1999-03-083912REPS329101999-03-08Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees32913291329112:31:003291Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the committee's interim report on the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 1997-98, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This is the first report of the new economics committee to be tabled in this parliament. I am pleased that it deals with one of our most important and successful financial institutions—the Reserve Bank of Australia. The report addresses significant aspects of monetary policy and some other features of the operations of the bank as discussed between the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the committee at a public hearing in Melbourne on 15 December last year. That hearing was one of our biennial meetings with the bank to discuss such matters.To date, the Australian economy has fared a lot better during the recent financial crisis than many other countries in Asia and the Pacific rim. Over the past year, we have had a growth rate of 4.7 per cent, with inflation still low at two per cent. This growth rate has exceeded most expectations.While unemployment is still too high—as we know, 7½ per cent in January this year—and the most recent data puts the current account deficit at five per cent of gross domestic product in the last four quarters, nonetheless the Australian economy has still done very well. This is in part attributable to the astute performance of the Reserve Bank on the exchange rate. The bank's steady, deliberative approach to monetary policy has indeed paid off.Australia's and the bank's achievement during the financial crisis are being recognised worldwide. As Professor Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said recently:Australia . . . is the miracle economy of the world financial crises—However, this good performance should not lead to complacency as the impact of the crisis is far from over.In our report we discuss those matters in more detail, together with issues that include the differences between the business cycles of Australia and the United States; declining prospects for growth in the Australian economy in 1999; the risk of deflation; the Reserve Bank's positive view of the impact of tax reform on the Australian economy and its comments on the GST; some possible solutions to the unemployment problem; forecasting errors by the bank; and the process of opening to competition the bank's monopoly in banking services to Commonwealth government agencies and departments. We also look at the impact for Australia of the recent introduction of the euro, and progress by the Reserve Bank and other financial institutions in dealing with the looming year 2000 problem.While all those issues are important, I want to focus on two critical issues today: the growing impact of hedge funds and rising bank fees and charges. Firstly, the hedge funds matter is of great concern to national and international financial regulators and governments. Hedge funds have generated a new source of financial instability in the world economy. They basically use borrowed money to bet on movements in financial prices. They bet on a particular currency or bond or stock price, using hedge instruments such as futures and sometimes options contracts. While hedge funds are mainly American, work by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has revealed Australian banks also have exposure in this area. This is via lending and as the counterparty to a swap transaction, particularly a foreign currency swap transaction.The committee, together with a bank and many other groups, supports three lines of action on hedge funds. These are: firstly, finding out how large the hedge funds are, both on and off the balance sheet; secondly, banks reviewing their relationships with hedge funds which in some cases appear to have become quite incestuous; and, thirdly, bringing hedge funds into the disclosure net and possibly the supervision net.The second issue I want to discuss is rising bank fees and charges. This is a matter of critical concern to the community. The committee is particularly concerned about the net effect on the costs of banking for the customer of lower interest rates coupled with higher bank fees and charges. At the hearing the Reserve Bank reported that, even though fees have gone up in absolute terms, they have not risen nearly as much as community perceptions would imply as a percentage of the balance sheets of the banks.The Reserve Bank has estimated that the cut in interest margins, which has been very significant over the last few years, would outweigh the rise in fees, particularly taking into account the fact that many people have the ability to shift from one product to another. The committee is not totally satisfied with this explanation and has asked the Reserve Bank to prepare a detailed history of changes in bank fees and charges over the past 20 years so some comparisons can be made. We also intend to have a good look at the high interest rates on credit cards when we meet with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission later this year.The committee will continue to monitor these two issues and other matters and will follow them up with the governor at our next hearing with him, to be held on 6 May in Melbourne. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Reserve Bank, especially the governor, Mr Ian Macfarlane. I would also like to thank our secretariat staff, who worked very hard for the committee, in particular, Bev Forbes and Chris Paterson, who with their assistance to this inquiry have provided a tremendous amount of support.I would also like to particularly thank all the members of the committee for their contributions to the hearing and for this interim report. I am grateful to see so many members of the committee in the chamber today. I believe that the cooperative, bipartisan way in which the members have approached the work on this parliamentary committee has shown how a parliamentary committee in fact can work at its best. I commend the report to the House.12:38:003292Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I am pleased to associate myself with the report and the work of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. I join with its chairman, the member for Wannon, in recognising that the Reserve Bank of Australia has performed well in the management of monetary conditions, and also that the bank has shown leadership in terms of the reforms needed for effective international economic governance, particularly in the light of circumstances in Asia.I disagree with government members on the committee on two items. The first is that I believe that the Reserve Bank and, in particular, its governor need to be more active in outlining an aggressive agenda for improved national savings in Australia. I do not share the triumphalism of government members that all is sweet with the Australian economy. Our national savings performance is still poor and I believe the Reserve Bank could do more in edging the government forward on that agenda. I raised at the committee meeting, as I have many times previously, my argument with the governor that he, like Bernie Fraser, needs to be active in the debate about national savings policy. I am still waiting for the speech the governor has consistently promised on national savings, so we can see the sorts of recommendations he would put forward for the agenda of the federal government.I notice that the triumphalism of government members is somewhat captured by the quote used in the report from Professor Paul Krugman:Australia, in case you didn't know, is the miracle economy of the world financial crisis.He then talks about how it is now the policy of the Reserve Bank to take much more of these international pressures on our currency, instead of being active on monetary policy adjustments. Professor Krugman goes on to point out:The result was that while export prices plunged in US dollars, they held up in local currency, and strong domestic demand kept the economy humming.One thing about economic policy and data is that it is a movable feast, and the information since the report was put together and the comments of Professor Krugman show that Australia's terms of trade have weakened by six per cent in the last 12 months. This is not so much of a miracle that we are talking about but an apparition.You need to appreciate, in terms of those comments by Professor Krugman, that he is saying that our export prices held up in the local currency. To my knowledge, Australia does not export to itself. That seems to be a contradictory statement from the good professor.What we have got, with the release of the recent national account data, is an all too familiar Australian story. I think we need to have a word of caution about this claim of a miracle economy and look at some of the facts that have arisen with the release of the data last week. This is a familiar Australian story in many ways—an economic boom all set up for a bust: strong growth driven by consumer spending instead of business investment; spending itself driven by debt instead of accumulated savings; production in the Australian economy driven by imports growth, not export opportunities—and I mentioned earlier that six per cent decline in Australia's terms of trade over the last 12 months—and of course, as part of this familiar story, a federal government unable to lift national savings.I fear what we are seeing in Australia in the late 1990s is a replay of circumstances from the late 1980s. That was the time when the twin deficits theory was in place: the belief that if you lowered or wiped out the federal government deficit you would also lower or wipe out the current account deficit of the national economy. We have seen this government cut savagely into government outlays and we hear the triumphalism of the Treasurer in the claim of a budget surplus, but still the current account deficit has grown. It is out to 5.4 per cent of Australian GDP and rising—rising to what is normally recognised as the danger mark of six per cent of GDP. So it is a replay of the failure of the twin deficits theory; a replay of history from the late 1980s. Sure, the federal budget has been turned to surplus; but the current account deficit has increased, not fallen as the twin deficits theory would have argued.These are dangerous times for the Australian economy, dangerous times indeed. While the report recognises the good performance of the Reserve Bank of Australia in the past period, I think that performance will be tested and greater challenges issued to the bank, in its management of monetary conditions over the next 12 months. The truth for this country is fairly simple. A small trading nation with weak national savings cannot grow faster than its trading partners without blowing out the current account deficit. This is the challenge the bank will have to face. (Time expired)12:43:003293Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—When I rise today in the parliament, I cannot help remarking on the comments made by the member for Werriwa, who talks about triumphalism on the side of the government. It is not triumphalism to be proud of the fact that this government has made such significant reforms and changes to the economic base of this country that we are in the terrific economic state that we are in today. It is not triumphalism to make those comments. It is simply a statement of fact.I was also surprised that perhaps the member for Werriwa is becoming the new Cassandra of the Labor Party and replacing Peter Walsh, who used to fulfil that role for the Labor Party throughout the 1980s, because of his own seeming role that he plays in the Labor Party on the opposition side. He seems to often represent a very small group of people in this parliament with his views. In fact, some would say that he represents only his own views in the Labor Party.On this side of the House, we are most disappointed that the member for Werriwa is not being given greater coverage and promotion in the Labor Party. Obviously, the member for Kingsford-Smith also believes that the member for Werriwa should be more highly promoted, and I would agree with him.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect. The member for Sturt will return to commenting on the report.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Certainly, Mr Speaker. I was just commenting on the support we have for the member for Werriwa. We were delighted by his speech; we are just sorry that he is more of a Cassandra than we would like.The Reserve Bank report is a marvellous document because it indicates in black and white that the Reserve Bank strongly endorses the government's economic panaceas for the ills that were created through the 1970s and the 1980s, firstly by the Whitlam government and then by the Hawke and Keating governments. It sets out in great detail the very great benefits that Australia's success is bringing, the 4.75 per cent growth rate—an enormous achievement—which, back in November 1998 when we met with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, was in fact four per cent.The report goes through some of the reasons why we are experiencing such high growth and why our economy is so robust. It talks about things like the cyclical good shape of the economy and the flexibility of exporters in Australia these days being able to shift easily from Asian markets, which were previously the destination of their goods and services, to North American and European markets, where those economies are still robust and still able to take our exports. That shift was possible because of the flexibility that we managed to bring into the system.It also comments about the achievement of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in the last 2½ to three years in bringing about a budget surplus, which almost all commentators would agree—as I am sure would the member for Werriwa—was the main reason why we have weathered so strongly the financial storm that swept through Asia last year. If we had been running deficit budgets, as we had been doing under the Labor Party, I think we would have been in serious financial strife. Fortunately, because of our capacity and our economic sense, we have delivered surplus budgets and put our economy in very good shape.The report talks about low interest rates—another achievement of this government—and the fact that businesses can now borrow money at rates where they will be able to get a good return. There is more certainty about interest rates for now and in the future. These days you can get five-year, fixed term interest rates for housing, which brings about stability in the economic system. The report talks about the Australian dollar being allowed to float downwards during the crisis last year. The Reserve Bank very astutely dealt with those problems rather than overreacting, as did some economies throughout the world. Our Reserve Bank was calm and measured in its response to the Asian financial crisis. As a consequence, we are bearing the benefits of that now.The statement by Professor Krugman about Australia being the miracle economy of the world, which I am sure will be quoted by many members of the government in the future, sums up the enormous achievements of the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the government in putting Australia in such a strong position. This report sums up all those issues and goes through many other issues in more detail, which I cannot cover in five minutes.I congratulate the chairman and the secretariat for their help. We will meet again with the Governor of the Reserve Bank in May. No doubt we will review again the economic state of Australia. We look forward to reporting on that at a future time.12:48:003294Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I am very proud to have made a contribution to this report. The six-monthly appearances by the Governor of the Reserve Bank before the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration are an effective way for the committee to report on the conduct of the Reserve Bank and of monetary policy. It also provides an opportunity for the Governor of the Reserve Bank to provide information to the parliament, to the financial sector and to the community. This report covers a six-month period from May to November 1998. It was a very important period in that it dealt with the run on the Australian dollar and the continuing Asian crisis. The report gives the reasons why Australia has weathered the Asian crisis so well.In summary, those points are, firstly, that the Australian economy was already in very good shape when the Asian crisis began; secondly, that exporters were able to shift from Asian markets to those in North America and Europe; thirdly, that the financial system accounting rule, in almost world's best practice, and the budget being brought back into surplus gave a clear message that the government was in control of economic management and was managing the economy well; fourthly, that productivity is rising faster in the 1990s than it was in the previous decade; and, fifthly, that the floating exchange rate has allowed, in response to the run on the Australian dollar, the exchange rate to drop.We have already heard the quote from Professor Krugman in which he stated, `Australia is the miracle economy of the world financial crisis.' He makes two points there: firstly, that the Reserve Bank is independent and, secondly, that the Reserve Bank is following a policy of steadiness in monetary policy. That is not universal among the world's central banks. I will speak a little about steadiness of the monetary policy.Concerning the independence of the Reserve Bank, when this government came to power in 1996 we said that we would have an exchange of letters between the governor and the Treasurer to make sure that the Reserve Bank was independent. Those measures were opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. It goes back to an earlier time when Paul Keating, at a press conference in February 1989, said about the Reserve Bank that, `They do what I do.' In December 1990, he said at a supposedly private dinner that he had the Reserve Bank, among others, in his pocket. Those two comments did enormous damage to the international reputation of the Reserve Bank, giving the notion that the Reserve Bank was not independent of the government. This government has made it very clear that the Reserve Bank and its governor are independent of the government.The Australian economy has exceeded all expectations. The gross domestic product grew by 4.7 per cent in the December quarter, that is, at a time when the global economy is in a production recession. Japan is growing at minus 2.6 per cent, the UK is growing at 1.3 per cent and Germany is growing at 2.8 per cent. In no small part, the Reserve Bank of Australia should take some credit for Australia being in such a strong position; that has been anecdotal evidence from several academics, as well as the opinion of the committee.We should look at how we performed in that May to November period compared with other countries. New Zealand operated on a monetary conditions index. They raised interest rates. The MCI has not served them well. They will now be not following that any more. Canada raised interest rates in response to a run on their currency; they raised them two per cent, from memory. That has not served them well.Running through other economic things, we could touch on things like inflation, the Prime Minister's task force on international reform and also the fact that banks need to review their relations with hedge funds. On tax reform the governor stated that in the long run tax reform has to have a good effect and he also expected the rising prices to be a one-off and not built into expectations. After all, this had not occurred in the 1970s and 1980s when most countries introduced a GST or a VAT, and that is when inflation was much higher. He also pointed out that in unemployment macro-economic management can only do so much. Australia has grown much faster than the US in the 1990s, yet their unemployment sits between four and five per cent. Ours has not dropped by nearly so much. So structural changes have to be made and the government is well placed to do it. The opposition, with their monopoly by trade union officials, will find it difficult. (Time expired)12:53:003295Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I seek leave to make a further statement in connection with this report.Leave granted.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I thank the chamber; it helps to even out some of the debating time across the chamber, given the fact that the member for Isaacs is away on sick leave.I was pointing out earlier that Australia's main economic problem is the paucity of national savings. A small trading nation with weak national savings cannot grow faster than its trading partners without blowing out its current account deficit. The national account figures released recently show that Australia's household savings ratio has fallen to its lowest ever level. This highlights the failing of the federal government to develop a private savings policy for the economy. They have said a lot about public savings but, again, the twin deficits theory has not held up and the fall in public sector dissaving has not been associated with a fall in the current account deficit; in fact, quite the opposite.This problem with the current account and national savings will place a lot of pressure on the Reserve Bank in the coming 12 months. It will be under pressure to keep monetary conditions relatively tight. Yet this is at a time when there is international speculation about deflation across the world economy. Anyone reading the recent report of the Economist magazine would be worried about the spectre of deflation in the world economy, particularly when, because of Australia's problems, we need to keep monetary conditions relatively tight. We need to keep an eye out for the current account deficit, its impact on the currency and the flowing impact to the rate of inflation.If I can just correct the member for Boothby on one point: if he goes back and reads recent speeches of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Macfarlane, he will see recognition that the independence of the bank was established under the Hawke and Keating governments, and all the exchange of letters under this government achieved was to formalise those independent arrangements. I think during the election campaign—maybe the member missed it because he had so many obligations in his own electorate—Mr Macfarlane gave a speech reflecting on the recent history of monetary policy in Australia. He made it very clear that the independence of the bank and its international reputation was established under the Hawke and Keating governments and that the exchange of letters has only formalised that arrangement.Dr Southcott interjecting—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Don't interrupt. I will pay this tribute to the Treasurer, though: I was always under the impression that he was too silly to come up with the idea of the exchange of letters but, from our committee hearing with the governor, it was clear that it was the initiative of the government. I will pay them tribute for that but it was an initiative that served only to formalise the arrangements and independence established during the time of Treasurer Keating. Paul Keating always claimed to have a lot in his pockets and I would not put too much weight on that statement about the Reserve Bank, given the historical record that has now been put down by the governor, Mr Macfarlane.This is a dangerous time for the economy. Those things need to be acknowledged in this useful debate about the committee's report. I know the government members over there, particularly that master of factional intrigue, the member for Sturt, have to say the things that they parrot out in these sorts of debates, but the balance, I think, reflects some of the concerns for the future and shows that the Australian economy has a long way to go.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?3296Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Bills3297r7163297Bill presented by Mrs Crosio.12:57:003297Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In March 1998, I introduced into this parliament a private member's bill—the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998. It aimed to guarantee the wages and entitlements of workers in the event of their employer's insolvency, by requiring employers to participate in a wage protection insurance scheme. Despite the fact that many of the high profile insolvency cases last year provided perfect examples of why a scheme such as mine, or one similar, was needed in this country, my bill received no support from the government.Today I reintroduce the same piece of legislation, the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1999 , to once again illustrate the pressing need for wage earner protection legislation in this country and to hopefully reignite the debate. As I said in my second reading speech last year, guaranteeing workers' entitlements is one of the most important social reforms yet to be undertaken by an Australian government.Australia is the only country in the developed world without, at least in some parts of its borders, a system that either guarantees workers' entitlements against an employer's insolvency or provides them with the utmost priority against all other creditors. And yet, despite the obvious need for action on this issue, over the last 12 months the response from the government has been uninspiring, to say the least.Apart from rejecting my previous bill, it has dithered between initiating a lukewarm process of consultation on the issue, crowing about how the current set of laws offer sufficient protection for workers and blaming the previous Labor government for not doing enough. On 1 May 1998, the 59th Labour Ministers Council in Wellington considered the issue of protecting workers' entitlements in the event of employer insolvency. The LMC referred the matter to the Department of Labour Advisory Committee, DOLAC, to prepare a report on the matter. DOLAC's report was presented to the LMC on 27 November last year and has in turn been referred to the Ministerial Council for Corporations, MinCo, along with a similar report on the matter prepared by the New South Wales government. But, as to whether these reports will prod the government into some action, I am not overly optimistic.The DOLAC report makes no firm recommendations to the government on what action it should pursue. It simply considers all the options open to the Commonwealth and gauges the support of each from various interested bodies, such as the Business Council of Australia, the ACCI and the ACTU.Unlike the DOLAC report, the New South Wales government in its submission recommends the Commonwealth adopt a wage-earner protection fund. More importantly it states:It is not suggested that Australia wait the approximate 18 months it might take to establish a system for the collection and analysis of information about lost employee entitlements but proceed to establish without delay a fund to pay unpaid employee entitlements.It is untenable that Australia continues to fail to develop and implement a scheme to meet the serious industrial and social difficulties that arise in practical terms on a regular basis. To maintain a void in this area is in stark contrast to most of the world's developed nations with which we are often compared.Elsewhere the report outlines how immediate action is possible and how it can be taken, and yet the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business said recently, `The problem is a complex one where countervailing policy considerations require prudent assessment,' which is his code for saying, `Nothing will be done for a very long time.'The very fact that there are differing views and approaches on behalf of the states and territories on this issue is all the more reason the federal government must take a leading role and actively put forward its own solution to this problem. As yet, it has not done so. Neither the Prime Minister nor the minister have even indicated that they will pursue any of the available options should the Labour Ministers Council put them forward at the end of this whole consultation and revision process. It is no wonder.Last year we heard the Prime Minister go on about the success of the Australian Securities Commission in securing for the Cobar miners 85 cents in the dollar of the moneys owed to them by the mining giant, Ashanti. The general tone of the Prime Minister's comments was that he believed the present system worked because the ASC had been able to get the majority of the money owed back to the miners. But the system does not work. Those familiar with the Cobar case know that the Australian Securities Commission had little or no impact when it came to the workers actually receiving the money owed to them.The Prime Minister has also made baseless accusations concerning Labor's supposed unwillingness to address this problem during its 13 years in government. Well, he is now in government and it is up to this government to act. Many important and commendable reforms have taken place. For instance, in 1993 we put the rights of the workers ahead of the taxation department as unsecured creditors. But it is not enough. It is now up to the government of the present day to recognise the importance of protecting workers' entitlements and to pursue further solutions.On behalf of the thousands of workers who are left high and dry by their employers' insolvencies each year, I say to the Prime Minister: take my bill, adapt it as you see fit, or even introduce your own legislation but, for God's sake, do something. The opposition stands ready and willing to support you in finding a solution to this problem. Until this reform is made, ordinary Australian workers and their families will continue to be failed by a system that they look to for justice, for fairness and for equity. Let us still not be debating this issue a year from now because of lack of interest or action on behalf of the Commonwealth. There must be no more procrastination; the security of Australian workers depends on it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member's time has expired. 7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Leave granted.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Bill read a first time.UNKNOWNCrosio, Janice, MPMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business3298329813:04:003298Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—It gives me great pleasure 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.I rise today to clearly say, as I think will all members of the House who have the opportunity to speak on this motion, that I believe this motion goes to the heart of today's Australian society. It is a proposition that will attract support on both sides of the House.I say this because, in this year of celebrating the 50th anniversary of Australian citizenship, we can look back with considerable pride at what has been achieved by our postwar immigrants and what we have become as a nation with the assistance of their input. Australian citizenship to me is the sum of what Australia is: it is the history, the legends, the myths and the shibboleths that hold us together. It is what I was born with—my right to be an Australian. To those not born in this country, it is the recognition of a new way of life, a wonderful way of life and the way of life that attracted many of them to Australia. It may represent an ideal, an escape from terror and persecution, a chance to live, a chance for their children, a chance for peace and harmony, or just the opportunity to improve one's position and to have an even better lifestyle. Whatever the reasons, the ideals and the dreams will all come together as part of the Australian way of life—a lifestyle often underrated by those born in this country but a dream to aspire to by many who merely seek to rebuild their lives in our peaceful and accommodating land.We are one of the most multicultural nations on this planet. Apart from the original inhabitants, whom we have treated so shamefully in the past, we are all immigrants to this country; it is just a matter of which wave we came on. Immigrants created this country. Its culture and character has been a reflection of the predominant groupings of the time. We have seen a changing society due to the influences of these different waves.The celebration of the 50th anniversary of Australian citizenship acknowledges the success of our postwar immigration policy and the massive contribution these people have made to the economic and social fabric of this country. It recognises Australia as one of the world's most successful multicultural societies, a success constantly underlined when we read of the social and racial unrest in many parts of the world.There are people in this country who have tried to destabilise and disrupt that harmony. There are people who are xenophobic. There are people who feel some disquiet because ignorance breeds fear. There are people who are outright racists. But these people are in the minority. Mainstream Australia has seen the benefits of immigration policies and has accepted the racial and religious mix that makes our nation so vibrant today. The issue of immigration is once again being debated in the public arena, this time relating to the numbers and mix of our annual intake. I believe such debate is healthy and desirable, as long as we are considering the long-term impact and benefits to this country.In this anniversary year, we need to be promoting the benefits of Australian citizenship. We want those who have lived here for years to make that commitment. We want citizenship to mean something and to be taken up with pride—a conscious and deliberate decision to become a citizen of Australia.For people to respond in this way, we must maintain the integrity of the system. It must not be brought into disrepute, it must be fair and equitable and there can be no queue jumping. A tightening of our defences against illegal immigration, so often used to exploit or get economic benefit from desperate people, must be pursued. Our laws must be fair and accessible.I commend the motion to the House and extend the invitation to all eligible residents to take the opportunity, this anniversary year, to become proud citizens of Australia. Make that statement this anniversary year and take up the opportunity that Australia presents in citizenship. In doing so, I believe people can make a clear statement of support for the sentiments that will be expressed in this House today that not only should we celebrate the 50th year of Australian citizenship, but also that we should build on the success of our postwar immigration program.Those who, for whatever reason, have failed to take up the opportunity to become Australian citizens should stamp their support for the Australian way of life—that sense of participation in the Australian way of life—by making a very clear statement not only that they have benefited from the Australian way of life but also that they now want to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Australian citizenship by becoming Australian citizens.I end on this point: let us also ensure that we recognise, in the preamble to our Constitution, the importance of multiculturalism to our society. