography to service the needs of industry, environmental applications and agriculture; and meeting all health, safety, environmental and quality standards in its construction and operation.The estimated cost of the facility is $286 million. It is proposed that tenders be called in July 1999 with the objective of completion by the end of the year 2005. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.3040304017:22:003040Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Embassy Berlin—Refurbishment to heritage buildings as a chancery and apartments.As part of the process of reunification of Germany, the seat of German government is relocating from Bonn to Berlin. Relocation is programmed to be completed in 1999—this year. The diplomatic corps is also required to move to Berlin as part of that relocation.In 1995 the government purchased two adjoining heritage buildings in the Mitte district of Berlin following an extensive search for suitable premises and sites. This area is the historic centre of Berlin and is close to public transport, hotels and government departments. The decision to purchase and refurbish these buildings was intended in part to be Australia's contribution towards the rebuilding of East Berlin.Both buildings are heritage listed and have certain heritage requirements which must be managed in the refurbishment program. These include restoration of the facade to the Wallstrasse building, a number of stairways throughout the buildings and a meeting room used by Wilhelm Piek, who later became president of the former East Germany. The Wallstrasse building will provide six stories of modern office accommodation, representational areas for the embassy and two apartments for Australian staff. The Markisches Ufer building will provide four apartments. Car parking will be provided in the basement to serve both buildings. The estimated turnout cost of refurbishment is $43.57 million. A further $3.83 million is to be spent by occupying agencies for tenant fit-out.Subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected that demolition works will commence in July 1999 and the project will be completed by December 2000. This project is an important demonstration of Australia's commitment to relations with Germany. It will provide quality accommodation for the Australian embassy in a prominent location. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3040r6723040Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.17:24:003040Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I rise to make my concluding remarks on this bill. In summary, the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is very important for our region, the western suburbs of Melbourne. It will be welcomed, I am sure, by the migrant resource centres in the region, the Western Region Disability Network and the many ethnic and other community groups in Gellibrand.Labor supports a system being introduced which ensures enforceable decisions can be made on human rights complaints. But the bill does not go far enough. As I have said, I am concerned about the restrictions and pressure these budget decisions, which were discussed earlier, place on people bringing legitimate complaints and hinder the commission's capacity to do its valuable and much needed work in this fundamental area of discrimination and human rights.I urge the government to take on board our concerns about the drastic underfunding of HREOC and the cuts to legal aid.17:25:003041Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—It is a pleasure to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . The House would be aware that, as the Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I take a great deal of interest in this area. This bill came before the last parliament, but unfortunately before it got all the way through the process we had an election, so it lapsed and therefore has to be presented again.I note that this morning the Attorney-General introduced the new Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , which deals with the renaming of HREOC and other things which we will debate on another occasion.The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is quite a far-reaching bill. It is a very complex bill and very important in terms of what we are proposing to do in respect of HREOC. The bill will amend Commonwealth antidiscrimination legislation to reform the functions and structure of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—HREOC as it is known in the trade. The bill also responds to the High Court's decision in the Brandy v. HREOC case in 1995, which found that HREOC, as a non-judicial body, did not have the constitutional power to finally determine disputes. In other words, HREOC had been given some powers to make determinations but when that was challenged in the court it was found that as a non-judicial body it did not have the power to enforce those determinations. To deal with that situation we need to change HREOC's role to one of conciliation and consultation, but the legal process and the enforcement has to be done in the Federal Court.The bill does a number of things. It confers on the president of HREOC the role and functions of chief executive officer, it centralises the complaint investigation and conciliation procedures in the office of the president, and it simplifies the legislation by implementing, where possible, common definitions and best practice procedural provisions for complaint handling in the one act. It makes substantial changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to remove the provisions in those acts which currently deal with complaints.The bill simplifies dispute resolution procedures in human rights matters by eliminating the second tier of review in HREOC, which was not directly enforceable. It provides that matters that cannot be conciliated will be dealt with in the Federal Court of Australia. It provides that the Federal Court will not be bound by technicalities or legal forms in considering proceedings brought before it under this bill. It enables the judges of the Federal Court to delegate some, but not all, of their functions in this area to judicial registrars, who will be able to assist with additional case loads.The bill makes provision for transitional arrangements for complaints which have been lodged with HREOC under the old law but which will not have been completed at the commencement of the new law—the most significant point being that, where prior to the commencement of the new law a complaint has been referred to HREOC for a substantive hearing which has commenced, the complaint will continue to be dealt with under the old law. All other complaints will be transferred to the scheme established by the new law. The bill also includes consequential amendments to related legislation, including the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Defence Act 1903, the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, and the Workplace Relations Act 1996.Australia has a long and proud record of achievement in the human rights area. In many ways we have been able to provide an example to the world and we certainly provide, in our structures and in the way we approach human rights, a model for many developing countries. But not all, of course, is perfect. We need to be constantly on the alert to make sure that we are keeping up to date and dealing with new developments and that we do not allow our guard to slip in terms of human rights, because it is a very important basic responsibility of the parliament to its citizens.The present system, however, is good but it is not carved in stone, and there is from time to time a need to update the legislation. The Brandy case demonstrated that perfectly. This government has done a lot of work in the human rights area both within Australia and overseas. We have, for example, been very active in Indonesia, and the Centre for Democratic Institutions set up by this government has been very active in pursuing human rights in the region.We have provided, with a secretariat and expertise coming out of HREOC, support to a number of human rights commissions on a regional basis. We have started, for example, regular annual dialogue with China on the subject of human rights. We have produced some outstanding people, such as Sir Ronald Wilson—who is a former head of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the deputy chair of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—and Chris Sidoti, who is the current commissioner of HREOC. It seems to me that, whilst laws, processes and structures are of course important and necessary, it is the quality of those people and of the country's commitment to human rights that is really of overriding importance.This legislation effectively does three major things. Firstly, the bill removes the unenforceable commission inquiry stage and provides parties with more direct access to the Federal Court, where they will be able to obtain an enforceable and timely determination of their respective rights. This will address the High Court's decision in the Brandy case, as well as concerns about the cost and time involved in the unenforceable commission inquiry process.Secondly, the bill consolidates the three complaint handling schemes contained in the race, sex and disability discrimination acts into a single, uniform scheme. The new scheme will simplify the complaint handling process and will incorporate best practice procedural provisions. It will centralise responsibility for complaint handling in the president and will improve the commission's capacity to utilise its resources and deliver services in a more efficient manner. It will also assist in promoting consistent and coordinated practices for all complaints.Thirdly, the bill clarifies the lines of management responsibility in the commission. The president is to assume responsibilities as the chief executive officer. This is designed to facilitate timely decision making and provide for the better administration of the commission.Certainly there have been some criticisms of what has been proposed in the bill. The criticism generally is based on such factors as the more formal nature of Federal Court proceedings and exposure to the standard fees and cost regime in the court. The government's response to those criticisms is to say that it should be noted that the existing system, with two unenforceable levels of dispute resolution, is less than satisfactory. Enabling the parties to have direct access to the Federal Court, following reconciliation, has the potential to significantly reduce delays and costs in the current system. In addition, the usual rules for fees currently apply to antidiscrimination complaints in the Federal Court. However, as is currently the case, fees are not payable where a person has a card entitling him or her to Commonwealth health benefits or is receiving legal aid, Austudy or Abstudy, or is a minor or a prisoner or a person who would suffer financial hardship. The bill also contains a number of initiatives designed to reduce formality in Federal Court proceedings, possibly reducing costs and reliance on legal representation.HREOC has an outstanding record in conciliation—most complaints do not proceed beyond that particular stage—and it will continue this very effective and successful role. The bill fixes the problems created in the Brandy case concerning enforceability of judgments. Informality in the court proceedings which are in this legislation will ensure that the handling of cases is continued in an effective way.The restructuring of HREOC—so that the president will assume responsibility for all complaint handling, while the commissioners will have a function to argue the policy imperatives of the legislation before the Federal Court—means a clearer delineation between the conciliation of complaints role of the commission and its advocacy role in promoting the protection of human rights. This is an important piece of legislation. It will move the process along, and I commend it to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills3043r704Billsr705Billsr706BillsBills3043Debate resumed from 16 February, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:37:003043O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—My comments are in continuation, so anybody listening should excuse the fact that I am starting halfway through the discussion. My office has been inundated with complaints about the Youth Allowance. The social implications of this government policy on young people in my electorate almost outweighs any other issue of importance to young people today. Young people who are currently receiving no youth allowance by virtue of their parents' income are not able to access Jobsearch assistance. Their ability to meaningfully and effectively search for employment is thereby thwarted.The fruitless efforts of many young northern Tasmanians caught up in this situation who receive no support, no encouragement and no practical assistance from the government is resulting in anxiety, distress and, in some cases, is moving young people further and further away from ever gaining employment. These young people are being alienated from the job market based on their inability to access professional job seeking assistance. It costs money to apply for jobs, it costs money to attend interviews, and it takes skills to prepare applications in today's competitive market.In an increasingly ageing society, the Howard government is, through the Youth Allowance program, attacking the capacity of parents to accrue personal savings to cater for their own retirement needs. The government has an obligation to investigate how incurring additional financial responsibility for their children will impact on and affect parental saving patterns. The intrusive and calculating nature of questions that parents and guardians are required to complete as part of the Youth Allowance application process is disgraceful. The additional form `Family actual means test' needs to be completed when potential applicants have claimed a tax deduction for a business loss. This means that many farming families are therefore required to estimate for the government how much they spend on videos, pet food, birthday gifts and those sorts of things. This is an absolute affront to the privacy rights of Australians.This mean-spirited move by the Howard government is merely obscuring the real youth unemployment issues in Tasmania—with rates which are already unacceptably high at 39.6 per cent for young people between the ages of 15 and 19. The interesting thing is that complaints are not just coming from young people—they are coming from parents and from families. This government which claims to represent the needs of families has placed unrealistic burdens upon them.A letter in yesterday's Examiner, my local paper, pretty well sums up the feelings of people in the Tasmanian community. It says:The 1998 Literacy Survey results reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that literacy levels are highest of all among those under 25. Illiteracy is more prevalent among the overs 25s . . . This means that over the past two decades our schools and their "do-gooder" educators have done a superlative job in producing the most literate generation ever.Why, therefore, have the young been singled out for compulsory literacy classes?. . . . . . . . .It is one more example of the vendetta that the Howard Government is pursuing against young adults by imposing discriminatory measures upon them that are not also applied to older Australians.Exploding tertiary education costs, the forced labour work for the dole scheme and the cruel youth allowance all impact more upon the lives of young adults than older ones, for no justifiable reason.. . . Our young people did not create this society. A fairer and independent definition might reveal that they are defaulting far less than the . . . government.This sentiment has been repeated again and again to me in the community.Young people in Tasmania are doubly disadvantaged, because not only do we have a government that is not interested in young people but we have a government that is not interested in regional development and rural and regional Australia. For all the rhetoric, very little has actually been done, unless you count the removal of about $150 million in regional development funds. The Commonwealth has a vital role to play in regional development. However, that has not been the view of this government. On 17 July 1996, John Sharp said that there was no clear rationale or constitutional basis for Commonwealth involvement in regional development. That is an appalling position for a government to adhere to. We need targeted programs for regional Australia—particularly in Tasmania.Let me focus on a couple of issues for Tasmania at the moment—the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme. As Tasmanians know—and we hope other people realise—the most valuable thing we need is for these schemes to be enshrined in legislation so that they do not have to run the gauntlet of the budget process every year. Any changes would then be subject to open debate and not the whim of faceless, nameless Treasury officials.The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme goes part of the way to compensate Tasmanian industries for the disadvantages the Bass Strait imposes. By its very nature, the scheme supports thousands of jobs. The situation with the TFES at the moment is one where the minister and senior department officials equivocate about its future funding. We are led to believe that there is a commitment for an additional $15 million in the budget, but we have as yet been unable to secure any guarantees about what is going to come out the other side. This is simply not good enough for Tasmanian businesses.The situation regarding the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme is appalling. This scheme has been in place since 1989 but, as of 30 June this year, it will cease to exist. That will be it. All we have is a yet unconfirmed possibility that there may be some good news in the next budget—a budget that will be produced only weeks prior to the current scheme concluding. Almost 1,600 jobs in Tasmania are directly and indirectly impacted upon by this subsidy—from bread makers to the pork industry, to the stock food industry, to chicken growers, to large companies such as Inghams. Inghams employs 240 people directly and about another 100 indirectly. If this scheme is not continued, we face a very real possibility that we are going to lose those jobs.The choice will be very simple for business people. They will either choose to ship wheat to Tasmania and process it at the additional cost or produce the final product on the mainland and ship it to Tasmania in containers. Failure to support this scheme will transfer jobs out of Tasmania. The most ludicrous thing about this lack of a decision is that all it will cost is $1.2 million—that is, $1.2 million to protect and guarantee employment for up to 1,600 Tasmanians. Tasmania's economic future depends on these subsidies.Regional Australia has been ill served by this government. Unfortunately, this litany of betrayal of people by the government does not end here. To the despair of the community, it goes on and on. Budget after budget, we get more cuts and more broken promises.17:43:003045Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 and cognate bills are of vital importance to government. It is a shame that the appropriation bill has taken so long to come back for debate in the House. I point out that, if the new member for Bass really cared about issues in regional Australia, as she indicated, then she would urge her opposition colleagues to support our tax package which is currently before the Senate.The tax package which is currently before the Senate benefits regional Australia. I am sure my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite will provide further details on the benefits of the tax package for regional Australia, given that he has always proven himself to be a very dedicated, hard-working representative of the people of Corangamite. On that basis, I urge the members of the Labor Party to continue to support ongoing reform in Australia. They can best do that by supporting the tax package in the Senate.17:45:003045McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I thank the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation at the table for his assistance and his words of encouragement. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99—which we are debating cognately with two other appropriation bills—talks about the state of the economy. As the minister at the table has suggested, the Labor Party should support our tax bill in the Senate. That has been the thrust of the government's position during the campaign and obviously during the current debate in this place and in the Senate.I want to bring to the attention of the House, and all Australians, the wonderful state of play that now exists in the Australian economy, and the background reasons as to why Australia is performing so well when other nations around the world, especially in our region, are suffering economic difficulty.Australia has performed well in my assessment because its policy settings are based on a market economy and, to use that set of words that is sometimes frowned upon, on rational economics. That means the economy is based on a demand driven approach. It is based on an understanding of democratic principles. It is a market economy where supply and demand is handled without too much government interference. People have a choice of the goods and services that they wish to buy and, under this government, there has been an improvement in private sector efficiency.Free markets distribute goods and services to people in a more efficient way. The world has come to the view that the command economies of the communist countries—their system—do not work. We see a situation here in our region where Australia has performed remarkably well. In other nations in the South-East Asian area, such as Japan and Thailand, a dominant position has been taken by the policy makers and the governments that have directed the way in which the policy should go. Also, a few of the ruling elite had a vested interest, particularly in Japan where the banks borrowed against the share market. Their equity has fallen away to negligible levels so much that the banking sector in some of the South-East Asian countries is very much under threat.We had a situation in Japan where big governments and big trade union movements were setting the wages and conditions and the market was not able to make proper judgments. We now have a position, which should have affected Australia, where Japan, technically, is moving into a depression and its central bank is looking for extra credit to maintain its position in the world.The situation in Australia is that the government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have brought about a policy setting to balance the budget. That is not an easy situation, as the minister at the table would understand. Politically it is always difficult because of the people out in the community who receive money, receive pensions, from governments. There are the interest groups who always suggest that a balanced budget is not a good thing. This policy in turn has brought about a lower interest rate regime and low inflation. Those things are taken for granted under a Liberal coalition government, but there has not been too much comment by the electorate or by the commentators that these very important factors have been reached.The floating exchange rate, which I concede the Hawke-Keating government brought in in 1983, has meant that there has been a genuine movement of the exchange of Australia relative to the rest of the world so that the change in trading conditions was taken into account.The change in the taxation system that is proposed will ensure that hardworking Australians will receive $13 billion worth of tax cuts, and that 80 per cent of Australian income earners will pay no more than the 30 cents in the dollar tax rate. That is a very clear proposition that has provided incentive and confidence to most hardworking Australians. In my own industry, the rural industry, I constantly see hardworking shearers giving up work on a Friday because their tax rate, in their assessment, is too high. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware of that from your own experience. I think that is a very clear example of tax rates penalising incentive.We have this situation with the exchange rates where a more flexible position has been reached in Australia and where the Reserve Bank did not support the exchange rate by artificial means. The Australian dollar bought US80c in early 1997 and got down to as low as something like US56c. Today it stands at US64.5c. That gives a clear indication of the flexibility by which the government and the Reserve Bank have been able to ensure that, by sensible policy settings, Australia has been able to insulate itself against some of the difficulties of the world slowdown, particularly in Asia.The floating exchange rate has helped out exporters who have not been enjoying profitable times in recent months. But at least the lower US dollar exchange rate ensured that their competitive position was helped. It is interesting to note the comments of Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology writing in Fortune on 21 December 1998. This quote has been used by other speakers on this side of the House but I think it sets in context the position of Australia in the world economic climate. He said:Although most of its exports go either to Japan or the stricken Tigers, Australia has weathered the storm . . . instead of raising interest rates to defend the Aussie dollar—which would have slowed the Aussie economy—the central bank allowed the currency to slide from almost 80 cents in early 1997 to the low 60s by mid-1998. The result was that while export prices plunged in US dollars, they held in local currency and strong domestic demand kept the economy humming.That is a very interesting comment by a respected commentator in the Fortune magazine, which is read by most informed economists in America. Krugman went on to note that financial markets viewed the decline in the dollar as a buying opportunity which led to the stabilisation of the currency.As I was saying, the floating exchange rate mechanism ensures that there is a better price for our commodities such as the wool industry which is suffering a very low price at the moment. But if the exchange rate was against that industry, the wheat industry or the coal industry, just imagine how difficult our commodity prices might have been.In the case of the Australian banks, unlike some of the other banking institutions around the world, the Australian banks obviously had difficulties in the early 1980s, partly because they did not follow the usual conservative practices. But Australian banks did not fall over, as some banks throughout the Asian region have. We have just seen that Bob Joss has left Westpac in profit. That particular bank, because of its questionable lending practices and the write-off of a number of bad debts, was in a difficult position. It is fair to say that the Australian banking system was prudentially secure and that the Australian people had confidence in it. Under Treasurer Costello and the Howard government, the Australian banking system is very sound, in good heart and has a very strong prudential protection for investors.The other important factor of Australia's economy being in good heart and being as strong as it is now is the labour market reforms that have been debated in this House on many occasions. We are now starting to see the effect of a change of attitude to labour market reforms and productivity gains in the mining industry and in the manufacturing sector because the work force now has a greater pride in their operations. They have a responsibility for the job in hand and there has been a change by management towards the way in which the work force is being directed and organised. That in itself has ensured genuine productivity gains in Australia where there have been real increases in wages, control of inflation and workers have had more spending power; unlike the heady days of 11 per cent inflation where workers had illusory gains under award conditions but, in fact, their ability to improve their standard of living was very much reduced.Turning to the balanced budget again, Treasurer Costello and the Howard government have ensured over a three-year period that the budgets are moving back into balance. Despite the $10 billion black hole, which all Australians are familiar with, by next year the federal budget will be in balance. This compares very favourably with the former position in my home state of Victoria where the Cain-Kirner Labor government managed to get that state in a position of bankruptcy, where the state budget was unable to pay their cash payments on a day by day, week by week basis. That was a very lamentable position—that a Labor government in such a short term of office could have turned around a state which basically had a sound financial position to one of total bankruptcy—as was the Labor government in South Australia with the collapse of the State Bank of South Australian.There has been some debate across the board about balancing the budget both here and in America. Even President Clinton has been moving towards balancing the huge US budget. We now have a position in Australia where the federal budget will be balanced and where state budgets are now moving towards a position of balance. That ensures that the taxpayers' dollars are not servicing debt and that there are improved credit ratings which allow those borrowings to be borrowed at a lesser rate, which has a major impact. I notice the movement in Victoria, hopefully, to a AAA Moody's rating which will ensure that the Kennett government can enjoy better interest rates. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation at the table is very familiar with this set of financial circumstances. That also helps with interest rates—that is fundamental—and the lowering of inflation rates in Australia.The challenge for the government and for Australia is the balance of payments. It is a matter of concern that the growing economy, by all factors, has ensured that the three per cent growth rate or whatever it might eventually work out to be—much better than people anticipated—has put pressure on the balance of payments because Australian consumers wish to import goods. The prices our commodities fetch are obviously lower. So the balance of payments is not as good as it might be. However, there are some very encouraging signs that exporters are looking for new markets.In my own electorate of Corangamite I have the honour to chair an export group, the Geelong Export Network. That group has encouraged local manufacturers and businessmen to look at export market opportunities outside Australia. It has been remarkable the number of opportunities and success stories that have been identified by people who were just looking at export opportunities to improve their business performance, who were able to achieve a niche market in Asia, India and South Africa and were able to export some of their product, overcome the difficulties of language, currency and ensuring payment, all those difficulties which seem insurmountable for exporters who have never before been in export.That little group, along with Austrade, has been helpful in ensuring that exports improve. We make a dent in that balance of payments problem, so that in the longer run Australia will trade on the right side of the ledger. Obviously the Howard-Costello monetary and financial policy is to encourage Australia to become a more efficient economy so that Australian products become world competitive and we can sell our products in terms of quality and price to the world. The tariff regimes have been reduced and, while those decisions have been difficult in certain parts of Australia, in the TCF industries and in the car industries I am delighted to say that the downward trend of the tariff barriers has had a major impact on attitudes and on the ability of the car industry and the TCF industries to improve their manufacturing process and their efficiency. Also in the farming area, in wheat cropping and in my own area of Corangamite, changes in technology are now looking at productivity improvements that are really quite remarkable.Again, I note the change in other countries—in particular, Germany and in the European Union—where there is a tendency to move the other way. A council of ministers rules those 350 million people by dictate and by direction. The genuine free enterprise ethic that is so evident in this country and in America is starting to be lost in some of the attitudes that are clearly evident in Europe. In particular, in Germany we are seeing a movement away from that powerhouse of free enterprise to the lowering of working hours, abolition of nuclear power and some of those fundamentals that created prosperity in that nation—some of the arguments that we have had in this nation.Australia has taken the hard decisions to bring about a better economy in a situation where most commentators would have thought Australia would be in difficulty. We have reduced the deficit and we have made an attack on unemployment, which is now at 7.5 per cent, the lowest for many years. That we are gradually reducing the number of Australians unemployed is a remarkable achievement—the lowest since 1990 and the lowest youth unemployment since 1989.Australians are increasingly participating in the share market—something unheard of five, six or seven years ago. Average Australians are participating in the Telstra float and did participate in the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, which the former government sold. That has encouraged average Australians to become small capitalists, to understand the share market and to understand that their wealth and productivity is connected to the outcome of their superannuation and their investment in the share market.I might sound a note of caution about the exuberance of Wall Street and the position of the Australian share market. I observe that share markets do go up and do come down. The investors of Australia need to be somewhat careful about the good times and be aware that the high value of the share market will not always continue, but I think they can be assured that, over time, the share market will continue a steady rise if it reflects the productivity and the wealth of Australia.The freer markets that have been introduced by this government, the lower interest rates, the low inflation and tax reform have ensured that Australia is moving in the right direction. These are fundamental reforms that have been put in place against considerable opposition by the conservative, backward looking opposition, who are not prepared to make the change, who proposed in the earlier part of their time in government a GST and yet who sit here in this chamber and in the Senate saying they are against it.The Australian economy, encouraged by this government, has based its whole operation on choice—that consumers, manufacturers and workers have a choice, that we have a free market position and that governments are moving out of people's lives in the way things are regulated. The activities of the National Competition Council under Graeme Samuel have ensured that monopolies are being challenged and that resources are being allocated to those areas that can be more productive and more profitable.I commend the government's policy position. I commend the outcomes reflected in the current set of figures. They are probably the best for 30 years. They are not artificial. These fundamentals and the way in which the Australian economy is working will ensure that there is a good sound future. Obviously we cannot be sure what international shocks might hit us, such as a change in the oil price and other problems with commodity prices on world stock markets, but at least the sensible, well thought out, rational economic policy settings of the present government have given Australia a very sound future in a turbulent world, especially that of our near neighbours.18:04:003049McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I want to talk on these appropriation bills about a concern I have as an Australian citizen, as a member of parliament, as the shadow minister for industry and as the Minister for Trade in the previous government. My concern is with the hole in the middle of the current rounds of what is seen as economic good news—and much of which is economic good news.The hole that I see at the core of Australia's economic progress is the growing problem with the current account deficit. But that is actually the tip. That is not the iceberg; it is what is showing up. I think there is a profound structural problem in the development of the Australian economy, and it is a reflection of Australia's difficulty in coming to grips with its place in the modern global economy.The economy continues to exude relatively strong growth, and the government continues to look very smug and complacent about that. It shows some significant similarities with the story of the artificially inseminated cow that knows something wonderful has happened but has not got the faintest idea how it came about. That is the circumstance we find in our economy at the moment.When you look at what is driving the growth that continues to be a little—or, in some cases, a lot—higher than the more pessimistic economic forecasters suggest, try to look behind the rhetorical flourishes and ask, `What is it that is driving this economic result? What are the factors that underpin it? And are they likely to suggest that it is sustainable?' The most powerful explanation is the success of the United States economy. I would like to come back to that in a moment. There is no doubt that, within Australia, we are reaping the benefits of 15 years of economic reform. A lot of change has taken place which has made the economy more internationally competitive and more successful. Some of those were driving important structural changes which, I regret to say, seem to me to have been reversed. I will come to that in a moment. I am worried about this structural problem, but there has been the benefit of 15 years of economic reform.Principally we have the success of the United States economy driven by a number of factors, not all of which are relevant to the points I want to make tonight and, in themselves, more than anybody could cover in a 20-minute speech. But there are some elements of it that are particularly important. One, to which the member for Corangamite made fleeting mention, is the wealth effect of the boom on the United States stock exchange driving perceptions of wealth and therefore consumer demand and that you get out of that continuing growth. We have had a lesser version of that in Australia, where the stock market has not grown at the same rate, but there have been some elements of a wealth effect out of an improving stock market and out of the significant Australian demutualisations—take, for example, AMP as the most recent—and that has driven consumer demand. There is an inherent instability in economic growth driven by domestic consumer demand, and it shows up in the current account deficit in exactly the problem that I am concerned about and want to come back to.But there is another element of our success that is reflected internationally—we always tend to think that in Australia these are unique phenomena—and that is the question of the long period of low inflationary growth that Australia has had. The government would like to claim that it has occurred only since March 1996, but we have actually had five years and more, getting on now towards six and seven years, of low inflationary growth. It is an experience we have not had for a long time. It is an international experience; it is therefore hard to argue that it is driven by domestic Australian policy. If it is driven by domestic Australian policy, why is it happening in all those other countries? But there are some common features, and one that I think is significantly underestimated is the impact of information technology in two ways: directly when the prices of information technology products are falling; and, secondly, because of the way in which information technology and technological change are driving falling costs in other aspects of industry.So for those reasons we have a continuing period of economic growth and low inflationary growth. But there are some clouds on the horizon, and I wish that people would balance the optimism they exude with a little more responsibility and analysis of the issues that are emerging that give cause for concern and that are behind the backdrop of the structural problems and issues to which I wish to refer.Let us have a look at what has been a remarkably accurate leading indicator of employment. I refer to what used to be called the DEET leading indicator. I do not know how you pronounce the acronym, but it is now the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business leading indicator. It is the same complicated measure based on a number of issues: vehicle registrations, dwelling approvals, vacancy measures and economic growth measures. It has proved over the 15 or more years of its operation to be a very successful and accurate leading indicator, with about a six-month lag. The leading indicator fell for seven consecutive months, until December 1998. The last peak in the indicator occurred in May 1998, and it has fallen for seven months since then. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business indicates that that suggests the growth rate of employment will peak during the early part of this year.Strangely, the government have not referred to that. They have referred to several other employment surveys, but the one they have not referred to is their own. That gives me some cause for apprehension. At the moment it does not look like it is about to collapse, but it does look like the labour market has peaked and that growth in employment is slowing. This is reinforced by details from the Bureau of Statistics about the housing industry which, as the shadow minister for industry, is part of my area of concern and responsibility. The seasonally adjusted data available from last December show that the construction of dwellings is starting to turn down. There is serious cause for concern there that I think we need to pay more attention to than we are.Paralleling that is the data from BIS Shrapnel about engineering construction. Its document released at the end of last month forecast a 20 per cent decline in activity in Australia's engineering construction industry towards the end of this year. There is no chance that we are going to achieve what is now a bipartisan five per cent unemployment target without addressing a forecast decline of 20 per cent in engineering construction. The government has a policy vacuum about that.We had some policies at the last election because we foresaw this, and they were targeted to address this problem. By the time we come back into office, that is not going to be the policy prescription because the world will have moved on, but it is an issue that governments need to address. This problem in the engineering construction industry, which is reflected in the reports of a number of the construction companies. I notice it is in the report on Leighton's in this morning's newspaper.The last comment I want to make about these straws in the wind that cause me some apprehension about whether the smug complacency about our economic performance is justified relates to the most recent December international trade in goods and services figures which show a decline in imports—which on the face of it for me, someone expressing concern about the current account deficit, should be a good thing—and it may in fact suppress the impact of the current account deficit problems that we have driven by the excessive consumption base to our economic growth. But it is a problem nevertheless, because the decline is in the importation of capital goods, particularly machinery and industrial equipment, which was the largest decrease which essentially drove the fall.That is an indication of a problem we have of a fall-off in investment. Where you have a fall-off in investment and a substantial increase in consumption, you are building up a structural imbalance that has the potential to cause serious medium-term problems. It is that to which I wish to refer in my concluding comments about the structural issues to do with Australia's economy and, to the extent that I can, the response which I think the Australian government should start to take.Looking at some of the structural issues of the Australian economy over the last 15 years, the data shows—some of the data refers to the last two years but most of it does not, because the rate at which the data can be analysed means we are mainly getting analysis based on material from around 1996—that the percentage growth in exports had been highest up to 1996 in some of our important manufacturing and services sectors. The fastest growth was in forestry and fishing, which is a very small industry in export terms compared with some of our great industries. Non-metallic minerals, machinery and equipment—a very significant growth area—other manufacturing and printing and recorded media are other areas where we are getting a lot of growth in exports. We are also seeing competition for machinery and equipment, that very significant part of our imports which makes up 50 per cent of our merchandise imports.We have significant growth in some of our services exports, which are of course driven very much by travel and transportation. They are the biggest but not the fastest growing exports, the fastest growing being insurance and, in that period, construction services. I am seriously worried about the fact that support for the export activity of our construction services industries is being withdrawn, in the face of the infrastructure decline in Asia, at the very time when the support is most needed. The Asia Infrastructure Consortium Program, which gave the capacity for Australian consulting engineers and others to put together consortia to bid for the infrastructure projects in Asia, was withdrawn just when it was most needed. So some of those areas of growth have had the support cut out from under them when they are most needed.In the manufacturing sector, a significant factor in that period of growth was the strength of export growth by those industries adding value to our resources—the food and beverage and metal products industries. I am concerned about whether we are going to continue the focus that leads to that growth because we need to be increasing our exports in the areas of growing world trade—which is manufactures and services. We have been falling back, since the change of strategy driven by this government, to increased reliance on our exports of the very important agricultural and mineral industries, but we continue to sell into a market where the relative prices are falling. We need to focus on increasing our exports in areas where relative prices are rising—essentially high skill, high technology manufacturing and services.We always focus a lot on exports, but improving our competition with imports is very important. For example, the biggest fall in that period in import penetration was in printing, publishing and recorded media. We have had some rather colourful confrontations in this place about the government's policies that I think undermine the capacity of those industries, particularly recorded media, to be as effective as they might be in meeting import competition and in exporting.I do not have time to go on to it, but when you measure the knowledge intensity trends in industry development Australia is down at the bottom in the skill pattern and we need to change that. Our R&D has been concentrated at the low technology end of the market compared with the OECD overall, and we need to change that.I have briefly put—and it has been a very rough thumbnail sketch because time does not permit any more—some serious structural problems about where the Australian economy is going and how it can effectively respond to the challenges of globalisation.Let me mention some of the issues that cause me concern. The government is giving this problem very low priority. In the Governor-General's address to the parliament, to which we had the address-in-reply debate, there was one paragraph—29 words—about industry policy, with nothing new to say. We had growing concern expressed just this week by our top researchers, who warn that Australia is failing to capitalise on its edge in the lucrative biotechnology industry. It is an area where our research strength is strong and where government inactivity and, worse than that, government cuts and lack of support to universities and to R&D is putting our potential in that very important growth sector at risk.In the growth area of knowledge based industries—which is where the jobs are and particularly where the high wage jobs are—the government is failing to protect and, in some cases, is consciously undermining our intellectual property regimes, at a time when the most important aspect of driving growth is successful intellectual property so that people can have confidence in their ownership. I do not refer just to the arguments we had last year about parallel imports, but we now have the National Competition Council recommending that the Trade Practices Act be changed to threaten the capacity of knowledge based industries to enter into some of the licensing arrangements for development of their intellectual property. It is a misunderstanding of the competitive impact of those changes, because those arrangements bring new and competitive products onto the market. It is a pro-competitive policy. I think the National Competition Council has got it wrong in this matter. It got some of the other parts of that report right, but it got that part wrong, and I think the government should clearly reject that.The government is making some interesting noises, and Minister Alston runs around letting out little thought bubbles. He was talking about encouraging clusters this week. When you ask, `What is behind this? What is the policy? What is he going to do?' there is nothing. It is simply a word that someone has mentioned to him and he says, `Let me say something about that.' But nothing happens. So we need a new direction in industry policy in Australia.We face challenges in industry policy, and the industry policy requirements of Australia during the next decade are not the same as those of the past. The central focus of public policy for the next three years must be the role government plays in the emerging industries and in the application of scientific and technological innovation to our traditional industries. We have a strong record of scientific achievement and a proud record of inventiveness. But in the past we have not been able to commercialise that innovation as effectively as we might. It is very important to notice that OECD analysis suggests that in high wage markets—where I assume Australia wants to be—manufacturing companies can best survive by focusing on work that has a high technology or science content. If we are not driven by technology and science, we are going down the path of a low wage strategy for our growth instead of a high wage strategy for growth. If we are falling back on the low technology industries we might create low wage jobs, but we will not create the sorts of jobs we are educating and training our young people for.That requires increased government focus on investment, innovation, research and development. What has the Howard government been doing? Reducing funding for universities and reducing incentives for R&D investment. For the first time since records have been collected, industry R&D spending is starting to fall. We need a greater focus on relevant education and training. What is the Howard government's response? Higher education contributions which are higher for science and engineering courses than for others. They are going in exactly the wrong direction.Because we have had a long period of economic reform there is a lot of strength in the Australian economy, but there are worrying signs and structural flaws. We need an Australian government responding to those worrying signs, responding to those structural flaws, and I regret to say nothing in the policies we see before us at the moment encourages us to think that we are going to get that coherent response in industry policy or in macro-economic policy.18:24:003052Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—If the member for Fraser wants to see some opportunities being realised by the coalition government, he should have a look at the recent developments out at the Amberley Air Force Base in the electorate of Blair because there a real revolution is going on in the contracting-out of existing RAAF services. It is providing a doorway to high technology development. School leavers and people of that ilk can look to learning real trades, real technologies—the techniques of the future. I compliment Amberley Air Force Base on the work that it is doing. Amberley is leading the country in that field. I do not think that at the moment there are any places in the world other than Amberley where you can rebuild an F111 from the ground up. That is what you can do at RAAF Base Amberley. There is also the development of the new Ipswich campus of the University of Queensland. It will provide the necessary training to compliment the good work that is going on out at Amberley.My agenda in this debate on the appropriation bills is the issue of roads because I think roads are the basic building blocks of our society. I want to look at what is being done to appropriate money to make sure those roads are at the highest possible standard. I want to quote from Refocusing Road Reform, a report provided to the Business Council of Australia not long ago. That report says:A greater than 50% real reduction in these costs over the last 20 years has contributed to a transfer of transport demand from rail and public transport to roads. Future technological advances will probably focus on reducing the adverse social impacts of road transport.Another finding of that report was that in urban areas over 40 per cent of our travel is on a stop-start undivided arterial street system. Less than 10 per cent of Australian urban travel is on a controlled access primary road system compared with 40 per cent in US cities. This is of economic significance as freeways have 70 per cent less accidents, 30 per cent less fuel consumption, from 50 to 100 per cent less emissions and 50 per cent less time loss for business than stop-start arterial roads.Traffic numbers are growing faster on primary roads, as in other countries, and falling on rural local roads as the rural population declines—that of itself is another story—or moves into larger country towns. The extent of Australia's paved rural road network is close to best international practice. The extent of our primary road network is well below best international practice. We have only eight kilometres of freeway per billion vehicle kilometres travelled compared with 25 to 35 kilometres per billion vehicle kilometres travelled in Europe and North America. The percentage of travel in Australia on a good quality primary road system is therefore significantly less than in other countries.The resources consumed in road transport are close to $81 billion per year and include road user, accident, road agency and environmental costs. Business travel costs constitute 66 per cent of total road user costs, and little emphasis has to date been placed on potential resource cost savings for the business car and light commercial vehicles used in the service sector.I have rattled off a few of those points, and they are quite significant, but perhaps I should also say that Australia is one of the most motorised countries in the world and leads the world in the amount of road freight carried per capita. There was a substantial growth in road freight relative to GDP in the period between 1976 and 1985. I wanted to lay out that background because when we talk about appropriations we are talking about what the government is spending its money on and the direction in which we are taking our country. In regional and rural parts of Australia—such as the area I represent—the development of the regional road network and the development of our national highway system are things which we have to focus very closely on, particularly in this forum.Looking back over recent times, the funding for the construction of roads in Australia actually suffered during Labor's time in office. The real per capita expenditure on Australian roads in constant 1995-96 dollars fell from $131 million in 1983-84 to $85.9 million dollars in 1995-96. The decline in expenditure on Australian roads links neatly with the decline in revenue governments receive from our ailing taxation system. It is no wonder that even the big spenders of the Labor Party cannot afford more for roads when each year the tax system provides us with less revenue. Each year there is less money coming in to provide important infrastructure such as roads. There is less for basic services and less to support those dependent on welfare. We all suffer because the tax system, which is now conveniently defended by Labor, is unable to provide for our needs, and our needs include things like good quality roads.Fortunately, the changes proposed by the coalition in our tax package help to correct all that. Thanks to the coalition, we can start to debate the question of what priorities we will set now that the tax package offers a substantial dividend and an annual return that will grow naturally as the economy grows, which is a very different picture from what we have seen in recent times. It is an insult to the intelligence of Australians that members opposite have the hide to speak in a debate about government expenditure. These are the same people who cringe at the thought of a real debate on taxation in this country. They do not want to know where the money is coming from; they just want to know how to spend it.I have said on many occasions that the government's tax package is the single most important factor that contributed to my election. It sounds crazy, but in my electorate the two per cent easytax proposed by One Nation was more credible than the chook scratchings, I suppose you might say, that were dished up by Labor in that election. I went through that election and I pay credit to the Treasurer and to the Prime Minister, because their work on tax became the focus of attention.Now that the election debate is over, we can turn to dividing the spoils. While Labor squabbles over its future direction, or lack of it, we can discuss the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue and generated returns that flow from a system that is built to align itself with the real needs of people in the 1990s. The GST delivers more than tax cuts. It will bring about lower transport prices and a new ability to compete in export markets. It brings money into the system.With the new system in place, the appropriation debate in this parliament can take on a whole new meaning. Instead of squabbling like seagulls over some of the truly malodorous offerings that we have had in the past, we can get back to the real business of government and start to look ahead with a real idea where the money will actually be coming from. Thanks to the coalition, we can get back to the business of providing building blocks for development. We can build infrastructure. We can use the money we generate to build a better country, one that is more secure and more productive.I do not want our new inheritance wasted. I want new money for infrastructure projects, for important building blocks in our communities. I want it for roads and dams and for a range of basic infrastructure projects that, frankly, have been driven off the national agenda ever since our taxation system began to deteriorate. As that deterioration accelerated, so we saw the end of discussion about reasonable infrastructure projects that we really need to be pursuing in this country.In my electorate of Blair, the Warrego Highway is the one national highway funded by the Commonwealth. Like other highways, the Warrego has developed over the years until today it is a much better piece of road than it was back in the 1960s or 1970s. It is in a pretty good state of repair compared to what it was in those days. But there are still problems, and they continue to emerge as the use of the road continues to develop. There are problem areas. There are black spots, places like the Plainlands intersection, where we have had a number of serious and even fatal accidents and where we see the prospect, in the very near future, of further development—such as a school—going there. We need to be looking at ways to keep up the road standard as the network develops.I turn now to some of the comments on the way our road infrastructure has developed alongside the demand that is being placed on it. People have set out to assess how we are keeping up with the development of our roads and the traffic on them. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform report called Planning, not patching stated:While the objectives and provision of the national highway system may be broadly seen as adequate, there are linkage problems including sections of some roads, access to ports of and areas of major production. In addition, the linkages in urban centres connecting highways are a significant problem.The report went on to identify, for example, bridge infrastructure as important. I think we have got to make sure that we proceed effectively and do not drop the ball in keeping up the pace of development of the road network.I want to move on from talking generally about the development of the road network to one issue that I think is dragging that back and causing us problems. It is the issue of noise. We do have to spend an awful lot of money in dealing with noise barriers these days. In some areas you see noise barriers going in probably faster than the highways themselves. A report titled Australian transport and the environment 1997 quoted figures from an Australian study, undertaken in 1986, that 45 per cent of people were concerned about road traffic noise, compared to the next highest area of concern, aircraft noise, at 24 per cent. I think the member for Griffith might be interested to read that because he has had a lot to say about aircraft noise. I think we should be looking also at road noise.The highest concern in that study for 30 per cent of residents was about the noise from cars modified to increase their level of performance—certainly in terms of noise generation. This was followed by noise from motorbikes and squealing brakes. Of people who lived on main roads, 32 per cent said the noise from heavy trucks caused the greatest concern. Compared to the total survey population, those living on main roads voiced higher concern about noise generated by squealing brakes, delivery vans, car horns, buses and that sort of thing. I mention that survey because I have just spoken about the Warrego Highway and yet we have people concerned about the noise coming from that highway. It is an important artery. There is no suggestion at all that you would ever want to close down the highway because of the noise, but something has got to be done about it. If we look at the way we have been developing answers to the issue of noise, we have seen barriers going up by new highways where the areas being protected from noise are new housing estates that are being built basically at the same time as the highway. It seems crazy to me that we are providing that level of support there, whereas in areas where homes have already been built we are not providing the noise barriers that should come as the highway grows.I think that some of the state governments and indeed our good selves should be more careful to make sure that people are allocated noise barriers and those sorts of things in line with their entitlement and the degree of discomfort they are feeling so that it is a proper, transparent process. I am concerned at the moment that it does tend to be rather higgledy-piggledy. If I were to compare, say, the development of noise barriers on the Gateway arterial road in Brisbane with the development of noise barriers on the Warrego Highway, I think that the comparison would draw some very strange conclusions in my mind—for example, that the Gateway development is proceeding way ahead of its time.I would like to say something about the cost of noise. The report Australian transport and the environment 1997 cites a report of the National Roads Transport Commission of 1995, which estimated the annual cost of noise to Australia as being between $200 million and $400 million. The report also quotes an estimate made by the Interstate Commission in 1990 of $534 million.In the United States in 1984, it was estimated that four per cent of the nation's annual fuel consumption was due to traffic congestion. In New South Wales, a government report estimated that, without changes in transport planning directions, the results for Sydney in 20 years time would be a 67 per cent increase in travel demand, a 600 per cent increase in congestion, a 23 per cent increase in fuel consumption and a 36 per cent deterioration in air quality. The cost of traffic congestion in Brisbane alone was $400 million. That compared with an estimated cost in Sydney, for example, of over $2 billion.I raise that because one of the things that has been suggested recently by residents along the Warrego Highway who are desperate in dealing with this noise issue and the lack of action from the state government—which, I must admit, is merely setting priorities according to the allocation of Commonwealth dollars—is that we look at speed reductions. I do not think that is an entirely inopportune suggestion. We should perhaps be considering the fact that, as these highways become congested, they are going to become slower and choked. Perhaps it would be worth while—we could free more money to spend on the road—in built-up areas to be prepared to limit the speed.In the report that I have here on speed control and transport policy, there are a few comments that I think are relevant. Apparently, if you take heavy vehicles as making up 10 per cent of traffic, a report quoted in the policy document that I referred to found that the difference between traffic moving at 100 kilometres per hour compared with traffic way down at 32 kilometres per hour was about 5.5 decibels. That may not sound like very much, but that is quite a significant amount when you take into account the volume of traffic and occasional bursts of speed by particular speeding vehicles. That report includes a graph which shows quite a notable difference between, for example, the noise generated by vehicles at 90 kilometres per hour and vehicles travelling at 100 kilometres per hour. That is an issue that should be pursued because we definitely have to protect our investment in roads.I want to turn briefly to the rail network because that is another example of infrastructure development which we should be proceeding carefully with. I am talking not about pie in the sky projects—and there have been a few of those—but about the normal basic development of the rail network in and around Brisbane. For example, we can look to the north and we have the latest and greatest of rail technologies. We have a tilt train roaring up the coast at huge velocity. Yet, if we look to the west from Brisbane out towards Toowoomba, we have the most ancient and archaic rail system I think you could possibly have.I will take two towns that are roughly the same distance apart from Brisbane. To Toowoomba by road is a distance of 135 kilometres; to Gympie it is 182 kilometres. Based on the timetable for electric train services, the time it takes to get from Gympie to Brisbane on the new tilt train is two hours 19 minutes. If I want to go on the train to Toowoomba, I have to take a twice-weekly diesel service which takes four hours five minutes to travel a little shorter distance out to Toowoomba.In 1996 Toowoomba had over 83,000 people compared with Gympie with 10,000 people. Why can we not even this up? We should be having a much more relative and effective rail network and it seems crazy to me that, in the time it takes to travel on a rattling old diesel out to Toowoomba, you can hop on a brand new tilt train and be in Bundaberg, which is way to the north, in the same time. I think that we need to be looking at allocating that money because, if we could link up Toowoomba and Brisbane, the capital of Queensland, we would definitely contribute greatly to the economy of south-east Queensland and to the state as a whole. It would certainly assist the development of the Darling Downs and places along the way between those two centres—I represent, of course, the Lockyer Valley—and it would be a great boon to residents living in that area and to the development of industry in that area.In closing, I want to urge the government to look much more closely at infrastructure development. I think the opportunity for planning has been given to us, now that we have this new tax system on the agenda. We can look ahead with great certainty as to where we are going and I would appeal to all members to support the development of a 21st century rail and road network in this country.18:44:003056Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I intend to use the rather broad opportunity that the appropriation bills provide members in this House to make some careful remarks about drug policy. Drug policy is directly relevant to the shadow portfolio I hold as it is a significant law and justice issue. It is also a very important health and social issue.A starting point for reflection on this issue is to go to the 1996 review of the national drug strategy which concluded, amongst other things, that despite its many accomplishments and international acclaim the national drug strategy is in danger of sliding off the political agenda. The national drug strategy, which evolved in the various incarnations of the Labor administrations—the Hawke-Keating governments—had won very significant international support and was recognised as probably the leading model internationally of how to address a difficult law and social justice issue.If those comments of the national drug strategy review—that there was danger of the strategy sliding off the political agenda—were true in 1996 they are more than true now. I see some of the reasons that that could be the case flowing from the manner of the administration of the strategy by the current government. I see the problems as having two dimensions. First, the focus has been blurred and confused by an increasing cooption of the strategy by attempts to harness it to short-term political objectives and an increasing emphasis on prohibition and law enforcement. The second problem flows from the first, and it is that emphasis that lacks credibility. No-one, least of all law enforcement professionals, believes that Australia can win a war on drugs if that is taken to mean that the supply of all illicit drugs can be cut off. Indeed, recent massive heroin seizures have had no impact on street prices or the availability of heroin, ecstasy and other illicit drugs.I refer to a telling comment by Professor David Penington in the Age on Friday, 12 February. He said:We hear just recently of huge hauls of heroin . . . and we have announcements made by politicians that obviously the system is working, and that will deal with the problem; but the reality of course is that the street price of heroin is probably less than it's ever been and the purity of heroin higher than it has ever been.The problem of credibility is compounded by two factors. The first factor is that, as the focus of the strategy has moved towards law enforcement, focus has been lost on the need to plan and maintain harm minimisation strategies for licit drugs—alcohol and tobacco. Abuse of those licit pharmaceuticals gives rise to social and health costs which in their total dimensions dwarf those associated with illicit drugs—not withstanding the very legitimate concerns and community anxieties that are associated with the latter.Second, to the degree that a focus on interdiction and law enforcement is inherent in any overall strategy, under the current government there has been a conspicuous failure to develop benchmarks to evaluate the impact on supply, street availability and the price of illicit drugs.I sought to obtain from the government answers to relatively simple questions by placing questions on the notice paper. I asked, for example: what is the government's estimate for 1996-97 and 1997-98 of the total street value of illicit drugs sold in Australia? The answer that was provided to me said:Establishing estimates of total values and volumes of illicit drug markets is a very difficult task given the nature and types of information available.It refers me to some publications, but the government does not state its own best estimates in relation to research into the total street value of illicit drugs sold in Australia. The government provides no material in response to questions about particular drugs—illicit heroin, cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, anabolic steroids and others imported into Australia.I also sought to obtain information about what the government understood to be the effect on the street price of heroin of recent massive drug seizures. Some while ago, in mid-October 1998, the largest ever seizure of heroin in Australia occurred—400 kilograms in New South Wales. Had the market been affected by the massive volume that was taken out of circulation, you would have expected there to have been a price impact. The government's response was:The nature of the illicit drug market means that it is not possible to precisely determine the effect of seizures on the prices of street heroin or ecstasy. The primary purpose of supply reduction is to stem, suppress and disrupt the flow and trafficking of illicit drugs and to send a deterrent message to other traffickers. The impact on the price of the drug is a secondary effect.The reason I was seeking an answer to that question is that the price of drugs in most markets is the only measurable device to determine availability. In most markets the more available a product the lower the price—market forces at work. When it is less available prices rise. Four hundred kilograms of heroin were seized—the largest ever in Australia's history. The apocryphal evidence that I received from law enforcement officers is that there was a minor price decline in Melbourne. At about the same time there were made available even lower priced starter packs for those who were beginning that form of drug use.If you do not have effective benchmarks and you are unprepared to make public any assessments about how you are evaluating your strategy, or the criteria upon which you are operating, the main exposure to the public is reduced to what are fatuous media opportunities for ministers—and indeed the Prime Minister—to congratulate themselves on large drug seizures, without them having to deal with the inconvenient facts that Professor Penington raised. It also places considerable pressure on law enforcement officials.There are concerns within the law enforcement community that the decision to seize that 400 kilograms as it came ashore—rather than to follow the drugs to the distribution points and seek to trace the chain of distribution back to those who masterminded the importation in the first place—may have come about because of perceived political pressure to make large seizures and not to risk an enforcement strategy that was designed fundamentally to disrupt those chains of dealers at the highest levels.Whether that concern is justified or not, one can certainly imagine