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:09:003299Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—I wish to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Batman. The 50th anniversary of a distinctive Australian citizenship is something that we should all celebrate. The motion correctly acknowledges the success of postwar immigration policy and the massive contribution it has made to Australia.In 1948, when the Nationality and Citizenship Bill was passed, there were 7.7 million Australians. Today, Australia's population is some 18.7 million people strong. We are today, as an Australian state and an Australian nation, vastly stronger than we would have been had we not embarked on the enormously successful adventure of mass migration into our country.This adventure was, I am pleased to say, an exercise in bipartisanship. The program of mass migration was begun by the Labor Party and continued by the Liberal Party and the coalition during its unparalleled period of political ascendancy in Australia. The result is that over the last half century Australia has become a home and a nation for five million immigrants from over 130 countries. Almost 40 per cent of our population are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, and almost half of those are immigrants or their children from non-English speaking countries.I agree entirely with the motion's recognition of the fact that we live in one of the world's most harmonious multicultural societies, because it is a fact. Part of the reason that we live in such a society is the policy of multiculturalism and the recognition and respect for ethnic diversity within the concept of an overriding commitment to Australia.I would like to quote from my first speech in this parliament because the passage of time has served to commit me further to what I said then:I am proud to be a member of the party which enthusiastically implemented the mass immigration program of the 1950s and liberalised Australia's discriminatory immigration policy.I do believe that the Liberals and, indeed, all of us can take great pride in the Fraser government's courage in replacing the discredited assimilationism with the recognition that national cohesion is best attained through accepting and endorsing diversity within a framework of shared fundamental Australian values. As I reflect on the immensity of successive waves of migration into this country over the last half century and the changes in the composition of the intake, I have to say that I am genuinely in awe of the astonishing ability of our society to make all this a success. There have always been problems, pain, hardships and controversies, and these will always be there. But cutting through all this is the overwhelming reality that our postwar experience with migration has been uniquely successful, and Australia is a stronger nation because of this. This achievement is in part a reflection of the calibre and quality of those who migrate and their capacity to contribute and to commit themselves to Australia, but it is also, importantly, a reflection of the calibre and quality of Australian society.People often debate Australia's identity and I am sure that debate will continue for a long time. But for me, at least, some of the key components of our national identity are openness, tolerance, acceptance and an incredibly strong belief that everyone has the right to a fair go. It is these qualities—that some people mistakenly interpret as simple easygoingness—that are the bedrock of values that have made Australia a decent and attractive society and that have made so many people come here.I would like to conclude by saying that I believe Australian citizenship is uniquely valuable. I believe that it has been made more accessible to immigrants because we now recognise that people can be Australians in the best and fullest sense of the word, while retaining an affection for their country of origin and maintaining valued aspects of their heritage within an overriding commitment to Australia's interests and a framework of shared fundamental Australian values.I believe that this makes us a better, stronger nation, and I do endorse the motion's encouragement to people who have not yet become citizens to take out citizenship in the 50th anniversary year of Australian citizenship. I say this because I believe that taking out citizenship will benefit those who do so and, if they do make a commitment to Aus tralia, I believe our nation will benefit from their commitment.13:14:003301Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I rise to support the motion and I endorse everything my colleague the member for Batman said when he moved the motion on Australian citizenship. I also congratulate the member for Kooyong on his forthright statements over recent days with respect to the whole issue of cultural diversity and immigration. He knows what he is talking about—perhaps not with everything, but certainly with respect to that—and I endorse his remarks wholeheartedly.Over recent weeks I myself have made a number of statements about our country's future, about migration and about the need to have a vision that will see Australia continue to blossom as an influential nation not only in our region but also around the world, and not just over the next couple of years but over the next 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years. For a migrant, becoming an Australian citizen is the culmination of a long journey, often begun under very difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances. Being welcomed and accepted by their new country has a special meaning to a migrant: its signals a new beginning and a new life, embracing new laws, new customs, new rights and new responsibilities.It is with this in mind that I echo what many Australians may think: becoming an Australian citizen not only may have become too easy but, more importantly, also may have lost some of its meaning, being viewed by some as little more than bureaucratic process. I only bring this negative element into the debate on a very good motion on the basis that citizenship, in this year of citizenship, should be strengthened to the point where it means exactly what it says, that you become a citizen and that you give your oath of allegiance to this country for better or worse. It is something that we need to be looking at.As we enter the new millennium as a more culturally diverse country than ever before, we need to reaffirm our unity and our pride in our country. As a welcoming nation, the best way to do that is to place more value and more significance on the privilege—not the right, but the privilege—of becoming an Australian citizen. Again, we can use this 50th anniversary of citizenship to look at ways and means of doing that, and I understand that, to its credit, the present government is at the moment waiting upon discussion papers or a report from the Citizenship Council.I will give you an example of this idea. In the United States, to become a citizen a person must be a permanent resident for five years. To become a British citizen, one has to be a permanent resident for five years. Again, to become a Canadian citizen, a person must be a permanent resident for three years. In Australia, we ask our migrants to be present in the country for at least two of the previous five years. I believe that that should be looked at.Once again, comparing requirements for citizenship in those nations we consider to be our peers, both the United States and Canada require their migrants to pass civics tests that will ensure that, once citizens, the migrants will have an understanding of the history, principles, geography and government processes of their new countries. We only require a language test and a basic understanding of the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. Again, when compared with our peers, we could probably do a little better. I do not mean this as criticism. It has been something that we have been doing across all spectrums of political parties over many years.When reading our peers' oaths of allegiance, I feel that maybe it is time for us to strengthen our words. The feelings and thoughts that we have put in ours are a bit different. For instance, the United States oath requires their citizens to bear faith and allegiance to their constitution and laws and not just to obey them. It requires them to perform work of national importance, if called upon, and to fight for their freedom and make the ultimate sacrifice if their nation is at risk. The Canadian oath similarly calls their new citizens to defend their democratic values and to fulfil duties and obligations as Canadian citizens.These are all words and thoughts that capture the minds of new migrants and capture the spirit and essence of what their new life would be like, what they could expect and, indeed, what is expected of them. Above all, they make migrants proud of having chosen their new country and make them feel part of a family, their new family. I am saying that we should be looking at that, and I call upon the Citizenship Council to look at ways and means of perhaps making it a little harder to gain citizenship, so that it can mean more for migrants.Then mainstream Australia will understand that a migration program as vibrant as the one we have had in this country now for so many years under successive governments, and the cultural diversity that we have in this country, are not something that can be taken for granted. It has been good for this country, as the motion says; but more importantly it also places obligations upon those that come here to become good and true citizens of this country. We can do that by strengthening the provisions of the oath, by ensuring that migrants are educated and that they know what the position is. I fully support the motion in all other respects. (Time expired)13:19:003302Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I also support the motion moved by the member for Batman on Australian citizenship. It is a timely motion, and I congratulate the member for Batman for bringing it forward. I also congratulate the member for Kooyong on his contribution, and the member for Bowman on much of what he had to say. I do so from a background of 155 years of family history in this country. We are a nation of migrants, and so I will stretch it back to Ardee, County Louth in the 1840s to state that I too am from the loin of migrant stock.What we have put together in this country is really a miracle and I do not think we should ever undervalue exactly what we now have as a nation in 1999. We have drawn together people from so many disparate backgrounds and brought them here with the challenge to be good Australians—first and foremost, to put aside the differences that they had in their old countries. We have really challenged Australians in the broad to judge each other by the calibre of their character, as Martin Luther King said, and not by any other definition. We have survived the challenges in more recent years extremely well as a nation. Looking at the second verse of our national anthem—`For those who've come from across the sea, we've boundless plains to share; with courage let us all combine to advance Australia fair'—those words in themselves state that the ambition that we talk about so much today in this multicultural nation of ours has in fact been a long held ambition, and those words recognise that people have come here from various nations.Last week in my own electorate, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, visited and embarked upon consultations with the broad community about the shape and size of the migration program for the next year or two. He is having those consultations right around the country. We held a function on Tuesday night, and it was an amazing event. We had people from the Laotian community, the Cambodian community and the Vietnamese community—all sitting at one table, I must add. The Eritrean and Ethiopian communities were represented. They also were sitting at one table, yet in their own countries the genocide and conflict continue. The Bosnians, Serbians and Croatians of this nation are also putting aside their differences. The people who come from mainland China and from the Republic of China on Taiwan also work together as good Australians. And, of course, the traditional conflicts between the Turks and the Greeks have been put aside.So I think the integrity of the system has been maintained by the fact that people have taken up the challenge to be good Australians and put aside those traditional differences. And why? Because the system itself maintains the importance of the integrity of the system as its number one task. We ensure that: criminal and health checks are in place to make sure we are getting the very best of migrants from whichever country they come. Those who make the big decision to move to Australia are well supported by systems in this nation; rights are extended to the citizens of this country, whether they are newer or older generations of citizens, and everyone is treated the same; and they go on to be good Australians. The new citizens do so with such enthusiasm that it is inspiring, especially to watch some of the newer Australians who have come from war-torn countries like the Horn of Africa. I am sure those people wake up every morning and smell freedom, not burning flesh, and that is why they go on to be good Australians.The responsibility of the conduct of Australians is not lost on those new Australians. I think they understand that we have a nation with a rule of law which governs our processes, where democracy is guaranteed and enforced, and where we have freedom of speech. Yes, we do have some awkward downsides to freedom of speech. On some occasions we find what some people say upsetting and disappointing. But the freedom to say it is there. We have laws which support minorities and do not condemn them to prosecution in the way they do in some of the nations these people have come from. We must all understand that for some newer Australians it takes time to get used to these systems, as the member for Bowman said.I know a lot of Australians were dismayed by the public protests of the Kurdish community. I understand why people have the passion to get upset about things that have occurred in what was their country. But they all have to understand that what is at stake is the importance of the Australian system. This nation is building itself into the number one nation in the world. I will paraphrase what President Clinton said, when he sat near where you are sitting now, Mr Deputy Speaker, when he was here a few years ago, `This simply is the best nation in the world, where people from all ethnic origins are given the same rights and freedoms as each other. Everybody is treated the same.' I think all in this place should celebrate the fact that both sides of politics can join together on this motion. (Time expired)13:24:003303Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I too welcome the opportunity to endorse the member for Batman's motion on the 50th anniversary of Australian citizenship, and I congratulate him on putting it forward. What institution better exemplifies the generosity of spirit and tolerance found in Australia than that of Australian citizenship? Similarly, what institution has delivered greater stability and unity to the people of this nation than Australian citizenship?Migrants from every nation on earth have come to this country seeking to make a new life for themselves and their families. Some have come out of choice; some have come fleeing persecution or war and upheaval in their country of birth. All migrants have been welcomed here. This country was built through no small part on their hard work and sacrifice.Since 1949, Australian citizenship has drawn together all those diverse cultures and beliefs and given them a common goal, a strength of purpose. It is one of the foundation stones of this country and we rightly celebrate its 50th anniversary this year.Over the last three years, it seems to me that Australia has found itself at a crossroads—struggling to balance an identity with which it is comfortable and justifiably proud with new responsibilities and new expectations of its role in a rapidly changing and sometimes volatile world. I cannot remember a time during my 28 years in public life when more people have asked me about where I thought this country was going, and if in fact it was heading in the right direction.It was a result of this communal anxiety that we were forced to witness one of the ugliest debates of recent times when, after the 1996 election, questions were raised not about the benefits or structure of this country's immigration program but largely about which races we should let into this country and which ones we should keep out, about whether certain races were considered suitable to settle in Australia while others were not—a wholly unacceptable and obscene proposition.Many people suggested—and still do—that the remedy for Australia's uncertainty lay in us shutting ourselves off from the rest of the world; that we should close our doors and wash our hands of our international responsibilities—an exercise that would be as foolhardy as it would be both morally and economically disastrous. As long as Australia maintains its position as a conscientious and dedicated member of the international community we are destined to remain immersed in a cycle of change.Change naturally brings concern. It brings uncertainty and it undoubtedly brings challenges, but it can also bring benefits beyond our imagination. I believe that by holding on to the things that have helped us weather storms in previous years—the institutions that have shaped our national identity—we will rise above these challenges, these concerns, and benefit from change rather than letting it weaken us. Undoubtedly, Australian citizenship has been one such steadying and unifying institution.Australian citizenship allows us to be proud of our diversity, while at the same time binding us together so that, while we may be diverse, we are never divided as a society. Without the encompassing arms of citizenship, the 130 different nationalities that make up my electorate would be just that: 130 separate, exclusive groups. Australian citizenship is the adhesive of our community.Critics of Australia's immigration program have said that it is sowing the seeds for future social upheaval in this country, yet in fact the contrary is the case. Since Australia's immigration program began in earnest following the end of World War II, we have suffered neither permanent social upheaval nor dislocation as a result of the level or make-up of our immigration intake. This is despite over five million people out of our present population of 18 million having arrived from overseas. That has got to be a success story in anyone's book.Without a doubt, immigration has brought revolutionary change, but we have weathered it or, more to the point, we have embraced it, because we have been confident in the strength that Australian citizenship has delivered to this country. Can you imagine what Australia would be like without the contribution of those five million migrants and the generations that have succeeded them? Can you imagine what it would be like if we had not taken these people in?Our country is a testimony to the triumph of multiculturalism, a term that has unfortunately become a dirty word for some. It has been a success because we have remained open to the outside world, to new ideas, to new people. It has been a success because we recognised the importance of forging a balance between multiculturalism and the institution we celebrate today—Australian citizenship.Australia expects from all of its citizens a loyalty to the country's interests and its future, and an acceptance of the basic structures and principles of our society. In return, Australia ensures freedom from discrimination and equality of opportunity.We all want to progress and achieve, but we can only do that together, as citizens, as Australians. I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Batman's views that we should do all we can to encourage those permanent residents among us to truly become part of the fabric of this nation and join us Australian citizens. The more citizens we have, the stronger we will be as a nation and the better we will face the challenges ahead.13:29:003304Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—This year, 1999, does indeed mark the 50th anniversary of citizenship in Australia. It is fitting that I am able to stand in the parliament this afternoon and acknowledge this special milestone. I am also pleased to be able to acknowledge my support for this particular motion. It is a very good motion and it enables me to speak in relation to many of my experiences with Australian migration.Australia is a lucky country. For those who have had the opportunity to travel—and more and more Australians are travelling—upon returning to Australia, more and more Australians are understanding just how lucky we are as a country. It is a concept that many Australians take for granted. Often we only really think about it on days such as Anzac Day or Australia Day, but we really should stop and think about it just a little bit more—and about what it means to be a citizen of Australia.One aspect of my job, as it is for all other members of the parliament, is to attend citizenship ceremonies. I attend every possible citizenship ceremony that I can. I take part in the ceremonies because I want to be part of the joy that the Australian community and the candidates for citizenship experience when they stand up there and take the oath or the affirmation. At that time they say and understand what it is to be a full member of this country, and what the responsibilities and obligations are.Citizenship is the cornerstone of our country's national identity. In that sense it strikes me as strange, looking back on our history, to note that the concept only began some 50 years ago, so long after Federation. Migrants have contributed much to Australia and I am always proud to be able to say welcome to those migrants who come to the citizenship ceremonies and who have etched out new lives for themselves in Australia.I would like to tell you a little about the Townsville Migrant Resource Centre, which is probably the best performing resource centre in Australia today. The team there, in what they do to assist long-term migrants and newly arrived settlers to the country, is just tremendous. The happiness that is there when you go into the migrant resource centre is nothing short of outstanding. The staff are committed and are led by a very able manager, Farvardin Daliri, who has a goal in life to do everything that he can to help the migrant community in Australia. That is terrific to see. I asked him for his thoughts on this particular debate today and he said:Our capacity as a nation to accommodate more immigrants is directly related to our infrastructure for successful settlement programs and promotion of Australian citizenship on one hand, and appreciation of cultural diversity and racial harmony by all Australians on the other.Australia's immigration programs, experience and positive outcomes must be shared with the community at the grassroots levels so that all Australians may gain an informed opinion about government's plans. Once we achieve this end, the settlement of new immigrants and positive outcomes of immigration will be facilitated and maximised.The Townsville Migrant Resource Centre has certainly been working towards achieving such aims and objectives for many years. They have a record of achieving many successful outcomes in all areas of on-arrival settlement services, community education, employment support for the newly arrived, promotion of cultural harmony and national cohesion, and generating general community support and appreciation of cultural diversity.In the remaining time I would like to put in a quick plug, particularly for those who are listening on the Parliamentary and News Network and perhaps those listening in the gallery this afternoon. The Townsville Cultural Festival will be staged again this year on 14 and 15 August. I would like to invite any of those listening to come to Townsville. The cultural festival last year attracted 25,000 people. It was an outstanding event that made me proud to be an Australian. Of course, it is a great time of year to come to Townsville, being winter, because it is in the tropics. Certainly do not bring a jumper or your coat. It is a terrific location. (Time expired)13:34:003305Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Nearly 60 years ago, on 11 July 1939, my father arrived in Fremantle from Rostock in Germany on the RMS Strathallan . His passport was marked by the British passport control in Stockholm as `Good for a single Journey' and his Deutsches Reich Reisepass, or passport, was stamped `Landed on Condition of Direct Transfer through UK to Australia'. After being arrested on the Kristalnacht in 1938, my late grandmother was able to bribe both of her sons out of concentration camps and put them on the ferry to Sweden. She waved both sons goodbye from their holiday home in Vanermunde, never to see them again.My father was one of the lucky ones to enter Australia. At the Evian conference in 1938, where Australia's delegate uttered the infamous words, `We don't have an aliens problem and we don't seek to import one,' Australia actually adopted a more sensitive policy than this boorish rhetoric. Some 8,000 refugees from Hitlerism made it into this country before the first Stuka swooped on Warsaw and the gates of history shut.After the war, Australia adopted a more enlightened, more welcoming attitude towards immigrants. Perhaps the most enduring legacy of Arthur Calwell, then Minister for Immigration and later Leader of the Opposition, was his inclusion of thousands of displaced persons in the postwar immigration, along with the tens of thousands of UK immigrants leaving a devastated and depressed postwar Britain.Ever since those days, Australian governments of all persuasions—and I include the current minister in this—have supported immigration for its positive economic and strategic benefits to this country. More recently, many commentators have noted the positive effects of immigration on Australia's quality of life. In my electorate of Melbourne Ports, like many urban electorates across Australia, many members will join me in testifying to the rich vitality that our ethnic communities add to our civic society.Of course, in discussing the value of Australian citizenship on this 50th anniversary, we acknowledge the adherence to, and admiration for, the underlying Anglo-Saxon traditions of this country—reflected in the rule of law, the Westminster parliamentary system, and the civility and general lack of corruption in public life. New immigrants, too, admire these traditions. English subtlety, humour and public spiritedness are values that I know many immigrants old and new fiercely identify with.We have developed in this country a happy amalgam of the best of the culture of the original mother culture of European settlement—England's—and the cosmopolitan pastiche of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Italy, Greece, Poland, the former Yugoslavia and many other places. We are not Among the Barbarians. We are part of a more pluralist, tolerant and dynamic society that has added to what was there before. Our challenge now is to reach a two-way accommodation with the indigenous inhabitants of our lucky country so that the Australian character can develop further, at peace with itself and its origins.In my electorate we have seen, over more than a decade, probably the highest concentration of immigrants from the former Soviet Union—4.9 per cent. A large number of them want to have family join them. Indeed, some of them are on special benefits, some are on social security and others need public housing. However, the one-dimensional critics of immigration do not know that, at many of our local primary schools in Melbourne Ports, we now have chess clubs because of these immigrants from the former Soviet Union; their parents are demanding higher standards of maths and science education in all of the schools; and there is a proliferation of people who are highly proficient in classical music thanks to them.I have recently visited Israel where the boom of immigration during the first half of the nineties is widely credited with that country's six per cent economic boom, though it has recently receded with the tide of immigration easing. Like our former Soviet immigrants here, once a certain level of professional readjustment is made, the scientific and technological benefits to Australia should not be underestimated.No-one is against this country's immigration policy being considered positively in the context of a wider discussion of population policy. I certainly join my fellow members for Bowman and Batman and the Premier of Victoria in suggesting that population be looked at in terms of immigration. No-one is in favour of people jumping queues. No-one is in favour of people vexatiously using the courts. But we are in a post-Hanson period. Let us resume population and immigration discussions in a logical and rational way. By all means, let us examine the number of skilled professionals we need and the opportunity for capital inflow through business immigration, et cetera. Let us remember, however, not to see immigration purely through the prism of economics. Let us remember the lessons of Australian history that teach us the positive role of immigration. Let us remember the role in building this country that immigrants have always played. (Time expired)13:39:003306Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—It is very rare for the member for Batman and me to agree on very much these days, but we do share a firm commitment to a multicultural Australia. Therefore I am delighted to speak to this motion, particularly on the 50th anniversary of Australian citizenship.Like the member for Melbourne Ports, my parents brought me to this land—39 years ago to the port of Fremantle where we lived for the first 10 years of our lives in Australia. It was a very courageous initiative by my parents. As with many members of the postwar immigrant community, it was a step which I am not sure many of us today would be able to repeat—to set off to new lands with limited transport and limited communications and with a very limited knowledge of where we were going and how we were to be received. I often contemplate the courage that it must have taken for people in that postwar era to make that decision. I am sure it is a situation that many of today's immigrants would find it easy to relate to.Since my father's decision to become an Australian citizen on 26 January 1965 in the Town Hall at Fremantle on a very hot day, much has changed in Australia. One of the things that has changed is the oath of allegiance that is taken. Back in those days we would make an oath to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. These days the pledge or the oath is far more simple. I agree with and share the sentiments of the member for Bowman, who asks that we rethink—on this, the 50th anniversary—what it means to be an Australian citizen and to have a rethink about the words that one recites on citizenship days.It is both natural and fitting that traditions from the homeland should not be forgotten or left behind by those who make Australia their home but that in fact they should be celebrated and infused into the Australian way of life. Many of those traditions have become a part of the Australian way and have led to a more exciting and fulfilling place in which to live for us all. It is also fitting that those who choose Australia as home should, in time, become citizens to enjoy the full benefits of membership in our nation.This year, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary, we should be looking at our national identity with greater confidence than there has been in the past. We may have had the reputation of being a homogenised, egalitarian society, but we were in truth a British monoculture. Back in 1948, the second reading speeches on the Nationality and Citizenship Bill by the then Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell, and the Acting Leader of the Opposition, Eric Harrison, allow an insight into the mind-set of those immediate post-World War II days. Both took pains to remind Australians that their new classification in no way made them any less a British subject. That extra status of British subject was conferred on all Australians until May 1987, by which time it had long outlived its relevance to our modern society.Today we look back to those times with some curiosity and perhaps a little astonishment. It was a time when a married woman would assume not only the surname of her husband but, like it or not, his nationality as well. It is a different Australia today. Our growing nation is both a haven and a new opportunity for people from the four corners of the earth. Our Australian language, our shopping choices, our eating habits, our education syllabus—almost every facet of the national life—have been changed and expanded because of our extremely successful immigration program. Apart from this land's indigenous people, we have all come here from somewhere else. Our immigration program is indeed the envy of the world, with our harmony, respect for others and our ever-growing understanding and tolerance of cultural differences.We have had several defining moments since Westminster sanctioned the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 that brought together the several colonies in Federation. After World War II, the Citizenship Act further recognised our Australianness. The Australia Act 1987 further defined our status, more accurately reflecting our modern society. Later this year we have the opportunity to further stamp our character on our Constitution by enshrining certain truths and virtues in a preamble. That preamble should include a reference to our indigenous people and also to those who have come from afar and played a large role in building our nation. We are prouder than ever to be Australians, as evidenced by the numbers acquiring Australian citizenship. I urge all those eligible for citizenship to apply, not least so that their voices will be heard in the debate to determine how we can improve on the vision of Australia's forebears.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. The member for Lyons will have an opportunity to speak when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members330833083308Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Members will remember that on 1 December last year I moved a very important motion in this House calling on the government to establish an inquiry into the Australian insurance industry. It came hard on the heels of the devastation caused to my constituents by storms in August of last year. I called for that inquiry with bipartisan support on both sides of this chamber. It pains me to have to report yet again that the Illawarra Mercury has had to report that QBE is refusing to pay out 22 Wollongong storm victims because they are going to use them as some sort of bargaining tool to try and get some changes in the insurance industry out of the Commonwealth and state governments. The headline in the Mercury `Held to Ransom' is a very apt description of what QBE is doing. I urge QBE to put politics behind it and get on and pay out those people.Importantly, I plead with the Prime Minister to refer to the appropriate committee, as we have requested in this parliament in debate, an inquiry into the Australian insurance industry so that people in Wollongong, in Katherine, in Coffs Harbour and all over Australia who have not been treated fairly by insurance companies might have the opportunity in the future to seek redress. There are some worthwhile recommendations that I think could come from an inquiry of that nature. The Prime Minister must act now. I wrote to him on 1 December last year. I think that it is time at least he gave me the courtesy of a reply, and that he should reply in the affirmative. (Time expired)33083308Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak about an issue which I am sure has been brought to the attention of many of my parliamentary colleagues, that being the cancellation of unpayable debts of the poorest countries and the campaign being run by the Jubilee 2000 coalition. Recently I received correspondence from Ms Elliott of Wynn Vale in my electorate of Makin. Ms Elliott forwarded a cheque for $50 for the Collector of Public Moneys to symbolise her personal commitment to this issue and asked that her donation be put towards the cancellation of some of this debt. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms Elliott for her generous gesture and the trouble and time she took to contact me in relation to this matter. Unfortunately, Commonwealth financial regulations make it impossible for us to accept Ms Elliott's generous donation into the general revenue via the Collector of Public Moneys. However, I am sure she would be only too pleased to forward this to the Jubilee 2000 debt collection.We all understand the seriousness of this issue. Indeed, the government acknowledges the motivation behind the Jubilee 2000 campaign and the widespread public support for debt relief. I am proud to say that the government supports the need and desire to find a durable solution to the debt problem alongside the need to harmonise international cooperation to promote debt relief. The devastating effects on very poor countries of unmanageable international debt are known, but the priority now is to ensure that any relief given is sustainable and not counterproductive. (Time expired)33083308O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise to draw the attention of the House to the failure of this government to provide resource security for Tasmanian industries reliant on the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, a scheme which has been in operation since 1989 and provides security for the pork, stockfeed, chicken growers and baking industries. There are almost 1,600 jobs directly and indirectly affected by the subsidy in Tasmania. The subsidy is due to expire on 30 June this year.Last week the minister announced a continuation of the funding, not for the three-year period that the industry requires but for just 12 months. This is an appalling decision for many reasons. Firstly, the minister is of the belief that the new tax system, if passed by the Senate, will somehow remove the inequities faced by travel over Bass Strait. Secondly, it is a 12-month contract based on a financial year period, despite the fact that the industry must renegotiate shipping contracts on a calendar year basis. Thirdly, if—and that is a big if—the industries remain in Tasmania then they can load the goods in Tasmania and ship them at greater cost under the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Finally, it is a decision which is completely at odds with calls from the industry. I urge the government to extend the subsidy for a further three years to provide some sort of security for Tasmanian workers and industries.33093309Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise briefly to congratulate the participants in the National Youth Round Table, which is taking place over the next three days in Canberra and for the next two days actually in Parliament House. It will give Australia's young people a greater say in policies affecting them, and I am pleased that the government has been able to put together this National Youth Round Table. Its 50 members have been selected from throughout Australia and are all aged between 15 and 24.I am very pleased to say that out of those 50 people selected throughout Australia two of them are from my electorate of Robertson. One is Dina Memic. Dina is a remarkable young woman who has come to Australia to escape the Bosnian conflict. She is 21 years old and has experienced long-term unemployment and participated in the successful Work for the Dole scheme on the Central Coast. I am sure she will be a great representative for the Central Coast. The second one is Nicola Haswell. Nicola is a 22-year-old university graduate with excellent references and work experience. She currently works for Lifeline as an intern and coordinator of the Youthline telephone counselling services. Additionally, Nicola has experience in a voluntary capacity with the Lions youth projects Youthline and Lifeline. She is another great representative from the Central Coast. Both Nicola Haswell and Dina Memic will be excellent participants in the youth forum, and I look forward to meeting them later today. (Time expired)33093309Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I take this opportunity to applaud the fantastic efforts of the Chinese community in the seat of Chisholm for their work in coordinating and hosting Chinese New Year celebrations in Box Hill. A week of celebrations was brought to a grand finale with a day of street stalls and displays in Carrington Road near the Box Hill shopping centre, with all the colour, noise and tradition of the lion dance and firecrackers. The festivities in Box Hill, supported by a huge crowd, clearly indicate that not all events in Melbourne must occur in and around the CBD and that the suburbs of Melbourne can support major events, which is something the Premier of Victoria should consider every once in a while.The event would not have happened without the efforts of the Victorian Chinese community festivities committee: Jonathon Lim, Fred Chua, Phillip Chan, Wai Lin Gailbraith and particularly Rae Kum, whom I would like to personally thank for her efforts. I note on International Women's Day that it is often women who are overlooked because it is assumed they will just organise things. Whitehorse City Council's support of the event, and in particular the exemplary efforts of Geoff Pascoe, should not go unnoticed.The festival, and the day, was a terrific event in spite of the unprecedented pressure brought to bear on the committee by members of the local Liberal Party. I trust that in the year 2000, when the Chinese community celebrates the year of the dragon, they will be allowed to stage a cultural event free of any unwanted political involvement.33093309St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise to congratulate the people of New England who are organising at present the show society people with their shows that are going on around the New England district. We have just completed one last Saturday. They give a great opportunity to rural and regional people to bring their communities together to show exactly what innovative things they are doing in these times of difficulty.One of the great things that has happened in my area of New England is the fact that the season itself has been one of the best for 30 years. Unfortunately, the fall in commodity prices is making it very difficult for people, as you can imagine, Mr Speaker, to survive. However, the show circuit brings these communities together and gives young people an opportunity to start to participate in their communities so that they in turn can show leadership as the time draws on for handing over, shall we say, the farm.At this particular time it is very important that any new innovations that are coming up can be seen by the public. The shows give an opportunity for leaders in the community to really show their worth.33103310Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I congratulate the women who have worked so hard this weekend on the International Women's Day celebrations which have taken place in Sydney and around the country: the International Women's Development Agency, which hosted a very successful breakfast in Sydney on Saturday; the International Women's Day Collective, who organised a very successful march and rally; and the organisers of yesterday's Go-Girl festival in Sydney.Younger feminists are often criticised for taking the gains of the past for granted. This weekend is a very important reminder that we must remember the women who won those rights—Edna Ryan, Vida Goldstein and a number of others who are very important in our history—the women who are defending and extending those rights today and those women who still do not have access to those basic human rights, such as safety in the home, equal pay for equal work, equal representation before the law and so on.While it is wonderful to celebrate an important day like International Women's Day, with that celebration we must remember our responsibilities to protect and extend the rights that have been won so far.33103310Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today to speak about the opening of a wonderful music centre at St Paul's Anglican School which I attended on Friday evening. The complex itself is an absolute credit to the school. A model music centre was born under the stewardship of the principal, Gilbert Case. The acoustics and design of the centre are an absolute credit to the builder and the architect. I know many hours were spent designing it at a cost of over $2 million. The Archbishop of Brisbane, the Reverend Peter Hollingworth, opened the building and led the group in prayer that evening. The special guest for the night was Roger Woodward AC, who conducted a concert in the Chapel of St Paul. Roger Woodward has been a good friend of the school for many long years and has had considerable input into their musical development and their particular program.Life without music would be a very dull life indeed. It was wonderful to attend the concert the other night. It was also wonderful to think about the importance that music plays in our lives: it calms our most stressful moments and it brings great depth and great meaning into our lives.33103310Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—On International Women's Day I want to tell the House about some great young women I met last week in Rocky. I am talking about Roseanne, Delia, Helen, Kirsten, Katrina and Rebecca and the other young women who invited me over for a cuppa and chat at Youthtrek. Youthtrek is an organisation set up under the JPET program. The staff at Youthtrek do a fantastic job working with young people who need extra help getting into jobs or completing their education. The young people come to Youthtrek for many reasons: they may be homeless, some are young offenders and many need help and support that is impossible to get from their troubled families. Youthtrek takes a holistic approach to giving young people the skills and confidence to find their place in the community. The emphasis is placed on life skills and communication in a very open and supportive environment. It is a crucial service for Central Queensland, where youth unemployment is priority number one.Youthtrek exists from year to year under the current annual funding regime for JPET. Does DETYA really imagine that from one year to the next there will be no more at-risk young people needing assistance? To make matters worse, the tenders for this year's funding round have not even been called, even though the department has been advising Youthtrek since last November that it `will be any day'. The staff at Youthtrek are dealing with the real world. How can they offer assistance to a young person today not knowing whether it will continue past June? The young people involved need stability and security more than anything else. The funding needs to be offered on a long-term basis and the department needs to finalise tenders for the next year immediately.The young women I met the other day know more about the real world than any of us. I want to thank them for reminding me of how it feels to have gone through so much only to be told that you do not know anything, to be smart but so powerless and to be strong individuals facing a system that just wants you to be quiet and fit in.33113311Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise to speak on the issue of drugs and drug education. In the last few weeks or so quite a bit has been said in the media about drugs and the emphasis on heroin trials. I cannot help but think that the concentration on heroin trials, whether one agrees or disagrees with them, is missing the basic point, and that is drugs as a whole are the problem in our society rather than any one particular drug.I say that because there really is a role for all of us, including the family unit, to help our kids overcome the fight against drug addiction. Last Friday I had an opportunity to meet with such an organisation that is helping our mums and dads with a program `How to drug-proof your kids'. While that name itself may create a expectation of total success, it is a program which I urge members of this House to make themselves familiar with.The Melbourne Age last week certainly carried an excellent article on the program. The article said that `teaching your child just to say no to drugs is not enough, we must spend more time with our children and show them, by example, how to make the right life choices'. It places, as a point of pre-eminence, the role of the family unit in assisting our young kids in this fight rather than having an overconcentration of debate on rehabilitation techniques. Prevention, of course, is a major part of any drug education program. I urge all members to make themselves familiar with this program. (Time expired)33113311Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I would like to speak briefly on the life of Ron McLean, the former state member for Bulimba and the former Minister for Administrative Services in the Goss government. He died last month of asbestos related lung disease. He began life as an apprentice carpenter, worked as a waterside worker, rose to become a member of parliament and then a minister of the Crown.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I respect what the member for Griffith is trying to achieve, but it being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has expired.Condolences331133113311Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House of the death on Wednesday, 27 January 1999 of George Howard Branson, a former senator. George Branson represented the state of Western Australia from 1958 to 1971. As a mark of respect to the memory of George Branson, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Questions Without Notice331133113311Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that around 1.3 million women workers depend upon safety net wage adjustments for increases in their income? Is it not a fact that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business's longer-term agenda to cut wages for low paid workers, would see the wages of one in three women workers fall? Instead of pursuing this low wage path, will the Prime Minister drop his stubborn opposition to tax credits, a Labor idea which has now received ringing endorsement from five of Australia's leading economists, the Business Council of Australia and leading editorial writers as a much better way to reduce unemployment and lift the living standards of low paid workers?3312Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. I might start my answer by informing him that unemployment amongst women in Australia is now at 7.2 per cent, the lowest it has been since 1990. Far from the policies of our government reducing the work opportunities for Australian women, in fact, because of the strength of the Australian economy—and let me thank and compliment the Treasurer for the outstanding job that he has done in relation to economic management—the opportunities for women to gain work in Australia are growing stronger every month.If you have a strong economy, you have the capacity to generate jobs for both men and women. The foundation of job growth, the foundation of economic security for both men and women in Australia is a strong economy. I can assure the House, and it is borne out by the evidence of the last three years, that opportunities for women in the work force have expanded under the policies of this government. It is demonstrated not only by the level of the participation rate but also by the fact that at 7.2 per cent the unemployment level amongst Australian women is the lowest it has been for almost nine years.Ms Macklin interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Somebody interrupts—I think it is the member for Dickson—about wages.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—It wasn't me!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It was the member for Jagajaga: I apologise to the member for Dickson. But the point is still valid that women's full-time total earnings including overtime increased by 4.2 per cent in the year to December 1998, which is 0.3 per cent of one per cent ahead of the increase for men. Let me conclude by saying that the opportunities for women and, very importantly, the choices available for women in Australian society over the last three years have been greatly expanded. I am very proud of the pro-women policies that the government has pursued.33123312Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the government's approach to improving employment prospects for young Australians?3312Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Curtin for that question. Very importantly, the most effective way to improve employment opportunities for young people—indeed, the most effective way to improve employment opportunities for both men and women in Australia—is to run a strong, growing economy. It is something that we have been able to achieve consistently, and to the enormous credit of this government, over the last three years. I am delighted to remind the House—and the question from the member for Curtin allows me to do so—that growth in the Australian economy in the year to December 1998 was a remarkable 4.7 per cent. That figure is the most dramatic evidence of the success that this government has had in protecting the Australian economy against the worst effects of the Asian economic downturn.The youth unemployment rate under the former government reached a high of 34.9 per cent. The current level under the present government is 24.1 per cent. As honourable members know, those figures will vary from month to month but there has been an improvement between those two figures. But a great deal more needs to be done. It is in these areas where the government's will is in the right direction but the obstruction of the Labor Party and others in the Senate is impeding further progress.We saw a few weeks ago the Senate's rejection of the government's unfair dismissal proposals. That meant the destruction of a potential 50,000 additional jobs within the Australian community. But the Labor Party will have an opportunity to redeem itself by allowing the passage through the Senate of the government's legislation that will protect junior wage rates in this country. If they can be entrenched—according not to the government or the Liberal Party or the National Party but according to the Australian Retail Association—age based youth wages, which our legislation is designed to promote, will protect the jobs of 230,000 young people in this country.We often hear from the Labor Party that action ought to be taken in this or that area. They have an opportunity in the Senate to take some action to protect the jobs of 230,000 young men and young women in this country. I hope that the Labor Party on this occasion will put aside their selfish, obstructionist tactics and vote in favour of a piece of legislation that is going to protect the jobs of almost one-quarter of a million young Australians over the years ahead.I am particularly proud of the way in which we have expanded the opportunities for new traineeships and new apprenticeships. At 30 September last year, there were 199,400 new apprentices in Australia. And commencements were at record levels of over 123,000 over the last 12 months. In other words, we have a great record in building opportunities for greater employment of young Australians. If the Senate would do its duty by the Australian people, there would be even brighter prospects for young Australians in the employment market.33133313Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that in February 1996 women in full-time work earned, on average, $119.50 a week less than men? Can the Prime Minister explain why, in the latest figures, that gap has widened to $126.50 a week? Why has the government failed to reduce the weekly gap between men's and women's full-time wages? What will be the effect on the gap if the minister for employment executes his wage cutting plan which will disproportionately affect women?3313Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will take the last point first. If many of the policies being advocated by the minister for employment were in fact implemented, there would be more jobs at higher levels of pay for Australian women. So let us not have any of this ridiculous proposition that, in some way, by clinging on to the Labor Party's approach to wages you produce higher real incomes. The undeniable fact is that over the 13 years that you were in government real wages suffered very badly. One of the reasons why we have a consumer boom in Australia at the present time is that Australian wage and salary earners, both men and women, have more money in their pockets. They have more money in their pockets because their real wages have gone up, and they have more money in their pockets because their interest rates have gone down.Nothing can take away from the double bonus delivered by the Howard government—that is, real wages are up, interest rates are down. When you combine that, what you are doing to both men and women all over the country is giving them additional purchasing power. If the Senate takes a different, more constructive attitude, if we are allowed to implement further reforms to Australia's industrial relations system, those opportunities will be further expanded.The only fear that working women in Australia have is of going back to the policies of the Australian Labor Party because those policies denied them the stable economy, the falling interest rates, the rising employment opportunity, the rising real wages.Ms Macklin interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You don't like it, but the reality is that Australian women, under Labor, had to suffer the highest interest rates since World War II; that Australian women, under Labor, did not enjoy real wage increases; that Australian women, under Labor, were given plenty of rhetoric and plenty of slogans but they were delivered high interest rates, falling real wages and declining employment opportunities. I know you don't like it, but under us they have had lower interest rates, rising real wages and expanding choices, both in relation to work and their other responsibilities.33143314Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer outline to the House recent economic indicators on the present state of the Australian economy? To what extent does this reflect the effects of government policies?3314Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question. I think all members of the House will welcome the fact that December's national accounts show that the Australian economy in the calendar year to December 1998 grew by 4.7 per cent. That was growth in excess of Britain, France, Germany, the G7, the OECD and the United States. It was the fifth quarter in a row where growth in the Australian economy exceeded one per cent. And this was growth at a time when Asia was going through its deepest recession ever. When Japan, Malaysia, Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand were in recession, Australia grew by 4.7 per cent. Last week's Economist had this to say:Last year Australia was one of the rich world's fastest growing economies with GDP growth of 4.9 per cent while New Zealand sank into recession. Australia's economic figure has taken most forecasters by surprise. Australia is famous as the lucky country but its economic resilience owes more to policy than to serendipity.Then the Economist goes on to set out the measures that have protected Australia during this severe international downturn—the measures which have kept inflation low, which have allowed us to cut interest rates to as low as they have ever been in Australia. Unemployment has fallen, and the floating of the Australian dollar and the flexibility in relation to that has protected our exporters. I want to pay tribute to Australia's exporters who, in this difficult environment, have managed to divert exports to growing areas of the world and have made so much difference to this country.The national accounts confirmed an inflation rate of 1.6 per cent. Since coming to office, under this government inflation has averaged one per cent. Under Labor, inflation averaged 5.2 per cent. Since coming to office, productivity growth under this government has averaged 2.8 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Under Labor it averaged 1.5 per cent.Mr Beazley interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always yells the loudest when he is in the most trouble, Mr Speaker. He read Glen Milne's column this morning and he thought he had better come in and yell louder. He saw Laurie Brereton out there attacking his leadership and he determined to yell in this question time. Under the government, real wages have averaged around 2½ per cent per annum compared with 0.5 per cent per annum under Labor. Retail trade growth in January indicates that the Australian economy continues to grow.Having said that, I point out that the Asian financial crisis is not over and we would be foolish to think that we could stop now. We have successfully navigated the first 18 months of the Asian financial crisis but now is the time to lay the groundwork for future growth. Now is the time to get a new tax system for the growth opportunities in the next decade. Now is the time to reform industrial relations for the job opportunities in the next decade. Now is the time for the Australian budget to be kept in surplus and for debt to be reduced. Just as it was the decision three years ago that protected the Australian economy and gave it its opportunities today, so it will be the reforms of today which will give it its opportunities tomorrow. They are the reforms which this government intends to put in place.33143314Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister stand by his claims that education will be GST free? Isn't it the case that, according to evidence before the Senate GST committee, the GST will apply to: some government school charges; textbooks; school uniforms and shoes; school travel; school lunches; some school excursions; private tuition; and sports coaching? Minister, given these items are to be hit by a GST, how can you claim that education is GST free?3315Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The evidence before the Senate committee that the member refers to is evidence put to it by the Australian Education Union. Of course, as an ex-union official herself, it falls to the member to bring that evidence to the attention of the House. It is no wonder that the Australian Labor Party is confused over the effect of the GST. Under the GST, education is of course GST free. The evidence of the Australian Education Union is completely misleading. That evidence overstates the impact of the GST on price increases and on families' disposable incomes. It does not take into account that most of the education services will be GST free.The Australian Education Union does not allow for the inefficient state and territory financial taxes that will be replaced by the GST. That was completely left out of the analysis. Of course, these taxes currently affect the price of all goods and services in Australia, including school uniforms. Also, the Australian Education Union double counts the effect of price increases when commenting on the GST's impact on families' disposable incomes.The fact is that the tax reform package contains a number of measures that compensate families for the effects of the GST. The average family, as members of this House will know, will be some $40 to $50 per week better off as a result of the reforms, including the income tax reductions, after allowing for the effects of the GST. Any political party that is foolish enough to rely on the evidence of the Australian Education Union, that stands around waiting for the briefing notes from the union to make a point, that does not have any independent capacity to analyse these factors, deserves the contempt and ridicule of the public that it gets. 33153315Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, youth unemployment is one of the major social issues facing the country today. While the number of unemployed young people is continuing to fall because of the sound management of the economy, what further measures has the government adopted to create and preserve jobs for Australia's young unemployed?3315Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Forde for her question. The government is moving to retain the system of junior wage rates which Australia has had for a long time. We also want to extend that system, at the discretion of the Industrial Relations Commission.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No—there is no discretion!WI4Mr REITH—You believe in the commission. We simply say that the commission ought to have the discretion to widen the use of, and to make more available, junior wage rates. You ought to support that, but of course you don't, in a typically knee-jerk reaction to what is a sensible proposal to create jobs.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The other thing you are opposed to is that—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the minister of his obligation to address his remarks through the chair but, even more pointedly, of the obligation that the member for Brisbane has to exercise some restraint.WI4Mr REITH—We want to retain the system. We want the system to be available in those awards where it is not at the discretion of the commission, and we want the commission, in making decisions about this, to take into account not just the interests of people who have a job. We reckon that the interests of the people who are unemployed, particularly young people, should also be taken into account.There is a very stark choice for the parliament. You are either for jobs, in which case you will vote for the legislation or, alternatively, you are against the creation of jobs and the protection of jobs, and you will vote against it. As the Prime Minister has already said, this measure is about protecting existing jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk if this legislation is not passed. But it is also a vehicle and an opportunity to create jobs by the insertion of junior wage rates in those industries that do not have them.We have had some numbers done. My advice is that in the building industry alone, to take one example, more than 6,000 jobs for young people could be created in that industry if this legislation were passed. The fact is that, as usual, the ACTU are opposed to this measure and they are dictating policy to the front bench on the other side. They even have the backbenchers asking questions which are obviously drafted by the Education Union.I ask the House to consider the practical implications of the ACTU's position. For example, they say that, with the end of age discrimination, an 18-year-old ought to be receiving a wage increase of $130.55. I ask people to think of the practical implications. The Labor Party's position is, if you put up the wage of an 18-year-old by $130.55, that not one job in the country will be jeopardised as a result. It defies commonsense to be saying to employers, `We will put up the wages of an 18-year-old by $6,500 a year, plus the oncosts, and we, the Labor Party, say that that will make no difference to your intentions to hire young people.' Regardless of your ideology and regardless of the dictates of the ACTU, surely the Labor Party front bench can understand that, if you put up the wages of 18-year-olds in the year 2000 by $130, then a lot of them are going to lose their jobs.I say, if the Labor Party do not understand that point, then those young people who have jobs today will certainly understand it. The parents of our young people will also understand the practical implications of a huge increase in the cost of employing young people, which we say, as a matter of commonsense, is going to destroy the job prospects of tens of thousands of young people. As a nation, we already have a problem with youth unemployment. The Labor Party's policy position is to make it worse, when there is a golden opportunity for this country to provide job opportunities for young people.This issue will come to a head very shortly. There are those within the Labor Party and the Democrats who think this issue can simply be adjourned for some months. That will only heighten the levels of uncertainty among employers in the business community about the cost involved in employing young people. A resolution to defer this is simply going to cost many young people job opportunities. We believe that young people ought to have the chance of a job and we are determined that they have it.33163316Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, can you confirm that the GST will be levied on public transport concessional rates? If so, how will thousands of elderly women who rely solely on public transport be able to afford to move outside their homes? In the International Year of the Older Person, is it government policy to force older people to remain within walking distance of their homes? Is this extra cost included in the government's calculation of its miserly compensation of just over $1 per week to aged pensioners?3316Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—What this line of questioning absolutely fails to recognise is that those opposite do not want Australians to be aware of the reality that they have not been able to demonstrate anyone who will be worse off as a result of our tax reform.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—The reality is that transport costs will be reduced very significantly as a result of our tax reform. The reality is that the changes in tax circumstances and benefits that elderly people will enjoy will enable them a boost in their lifestyle opportunities. The question is an absolute absurdity.33163316Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of new market opportunities for Australian exporters arising from his recent trade mission to East Asia, India and the Middle East?3317Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—One thing which did echo through to Teheran and New Delhi last week were some of the bomb blasts within the ALP: Whitlam versus Brereton, Whitlam versus comrade Barry Cohen, and then various other connotations which I know I cannot dwell on.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Fischer and Sharp was no contest.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Where is your shadow minister for foreign affairs? Has he gone back to Gosford?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The exchange between the member for Banks, the member for Reid, the member for Longman and the member for Moreton should not be tolerated. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now see the shadow minister for foreign affairs on the back bench—more to come. I travelled with my ministerial colleagues to a pretty hectic set of meetings in Singapore, Denpasar in Indonesia, then on to India, to Iran where I was the first minister to visit in seven years since Minister Gareth Evans visited Teheran, then on to Dubai and to Turkey. There were four specific outcomes which pick up on the theme of the Financial Review editorial last Saturday which said, `We have to look beyond an East-Asia only strategy.' Well welcome to the club! The Prime Minister has been arguing for that for years, and it has been the policy of the government for years to do exactly that, to pursue diversification of our export efforts.So I am delighted to have brought to the House and to the member for Riverina, who pursues issues with great vigour on behalf of her export constituency, that in India I was able to sign an investment protection and promotion agreement, to help rerail the relations with India, to set up a working group on wool and wool exports from Australia and to help bring about the inauguration of quarantine dialogue between Australia and India. While we will not agree on everything with that bilateral relationship, we are absolutely committed to the commercial trade, investment and tourism links between Australia and South Asia and between Australia and India.In Iran, I was pleased to help facilitate, with Trevor Flugge and other members of the Australian Wheat Board, this latest member of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—the sale of 1.3 million tonnes of wheat in that direction—and reflect on the changes which are taking place in Iran, some would argue not enough but, nevertheless, the changes under President Khatami—and I was pleased to be able to meet with him. Finally, in Turkey, amongst other things I was able to reflect on the value-added product Australia is now exporting. I was able to travel on an Austral ferry on the Bosporus for about 40 minutes—that is about the maximum DFAT would ever schedule you to do anything that might possibly be enjoyable on one of these trips, as opposed to the hard yards—which they should quite properly involve—of about eight ministerial meetings a day. I report this to the House: in respect of that value-added product, there was nothing but praise for the—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Ha, ha!