that when ministers so associate themselves, and so constantly, with alleged successes of seizures, advocated on the basis of the size of that seizure, there would be considerable pressure to move to ensure that those objectives are met. It is legitimate to congratulate law enforcement agencies when they do successfully disrupt the plans of organised criminals involved in the importation of illicit drugs, but law enforcement cannot substitute for a strategy to deal with the inevitability of continuing ready supply in Australia of many illicit drugs. It would be interesting to do some community analysis of opinion. My judgment is that, were we to do so, two elements would stand out. Firstly, there would still be considerable community support for some policies of retribution. I would expect there to be entrenched antagonism and hostility towards people you might regard as pushers of drugs and organised crime syndicates who profit from drug dealing as a business. The public would expect those people to be dealt with harshly if they are caught. But I would also expect to hear a lot of impatience and anger about out-of-touch leadership.The community knows that there are a lot of drugs in the streets, schools and dance clubs. They expect their community leaders to deal with this with some realism. They know it is a problem that is just not going to go away. They do not like the fact that many of our young people are dying unnecessarily. They worry that addicts may steal their video and CDs just to get their next fix. They know that there are inadequate resources for rehabilitation, detoxification and treatment programs. They know there is a lot of hypocrisy around, particularly from our baby boom, `sex, drugs and rock-and-roll' generation of leaders, who went through their own drug days at universities. They know that just saying no is not going to do the trick. As an article in the Bulletin put it:. . . making a choice about drug use is no longer counter-cultural.It is part of the normal growing up of young Australians.The Bulletin article referred to the fact that, by the age of 17, a majority of young people—57 per cent of boys and 54 per cent of girls—had used cannabis at least once; 13 per cent had used more than one illicit drug; and heroin had been used by four per cent. This widespread use of some of these drugs presents a very problematic environment for law enforcement to be the sole response. Some important thinking has emerged from those who are expert in this area, not the least from Professor Penington but also much from the Australian Institute of Criminology.The public knows that heroin is cheaper, more readily available and purer now than it was three years ago, when the Howard government took office. Australians are rightly wary of copying the institutional hypocrisy of other governments—like perhaps the United States—which has seen increasing emphasis on a single strategy of prohibition. They know that prohibition has been associated with an escalation of violence, considerable problems with AIDS and other contagious diseases amongst injecting users, huge increases in prison populations and ever-higher penalties. Yet they know that the drug problem did not go away. That may explain surprising levels of support for the call from the capital city mayors and a large number of others, who have been urging new initiatives in this area.It is important to deal honestly with these issues. The Australian way is not to put the head in the sand. In government, Labor put harm minimisation at the core of its policy. Just as we did with AIDS policy, where we took the hard options and did not surrender to populist opinions, we did it in illicit drug use: we addressed it principally as a health and community issue, incorporating not only law enforcement but also a larger debate about drug use, including alcohol and tobacco.We recognised that it is important to provide factual, sound information to those who may be exposed to drugs, so that they are aware of the harm that they may face, and can make rational and intelligent decisions in their self-interest to protect themselves. Labor bluntly acknowledged that laws and law enforcement, whilst part of our response, could not and would not substitute for broader strategies. We knew that public education had to be realistic and not sensationalist.Going back to the Bulletin statistics, when such a large proportion of the population is exposed to the availability of illicit drugs, sensationalist material which does not coincide with the real-life experience of young people is simply not going to be believed. I believe it is important to again assert the centrality of harm minimisation. We have to admit that we cannot completely cut off drug supply, and therefore we must define the central task as decreasing demand and promoting strategies for avoiding health and social damage.Law enforcement remains an important task, a task which needs to be properly funded. One of the ironies of the current situation is that the government, over the first two years of its term, actually cut back very substantially the funding of the Australian Federal Police and that only after community anger had surfaced did it backfill some of those funding cuts. But it had damaged the key law enforcement institution responsible for policing.We know that, even if the police do their job as efficiently and effectively as they can, that will not stop drugs coming. As David Penington said, the production of heroin and cocaine is now at a world all-time high and that they will continue to come into the country despite every effort by police, Customs and the National Crime Authority. That leaves us with a residual responsibility. I believe that we need to look seriously at a range of responses and refresh the idea of harm minimisation.There are a number of strategies, but most which have been advanced in the public debate have not been given serious consideration by the current government. I regard it as a sad event that the Prime Minister dealt with suggestions from police ministers and his own health minister regarding one particular strategy supported by the ACT government by describing it as a `glib and simplistic' solution. It may not have been a solution which this government was prepared to adopt, but such a characterisation—in a difficult field where solutions are not simple to come by and where we are dealing with an environment where we need to grapple with hard facts and realities and not wish them away—is a very unfortunate response.It is not surprising that such people as David Penington, Bernie Geary and others of the drug advisory task forces around this country felt deeply hurt by such a characterisation of an initiative which had had a very long period of complex debate—controversial debate, but debate which could not possibly be properly characterised as `glib and simplistic'.There are initiatives which Labor has proposed. We have proposed the idea of drug courts. I was recently in the United States and saw the operation of a drug court in Washington DC. I think that, as part of an overall strategy focused on harm minimisation and not dominated by the rhetoric of law enforcement and prohibition, drug courts will play an important part. Law enforcement itself plays an important part but, at the core, we have to recognise that we are dealing with a social dynamic in this country which is beyond that limited rhetoric, which does require us to reach out for a range of different solutions to meet particular circumstances, and which has to address the needs of those who become in need of support.We also need to speak plainly to many young people who will not believe us if we use overinflated language to describe a living experience which they will almost inevitably confront as they move through the school system into their early teens and past that period into their youth. This is not a problem which can be swept under the carpet and overlooked. Harm minimisation should be reasserted as a central tenet of our policy. We must put public health and safety first.We must make plain that the approach to drugs will not overlook the harms associated with tobacco and alcohol—which, in their totality, cause more death, social destruction and harm than do the illicit drugs; and so a total focus has to include those. We must be willing to address issues of this complexity and seriousness without the kind of derogatory language that the Prime Minister used in describing those who advocated a particular solution with which he found no sympathy.19:04:003060Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Tonight I would like to draw to the attention of the House and the wider public the gravity of the situation facing Australia in relation to our current account deficit. It is obviously an issue which should be of great significance and importance to all of us. At a time when, through good management, the Australian domestic economy is strong, we all know that the Asian economy and the world economy in general have stalled. Many countries are in recession and some are, in fact, in depression.The impact for Australia means that our imports continue to flow in as domestic demand is here, but that our exports are shrinking as the demand for our raw materials as well as for our elaborately transformed products starts to fall back. One of the largest exports from Australia is coal, and the coal industry represents 10 per cent of our exports. Unlike many of our other exports, it comes from regional and rural Australia. It has two major impacts: it creates jobs and wealth in the regions—which we in this place all know have been shrinking over many years, as the bush is basically being denuded of its population as people move to the coastal fringes.Coalmining is predominantly carried out in rural and regional Australia. There are still, I might add, some mines around Ipswich, which comes to mind as being very much the focus of south-east Queensland. The fact is that the jobs that they create and the wealth that they bring into Australia mean that the local focus and the national focus are, for us, paramount. Anything that puts the coal industry in jeopardy is in fact putting the sovereignty of this nation in jeopardy in the long term if it means that we lose contracts to competitors overseas and hence lose important export dollars.Obviously, right now in Queensland there is a major issue with the coal industry in Emerald, where we have a dispute going on at the Gordonstone mine. I would like to touch on that shortly in some detail. A little of the history of the coalmining industry would indicate that unproductive work practices have been conducted in the industry, and that the very high incomes to be earned and the unproductive work practices conducted were condoned by management. I am not here to knock unions. I am here to talk about the difficulties facing this industry and hence the difficulties that will be forced upon Australia's economy.Over many years, when coal was receiving good prices and it was relatively cheap to mine in Australia, we found that every time an employee made a demand, those demands were met almost out of hand rather than have industrial action. That has artificially inflated the pay of mine workers, without substantial increases in productivity and, in doing so, we had poor management practices and poor working practices in general, meaning that our mines did not meet world's best practice.Under its workplace relations reform, this government deliberately put in place a framework for substantial improvements in the viability of the Australian coal industry. Like so many things, government can only put in the framework and it is then up to communities or businesses in partnerships to take up that framework and ensure that it works to their best advantage.The coal industry is not only of critical importance to the country's wealth, given its huge export markets, but its location in regional Australia cannot be underestimated. Not only the direct jobs, but the indirect jobs of banks, schools and services that come with it into these regions are paramount. Every time a mine closes, devastation is wreaked upon the community. Cobar is an example. When it closed, Emerald—which I mentioned earlier—was fortunate in that it has many other diverse activities and industries, but it was still impacted on quite a lot.The industry might be large, but it is also vulnerable to international demand and competition—never more so today than it has been in the last 20 or 30 years. The Labor governments failed to improve the international competitiveness of this industry by creating a workplace relations environment which was not conducive to international best practice. They were unwilling to take on the entrenched power that the unions had put in place and the overoperation of the industry.In doing so, Labor not only sold Australia down the drain but in turn sold down the drain many of the workers who had paid their union fees year after year to the CFMEU. They have consequently lost their jobs and been thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment, generally in middle age, with children at high school and with no real career prospects as they need retraining. There is a very human element to what we are putting here because the opposition, when in government, and the union bosses and management con spired together to put off a difficult situation and not deal with it at the time.The recently released Productivity Commission inquiry into the black coal industry illustrates just how important to the industry the workplace relations reforms actually are. Its report says that the industry in Australia produces one per cent of GDP or 10 per cent of our exports. It said that in general the work practice and productivities fell well short of international performance and international standards. Simply put, that means it is more expensive to produce coal in Australia than it is overseas, making us less productive and less competitive. It said that some of the working arrangements, such as the `last on, first off' practice, have their roots in the early history of coalmining in Australia. How did these inefficient work practices come about? Basically, according to the Productivity Commission, it was because the pressure for higher wages and changed working conditions, backed by the threats of strike and disruption to supply, were usually successful.That goes back to what I was saying earlier: it meant that at a time when these issues should have been dealt with, management was not willing to consult and deal with unions, and unions were not willing to participate as equal partners. They took the militant role and immediately walked out. Like a naughty child, when the parents no longer want to discipline the child they take the least line of resistance and let the child have its way. In the end, they have spoilt the child. In this case, the industry and Australia have been the losers.The Productivity Commission states specifically that union inspired rules such as `last on, first off' should go because they detract from enterprise performance in the long term by restricting the criteria on which recruitment can be based. As a direct result, mines will be unlikely to achieve the labour productivity and unit labour cost outcomes that would be possible with greater flexibility. In the long run, retrenchment based solely on seniority can only harm competitiveness in an individual mine.Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the framework sets out a manner in which to deal with this. It is allowing what the Productivity Commission said is essential—that is, the creation of a workplace focus where mine operators and employees take primary responsibility for workplace relations with arrangements which are the most productive and efficient and which best secure jobs. That is the key point. This is as much about securing jobs as creating wealth for Australia and maintaining our current account.On 27 May 1998 and on 22 October 1998, the AIRC, including the deputy president and a full bench, simplified the coal industry awards over the objections of the union, including the removal of inefficient work practice rules and the outdated `last on, first off' rule, and rules which entrenched previous custom and practice. I said that that rule goes back a long way. In fact, it goes back to 1902. It is a provision which has outlived the modern industry and it is a provision that was thought right at the time of Vladimir Lenin—and he was not proven to be too correct, and this particular measure has proven to be a disaster for this industry.On 26 May last year, the AIRC also removed from the coal industry award the rules which gave preference in employment to union members or retrenched union members. On 11 August, the full bench delivered a decision which rejected union claims to reintroduce by arbitration into individual mines restrictive work practices. The AIRC said in black and white:It is a truism that unless the mine is profitable, its future and the welfare of its employees will be in jeopardy.I do not think this simple fact has actually dawned on many of the leadership within the unions that controlled the work forces at these mines because, if it had, they would have known that the practices they were undertaking were directly jeopardising the jobs of their own members and working against their best interests.These were union inspired rules which prevented employers from employing the best person for the job and rewarding the best person for the job with continued employment. The unions and the Labor Party wanted to hold on to many of these restrictive prac tices—including that provision which predates the Russian revolution. There is far more to be done than has already been achieved by the Workplace Relations Act, both within the framework of the act and the implementation of the More Jobs, Better Pay election commitment that the coalition took to the people in 1998.It is clear that the focus given by the coalition to workplace reform in this industry is helping to secure the jobs of thousands of workers directly and, indirectly, the future of some of the small towns in regional communities throughout Australia. The coal industry in Australia cannot afford to stand still with the inefficient work practices or the union preferences that they have had up to date, no more than we as a government can stand on our record of good economic management and presume that that will continue into the future. We must continue to look for improvements in our work practices, as we must continue look for improvements in our capacity to run the economy. This industry is too important to Australia's future for us to neglect it. Too many workers, too many families of miners and too much of regional Australia rely on this industry for it to be allowed to be run by pre-World War I work practices.None of these changes would have happened under Labor. Let us reflect upon what that would have meant, given what has occurred in Asia, one of the biggest export receivers. Without those contracts, without those changes to workplace relations, and without improved productivity in these mines we would have seen the closure of many more coalmines throughout Australia, and a further collapse of regional Australia. This would have been supported by the Labor government. They moved not one iota during their time in government to rectify the matter. The Leader of the Opposition stands condemned for his comments since then in referring to the fact that he would not make any changes to the restrictive work practices that they currently support.I would like to concentrate briefly on two examples of how the mining industry can be improved through the use of the Workplace Relations Act. The example is that of Mount Isa Mines. The general manager of operations, Mr Menzies, last year outlined the dramatic changes which his company had been able to make in the industry as a result of forward thinking management changes, a focus on the workplace, the participation of employees and measures facilitated by the coalition government. He delivered a very good speech in Sydney on 15 or 16 June last year.As I have been stating throughout this, it is a management myth that the union—the CFMEU—alone is to blame for the dilemma of this industry. It has been management as well. But now that management has come to realise that the days of endless dollars and clients queuing up to buy the product have gone they have recognised their responsibility. It is time for the unions to come to the table and negotiate in a constructive manner as well.We have probably all heard of the problems that Rio Tinto had in Hunter Valley No. 1 mine. It has been the focus of much industrial attention. However, it is clear that the management at the mine and the work force have been able to change their approach to workplace relations and introduce a culture which has provided millions of dollars of valuable efficiency to the mine and hence secured the jobs in that workplace.Let me turn now to Gordonstone which, unfortunately, has not had a good history. The ALP, on the 16th of this month, decided to weigh into the Gordonstone dispute. The member for Hunter and the member for Capricornia put out a press release saying that Labor expresses its support for the coalminers. For which coalminers do they express their support? Is it the coalminers who are currently running the mine and living in the town? Many of them are past members of the union or current members of the union but past workers in that mine under another ownership. The press release quotes a unanimously supported motion of the Labor caucus. It says:"This Caucus expresses its support and solidarity with the CFMEU, its members and their families in its ongoing battle for industrial relations justice against the multinational Rio Tinto at its mines at Blair Athol, Hunter Valley and Gordonstone." At Gordonstone there was no dispute with Rio Tinto. The dispute was with a previous mine owner. There was no ownership and no dispute with Rio Tinto. It was not until after this mine had been bought by Rio Tinto that they started to disrupt the workplace. They are no doubt frightening the workers who have returned to work but, more importantly, they are threatening, by their very actions, the jobs in that mine and the viability of that mine. The ALP blindly does this, irrespective of the national interest or the interest of those individuals.The CFMEU was calling up its pay money. I believe the reason the Labor party unanimously supported this is that during 1997 and 1998 alone, and before 30 June 1998—so we are talking one financial year—the CFMEU donated directly to the ALP the sum of $378,798.45. That was preceding the federal election. Who knows how much more passed into the coffers from 30 June through to the election. So there was certainly a debt to be called in. But did it have to be at the expense of Australia's national interest, and at the expense of those workers who are currently working at the mine under agreements approved by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission?The objection by the CFMEU and the ALP to what is happening at Gordonstone is a good illustration of their approach to workplace relations and industry policy. Put simply, if the union cannot control the commercial decisions made to close or open a mine then the mine should not be opened or closed. There is an irony here. In Gordonstone the community cannot believe the union's position as it was the union that objected to the closure of the mine by the previous operators because it was not done on terms acceptable to them. Now they object to the reopening of the mine because it is not being done on terms acceptable to them. A picket line remains on the site. Work continues to be done to reopen the mine and the current work force is about 50 employees.It is not as though the mining industry is underpaid. In fact, the mining industry has some of the highest paid employees in the nation. We are talking in the vicinity of $80,000-odd per employee. It is difficult work, it is dangerous work, and I do not begrudge them one cent of it, but what we have to look at is whether the productivity that has been generated by such high wages should allow such methods to occur where people's lives are often put at risk or they feel threatened by activities conducted by what were in some cases fellow workers.Picketers have been arrested for preventing employees leaving the site at Gordonstone and going home to their families. Employees were required to stay overnight on site away from their families. I cannot see how that destructive behaviour can actually be supported by the ALP. They could not leave because the police could not guarantee the safety of the employees leaving the site to go home. How un-Australian is that, when you consider that this is a dispute between the unions and a past owner of this mine, not the current mine owners? And one of the arrested picketers was the member for Capricornia's husband, Mr Livermore. I wonder: was this a stunt on his behalf or was this some way of ingratiating himself further to the CFMEU in the hope that a little more of the $370,000-odd that went into the Labor party coffers would come directly to her at the next campaign?This is not a new work force or a non-union work force being brought in to reopen the mine. I have been told that a very large number—in fact the overwhelming majority—of the persons employed by the new operator are the former employees of the Gordonstone mine, not a new work force as claimed. I am also advised that they include union and non-union members with employment based on merit without preference to unionists. Surely, that is what we should be striving for in Australia: equality regardless of your union membership, productivity to ensure the jobs of these people, to ensure the productivity and the viability of country towns throughout Australia and to ensure that the desperately needed export dollars of Australia are not dried up through some people's—(Time expired)19:24:003064Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—We are dealing in a cognate debate with Appro priation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 . Apart from dealing selectively with one area of Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 , I also wish to address some more general matters in this debate which, as we have heard, is generally broad, but for a very particular reason: 40 minutes of my debating time that I might have had last year were in fact stolen from me by the Leader of the House because he gagged the address-in-reply. He also gagged debate on the GST bills before I was given an opportunity to speak. So I have 20 minutes—if I get a continuance—in order to speak on these appropriation bills. I would seek to deal with the government's program as a whole, as well as with the GST bills.I want to begin with one particular aspect of Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99. As we know, these appropriation bills are to gather up extra expenditure which the government has undertaken but which was not taken into account in the previous budget. They cross a range of matters. In Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , for instance, there is about $1½ million worth of new expenditure, and that in part has been paid for by $507,000 worth of savings from the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department. However, despite cuts, the Laws and Bills Digest Group in the Parliamentary Library has still been able to do its work and Ross Kilmurray has presented some excellent background material on these appropriations bills. I will refer to his work in relation to that extensively in regard to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 .One of the items in these appropriation bills is from the Department of the Treasury seeking more money to the tune of $19,443,000 for a community education and information program on the introduction of the new tax system. On page 2 it says:This program relates to the advertising and information campaign undertaken by the Howard Government prior to the 1998 general election in respect of its plan for a new tax system.These appropriation bills retrospectively seek an endorsement for those payments for the advertising campaign that the Howard government undertook. This is not in the normal course of events how you would expect those advertising campaign amounts to be undertaken. Indeed, it has been argued that the Treasury should have foreseen that it would be necessary to expend funds on this advertising campaign and that they should have been able to predict when that would have happened.In April 1998, the government sought $10 million for this campaign and they sought it from the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration, or AMFA, `a fund from which payments may be made for Commonwealth purposes which are both urgent and unforeseen'. In fact, $250,000, or part thereof, was drawn down by the end of that financial year and I think the actual expenditure was just over $57,000. The Auditor-General, who looked at these matters, in passing indicated that it should have been possible for Treasury to predict that the full $10 million would not be expended in the last financial year and that they should have some notion of the time frame for when that would be expended in the coming financial year and, therefore, that these appropriations should not have been through the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration but properly should have been in the last budget bills. So this is a retrospective pick-up. This is an attempt on the part of the government to give an ex post facto legitimation of what was a very unusual approach to the funding of this advertising campaign.I would argue that it could hardly be unforeseen because the Treasurer and his department and the government had determined that they would put this advertising campaign into place. One could argue, however, that it was urgent for the government to put this to the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration because it was effectively to serve the coalition's party political purpose of getting re-elected.An unusual process was adopted, and that process was widely questioned. The Auditor-General's office, after receiving legal advice, argued in the end that it was within guidelines. I think that the whole of this procedure needs to be looked at very carefully. The opposition, when it was in government, was criticised for spending money on public education campaigns in relation to its programs. The key point of difference is this: there was a cap of $5 million in relation to expenditure.Debate interrupted.Adjournment306510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.306519:30:003065Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to raise the matter of telecommunications in my electorate of Braddon. In doing so, I wish to highlight what I think is a problem in many parts of isolated and rural Australia. There is no doubt that metropolitan Australia enjoys easy access to telecommunication services of all manner and type, and this is only right—we are a nation of communicators.The demographic and geographic make-up of our community highlights the need to communicate via electronic, satellite and microwave means. This is particularly the case in rural and remote Australia. Mass electronic communications are often the predominant means of entertainment available to remote communities and individuals.In my electorate of Braddon, there are a number of instances of communication black spots ranging from poor to non-existent reception of mobile phone and television services to bureaucratic stonewalling on granting frequencies to community broadcasting organisations. I would like to highlight some of these black spots to demonstrate that funds which are intended to improve regional telecommunications infrastructure have not found their way into my electorate in spite of repeated claims by the former member for Braddon to have presented these problems to this government.Weren't the people of Australia told that the partial sale of Telstra would specifically assist remote communities to receive telecommunication services? I speak of the numerous mobile phone black spots that exist on the west and north-west coasts. Given the relatively harsh climatic conditions, mountainous terrain and isolated coastal geography of the rugged and beautiful west coast and the relatively large distances faced by drivers between townships, the fact that mobile phone black spots exist seriously diminishes the ability of individuals to access help in the case of accidents and emergencies and impedes their ability to do business.Not only are road users inconvenienced by the black spots, but bush workers, professional fishermen, traditional and recreational land users, bushwalkers and permanent residents of the numerous hamlets dotting the coast and hinterland are also affected. Several boating accidents have occurred on the west coast with a loss of life. In a number of cases the availability of mobile phone reception would have greatly aided in the rescue bids.Even in the more populous centres along the north-west coast there are frequent black spots which impede business communications—impediments which I am confident would not be tolerated in metropolitan areas. Still, we must thank ourselves for small mercies. To the north of the north-west coast is King Island, renowned for its cheese, dairy, beef, fishing and tourist industries. The island has no mobile phone service at all. This commercially oriented island is without a mobile phone service and, again, this acts as an impediment to commerce on the island as well as limiting communication support in times of emergencies.TV aggregation from VHF to UHF frequency has not coped well with Tasmania's mountainous terrain. There are too many valley communities which receive poor TV reception and/or do not receive more than one or two channels out of a possible four. The self-help guidelines related to gaining SBS make it almost impossible for small communities in Tasmania to access this relative alternative TV programming. Because a community like Circular Head does not meet the necessary population size to be placed on the SBS priority list, it will need to raise around $100,000 to bring SBS to the municipality. This should not be the responsibility of municipal authorities. It is a Commonwealth responsibility to ensure equitable access to essential telecommunication services.A matter that has been of considerable concern to me and radio listeners in my electorate for some time is the delay in allocating additional frequencies to community broadcaster 7DBS Coastal FM, based at Wynyard. Mr Speaker, 7DBS was granted a licence in 1989 with a proviso that translator services would be provided within 18 months to cover the station's total listening area. Since then, it has been waiting on the addition frequency allocations to enable this to proceed. You no doubt would appreciate the station's frustration that almost 10 years have passed and it still does not have the frequencies.The Australian Broadcasting Authority appears to be unnecessarily delaying the process. The station and its listeners are at a loss to understand why, despite several attempts to discover the reason. On behalf of the station and the north-west community, I have drawn the matter to the attention of the minister and eagerly await his response. Tomorrow will not be soon enough for this very patient community radio station and its loyal listeners to receive the additional frequencies, thus eliminating the transmission black spots in its listening area and allowing it to erect the necessary translators so it can fulfil its charter of 1989. Like so many other services which metropolitan and large population areas take for granted, smaller communities like my own in regional Australia can only hope these services will come their way. (Time expired)306619:35:003066Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to speak about the Olympics inquiry. Much has been said in the media and, while there has been a lot of international focus and focus within Australia, there is no doubt that the night of the announcement `The winner is Sydney' was the greatest night of my life, and one of which I am very proud. The story goes that the reason why President Samaranch took so long to read out the name `Sydney' was that he had never seen Beijing written that way before.Be that as it may, it was a culmination of great professionalism, skill and hard work. The members of the bid team worked extremely hard for three long years, and it was the commitment of both the Fahey and Greiner governments that got these games. Mr Knight is claiming the credit for them, but we should remind people that it was these premiers who put their necks on the line to deliver the bid and who took the political risk up-front.I have to emphasise that the games bid was a clean bid. We have heard about some of those grey areas. Certainly from our point of view we are convinced that it was done on a basis of integrity. It has always been my belief that there is one city involved in every bid that one should look at closely. I emphasise that that city is not Sydney. I believe that the people who are interested in sport and in delivering the best environment for the games voted for Sydney.There has been much speculation on the reasons why Sydney won. I think it was because of the attractions of Sydney, the environmental credentials we have, our involvement in sports and previous games, our infrastructure plans, all the athletes being in one location, and the support of the people of the city and the people of Australia. Also, I would say, the support from the US foreign affairs committee of the US Senate who attacked Beijing over human rights issues certainly helped us at the time.Of course lobbying was important in the whole process, and we do not apologise for the lobbying process. It was expensive and it cost us $28 million. But it is important to say at this point that of that $28 million, $20 million came from the private sector—that is one of the factors that has been lost in this whole exercise. If we had had $2 million sitting in that fund at the end of the games bid and we had missed out by two votes, no-one would have thanked us. We were given much in kind: the whole of the program of hotel accommodation was provided free of charge—$1 million worth. There were restaurants like Jordan's that provided free meals—every visitor went there. We had Goodman Fielder, Qantas, and carpet manufacturers—a whole range of people who provided things free. They were the people who were looking for us to deliver, and they knew what the cost was.It is also important to recognise that, at the time we did the bid, we had an agreement from Ken Cowley of News Ltd, from Kerry Packer and from John Alexander of the Sydney Morning Herald that they knew we would be going into a high level of duchessing, and they were satisfied that that would be okay and they would not run the normal stories about it. Six years later, here we go; we have this inquiry on. I believe it is political exercise. Why couldn't Mr Knight wait for another couple of weeks until the election was over? There is no reason to be making this requirement with such urgency. The IOC has known about these people on the take for many years. I was given most of the names of those involved in Salt Lake City by one of the other failed bid committees some nine years ago. They have known about it and they are saying we have to produce it in two weeks, that it has to come out before the next election.Who were the major players? There are no Labor Party people there because they would not have put their necks on the line. Neville Wran had the opportunity and he simply did not take it. It was the coalition that took the risk and, of course, I am sure Mr Knight would love to name people and what we did. We have nothing to hide. Let them open the books; we are happy with that. But bear in mind that there are other cities who had major programs: Manchester had major charter flights, dinners with Princess Anne and people taken to No. 10 Downing Street. There were yachts in Monte Carlo harbour—Istanbul and Manchester had their own yachts. So if we are talking about duchessing, we were one of the minor players. In fact, Berlin spent some $75 million on their program—about three times what we did.I believe it is time to totally reform the bid program. They should have a small technical committee involved in looking at the cities that spends no more than three to four days on one visit. They should have outside auditors to ensure the integrity of the process. Of course, a change of president would help, choosing one with a strong track record of cleaning up the corruption, of making statements of the concerns within the IOC. Mr Speaker, I believe we ran an honest bid. (Time expired)306819:41:003068Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I want to raise a matter this evening of great importance to me, and I think to a number of Australians. It deals with the situation of some of our returned veterans of the Second World War. There are a number of these people involved, and I have had a few come to my electorate office. In particular, I want to raise the situation of one of my constituents, Mr Harcourt Reeves of 18 Bundock Street, Kyogle. Mr Reeves is looking for a service pension because he believes that he is legitimately entitled to one. In fact, Mr Reeves served during the Second World War, but he is in one of those situations where, because of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, it would seem that he is not entitled to the pensions that are usually given to veterans of the war.It might be of use for me to read into the Hansard a report of a review committee that looked into Mr Reeves's application for a service pension. The report says:2. The applicant enlisted in the Australian Army on 4 October 1944. He was discharged on 7 January 1947. The applicant served in New South Wales and Queensland from enlistment until 12 March 1946. He then travelled to Rabaul where he disembarked on 26 March 1946.3. Mr. Reeves told the Tribunal that he served on Rabaul and Bougainville from 26 March 1946 to 11 December 1946. His duties included assisting in the round-up of Japanese soldiers who had refused to surrender. He told the Tribunal that the work was extremely dangerous because the Japanese soldiers were heavily armed and very hostile. He said the he was fired on and that some of his companions were killed by the Japanese during the round-up operation.I continue to quote:4. The tribunal accepts that during the operations engaged in by Mr. Reeves on Rabaul and Bougainville he incurred danger from hostile Japanese soldiers who had refused to surrender at the end of World War 2.5. To qualify for a service pension under the Act, Mr. Reeves has to satisfy the provisions relating to "qualifying service". The provisions relevant to his claim require the following criteria to be met:(i) Incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy.(ii) During a relevant "period of hostilities".(iii) The relevant period being from 3 September 1939 to and including 29 October 1945.6. Mr. Reeves incurred danger from hostile forces during 1946, this was well after 29 October 1945.. . . . . . . . .8. The decision that Mr. Reeves does not have the requisite qualifying service may seem to be unfair to Mr. Reeves but it is a correct reading of the provisions of the Act.There seems to be an anomaly in this particular situation with our veterans. I know from my own experience that, even though the war finished after the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there were many Japanese soldiers throughout the islands—in fact throughout New Guinea—who did not know the war had ended. I think it was some 10 years after the war when a Japanese soldier was found on one of the islands, and he still did not realise that the war had ended. He was holed up in a cave, I think, prepared to fight the enemy.It seems to me that, in an act this parliament has passed, we have cut out people who are entitled to a service pension. As I said, there are a number of people in this situation. From my conversation with Mr Reeves, I concur with him that this was a very dangerous operation. The Japanese soldiers had been cut off—there were no communications—and they were continuing to fight the war. Just because Japan had surrendered does not mean that these people were not at risk. In fact, they were at grave risk and some of them lost their lives.I ask the minister and the executive of this government to have a close look at this situation. I do not believe it was the intention of the government of the day, or that it is the intention of this parliament or the people of Australia, to deny these people who obviously served their country in good stead and in fairly hostile conditions because, as far as the Japanese soldiers were concerned, the war had not finished.306919:46:003069Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I rise in this adjournment debate to talk about a particular migrant woman who came from Italy some years ago. She is someone who I think is typical of many hundreds of thousands of migrant women who came to this country and did the dutiful thing of looking after their husbands and their children, and whose story probably never gets told.I want to give you a snapshot of this particular lady. She was born on 27 April 1930, and arrived here in Australia from Sicily in 1951. She was a typical young Italian lady who was born to poor parents and used to work the fields. She was used to hard work, and life in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s was not exactly a bed of roses. In fact, as a young girl this lady used to have to walk for something like two hours every morning and two hours every night just to go to and from work, where she would carry rocks on the sides of mountains in Sicily.She came to Australia, where her husband went up to the cane fields of north Queensland to cut cane, as many Italians at that time did. Naturally, she supported him at every available opportunity. She came over on a ship called the Australia in 1951, and she brought two children with her; one was aged four and the other was aged one. One can imagine the trials and tribulations of someone who came to this country at the age of 21 with two children, and it took a month to get here.When she arrived, she went to north Queensland where she became the person who took the tea to the gangers out in the cane fields. Her husband then decided to go into market gardening and of course she followed, working hard looking after the fields, tilling the soil and generally being a great support for her husband. At the same time, she looked after the children and, although they were in very poor circumstances, she did the best she possibly could.Later her husband decided that he would get involved in the hotel trade, so she trudged all around Queensland, running around hotels, cleaning the toilets and cleaning the ground, to the point where she ended up with bad knees from all the cleaning work that she did. She worked in paid employment—and when I say `paid employment' I mean helping her husband—until she was about 55 or 60. She worked in hotels, and then, to supplement the family income when things went bad at the farm, she worked at cafes in Brisbane and as a cleaner in state government buildings. She generally did what all migrant women of that time did, and I guess they still do.One can only imagine the hardships and the suffering that they would have gone through, bringing up a family in a strange country and doing, if you like, everything that the husband wanted. In those days, if the Italian husband said, `You have to do this,' there was none of this equal opportunity stuff. They had to do it.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—The Irish were the same.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—The Irish were probably the same, as the minister says. I can say to you that this lady was an absolutely wonderful lady, and somebody who I think should be remembered somewhere. There are so many of these people who live and then pass on, and no-one ever really tells their story—and it is a little difficult for me, in five minutes in an adjournment debate, to do so.I say this because this lady was my mother. She passed away on 20 November last year—only a couple of months ago. She died suddenly. She went into hospital for elective surgery to fix up her knees, which she had ruined as a result of all the work she had done. Unfortunately, they must have given her too much anaesthetic or something because 12 hours after the operation she died.As you can imagine, we miss her terribly. I mention her not because of my personal part in her story but because it is women like her whose names never go down anywhere. They are just expected to do what they do. They are fantastic people. My mother was one of a kind. I guess we all love our mothers, but I just want to say to her—wherever she is now—that we have not forgotten her. If nothing else, she will be forever in the annals, in the Hansard, of this place. I am very, very proud to have had her as my mum.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Bowman. There are many of us, in areas where there have been horticultural labourers, who could identify with the story he has just told.307019:51:003070Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Like most rational Australians, I was appalled by last night's decision by the Senate to overturn the government's small business exemption in the unfair dismissal laws. This short-sighted decision by the ALP and the Democrats was a conspiracy against small business, a conspiracy against the unemployed and a conspiracy against battlers in electorates such as my electorate of Macquarie.Late last year, just a couple of days after the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business announced the decision to exempt small business from these unfair dismissal laws, I had a small businessman in my electorate office talking about a totally different issue. At the end of that interview, as he got up to leave, he said to me, `Next time you see Peter Reith congratulate him on this decision regarding the unfair dismissal laws. I'm now going to go out and put on an apprentice.' That was totally unsolicited. That is what the small businessman said to me. I wonder how he feels now. I wonder how dudded he feels having taken that risk in good faith knowing that the government had done the right thing by small business. Knowing that the government had done the right thing by the unemployed, he went out and gave a young person a job. How dudded he must feel now that the Senate, the ALP and Democrats have overthrown this rational, sensible and fair decision.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—I am not sure what the situation will be but I am sure that this particular small businessman, like many thousands throughout the country, would be reluctant to take the risk again. How many other members have heard their constituents say, `I'd like to give a young person a job but I'm not willing to take the risk because of Labor's unfair dismissal laws. I'd like to help out the unemployed but it's too big a risk to take'?I could tell many stories of small business people in my electorate, but I will just mention a couple. The first case involved a small car repair business. This business had an employee who failed repeatedly to follow instructions to the extent that it cost this business a lot of money because of mechanical repairs that were not done properly. After several warnings they dismissed this employee, who then took them to court in an unfair dismissal case. The employer found out not long afterwards that this was the second unfair dismissal case and followed one the same employee had taken against a former employer. This business had to waste considerable energy, considerable time, and considerable money in fighting a case that they should not have been forced to take, all because of a vexatious claim by an employee.The second case involved a small manufacturer in my electorate who used flammable liquids. This employer gave a very clear warning to employees before they were taken on that there was to be no smoking on the job because of the danger to the business and other employees from the flammable liquids. Two employees were caught smoking and were dismissed. Again, an unfair dismissal case ensued. Again, there was considerable cost and considerable time wasted. There was also considerable inconvenience for this employer who was trying to do the right thing by his employees.The third case involved another small manufacturer in my electorate. This manufacturer was approached one day by a difficult employee, who said, `I quit. I don't want to work here anymore. I quit.' Because he had been somewhat difficult, the employer said, `Okay, your resignation's accepted. I accept your termination.' They parted on good terms. Two days later the employee came back, presumably after some consultation with and persuasion by the union, and said, `Sorry, I don't want to quit any more. I want my job back.' The employer, quite rightly, said, `I'm sorry. You resigned. I accepted your resignation. That's the end of the story.' This employer was also threatened with an unfair dismissal case. He had to settle out of court in a case that cost him several thousand dollars. These are three examples of the unfairness of the current legislation that the Labor Party and the Democrats refuse to allow to be changed. This legislation is costing jobs and it is hurting small business. In today's Financial Review Mr Siekmann, representative of the Small Business Association of Australia, said `the Senate had failed to understand the problems faced by small businesses in defending dismissal claims'. The Senate fails to understand small business, the Senate fails to understand the unemployed and, what is worse, the Senate fails to care for small business and the unemployed. (Time expired)307119:56:003071McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—Tonight I am speaking about the stress and difficulty being experienced by 3,500 people in my electorate as a result of the loss of a community transport and gardening maintenance service provided by People Who Care Inc. to the residents of a local council area in the city of Stirling.In November, People Who Care Inc. rang me to say they would be withdrawing the service from the city of Stirling area at Christmas time due to financial problems they had experienced for the past four months in trying to stretch their service to cover a number of council areas in Perth. The failure of state and federal governments to increase funding to HACC services was the ultimate cause of their financial problems.People Who Care Inc. have been providing two needed services in the council area—a community transport service and a gardening maintenance service. They have been providing services to people with disabilities and frail aged people for a very long time—almost 25 years. They are a not-for-profit organisation and raise the money to provide these services in a number of ways: funding from the federal and state Home and Community Care Program, fundraising, proceeds from op-shops, donations, project funds from such bodies as the Lotteries Commission of WA and small contributions from clients for services provided. Their services were very dependent on volunteer labour and they had very few staff—approximately 15 but over 200 volunteers. It was a valued, needed and integrated community service.It was valued for its work by many people and groups, including the clients, their families, groups, council, GPs, other community services who relied on them to bring the clients to them and hospitals and health services, to name just a few. Often the gardening service was the reason people could be independent, live in their homes and not be prematurely or inappropriately admitted to a nursing home.There is another HACC funded service in the area—Contact S—which also does a fine job. They also receive Home and Community Care funding. However, they have never been able to meet all the needs for services and People Who Care picked up the shortfall—3,500 clients is an awful lot of shortfall.People Who Care went to their funding body, the Home and Community Care Program, both at the state and federal level for additional funds, advising that they would have to withdraw their service; they had no choice. They also tried other funding programs, but there are very few where they can get additional money.One of my constituents, Mrs Norma Wallis-Houston, brought to my attention her problem in getting community transport in Stirling when she suffered an eye problem. She is an elderly lady and a widow. She has one child deceased and two children living interstate, and she has very little, as an elderly lady, in the way of local peer groups or networks who could assist her. These are the people that lack of funding and failure of the Home and Community Care Program to be able to increase funding to local services are causing problems for. I draw it to the attention of the House, and I do hope that in the budget appropriations and over the next budget term the government will look at the issue of Home and Community Care funding.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 8.10 p.m.307220:01:003072Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—Earlier in the adjournment debate the honourable member for Cook raised an issue relating to the Olympics and Sydney's successful bid for the 2000 Games. I wish to respond to some of those comments made and to add some comments that may clarify some of the matters raised by the honourable member.All of us are aware that in recent months events surrounding the administration and operation of the International Olympic Committee have caused consternation and concern to many people around the world. The Olympic Games is no longer a simple sporting event drawing together all nations. It is a massive business operation, and Australians and others expect corporate governance for the Olympic movement incorporating the principles of transparency, accountability and integrity. I hope the Olympic movement implements necessary reforms to restore world confidence in the Olympic ideals.The interaction of the Olympic Games administration and Sydney's successful bid has been the subject of much comment in recent times, particularly in New South Wales. The honourable member for Cook made some comments in respect of that. As president of Sydney's bid and chairman of the board of the bid company leading up to the decision, I believe it is in the public interest that certain facts be placed on the record.John Coates, a director of the bid company and President of the Australian Olympic Committee, recently disclosed that a commitment was made the night before Sydney was awarded the Games to representatives of the national Olympic committees of Uganda and Kenya which involved subsidising athletes and sporting events in those countries. These commitments were made without the authority or knowledge of bid company directors. On my recollection, he subsequently informed the board some weeks after the 2000 Games decision that these commitments flowed from discussions that occurred during a visit to various African countries by John Coates and Gough Whitlam several weeks before the 2000 Games decision and that this was an extension of the AOC's Oceania Athlete Development Program. The commitment was adopted by the AOC, not the Sydney bid company.I was not prepared to proceed with the private company structure that underpinned Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney's bid which was the plan for the games implementation. A statutory authority was established by the New South Wales parliament in late 1993 at my insistence. The legislation reflected the contractual arrangement between the AOC and the government that existed at the time I became president of the bid. More importantly, the legislation provided an open and transparent structure accountable to the public. When the bid commenced, the AOC agreed to support Sydney to the exclusion of other Australian cities on the condition that if Sydney were successful they would receive $60 million after the 2000 Games. It is that agreement entered into in 1991 that allows the AOC access to the budget for the Sydney Olympics in the SOCOG legislation.That legislation does not give the President of the AOC veto rights over the New South Wales parliament's budget appropriation. It simply protects the commercial agreement entered into by the AOC to award Sydney the right to bid exclusively for the 2000 Games. The question begs: why were those rights of the AOC converted into a $100 million guarantee by the current New South Wales Minister for the Olympics? What is the linkage in that arrangement with the resignation of the then President of SOCOG, Gary Pemberton? What role did Graham Richardson play in that decision? What relevance did that decision have to the appointment of Michael Knight as the president and Graham Richardson as a board member and Mayor of the Games Village? Was the current board fully acquainted with all of these facts before endorsing all of these decisions or was the board coerced into such endorsements under personal legal threat from the AOC, as has been alleged from time to time by current board members? Perhaps Mr Knight might care to open up the SOCOG books to independent examination on these issues.On 2 February John Coates wrote to me and Nick Greiner at the request of the President of the IOC seeking evidence from all former board members that might give rise to improper conduct on the part of any IOC member relating to Sydney's bid. Nick Greiner and I jointly actioned that request with each board member of the bid company, and we have provided that response to Mr Samaranch. We released a public statement yesterday confirming that no director can provide any evidence of improper conduct.On 5 February Michael Knight announced an independent examination of the books and records of the now defunct Sydney bid company. That does not concern me, but what is the real motive behind it? Mr Sheridan, who is heading the examination, was not appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. He has no power to seek and obtain information from any director, although I am sure that all directors would welcome any request for assistance. Mr Sheridan was asked to report within four weeks. Mr Knight claims that this was necessary to assist the IOC in its inquiry into the practice of all bid cities for summer and winter games between 1996 and 2006. The IOC has sought information from those bid cities directly and to my knowledge never requested Mr Knight to conduct any inquiry into Sydney's bid. Last Sunday a Sydney paper carried an article on this inquiry which contained information from the minutes of the bid company. No doubt more stories will appear based on bid company records in this pre-election period in New South Wales. The New South Wales government, of course, has these records.The bid company adopted the highest standards of public company accountability in its financial operations. The Finance Commission chairman, David Smithers, who is the national chairman of one of the big four accounting firms, supervised these operations. The books were independently audited by Price Waterhouse and subsequently examined by the New South Wales Auditor-General. The New South Wales government has held these records and files for four years. What fact or doubt requires an examination in the weeks leading up to the New South Wales election? Sadly, there is now an unholy alliance between the New South Wales right wing of the Labor Party and the AOC. The recent Four Corners program confirmed this.Fair-minded Australians believe that sport and politics should not mix. Mr Knight boasted at the Nagano Games that there were two classes of shares for the Sydney Olympics. The A class shares belonged to the New South Wales Labor Party right-wing faction. Everyone else had B class shares. It is a disturbing development of public administration in this country and a tragedy that all who gave so much to get the games were motivated by national pride in so doing and they are now being maligned in such a dishonest way by the master pupil from the school of `whatever it takes'. The New South Wales and Australian people own the Sydney Games—no-one else. It may well come to pass that the stunts and dishonesty of Labor in New South Wales at the present time for perceived political advantage will backfire on March 27.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 9.30 a.m. tomorrow.20:08:003073House adjourned at 8.08 p.m.1999-02-17Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills3074r7253074Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:003074Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 carries the support of all the states and territories and of all the main business groups that would be affected by its contents. There is only one group that has some problems supporting the bill—that is, the legal profession—and I just wonder why that might be. But by and large the community and, I understand, the opposition are with the government on this. There may be a possible further amendment in the Senate later tomorrow, but we will just have to wait and see how that takes its course.This bill is also part of a suite of government measures that the government have introduced in a responsible way to make sure that the country is year 2000 compliant in an orderly and timely manner. We have already announced the deduction for year 2000 remediation software and related expenses. We have certainly put in a very big effort in making sure that Commonwealth agencies are year 2000 compliant, and we are in the middle of a very strong national awareness campaign to make sure that this particular problem is going to be dealt with satisfactorily.Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know how you find it in your electorate, but certainly in mine there are still a significant number of small businesses, for example, that really have not paid attention to this problem. They seem to think that they will be okay.The government will continue its very strong awareness campaign. The parliamentary secretary responsible, the Hon. Ian Campbell, certainly has some very big plans for this year, as I understand it, to proceed with the government's agenda to make sure that our country is year 2000 compliant. Other countries in the world have similar programs. Some are more advanced than we are, but I think Australia is doing well and the bill that we are debating this morning furthers that object.Basically, the object of the bill is to protect bona fide year 2000 compliance statements against civil action. In doing that, the bill is pro business, because it increases the public availability of reliable information. It certainly allows businesses to understand their supply chains; it allows them to understand whether, when this particular time comes along, all the businesses they deal with will be reliable suppliers, that there will not be problems at that time; and, of course it allows larger businesses to share information and to help smaller businesses—and that is a point that I alluded to earlier in these comments. For all those reasons this bill is pro business and therefore pro the community and pro Australia.What we are facing is, through nobody's fault, a problem for the whole of the economy. Right across the economy these sorts of problems can occur in lifts, in microwave ovens, in video recorders, in traffic lights and in communications—anything that is date sensitive and run by some kind of microprocessing arrangement.Interestingly—and this has received a lot of publicity—it may have the potential to affect things like aircraft. I am aware of some commitments by honourable members to be in aircraft at the time this happens. A commitment was made by a person this morning to be in an aircraft at the time but they said that it would be on the ground when the changeover occurred. I think that most of the major industries are certainly very responsible in this regard. I do not think there is going to be any problem whatsoever.To gain protection, the bill sets out some very specific information. The statement made in the public area must be clearly identified, it must be in writing, it must relate solely to year 2000 compliance processing issues and it must identify the authoriser. Protection is also given to statements that happen to be republished on the original statement. If action is taken against the maker of the statement, he or she must provide an explanatory statement outlining why the statement was bona fide and not reckless.Protection is not provided for any statement that might be made if it is known by the maker to be false or misleading—and I think that is sensible—or if it has been made recklessly—and from time to time we see those sorts of things—in connection with the formation of a contract; in fulfilment of an obligation under a contract or law or for the purpose of inducing customers to acquire goods—an interesting one and, I think, a very good protection in this bill—and also if it relates to restraining injunctions or applications for declaratory relief, to civil actions being undertaken by regulatory bodies and to civil actions based solely on the infringement of intellectual property. Those are the exceptions to the bill which I think are sensible and which certainly should be there.This bill will protect a person from civil liability arising out of the making of a statement and will have protections for defamation and so on. It provides that a year 2000 disclosure statement will not be admissible against the person who made it. I think that is going to encourage our businesses and our economy to be open, to be more accountable and to provide information to other users.Finally, I would alert the Main Committee to the fact that there is a sunset clause in this bill in that protection will be available only until 30 June 2001. After that, the millennium will have well and truly passed and there will be no need for protection to continue. I think that is also a sensible inclusion in this bill. For those reasons, I support the bill today.10:09:003075McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 is warranted. It should have been introduced. The opposition is somewhat disappointed that it has been delayed. We made calls earlier for this bill to be initiated, and I think it would have been more effective in achieving its purpose had it been introduced earlier. Nevertheless, it is welcomed. The opposition broadly supports the concept of the bill—we have been calling for such a bill for some time—what the bill attempts to do and the manner in which it does it.There have been some disappointments for us in the way the government has handled getting the bill through the parliament. Substantially, that will be reflected in our activity in the Senate—and I will come to that in a moment—by way of questions of process and a possible amendment.We are comfortable with the process of expediting the passage of this bill. We cannot complain about something being delayed and then not try to pass it quickly, so we have cooperated with its coming to the Main Committee. We will not be proposing amendments in the House that would in any way delay the consideration. It may be—I will come to this later—that we will have to move an amendment in the Senate because we do not seem to be making any progress in getting satisfactory assurances from the government on some matters related to this that are important to us. If that is not the case, if we can get those assurances, we will cooperate in an expedited passage of the bill through the Senate. If not, the bill will go through the Senate in the normal processes. We would still deal with it as quickly as possible but the Senate's expedited hearing processes do not allow consideration of contested amendments, so we would not be able to facilitate it and meet the government's priority preference in timing.With those original remarks, let me, first of all, go back to the background to this problem. The so-called Y2K problem—the year 2000 problem, the millennium bug—originated when program designers, for the purpose of saving memory space in programs, began to use two digits to represent the year. It is one of those decisions that go into the category of `It seemed like a good idea at the time'. It has allowed a functionally effective maximisation of space and memory within the operating computer systems throughout the part of this century when we have had the effective operation of computers.But the circumstance has been created where, when the year 2000 is represented by double zero, there is a significant probability that most computers and systems will recognise this as the year 1900, with consequences for whether or not the system operates and the mode of its operation. It could lead to failures of one sort or another in a variety of computer systems. The member for Herbert was giving some examples and being melodramatic. Giving extra examples is unnecessary; the examples he gave were adequate to convey to all of us the magnitude of the problem. Countries around the world have been giving this consideration and responding in a variety of ways.The second and related problem is one which this bill does not deal with—that is not really a criticism; I do not particularly think it should. We need to be aware, however, of the so-called 9 September 1999 problem. In many computer programming arrangements, 9999 is the end-program marker that operates a shutdown sequence in programs. There will be a need for people to respond to that before 9 September 1999. Let us hope we do not have a precursor to the millennium bug in that problem. There is potentially a consequent, smaller issue with 29 February 2000 because of the special circumstances of leap years at the century. That calendar coincidence may cause a third time-driven problem within the computer systems.To have three such things within six months is an issue that the whole industry has to look at in terms of planning and programming requirements. Of those three, the one which is seen by everybody to be by far the biggest, the one we are dealing with today, is the year 2000 problem itself.It is not a new issue; it has been recognised for a considerable period of time. Governments across countries, across jurisdictions—that is, federal, state, local—and of different political persuasions have been slow to respond. Many people in the private sector have been even slower and those who have been active and concerned about it have found the process of exhorting people to action very frustrating. Solving the Y2K problem can be seen primarily as a management challenge. Repair and replacement of systems and their interconnection take time. Ensuring that critical systems are ready for the year 2000 is a matter of prioritising what needs to be fixed.Against that background, let us look at government response that has led to this legislation before us. It is principally driven by an initiative taken in the United States where President Clinton signed into law, on 19 October last year, the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act known in the United States as the `good Samaritan' legislation, and it has become known as this in the Australian vernacular. This act was established around three core objectives: to promote the free disclosure and exchange of information related to year 2000 readiness; to assist consumers, small businesses and local governments in effectively and rapidly responding to year 2000 problems; and to lessen burdens on interstate commerce by establishing certain uniform legal principles in connection with the disclosure and exchange of information related to year 2000 readiness. At the core of the American government's strategy is the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. This council organised a national Y2K action week in October 1998, involving more than just government organisations, and it had