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I am pleased the Leader of the Opposition is dismissive of the efforts of Austral, a Western Australian exporter of great effort. I report to the House that there was nothing but praise for the ferry exports. That direction was also pursued by Bob Clifford in Argentina. I report further to the House that the main wheat importer into Turkey said to me:Turkey grows 20 million tonnes of wheat but we still want half a million tonnes of Australian wheat because of its quality, because it is delivered to specification and because it acts as a very good blend.It was a constructive visit of six countries in 10 days and one which helped diversify our export effort.33173317Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen a letter from Liberal Party Federal Director, Lynton Crosby, to the Local Government Association of New South Wales, dated 17 September 1998, which states:The non-commercial activities of government will be outside the scope of the GST. This means that where a service is provided free of charge or for a nominal charge, the GST will not apply.Did the Treasurer, his office or the department clear this letter? Will the Treasurer confirm the accuracy of Mr Crosby's statement?3318Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Let me say that practically everything that Mr Crosby says is accurate, particularly when he engages in election advertising, I would have thought. The truth of the matter is, as we have made entirely clear in relation to governments, that governments are not required to apply GST to non-commercial services. What is more, governments are entitled to get back, as input tax credits, those taxes which they have paid for the purchases of goods and services. It is one of the reasons why the cost of government is dramatically lower under the new tax system, one of the reasons why people will be able to get better services, because if you have a better tax system which gives them input tax credits and if there is no liability in relation to their non-commercial services, that is good for local government, it is good for state government, it is good for Commonwealth government and it is good for the Australian taxpayer.33183318Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, what action is the government taking to encourage the process of reconciliation in East Timor? Would you inform the House of any alternative views on this issue?3318Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. He, alongside many other members of this House, is intensely interested in the changes that are taking place in Indonesia and, of course, East Timor. The honourable member asked specifically about the issue of reconciliation. It is an opportunity for me to tell him and the House that this government regards the process of reconciliation amongst the East Timorese as the most fundamentally important task that has to be undertaken. One of the key messages, if not the key message, that we must try to get out from Australia is a message of encouragement of that process of reconciliation between the pro-integrationists and the pro-independence forces in East Timor. Not surprisingly, this was one of the key messages I delivered to Xanana Gusmao and also the pro-integration groups while I was in Jakarta recently. I am seeing Mr Ramos Horta today and I will be making the same point to him that, for us, the first and greatest priority is the process of reconciliation amongst the various groups in East Timor.We have also made it clear to a number of people in Indonesia associated with the East Timor question that we are happy to help with that process of reconciliation. Indeed, last week, some of the pro-integrationists asked our ambassador, John McCarthy, when he was in East Timor whether he would be able to help with this process. I was delighted that Xanana Gusmao was able, during the weekend, to meet with some of the pro-integrationists—and I do think that is a very important step towards the reconciliation that we hope will be achieved.In East Timor, regardless of the outcome of the consultative process, there clearly will be winners and losers. If it is that the people of East Timor choose independence, then the pro-integrationists will, naturally enough, have to be given appropriate guarantees. They will want guarantees: guarantees for their security, guarantees for their property and guarantees for their lives. I know that people like Xanana Gusmao are happy to provide those guarantees and, whichever way the consultation goes, we would encourage the winners to guarantee the security of those who are not successful in the consultative process.Finally, the honourable member asks me whether there are any alternative views on this question of East Timor. Suffice it to say, there are many alternative views on this question, and all of them are held in the Labor Party. There are numerous views in the Australian Labor Party on this question, and all I can say is that some of those views, such as those of the member for Holt, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, are sincerely held—and I was impressed with what I heard of his meeting with Xanana Gusmao last week and with other Indonesian officials—but some of those views, it has to be said, are not so sincerely held. After all, the member for Kingsford-Smith went for 809 days, between 1996 and 1999, without asking anyone in this House a question on the issue of East Timor. If it was such an enormously important issue, such a matter of great passion, why would he go 809 days without asking a question about East Timor?33193319Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall on 27 February last year having `warmly recommended and congratulated' Aussie Home Loans for its role in introducing competition in the home loan market? Does the Treasurer also warmly recommend and congratulate Aussie Home Loans chief, John Symond, for his advice last week that the tax package will force him to increase interest rates on new and existing home loans and consider introducing fees on new homes?3319Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I cannot recall that particular statement, but I have no doubt that I said it. I was probably John Symond's greatest publicist when he was reducing interest rates, because he was providing great competition to the banks. Let us recall the great competition to the banks and what it has given to Australian home buyers—under Labor, a 10.5 per cent variable mortgage interest rate; today, a standard variable I think of 6.4 per cent. You can go under six per cent for your home variable mortgage interest rate under a coalition government—the lowest standard variable mortgage interest rate since man walked on the moon.DT4CREANMr Crean—I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to relevance. I did ask the question and he is not answering it. My question specifically went to the reported comments of John Symond. The Treasurer has said he cannot recall them, so he either sits down or he gets himself acquainted with John Symond saying that his GST will put interest— 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I did not say that at all. As a cursory examination, if the member for Hotham were not yelling so loudly, I said it in relation to my own quote, not in relation to Mr Symond's. Of course, you can have a look at the Hansard .Mr Crean interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—If you did not yell, my friend, you would hear and learn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond to the question.Mr Crean interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am quite prepared to perform the educational service—GST free to you! In relation to Mr Symond—Mr Crean interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—You're yelling again, Simon.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer has an obligation to direct his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You should try listening, my friend. I know it has been a bad period.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer has an obligation to address his remarks through the chair, and the member for Hotham has an obligation to hear him in silence.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The point I was making was that, under this government, I think standard variable mortgage interest rates have come down by more than four per cent and in relation to introductory loans and the like I think by about five per cent or more. I congratulate Mr Symond for the work that he has done. I think Mr Symond in his evidence talked about an effect of 0.2 per cent or 0.25 per cent out of five per cent.DT4CREANMr Crean—Two and a half, plus fees.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will go back and have a look at it. As I recall, it was .25 per cent—after a five per cent reduction in interest rates. Mr Symond wants a GST to be applied to financial services—something that you totally oppose. I recall you getting up here at the dispatch box and asking question after question on whether or not GST should apply to financial services and saying what an outrageous thing it would be if it did. Now you get up and you say, `Would you not be criticised by Mr Symond for not applying it to financial services?' You cannot have it both ways, old son. You are either against it or you are in favour of it.In relation to financial services, let me make the point that in no country in the world does GST apply to financial services. The Australian bankers and some operatives in the Australian financial services industries would like Australia to be the only country in the world applying a GST in relation to financial services. The Europeans have not done it, the Asians have not done it, they have not done it in East Europe, they have not done it in West Europe and they have not done it in the Americas. We made it entirely clear, as I said to you in my answers at the time, that we would not be doing it. Firstly, we do not believe that Australia should be the only country in the world to do that. Secondly, you cannot carve out value-add in financial services from other costs and interest rates. That is why it has not been done anywhere else in the world. Australia is following world's best practice in relation to financial services and in relation to world's best practice for GST generally.The big benefits are these. If you secure the revenue base, which means for average Australians the government has a revenue base that grows in proportion to the economy, the government will be able to honour its obligations in relation to pensions and education and in relation to hospital services. But it can also do one other thing: it can raise its revenue in a much more efficient way. It can cut income taxes, it can get a better taxation system, it can have a more vibrant economy and it can make sure that it sets Australia up for the opportunities of the future rather than the failures of Labor's past.33203320Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regu lation. Would the minister advise the House of recent developments in the level of share ownership in Australia? What are the benefits of increased share ownership? What can be done to further increase share ownership by Australians?3320Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Fadden for his question, and I have good news. Australia is on the threshold of becoming the greatest share-owning nation in the world—5.5 million Australians either directly or indirectly own shares on the Australian Stock Exchange. This is the second highest level in the world after the United States, which has 43 per cent of its population owning shares. In Australia, we need 370,000 new first-time shareholders to become the greatest share-owning nation in the world. We are well on the way to doing that, because over the last eight months three-quarters of a million Australians became first-time shareholders. The average parcel of shares over the last 12 months has been $6,600, which means that Australians are starting to put their money into stocks and shares, investing in the companies that they deal with.The benefits to Australia are profound, adding depth and liquidity not only to the Australian economy but also to the Australian share market. Today, Australia stands as the largest share market in the Asia-Pacific region outside of Tokyo. We are larger than Hong Kong and we are larger than Singapore. This has primarily come about because of the strength of the Australian economy, and much of the good work has been done by the coalition over the last three years.In particular, increasing retail share ownership helps to add depth to the Australian share market. Five to six years ago you would find that institutions were dictating the price of shares before they went to market. Today, because of the large number of mums and dads in the share market, retail investment is driving the value of Australian shares before they go to market. The net result is this: with the initiatives of the coalition in relation to the GST package—and particularly the abolition of stamp duty on the transfer of shares, which is part of the GST package before the Australian parliament—we can become the greatest share owning nation in the world. But it goes one step further. It will take one vote of the Labor Party to make us the greatest share owning nation in the world. You should support the sale of Telstra in the Senate. You should support it because that is a great indication of Australian share ownership and a great indication of what it means to provide opportunities to Australian mums and dads to invest in the companies that they deal with on a daily basis.33213321Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We certainly did a good job with the superannuation changes, didn't we? My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen evidence by the Insurance Council of Australia to the Senate GST inquiry that the Treasury has made a 10 per cent error in what the 10 per cent GST will raise in the first year? Are you aware that, on top of this error, the council also estimates that insurance premiums will rise by more than three times the level claimed in the tax package? What action are you taking to correct this error? Will it not significantly erode the value of your compensation package?3321Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I will answer that question. There is of course no error in the revenues applying to the GST. What the Insurance Council is arguing for—and presumably you are supporting it—is a more preferential treatment. Presumably you are supporting it, are you? You are presumably supporting the insurance industry. Here we have an industry which supports tax reform but says, in relation to one of the transitional measures, that it would like more generous treatment. So who do you think rides in for the more generous treatment? It is the people who reckon they are absolutely opposed to tax reform.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. The question was not about whether or not there ought to be a GST. It was about the claims by the Insurance Council that the effect of the GST is going to be three times the level claimed in your tax package. That is what it is about.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call and is being relevant to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There is an answer. There is no error, and the argument is about a transitional issue. If you just bear with me, I can explain to you what the transitional issue is. The transitional issue is whether or not you should get an input tax credit for payouts where the event is before 1 July 2000. The second part of the transitional argument relates to what is called the unearned premium reserve. The Insurance Council of Australia seeks more beneficial treatment in relation to both issues.The Insurance Council of Australia does not oppose a GST. It supports it. What it wants is a more beneficial treatment so that, in relation to those two transitional issues, the insurance industry gets a better deal and consequently the revenue—and everything that is supported by the revenue, like the hospitals, the schools and the education system—gets a worse treatment. So if you want to ride to the defence of the Insurance Council on this transitional issue, you ride to the defence of a more generous treatment at the expense of some other part of the tax system. Let us be clear about this: it will be at the expense of some other part of the tax system. But of course the Labor Party could never actually rise above cheap, populist politics on this to actually grapple with the issue.In relation to both of those issues, denying input tax credits for pre-GST events is consistent with the principle that generally no input tax credit should be given where the service has not borne GST, and applying GST to unearned premiums is consistent with applying GST to any service provided after the implementation of the GST. The treatment in relation to the Insurance Council is consistent with the treatment of other industries. It is an argument by the Insurance Council to be given more beneficial treatment. If you are to adopt it, you could perhaps explain why you think other parts of the Australian economy, such as pensioners, health or hospitals, should be worse treated. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot engage in absolute open populism if you pretend to be a political leader or ever aspire to office.33223322May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. What action is the government taking to ensure that foreign nationals are not working in Australia illegally while failing to meet appropriate visa requirements? Can the minister clarify reported proposals to examine bonds on overseas visitors who may be at risk of breaching visa conditions?3322Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I can tell her that the government is most assiduous in protecting Australia's interests—particularly with its immigration program—by ensuring that those people who are in Australia lawfully as visitors but do not have permission to work and those people who are here unlawfully and who ought to have left Australia, cannot take job opportunities away from young Australians. As part of our ongoing efforts, we have been quite comprehensively ensuring that where reports are received by us or where information is obtained by appropriate and lawful data matching means, compliance activity follows.We spend something of the order of $50 million a year on compliance activities. You could not maintain an efficacious migration program unless you were prepared to put into compliance the sort of effort that we are currently making. With those activities we have seen an increase from about 7,000 people who were located about three years ago when this government came to office to an increase of over 12,000 locations in the last financial year. Those numbers of locations are significant, because it is estimated that at any one time there are somewhere between 50,000 and 55,000 people who may be unlawful in Australia.A range of compliance activities have brought to light people working in contravention of visa requirements or people unlawful. In January and February it was of the order of 2,000 people who were located. I am sure members have seen some of those reports covered in the press. As a result of those activities the government has determined to review the program of the former government that involved employer awareness education, to see how efficacious those arrangements were. We have also agreed to have a review undertaken as to employer sanctions and whether or not there ought to be changes in that regard. Some of the arrangements that I am aware of that have been undertaken, for instance in the United Kingdom, have involved employers being freed from the possibility of prosecution if they are able to demonstrate that they undertook some fairly simple inquiries at the time they engaged an employee. It might be the production of a birth certificate or a citizenship certificate or the keeping of a copy of a visa that included permission to work. It seemed to me that those sorts of arrangements are worth while looking at.There have been some misunderstandings, I think, in the tourist industry about some other proposals that I have indicated might be the subject of examination. I have made it very clear that the government supports the tourist industry and has been anxious to increase the number of people coming to Australia bona fide—that is, they have an intention of paying a visit to Australia and leaving at the conclusion of that visit. We do have something of the order of three million people visit Australia now each year. About 80,000 people apply who are rejected for entry. Where those rejections occur for proper reasons—and usually it is because we have an expectation that somebody may not be intent on obeying the visa conditions—sometimes representations are made, often by members of this House, often by families of people who may want to come. Some of them even offer to pay a bond to ensure compliance if such visits were to be allowed. I have indicated that the review might be able to look at those arrangements.I was surprised that the tourist industry was unaware that arrangements of that sort are already in place in Canada, have recently been considered and introduced in New Zealand, and are being looked at for introduction in the United Kingdom. If they were introduced it would ensure that more people might be able to come, not fewer. It ought to be a matter that the tourist industry was addressing in a positive way as one which could expand tourist opportunities for Australia.33233323Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the answer he gave in question time on 16 February when his latest advice was that the increase in the cost of a funeral post-GST was in fact three to four per cent. Is the Prime Minister aware of comments made by John Ryan, the National Director of the Australian Funeral Directors Association, when he said that the cost increase would be close to eight to nine per cent, because there is no major scope for any savings on input costs? Does the Prime Minister know what components of funerals currently attract wholesale sales tax other than some embalming fluids? Prime Minister, are you still sticking to a price increase of three to four per cent, or have you not even bothered to check?3323Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have no advice which would cause me to alter the answer I gave. I do have a recollection of this that the figure advised was between three and four per cent. Without having the opportunity of checking all the details of it, I can think offhand that some of the offsets would be the reduction in fuel, which is worth about 7c a litre for any business use, and the taxation component in relation to the cost of vehicles, to start off with. One would automatically expect that the director of the Funeral Directors Association would argue that the Treasury figure was incorrect. I suggest that the honourable member for Chisholm find a more objective source.33233323St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Could the minister provide the House with a progress report on the construction of the National Museum of Australia?3323McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question and for his continuing interest in our national cultural institutions. Construction officially began today on the National Museum, which is the Commonwealth's flagship for the Centenary of Federation celebrations. This is great news for Australians. The dream of a permanent home for the National Museum is becoming a reality after many years of delay. I remind the House that when we came to government we stated that we would establish a fully-fledged museum to be located with the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. We are doing just that. As a result, about 1,000 jobs will be created in the Canberra region during the design and construction phase, and there will be more than 30 permanent new jobs when the buildings are completed.Also, from tomorrow we are opening a new display centre to the public, which will feature computer generated images and state-of-the-art designs of the new facility so that all Australians can see the museum being built from the ground up. The display is obviously going to be updated right through to the year 2000, when the museum will open. We will hold open days on the site on Acton Peninsula during the process of construction because it is very important that all Australians feel a sense of ownership and excitement about their national museum. After all, it will be a symbol and a reminder, as we enter the new millennium, of our collective past and our promising future.I am very glad of a glowing endorsement by a prominent radio broadcaster this morning on the radio station 2GB. Indeed, it was none other than Graham Richardson, who said:And the next thing I want to do is congratulate the Howard government. Yes, you heard it right. I want to congratulate the Howard government.Now, when I was Minister for the Arts many moons ago, I think from 1988 through to 1991 or through `90, I was always trying to get off the ground the National Museum of Australia and continually the likes of Peter Walsh and John Dawkins and the dries would undo me, so there was never any money for it.But you need a museum of your history, for your culture. You've got to have it and we're now going to have the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. [The museum] will be a state-of-the-art facility and it will have every aspect of Australia's history, including its Aboriginal history, on display. About time too in a nation like this . . . In Australia there's just nowhere to go. It's about time. Well done to the Howard government.Who could disagree with that?33243324Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Aged Care. It concerns the promised compensation for pensioners for the real effect of a 10 per cent GST on their household budgets. Does the minister know whether this compensation includes a component to cover the increased cost of funerals post-GST? Did the government's economic modelling on the effects of the GST on pensioners and self-funded retirees include the effect of the GST on funeral expenses? If so, what percentage increase in the cost of funerals was utilised?3324Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer is in line with the answer that you have been getting constantly with everything to do with the GST. The four per cent compensation package is to be put in place to be paid up front, before the impact of the 1.9 per cent inflation impact is felt, so that there can be compensation from the beginning and not catch-up. It is particularly relevant to older Australians, for whom this government has enormous concern, which of course the past government did not. Indeed, the other compensations that have been put in place for self-funded retirees as well as pensioners are fair and equitable, and will work well.33243324Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House what steps the government has taken to consult with young people? As two young people from the electorate of Barker, Ben Kilsby and Shaheen Cohen, have been selected for the National Youth Round Table, what is the role of the National Youth Round Table as part of this consultation process?3324Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. This government is determined to lay firm foundations for the success and achievement of the coming generation of Australians—a generation that has suffered, I regret to say, very badly from the mismanagement of the economy by the previous government. This government has consulted with young people in many different ways, but I think the most important consultation is now under way through the National Youth Round Table, which the government has established.The first round table is being held in Canberra over the next couple of days. Some 50 young Australians have been selected from some 1,000 applicants—very high quality applicants. These young people come from every state and territory in Australia. They are young people from a great mixture of backgrounds from metropolitan and rural Australia. They include many young people who have overcome quite serious barriers to success: young people who have been unemployed, young people suffering serious disabilities and young people suffering homelessness. These young people have, through their own personal efforts by taking charge of their own lives, sought to overcome these difficulties.I had the pleasure of meeting many of these young people last night. My parliamentary secretary, Trish Worth, opened the conference this morning. It is inspirational to find out their motive for applying. As one of the young people from Victoria said:We farm in the mountains of East Gippsland and have no means of electricity, gas, etc. It is due to school that I board during the week in the nearest city, Bairnsdale. I believe that I could bring a perspective of life in an isolated rural area that currently has the highest youth unemployment level in Australia.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned.BT4Dr KEMP—One young person from South Australia said:Growing up as a young Aboriginal man, it was very hard in a lot of ways, but I have stuck my head out and gone forward with my life. Those difficulties I faced earlier have made me stronger. I want a chance to be heard. Too many young people do not stand up and be heard. Over the next two days, every member of this parliament will have a chance to hear these outstanding young people on the National Youth Round Table. I invite members from both sides of the House to consider attending the plenary sessions of the round table, which will be held in the main committee room, to listen to what these young people have to say to the national parliament. I know that all of us will be very interested in what they have to say and will be seeking to respond constructively to their comments on national policy.33253325O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, do you recall ruling out on 24 November a Ralph review proposal to abolish tax averaging for farmers? In light of the concerns expressed by farmers, miners and the Queensland Nationals, will you also rule out the Ralph proposal to abolish accelerated depreciation?3325Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for his question. The first thing you do in this place is don't believe any references the Labor Party make to previous quotes. The first point that should be made here is that, unlike the Labor Party, the coalition government have been prepared to address the issues of taxation reform in Australia in the package that we have put to the people, which we are now in the process of putting through the parliament, and we have also taken on the responsibility of having a look at the taxation system that applies to the business community in Australia. There are a number of proposals that have been put about.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham.SU5Mr VAILE—There are a number of different sections of the business community that have put different points of view. The important thing is that this is being discussed. At least our government is having an open and frank debate with the business community about how we can make them more competitive in the future. It includes the service industry, it includes manufacturing businesses and it includes agricultural industries. We are having an open and frank debate about that because we are very serious about getting all sectors of our business community, including the agricultural sector, world competitive by giving them the best taxation system we possibly can for the future.So here we have the Labor Party asking questions about business taxation when they have a history of opposing every bit of taxation reform we put up. They opposed every single measure that we went to put forward to improve the economy of this country that has provided low interest rates. They opposed every single measure.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is on relevance. The minister has had a very specific question directed to him as to whether or not he was going to rule out the abolition of accelerated depreciation. He has had nothing to say about it thus far.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point. He will resume his seat. The minister will respond to the question.SU5Mr VAILE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point that I was raising is that at least this government is prepared to address these difficult issues. The matter that has been raised is under discussion and will be seriously considered. It will be considered in the context of the best interests of all Australian businesses, including Australia's agricultural industries. At least it is the coalition government that is prepared to address these difficult issues for the benefit of the future of business in Australia.33253325Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I understand the Minister for Foreign Affairs hosted a meeting in Sydney on Friday, 5 March, for ministers and senior international representatives to discuss long-term development cooperation strategies for responding to the Asia crisis. Can the minister advise the House of the outcomes of the meeting?3325Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I know Laurie wasn't there. He was out there attacking Gough. I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in the Asian economic crisis, which has obviously been a central preoccupation on this side of the House for Australia's international relations over the last 18 months.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham is warned.4G4Mr DOWNER—The meeting that I chaired in Sydney involved ministers and senior officials from 27 different countries and also from nine major international organisations. The reason we hosted the meeting was to galvanise the international community to maintain support for East Asia through the lengthy process of recovery and to ensure, as far as the aid donors were concerned, that there was some coordination of policies in dealing with East Asia.What was encouraging was that at this meeting the general consensus was that the Asian economic crisis had at least reached its floor and that in the next years we could look to some measure of recovery in the region, although that would not be to an equal degree in every country.There was also very strong agreement—and the House will be pleased to hear this—amongst both the donors and the recipient countries on strategies to address the Asian economic crisis. There was a very strong emphasis at the meeting, for example, on improved economic governance, particularly capacity building and financial system reform. There was, needless to say, a lot of emphasis on the need for appropriate social safety nets for those people most affected by the Asian economic crisis to be properly looked after and there was an encouraging degree of support for partnerships with the private sector and civil society.At the end of the meeting, in the interests of greater coordination between donors and recipient countries, all agreed with an Australian proposal that we establish an Asian recovery information centre in Manila, as part of the Asian Development Bank, which would help to collect and disseminate information not only about donors' activities but also about the state of the Asian economies and, in particular, problems that need to be addressed.This was just another example of Australia taking a significant lead in addressing the Asian economic crisis. I would have to say that the leadership that we have shown in convening the meeting and the leadership we have shown generally throughout the Asian economic crisis—and I say this without any exaggeration—has been enormously appreciated throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It does not matter what the politics of politics may be; Australia's role in the Asian economic crisis will be remembered by our region for a very long time as a truly constructive contribution to the region.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations332615:14:003326Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—In question time today, both the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business claimed that my question today was based solely on the views of the Australian Education Union. This is not true. My question reflected the concerns of a range of organisations, including the Australian Parents Council, which stated in its submission on the GST—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lalor will resume her seat. She has not been personally misrepresented. The member for Hotham has the call.15:15:003326Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat. I will call him in a moment. The member for Hotham has the call. Does the member for Hotham claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham may proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—On 18 February in the parliament, the member for Warringah read from a Daily Telegraph `Page Thirteen' article which made claims about a function I attended with the member for Batman last year. As I informed the Daily Telegraph at the time, the report was wrong in almost every detail, as the reporter would have learnt if they had bothered to check with me at the time.Miscellaneous332710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Calwell has indicated to me that he seeks to make a brief statement to the House, and I have agreed to extend to him the indulgence of the chair.15:16:003327Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Friday and Saturday last week, a number of newspaper reports appeared with such headlines as `NCA raids office of federal MP'. A number of sensational statements were made on both television and radio, statements which I believe gave a very misleading impression. The alleged raid consisted of officers of the National Crime Authority visiting my home and office and asking me to provide certain files, which I did. They did not carry out a search of all my files. Following the execution of the search warrant, I issued a brief statement to the media, which I think corrects the impression created. It said:It is my understanding that there has been a wide investigation into the Chinese community by the National Crime Authority with respect to immigration issues. I have been involved with the Chinese community for many years and have assisted a number of Chinese people. The NCA came with a search warrant today and asked me to provide them with files pertaining to a number of immigration cases. I have given full cooperation to the NCA on this matter. I will continue to assist the police with their inquiries.The National Crime Authority has not interviewed me, nor has any specific allegation been put to me. I have no complaint about the NCA executing the warrant. They were simply doing their job. On the other hand, I am outraged by the behaviour of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in relation to the Chinese community and in relation to my situation. However, I will not say anything more about this latter matter until the National Crime Authority has had an opportunity to progress its inquiries. In the meantime, I will continue to carry out my parliamentary duties in full.