special Y2K publicity and education events.That was the background and the catalyst. People around the world did not then start addressing the year 2000 problem—it had been under consideration for a long time by governments in Australia and by the private sector—they started looking at whether the legislation we have before us—and for the purpose of simplicity I will call it `good Samaritan' legislation—was appropriate for Australia.The delay has been a bit of a disappointment to me. It took until February 1999 for the Howard government to introduce a bill to address the problem. The bill is constructed around giving limited liability protection for voluntary disclosure of information regarding the Y2K problem. It does not address all the issues in the American bill. The Australian government has taken alternative strategies to pursue some of the issues to do with information coordination, establishing means for individuals and firms to gain access to Y2K solutions. I am not sure, in the Australian system, that those are matters that are appropriately dealt with by legislation. It may well be that the alternative executive government initiatives that are being taken are more appropriate.We should not be under any illusion about the size of the problem in Australia. ABS year 2000 problem preliminary survey results found that 43 per cent of small businesses are not undertaking Y2K protection. Only 20 per cent of all businesses have sought some form of assurances from suppliers, service providers or customers about their state of Y2K readiness and only 13 per cent had contingency plans if disruptions were to occur due to the Y2K problem. Not all that shortcoming can be attributed to the lack of this legislation. The cause is much more profound. This is a part of the solution; it is not the cause of the problem.The Howard government seemed to realise, about the middle of last year, on 15 April 1998 when they put out a press release, that more needed to be done to fix the problem. The responsible ministers at the time, Minister Fahey and Minister Moore, said in the press release, amongst other things:The decision to provide additional funding ($127 million) recognises that progress within Commonwealth agencies and the wider business community towards Year 2000 remediation has been slower than is necessary to meet the immovable deadline of 1 January 2000.In spite of this extra money, at November 1998 only an average 44 per cent of business critical systems in key government areas were compliant with Y2K, according to the Office for Government Online Year 2000 Information Bulletin of January this year, whereas in the United States, at the same time, 61 per cent of federal government critical systems were Y2K compliant. That is 61 per cent in the United States, 44 per cent here. The US does not expect to be 100 per cent compliant until July 1999 and Australia seems to be behind the United States, so if our critical systems are not going to be 100 per cent compliant by July 1999, we are cutting it fine.To be fair to the Howard government, given that I have been critical of their somewhat delayed approach—even compared to all the OECD countries we are a long way from last—we are well up with the leading countries in terms of preparedness. I do not want to create an artificial sense of crisis. Compared to most of the countries with which we would normally compare ourselves, Australia is up towards the front of the pack in being ready to deal with the year 2000 problem—and nobody has found it easy. There is no country, there is no major corporation, that has had a magic wand to solve this complex question easily. So I do not want to score cheap points. We are ahead of the pack, but I think we could have been further, and we have at least got the track record of having been raising that issue for some time before the government acted.The Howard government expects Y2K compliance costs for the Commonwealth to be around $600 million, as I understand it. The US government estimates it will spend $6.4 billion to fix its mission critical systems. So I am surprised at the $600 million figure and I am surprised that $127 million of extra spending has been seen to be sufficient. But let us reaffirm, despite those differences, our continuing support for initiatives to cope with and respond to the Y2K problem.We have been pushing for months, in particular during the early weeks of December last year, for a number of measures, one of which was legislation of the sort we have before us today. During that first week in December we made a couple of announcements, press releases and other statements seeking to provoke and promote `good Samaritan' legislation and Commonwealth response, through its own disclosure and otherwise, to the Y2K problem.I am pleased we have the legislation before us; and, in what it does contain, we support it. Whether it is exactly what we would have done is really beside the point. It is substantially what any Australian government would do in responding to the same imperatives that led to the Clinton administration's year 2000 `good Samaritan' legislation. This is essentially a Westminster system style response and so, for what is in the legislation, we support it. There could be, if time was available, merit in an inquiry which would probably lead to some minor amendments, but we do not have the luxury of that time. The officers who worked on this legislation have done a good job, a good job for our country and for the government; therefore, we will support this legislation in its passage through the House and, in what it does do, we will support it in the Senate.Our concern is with one aspect of what the bill does not do and with what we believe the Howard government have not been doing adequately. We have had some advice that they are about to respond to our concern, but it is very hard to get the confirmation that we hoped to receive. That relates to the government's own disclosure. This is a bill about Y2K disclosure, the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 , and it makes improvements in our legal regime to facilitate private sector disclosure to assist in matters such as supply chains, to which the member for Herbert referred. But what it does not do is guarantee to Australian business and Australian citizens that they will have adequate information about the government's own circumstances with regard to year 2000 problem disclosure. The disclosure by the government has been getting better, but it itself acknowledges it is not, at this stage, satisfactory.In terms of critical infrastructure, it is how the government's infrastructure and systems respond that is probably going to affect most directly the lives of Australians. That issue is not addressed and should be addressed. We have electricity systems, traffic systems—as the member for Herbert said—and air traffic control systems. All of those are significantly affected by the government's state of preparedness—Commonwealth and state—but for the purpose of this legislation in this parliament, we are talking about the Commonwealth. The Office of Government Online has indicated that the infrastructure at risk includes such things as electricity, gas, water, sewerage, telephone, fax and communications, transport, flights, shipping, railways, control towers, raw materials, contracted out processing services such as payroll, which might not be quite as critical as some of the life-threatening consequences, but it is pretty important to the people who are the end-receivers, whether they are salary or benefit recipients from government, or tenderers, service providers, et cetera.The government is aware that this is a broad and significant problem. The United States government produces a detailed report for the majority of departments detailing their level of and progress towards compliance with the Y2K problem. Until now the government has been reporting, we are advised—and I have no reason to doubt it—comprehensively to the cabinet. But attempts by parliament or the public to get access to that information have run into cabinet-in-confidence barriers. That is not satisfactory.There may be some aspects of this information that need to be cabinet-in-confidence because they may relate to security issues. They are not the issues we are concerned about. They are important for the national interest. If there are aspects of those—I cannot immediately envisage what they might be—they are national interest issues of significance to which attention needs to be given. But all those examples of infrastructure at risk to which I referred do not fall into that category.So what we need are quarterly reports on identification of risks in the year 2000 management plans, including milestones to be reached in the time remaining. We need to know the results to date of the full range of applicable testing activity. We need to know what the contingency and continuity management plans are. The opposition did prepare, and may need to move in the Senate, an amendment to this bill to require quarterly reports by departments and agencies. This is not something we wanted to spring as a surprise on the government. We all have concern and we all want to facilitate the passage of the legislation. So we went to the government and indicated that this was our concern. My colleague and the shadow minister assisting me in this area, Senator Lundy, has had discussions with the parliamentary secretary, Senator Campbell. They have discussed in detail the amendment and I have been involved in some of those discussions.We were hoping that we could get support for the amendment—usually for opposition a forlorn hope—as this would have been the simplest solution. The second solution, which would have been acceptable to us and to our party—and our party room accepted this option—would have been a letter from the government to me, to Senator Lundy, or to the Leader of the Opposition, detailing the government's intention to report quarterly and comprehensively in a way that is available to the public and to the parliament, making it clear that there will be quarterly reports from departments and key agencies. The government indicated that they are going to do this. They, in fact, indicated that they were going to send us a letter. We still wait.The way the government is handling it is a disappointment to us in process terms, but that is a second order question. We can all talk about that around here and be disappointed, as I am, but the serious question concerns how this is interfering with our preparedness to cooperate in facilitating the speedy passage of this legislation. We would prefer our amendment, in what we think is in the national interest, to facilitate speedy passage, but we will accept a letter of assurance from the government indicating that it will voluntarily meet the standards which our amendment sets down.From what has been said to us—and I do not want to breach some confidential aspects of a discussion I had with Senator Ian Campbell—I can say that the government have indicated to us that they have no trouble meeting the standards we have set. But irony of ironies, when we were asking them to give us details about disclosure so that we can make that assurance public and then say we are satisfied with this and expedite the passage of the legislation, we could not get disclosure of the government's intentions. This is very frustrating indeed and may lead to some delay in the passage of this legislation.That is not our intention. If we can get that assurance we are prepared to let the bill go through the Senate on a Thursday lunchtime sitting as a non-controversial bill, because in all its other elements it is non-controversial. It is not an unimportant bill but it is a non-controversial bill between the major parties and, as far as I can tell, the minor parties and Independents in the Senate, though that is a matter for them.That is the matter that is outstanding. That is the issue that is of continuing concern to us. We continue to talk with the advisers to the government and to the private sector. We have received some very good reports from government officials, which we have appreciated, about the manner in which these issues are being handled in terms of public sector reporting and about this bill. We welcome all that. That is the way the matter should be handled. It is an issue of genuine national concern; it is not an issue of partisan concern. We, as a nation, have concern; we all have concern. Australia is making better arrangements than many other countries and we want to see those arrangements strengthened, and one part of that is the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 .Come what may—and I know this weakens our negotiating position—let me make it clear, as we have to the government, that we will support the passage of this bill. Even if we do not get the assurances we want, let alone not getting the amendment we want, we will at all stages vote for this bill. The government will do its job better, and the bill will be passed more expeditiously, if we can get from it the assurances we have sought about disclosure of its operations, which it has indicated it is prepared to give. I look forward to receiving that. That will facilitate the expeditious passage of the bill.However, we will support the bill in the Main Committee and we will support it going to the Senate unamended. Let us hope that we can get arrangements between the government and the opposition such that we can also pass the bill expeditiously through the Senate.10:33:003080Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I rise today to support the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 . I intend addressing the issue of the Y2K bug, as it is commonly known, from the perspective of rural and regional communities. But before I do, I would just like to gently take the previous speaker, the member for Fraser, Mr McMullan, to task for some of his comments.He made much of the fact of how advanced the United States government was in its legislation, which is very similar to this legislation, and known as `good Samaritan' legislation. I would like to remind the member for Fraser that the United States passed its legislation in October last year. So while he is chiding this government for being tardy in introducing this legislation, we are right up there in international terms.The member for Fraser was also expressing concern about what the government is doing. If he is unaware of it, could I bring his attention to this information booklet put out by the government on Y2K? I would like to take this opportunity to mention some of the key government services that are listed in this progress report for year 2000 compliance. The government is doing exactly what the member for Fraser was saying we should be doing. Some of these key government services are health, national safety, payments, social welfare, employment, revenue collection, national security, defence and government business entities.We are told in this booklet that the results from November 1998 are expected to show that less than five per cent of the total number of business critical systems will still be in the assessment phase. Systems in this phase are those returned for reassessment or new systems coming on line. I will not go through and detail every percentage in this report. They are quarterly reports, which is what the member for Fraser was suggesting should happen. Those percentages, of course, decrease.To return to the main point, today I wish to comment on this legislation from the perspective of rural and regional communities. Many speakers in this debate here and outside these chambers have already spoken about the magnitude of this problem, but I really have not heard too many people speak about the magnitude of the problem from the perspective of those living in our regional and rural communities. Of course, our regional communities have always known what it is like to battle disasters. Historically, flood, famine, drought, disease and earthquakes, among other natural disasters, have been the major cause of havoc in the world.As man has progressed, we have faced new forms of disaster related to man-made vehicles and structures. Now, however, as we move into and towards the new millennium, for the first time we face a new form of major disaster—technological disaster. We have seen how Hollywood has long filled our screens with images of technology related disasters and over the years we have become immune to this scientific form of escapism. Now the world, however, is faced with the potential for disaster that could rival Steven Spielberg at his best.It is almost as horrifying that current estimates put the worldwide cost of Y2K compliance at $US1.5 trillion. Having said that, I believe we need to create a sense of urgency but without panic. It is vital for everybody who has, or is likely to use, any piece of modern equipment close to the year 2000 to be acutely aware of the potential dangers, what information is available and how to protect themselves as best they can. In particular, as I said, I am concerned about the impact on rural Australia. Because of distance, increasing numbers of farmers have been at the forefront of using computer technology. Indeed, computers have become the lifeblood of their farm businesses. As well, most modern or farm equipment uses at least some form of computerisation or microchip. It is these developments out in rural Australia that have introduced home computers to streamlined accounting procedures and which supply information ranging from weather forecasts to commodity prices. This has led to the use of high-tech operating systems for equipment like irrigators, humidity controls and planting systems and for a host of other applications. Unfortunately, this is the one time when being at the cutting edge of technology could indeed make our primary producers worse off.Small operations are likely to be worse off, particularly family farms. Not only could they face problems with their farm computers, but equipment such as 24-hour timers, herd breeding registers, dairy equipment, modern tractors with computer chips for measuring yields and light aircraft could all potentially have problems. A recent ABC Landline report raised this very issue, pointing out that possibly one in every 20 computer chips embedded in farm machinery could be infected with the virus. The problem lies in knowing which ones are likely to be affected. The program raised the even greater issue of so much of our primary industry being critically reliant on exports. What happens if those export markets, for example Asia's cotton mills, are not as prepared for the millennium bug as we are in Australia. The program further claimed that many Asian and emerging markets could be running six months behind Australia in their preparation for the year 2000 problem.Farmers are encouraged to put together a check list of machinery that might be affected, contact suppliers and if possible get Y2K compliance in writing and call their local farming organisation for further advice as many have put together a range of information that could assist producers. Farmwide has pulled together data on issues that the NFF farm organisations have been working on. A survey was taken of 76 vendors and software developers as to their products' compliance. Fifty per cent of them replied and have provided information. Of the remainder, 10 have some aspects listed under non-compliance, sometimes relating to outdated versions. The results of these surveys are important to all rural software users and can be accessed from Farmwide's web site. They are also putting together a package of information about other farm machinery and equipment and their Y2K compliance. This will be sent to farm organisations and will be available on their web site next week.Agricultural producers have also been surveyed on their awareness of Y2K issues. While 100 per cent of those surveyed had heard of the millennium bug, only 57 per cent considered the problem to be `somewhat serious' to `very serious'. Most respondents thought it was only likely to be a problem with their home computer or fax. Only 60 per cent said they were checking their equipment in readiness for the year 2000. Given the seriousness of this issue, these figures really are of concern. Individuals really must accept that they could face problems. They need to make sure that their machinery is okay. Software packages that should fix the problem have indeed been developed by several companies and in fact retail for around $150. Time is of the essence and the closer we get, the less likely it will be to be able to resource the necessary professional help with many coming on board at the last minute. The availability of this help and the necessary equipment are becoming more scarce and the cost is likely to increase as the time progresses towards 2000.There is little point trying to insure against the risk as most insurance companies are withdrawing cover for Y2K compliance. The key really does lie in information and education. This government recognises that this is one of the biggest management issues ever confronted by governments and business. As such it has committed considerable resources to assist Australian businesses and the community to tackle this challenge. The government's strategy is four-pronged, with, firstly, a year 2000 project office which is addressing the readiness of Commonwealth government agencies; secondly, a national strategy aimed at the business community; thirdly, tax deductions for businesses that act now to modify and immunise their equipment against Y2K; and, fourthly, legislation to encourage organisations to disclose the state of their year 2000 readiness.The government has also set up the toll-free hotline to answer any questions that individuals or businesses might have. Standards Australia has a voluntary register of Y2K compliant companies. The register is based on self-declaration by vendors, suppliers or other organisations that their product or system complies with standards set out in accordance with a document known as MP77. This document is based on the British Standards Institution document which is accepted in Europe as the best definition of compliance currently available.Most individuals and companies who rely on computer and microchip technology are indeed responsible. Most have made themselves aware of the steps they need to take and have already undertaken them or are arranging to do so. Unfortunately, a major problem for both small and large business in this litigious age is what happens if, in spite of their doing all the accepted and right things, something still goes wrong on 1 January 2000. Many proprietors are nervous of where they stand legally and are simply not prepared to state whether or not their products are Y2K compliant, for fear of litigation in the event of product failure in spite of their best efforts.This legislation is aimed at protecting the genuine, responsible, conscientious individual or business that has taken every necessary step to immunise their product from the Y2K bug. It protects people from civil liability arising out of the making of a statement that, through no fault of their own, proves incorrect. If we are to encourage people to register their compliance, then we must offer them some form of protection. This matter is now urgent. We are already into February and in just over 10 months we will know the full effect of Y2K. Let us hope that this legislation encourages more people to register their compliance and minimise the fall-out from this potential technological disaster.This legislation reflects the leadership that the government is showing, not just here in Australia but internationally, in this potentially damaging situation. The legislation will, I believe, assist in improving disclosure and information sharing.10:47:003083Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 is very serious legislation and I know the government regards it as such. Indeed, the minister at the table, Mr McGauran, in a former ministerial life, along with his opposite numbers in the opposition, including me, drew particular attention to this problem some time ago. Unfortunately, I do not think any of us have been prompting consideration of this issue early enough to encourage business and individuals in our society to really take the matter as seriously as it needs to be taken.I think we would all know much of the background to the issue which we face. The story of the two missing digits is an oft repeated one which I will not repeat again here today. However, I recently came across a quotation which is very interesting, not so much because of what was said but because of who said it, just over a year ago, in relation to a discussion on the Y2K problem in the United States. It is a confession from one of the programmers of the day:I'm one of the culprits who created this problem. I used to write those programs back in the `60s and `70s and was so proud of the fact that I was able to squeeze a few elements of space out of my program by not having to put 19 before the year. And back then it was very important. We used to spend a lot of time running through various mathematical exercises before we started to write our programs so that they could be very clearly delimited with respect to space and the use of capacity. It never entered our minds that those programs would have lasted more than a few years. And, as a consequence, they were very poorly documented. If I were to go back and look at some of the programs I wrote 30 years ago I would have one terribly difficult time working my way through step by step. And to try to infer how one reads a program when there are lots of alternate ways of doing things and all you've got is the code in front of you is not simple.The person speaking there was none other than Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States—not one to be considered a rash or inconsiderate or reckless person in any way whatsoever; indeed, one of the most respected people in the Western world. When this gentleman was learning his initial trade some 30 years ago, he was indeed a programmer, one of those who took great pride in leaving out the two digits. Very clearly, given the nature of that quotation, it is difficult to blame those who did this work at the time.It also tells us something much more important—not only the reason that this problem occurred in the first place but also the difficulties which people now have in rectifying that problem. As Alan Greenspan said, those programs were not expected to last very long. They were very poorly documented. When you have only got the base machine code or COBOL programming language in front of you, it is very difficult to go back and find all of those problems. That explains, to some extent, not only the nature of the problem but the difficulties which governments and corporations have in tracking down the problems in their code, in rectifying those errors and in being sure that they are not introducing more mistakes into the code that they are repairing. It is a very serious issue to go back and fix Y2K problems and at the same time introduce new errors into programs which have been bedded down for many years and, in some cases, for decades at a time. There is no doubt that the Y2K issue will affect individuals, businesses and governments and it will do so at a local, national and international level. Y2K will affect such wide ranging activities as financial services, transportation, defence, manufacturing, telecommunications, health and safety, power generation and so on. The range of issues that has been detailed is well known to members.It is very important to reiterate the all-encompassing nature of this kind of problem. It is terrifying to realise that in October 1998 a survey was conducted by US government agencies and they discovered that some 23 per cent of all companies and governments worldwide will not have even started Y2K repairs. With only just over 12 months to go back in October 1998, nearly one-quarter of all governments and business organisations throughout the world had not even started those repairs. In January and February 1999, I think the problem is not much better.Some 83 per cent of those companies that have not even started to look at this problem yet had fewer than 2,000 employees. It is very much the case that small businesses and small governments of the world and Australia, in particular, have not yet begun to examine the nature of the problem that they face. It is those small companies and, indeed, in some cases smaller countries that will cause most of the international and national difficulties.There is no doubt that by March 2000 some 30 to 50 per cent of those companies that have not yet begun to address this problem will have experienced one or more mission critical failures. A cost of a single failure will be anything from $30,000 to $A3 million or $A4 million, given that it will probably cost them a day's business to repair those failures. That, of course, will add up across the board.What are the particular areas that we need to address most urgently that should have already been addressed but still need attention? No doubt, as many across the world have said, it is the electricity generation and water distribution sectors that are probably the most critical. They rely heavily on embedded chips that contain programs in the silicone itself, which makes them particularly difficult to repair and find. As base utilities, they support every other sector in our economy and society. They are particularly important not only for the continuation of the economic life of a nation but also for the very social fabric of the nation itself. It is not the case in Australia, thank goodness, but it is the case overseas that nuclear power generation is a very powerful source of electricity generation for many countries. There are a whole range of countries which rely on nuclear power generation to the extent of some 25 or 30 per cent of their electricity. For example, in France, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Hungary, Korea, Japan, Germany, Finland and Spain more than 30 per cent of the electricity comes from nuclear power. In the United States it is over 25 per cent. So while it is unlikely that any Y2K related problem would cause any catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant along the lines of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island—such things are almost physically impossible in the case of modern nuclear power plants in the Western Hemisphere—the reality is that Y2K related problems in non safety critical areas could well cause a shutdown of some of those plants.The issue here, in raising those issues about utilities and the widespread nature of this issue, is not to promote undue cause for concern. Some survivalist types in the United States have recently come forward in the media and, indeed, some of the Christian Right have sought to exploit this for almost financial and religious purposes in the United States—a very dangerous trend, I believe, and one which causes completely unnecessary panic. The reality is that this is the first time we have faced mission critical failure across the board on the same day.The world, and our modern technological societies in Australia, the United States and Europe, are well used to the idea that individual systems will crash. Who has not gone to the Qantas or Ansett desk only to be told that the computer is down and you cannot get your flight confirmation immediately? Or who has not gone to some banking institution and discovered that their ATM is down? What do you do? You go to the other airline, you go to another ATM, you go to another bank, you make do until tomorrow—whatever; there is always a way around that problem.This is the first time, however, when all of those mission critical systems will fail simultaneously, if they are going to fail at all, but on the same day. And of course that makes life somewhat more difficult, because lightning storms in the United States and ice on power lines often contribute to the catastrophic failure of individual systems. Canada and the eastern seaboard suffered that only very recently, as we all saw in the news. The consequences of this are severe for those who live in the district—not to understate that at all—but the reality is it does not have a flow-through effect to the rest of the system.If some of these systems fail at the same time, however, the reality is that this will put an undue burden on other systems which are Y2K compliant, which are functioning; they will attempt in the normal way to supply the missing power, for example, but, because the demand will be too great, they will experience power surges, and catastrophic failure of the system is a possibility—a remote possibility, but a possibility. I do not say that because I want to engender the kind of panic which those survivalists in the United States do in fact want to engender. I say it because I think it is very important to understand the kind of flow-through nature of this business.We are engaged in a very digital world. We are engaged in an interlocked world, economically as well as physically and electronically. That means that we have to be very sensitive not only to what our fellows in business and government are doing but to what people down and up the supply chain, the customer chain, are doing, to what other countries are doing, because failure in one location, failure in one business, will result in problems for others. If only 20 per cent of businesses, for example, are not compliant at the end of this year, then that can have enormous problems for the other 80 per cent. I will talk in a little more detail about some of those chips in a moment.We do have to look in great detail at what is happening not only in our own sectors but across the world, because even though Telstra may be Y2K compliant, Optus is almost certainly much more Y2K compliant because its equipment is all much more recent. For that reason alone, Telstra has a problem that Optus does not, and that other carriers do not, because much of Telstra's equipment has been there for many, many years—long before the problem became a public problem. Indeed, Telstra faces an enormous task to get its systems fully Y2K compliant. I am sure that, of all telecommunications organisations in the world, Telstra is well-equipped, if not the most well-equipped, to achieve such a conversion. I have little doubt that Telstra will make enormous strides to this effect by the end of the year and will only experience failure in isolated places. But a telephone connection has two ends. Indeed, many of the connections will be in countries outside Australia and many of those other countries may not have the same degree of success.The same is true of the banking system. Very large banks in the United States and throughout the world have made enormous progress in remediating their systems. To give an example of the problem, and to look at the US economy, the powerhouse of the world at the moment, the reality is the big banking systems are making very good progress and will no doubt be almost fully Y2K compliant; but with the small banks, the community banks and the small town banks, in the United States—of which there are very many—very few of those will be fully Y2K compliant. All of those connect with the Federal Reserve system; all of those deal with each other. And a single failure by a bank in the United States will have flow-on effects in the system. If they fail, others move throughout the system, the computer systems are affected, the demand for cash is affected and the consequences are much more serious. So while we look at the large organisations and say, `Yes, tick, they are Y2K compliant,' the reality is that it is often going to be the smaller organisations which cause that kind of real problem.Although the world at large is moving very well to address this problem—certainly in the Western democracies—the reality is that we will face problems in other countries. The same is true of air traffic control. I am almost completely certain that no plane in Australia will suffer catastrophic failure as a result of Y2K. The reality is, though, that some of our Qantas and Ansett planes that fly internationally will no doubt have to exercise some care about where they want to land in case some of those other countries are not Y2K compliant. KLM, a very major airline and one which has a very good reputation in a country which is also one of those undertaking most of the work in Europe about Y2K, was very concerned about flying in the new year, not because they fear for their systems—they do not particularly, for they have put a lot of work and effort into them—but because they are concerned about where their planes might be expected to land and what will be happening with other people's systems.The FAA in the United States estimates that its systems will not be fully compliant until 2009, nine years after the Y2K bug first strikes. The reality is that this affects transportation as well. Shell recently tested one of their major tankers and discovered that 20 per cent of the embedded systems in that major oil tanker were not Y2K compatible. Our economy might well be affected by the flow-on effects of the United States slowdown and that would be very catastrophic for people in Australia, if not physically, certainly environmentally.This goes to show just what an impact the technology has had on our society as a whole. I spoke earlier about the banking system. It was a fact that in May last year not one ATM in the United States was Y2K compatible. I think they have made progress since then, but just imagine how many ATMs there are in the United States and the difficulty of fixing all of those. The reality is that with only just over 18 months to go you would have to ask what chance they have of doing it.The IRS in the United States is another case. No-one really cares if the government's computer systems that collect taxes break down, but the reality is that it can have economic consequences as well, and economic consequences for Australia as a flow-on in international trade. The IRS has 80 mainframes, 17,000 workstations and 120,000 PCs. It has spent $6 billion upgrading its computer system and it does not work and it is certainly not Y2K compatible. That is the sad fact. While the US government has quite rightly claimed enormous credit for the fact that its social security system is working, its taxation system is not. How you pay social security cheques without taxation revenue, I am not too sure.The reality is that the costs of this will exceed everyone's expectations, I suspect. We have already heard that the US expects something like a trillion dollars in litigation costs alone. The US has an eight-trillion dollar economy, so we are looking at nearly 10 per cent of the US economy in litigation costs. We have to do what we can to mitigate that. This bill does that. But information is the critical factor that this bill relies on. Members opposite read from a glossy brochure and list a series of critical government instrumentalities and then say that a certain percentage are actually in the assessment phase. But I want to hear from the government itself that 100 per cent are in the successful phase. I do not want to hear about the list that is actually in assessment.I am afraid that what the honourable member opposite just read out to us does not constitute something which I would regard as a full assurance from the government that its systems are Y2K compatible. The public has every confidence in what this government has done about Y2K. Australia is very much at the head of the pack. Along with the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Australia is right up there. We have done everything that could reasonably be expected. We should have done some of it earlier. I do not want to be trivial about that kind of criticism but it is important. But from the comments that I have heard today—not from the minister at the table, Mr McGauran, but from some of his colleagues on the back bench—some members have not expressed the kind of concern which I would have expected to have heard from members of a government in the Western world in February 1999.