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!332710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows, and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:3327149VU5Griffin Alan MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the Anglican Parish of St Barnabas, Glen Waverley, Victoria 3150 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin(from 149 citizens)332710083NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We, the undersigned petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas, are deeply concerned at the prospect of the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). A GST is unfair since everyone pays the same tax on goods and services, regardless of their ability to pay. A GST would also tax essential everyday items such as bread, fruit and vegetables, milk and eggs, making life more difficult for struggling Australians.Under a GST, big business benefits and will pay less tax because the full tax burden is passed to consumers, particularly people on lower incomes. Such a tax would be detrimental to Australian families, small business operators and people on lower incomes.We therefore call on the House to reject any plans to introduce an expensive, inefficient and unfair system of taxation such as a Goods and Services Tax, and to ensure that our tax system is just, fair and enforceable with everyone—big business, small business, high income earners and low income earners alike—paying their fair share of tax.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 100 citizens)33285383NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the Government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 53 citizens)332830FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a majority of Australians voted against the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). We believe a GST is a regressive and unfair tax that impacts savagely in middle to lower income Australians.Your petitioners request that the House does not support the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 30 citizens)33281036TK6Southcott Andrew MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe Petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws the attention of the House to the appalling situation of Dr Nandor Jaross and his difficulties in gaining a practice certificate to continue his outstanding medical work in Australia in the field of ophthalmology.- he was invited to Australia by Northern Territory officials in 1987- he was offered permanent employment in Australia- he was offered Australian citizenship- he fulfilled his duties as specialist ophthalmologist between 1988 and 1996 in Australia with all its duties rights and privileges carrying out approximately 1000 laser treatments and was involved in nearly 1000 eye surgeries- he was directly made responsible to supervise trainee registrars since his arrival to Australia- he published extensively in local and international conferences and journals- his research in Aboriginal health is already having a major impact on the communities' health- he was elected as member of the Australian Medical Association in 1990- he was awarded the Ken Moo scholarship by the Northern Territory Government in 1992- he established the first Mobile Eye Unit in the Northern Territory in 1992- he established a sustainable system of eye service provision, in remote areas and delivered these services- single handedly raised—one million Au$ to cover the running costs of the program- had a major impact in the rise of community awareness of eye problems in the Northern Territory- received numerous certificates of appreciations from local service clubs- he was awarded the Commanding Officer's medal of the 6th Field Ambulance of the Australian Army in 1993- WHO Fellowship awarded by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health in 1993 and 1996 - awarded the Rotary International's Vocational Excellence Award in 1995- his thesis proposal was accepted with the academic merits of a PhD by the Menzies School of Health Research in 1997- in 1997 the Review of Eye Services ordered by the Commonwealth Minister of Health and carried out by Professor Taylor from the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists recognised the successes of Dr Jaross' efforts in eye care- his expertise in Aboriginal health, in remote area medical services and diabetic retinopathy was registered with the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1998Despite all of the above, Dr Jaross' qualifications are not recognised in Australia and he is barred from practising ophthalmology. Several officials on the basis on equity and fairness or on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the General Assembly resolution 217A(111) December 1948 declares that Dr Jaross has not only been treated unfairly to the point of blatant discrimination but despite his original invitation to Australia he was persecuted as well.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will use its endeavours to influence the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to facilitate a method to rectify the situation in recognising and accepting his work in Australia and his qualifications to the grant of the medical licence.Your petitioners also pray that the House will use its endeavours to influence the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to investigate why and how Dr Jaross was persecuted while carrying out his unique work and why and how this level of service was stopped and his career cut making the patients, himself and his own family suffer despite his excellent work.Dr SouthcottTK6Dr Southcott(from 1,036 citizens)33291522UK6Thomson Kelvin MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the house to the fact that thousands of Australian citizens and elected officials have endorsed the following `Appeal to President Clinton'.`Appeal to President ClintonDear Mr. President,The attempt on the part of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, to misuse the American Congress for an impeachment proceeding against you in the style of the British parliamentary system, is equivalent to a coup d'etat against the office of the President and against the American Constitution. Should this coup d'etat succeed, not only the United States, but the entire world would be thrown back into a political condition such as existed before the American Revolution—with the worst possible consequences. Therefore we assure you, Mr. President, of our full support.You yourself have directly spoken of the fact, that the world finds itself in the most dangerous economic and financial crisis of the last 50 years. Unfortunately, it was demonstrated at the different meetings of the Group of 7, the Group of 22, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank in Washington, that these governments and institutions are incapable of dealing with the urgently required reorganisation of the international monetary and financial system.However, the free market and `laissez faire' economic system is today just as bankrupt as the destroyed Soviet Union. If the governments now attempt to respond to the crisis with austerity and hyperinflationary policies, this will only lead even more rapidly to the nuclear meltdown of the system.The economic Lyndon LaRouche alone has warned for a long time, that the series of wrong decisions in the framework of the neo-liberal economic policies of the last 30 years must inevitably lead to a systemic crisis. He has been right; all of his critics are today fully discredited. LaRouche is well-known in many countries throughout the world and is highly esteemed for his uncompromising action in behalf of a new, just world economic order. We appeal to you, President Clinton, to appoint Lyndon LaRouche immediately as economic adviser to your administration.'Your petitioners therefore request the House to approach President Clinton, and ask that he appoint Lyndon LaRouche as his economic adviser in this period of grave crisis.Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson(from 1,522 citizens)33293284FWasher Mal MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament.We the undersigned petitioners of Western Australia view that any change to a Republic should not be achieved by amendment to the Australian Constitution, but by invitation to join a new constituted Federation. Therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that the House of Representatives will ensure that the result of the vote cast by Western Australians for their decision to accept or reject the change to a Republic be treated as a choice exclusive to Western Australia, as was the case when asked to join in Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia.Dr Washer84FDr Washer(from 32 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business3330333015:19:003330Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I 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.One of the most dreadful blots on our society today is, I believe, the high incidence of suicide, particularly youth suicide. I have turned up press clippings that I have had, going back to 1993, and I wish to quote from somebody that many members of the House will know: John Smith, the bikie minister from Melbourne, who back in 1993 was endeavouring to draw the attention of the governments of Australia to the dreadful problem he detected in society of youth suicide. John Smith said that the 15- to 19 year-old male record high year was actually set at the height of the boom in the year of celebration of the bicentenary. John was saying that in good times and in times of high employment it was still possible for us to experience high levels of suicide.To give some perspective on the scale and magnitude of this serious problem, this dreadful and tragic problem that besets families in our nation—and, unfortunately, members of parliament in this House are often involved in giving comfort or assistance to families who are suffering the loss through suicide of somebody who was loved or close to them—the problem can best be appreciated if one looks at, first of all, the extent of the AIDS problem in Australia. HIV-AIDS has a total number of about 1,460 people, both males and females, contracting that disease each year. Our road motor accidents in 1997 caused 1,801 deaths but, in that same year, there were 2,723 deaths from suicide, so in fact nearly twice the number of people take their own lives as die from AIDS in Australia, and suicide accounts for substantially more than 50 per cent more than are killed in motor accidents.In fact, the level of youth suicide for 15- to 19-year-old males is the highest by world standards. It is not a proud record for a country that boasts of opportunity, adventure and the chance for young people to get on. I believe it is something that the nation and all governments and all individual members of this House need to take seriously.The causes of suicide are difficult to determine, but it has been suggested by the working party established by the federal government that previous suicidal behaviour, previous history of psychiatric treatment, mood disorders—including depression—more than one mental illness, lower educational achievements, drug and alcohol problems, legal problems, imprisonment or antisocial behaviour and child abuse can all contribute to the act of suicide.In the world situation, there are only two other nations in the advanced economies with a suicide rate higher than Australia's—France and Switzerland. There are a couple of countries slightly above Australia's level of deaths for males of 21 per 10,000. Countries with which we would like to compare ourselves have suicide rates very much lower than ours: UK has half the suicide rate of Australia, US has considerably less than our suicide rate, Italy has half our suicide rate—and the list goes on. It is a sad and tragic thing and I appeal to everybody in this parliament and to all governments at all levels to immediately put in place dynamic and workable strategies. Both sides of the House have endeavoured to solve this problem, but not successfully at this stage. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?15:24:003330Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I second the motion. When discussing youth suicide, it is important not to lose sight of the scale of the problem we are discussing. The reality is that youth suicide affects every Australian family. Every Australian family has at least one family member in it who knows someone personally whose life has been affected by youth suicide. In 1995, around 25 per cent of all deaths in the 15 to 24 age group in Australia were as a direct result of suicide. This means that close to 350 people in 1995 aged between 15 and 24 killed themselves.We need to understand as well that, whilst these official youth suicide figures are horrendous, they do not provide the full picture of youth suicide and significantly understate the extent of the problem. It is widely understood that many suicides are not officially recorded in order to protect the victim's family and friends from further trauma and for other reasons. It is important as well to understand that, when considering the statistics, for each completed suicide there are around 10 attempted suicides. The Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention estimates that there are 50 to 90 attempts for every successful suicide. This means that each year between 25,000 and 45,000 young Australians will attempt suicide. Alarmingly for suicide researchers and for our community generally, the rate of youth suicide in Australia has not been static. Since the 1960s, youth suicide amongst young men has nearly trebled.As someone who represents a regional electorate in this place, I find that perhaps the most alarming statistic relating to youth suicide is the very high rate of youth suicide which exists in regional and rural areas amongst young men. The research indicates that there are consistently higher rates of suicide among young men living in rural areas. Importantly, many of these regional areas also report significantly higher levels of unemployment than those found in urban areas. The white paper on youth suicide dated 7 July 1997 states:There is long-term evidence that as the ratio of youth unemployment to total male unemployment increases, so too does the ratio of youth suicide to total male suicide. There is also anecdotal evidence from rural communities that feelings of pessimism and youth suicide are directly related to lack of opportunity and poor prospects for the future. The inability to find a job significantly adds to feelings of pessimism and negative esteem.The correlation between youth unemployment and youth suicide is a real concern to me and our community in the electorate of McMillan, given that unemployment in Gippsland has risen dramatically during the term of this government. When Labor lost office in March 1996 unemployment in Gippsland was 9.2 per cent. It is now 14 per cent and youth unemployment is around 45 per cent. These are massive increases in unemployment and no-one could reasonably expect such a massive increase in unemployment to not bring with it social dislocation and community suffering and pain.In Gippsland we have also experienced one of the worst droughts on record with those on the land having experienced enormous hardship and financial difficulty. A responsible government needs to be sensitive to the needs of the community which has experienced this massive dislocation and should not push too quickly any agenda which will exacerbate the unemployment situation and mean the withdrawal of important services. Unfortunately for Gippsland, sensitivity and understanding are not the strong suits of the present federal government or the state government of Victoria, and the withdrawal of important services and job cuts have continued as though both governments were oblivious to the pain in our community.In the same way that government policy should not create a sense of hopelessness for those living in regional Australia, government policy relating to young people needs to be respectful of the vulnerable position young people often find themselves in. This government's mean-spirited approach to young people has further marginalised an already disadvantaged group within our community. Through the introduction of policies such as the Common Youth Allowance, cuts to regional universities and TAFE colleges and the defunding of Skillshares, young people in training in my electorate have had their lot made more difficult. And, as a result of poll driven policies such as Work for the Dole and now literacy and numeracy tests for young people out of work, the young unemployed—some 45 per cent of all young people in my electorate—have been made to feel even less part of our community.We can find a way of lowering youth suicide only when governments recognise that policies which marginalise and blame young people and which disadvantage regions can only make youth suicide rates worse. As legislators, we have a responsibility to examine every option—no matter how radical it might seem—which has the potential to stem the rising deaths resulting from suicide amongst young people in our nation. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I might say to the member for McMillan that, when he is told his time has expired, that is the time to stop speaking and sit down.15:30:003332May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I was shocked to learn that up to 60,000 youths try to suicide each year. I was horrified to read that suicide now claims one life about every four hours and that for every completed suicide there are about 30 suicide attempts. Suicide rates in young Australians between 15 and 24 years of age have trebled for males and doubled for females over the past 30 years. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in 1997 more Australians took their own lives than ever before. The number of suicides rose by 14 per cent from 1996, with the highest suicide rate among men aged between 25 and 44. This is indeed a tragedy. Last year 2,146 men and 577 woman took their own lives. Suicide is the most common cause of traumatic death in Australia, in adolescence and for the general population. Suicide is now the leading cause of death by injury, ahead of car accidents and homicides. Tragically, Australia's rate of suicide is reported to be amongst the highest in the industrialised world.As the member for Mitchell has pointed out in his motion, young males, drug takers and residents of rural areas are particularly prone to take their lives. Over the past few decades suicide rates for males in rural and remote areas have risen and are now higher than suicide rates in metropolitan and regional areas. Suicides using firearms are more frequent in rural areas. Male suicide rates are particularly high for inland remote areas, which have sparse populations, limited access to services, predominantly male populations and high proportions of indigenous communities. There is substantial evidence that harmful drug use is associated with increased risk for suicide. For men and women, the most common method of attempted and completed suicide is drug overdose, with the number of men dying from suicide by drug overdose being greater than the number of women.Another fact that is extremely alarming is the amount of suicide material available on the Internet. Associate Professor Pierre Baume of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention has identified that children on the Internet have access to methods of dying, how to write suicide notes and stories of other Internet readers' suicides.The increasing amount of research into youth suicide is reflected by a growing amount of recognition by all levels of government of the severity of the problem. Various governments, at both federal and state level, have funded youth suicide research and prevention programs over the past two decades. The National Youth Suicide Strategy, the Here for Life programs and the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy, funded with $31 million up to June this year, have all had a common cause—to curb youth suicide. In addition, the government has made changes to the firearms legislation, provided a national drug strategic framework and extended the national mental health strategy, which aims to promote mental health and wellbeing.I encourage all members of parliament on both sides to commit themselves to supporting measures which will reduce the unacceptably high level of suicide. The National Action Plan for Suicide Prevention consultation draft of December 1998 states that a national action plan for suicide prevention is required for two reasons: firstly, to reduce deaths by suicide and, secondly, to reduce suicidal behaviours, suicidal thinking and the injury and pain caused by suicide to the community. The Howard government realises that reducing youth suicide requires the support and understanding of the entire Australian community. The government also recognises the importance of education and raising awareness of youth suicide prevention issues and providing practical solutions. In 1997 the government formed the National Advisory Council on Youth Suicide Prevention. The Aspects of youth suicide seminar brought to national attention issues involving youth suicide.It is my view that we need to inform and educate the public, the media, the entertainment industry and help health services about our knowledge in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of suicide. To the parents of those who have taken their lives, I express my deepest sympathy and regret. As a mother of three, I feel for the mothers, the fathers and the families who have lost a child, a sibling, a relative or a friend to suicide. It is important that suicide prevention is delivered within a coordinated national approach with links to all levels of government and the community. We need to do all we can to reduce this unacceptably high level of suicide. (Time expired)15:35:003333Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Each member of this House has different reasons as to why they have decided to enter parliament. One of the main reasons I decided to become involved in politics was the concern I was feeling over the problems my students were facing. Over the 13 years I spent teaching, each year I saw that my students were facing more and more serious problems—problems that young people should never have to contemplate. The current rate of suicide in Australia must be a matter of grave concern for all of us. There are more than 2,400 Australians who die each year as a result of suicide. After motor vehicle accidents, suicide is the highest cause of death for young people in the 15 to 24 age group.There are two main areas that we must concentrate on regarding youth suicide. The first priority must be to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to help the young people who find themselves in a position where suicide seems to be the only answer to their problems. The second is to address the issues which force our young people into this position. Two factors which influence the risk of youth suicide are unemployment and living in rural areas. For young people at risk, it is vital that there are resources for early intervention to reduce the stresses that are forcing them into the position of believing that suicide is the answer.It is important that there be education programs available to alert parents and teachers to the early warning signs that a young person may be heading down a self-destructive path. Our youth suicide seminar recently held at Fairbridge in the electorate of Canning highlighted the lack of information and support available to parents in emergency situations.Another issue of concern is the fact that resources are so stretched with the local groups that it is only possible to concentrate on the young people who are at high risk. This means that the young people who are having problems but are not deemed high risk are not getting all the attention they need. When faced with a family member attempting suicide, the other family members need to be helped to cope with their own feelings as well as be assisted to understand how they can help the young person overcome their problems.Speaking this week to members of organisations who are involved in counselling those thinking of suicide has highlighted the need for governments to allocate enough resources to deal with the problems. Some areas of Canning have the highest youth suicide rate in Western Australia. The Peel health service is currently trying to get the funding needed to have a PET team in the area.The major goal, of course, must be to work to create a society where suicide is not seen as a solution, where young people are not forced into a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness about their lives. It is very difficult for young people to tackle their future with a feeling of enthusiasm and confidence if there is little chance of employment. For many, it is through work that a feeling of self-worth and achievement is attained.In the past 15 years, the number of full-time jobs for young people has halved. The government must allocate the money needed to programs which will lead to real full-time jobs and a sense of belonging to the com munity. Since 1993, in Western Australia the youth suicide rate has been close to 20 per cent. Statistics show that males living in rural areas have a consistently higher rate of suicide than those in urban areas. A number of factors have been highlighted as possible causes, including lack of educational opportunities, high youth unemployment, loneliness and an increased access to means of suicide. In some rural areas, it is difficult to seek medical and psychiatric assistance for early intervention.Those of us who have experienced either an attempted suicide or the completed suicide of someone close can understand the devastating effect it has on all family members and friends. It must be the priority of all state and federal governments to give the resources needed to the groups which help the young people at risk and to reduce the factors which put them in that position.15:40:003334Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I commend the member for Mitchell for moving such an important motion in the House. Regrettably, it is a matter which is touching far too many Australian families and leaves many of us mournfully aware of a great sorrow within our communities to which there appears no answer. Our suicide rate is one of the highest in the industrialised world. Its reduction should command the same national focus as does the state of our economy and the state of our national debt.In May 1997, the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, of which I was a member, held a special seminar on this complex and perplexing issue. In its report, Aspects of youth suicide, the committee observed, inter alia, that for some young people acute depression combined with chronic family discord created an overwhelming distress and sense of hopelessness.The most vexing aspect in trying to find reasons for suicidal tendency and serious depression is that there is no one clearly identifiable cause. It was shown to be a multi-factorial phenomenon. But, from personal experience and from anecdotal evidence, it appears to me that there are often aspects of many suicides, especially amongst the young, that have some circumstances in common. One is a tragic or traumatic life event that occurred in the young person's life in the preceding six weeks of the suicide event; another is significant alcohol consumption at the time of the event, and another is a personal history of marijuana consumption during the time leading up to the event.It is my contention, and it is the contention of many who have worked in the area of suicide prevention in the wider community, that the consumption of cannabis is one of the most significant contributing factors in the lives of young people who have either attempted suicide, or worse. In its report, Addicted to life, the Salvation Army raised a nexus between the use of this illicit drug and suicide. Important anti-drug organisations like Drugwatch Australia and PRYDE have also identified the consumption of marijuana with our high suicide rate.Since the 1960s, a significant mythology has developed around marijuana. It is often called a soft drug, a recreational drug or a non-addictive drug, yet nothing could be further from the truth. And the very least that we owe our children is the truth. The truth about marijuana is about personal unhappiness and acute depression. Marijuana can cause mental disorders including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks, flashbacks, delusions, depersonalisation, hallucinations, paranoia, depression and uncontrollable hostility. It has been shown, according to the Lancet, that marijuana users are six times more likely to develop schizophrenia than non-users. Mental disorders directly attributed to marijuana, as published by the American Psychiatric Association in May 1994, include impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, a sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal and perceptual disturbances, memory loss, disorientation and other cannabis induced psychotic disorders.This drug contains over 426 different chemicals which directly affect the brain—and cannabis is fat soluble. As our brains are 30 per cent fat, this drug is actually stored in the brain, and tests have shown that the brain is still impaired up to 24 hours after use. Parents of young people on cannabis will know the change in the personality of their youngster from a happy-go-lucky person to one exhibiting depression and hostility.One important fact that should be noted is the encouraging results that have been documented by the United States drug court experience. Begun in 1989 in Florida as a pilot to reduce drug related crime, the drug courts focus on the person and treat the drug problem as a health and social problem as well as a criminal one. The drug court judge acts as a case manager and, by strict weekly supervision, integrates the support of government departments, community services, rehabilitation and vocational training in assisting people to change their lives to ones which are drug free. Drug testing and treatment are components of the program.The results have been astounding. Drug courts in the United States have helped make safer communities and have saved considerable amounts of public money. But more important was the sudden reduction in suicide in those jurisdictions where the drug courts had been established. To me this is one important aspect of the success of the United States drug court program which demands closer attention. This is important news for the whole community as it appears, on my reading at least, to be the only program that has been able to report a reduction in suicide anywhere in the world. Therefore, I urge our government to investigate this United States drug court program and investigate it seriously and without delay.At this point, I stress that the pilot of drug courts in New South Wales is not following the United States drug court example. Regrettably, the New South Wales drug courts will refer candidates to a methadone program which itself has been shown to be a significant cause of addiction. The methadone program is a scandal, and I will be bringing this issue before this honourable House in due course. If we are deadly serious about reducing suicide, we should try to help our young people lead drug-free lives and send them to detox, not put them onto other drugs of addiction. And we have to be deadly serious because suicide is a deadly matter and our kids are still dying.15:45:003335Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Whilst I applaud the honourable member for Mitchell for raising this issue in the House, I feel it is far too late, as we have done here today, to express our dismay, note with concern and convey our sympathy to the families and friends touched by the tragedy of suicide. We, as politicians, should be ashamed that we have failed the families in our electorates, ashamed that the number of suicide victims continues to grow to a point where we are now rated as close to having the worst suicide rate in the world. We are surely failing, despite the funded programs put in place by both this government and the previous one, to try to stem the increase in the number of our young people committing suicide.Our young people, especially, are crying out plaintively for help to address their needs. Many in this place feel that, because we have allocated moneys to state governments and various well-intentioned agencies in the field, we have done all that is required of us. This is obviously untrue. How many of us, as we work in our electorate offices, daily hear from people, especially the alienated, expressing their utter frustration over their inability to convince the `authorities'—as I call them—of the need to come up with the practical, here and now solutions to their many problems? How often, when we are debriefed over a suicide, do we come to the realisation that what triggered the final act was really a simple, solvable problem to us, as outsiders, but insurmountable to the person who committed suicide?The basic problem is the breaking down of our family structures and, with it, the cohesive safety nets that are usually in place for all of us in times of stress and turmoil. We adults and us as a society are failing our children and consequently reaping the whirlwind of drug abuse and youth suicide; failing to provide them with a loving and caring home; failing to provide so many of them with a realistic hope of gaining meaningful and rewarding employment; failing to provide affordable housing options, as they set out, often far from home, in their quest to begin post-secondary education or their first job. These failings often place these young people in real jeopardy.We fail as parents and as citizens to put in place, whether it be in our capital cities, regional centres or in the more remote parts of our country, the basic, local and readily available community resources ready to be accessed when our young people need them. We as a society have been seduced by the economic thought police, whose philosophy is that, unless you can justify the expenditure in the current budget outlays, you should not receive the money.We are now faced with having to find tens of millions of dollars to try to erase the problem shown nightly on our television sets—the sight of countless wasted lives slumped in the laneways of so many Australian cities. `Reconciliation' is a word bandied about quite regularly in this place. It is about time we reconciled ourselves as parents with our children, and worked together to rebuild our families, our communities and our country.