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—I will surprise you.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—We should be afraid, very afraid. The reality of this is that it is not going to crash so much on our individual heads—it will not. Australia is well prepared, people can be assured of that, and the government is taking reasonable steps, but I want to know what those steps are. I want to know what the states are doing and I want to know what local government is doing because it is not just the federal government that is critical here. The federal government should be coordinating and helping the states to publicise their activities because they are the ones responsible for much of the economic activity, for the water supply and for electricity generation—activities that are really critical—and we have to know what they are about. We have to know not just because of accountability issues—that is important—but because by the government coming clean, by the government telling the people where it is at, by the government providing that kind of detailed information, even if it does provoke some community concern, that will prompt others in the community, in business and individuals, into action. It will show them that society takes this issue really seriously.We do not just need the glossy brochure; we need the cold, hard facts of government. We will be critical, but we will not be unreasonably critical if it turns out that there are delays and faults in the system. We just need to know where those are. Even if the results are very good, that is fine, that is an excellent tick for the government, but the reality is that the public will see that and understand the importance of moving forward on this issue.There is a lot of work still to be done. The reality is that not only software programs but embedded chips are very critical in these systems. They are even more critical. There are six billion extra embedded chips around now than there were, and the number of embedded chips is very vital. It may be the case, for example, that someone's pacemaker is Y2K compatible, but is the doctor's and the hospital's equipment which reads the information from that pacemaker Y2K compatible? These are the kinds of details which obviously will affect the lives of individuals and which will have a carry-over effect throughout the community.In Australia we are doing very well. We are at the head of that pack. We need to be concerned where our neighbours are. But in order to ensure that Australia sets the right example and this government sets the right example—which is after all the best thing that government can do about Y2K, apart from fixing its own mission critical systems—we need more information.The opposition's proposals are not unreasonable in that regard. They simply require more and better particulars of the government's activity. We look forward to supporting their activities in this area.11:07:003088Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—You could say that this piece of legislation, the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 , is to the so-called millennium bug what a certain brand of surface fly-spray is to Louie the Fly. What I am saying is, and perhaps it may be a little flippant, that we have to start laying the technological surface spray now so that we eliminate the insects before the year 2000 arrives.I applaud the minister for his proactive and highly pragmatic approach to the Y2K problem. This legislation has the ability to liberate Australian companies to divulge information about their state of readiness and to seek or to offer help to customers and business partners. It removes the fear of litigation which has been hanging over the millennium bug preparations. Sadly, we have become a very litigious society. Because we are that way, caution is paramount. This legislation not only improves Australia's ability to combat the millennium bug but also encourages businesses to be good Samaritans and, in turn, the flow-on effect will reward their customers and business partners.To some extent this legislation mirrors the American legislation from which the `good Samaritan' concept emerged. It is timely because time itself is rapidly running out for Australian companies to ensure that their businesses are safe from the bug. I was quite astonished at how close we were to D-Day when after some research I discovered that the year 2000 problem encompasses the processing of date data including 9 September 1999, 31 December 1999, 1 January 2000 and 29 February 2000, a leap year.As honourable members know, and as my colleague the member for Bonython, Mr Martyn Evans, alluded to, the Y2K problem refers to the fact that the date function of some computers or chip based systems recognises only the final two digits of the year. For example, it recognises 98 instead of 1998. This could lead to systems beginning to fail because they do not recognise the 00 in the year 2000. The problem is not confined to computers. It could affect any chip based devices, such as VCRs, microwaves, traffic lights and communications systems. As the member for Bonython quite rightly said, `When you start to get into medical technology, the problems pale into insignificance.' You cannot monitor your own heartbeat. If you have some medical implant in your body and it malfunctions or cannot be read properly, then it could be a life risking event.I live in a partial rural electorate. I have very big small crop, sugar and grazing enterprises in that electorate. We—the previous government and ourselves since we have been in government—have encouraged farmers in our various packages to modernise their electronic facilities. Computers and computerised systems are an integral part of the modern family farm. This extends from the farm accountancy system to essential data retrieval. Some of it is self-generated—for example, genetic information regarding breeding herds and the like. It also extends to online information services, such as the weather, the stock exchange and market reports.It can extend to export contracts and windows of opportunity. This is quite relevant in the small crop industry, in particular, because their windows of opportunity are quite finite and they must capture those opportunities when they arise. You cannot be in a situation where you cannot retrieve information on contacts and markets and so on because the computer crashed early in the year 2000 in the middle of the distribution of your summer crop. I recognise that and I hope that the fruit and vegetable, sugar and grazing industries will cooperate with the government in these matters. As I said before, in extreme cases the bug can have safety implications both for personal health and, as we have also heard, for essential safety equipment, involving aircraft vehicles and the like.In the current circumstance, statements made in good faith for the purpose of sharing information about the year 2000 compliance may later be the basis of a cause for action under statute or common law. Industry appears to be managing the risk of liability simply by refraining from issuing public statements. That is most unhealthy. This bill provides limited liability protection for voluntary year 2000 disclosure statements made between the day after royal assent and 30 June 2001.As we have said, many companies have been understandably hesitant to disclose the state of their Y2K readiness, or to seek or offer help for fear that their statements could lead to legal action. This is hardly the sort of environment that leads to good Samaritan acts. Instead, it fosters a paranoia of litigation.The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 should help ease these fears by offering legal protection for certain Y2K statements. The bill forms part of a coordinated response by the coalition to the problem. As I said earlier, it ought to be applauded. This strategy includes tax deductibility for remedial software announced in last year's back in the black budget; a national awareness campaign for business; assistance to ensure that Commonwealth agencies are Y2K compliant; and measures to assist our regional neighbours to tackle the issue. By making it easier for companies to provide information about their readiness, this bill should significantly boost efforts to check supply chains and should, therefore, help larger companies such as telecommunications providers operate and assist their downstream business customers.The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 will do the following things. It will protect a person making a Y2K disclosure statement from civil liability arising from making the statement—for example, negligent misstatement, defamation or liability under the trade practices or fair trading legislation—subject, of course, to certain exemptions. It will provide that Y2K disclosure statements will not be admissible against a person who made them. For example, the statement will not be able to be used in evidence of the failure of Y2K goods and services. It will provide that the exchange of Y2K information will not give rise to liability under section 45 of the Trade Practices Act which prohibits certain anticompetitive contracts, arrangements and understandings. As I said earlier, it will offer this protection from the enactment of the legislation until 30 June 2001.To gain protection, the statement must be clearly identified, it must be in writing, it must relate solely to Y2K processing issues and it must identify the person authorising the statement. Protection will also be offered to republished statements.But I think this is important: the legislation will not provide protection if the statement is known by the maker to be materially false or misleading, to be made recklessly, to be made in connection with the formation of a contract or to be made in fulfilment of an obligation under a contract at law. It will not provide protection if it is made for the purpose of inducing customers to acquire goods or if it relates to restricting injunction or applications for relief. It will also not provide protection if it relates to civil actions undertaken by regulatory bodies such as the ACCC or to civil actions based solely on the infringement of intellectual property. In other words, there is not going to be much room for the shonks in this operation.The bill will not impose direct costs on business or impose administrative burdens on the Commonwealth. While decisions to share year 2000 information may involve some costs to organisations, the strictly voluntary nature of any disclosure provides the ability to control costs. Businesses are likely to make year 2000 disclosure statements where it is in their commercial interest or convenience to do so; for example, you can go back to the downstreaming of the acquisition of parts by a telecommunications company. It might apply equally, say, in the automotive trade, where you have a multitude of parts required at short notice, or perhaps in a JIT arrangement for the production of particular telecommunications or automotive products.Any increase in the level of Australia's year 2000 remedial efforts could have a positive effect on the Australian economy. A recent survey by the Bureau of Statistics of 8,000 businesses indicated a high level of awareness. Ninety-two per cent were aware of the year 2000 problem; however—and this is quite a disturbing feature—the proportion of businesses intending to undertake year 2000 remedial work was much more variable. It ranged from a 45 per cent commitment in Tasmania to a 68 per cent commitment in the Australian Capital Territory. I am not aware of the average, but across the spectrum I suppose that is only about half.In addition, almost one-fifth of businesses intending to undertake work have yet to start investigations into the likely impact. If you take that September date I mentioned before, we are only seven months from the start of the D-day operation, and when you look at the scarcity at times of skilled computer people, especially in provincial communities—we do have highly skilled people in those provincial communities; it is not the quality of their work but the quantum—we do not always have the people when we want them.Recently, I queried a business as to why it had located in a coastal, provincial city in my electorate, as distinct from a small timber town where it was extracting its product. The reason was not that it was more convenient to be closer to the product—namely, timber—but that they had to be close to skilled, computer personnel who could service their equipment. It just was not feasible to have those computer technicians having to travel 110 kilometres every time something broke down. The availability of skilled computer technicians and engineers in provincial cities is a key area, and they are going to be under even greater pressure over the next seven to 10 months.Only 20 per cent of the businesses we were talking about before have sought some form of assurance from suppliers, service providers or customers about their state of year 2000 readiness. Again, it is disturbing to think that people who have to buy parts—I can think of a number of firms in my electorate in both agricultural machinery and other forms of manufacturing—could find themselves, through no fault of their own, in the situation that they may well have corrected their own millennium bug difficulties but find that their key suppliers have not done so. A lot of firms in provincial areas today work on the just-in-time principle, and this uncertainty could either put their businesses at risk or force them into a situation where they are carrying more inventory than is really necessary. Even fewer than the 20 per cent—that is, 13 per cent—have contingency plans if disruptions occur in the year 2000 problem. It is quite frightening, too, to think that only one business in eight has a contingency plan in place.Because of the limited time available, we must act to accelerate the rate of year 2000 remedial progress by Australian organisations, first, to fulfil their duty of care and, then, to help not just their own businesses or regional economies but the whole nation to operate seamlessly into the year 2000.11:22:003091McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I wish to thank all members for their very balanced and constructive contribution to this debate. It has been very helpful in further highlighting the issues surrounding disclosure for year 2000 problems. The shadow minister for industry, the member for Fraser, raised a couple of issues, in an otherwise impressive contribution, which I would like to clarify.The first is that he did express some concern regarding the exactness of the definition of the year 2000 as would require disclosure—thinking, if my memory serves me correctly, that the leap year would not be covered. I would draw his attention to the explanatory memorandum, which does define the year 2000 fairly broadly and does cover, therefore, dates either side of 1 January 2000. In other words, the bill is drafted so as to cover the data processing issue, rather than just being specified to one day alone.The second matter that the member for Fraser, and indeed the member for Bonython, pursued was the issue of a foreshadowed Senate amendment so as to require in further detail the government's own departmental and agencies' preparedness for the year 2000. He did say, I understand, that, as an alternative, the opposition would accept a letter from the government detailing its intention to report to parliament on this very issue of the government's own preparedness, and he expressed disappointment that the letter had not yet been forthcoming.Senator Alston has advised me, on learning of the member for Fraser's requirements, that the government is working on the issue of assurances as we speak. He has asked me to seek, in return, an assurance from the member for Fraser that Labor will not proceed with its amendment in the Senate if those assurances, which Labor has proposed, are given by the government. So that is a matter which will be taken up outside of this chamber.The government naturally takes these points made by the member for Fraser and his colleagues very seriously because this is an issue in which the government looks to improve its performance; we always want improved disclosure. The legislation is timely in comparison to any other country in the world. But for those who think that we are coming to the party a little later than the Americans, who introduced their legislation only last October, we have always felt that if you set requirements as to disclosure too early then you could just end up with misleading information because up until now everybody has been struggling to find the information upon which sensible and accurate disclosure can be made. We have followed the principle of progressive disclosure.Thank you, again, to all members. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3092r6763092Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.11:27:003092Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—The opposition does not oppose this bill. The proposed amendments to the migration visa application charges are minor technical amendments and, as such, we have no objection to the bill.I thought that I would take this opportunity of raising a matter which is causing some concern, particularly amongst refugees who are awaiting decisions from the department—or at least, through appellate bodies—on their status as refugees. It all relates to a particular regulation introduced by this government last year which took effect from 1 July, or some time in July 1998. This regulation refuses the discretion, that once used to reside in the hands of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, for granting work permits to refugees who were awaiting decisions as to their status. I want to, in particular, read into the record a press release dated 3 February 1999 from the Asylum Seekers Centre in Brisbane. It is headed: `Brisbane refugee applicants at risk of homelessness and starvation as centre runs out of money.' I quote:Sixteen clients of the Brisbane Asylum Seekers Centre who are in the process of claiming refugee status are at immediate risk of homelessness and starvation. Among those affected are three families who between them have six children ranging from two to 18 years of age.These are people who are legitimately in Australia seeking protection from persecution in their own countries.The affected people have no income of any kind.Under regulations implemented in July 1998, the Department of Immigration has refused work permission to certain refugee applicants while they wait for a decision on their applications for protection from the Australian government. Refugee applicants are not entitled to any form of Centrelink benefit.To date, these refugee applicants have been receiving subsistence level financial support from the Brisbane Asylum Seekers Centre. The centre has relied on donated funds but now the money has run out. (The fund was established with substantial donations from American rock star Bruce Springsteen and from the Sisters of Mercy as well as small donations from a variety of concerned groups and individuals.)The Asylum Seekers Centre only supports people it believes have a genuine refugee claim.The Centre, funded by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, will continue to offer emotional support but it can no longer provide financial support. "The Centre will make a final fortnightly support payment on Wednesday, 3 February. After that the refugee applicants will have to get food and accommodation wherever they can," Mercedes Sepulveda, the Asylum Seekers Centre coordinator, said today."We have only been able to support them at a subsistence level but at least they have had some degree of certainty that there would be a roof over their heads and food on the table. Now these people will have to live day-to-day not knowing where they will sleep next week, not being able to provide for their children.""It is a dreadful situation and one that can only become worse. We will soon see refugee applicants and their children living on the streets.""It really begs the question: How can the Australian Government allow this to happen while being a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whereby our government agreed to guarantee basic living standards as a minimum for every human being. By being a signatory our government also undertook to allow people to seek asylum in Australia but then makes it impossible by starving them out."In the short term, the Centre desperately needs funds so it can continue to support these people who do not have income and who are not allowed to work.In the longer term the Centre calls on the Federal Government to change the regulation which forbids so many genuine refugee claimants the right to work.I have read that into the record because it has brought out something which possibly the minister and the department—or at least the minister, because it is a government regulation—did not consider at the time: what happens to these people if they have no source of income?In the end, one has to say that the government should rethink this. After all, the motion for disallowance was defeated by 33 to 33—it was in the negative—and the government may not be able to rely on one particular vote for very long into the future, from what I read from press reports. It is a tragedy that we have a situation where these people were allowed to apply, under stringent conditions, to get permits to work but now are not able to do so. Where are they supposed to go? This is one charity that can no longer afford to give them any money.I point out—and I am glad that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is here at the table, as he usually is when he can be—that what has happened in Brisbane is going to be replicated all around the country. Whether they are refugees or not, these people are still human beings. I would not have thought that this country was one which would allow this sort of thing to happen. These people are here and, as far as I am concerned, previously they were able to apply for these work permits—which were not easily got; they were pretty hard to obtain. The department still had to work out that there was financial hardship, et cetera. I would like to think, to give the benefit of the doubt to the minister, that the government would not have envisaged that this sort of thing could have occurred.I do not think that Australia is the sort of country where human beings are forced, because they cannot get money out of charities, onto the streets. This case in Brisbane involves six children, two to 18 years old. They are children and they are human beings. Sometimes I wonder how mean-spirited this federal government has become. I think that in Australia we all believe that we should have a fair go, but that should involve everybody who happens to live in this country, particularly if they are waiting for refugee status.I noticed that yesterday the minister put out a press release and answered a question in the House with respect to the number of illegals that had been caught working illegally. If I remember correctly, the press release made a big deal about how many more people have been caught this year than last year. I think it is 16 per cent more than in January last year. I wonder how that figure is being inflated by people like this, who are now not able to obtain work permits simply to live, who have had to go out there and probably be driven underground, in trying to find some way to sustain themselves and their children.I put out a press release a couple of weeks ago on an aspect of this which concerns me. It did not get much of a run, I guess because, in the end, it is one of those things that do not. I wonder what sort of signals it sends overseas regarding our reputation—particularly with the Olympic Games coming up in the year 2000, only next year—when we allow such a situation as appears to be occurring in Brisbane, where refugees who are here legitimately, in the sense that they are awaiting a decision, are not even able to work at odd jobs or whatever it is just to get a few dollars so they can live.I ask the minister to look at that again. I know the minister has been heavily involved in these issues relating to refugees over many years. I do not think he would have expected this to happen. It is happening and it is going to happen more and more throughout this country, not only in Brisbane. Apart from that, the bill is not a problem and we support it. I will leave it at that.11:35:003094Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 before us today is very simple and straightforward. It concerns some minor housekeeping matters to finetune our excellent visa system. The bill makes some minor technical changes to the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act of 1997 which imposes and sets charge limits. I think this debate over the technical amendments opens an opportunity to speak more widely on the matter of visas.I would like to address two matters: the ETAs and an issue that stems from the previous address by the opposition member. While I have some sympathy with the member's point of view, I have seen the other side of the misuse of these visas as recently as last week.I would like to rebut those who would call on us to do away with the visitor visa system and charges for visas. Members opposite have railed against the concept of charging people for visitor visas just as there was a predictable outcry when on 1 July the $50 fee was applied to all visitor visas for the first time. However, that coincided with the full scale expansion of the ETA system, the electronic travel authority. This government has led the world with the introduction of the ETA visa system, a move which makes it very easy for tourists—from our major source countries—and business people in general to come to Australia. Undoubtedly, tourism remains the largest provider of jobs in this country of ours. There are some 650,000 people in direct tourism jobs and 350,000 indirectly affected by the fortunes of tourism.Tourism is also the second largest provider of foreign exchange earnings in the country: it generates about $16 billion a year based on 1997 figures. It was second only to mining and provided larger amounts of income than sugar, wheat, wool or beef. The introduction last year of charges for visitor visas, unfortunately, coincided with the Asian economic downturn. I do not think that would have stopped anyone from coming to this country. To try to extrapolate the fact that we had a $50—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Try talking to the tourist industry!KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—That always amazes me about you guys. Nearly every country in the world imposes charges on tourism—GST and VAT; charges to enter and to obtain visas; and charges to leave, but the second we put on a charge, the world is going to fall in. Do you think anyone who seriously wants to come to this country, to enjoy our magnificent tourist attractions or to do business, is going to run away because of $50? Lift your vision a little.However, free ETAs were available to tourists from our major source countries. Only Hong Kong and Taiwan did not have the ETA system and that will be rectified on 1 July this year. The ETA is a new concept in international travel. It is a world first. It is an invisible, electronically stored authority for travel to Australia for short-term tourists and those people here for business purposes.As we all know, everyone except Australian and New Zealand passport holders is required to have a visa to enter Australia. This generally involves completing an application form and submitting it, with a passport, to an overseas government, high commission, embassy or consulate office. If the application is approved, a visa label is inserted in the passport and it is returned to the potential traveller. However, the ETA does away with the need for the application form and the visa label.The ETA system is the most advanced and streamlined travel authorisation system in the world. ETAs are issued within 10 seconds after the applicant's personal details have been entered into the computerised system. Once issued, they can be electronically verified at airline check-in counters and at Customs officials' desks in airports, on wharves et cetera. The result is that passengers with ETAs are processed more quickly. In a survey, 96 per cent of passengers were happy with our visa arrangement, two per cent higher than in 1995 before the ETAs were introduced.There is nothing more infuriating when you are coming into a country than to have to line up in endless queues and then, in some European countries, dribble through with torturous slowness. If we are gearing up for the year 2000 Olympics and the like, we need to be at the forefront of this modern technology. I compliment the minister for his work on this system; I think it is quite outstanding. I really think that the opposition denigrate Australia when they nitpick on something like a $50 entry charge.The ETA system is as accessible and easy as obtaining an airline ticket because it uses existing travel industry booking terminals and telecommunications networks. The ETA sets world standards for travellers, and it is good to think that Australia is at the forefront of those standards. It provides a seamless, fast process for obtaining pre-clearance at places where airline tickets can be obtained. The ETA uses state-of-the-art technology to deliver a user-friendly product: no more having to find an embassy or a consulate, no more form filling out, no more queues, as I said before—just 10 seconds of electronic transaction after the passport data is keyed in by the agent. The whole process is completed while you wait in a travel agency or, indeed, even over a phone.The ETA system means travel agents can be a one-stop shop providing instant and total client services. It allows all your arrangements to be put together on one site, and I think that is good too. It is always stressful enough going overseas, so taking that initial phase out of your pre-arrangements is a good thing for all Australians and for all people visiting this country. Airport check-in staff can electronically confirm the authority to travel to Australia.There are three types of ETA. The tourist ETA is free and allows stays of up to three months for each visit within a 12-month period. The long validity business ETA has the fee of $50 I referred to and is valid for up to three months at a time. And US, Canadian, French and Spanish passport holders travelling on business may apply for a short validity business ETA.While the ETA is currently available to certain nationalities only, that list is being expanded and currently stands at 29, including our biggest tourist markets. I think that is the important point. ETAs are now generally available world wide. Travel agents and airlines had to modify their reservations and departure control systems, both to issue ETAs and to identify ETA holders. ETAs are now available from travel agents world wide; and, as at July 1998, 53 international airlines had ETAs functioning within their systems.By the end of December, nearly 3.75 million ETAs will have been issued world wide since inception which occurred in September 1996. More than 2.1 million of these have been issued in the last 12 months. The percentage of tourists on short-term visas issued under the ETA system from January to December 1998 was 75.7 per cent, an extraordinarily high figure, as I am sure you agree, Madam Deputy Chairman. In December, 92 per cent of tourist and short-term business visas were issued as ETAs in countries whose nationals are eligible for ETAs. What a saving that must be in terms of convenience for the tourist and the elimination of bureaucracy.Like all countries, Australia reserves the right to decide who should be allowed to enter and stay in our country. Since 1995, this authority has taken the form of a visa. Australia's visa system is universal and non-discriminatory. Visitors from anywhere in the world can apply for the same visa, subject to these arrangements having been made, as I said before.To discriminate between countries would not be fair and could be detrimental to our long-term tourism and business interests. Visa free travellers will be disadvantaged compared with travellers who obtained a visa in advance, as they would need to be processed on their arrival in Australia. As I said before, quick processing is one of the important features of this system. They would experience time delays at migration clearance while their passport details were recorded and the purpose for their visit and proposed length of stay in Australia were determined. In addition, they would not have the certainty of entry which pre-visa visitors enjoy.The current visa system also provides the Australian tourism industry with statistical information which enables it to plan for the rise and fall in the number of arrivals and in the current economic crisis, especially that in Asian countries, that is an added weapon to our arsenal. It is clear that the coalition has made tremendous strides in getting this system up and running. It provides great advantages for tourism but also protects our national borders.The second matter I would like to deal with just briefly on this matter of visas is that there has been a lot of rorting of visas over recent years, and, sadly, a lot of the One Nation phenomenon arose out of a misplaced zeal to have Australia's borders secure. I do not agree with their policy but I can understand. I come from a small crop-growing area. I know people who are out there fruit-picking who were flouting Australia's visa laws. I actually knew of an occasion, which I brought to the attention of the department, where people with legitimate visas were being asked to sign two forms. I suspect that the second form was kept under the counter so that, when someone turned up without a visa, the work documents for that person to go onto a farm were readily accessible. I could never prove that, unfortunately, but I know a bit of that went on.I think that anything we do to secure our borders, in the first instance, or to protect the jobs of Australians is worth while. I have no objection to people with legitimate work visas participating in our work force and I can see some merit in what the shadow minister said in terms of, perhaps, providing arrangements when people are here for elongated periods of waiting while refugee status is being determined.But the case I saw recently, as recently as this week, was a case from the Philippines. It is a tribute to the vigilance of our authorities that in just a random check of some luggage they found letters to two Asian gentlemen who were coming to Australia, ostensibly to visit relatives. In this spot check it was found that a letter addressed to one of them told him what job arrangements could be made for him in Australia—and bear in mind they were on visitors visas only.The other one was a letter from the wife or female associate in the home country instructing the Australian contact to send half the pay home to the mother country. Sadly, I happen to know some of the relatives, not the immediate relatives but some distant relatives of this particular family. Those people gambled, they played roulette, with our visa arrangements, and they got caught.I think it is important that we do police our visa arrangements strictly. If there are weaknesses, as the shadow minister appeared to identify, we should address those rather than say, `Let's turn a blind eye to all the visa arrangements,' because the moment you turn a blind eye to one of them you will put all the others at risk. I just wanted to touch on that briefly.I think too that when there is a will expressed by the government, hopefully supported by the opposition, and enforced by a focused bureaucracy, the sort of nonsense that was talked about at the time of the rise of One Nation will fade to insignificance. I say that because it will be known that we have good immigration laws, it will be known that we police our visa laws strictly, and that should remove a lot of the anxiety on which these right-wing parties breed so easily.