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.333615:50:003336Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I 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.Education is a fundamental human right. For most people in Australia, accessing education is taken for granted. However, for families living in remote areas of this country, accessing education is a right that is labour intensive and costly for the family to obtain. For these isolated families, funding dictates whether or not the children return to school each year. Geographic isolation effectively prevents students in these circumstances accessing the same educational opportunities as metropolitan students in Australian schools. It should be noted that non-government school hostels provide the only access to free government primary and secondary schools for isolated families and that these government schools are the ones most likely to be used by these families in severe and prolonged financial difficulties.The federal coalition stood up to its election promises concerning the emergency funding for school term hostels in 1998, and the Assistance for Isolated Children scheme increased for 1999. It is the recurrent funding for the hostels that is the only promise not yet delivered. The current situation reveals several existing inequities. If the school completion rates of students from remote, isolated areas are to be improved, severely income affected isolated families will need access to a reasonable minimum number of lower fee, school term hostels in each state. The main reason that most isolated families cannot keep sending their children to school is that they cannot afford the alternatives. Sending their children to more expensive private boarding schools is not an option.In 1997, the ICPA put a submission to the Commonwealth regarding recurrent payments. Essentially, the ICPA proposed that the Commonwealth provide $1,000 per annum for each isolated student resident in school term hostels—this means that the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs would pay $1,745,000 in recurrent payments, either directly to the hostels concerned or to the states—to be matched by an equal state payment of $1,000 per annum per isolated student: a total of $2,000 per isolated student to each registered school hostel. If the maximum isolated student boarding allowance of $4,347 per annum is added to the proposed $2,000 per annum direct payment to the school hostel, plus, on average, $500 to $800 per annum in state government isolated allowances, there is a total cost to government of $7,147 per annum for each isolated child accessing school.This compares more than favourably with the per student costs of secondary distance education costs of $16,000; education costs allowance for federal public servants of $12,000; primary distance education with radio of $12,000; Abstudy boarding tuition and allowances of $9,000; and, primary distance education without radio of $8,000. If it is acceptable and reasonable to pay a non-government school bus proprietor $68,000 per annum to deliver 20 to 43 isolated children to a town school, it must then be acceptable and reasonable to pay a non-government or government school hostel proprietor a maximum of $72,000 per annum to deliver 20 to 43 or more isolated children to the same school. In the remote town of Hay in my electorate, Claughton House delivers in excess of 27 children to the school gate each day and the government will not subsidise this service for one cent.Aboriginal school hostels are funded separately. In 1993, the federal government provided an operating grant of $25.8 million to Aboriginal Hostels Limited for the provision of 10 hostels with 360 beds. It is time that the federal and state governments did something appropriate and effective to remove inequities and provide isolated children with the schooling to which they are entitled. The upcoming meeting of the Ministerial Council on Education, Training and Youth Affairs should give all parties an opportunity to provide the adequate and balanced recurrent funding required for school-term hostels to remain open and function effectively in Australia. This will give more than 44 per cent of remote area males and more than 51 per cent of remote area females the opportunity to finish their schooling. I believe that we in government should be aiming to achieve this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Is the motion seconded?834LAWLERMr Lawler—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:55:003337Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It is my pleasure to support this motion today. It is worth noting that the national report on schooling in Australia indicates that remote or isolated students have the lowest year 12 retention rates—58 per cent compared with 71 per cent for urban and 64 per cent for rural students. Remote area males have only 51 per cent year 12 completion rates. In the Northern Territory, year 12 completion rates for urban students is an appallingly low 58 per cent. In the bush, it is much worse; it is 35 per cent. The retention rate to year 12 for the Northern Territory in 1997 was 42 per cent, compared with the national figure of 71 per cent. This indicates starkly the necessity to provide a range of service types to enable people who live in remote and rural areas to get their children to an acceptable standard of education.I am fully supportive of hostels, having initiated hostel funding for remote area hostels in the previous Keating government. In the Northern Territory we have four hostels operating. At Alice Springs, St Mary's Family Services has a hostel with a capacity of 30 and last year operated at 100 per cent capacity. In Katherine, Callistermon Hostel, a government run hostel, has a capacity of 40 and last year operated at 75 per cent capacity. There are two Aboriginal hostels in the Northern Territory: Wongkuna-Kari in Tennant Creek, which has 24 places, and Fordimail in Katherine, which has 15 places. We need to appreciate that this is not nearly enough. Not only is it important that we support the motion which has been moved today to provide recurrent funding for student hostels, servicing the need for access of students from remote communities, but we also need to look at the provision of schools.As a community, I think we ought to be examining the importance of putting in place, in conjunction with state and territory governments, a system of regional high schools with hostels attached to them in regionally important and strategic locations. I can give you four examples in the Northern Territory where, if high schools with hostels attached were present, the participation rates, certainly of young Aboriginal kids, would improve dramatically. These would be in north-east Arnhem Land, south-east Arnhem Land, the Borroloola region and the Tanami region of the Northern Territory. At the moment—and I need to make this very clear—there are no high schools for any of these kids. We are talking about a very large proportion of the Northern Territory school population who do not have access to high schools. It is not good enough.We should be saying to this government, as we should be saying to other governments, that, `We want you to provide recurrent funding of the type which is being proposed for people who are currently in hostels'—of that there should be no doubt—`but we need you to go a step further. Not only do we want you to do this, but we want you to build more hostels in proximity to strategically located high schools. If those high schools are yet to be built, we want you to provide the finances to build them.' Despite the rhetoric we often hear in this place, it is very clear that it will only be when government devotes the financial resources to develop this educational infrastructure that students who live in remote Australia will have an opportunity to get an appropriate level of education.The implications of this are very important to all of us. Will we see an improvement in the appalling outcomes that I have already outlined and that will flow on to better participation rates in higher education and better opportunities for employment. Currently, because these students do not have access to the most fundamental education provisions, they cannot access the employment training that we fondly talk about in this place. I think this motion is very important and I encourage the House to support it.15:59:003338Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise to bring to the attention of the House the desperate plight of school hostels across my electorate and Australia-wide which are struggling to make ends meet without recurrent federal government funding. In November 1998, faced with the closure of nine rural and remote school hostels across Australia, the federal government made emergency funding for school hostels a priority, allocating $230,000 to hold these hostels over until the government's pre-election pledge on recurrent funding came to fruition. Most of these endangered hostels are still with us today, including Kalgoorlie's Isolated Children's Hostel, but unfortunately this funding came too late for two hostels in Tasmania, which meant some $195,000 was divided among the seven survivors.One of the conditions for this emergency funding was that hostels must stay open through 1999. What we have today is a vital service in limbo. Having cleared their debts with the emergency funding, hostels now need the promised recurrent funding sooner rather than later. Until now, school hostels have been surviving on the smell of an oily rag, raising money from fetes, charity donations, local shires and churches. Clearly, this is not good enough for a country which values education and a fair go for all.A submission to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs by the Isolated Children's Parents Association of Australia earlier this year made it clear that the only way school hostels will continue is if the Commonwealth makes $1,000 per child available to both government and non-government hostels. At present, the Queensland and Northern Territory governments provide recurrent funding of $1,000 per isolated child in hostels. In New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania no such funding arrangements exist. In Western Australia, the state government provides non-government hostels with a token amount and government hostels receive some $1 million per annum—$300,000 for capital funding and $700,000 for recurrent funding. What the hostels need is for the Commonwealth to come to the party in providing $1,000 for each isolated child in a hostel, which would get all states on board. I call on the federal government to make good on this election pledge.I am informed by Mr David Houston, Convenor, School Term Hostels, Federal Council of the Isolated Children's Parents Association Australia, that the continuation of school hostels in isolated rural Australia is dependent on the Commonwealth providing $550,000 in recurrent funding, matched by the same amount from the states each year, to maintain some 40 school term hostels across Australia.This issue is particularly pertinent in my electorate. Of the 1,745 children in hostels across Australia, the overwhelming majority are in Western Australia—1,067 in fact. When you are talking about isolated and rural needs, there is no electorate with more isolated and rural needs than the electorate of Kalgoorlie, with hostels in Esperance, Kalgoorlie, Merredin and Geraldton.Having secured state government recurrent funding, the school hostels in Western Australia have gone ahead in leaps and bounds, with the addition of highly qualified and dedicated staff. The 1,067 students now in school hostels across Western Australia are testimony to this. But still there is scope for so much more. The glaring consideration with the Western Australian experience is that the majority of hostels are taking students at secondary education level. But an increasing trend in the face of rural crisis, with increasing costs and plummeting commodity prices, is that often mothers who teach their children from home are now fully committed in the running of the family property as their husbands, often many miles away, try to earn enough to keep the farm afloat through contract and other employment.Another disturbing feature sees Western Australia with the second lowest school completion rate of any state. Just 44 per cent of students complete year 12, compared with the national average of 65 per cent. Those who cannot afford boarding schools or who choose to go to government schools will need hostels in regional centres. We have an increasing percentage of non-English speaking migrant parents in the bush who cannot teach distance education.The rural depression has seen an increasing number of mothers, who usually teach their children, now tied up with running the property. The increasing rationalisation of schools sees the closure of one- or two-teacher schools as commonplace. (Time expired)16:04:003339Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Recently I visited outback and remote areas in New South Wales. During that time I learnt of the difficulties these communities have, and accessing education in these areas is one of those difficulties. That is why governments fund schools and students in these areas at a higher level, and that is why it is essential for this government to support the current funding for student hostels.The one-off funding that was given last year is not good enough. What is required is a long-term commitment to students and their accommodation needs. The government's refusal to provide recurrent funding to hostels, coupled with its decision to cut capital grants in its 1996 budget, shows its lack of commitment to students living in isolated areas. Without suitable hostel accommodation, those students who do not have the option of accessing education locally will be disadvantaged. It will compound the effects of isolation.Without suitable hostel accommodation, some students will not be able to attend school. The government, along with other governments, has provided support to individual students through the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme. It is a scheme designed to ensure that all students have access to school education, but it is useless if there is inadequate accommodation, or no accommodation, for the students. I suggest the government rethinks its decision to cut capital funding to student hostels and consider making the one-off grant that was given to hostels last year ongoing.The decision to cut this program, together with many other decisions of this government, is making disadvantaged students—those students in greatest need—more disadvantaged. The funding cuts to student hostels will not disadvantage students attending the elite boarding schools. Rather, the decision will work to compound the difficulties experienced by the most socially and economically disadvantaged students. Historically, churches and charity organisations have mainly funded student hostels. In recent times, these hostels have been experiencing difficulties, particularly since the Hostels for Rural Students Capital Grants Program, which operated between 1994 and 1996, was cut.During 1994 and 1995, the Commonwealth provided $2.6 million to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the management and operation of hostels for rural students. All eligible non-government rural hostels and the students housed in them benefit directly through better trained staff and better operated hostels. This, along with the establishment of the National Association for Rural Students, went to ensure that those students who needed hostel accommodation to access education would be able to find that accommodation. Unfortunately, this program was not continued after 1996 when this government cut it. The one-off grants given to hostels last year were a welcome injection of funds, as I have already said, but they will not solve the problem.There are many problems associated with students in isolated areas. Education in isolated areas requires additional time and effort on behalf of students, their families and teachers. The majority of students attending CAP funded schools attend government schools, with Aboriginal students making up almost 15 per cent of those students. When you consider the total number of Aboriginal students attending most schools is two per cent, it is a very high percentage.Students attending isolated schools have lower attention rates and poorer access to all forms of education. Quite often they rely on distance education to learn. Modern technological innovations have improved things but still it cannot compare with learning within the classroom and interacting with other students. The students in these areas still remain extremely disadvantaged. They have poor attendance and a poor retention rate. They have low literacy levels. (Time expired)16:09:003340Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—May I say at the outset that the body that I would regard as that most capable of enunciating what is needed for rural and remote students would be the Isolated Children's and Parents Association of Australia. While I recognise and welcome the support for this motion that we have had from the other side, some of the talk about calling for capital injection is not, as far as I know, on the agenda for the Isolated Children's and Parents Association of Australia. To my way of thinking, there is not much point spending a lot of capital if we do not have the recurrent funding. The thrust of this motion, I understand, is to encourage the government to look at providing recurrent funding for the existing hostels.Whether we like it or not, and it would be for debate at another time as to what we should do about this situation, times are crucial in rural Australia at the moment. The population is in decline. In smaller areas we have one-teacher schools being closed down. We have the reduction of bus services. What we need is school term hostels for primary and secondary age children where these school buses are no longer provided and we need school term hostels for secondary age children on distance education when they or their parents are not coping.The problems faced by rural children today are directly proportionate to the problems faced by their parents. Unfortunately, as we know, at the moment commodity prices and drought have hit many of our rural families extremely harshly. The parents are feeling it, and the fact that the parents feel it means there is automatically a flow-on effect to the children. The access they have to education and the amount of money that the parents are able to pay for sending them away to school, be it a boarding school or be it a hostel such as we are speaking about, is no longer there. Not only that, the ability to employ people to help on many of these properties is diminished and we find that not only are a lot of these children unable to access education but they sometimes are being discouraged from accessing further education because of the need to get them to work on these properties.Access to high quality primary, secondary and tertiary education and training is a basic need of rural people. Geographic isolation means that people in rural areas have less physical access to educational facilities and increased costs in accessing education. Typically, parents living in remote areas are faced with having to pay high school fees for these children or, alternatively, pay for live-in teachers. In addition, the costs involved in having children attend excursions or sporting events can be substantial, loading on again to the cost of education for these unfortunate families. The availability of adequate education facilities can often be a major aspect of the decision made by young families to relocate to or away from a regional centre. As a result, government investment in educational facilities can have a significant impact on the long-term viability of regional centres.The National Farmers Federation have given us figures, and I understand they have been quoted already, that say that in rural and remote areas 52 per cent of students go on to year 12 and less than 50 per cent of boys go on to year 12. Recently, throughout Australia—including my electorate—the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, travelled around investigating the access that people in rural areas have to different services. He released his report last week and I understand that some of the figures show that, in regional areas in 1989, 25 per cent of students went on to tertiary education. In 1997, that dropped to 16 per cent going on to tertiary education.The association between the ability to attend school in your formative years is quite clearly linked to your ability to go on to tertiary education. The national trend shows that students are increasingly availing themselves of tertiary education and yet, in rural and remote areas, in a little under 10 years, the percentage has dropped from 25 per cent to 16 per cent attending. We must give kids the opportunity to continue their schooling. The federal government has recognised the cause of the ICPA and increased assistance to the isolated children. They have provided one-off capital funding to two areas in my electorate, majorly funded by the Baptist Church, and that is most welcome. (Time expired)16:14:003341O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Education in today's competitive market is more important than it has ever been. According to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bush Talks publication of 1999:Children in rural and remote Australia are less likely to complete their education than children in regional and urban centres.Access to education is an issue of critical importance in my electorate. More specifically, access to suitable accommodation for students wishing to complete years 11 and 12 is threatening to severely impact on participation rates of north-east Tasmanian rural students in secondary education.Years 11 and 12 students living in north-east Tasmania have two public college options if they choose to further their education beyond year 10. They may attend Launceston College or Newstead College to attain their TCE. Both these colleges are Launceston based, and relocating to Launceston is therefore inevitable for most rural north-east Tasmanian families. Years 11 and 12 students in rural Tasmania therefore face additional barriers in furthering their education than other Australian students contend with. Already retention rates in Tasmania are low at 62.1 per cent in 1998, with the national average being around 71.6 per cent.The National Farmers Federation, in Trends in the delivery of rural health, education and banking services 1997, identifies inadequate access to secondary schools as one of the factors which contribute to the high drop-out rate in years 11 and 12. The effect of inadequate hostel facilities on retention rates is realised when one considers that only around 51 per cent of rural students nationally go on to complete years 11 and 12, and this figure is even lower in Tasmania. We need to encourage rural students to complete years 11 and 12. The government therefore needs to make a commitment to securing recurrent funding to hostels for rural students in Tasmania.Limited existing hostel accommodation in Tasmania makes it more difficult for students in my electorate to gain enough subjects to complete their TCE. Specifically, rural students in Scottsdale and Winnaleah are able to complete some TCE subjects in their respective regions, but they are unable to complete enough subjects to be awarded their TCE. In my parliamentary colleague's electorate of Lyons, I understand similar issues arise for students from areas like St Helens. Students from St Helens need to travel for almost three hours each way to attend classes in Launceston. Six hours of travel each day is impossible to manage, particularly when coupled with a full TCE workload. The amount of travel required is compounded by the isolation of residents living in Scottsdale and particularly in areas like Derby and Winnaleah.Failure on the part of the federal government to provide recurrent funding to hostels will also drive rural students out of tertiary education. Without completing years 11 and 12, rural students will be prevented from accessing universities. The existing barriers faced by north-east Tasmanian rural students include the physical distance between place of family residence and the college facility. The physical distance in the Tasmanian context is measured in terms of how long it takes to get to places rather than the distance on the map. There are only limited facilities which provide weekend accommodation—students are expected to make alternative arrangements for weekends. This situation is clearly unacceptable, especially for students living on Flinders Island. Years 11 and 12 students on Flinders Island are further disadvantaged because their only option is to fly off the island to complete those years. It is hardly a trip which can be made every weekend, yet weekend live-in options apply to very few hostels.Hostels provide an essential service in my electorate. Without their continued existence, retention rates of rural years 11 and 12 students will decrease. Without federal funding the writing appears to be on the wall that some of these hostels will cease to operate. As of last year, Launceston College ceased to run Villa apartments and Orana hostels. Launceston College pulled out of providing this invaluable service to students on the basis that it was no longer financially viable to do so. Thankfully, Newstead College currently runs both these hostels on a five-day-a-week basis, obviously excluding weekends. How much longer they will be able to run the hostels is uncertain. With increasing rental costs both of the hostels run by Newstead College face a bleak future without federal recurrent funding.Escalation in the cost of hostel accommodation will force more rural students to seek out private accommodation options. Such options are more expensive and, more importantly, are frequently less appropriate as they are less structured and do not provide the level of supervision guaranteed by existing hostel operators. This level of security, structure and supervision provides the parents with peace of mind and the student with the right sort of environment to academically succeed. I urge the Howard government to make provision for north-east Tasmanian rural students and to provide recurrent federal funding to ensure student hostels continue to operate in order to provide real and meaningful access to secondary education.In closing, I remind the government of article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to education. This implies that access to education is guaranteed but, quite clearly, rural students are disadvantaged. The government must redress this problem regarding access to education immediately, partly through recurrent federal funding for hostels.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate3342Question proposed:That grievances be noted.334216:19:003342Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—International Women's Day is a good time each year to take stock of where women are going and where we have come from. This year I want to mark International Women's Day by focusing on what is happening to equal pay, because the right of Australian women to equal pay has come under renewed threat, and the ground won in landmark cases since the 1970s is now being eroded.That threat comes from the Howard government and its industrial relations policies, and similar policies being pursued by conservative state premiers. The greatest threat to women achieving equal pay in practice is a deregulated wages system. Australian women have rightly been proud of our historical progress towards achieving equal pay.Australian women have achieved their progress towards equal pay through our unique conciliation and arbitration system. It was the Industrial Relations Commission that adopted the principle of equal pay for equal work in 1969—30 years ago this year. It was the commission that extended that principle to equal pay for work of equal value in 1972, after Gough Whitlam had the case reopened so that his government could support the union claim—that is not something we could imagine happening today. As a direct result, the wages gender gap was reduced by about 20 per cent between 1972 and 1977.As a result of this action and of award restructuring which took place under the Hawke and Keating governments, the gender gap is the narrowest when one compares award rates. Women earn just over 90 per cent of men's award rates. Despite this achievement, this government is bent on destroying the Industrial Relations Commission. Employers argued against equal pay in both of these decisions in the early 1970s. They said they could not afford it; it would destroy the economy and stop the employment of women. After the 1972 decision, the employers and the coalition parties argued strenuously that women's work was not of equal value because it was not dirty and because it was not heavy. They argued that it was not as important; they argued that women would accept being paid less so employers should be allowed to pay them less.These are the same arguments employers are using across the country now as they try to get workers to sign individual contracts. These are the reasons employers pay women only 48 per cent of men's overaward payments—that is, employers short-change women for the part of their pay over which employers still enjoy complete discretion. There is no doubt that in an unregulated wages system women would do worse for exactly that reason. Employers will discriminate and women will be paid less.In Western Australia, which has the most deregulated wages system, women workers are receiving the lowest rates in the country relative to men. Western Australian women earn an average of $434 a week before tax, which is a massive $300 a week less than Western Australian men. Within that state, women working in the predominantly female retail trade industry are the lowest paid, earning an average of $310.80 a week. This is nothing short of a scandal.During the years of the accord, between 1983 and 1986, there was a slow but steady narrowing of the wages gender gap, albeit at a slower rate than during the first push for equal wages. This has occurred especially in industries where women are concentrated—the retail, health and community services, education, property and business services industries. In those industries, we did see a narrowing of the gender gap between 1983 and 1996. In many cases in those industries now, the gender gap is widening again.In the hospitality industry between 1983 and 1996 we saw the biggest reduction in the wages gender gap of nine per cent. This has now been reversed and the gap has opened up by four per cent between 1996 and 1999, losing half the ground towards equality that women had won over the previous decade.The threat to equal wages is real but women, I am pleased to say, are continuing to fight for it and are being successful. We have just had, in the last year, the first arbitrated case for an equal remuneration order taken to the Industrial Relations Commission. It concerned the electrical company HPM, and there has been a major victory for women there.The equal remuneration provisions enable workers, unions and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to seek orders for equal remuneration, including over-award payments—and that has been in our legislation since 1994. They represent the next step in the commission's historic role of addressing equal pay in this country because they allow the commission to make orders about over-award payments. Peter Reith, the former Minister for Industrial Relations, tried to take them out of our industrial relations system, but was forced by a campaign by women's groups and the unions to put them back into the Workplace Relations Act.The HPM case was settled after three years of proceedings. The opposition to the case by the company was intense. It ranged from delaying tactics—to see, of course, whether the provisions were removed by the government—to obstruction of competency standards processes which ultimately showed that the women were more skilled than the men, to the sacking of the men and rehiring of them in higher classifications. The claim involved the union seeking, for 300 female process workers, the same rate of pay that was paid to some dozen male general hands and, for 20 female packers, the same rate that was paid to male storemen.The case was a classic illustration of why women do not yet receive equal pay in practice. The women and men were segregated into jobs based on their sex. The process work and packer jobs were women's jobs; the general hands' jobs were men's. There was a strong view held by the company that the men's general labouring duties were more physically demanding than the women's. They were required to move components and finished goods, such as electrical plugs and power points, around the factory. The women performed highly intricate assembly involving tiny components. They suffered significant overuse type injuries involving shoulders, arms and hands. Under the competency standards, the women were assessed as having to exercise a higher level of skill than most of the men; in some cases markedly so. But the company argued that the men's work was more important.With respect to the work of the packers compared to that of the male storemen, the work was basically interchangeable, but the men were required to check the women's work—another example of a straight gender discriminatory aspect of work organisation that is all too common. The men had access to a three-tiered performance based wages structure that was not open to the women. The men also had a range of discretionary over-award payments which appeared to be based on service, although the company denied it. Long-serving women, by and large, did not receive any over-award payments.The case was finally settled in December last year, after protracted industrial relations and intensive negotiations. In the course of the 2½ year agreement that has been signed, the women will receive the actual amount sought by the union. For the process workers this is $463, which is the amount that was paid to the highest paid general hand in the factory. Most importantly, however, the discriminatory wages system that applied has been abolished. All workers on the same classification level will get the same rate of pay. Some of the highest skilled women have been reclassified upwards. It has been a great victory for the women at HPM, and I certainly extend to them my hearty congratulations.I want to finish with the other major threat to the living standards of Australian women, and that of course is the government's tax package. The benefits of the government's tax package are going to flow disproportionately to men rather than to women. Men, of course, earn higher wages and women are less likely to work full-time. Compare this: a single man earning $80,000 gets a $68 a week tax cut. A sole parent with two children earning $10,000 a week gets $17 a week. In other words, she gets four times less and has to spend it on three people.Labor's tax credit, by contrast, was designed to provide much needed tax relief to a majority of workers, particularly low income workers, many of whom were women. The whole purpose of the tax credit was to encourage women to take up part-time work and, in doing so, we were going to make sure that those women and their families were better off. It cut the tax bill of a family earning $30,000 by half. It is a much more generous tax proposal than the one the government has before the parliament.The government is making it harder for sole parents to go back to work. It is not going to be worth their while because of the tax they have to pay, the social security they lose and, of course, the child-care fees that have been increased—and all of this on top of a GST. Let me say that women will continue to pursue equal pay as they have done for many years in this country. (Time expired)334416:29:003344Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I just note for the record that the CEO of Australia's largest corporation and business is a woman, and it is good to see.Last week my office was contacted by the parents of some young primary school aged children. These parents were outraged at the lyrical contents of a promotional giveaway cassette being distributed by a local radio station. The cassettes that were being handed out, along with other free giveaway products, to the young students of Railway Estate Primary School in Townsville, contain shocking, explicit material in the lyrics on the first track. According to the radio station, staff were caught out by the lack of a sticker that the producers of the tape should have applied to the cassette case, warning of explicit language.As a parent, and as a parliamentarian, I am concerned that explicit material such as this could have so easily been put into the hands of innocent eight-year-old children. Robyn Riley, a constituent in the Herbert electorate, has raised such concerns very directly and forcefully. Mrs Riley has taken the time to examine the lyrics of many compact discs in the heavy metal section of your typical local music store.Among her findings were bands that `glorified the atrocities of Auschwitz, and talked of ripping and gouging flesh, drinking blood, killing cops and raping women. `Would you be comfortable if your son or daughter were to sing along to music like this?' Mrs Riley asks. It is a good question, and for me the answer is a flat no. Robyn Riley compares the effectiveness of the 18+ warning stickers that appear on CDs containing explicit language as being `no different from prescribing panadol for bowel cancer, resulting in no effect as the rot sets in.'Following the recent incident in Townsville where graphic material was put into the hands of very young children, I believe it is time to take a hard look at the effectiveness of consumer protection measures as they relate to the music industry. It is incumbent on all of us to bear in mind that the character of today's young people determines the condition of tomorrow's society. Clearly, parents such as Robyn Riley feel they are losing—and in many cases have long since lost—the ability to protect their children from some of the less attractive aspects of modern life.How does a tape containing explicit lyrics get into the hands of young children? How did the industry standards fail to be applied in this instance? Are the 18+ warning stickers that only `recommend' that certain CDs or albums are not suitable for persons under the age of 18 years adequate protection? And what steps can be taken to ensure that this never happens again? These are the questions to which I want answers by the Australian Record Industry Association, the censorship board and by this parliament.As a Liberal I am mindful of the question of censorship and of infringing upon an individual's liberties. But as a parent I am also mindful of the impact of explicit material on our young people. This is a pressing issue that needs to be thoroughly examined in the public domain.The other issue that I want to canvass today is that of the Child Support Agency and family law systems. There are some days when I wake up and feel as though I am a member of an endangered species, that species being a happily married parent who has, in a close loving partnership with my wife, successfully managed to raise two children who are now off forging their own lives.An article I read recently set out in stark terms why sometimes I feel like something of an endangered species. The article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last November and ran through a series of statistics with regard to the situation of fathers who have separated from their partners. One in three fathers face the prospect of their marriage failing before their children are reared. One in 10 of those fathers face the risk that they will not have any contact with their children before they become adults.The article went on to say that each day 77 fathers in Australia separate from their child's mother, of which 71 of these fathers will not be living with their children five years later. Every day of the year an additional 23 Australian fathers lose contact with their children, leaving another 36 fatherless children. There are almost 558,000 separated fathers who are denied as much contact with their children as there should be—the flip side being that there are 892,000 children who are denied the degree of care their father is willing to offer. In fact, the article states:There are 291,000 children who see their father less than once a year.These figures are shocking, even when you do allow for a margin of error.I was curious to find out what the situation was like in Townsville, so I did a check to see how many Child Support Agency clients reside within my electorate of Herbert. As of December 1998 there was a total of 9,577 CSA clients residing within the Townsville area. No wonder I sometimes feel as though I am part of an endangered species.There is a saying that has become something of a theme for those people, and particularly fathers, battling for reform within the CSA and family law system. That saying is: `I divorced my partner, not my children.' Indeed, that is one of the conclusions reached in the Sydney Morning Herald article. Its author, Peter Vogel, said:The court must reinforce the idea that when parents divorce, they divorce each other, not their children.And I agree with that sentiment. I am enough of a realist to know that there are instances when it would not be in a child's best interest to have contact with one or the other parent for reasons of safety or the potential for violence and abuse. But, in the main, I firmly believe that it is in the child's best interest to have consistent and meaningful contact with both parents, particularly in their formative years, even if a marriage does break down.While I have used the term `fathers', in a smaller number of cases you could interchange the word `mothers' and have the same result and draw the same conclusion. This is not a statement which is biased towards one sex or the other; it is just a statement of the fact of what is happening in Australia today.There is much debate about the `stolen generation', which is a black mark on our national psyche that we are still trying to come to grips with today. But there are also parents who feel as though their children are being stolen from them every day as a result of the Family Court system. I cannot help but wonder whether in years to come we will look back with the same regret on the Family Court system and wonder how we managed to create a system that did not better facilitate joint custody arrangements.The former Labor government, to their credit, did start to reform the child support and Family Law Court system. The Howard coalition government has carried on that process. One of the achievements of the Howard government has been the emphasis we have put on family and relationship support. The Relate education program that aims to help couples sustain and improve the quality of their relationship is another great example of that. In terms of reform within the CSA, and in particular the family law system, I cannot help but feel that we have only begun to scratch the surface.334616:37:003346Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I want to use this grievance debate to raise my concern about the unprecedented level of illegal drug activity in the community. In the last four weeks in just one shopping centre in my suburban electorate there have been several overdoses—one necessitated 15 minutes of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation before ambulance staff arrived. Police tell me that high-grade heroin has never been cheaper nor as freely available. But if I thought the overdoses in Perth's northern suburbs indicated that the problem of illicit drug use was at critical levels, I was even more appalled to see just how bad it has now become Australia wide. The Canberra Times reported late last week of an `unprecedented wave of drug-overdose emergencies', where one person died and 18 more overdosed, all before 5 p.m. and all in daylight hours, in this nation's capital.I also learnt last week of an inland country town, with a population of some 5,000, where 31 people are on a methadone program, with 80 people waiting to come on. The particular agency I was talking to told me that they are now treating kids as young as 14 years of age for various forms of substance abuse and drug addiction, including exposure to heroin. The age of drug users is coming down, and the drug problem in Australia is set to worsen. This is despite the Prime Minister coming into this House, answering dorothy dixers, telling us how effective his Tough on Drugs program is.In a story by Alan Kohler in the Financial Review late last week, the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board predicted a further 25 per cent rise in the supply of opiates around the world. They reported that the INCB's forecast is for the increase in production to result in a 140 per cent rise in the excess supply of opiates—from 50 tonnes of morphine equivalent last year to 120 tonnes this year. In the article, Alan Kohler went on to say that the price of heroin in New South Wales has dropped in a year from $400 a gram to $280 a gram. On a per cap basis, he reported, it has dropped by anything up to half, and is now as low as $25 per serve.That drop in price is not confined to New South Wales. From my own anecdotal evidence, I am told that starter kits, aimed at kids in both primary and secondary schools, now sell for as low as $5 in various parts of Australia. In short, it is clearly apparent that an insidious blanket of heroin-woven death and misery is being wrapped around young Australians. Illicit drug use is a divisive and emotionally charged issue. It divides families, it divides communities and, from the arguing and bickering that is going on around Australia, it certainly divides governments from within and without. The result is that, in a leadership vacuum, we see various states and the Commonwealth fighting over which response is most philosophically correct.It is such a divisive issue that last week in WA, Mr Paul Clune, Secretary of the metropolitan branch of the Western Australian National Party, savaged Rhonda Parker, state Minister Responsible for the Drug Abuse Strategy. He said of her in the West Australian on March 4:To say "trials do not lead to addicts kicking the habit. . . " is either a lie or a false belief.The minister in Western Australia is under fire from many fronts, but particularly for withdrawing an invitation to Tony Trimmingham, a person requested by non-government drug action groups, to address a drug summit in Perth. The invitation was withdrawn when, surprisingly, it became evident that he did not share the minister's view on heroin trials. So much for free speech, and so much for the Western Australian government's self-acclaimed drug strategy of `together against drugs'.I agree with Duncan Kerr, Labor's spokesman on drug strategy, when he said, I think it was last week, `We must leave no stone unturned in the fight against drugs.' For that reason, I am rather appalled that the Prime Minister should choose to ensconce himself within his inherently weak and personal philosophical bunker, consulting only those who support his views on the drug issue. It is no wonder that his `all the way with LBJ' approach to New York police methods led Duncan Campbell of the Australian to recently write that the Prime Minister's heroin strategy could prove to be `Howard's Vietnam', with a subheading comment which said:While the Prime Minister wages war on drugs, the body count climbs.He went on to say:The Prime Minister is encouraged to make war on the smuggling and sale of heroin. He risks falling victim to the old anti-Vietcong syndrome in which the longer you fight and the stronger the opposition, the more loudly you are compelled to claim victory.And we have certainly heard plenty of that from this government. It is a war on drugs, but the young Australians of today will not be sent to Gallipoli, New Guinea or Vietnam to confront the enemy. Their war is right here in the suburbs and the country towns of Australia. It is in the schools, the local streets, the shopping centres and the places of entertainment that young people frequent in their own communities. Their enemy is the non-using pusher—the up-front, sleazy young punk or the hidden, respectable business person who is growing rich on the profits of drug sales. Illegal drug trafficking is a billion dollar business in Australia against which governments are merely throwing loose change, with strategically flawed and fragmented policies which, as long as they are divided, are doomed to fail. Not only do we need an effective national strategy; in my view, we need a full-blown, federal and state funded and supported royal commission into the drug problem in Australia. A royal commission that should range from the means of attacking the drugs at their source, in the countries in which they are grown, to how they are imported, to their distribution and sale in Australia by whom and how.The royal commission must also focus on the problems of addiction and the social and medical strategies necessary to detoxify, treat and rehabilitate the victims of drugs—the addicts themselves. It should also provide access for the many dedicated, volunteer-driven, non-government organisations to have a say—organisations which achieve much in the fight against drugs and provide great support to the families of those addicted, particularly parents, who are so often left high and dry when they endeavour to come to terms with their child's drug habits.In my view, we must take the drug problem out of the political arena. The only way we can do that is by establishing a royal commission. A royal commission would give those in the medical profession, other caregivers, teachers and law enforcement officers an opportunity to have a say in a royal commission and to contribute to a national strategy to combat drug abuse.It is fine for the Prime Minister to call for a bipartisan approach to the drugs crisis, but if there is no option at the same time to develop bipartisan policies what is the point? A royal commission could review antidrug legislation around Australia, just as it could evaluate drug enforcement, its level of resourcing and its effectiveness.I know there are many people who will scoff at the suggestion of a royal commission as being unnecessary and a waste of money. But how else can we confront the issue of drugs in Australia in a non-political way? How else can we enlist the support of the greater majority of Australians in this fight? How else can we link hands and stand shoulder to shoulder against this invasion of drugs, which has the potential to decimate young Australians, causing continued increases in crimes of stealing and violence and greater insecurity for innocent people, particularly the aged, who are much more vulnerable as targets of crime by those seeking money to support a habit?It needs to be said that the drug problem is not just a capital city problem; it is an issue in the bush, and the bush represents a growing market for the pushers. It is not just a problem for governments federal, state or local; it is a problem for the whole of Australia. It is a problem which demands a national strategy. A royal commission would give us a chance of achieving that strategy. Indeed, nothing else that I can see coming out of Canberra does.This is not a war which should be waged by individual states; it is a war that should be waged by a nation. Unlike America, Australia must confront the drug issue as a whole of nation issue. We must do it now because if we do not, not only are we letting down this generation of young people but also the next.334816:47:003348Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I rise to speak on an issue that is well known in this place: the lack of guarantee of entitlements to workers by the financial difficulties that some multinational companies find themselves in. I refer especially in my electorate to the town of Cobar. I also recognise the role that the member for Prospect has played in drawing this to the attention of the House and the Australian people. I would like to add my thoughts to hers.The threat posed to small regional centres by the fluctuating fortunes of large companies was well illustrated by the experience we had in Cobar in western New South Wales in early 1998. After the collapse of the Ashanti copper mine in January, 250 jobs were lost and, for almost a year, negotiations continued in the hope of securing for the miners the money that they were owed.In supporting steps to guarantee the payment of long service and holiday pay in the event of a similar situation, the far-reaching effects of this crisis on the town of Cobar should be highlighted. While the 85 cents in the dollar payment was eventually received by the affected miners—and I should point out that the businesses in the Cobar area received substantially less than this—it should be noted that the hardworking Australians still lost 15 per cent of the money to which they were rightfully entitled. It is all very well for us to congratulate ourselves and to pat ourselves on the back with regard to the victory that we had in securing the 85 cents in the dollar payment from Ashanti, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that these people were still entitled to a further 15 cents in the dollar.The broader crisis sparked by the mine closure really illustrates the vulnerability of regional communities to any lack of income. This situation is crystallised in an area like Cobar, particularly when you compare what happened there with what might arise if the same thing happened in Parramatta or some other place in Sydney. Because the economy of the town of Cobar relies so heavily on this mine and some others, they have been far more vulnerable to the impact that this closure has had. Most shocking, from my point of view, was the need for food parcels to be distributed to some of the unemployed miners and their families. They were unable to receive welfare benefits because of the assets they owned. I might point out that Centrelink moved heaven and earth to provide a service to those people in Cobar, and they should be recognised for that.Many of these people found themselves in an uncommon situation. It was the entrepreneurial miners—the ones who had actually put aside money and then borrowed money for a house, for example—who were in more trouble than the ones who just spent their entire income. These people may have borrowed, for ease of maths let us say, $100,000 to pay for their homes. When the crisis hit, 100 families were forced to leave the town and real estate prices tumbled. So many of these people could not sell their houses, recoup their money and then live in rental accommodation. If they did sell their houses they would still owe half of what they owed previously and they would also have to pay rent.These people were the ones most harshly affected. These were the people who were demeaned by having to rely on food parcels. A plunge in both price and level of demand in this housing market was one of the key factors in causing heartache in many of these households. This spin-off impact was only one of several devastating developments that followed the mine's closure. Economic stagnation and, as I said, the ensuing exodus of population from this isolated western centre caused even greater social and economic hardship, according to a study by the Charles Sturt University, funded by the Orana Regional Development Board.I would like to take this opportunity to thank the federal government for their continued funding of the Orana Regional Development Board and its research into the possibility of providing more employment for towns and people in my area. The federal government has funded a fairly large study specifically for Cobar, which has unearthed the possibility of several new initiatives that may provide some relief for the town.We were lucky to some degree in this case that we actually received this payment from Ashanti because of the presence of a letter, I understand, which showed that the company recognised that they were trading insolvently. It was through this channel that the Australian Securities Commission was able to pursue the parent company in the courts. If this letter had not been in existence, we might have been in a different situation. Even though the result was not ideal, we might have had a far worse result.Bearing this in mind, I stand here to request that we look at different ways of providing security of income for workers in Australia. I recognise the government has done a lot in moving through the right chain of events to prevent this from happening again and I commend that recommendation to the labour ministers council. I would also like to say we should not let this thing stagnate. We must act on recommendations that might be forthcoming from this council.There is an argument that, if we impose too harsh a restriction on the setting up of business and the funding of entitlements, that may discourage other businesses from actually getting off the ground. To some degree I dispute this. While I come from a regional centre and while I believe we must be very careful that we do not discourage any activity which is going to result in more jobs for our people, there must be a recognition that the rights of our workers must be protected.Perhaps in a similar case, if a business is being sold and employees have been employed for five years or longer, provision must be made in the sale agreement for long service leave to be put aside. Perhaps that is one area that we could look at—that any money that is owed to employees for long service must be put aside and fully funded for those employed for five years onwards. That is perhaps one area of consideration. The impact of a situation like this on Cobar, as distinct from anywhere else, really only serves to clarify the need for us to go forth and find a resolution to this problem.Before I close I must recognise the role that a few people—certainly my predecessor, Michael Cobb, though much maligned—have played in this. It turns out that he was right all along with the avenue that he was pursuing. I mention Steve Roach, even though I understand that those on the other side do not recognise that he represents a union. I am not sure of the complete ins and outs of that, but Steve Roach played an important role in keeping the town together and supporting the miners. He did an awful lot to reach a position where this was resolved and he is held in quite high regard by everybody I speak to in Cobar. I also mention the council and the mayor, who played an important role in facilitating this outcome. Sure, all of the people that I have mentioned did not get on all the time and did not agree with every process in the situation, but in the end the important thing was that a reasonably satisfactory result was obtained. However, as I said earlier, I believe that this was to some degree a case of good luck rather than good management.335016:55:003350Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—My grievance today is the disincentive to work, faced by many working families in my electorate of Canberra, as a result of high effective rates of taxation. In the past 20 years we have witnessed a period of significant change in the delivery of social services in Australia. Australia has adopted a `selective' welfare system, a system of selective `social assistance' rather than one of universal `social insurance'. A key aspect of this change has been the extensive use of means testing to determine eligibility for social security payments. The introduction of means testing has resulted in a much more complex tax transfer system. It has also led to a proliferation of social security payments.Many of these new payments are a response to emerging needs in our society. For example, partner and parenting allowances have been introduced, reflecting the changing role of women in our society. In addition to the more complex array of outlays, complexities have also developed on the revenue side. One key problem created by this mesh of overlapping means tests is the production of very high marginal tax rates, particularly where the income support means tests overlap with the income tax system.In the past few years concerns have been expressed about the impact of these high effective marginal tax rates on low and middle income families. A recent study by Gillian Beer and Ann Harding of the University of Canberra's National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, or NATSEM, has found that those facing high effective marginal tax rates, or EMTRs, are most likely to have children. According to NATSEM, 75 per cent of those facing very high marginal tax rates have children. NATSEM has found that nearly a quarter of sole parents and one in 10 couples with children face EMTRs well in excess of 60 per cent. The main cause of these high EMTRs for sole parents is the sole parent pension income test.However, despite common public perceptions, high income families are not facing the high rates. Instead, those in the lower half of the income distribution face them. NATSEM has found that just over a quarter of people in the fourth income decile—that is, people with an average gross income of $26,000 per annum—face EMTRs of more than 50 per cent. In sharp contrast, no-one in the top 40 per cent of income distribution face EMTRs of over 50 per cent.The available evidence suggests that women face the highest EMTRs, and hence the biggest disincentives to work, particularly when their husbands are on low to moderate incomes. For example, a family where the father earns $25,000 and the mother starts to earn income will lose 84c for every extra dollar the mother earns. This is because, for each dollar that she gets from her job, the family loses 50c of the family payment and pays 34c of income tax. The working mother is left with 16c as a reward for working, and the costs of child care will very quickly swallow this up. She would legitimately ask, `Why bother working?' Yet families in these circumstances desperately need that extra money.Labor's earned income tax credit proposal—recently supported by others including the Business Council of Australia—has been developed to address this problem. The tax credit proposal would enable working mothers to keep more of every dollar they earn and would actually reward women for doing extra hours of work where currently they are penalised. The tax credit proposal will substantially reduce the effective marginal tax rates faced by many low and middle income working families and provide real help for parents who are returning to the work force.There can be no doubt that the tax credit is a much needed reform of the Australian tax and transfer system. Without it, the incentives for families to increase their hours of work or to return to the work force if they are unemployed will become weaker over time, with serious consequences for unemployment, labour force participation and living standards. The problem is particularly prevalent for sole parents. Kathleen Swinbourne from the sole parents union puts it bluntly:It's simple: there's no financial incentive for single mothers to go out to work.Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the national labour force participation rate of sole parents has fallen from 50.5 per cent when the Howard government was elected to 49 per cent in June of last year. The fall has driven a broader decline in the proportion of mothers with children under 15 who are participating in the work force—a fall from 59.1 per cent to 58.6 per cent over the same period. The evidence is that more than two-thirds of the nation's discouraged workers are women. This demonstrates the obvious fact that women have not fared well under the coalition's industrial relations regime. Wages for part-time workers have fallen and because of the concentration of women in both full-time and part-time jobs, the gap between men's and women's earnings is widening. Women on average earn $466.40 a week while men on average earn $708.80 a week. That is a pretty stark difference. The National Institute of Labour Studies has found that:. . . the main factor underlying a deterioration in earnings outcomes for women relative to men in recent years is their greater concentration in part-time work. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that part-time workers fare less well because enterprise bargaining is far less likely to occur in such firms.The Australian Labor Party is committed to eliminating the gap between what men and women earn. We believe in equal pay for equal work. We believe that wage bargaining should be fair and that part-time workers should not fall behind full-time workers.It is a matter of considerable concern to those on this side of the House that women remain concentrated in lower paid and lower skilled jobs. Women are more likely to work part time, more likely to experience periods out of the labour force and more likely to require support to balance work and family responsibilities throughout their lives.The introduction of an earned income tax credit for working families is an important part of an overall strategy to reduce poverty, ease poverty traps and simplify the confusing array of family payments and tax rebates. The support that the tax credits proposal has received from senior economists and the Business Council of Australia is welcomed and demonstrates an emerging consensus on the issue. In this context, it is disappointing that the government has chosen to isolate itself by rejecting the tax credits approach.The government's solution to lower wage rates and to introduce a GST is not the answer. The government should be looking at ways to make work more attractive by reducing costs to employers at the same time as increasing disposable incomes. The GST is bad news for those who are trying to work. The government's proposed increases to pensions and benefits to compensate for the GST create new barriers to work. For example, a sole parent who does not work gets more per week out of the GST tax package than if he or she has a low paid job. A sole parent on maximum benefits gets an extra $26 a week out of the government's tax package. The sole parent earning $10,000 gets just $18.40. How can this be fair?335217:03:003352Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Today I want to make some comments—and over the next few months I want to be able in various venues to make other comments—about the question of drugs and the problem particularly for our young people in Australia. I do not claim to have all the answers, but as a federal member, an Australian, a father and more recently a grandfather I am gravely concerned at the way in which the scourge of drug taking is having such a dramatic and tragic effect on so many people, especially our young people. It is time we reflected, took stock of what is happening and tried to draw some firm conclusions—quite urgently, I think—about what else can be done. Indeed, a lot has been done by a lot of good people and by governments on both sides of the political fence in Australia and other countries about this problem.The first point I would like to put right on the line is that I believe there is clear evidence that sections of the society that we belong to have developed a situation where they fail to take account of their responsibility to themselves. All human beings are expected to take responsibility for their own actions. There are good reasons why some people cannot do this—people with profound intellectual disabilities, for example, require the help and protection of guardians, families and loved ones to help them through the difficult passages in their lives. But I want to make this point: many of the young people dying in the streets of capital cities in Australia—in Melbourne in the last few weeks, about five a week—do not have a profound intellectual disability. They are perfectly normal and many of them have had many opportunities to make their way in life. Yet, unaccountably, they are doing this tragic thing to themselves. They are injecting with a dirty needle—or a clean needle, made available to them free, which has become dirty because of AIDS and other reasons—a substance into themselves which they do not want to think about or know about but which will have a profound, devastating and probably addictive effect on them. The taking of responsibility has to be one of the core issues of the current debate. It is my view that, for some unaccountable reason, it has not been put forward strongly enough.Many young people still join the scouting movement, thank goodness, but not as many as did in the past. Have you noticed that? Have you noticed the number of young people who do not get involved in community work, scouting or the service clubs? It may be due to many pressures, but they do not. One of the mottos in scouting was `Be prepared'. That had a many-faceted message in it. One was that you had to take account of the risks in life and you had to be prepared, fit and responsible. I put forward that there is overwhelming evidence that in this society there are some young people—fortunately not a majority but enough to worry you—who are not for some reason taking responsibility for themselves. They have forgotten how to or never been taught how to. Whatever the reason, that is one of the things that I think we need to look at.On the question of education, I am convinced that there needs to be a lot more done in respect of education. The Life Education project in Victoria involves a caravan which visits primary schools with skilled people demonstrating to young children what happens when you inject into the body, with graphic illustrations and models showing how the blood circulates through the organs with the drugs. I have heard it criticised by some people as being too simplistic. Yet I know, from talking with young people who have seen the Life Education project, how profoundly it affects them. Hopefully in later life, when they become more active and more free of parental control, they have the subconscious memory of how the organs in the body circulate substances injected into them, to the detriment of the body.But I think there needs to be a lot more done. I know this might sound a little shocking but, having in my former legal practice appeared many times in coronial inquiries, I have a view that one of the things we might have to look at is that young people in secondary schools should be involved in what happens in the morgues in Australia. You cannot go to any city morgue in Australia during the week without seeing a young person lying dead on the slab from drug addiction, from an overdose, not being able to be revived by our fantastic emergency workers in the ambulance field. I wish to send a message of thanks to them for the harrowing work they are doing increasingly on a daily basis. But isn't it time that young people actually saw the devastation and the horror of what happens when the drugs go wrong all too frequently and it results in the loss of a young person?What a frightening thing it is—I know these things are subject to coronial inquiries and there may be other facts that we do not know—to read recent reports of young people going to clubs and parties and taking ecstasy and other tablets apparently as part of the buzz, the scene with the peer group pressure and all those sorts of things, and dying, as apparently has happened in the last 24 or 48 hours in Sydney. There was a comment by a bereaved parent who lost a daughter a couple of years ago in similar circumstances. What a horrific thing. Why is it that young people do that to themselves? Is it because they do not know what the effect is or they do not want to grapple with it, or is the answer halfway between the two? It is my view that there ought to be some more drastic and dramatic action taken along the lines of education, not only in the normal sense but also in the sense of having to confront the reality of what drugs do. Drugs kill young people. Drugs are killing young people every day, and I think it is important, to drive home the gravity of it, that young people actually see the dead bodies. I know that that sounds rather dramatic, but I put it with all sincerity.On the question of rehabilitation, I think this is an area in which we obviously have a lot to learn. I am pleased to hear that naltrexone is now going to become available in Australia. Whilst I am not an expert on naltrexone, I understand that following general anaesthetic it has a dramatic effect on heroin addicts and, provided they are properly cared for, naltrexone will keep the heroin addict totally off heroin while they are under care with naltrexone. What happens after that, over a long period of time, we have to learn, but it seems to be a dramatic breakthrough.I have actually had heroin addicts who have been through drug programs, referred through various programs that I have been indirectly involved in, beg me to oppose to my last breath making free heroin available on trials. They have explained to me that they have gone through the horror of addiction, crime, through the courts and finally to a rehab program as part of the condition to get their freedom. They have lost a family in the meantime and goodness knows what else. Having gone through the horrendous time of withdrawal, they have said to me—I do not know how many other members have experienced this; it would be interesting to hear their views—that they believe that by making heroin free that would be tantamount to forcing them to go back in. That sounds rather strange intellectually, but I swear to you that is what has been put to me by a number of people who have been through the phase of drying out. The fear of going back on is very great. They fear that they will not be able to fight the urge to go back onto heroin if there is heroin available in some form of controlled way in society. Heroin is a horrific drug.On the question of sanctions, I think that the gaols do not provide the complete answer, but society is saying to us that those people who traffic in drugs and who push drugs, especially to our young people, and destroy them, take their lives away, should be required to be subjected to mandatory gaol sentences. (Time expired)335317:13:003353Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—This afternoon in the time allocated to me I want to talk briefly on the issue of East Timor. I first raised my own concerns about East Timor not long after I was first elected to this place in 1987. I have since that time been a consistent critic, first, of the Labor Party's position and the position of the then governments, both the Hawke and Keating governments, on this issue. My position has not changed. What I want to do is not to justify my own position but recall the fact that what we are about here in discussing East Timor in 1999 is the way ahead and not really looking at our own positions of the past. It seems to me that we are in a unique position historically to influence the course of events in what is our closest neighbour. Indeed, Darwin, the capital city of my electorate, is only 50 minutes from Dili by air—a lot closer than Jakarta.We need to comprehend that we have a historical association with both East and West Timor, an association which goes back many years but which was certainly at its peak in the Second World War, when we had Australian servicemen, soldiers of the 2/2nd and 2/4th commando units, in East Timor in 1942 and early 1943. The protection that was given to those people by the East Timorese community is a debt we have yet to repay, as many East Timorese died at the hands of the Japanese as a result of their collaboration with Australian forces. It is something which we as a nation are yet to deal properly with, and we now have the opportunity to do so.We need to comprehend that opportunity in the light of current events