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Call them what they are: fascists.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I am not so much interested in the personalities as in trying to find an outcome to this problem. I think that, if the government and the opposition, backed by a focused bureaucracy, get those sorts of things right, then the breeding grounds for discontent, the breeding grounds for racial comments, and the uncertainty that worries some Australian workers when they think their jobs are at risk from people holding shonky papers or shonky passports, will be removed, and the integrity of our border and the integrity of the jobs of Australians will be protected.11:52:003097Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The situation with this bill, the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 , is uncontroversial, as the shadow minister mentioned, but it does provide the opportunity to discuss the issue of the operation of the visa system. Other speakers have spoken on that and so will I.Let me say that the honourable member for Hinkler's approach, that everything is gung-ho and wonderful, shows he does not know what he is talking about. I know what I am talking about because I speak as a person who was chairman of the immigration committee for four years, chairman of the caucus immigration committee for nine years, and parliamentary secretary responsible for multicultural affairs.I can tell you that the administration of the system of visitors visas in this country is a disgrace. I do not blame the minister; the issue is not the policy. The member for Hinkler said that we are opposing the policy. No, the problem is not the policy. The problem is the way the policy is being administered, and there are very, very serious problems there.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—You had 13 years to get it right when you were chairman of those committees. What did you do about it?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Let me say in reply to your point that the system was put in place not by your government but by our government. But it was never the intention, in putting the system in place, that the system would be misused in the way in which it is at the moment because of the very thing that you said, One Nation. Because of what has happened with the One Nation Party, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has become the department of anti-immigration. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has become the department of stopping people rather than the department of dealing with people on a fair basis.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Rubbish.CK6Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—All right; you call rubbish. You will have your turn to reply. You can go and defend the indefensible, if you wish, because what I am going to present here today is incontrovertible evidence. The member for Hinkler talked about the wonderful ETA system. He talked about how we have this system where you can go to an agent and within seconds get a visa. There is only one problem with that. The problem is that it happens in only a limited number of countries.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—It is 29 countries and rising.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—In 29 countries. And what about the rest of the countries, including a major number of our neighbours in Asia? What happens there? I will tell you what happens. On the one hand, we have this automatic system in which Immigration is not involved. On the other hand, we have the immigration department involved in the scrutiny of the others. What is happening in the scrutiny of the others? I will tell you what is happening, because the data was supplied to us before a parliamentary committee only a week ago.In certain countries, up to 46 per cent of the applicants are rejected. In the case of the Lebanon, 46 per cent of people applying for visitors visas are rejected. Is this department suggesting that 46 per cent of the people from the Lebanon are trying to deceive the Australian government and society? Of course they are not. If we talk just about the Lebanon—not the other countries that I will mention in a moment—are the department suggesting that 46 per cent of those people are trying to mislead? No. What is happening is that the department has been grabbed by excessive zeal.You may think it is non-discriminatory to have a situation in which people from some countries, no matter who they are, can go and get a visa just like that from a travel agent—no checking of who they are, what they are and nothing about their relatives—when in countries like Lebanon, China, Vietnam or Turkey people are subjected to huge scrutiny and, in some cases, more than two hours of interrogation by an officer of the department. And for what?CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Is that all?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Is that all? You may think it funny that somebody from Turkey or Lebanon who has a relative here in Australia and wants to visit—not come here to reside permanently but to visit their family—is subjected to a two-hour investigation into every aspect of their life. You may think that is fair, sir, but I will leave you to live with your own conscience, because it is certainly not fair.Let me give an example from Turkey. A woman here in Australia, an Australian citizen, had an accident at work. She had an operation on her back. She applied to the department for her sister to come over on a visitors visa. I supported that application. I gave my own personal assurance that this person would not be rigging the system. What happened? Firstly, the department dealt with the matter in Istanbul. The person was rejected. Then we put in a second application. I explained to the department the compassionate circumstances in this case. The person from Istanbul sent it to the chief migration officer in Ankara who then, without even the courtesy of ringing me, or making any further investigation, rejected this person. If this is what you think is a fair and a non-discriminatory system, that is an absurdity.It is all very well to talk in theory about non-discrimination but, as with everything else in human rights, it is the practice that counts, not the theory. Even the biggest dictators of the world talk about theories of human rights. The question is the practice. I put it to you that this department is now carrying out the exercise of the visitors visa program in a disgraceful fashion. What is the justification for this kind of grilling of people? The answer that is usually given is, `They fall into particular kinds of descriptions—they're single, or divorced with a child, or they don't have a proper job,' notwithstanding, I might say, that in the case that I mentioned the person has a job, has a house, and is in a situation where they would not want to stay in Australia. If this is not the exercise of excessive zeal, I do not know what is.Ever since the department of immigration has started directing its energies primarily and conclusively towards the control issues without looking at the fairness issues, we have had a lot of complaints. Let me tell you that there are people from the business community, there are people from the ethnic communities and there are people from the community generally that have protested to the department about the use of the visitors visa program. For example, the Tourist Commission itself and the tourist bodies have said that the way we exercise the visitors visa program from Asian countries is actually affecting our tourism. It is actually affecting tourism to Australia because we are subjecting them to such an intense investigation for a visitors visa that in the end people say, `To the hell with it. We will go somewhere else.' No other country subjects its visitors to this sort of scrutiny.Okay, we introduced the two categories: the ones that come in automatically and the ones that are in the separate category and need examination. Examination is one thing. But we should not subject people to this intense scrutiny when they are coming on a visitors visa or they are coming on a temporary business visa. The interesting thing about temporary business visas from countries like China is that we have had so much trouble with them that the situation has got out of control. For example, there are now many people waiting in the queue to have their temporary business visas, especially the three-year 457 visa, considered by the government. Surely you would think, given that these people bring millions of dollars here, that the government and the department might give priority to this matter in processing the 457 visas. Oh, no! They are held up. Why are they held up? Because they happen to be from China; that is why. The situation is totally unacceptable. I say that the department is responsible for this and the department, firstly, should go and tell the minister what is really happening in relation to this matter and, secondly, should get its act together.I know, and I have been told by the minister and others, that in fact the officers of the department are given training about sensitivity to people in relation to the visitors visas. I tell you what: if sensitivity is what they are at at the moment in terms of the experiences that are coming to my attention, the training program needs to be reconsidered from the ground up. The fact is that, when we introduced these two categories, we said that those who did not fall within the automatic category were to be considered by the department of immigration in a sensitive way. And they are not. We have people who cannot even come to visit their relatives for two or three months—or even a month in some cases—because some immigration officer makes a subjective judgment that they do not like the look of the person or that they are not convinced about the case being put before them—that sort of thing.I am not going to go into individual cases; I have brought some to the attention of the minister. I brought the Turkish case up because I have not taken that matter to the minister directly. I am appalled by what is happening in relation to these visitors visas. If we are going to maintain this program where we on the one hand give the travel agents in 29 countries the right to give somebody a visa in 10 seconds, but then subject people from the rest of the world, and especially our Asian neighbours, to a situation in which people are grilled and stopped from coming to Australia even for a short-term visit, it is a very serious situation.It is true that some people choose to try to misuse their visas. Yes, we have always had that as a problem. But this is like saying, `Okay, we have got a problem with a few people, so we are going to punish all people. We have got a problem with a few people who might bring their relatives in and try to get their relatives to stay, so we are going to punish all people who want to bring their relatives in for a visit.' Visiting even for a wedding or a baptism has been refused. It is not good enough. We have to do something about this matter, because it is a critical issue in relation to the application.Is it true that the department has been given instructions by senior officers in these embassies to reject the overwhelming majority of applications? Has that order been given? Are immigration officers under this instruction? If they are not, what is the explanation for figures such as the 46 per cent that I mentioned for the Lebanon, or the 36 per cent or whatever it is from Turkey? What is the explanation? Are we to assume that one out of three Turkish people who want to visit their relatives or who want to come to Australia for a visit is to be considered suspect—and not only considered suspect but actually ruled out, not even given the opportunity, in many cases, of appeal? We do not have appeal for visitors visas except for relatives.It might be said, as in the Turkish case, that the person can appeal. Here she is, sick in bed. She can make an appeal, which will mean that it will be heard in a few months time—when she needs her sister now—but the situation really is that in addition people have to pay $500. That is all very well for some rich people, but it is not all very well in the case of this person, who is on workers compensation because she had an accident at work and she had to have an operation.This kind of thing illustrates the dilemma we are in: the department has gone from one point of view to the complete opposite. It is time for the department to re-evaluate its thinking in this matter. I call on the department—the secretary to the department and the senior officers—to deal with this issue before we get attacked by the governments of the Lebanon, Turkey, China and Vietnam for discriminatory behaviour.What would you think if 46 per cent of your people that were applying to visit Australia were told, `No, we think you are in some kind of category that—CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—That is their right.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I remind the member for Moreton that he will have his right in the debate. The member for Calwell should address his questions through the chair.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—You're being very provocative, mate. Keep your values to yourself—all right?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Calwell should address his remarks through the chair. The honourable member for Moreton will be brought in.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The honourable member for Moreton ought to be ashamed of himself for his comments if he thinks this is a fair situation. The fact of the matter is that we have these problems and we have gone too far in response to the Hanson phenomenon, in trying to please people who will never be pleased about our immigration program.That leads me to some concluding comments about what is happening with our immigration program. As the member for Hinkler mentioned, we have responded—unfortunately, too much—to the Hanson phenomenon. We now have a situation in which we have cut immigration to the lowest levels for many years and there are people in the community, including the major business and industry groups, saying that we have cut immigration far too much. These industry groups are saying that we are affecting the economic wellbeing as well as the social fabric of the country.There are also many groups in the community, not just the ethnic communities but others, who are saying that the reductions in the immigration program that have gone so far are now so serious that they are endangering the continuation of our multicultural programs. Multiculturalism in Australia has always relied on a consistent level of immigration but we have now reduced immigration to very desperate levels, at which it is almost impossible for certain categories of people to come here, no matter how worthy they are.Under those circumstances, as a parliament—and I am not talking about Labor, Liberal or National; I am talking about the responsibility we have to the national interest—we must consider the possibility of expanding our immigration program because it has become so small in net terms that we are being criticised by key sectors, such as the business sector and others, about what has happened.We also have to face up to the fact that we have an ageing population and our ageing population cannot continue in this way. We will be continuing the ageing population problem unless we do something in the area of immigration. For years we have had an immigration program orientated towards the young; these young people helped us in terms of the ageing of the population. Now we have reduced the immigration program and we have a very big problem in relation to the ageing of the population. That has to be addressed, and immigration is one way of addressing it.We have a number of things that we have to take into consideration. We should have an open debate on this issue. I am not afraid—nor are most members—of a debate about the importance of immigration. Let us have this debate. Let us talk about why we need a bigger immigration program that is important for the future of this country and necessary to sustain our social fabric, multicultural identity and economic development.12:12:003101Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Calwell is a passionate observer of Australian life and I welcome the opportunity to follow him in this debate. In fact, these days, the Australian Labor Party, in supporting migration from a broad cross-section of the world—as do the Liberal and National parties—provide a willing contrast to the namesake of the seat of the member for Calwell, who was the architect of the White Australia Policy of the Labor Party governments of the 1940s—a policy which all sides of politics now reject.The member for Calwell, though, is the failed parliamentary secretary of the failed Keating government in the area of immigration and multicultural affairs—there certainly were a lot of failures. The Keating government left Australians with absolutely no faith in the migration system in this country. They believed that multiculturalism was living in separation. As a government they practised divide—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Rubbish!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—and rule in multicultural communities right across this country.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Calwell has had his right in the debate. The member for Moreton has the floor.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—One of the great contrasts of the Howard government in its short time in office, amongst multicultural groups and the broader community, has been the bringing together. In my own community, I have a very large multicultural community and I can speak with a reasonable amount of authority and daily practice in this area. The Chinese community say to me they had never met a representative from the Eritrean community, as people from former Yugoslavia say they had never had interaction with people from other countries in the world. There was this `divide and conquer': we will give you this but do not tell the other groups in multicultural Queensland or multicultural Australia that you have got it. That was the divide and rule approach of the Keating government.This government believes very strongly, as one of its programs suggests, that living in harmony, living together as Australians, with a fair and equal share in this country and its future is what it is all about.In another area the Keating government left an absolute mess as far as migration was concerned: the high level of illegal immigrants in this country. In my own community, newly arrived, or even longer established, people from Asian and Chinese nations were sometimes talked about by others, their hands across their mouths, as being `illegals'—`You know; he is probably an illegal immigrant or something.' They were the sorts of damaging effects that a lot of people in my electorate felt as a result of the member for Calwell's contribution to the immigration policy in this country, during his confessed nine years of involvement in the immigration committee of the Keating government.I think everybody in this nation—whether they were born here, whether they have migrated here in recent years or whether they are the descendants of migrants, as I am myself, of 150 years ago—should have faith in the integrity of the system. I know that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, is held in the highest possible regard because it is his daily activity to ensure absolute faith in the system.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nothing in what I said reflected on the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. What I was critical of was the department. I think the member should at least be honest enough to reflect that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is not a point of order. The debate was wide ranging. I allowed the member for Calwell to have a wide-ranging debate on the visa applications and the honourable member for Moreton I think is well aware of what was said in the debate. I give the honourable member for Moreton the floor.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would recall and Hansard will reflect, I certainly did not suggest the member for Calwell reflected on the minister. We all know this is the very best minister and the very best person in this place qualified to be the minister in this particular portfolio area. He is doing a great job.The fact of the matter is that, perhaps like the member for Calwell, I know for sure that I have to deal with these sorts of visa issues on a daily basis—visa issues raised by people who live in my electorate. I am very honoured to have the role of representing these people in this place and I have learnt so much from these people during my time here. I look after people who come from many of the world's trouble spots who are refugees and people who aspire to be great Australians, whether they have come from trouble spots or whether they have come from quite well-established nations and democracies and so forth. So I deal with these matters every day.One thing I know for sure: the migration system, exemplified through provisions contained in this bill, is all about taking the very best the world has to offer and ensuring that all Australians understand that all migrants to this nation should be afforded the respect of being the very best potential contributors to this nation. So we are all about trying to give migrants the very best of starts in the eyes of all Australians. I think this government is doing a great job in that regard.Visitors as well must also find that they are subjected to a few penalties and a few pressures in order to maintain the integrity of the system, because, in all too many cases, we have seen people come to this country under the guise of visitor and stay. All that does is damage the integrity of the system, damage the standing of those good Australian citizens who have come from other nations, damage the social fabric of our nation and give rise to the sort of mess and mayhem that we saw from the former member for Oxley in this place.All citizens must be confident in the system. All citizens in Australia should be proud of the immigration system. As far as numbers of people coming to this country, those matters are always reviewed from time to time, and reviewed in the very best interest of Australia. As I interjected—quite unparliamentary, Madam Deputy Speaker, I concede—on the member for Calwell's contribution before, it is the right of each sovereign nation, particularly a democratic nation where all citizens are afforded the opportunity to comment on government policy through the ballot box and through their representatives, to set the standards, including the numbers, for migrant intakes. It is vital to this nation and its social fabric that we do.All citizens of Australia should be confident that visitors, permanent residents and refugees are all afforded health checks and character checks. I submit that in fact those people are subjected to greater health and character checks and asked to commit themselves to Australia in a way that people born here are not. So all Australian citizens should be confident about that.We all know there are high risk areas. There are areas around the world where people have used all sorts of desperate measures in order to come to this nation—a promised land for so many people. I can list a couple. We are all, as members of this place, very used to dealing with desperate people, perhaps from the Indian subcontinent, the Asian region in general, and Fiji is another difficult spot, who have come here under the guise of a visitor visa and stayed. The former Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Eastern Europe are also other troubled areas. Our Belgrade embassy is of course one of those posts where they are facing all sorts of difficulties.I would also like to submit for the record that one of the things that has concerned me in recent times is that elements of the ethnic basis of the unrest that has taken place in those countries are perhaps seeping into some of the considerations of those applying for migration to this country. It is a matter I have raised with the minister, where an Albanian family have been subjected to the many difficulties of getting a visitor visa to this country. They allege it has got something to do with their ethnicity or religion, based on who they are dealing with in the Australian Embassy. That is a matter that is being looked at. I think it is important to state on the record that at least there are mechanisms within this country to go and review those sorts of matters.Of course, Nairobi, which handles the Horn of Africa, is one of the most constant posts—in fact, it is on the fast dial of the fax machine in my electorate office. I wish them well in the high commission in Nairobi, but, at the end of the day, handling areas such as Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia—I have residents in my electorate who have come from all of those countries—is a very demanding job.I firmly believe that the constituents in my electorate know that very well. Yes, you get an occasional complaint, but when you explain to them that it is all about the integrity of the system and that they themselves should feel very proud that they have come through the hoops and roundabouts that are demanded by this country in order to gain access to it they feel better about themselves. They do not feel that the tough penalties that may apply to those who breach the laws, the tough processes that are put in place to make sure we get the very best, apply to those in this country who are well intentioned, and they do not see that they are really penalties that should be fully complained about at the end of the day.I would like to turn to some of the contributions of migrants that have come to this country. We have in this nation of migrants people from so many interesting places. I have mentioned Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia—those sorts of places. People in my electorate and all of those other people try to make great contributions to this country and are doing so, but are having some difficulties—always moving from one country to another is difficult—and should be supported well by this government and by this parliament in general.But I would like to also mention on this day, the first day of the Year of the Rabbit, the role of the Chinese community in this country. It is a marvellous contribution that so many people from Asian nations are making on a contemporary basis to Australia. As you would know, the first Chinese migrant, if you like, arrived here with the Second Fleet, and since then the role of the Chinese community in Australia has been building and growing. It has never really reached the point that it has until now, and the Chinese community need to be congratulated on their determination over the last couple of years, in particular, to play a positive role in the national debate on immigration and multiculturalism. The temptation to protest—to be loud, long and offensive—in the face of those who are loud, long and offensive was never taken up by the Chinese community. They have shown themselves to be very dignified and very self-assured as Australians of Chinese extraction.I think it is a marvellous thing that my daughter of nine, Jessica, is learning Mandarin in year 4 at Macgregor Primary. I think that will only help to strengthen the sort of bond that exists already in my local community where we have children of nine learning someone else's language. She can understand some of the basic Chinese script. At this important time of year, the spring festival, the Chinese New Year in the Year of the Rabbit, she understands well that Gong Xi Fa Cai means `may you have a prosperous New Year'. She understands well the values of the Chinese community with regard to the family and to industry, and promoting good business and conduct especially towards the older members of the family. They are all values that, I think, we, as Australians, in general seek to uphold.The Year of the Rabbit promises to be a productive year. Each of these different Chinese lunar years takes on the identity of the animal for which it is named. The year before last, the Year of the Ox, was about slow but steady progress. When I think back to sentiments I offered in this place about that year at that time, I recall that the Chinese community took up the challenge of beating off the last remnants of the recession we had to have and actually progressed the economy and made their contribution to the progress of the economy over that particular year. But the Year of the Rabbit is a year of productive and frenetic activity, and I think we will see some great results from those who have come from Chinese heritage.It is also worth noting that this is the 50th anniversary of citizenship in this nation. This year we should all feel very justified and equal and we should be living in harmony. Australia has the very best people that come through our migration system, and at the heart of our migration system is the integrity of the visa system which is facilitated by matters contained within this bill.It is important that we emphasise what brings us together as a nation and as subcommunities within it, not what divides us. It is important that we uphold the integrity of our visa system. And, whilst I understand the passion and the frustration of the member for Calwell, a man who is well regarded in this place for his stand on human rights issues, he must understand, as all members must understand, that human rights are upheld very well by this country.We have the highest per capita intake of refugees. No-one can dispute our commitment to looking after people from world trouble spots, but at the end of the day the fabric of our society and the integrity of the migration system are interlinked. It is very important that we do not try to cause divisions, to chip off groups in our community to have them doubt the intention of the government in these matters. I commend the bill to the House.12:26:003105Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in relation to the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 . In doing so I say at the outset that Australia is a nation of immigrants. I suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I know that more than anyone. We might represent seats in different states but we both grew up in the same area and we grew up in a multicultural society that was based on tolerance and a sense of goodwill.On that basis I want to pick up an issue raised in passing by the member for Moreton. I will not speak today about who is the best minister. I would suggest that the minister for immigration has one of the toughest jobs in government. It is fair to say that over the last decade or so we have had a series of good ministers with people like Robert Ray, Gerry Hand, and the current minister, Philip Ruddock.The problem is that this portfolio is a tough portfolio. The job of the minister for immigration, irrespective of who sits in that chair, is made more difficult by the freeloaders in the legal fraternity and the migration agents who seek to undermine the integrity of the migration system in Australia.I would suggest to the House today that perhaps the time has come to acknowledge, across both sides of the House, that, irrespective of which party occupies the government benches, the job of the minister more often than not, as has been the case since the change of government in March 1996, is to seek to work in a cooperative way to maintain the integrity of the system. That is the approach I have adopted as the shadow minister, and I would hope that it is the approach that will continue to be adopted by the new opposition, when a change of government occurs, and, importantly, by whoever occupies the position of shadow minister for immigration.Having said that, I very clearly say at the outset today that, if we are to maintain support for immigration, if we are to maintain our pride in our immigration roots, we must maintain the integrity of the immigration program.Already Australia is one of the few migrant receiving nations in the world, and it has one of the most open and liberal attitudes to immigration regulation and citizenship. It has a system that acknowledges the responsibility of a nation such as Australia to have a humanitarian program, but also to develop a non-humanitarian program which must be based on what is in the best interests of Australia.I understand why a host of people from a variety of areas of the world want to come and settle in Australia. Why wouldn't they want to settle in this great nation? That is what the debate on immigration has to be about: a program that is in the best interests of Australia as a nation both economically and socially, a program that acknowledges our responsibility internationally from a humanitarian point of view, but more importantly, a program that is based on integrity.When it comes to a question of ensuring that there is a program based on integrity, that is when I believe there has to be a sense of goodwill and cooperation between the government and the opposition benches. I say that because I believe that support for these open attitudes can only be maintained if our own people have trust in the institutions that monitor and manage these regulations. That is what the real debate is about.We will have a debate about the size of the program. I have an alternative view to the government about the size of the program. I will outline that today and we will have that debate. When we conclude the debate about the size of the program, the real debate then is about how we maintain the integrity of the program. Unless there is integrity in the program, the whole program will be pulled down Australia-wide.It is not a question of scoring political points on either side of the House today, because the finger was pointed at all the major political parties. It has to be fair. In the minds of some in the community it has slipped in recent times. It is because of the doubt in the integrity of the system that the Hansonites, whom we largely all cooperated to turn back, were able in recent times to make a mark on our political dialogue. Hopefully, with the recent election outcome, and the fact that they are falling apart in Queensland and that they hopefully will make no electoral progress in New South Wales in the weeks to come, we are now about to see what might be labelled as the post-Hanson era as the One Nation mob implodes.We must be careful, I also say, not to label all the supporters of the One Nation mob as crazies. They are Australian citizens who had doubts in their minds. Some of those doubts were pursued for political reasons. The perpetrators of those doubts have now been pushed back. Our responsibility as a community now is to bring some of those people who supported One Nation—incorrectly, I might say—back into the mainstream political debate in Australia.I, therefore, venture to suggest that many of those supporters had legitimate concerns about immigration and the perceived rorting of the system. Irrespective of who is in government, because of Australia being such a great place, there will be some in the community and beyond Australia who will seek to rort the system. I suppose in their minds that will be for the right reason. They want to get into Australia and have the same opportunity that we have as Australians. I can understand the desperate measures, although I will never support them, that some of those people will resort to in order to try and get into Australia.We have to take those concerns into account. They were not just concerns of people who voted One Nation. The concerns were also more widespread. We have to build back trust into the institutions which monitor and manage our migration program—trust that the system works in a just manner for all Australians. That is why the Labor Party backs the amendments before the House today. They are a small part of the trust building process. This is also part of the cooperation that often exists between opposition and government when it comes to the difficult process of handling the portfolio of Immigration.I would also suggest to the House today that, if we are to increase our immigration intake, we must work hard to build community approval of the migration program. The support for the migration program must be rebuilt from the bottom up. The fact that this is the 50th anniversary of what I am pleased to say was Labor's Citizenship Act gives us a wonderful opportunity to rebuild support and to start a new debate about migration as we move into the 21st century. I hope the community people who, like me, want to see a vibrant immigration program which builds and strengthens our nation will go out and use the celebration of this important anniversary for that very point.I stress the need to build and rebuild community support from the bottom up for our tradition as a nation of migrants. Elite support for immigration from business leaders, union leaders, politicians, ethnic leaders and religious leaders, et cetera, is just not good enough. In the anniversary year we need the members of service clubs, country women's associations, farmers groups, local church and other religious group members, school communities, work places, local government and ethnic communities themselves. We want them to come out, discuss and wholeheartedly support our national traditions of acceptance of diversity and a fair go for all our people, including new migrants.We should use this anniversary year not only to celebrate what we have achieved but to review the successes and the failures, to review them in a non-political way and to learn from this review. In my view it is important that the celebration of this anniversary should be a success, creating a platform from which we rebuild and move on. In many traditions the jubilee year—the 50th anniversary—is taken as the year to reassess long held values and to resolve to improve those values. It is a good tradition—a wonderful tradition—which we should tease out in our discussions about immigration and citizenship. It also includes considering that difficult issue, which has been shelved all too long by both sides of the House, of dual citizenship.These discussions should also try to help to inform a lot of the debate now going on about the current annual review of our migration intake. I think we can and should—and I say this very clearly—move to a higher intake, but the nature of that intake needs to have general agreement right across the Australian community. Australians need to feel confident about the integrity of the immigration program.Fifty years ago—and this goes to assessing what went on in the past—our immigration program was different from what the immigration program needs to be today. It was a different world; it was a different Australia. It was different for a variety of reasons which included, for example, the nature of the times, the post-war reconstruction difficulties that confronted Australia at the time and the wonderful leadership initially offered by a person such as Ben Chifley. It was different because of the people who wanted urgently to come to Australia. They were seeking a new chance in life. It was different because of the needs of the nation at the end of the war and, most importantly, because of the question of nation building that confronted Australia at that moment. A hell of a lot of work had to be done by a nation that was, in essence, tired—tired from a contribution that Australia made as a nation to the Second World War effort, a contribution beyond what could normally have been expected of a nation the size of Australia.There were opportunities for employment in the way the jobs were organised in the immediate post-war era that were different from the challenges that now confront Australia on the jobs front. They are just some of the many factors. Everyone in the House could suggest a few other factors, but in talking about the immigration intake today, we really need also to recognise that the jobs revolution has changed the face of Australia from an employment point of view, and that has occurred largely over the last 50 years.Fifty years ago we could almost guarantee jobs for anyone who came to Australia from any part of the world. Unskilled migrant workers were able to fill the expanding positions in our growing resource, manufacturing and infrastructure industries. Many of these people are now proud Australian citizens and one should not underestimate how much they valued the opportunity to take out citizenship in Australia. That is also the case with the newer wave of immigrants, for instance from Asia and elsewhere, as one sees in a very proud way at the various citizenship ceremonies that we attend on a regular basis.Unfortunately, those people are finding that those jobs which they wanted to hold for life are disappearing from underneath them. Their lack of skills relevant to the areas of jobs growth in Australia, especially literacy, is cutting them out of the new job opportunities. I believe we have an obligation to help our people, many of whom arrived in the last 50 years, to adapt to the new jobs, train for the new jobs and add to their skill base so that they can compete for these jobs on an equal footing. If you admit to that obligation as a nation then automatically it must change your view as to the nature of our immigration program at the end of the 20th century.We must now accept, as a nation, an immigration program which is different in composition from that which we commenced 50 years ago. Whether some in the community like it or not, the immigration program is always going to be based on what is in the best interests of Australia as a nation. Australia today is entirely different from the Australia of 50 years ago. That therefore throws up the sound suggestion that our immigration program in the future is more than ever going to be based on skills and thus we will encourage a program which provides—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.40 p.m. to 12.52 p.m.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Before the suspension, I was dealing with the basis on which I believe the Australian immigration program should be proceeding. I referred in passing to the sharper focus on skills. I also believe that central to the program is a focus on business migration that provides opportunities to create new industries, new exports and new jobs for those already in Australia.In considering business migration, I also believe that we now have to seriously investigate as a nation how we should try to attract some of that business investment to the depressed areas of regional Australia. That is a challenge to all of us for a constructive debate over the next 12 to 18 months. That goes back to the thrust of the issue I raised at the outset today: migration has to be a program for all Australians and that delivers benefits to all Australians.In that context, I also understand the serious questions raised by the Premier of New South Wales at the moment with respect to future development difficulties in Sydney. He is right to raise those issues; he is not anti-immigration. He is looking at it from a state point of view. The fact is that perhaps too many people, both from within and beyond Australia, are settling in Sydney, whereas, from a New South Wales and a national perspective, potentially we have to try to create incentives to get them out of Sydney.In raising these issues, I also acknowledge the importance of the family stream. People should never expect the immigration program to Australia to be based on the family stream. The family stream flows from the other aspects of the immigration program. They are important but one should never determine one's intake, be it annual or of a five- or a 10-year duration, based purely on consideration of family issues.In suggesting that, I also argue strongly that embracing such an approach to immigration is not discriminatory. It does not discriminate between one nation and another. It is based on anyone from any nation around the world seeking to apply to come to Australia based on the criteria that we establish as the basis of an immigration program that is in the best interests of those who currently live in Australia and those who want to come and make a contribution to nation building in Australia in the future. It is not discriminatory. It is about Australia as a nation deciding what is in the best interests of Australia.A program based on these principles will also provide real hope and opportunities for the many people who would happily and willingly join us and become part of our great nation. It would be a program of integrity and one that has community support because it will deliver higher standards of living for all Australians as well as having a viable economically and ecologically sound population base.In conclusion, I will discuss for a short while the rewriting of the preamble to our constitution and how it can play an important role in this jubilee year—the 50th anniversary of citizenship. I note from this morning's media that the Prime Minister has taken upon himself—not as a process to bring in all Australian citizens—to write a preamble for our constitution in the referendum later this year.Well, for the life of me, Mr Deputy Speaker, whatever can be said about the Prime Minister, he has never seemed to me to be a person who can be best described as a poetic soul, let alone one having the imagination needed to write the visionary prose in a preamble—words that will sing down the generations, create a sense of adventure and commitment to the future of Australia. That is what our contribution ought to be about.But, if the Prime Minister has taken on this task, I would like to provide a little advice to him today, as he sits down with the quill, in the new $10,000 chair that he has bought for the Prime Minister's suite. The advice I offer is that he should take into account this important jubilee. The preamble should also note that we are a nation of immigrants and reinforce the integrity of our migration traditions of citizenship and respect for diversity.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am delighted to see you are being relevant to the bill. I had my doubts.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also more relevant to the debate about the constitution and the referendum because I do not think any single person in this country has the wisdom to take upon themselves to draft what we should vote on at a referendum. It is an issue that should be considered and debated by all Australians. No person is the fount of all wisdom, and especially the Prime Minister of Australia.A new preamble can and should talk about the obligations and responsibilities of our nation, which are firmly based on our history and tradition to peacefully integrate and provide opportunities for all who come to our shores. Of course, in turn, we need to mention our obligations to each other in the nation we create, by working together as a community, as one people. Mr Howard, put pen to paper, but acknowledge that you are not the fount of all wisdom. (Time expired)12:58:003110McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I would have thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if we are going to rewrite the preamble to the constitution, we should have got you to do it, because you are such an eloquent person.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I can get five minutes now, can't I? The opposition generally does not have any disagreement with the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 before us today. I think members on both sides have significant concerns about the visa entry to this country, particularly members representing an electorate like mine which has a very large number—bordering on 40-odd per cent—of constituents who were not born in Australia, and who have relations wishing to come here as visitors or as permanent residents, with friends in the same position.So the question of entry into Australia and the issuing of visas, be they permanent resident visas or temporary entry visas, is a very large part of the work that my electorate office does. And I have to say that we have quite considerable concerns with the way many of these visas are issued, the amount of time it takes to have visas issued and, indeed, the criteria that are often applied by posts to issuing those visas. It is not just electorates with a high number of people born overseas who have that problem, but members from across the board. Even rural electorates like yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, would have the same problem.The really significant problem that we find in my office—and knowing a little of your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you would find the same—is for people who wish to come on visitors visas to see family, to come to weddings, to come to christenings, to come and see a cousin they have not seen for a long while. The difficulty those people often have in having relations come to Australia is a significant concern. It is a concern that tends to militate against those who are people from non-English speaking backgrounds: if you have a relation from the UK or Ireland, you have a lot less trouble having them come for a visit than if you have a relation who wants to come from India or the Middle East or Africa. Whether there are good reasons—and I know the minister can tell us about the profiles the department has that show that certain groups of people tend to be overstayers while others do not—it does not matter how good those reasons sound, the people themselves believe in their hearts that there is discrimination against them.Often, as I am sure members find, you get some people who come in and you know that they have got friends or relations who have overstayed or will overstay. But we must apply our minds and the government must apply their mind to finding some way to deal with the decent people. An example I had—I will not give the name but I think this was one I wrote to the minister about; and I am not criticising the minister here because all immigration ministers have this problem—was a family where the couple have lived in Australia for 30-odd years. They have never been on any benefit of any sort. They are good, hard working Australians who came to this country from the Middle East. They have never sponsored anybody to come here. They have never been in any trouble. They wanted a friend to come for a holiday and, despite the entreaties that my office made to the post, they were unable to get the person issued with a visa just because a whole lot of other people from the area that that post dealt with tended to overstay.If you are a young or single person from the Middle East, you just will not get a visa. I think that is terribly unfair to a lot of the really good people who can show that they have done everything right in this country, that they have been good, upstanding citizens. Sure, they accept that there are other people from their homeland who may have overstayed, but they should not be put in the same boat.We have really got to the stage where maybe both sides of the parliament have to apply their minds to the question of finding a way to deal with those decent people. If we do not, we are going to find that those people will really feel a backlash and think that their value to this country accounts for less than someone from your background or mine. If we really want to do something to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Citizenship Act, we should find some way to satisfy the genuine desire of those citizens who have complied with every law and regulation that we have. If they want to invite a friend or a family member out, they should be able to.It also often causes those people considerable embarrassment because they have been travelling back and forth to their homeland over the years, they have enjoyed the hospitality of relations and they feel that they are not able to do the right thing by their relations. They will go back to Lebanon, Syria, India or Bangladesh and stay with a friend or a relation, but they cannot reciprocate. I really think we need to do something about that.The second issue I will touch on, and I will try to be brief, is the question of the very lengthy delays now experienced at some posts for the issuing of visas to spouses. I know that governments over a period of time have had problems with marriages of convenience—although I think there are fewer of those now than in the past and people are taking a much more mature approach—but we still have long waiting lists for spouses to be reunited. I really do not think the government should get in the way of the marital relations of Australian citizens and their spouses.While governments may not believe in true love, I do find it rather disgraceful that someone can fall in love with a person here in Australia and marry them next week, if they want to, but if they fall in love and marry someone who does not live in this country they can find that—as my office has found—it can take up to two years to be reunited with their spouse. I had a woman come to my office who went through the trauma of having to have her child on her own, with her husband not allowed to come to the country because he was on this visa queue. They were married overseas, she was an Australian citizen and they could not be reunited. Both sides of politics should accept that there are fewer marriages of convenience and agree that the great number of Australian citizens who marry people from overseas should not be at a greater disadvantage than those who marry people who live in this country.I think those two things should be addressed. I know the minister will say that they are not easy—and they are not—but there have been a number of things that governments have addressed in changes to the migration program over the years which have overcome some of these issues. We could find some way to have a bond or some other form of enforceable penalty for people who ask someone to come as a visitor who then overstays. It is surely not beyond our wit to work something like that out.I am sure we could do the processing for spouses of Australian citizens onshore. These are Australian citizens. They are not people who have come here for a holiday and decided they want to marry someone else who has come here for a holiday. These are often people who have been born in this country, have gone on an overseas holiday and have decided they have found someone they want to marry. Why should they have to wait and wait? It does not happen here. If you want to get married here, usually the only people who get in your way are your parents. But when people wish to marry someone from abroad, the people who get in the way are the state.Once again, the perception is—whether it is right or wrong—that the state gets in the way of one group of people far more than it gets in the way of another group of people. If one of my kids went back to Ireland, where my grandparents came from, and got married, I am sure they would not be waiting 12 months for their spouse to arrive here in Australia. If my nephew, who is of Lebanese descent, went back to Lebanon and got married, he would be waiting longer than his cousin.I do not see how we can say to people that we are not treating one group differently from others, and I really think that we ought to try to address that. I have a lot of differences with the minister over many things, but the minister is a good hearted person. I have said many bad things about the minister from time to time, but I have never said that he was not a good hearted person. I really think that these are two issues that we should try to address.I think there is a danger for us if we do not resolve these two issues in that there will be a large group of people who live in this country, who are citizens of this country in the same way that you and I and the minister are citizens of this country, who genuinely feel that they are being treated differently. That is not fair and it is something that we should try to overcome. While the opposition does not disagree with the legislation before the House, I think that many members on both sides of the House would have quite sincere concerns with those two issues that I have just raised in this debate.13:10:003112Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—in reply—I will try to contain myself in terms of the breadth of the issues I canvass, but I do want to thank the shadow minister and the members for Calwell, Batman, Moreton, Hinkler and Watson for their comments. I will pick up some of the comments of the member for Watson since he is kind enough to remain here. He is the only person who has spoken in this debate who is here and I think, on that basis, he deserves a response to the particular matters he has raised, more so because he was so generous in a personal way.Your comments, coupled with those of your shadow minister, reveal the conundrum that we face. On the one hand, you were expressing the anxiety of families here who want to have family visitors and who are seeking to sponsor. On the other hand you are saying that I, as the minister, in relation to those people who have come and who seek to remain here and use every opportunity to remain here, ought also to give them work rights and provide additional incentives for some—and let me make the position clear, we are only ever talking about some—people who have ulterior motives.When people live in countries with a relatively low standard of living—with much lower incomes than we have and few employment opportunities—one ought not be surprised if there are family members here, with relatives abroad, who might be desirous of family members being able to come here and even engage in employment for a time. One ought not be surprised; it happens.So the conundrum is: how do we get the right balance? I do not want to discourage family migration. I do not wish to discourage people who are in bona fide relationships from being with their partners. I do not want to stop people who have settled in Australia and made Australia their home having their relatives and friends here for all their important occasions.In relation to the member for Watson's comments, let me just say, dealing first with spouses, that there has been an effective reduction in the extent of manipulation. We have seen a fall off in application rates of something in the order of between 30 per cent and 40 per cent, and I suspect that that is a reflection of the fact that those people who were entering into non bona fide relationships are now not applying. I think that is the case.It has meant that the extra staff we have put in to overseas posts to process spouse applications and to deal with enhanced bona fides are having an impact, and I am told that the delay for spouses has, on average, come down. It was nine months in 1997-98, and it was down to six months in the last half of last year.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—That does not take account of those cases where it is 12 to 18 months.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—It certainly does not take into account the fact that in high risk areas there might be, in some cases, longer delays. I am alarmed when you tell me that somebody has experienced a two-year delay. She must have had a child for over one year, unless she travelled backwards and forwards to get pregnant. But if she was pregnant when she left him and then came back here and sponsored him, I assume the child would have been one year and—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I said that some people have waited for two years. This woman had a baby while she was waiting. She was not the two-year one.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Okay, I was a bit troubled about that. I would be very concerned if there were two-year delays. There can be reasons for delay in particular cases. If there are no children involved, or if the party is not an Australian citizen and you have a big caseload, delay could occur. Sometimes it may be to do with health. For example, there may be some scars on the lungs when you do the X-rays and you have to look for tuberculosis. There are a whole lot of factors that can lead to delays. However, if you have major problems of that sort I would hope that you would continue to come to me because I am sure we could sort them out.I want to spend a bit more time dealing with the entry of visitors. These matters are not new and they were the subject of a very comprehensive analysis by the Joint Committee on Migration. Your colleague Senator Jim McKiernan was the chair of that committee when it looked at the procedures that we put in place.You must understand that my officers are working in an environment where they have to make lawful decisions. We have an act, we have regulations, and they have to apply those. My officers are very much aware that every decision is appealable. The way in which we function as a department today is extremely onerous for departmental officials, in terms of the comprehensiveness of the training and in the way in which they have to deal with these sorts of issues.If people are making a family visit they are able to appeal those decisions. I know some people believe the fees are too high, but the fees are fixed on a cost recovery basis and the appeals can be taken. But—Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—That may be the case too, sometimes, but I will come to what I am going to offer in relation to that matter in a moment because the member for Calwell raised much the same issue when he spoke. He raised a concern about similar countries—Lebanon, China, Turkey and Vietnam. Essentially, if you look at the statistics that are available, these are all what we call high risk posts.When the joint committee, which came to its task with an objective approach, was asked to look at this, it said in its conclusions at 7.69 and 7.70:The Committee is of the view that it is essential to guard against abuses of the visitor program. To that end, the Committee supports the principle that where objective data demonstrates that certain classes of entrant present a higher overstay risk, such evidence should be used by DIEA in its decision making. In the Committee's view, it is appropriate that visitor applicants who exhibit high risk characteristics be requested, where appropriate, to produce cogent evidence to demonstrate that their intentions in visiting Australia are genuine.In this context, the Committee supports the principle of the risk factor profile. The profile is a management device constructed from objective data which simply allows decision makers to highlight those visitor applicants who must show appropriate evidence of their intention to return home. The risk profile does not mandate refusal of the visa. While the visitor visa refusal rates from posts in certain risk factor countries are high, large numbers of visitor applicants at such posts are approved.That is still the case. I would simply say to the honourable member, and he knows this, that I instruct my overseas posts to have regard to the points that are made by members of the community who have good reputations, by members of parliament who have important reputations and who are prepared to make the point that they are putting their credibility on the line when they say these people are most unlikely to breach visa requirements.I do not want people to do it lightly. I want them to make some judgments in relation to these matters. We do undertake intelligence work to look at whose undertakings, when they have been given, have been found to be accepted and honoured, and those whose undertakings have been accepted and not honoured. They are factors that my officers have to undertake because I do recognise that if people have a good record, if they have been able to travel in and out of Australia and exhibit that, they ought to be able to demonstrate that. And, for those who have not been able to do it, we ought to establish circumstances where they can.This is against the background of the major problems that we have had here in Australia with people who have given undertakings. I have had people offering undertakings when they themselves had come here as a visitor, overstayed, and eventually sought permanent residence, saying, `Believe me.' These are matters of concern.The shadow minister has come in and I am glad to see him here. There have been some very useful contributions in this debate today. I think this is an area in which it is important that we are able to work constructively, and I want to reiterate that. I am willing to work constructively with the shadow minister, as I have with his predecessors, to sort out areas in which there can be disagreement from time to time.The shadow minister today raised some issues which he had sought to get publicity for in the press associated with one of the Brisbane refugee support groups and their experience. I spoke to that group some time ago and I said that, if they had specific proposals that they wished to put to me which would enable me to be satisfied that I was not building up a cohort of people who were making work claims and then wanting to stay to pursue those work claims—in other words, we were looking at those people who had legitimate claims that ought to be pursued—I would like to see how they were proposing that I could separate the straw from the chaff. And they have not come back to me on that.There is a campaign under way to try and get work rights for people who are further down the stream. The important thing to remember is that the provisions relating to work rights provide, and the opposition agreed to the original decision that was taken, that if people make their claims for protection visas in Australia within 45 days of arrival—in other words, if they have genuine claims and they come forward and make those claims within 45 days after arrival—they will be able to get permission to work for the time that the application is being considered. I must say that that applies after the six months, because they told us they had sufficient capital to look after themselves for six months when they arrived, so there is six months prohibition and they must make their claim within 45 days.Once they make their claim they will get work rights while that claim is being considered by the department. They will get work rights while it goes to the Refugee Review Tribunal. But, when they go beyond that, the government's view is that the work rights itself had become a major incentive for people to make other claims of a questionable character. What was happening was that there was extensive advertising—and I now have a lot more evidence about what has been going on in my own profession—in all the ethnic papers to get people who are unlawful to come forward to join class actions and to then hang off that an application for work rights. One of the class actions had 2,900 people involved in it.I have a copy of a letter from a very reputable solicitor, well known to us all, I am sure, outlining how not only did he get money in the first instance, which ran into many thousands of dollars from a group of clients, but how he is now going back and saying that if they want to continue he needs more money and indicating in that letter that there will be no accounting for the way in which the money is spent in relation to this claim.I know the profession is worked up about this issue. I ask them to come forward, when I tell them of the problems, with constructive approaches to dealing with them. But the difficulty I have is that they do not come forward with positive and constructive approaches to work through some of these issues.As for the work rights issue, we had a disallowance motion. A member adverted to that before. I have already arranged to introduce for 1 April some amendments to take account of issues that I was cognisant of where our broad brush approach may not have been appropriate for some extenuating circumstances. I am always prepared to look at extenuating circumstances, and I hold that offer out. But we do have a major problem, and that problem is going to grow. The problem is that there are more and more people who are seeking to access Australia and to make these sorts of claims.I want to finish my remarks by commenting on the speech of the member for Batman. It was a very thoughtful speech—it dealt with population issues; it dealt with some principles in relation to the way in which immigration policy should be conducted. In relation to the way in which the program is being conducted, save on the question of population size and the size of the program, I would say that we would be very much ad idem in terms of the remarks he made. If he is speaking for the opposition on these matters, I regard that as a very positive and useful contribution, particularly in speaking about the need for skilled migrants and about that need having primacy: family reunion flows from skilled migrants and ought not to be seen as an end in itself. As to the comments that were made about broader population issues, I will leave it for my consultations which are under way at the moment for people to express views on that and I will have something to say on it later.In conclusion, there was some reference made by the honourable member for Hinkler to the impact of visa fees on tourism. It is very important that people know that there is absolutely no evidence that the $50 visa application fee has caused any fall in the number of visitor visas issued in Australia during 1998. Of Australia's top 20 source countries for visitors, eight had fewer visas issued than in 1997. Of those eight countries, four—Korea, Malaysia, Japan and Sweden—were ETA countries; in other words, no fee was imposed. In those ETA countries there was a fall, in total, of 230,000. In the other four, where fees are imposed—the Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand—there was a fall of only 84,000. It would defy my mind, no matter how nimble at times, to deduce from these figures that there has been any impact of the fee in terms of the reduction. The point I wish to make is that the visa fee has in no way affected the number of visitors coming to Australia as tourists; it has obviously been quite beneficial.In summary, this bill will make some minor technical amendments to the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act 1997—which is the one we are supposed to have been talking about. That act imposes a visa application charge in relation to visa applications and sets a ceiling for that charge. The ceiling may be indexed in accordance with the formula set out in the act. This bill ensures that the consumer price index figure used in that formula is the most current and correct for that purpose. I am glad to hear that the opposition has supported the amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 1.29 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing3117The following answers to questions were circulated:3117(Question No. 81)813117Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November:(1) What Commonwealth funding was provided in each financial year since 2 March 1996 directly to projects or programs for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility operating in the electoral divisions of (a) Prospect, (b) Fowler, (c) Reid, (d) Chifley, (e) Lindsay, (f) Werriwa, (g) Greenway, (h) Blaxland and (i) Parramatta which are aimed at (i) combating or (ii) preventing all facets of the illicit drug trade.(2) With respect to each project referred to in part (1), (a) what is its name, (b) who operates it, (c) what are its aims and objectives, (d) what funding has it received and (e) in what year did Commonwealth funding commence.3117Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Department of Family and Community Services does not fund any projects or programs aimed at combating or preventing facets of the illicit drug trade.(2) Not Applicable.[An error occured in the publication of Question No. 88 (Hansard 11 February 1999, page 2444). The correct answer is as follows]3117(Question No. 88)883117Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(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.(3) How many APS staff were employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in (a) Tuggeranong and (b) Woden on (i) 1 July 1998, (ii) 1 July 1997 and (ii) 1 July 1996.(4) How many (a) Centrelink clients, (b) Youth Allowance recipients, (c) Newstart allowance recipients, (d) family allowance recipients, (e) aged pension and (f) disability allowance recipients resided in the post code areas of (i) 2600, (ii) 2603, (iii) 2605, (iv) 2606, (v) 2607, (vi) 2900, (vii) 2901, (viii) 2902, (ix) 2903, (x) 2904, (xi) 2905 and (xii) 2906 on 1 July 1998.3117Truss, 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 4155Administrative 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 Class158Information 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 122 Senior 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 A5Senior Officer Grade B89Senior Officer Grade C215Senior 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.(3) Staff employed in Centrelink's Customer Service Centres will vary over time in line with customer numbers and other workload variations. Centrelink was established on 1 July 1997.Staffing numbers requested are as follows:1 July 1996Not applicable.1 July 1997Tuggeranong, Centrelink1001 July 1998Tuggeranong, Centrelink.641 July 1996Not applicable1 July 1997Woden, Centrelink251 July 1998Woden, Centrelink55Over this period, the relationships of the offices changed from the `parent' office being Woden in 1996 to Tuggeranong in 1997. By 1998 the status of the offices had changed and they were treated separately.(4) There have been some changes over recent years. Sole Parent Pension has been replaced by Parenting Payment Single from March 1998.The number of recipients in the requested postcode areas by above payments are attached as Table 1.The number of customers per postcode is at Table 2. The customers numbers are an approximation as customers may receive more than one payment.Table 1—The number of recipients in the requested postcode areas by the requested payments as at 5 June 1998POSTCODESPAYMENT TYPES260026032605260626072900Youth Training Allowance 16431942Newstart Allowance14420522542531218Family Allowance35631260944779377Age Pension41546674044480531Disability Support Pension8113915323318312POSTCODESPAYMENT TYPES290129022903290429052906TOTALYouth Training Allowance 021175269126Newstart Allowance25472652428033053493Family Allowance51655105414274091181712643Age Pension15043553606452435009Disability Support Pension02991561453651471913The number of Centrelink customers for the selected postcodes as at 5 June 1998POSTCODESNumber of customers 26001401260314882605243026062095260730012900221290113290248332903299129043666290510210290644243121(Question No. 263)2633121McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) What Commonwealth funding was provided in each financial year since 2 March 1996 directly to projects or programs for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility operating in the electoral divisions of (a) Barton, (b) Watson, (c) Banks, (d) Hughes and (e) Cook which are aimed at (i) combating or (ii) preventing all facets of the illicit drug trade.(2) With respect to each project or program referred to in part (1), (a) what is its name, (b) who operates it, (c) what are the aims and objectives, (d) what funding has it received and (e) in what year did Commonwealth funding commence.3122Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Department of Family and Community Services does not fund any projects or programs aimed at combating or preventing facets of the illicit drug trade.(2) Not Applicable.