in Indonesia and the advocacy by many people, not the least being the supporters of Xanana Gusmao, of the need for a process leading to independence for East Timor, a position which has been advocated successively by them for many years. Indeed, in 1991 I quoted Xanana Gusmao in an interview that he did with Robert Domm in late 1990 in which he said, `I am ready to discuss any project for a solution without preconditions and under the auspices of the United Nations.' It is that aspect of the current debate that I think we need to pay attention to.Instead of being tardy about supporting an approach to the United Nations for them to participate actively in East Timor, we should be doing it. We should be promoting the idea that the United Nations, with our support and perhaps our direct involvement, should participate in East Timor; and we should do so—provided, of course, we get the agreement not only of the Indonesians but also of the vari ous sections of the East Timorese community, who are currently in much public debate.We need to recognise that, if we are to get a peaceful resolution to the ongoing difficulties of East Timor and if we are to provide the people of East Timor with the capacity to be self-determining, we have to give them every possible support. We need to understand that that will include a lot of assistance in terms of financial aid and developmental aid of different varieties. There is absolutely no doubt that the economy of East Timor is, in our terms, very poor. The standard of living of most East Timorese is very low. We know that people are in fact starving and that people have been denied access to the land as the result of military occupation, and that the land has been denuded.We know that over recent times there has been very poor rainfall and that food crops have been poor. There has been a loss of huge swathes of forest cover, which has resulted in dry and very arid soils, and much of East Timor is barren land with only a thin veneer of soil over very stony subsoil—if subsoil is present at all—covering much of the rolling hills to steeply sloping landscape that typifies the northern flank of the island. It is useful only for grazing, and only barely so. Under the Portuguese, their previous colonial masters, there were approximately 80,000 hectares of rice planted. My information is that now there are only between 20,000 and 30,000 hectares planted. Malnutrition, the prevalence of malaria and tuberculosis, as well as the flight and killings of pockets of local populations, have greatly reduced the family labour pool. There is a food shortage in East Timor and shortages of major resources, including essential infrastructure.We know that, in terms of the East Timorese' aspirations for themselves, they have been denied access to an appropriate level and form of education. We know that only bahasa Indonesia is being taught in the schools and that Tetum—the first language of most East Timorese—is not taught. Indeed, they have been prevented from teaching it. We know that there are initiatives, most notably by the Mary MacKillop Institution in Sydney, which has been developing books in Tetum so that the East Timorese can learn their first language and become literate in it.The opportunity that I spoke about earlier will require us not only to support any initiatives which involve the United Nations but also to understand our obligation to this community. We will have to provide the sorts of resources that will go to assist them in feeding and clothing themselves and providing essential community infrastructure, particularly in health, housing, education, roads and water. We have that obligation. It is something we should not shy away from, but something that we should accept as part of our neighbourly responsibility—especially as a result, as I said earlier, of our association in things past.There is one initiative that Indonesia could take today which would have a marked bearing upon the eventual outcome of any discussions about the future of East Timor, and that is to release immediately Xanana Gusmao from his home detention and to allow him to anticipate actively in the developing debate about the future of East Timor, so that he can talk with people in East Timor and discuss with those people in East Timor who might be pro-integrationist and who oppose the possibility of self-determination, the chances of a reconciliation of the various groups of people who have different views.We know that there are people in East Timor who have been armed by the Indonesians as militia and that these militia have been killing people. It is important that there be a process by which these people are disarmed and that indeed there be a cease-fire which involves all parties. Only then can we have a true dialogue, in my view, and only then will we get the outcome which will secure the future of the East Timorese community.To do this, fundamentally there must be an appreciation of the crucial role of Xanana Gusmao, and I do not believe that people in Australia properly understand his importance. I know that he has had delegations meet him and most recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs of this nation. The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, visited him last week. Gareth Evans has spoken to him, as has Laurie Brereton. Most people who are involved in this debate are speaking to Xanana Gusmao, yet he is under house arrest in Jakarta. He should be released to be able to be properly involved, both nationally and internationally, in discussions about the future of East Timor. He has very able lieutenants outside the country, not the least of whom is the Nobel laureate, Jose Ramos Horta. These people articulate very good positions, but there is absolutely no doubt in the world, in my view, that Xanana Gusmao is the leader of those people who are seeking an active role in getting active independence through a process of self-determination.I say to those people in this country who are critical of our role in assisting this process: look at yourselves. We owe these people a great deal. They have every right to express their own futures in terms of an act of self-determination. We should not be walking away from them. We should be providing them with every possible support and this should include a commitment to financial and other aid, particularly in the period leading up to and including the period when they achieve some self-governance, and post that period, to ensure that that self-governance is sustainable. I implore the House to support the proposals for independence for East Timor and to support the East Timorese people.335517:23:003355Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—In her first speech to the House, the member for Lalor made the bold statement:One of the features of this parliament is that every few elections there arrives a new generation of politicians distinctly different from the people who preceded them.The purpose of my remarks is to test the veracity of that statement, from a Labor member, and to consider whether it foreshadows a genuine change of culture taking place in the ALP, akin to that which took place in Britain after the election of Tony Blair as Labour's leader. The member for Hotham was once described to me by a New South Wales Labor operative as `an old-style trade unionist in a suit'. That was perhaps uncharitable. The member for Lalor is perhaps seeking to join the member for Werriwa, the member for Melbourne and, more recently, the member for Kingsford-Smith in her desire to put some ideological distance between herself and her party's leadership.But the question is: do the maiden speeches of the member's colleagues bear out her assertion of a fresh, new direction for Labor? The first question is whether the ALP now represents something more than its traditional trade union constituency. It is hardly encouraging to find that the member herself boasts, as one of her qualifications for entering this place, that she spent eight years as an industrial lawyer defending trade unions.Neither does the New South Wales election give much ground for optimism. It seems that you must be either a schoolmate of John Della Bosca a relative or spouse of John Della Bosca, or John Della Bosca himself, if you want to get Labor preselection.The member for Griffith, in a letter to the Australian Financial Review on Thursday last week, was at pains to distance federal Labor from its trade union roots and to challenge unhelpful impressions created, not least by the Minister for Employment Services, who is at the table, in recent discussions about Labor's hereditary peers. The member for Griffith argued that no more than one-fifth of Labor's ranks in federal parliament were previously employed as party or union officials.As a matter of public record, the Parliamentary Library Research Service records, in its list of previous occupations of members, 21 `party and union administrators' in Labor ranks. This is the figure, presumably, on which the letter is based. The member appears to have overlooked a second entry, further down the page, of `party and union officials'—a fine distinction indeed—containing an additional 11 members and senators, bringing the total to over one-third. If you study the Parliamentary Handbook, you find that, for occupations going back further than immediately prior to entering parliament, fully 44 of Labor's 95 members and senators are former union activists or actually on the payroll of organised labour.I am not here to decry trade union membership. I am a former member of the trade union movement myself and still, somewhere, hold my BLF membership card, although I confess to now being unfinancial. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the special contribution made by the BLF in New South Wales to fostering a modern industrial culture of cooperation and integrity. What I am addressing is the question of whether Labor is capable of getting out of the ACTU straitjacket and offering Australia a different vision, viewed through the maiden speeches of its new members.The continuing intimacy of the nexus between the ALP and the ACTU was perhaps most neatly expressed by the member for Capricornia, who said:From its inception, the Labor Party has been the political voice of the union movement.The member conjures up an image of Labor's frontbench acting as a ventriloquist's dummy for the ACTU. We saw further evidence of this today, with the Teachers Federation apparently drafting most of Labor's questions in question time.Turning from the member for Capricornia to the member for Charlton, a big chunk of her maiden speech was directed to thanking her comrades in the CFMEU, the AMWU and the maritime movement of Australia. She then moved to laud the ALP rank and file as:. . . that great team of men and women who have affirmed their commitment to the policies . . . and traditions of the broader labour movement by becoming members of its political arm.The member for Charlton is one of the more congenial, courteous and likeable members of the opposition, but I suspect she will not be accused of ushering in a new wave of creative Labor thought in this connection. In case we are under any illusion, we should understand from the ALP members and senators themselves that Labor is here to represent the ACTU.On the question of giving the House an indication of the fresh policy perspective she would bring to the complex issues before us, she said:Three of the issues . . . I will be opposing most vehemently in this House are those of the GST; the sale of Telstra; and the member for Flinders's capitalist agenda of attacking workers' rights and conditions, and further exploiting workers and their families to make way for increased profits for those whom the Liberal Party supports—the top end of town.The member for Griffith, in spite of his lapse into factual sloppiness, is one of the more erudite and thoughtful members of the opposition. He is the sort of bloke upon which a party could build a new direction. There was some genuinely creative thought in his maiden speech but one simply notes that he has called for: increased expenditure on foreign aid, on multilateral agencies; increased expenditure on child care; radical increases in state and federal funding of secondary and tertiary education; increased expenditure on industry policy, including the rescue by government of insolvent companies; increased expenditure on public health; and increased expenditure on social welfare, especially in the number of public service administrators.The member for Griffith rightly predicted that his remarks would be met by the inevitable chorus of `We cannot afford it', to which he responded, `I ask the question: as a nation, can we afford not to?' I suggest to the member for Griffith that, if future generations of Australians are labouring under a legacy of a massive debt, they will have a different view. One detects a note of irritation in many new Labor contributions—irritation that responsible governments face spending constraints. For example, the member for Rankin was heard to say:We should not be continually obliged to justify socially responsible policies in terms of the budget bottom line.Reflect by contrast the stance of a truly modern Labour leader in Tony Blair's speech to the trade union movement in Bristol where he said:Many people do not know that this year, as a result of the doubling of national debt, we will spend as much money paying back the interest on our debt as we spend on our schools, as we spend on law and order and as we spend on defence.Members on this side of the House, perhaps naively, regarded good government as the art of the possible. Not according to the new member for Fowler who suggests:It is simply not good enough for governments to limit their scope to what they see as possible. I now turn to the member for Sydney who held out some signs of hope in her speech which contained an excellent quote from Edmund Burke. She said:I am committed to a thinking party, a party of reform and progress. I was honoured to be part of the process of re-examining our national platform in the lead-up to the 1998 national conference.This was the exercise presided over by the member for Holt after the 1996 landslide. It was the moment at which Australian Labor would decide whether it could break with the past, take on its own vested interests and offer a genuinely new vision to Australia. After all that work, consultation and discussion and the anticipation it created within Labor ranks and beyond, the member for Sydney was no doubt discouraged when the member for Holt finally announced:We—that is, the Labor Party—would be utterly implausible if we tried to present ourselves to the electorate as a different outfit.By contrast, Blair charts a new course. He said:Our way is different. It is not a return to the past. There were good things that Labour governments achieved in the past but there were serious mistakes and we must not repeat them.The member for Sydney gave voice to some lofty ideals in her first speech when she said:We do a great disservice to the people we represent if we assume that they are looking for easy answers or glib pronouncements. We have to be prepared to argue through complex and subtle arguments. We must be prepared to rethink our own assumptions; to see merit in our opponents where it exists.This is good stuff. This is the stuff from which a truly new Labor might be fashioned. What then do we find in the rest of the speech? How might it be judged in terms of questioning assumptions and seeing merit in opponents? The member for Sydney goes on to describe the government as `Hysterical with hatred; vicious; racist; appealing to and manipulating the worst in human nature' and finally describing one minister as `obscene'. And that was her first speech. Imagine what her grievance debates will be like. In her conclusion, she went on to give these tough policy pronouncements:When in government again, we will build an environment in which the most vulnerable can provide for themselves and their families with dignity—because we are Labor.Break out the violins. She continued:We will create decent jobs with fair pay—because we are Labor.Serve up the apple pie. She continued:And if they need a helping hand, we will be there—because we are Labor.The only thing she neglected to do was to tuck them in with a hot water bottle and a glass of warm milk. The challenge is before Labor. Let them rise to it. (Time expired)10000Cameron, Ross, MPMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3358Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 Miscellaneous33583358Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 10 March 1999, at 10 a.m. as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Bills3358r704Billsr705Billsr706BillsBills3358Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:34:003358Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I take this opportunity to continue addressing the issues I first raised on 18 February when I informed this House of the circumstances leading to the death of Senior Cadet Under- Officer Clare Frances Stokes at Bulimba Station on Cape York on the morning of Friday, 20 June 1997. As honourable members may recall, I informed the House that Clare Stokes was decapitated when the unroadworthy Toyota Landcruiser utility on which she was travelling overturned in the early hours of that day.Clare's parents, Paul and Marie Stokes, are still asking questions. Others are circulating a petition nationwide calling for an open board of inquiry, as I have done in this House. Letters have even gone to Buckingham Palace. People have written to the Duke of Edinburgh as the Colonel-in-Chief of Australia's cadets, asking him to intervene personally in this very important case.Paul and Marie Stokes received no details about Clare's death from the Army between 20 June 1997 and Friday, 8 January this year. They endured almost 18 months of heart-rending silence. Why did it take the Department of Defence so long to respond? No-one will say. It appears that I accidentally misled the House 2½ weeks ago. I told the House that the investigating officer's report was eight pages in length. Apparently, it is 16 pages long. There were eight persons interviewed for the report, which is where the Stokes family and I got the number eight from. I understand that only two of those eight people were cadets on this exercise.The Queensland State Coroner called over 20 witnesses without any difficulty. In five days, before committing three people for trial, they produced 274 pages of transcript and admitted into evidence 35 exhibits. The Army took 18 months to produce 16 error ridden pages after speaking to a total of eight people, or so I understand—I have never seen the report. No-one outside the Army and Minister Bruce Scott—whom I am pleased to see is here at the table—has seen this report, except officials of the Queensland Coroner's Court and the Stokes family.Minister Scott told Carolyn Tucker's radio program on 10 February that an open inquiry had already been conducted, as well as a military inquiry. The so-called military inquiry produced 16 pages. It is a secret docu ment. There has been absolutely no open military inquiry. The mother of another cadet from that exercise—the cadet is one of Minister Scott's constituents in Maranoa—asked Minister Scott's electorate office for a copy of the investigating officer's report after the coroner told the court it had been completed. Minister Scott's office refused her a copy on the grounds that this document had only been released to the coroner and to the Stokes family—some open inquiry!When the corner's inquiry was due to resume in Brisbane, the only Army evidence—the investigating officer's report—was sitting in Minister Scott's office, within walking distance of this chamber. When it arrived, the coroner was told he could not use it in his own court. The coroner and the Australian Government Solicitor argued for two hours before Minister Scott agreed by telephone to release the witness statements, but not the full 16-page report, for the coroner's use. Minister Scott has more than once publicly described this as full cooperation with the coroner.It is often said that a week is a long time in politics. On that scale, 3½ weeks is an eternity. After 18 months of abject silence, the Commonwealth has responded in spades over the past 3½ weeks. Minister Scott, to his credit—and I say that because he is sitting at the table—has provided radio and written apologies for the report's delay. Two brigadiers visited Paul and Marie Stokes at their home a fortnight ago and I understand that Senator Bill Heffernan telephoned and then wrote to the Stokes family.No-one doubts the sincerity of these responses, however belated. I know that Paul and Marie are most grateful for the visits and telephone calls. But these are not enough. They do not answer the fundamental questions. They do not constitute an open military inquiry into Clare Stokes's death. How does the defence department avoid responsibility for Clare's death? Quite simply. They say cadets are not members of the Defence Force. Section 62(1) of the Defence Act, which was written well before World War I, states clearly:There shall be an Australian Cadet Corps. Section 62(9) of the act goes on to state:. . . the Chief of Army shall administer the Australian Cadet Corps.However, section 62(4) states:. . . a cadet in the Australian Cadet Corps is not a member of the Army.Why establish an Australian Service Cadet Scheme directly under the Defence Act to be administered by the Chief of Army if they are not be held accountable in any way to the defence department? Apparently they were, as I understand it, prior to 1975. Then the Army had both administration of and command over Australian cadets. When the cadets were recommenced in October 1976, legislative changes removed the Army's command authority for cadets, whilst leaving in place the administrative oversight responsibilities. Consequently, every cadet officer is trained by the Army and every training exercise must be approved by the Army, but they take no responsibility for such exercises—all care and no responsibility, as some would say. If only care had been taken at Bulimba Station!Cadet officers are paid by the Army. If they complete 70 per cent of the hours assigned to their unit they receive around $1,500 a year from the Army's paymaster, although not as Army staff. How are they trained? Minister Scott told Carolyn Tucker's audience that cadet officers are now trained by well-resourced university regiments instead of in cadet wings as previously occurred—and this is a great step forward, according to the minister. The officers in charge of the exercise in which Clare Stokes died were trained by 1 Training Group and 1 Training Group has responsibility for the Queensland University Regiment. The great advances which the minister claims have happened since Clare's death occurred before she ever boarded that utility.Why did Clare Stokes board that utility? She was an intelligent young woman, disciplined and well trained. Why risk her life? Because she was a senior cadet under-officer, and she was disciplined and well trained. She was taught that the chain of command must be followed. In naval cadet exams, students are asked what to do if they believe they are asked to do something which is unfair. The correct reply is: obey the order, then make a formal complaint in writing. Clare Stokes never had a chance to write her own complaint. We must now write it for her. We owe her that much.Cadets are still the biggest recruiting ground for the Australian officer corps. The Stokes family is testament to that fact, as are many of Clare's colleagues. There are young people involved in this incident who will not come forward, afraid of repercussions on a military career. Ambitious men and women seeking to join the services do not dare criticise the defence department, even when they have been let down in such a horrific manner as this. To an outsider, the connection between Army and cadets is clear. Cadets are instituted under the Defence Act, eligible for Comcare, responsible to the Chief of Army and must have all training exercises approved. In Clare's case, 12th RCU was responsible to the South-East Queensland Cadet Cell, which is a function of 1 Training Group based at Wacol. Yet we are told cadets are not part of the Army.Lieutenant-Colonel Leo Brown from 1 Training Group told the coronial inquest that major changes should be made. Paul Stokes summarises them: (1), a watchdog body must be established to ensure cadet regulations are followed and this body should conduct spot checks on cadet units at any time as well as arranging regular inspections; (2), every training exercise away from base must be accompanied by a trained and serving solder, either regular or reservist.I call upon the minister to convene a board of inquiry into the administration of the Australian Service Cadet Scheme with appropriate and sufficient terms of reference and the power to make recommendations to him as minister for the administration of the entire cadet corps. These terms of reference must include the establishment of a proper coordinating authority for cadets and a reassessment of the current arrangements for command support.I also call upon the minister to introduce legislation before the House to bring the Australian Service Cadet Scheme directly under the defence department. This matter is not behind us. There were well over 20 cadets on that exercise, as well as officers, who will have to live through this for the rest of their lives. There were 18 people on board, by the way, not 16, as I said previously.Clare Stokes was the oldest cadet on the exercise. She was 18 years old. The youngest was aged only 14. Many of the cadets still suffer post-traumatic stress disorder, with difficulties in their studies, relationships and family life. They have received no direct support, yet some still want to join the Defence Force. To me, this speaks volumes for their senior cadet under-officer, Clare Stokes, and the influence she must have had on each of them.Minister Scott told Carolyn Tucker that significant changes have been made and that the training manual has been rewritten. This is not good enough. The past head of the South-East Queensland Cadet Cell admitted under oath at the coronial inquest that changes were insufficient, they were not policed and there was nothing to stop a similar tragedy occurring in the near future. The former head of cadets believes that no real change has occurred.Paul and Marie Stokes deserve better than this. The defence department has given them barely 16 pages for their daughter. That is all they have left of Clare and her role as senior cadet under-officer. Finally, Clare Stokes deserves better than this. She was a beloved daughter to her family and a valued member of the cadets. Both are diminished greatly by her loss. Let her legacy be reform and let the government commit sufficient resources to these tasks. I say this because the minister is here: I hope he looks at the situation again because this is not going to go away and the least the Stokes can have is some recompense—to know that what happened to their daughter will not happen to other people. I think even the minister would agree with that.17:43:003360Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak about the Howard government's 1998-99 budget. The key features of this budget, as with the previous two, are fairness and financial responsibility. The Howard government has taken a vastly different approach from that of the previous Labor government when it comes to managing the economy. In the last five years of Labor, government debt grew from $16 billion to over $96 billion. They ran continuing budget deficits and, despite promising that the budget would be in surplus during the 1996 election, they left behind a $10 million budget black hole—a fact that was acknowledged by the member for Hotham, the shadow Treasurer, in a rare moment of frankness.The 1998-99 budget was unique in that it was the first budget in eight years to be in surplus by around $2.7 billion. That means that for the first time the government is spending less money than it collects—a basic principle that just about every Australian household understands is necessary to create financial security for the future. It is a simple case of not living beyond our means. It also means we can continue to pay back the massive debt left behind by Labor. We can pay off the Bankcard instead of racking up more debt. By the end of the 1998-99 financial year, we will have paid back around $31 billion of the $96 billion left behind by the Labor government.These bills—Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 —facilitate the plan, and I add my support to that of my colleagues for the responsible, steady approach that this government is taking. I would also like to point out once again just how sharply this contrasts with the approach of the opposition. It served some political parties at the last election in October to say that there was no difference between the coalition and Labor. They wanted to feed on the discontent that understandably grew over the 13 years of Labor government mismanagement. They did this by trying to portray that nothing had changed and that it was a Tweedledee and Tweedledum choice. But nothing could be further from the truth, as these appropriation bills clearly display.During the past almost three years since the coalition was elected, Labor have opposed just about every major decision from the outset. They have taken an obstructionist approach, born of their arrogant belief that they are the only ones fit to run this country. It is a pity that they have not taken a more bipartisan approach, with the national interest being the primary consideration. It is a sad indictment of their performance that perhaps the most accurate test of whether we have a particular policy right is if Labor oppose it. If they come out strongly in opposition, we know we must be spot on.They keep saying that the strong measures we took in our first two budgets were unnecessary, yet there is no doubt that we could not have weathered the storm of the Asian economic crisis as well as we have had we not made those decisions. Australian families would not be enjoying the lowest interest rates in decades had it not been for our responsible approach to paying back Labor's debt. This is where the Labor Party get it all wrong. They view social policy and economic management as being mutually exclusive. They seem to have some warped notion that to pursue a strong economy means you have no regard for social issues. Again, we have proved them wrong.The very best reason for paying back Labor's debt is not just lower interest rates, low inflation and creating jobs—it is the very human benefit that they bring to all Australians. The best reason in the world has nothing to do with economics. It is all about the quality of life we leave for our children. The Howard government wants to leave future generations of Australians a better standard of living rather than a legacy of debt. To do that we have to get the economy right, and that does not mean a propped up growth rate achieved by soaring government spending and racking up debt. Real jobs are created by helping small businesses and supporting positive government policy. That does not mean false promises of `bringing home the bacon' and unrealistic targets that are never met, as we saw time and time again under Labor.One of the many things we can wholeheartedly congratulate the Treasurer on is that his budget forecasts have proved to be realistic and even understated. We have continually exceeded budget forecasts in a period where the rest of the world is undergoing pretty dramatic economic turmoil. It is a testament to this government's honesty and realistic approach with the Australian people. Because we have put the economy in a stronger position, we have been able to afford many positive policies that benefit the community, and because the Howard government has cracked down on welfare cheats—saving $46 million a week—we have more funds to spend on important things.For example, in this budget we announced the extension of the Commonwealth seniors card from 1 January this year, so that more than 220,000 self-funded retirees now will enjoy the same access to concessional pharmaceutical benefits as pensioners. This is a measure that has been very welcome for the many self-funded retirees in Forde. It is an equitable measure that ensures that these people who have provided for their own retirement are not disadvantaged for having done so. We also provided an additional $2.9 billion for public hospitals to reduce their waiting lists and announced free influenza vaccines for all Australians over the age of 65 years. This budget also set aside $19 million for a special task force to crack down on high income earners who avoid paying their fair share of tax. This is expected to recover about $220 million.We also announced further expansion of the highly successful Work for the Dole program—another example of where good economic policy can and does equal good social policy. It is another measure that was opposed by Labor and would be scrapped under a Labor government. I have worked closely with the local work for the dole programs operating in my electorate of Forde. I visit them regularly and talk to local participants and the people they work with. The results in Forde have been truly remarkable, as they have been throughout Australia, with huge numbers of work for the dole participants going on to find full-time jobs.Again, this is where Labor just do not get it. Not only does it make good economic sense to ensure community benefit for the money we spend on unemployment benefits; it makes an enormously positive difference in the lives of the young people who participate in this plan. If you talk to them, they say it gives them a sense of purpose—a reason to get up in the morning. They feel like they are a part of the community and they feel more confident about finding full-time work—and, as I said, they do find full-time work. Isn't the best social policy outcome of all young people getting off the unemployment scrap heap and feeling like worthy contributors to our community and communities benefiting from the drive and enthusiasm of their young people? It is the best social outcome of all—rights weighed equally with responsibility; policy with heart. There is nothing dry or ideological about our approach in government, because the overriding goal of getting the economy right is that we can ultimately produce better social outcomes. Our approach is practical. Labor's 13 years proved that you do not get better social or economic outcomes with their approach. For young people, Labor's revolving door training programs were really a cruel hoax because they offered little in the way of practical help in getting real jobs. Yet Work for the Dole, which they and their mates in the union movement opposed, is producing real, positive outcomes.These appropriation bills are the blueprint for the government's steady, responsible approach over this financial year. The 1998 budget was very positively received by analysts, the media and the Australian public, as it was by the people of Forde. It fulfilled our 1996 election promise to get Australians back in the black and back into work. As Stan Wallis of the Business Council of Australia said at that time, it must be good for national savings, good for investment and good for jobs growth.Already, all economic indicators are showing a stronger than expected rate of economic growth, unemployment is already lower than predicted and, despite the negative approach of the opposition, business confidence is soaring. Of course, as we said last May—and as we continue to strongly believe—the next logical step is to fix Australia's tax system. It is absolutely crucial if we are to continue to deliver budget surpluses and pay back Labor's debt. Here we have another sharp contrast between Labor and the coalition. Labor thinks our current complicated, outdated and unfair tax system just needs a few more bandaids. Their solution is to keep tinkering at the edges, just as they did for 13 years. Isn't it ironic that those opposite have the hide to accuse us of being a `do nothing government'? That is the biggest laugh of all. We have performed well in our three years of government.Their contribution to every major policy step forward we have made—like industrial relations reform, getting the budget back in the black, Work for the Dole and tax reform—has been to block, to oppose and to want to stay with the status quo. The saddest part is that they continue to ignore the verdict of the Australian people. In March 1996 and in October 1998, the Australian people voted for a coalition government. They expected us to get on with the job of governing. They expected us to deliver on our promises, just like these appropriation bills help us to deliver our promises of getting the budget back in surplus.The Australian public expects us to deliver on our promised tax reforms and the massive cuts in income tax that come with them. But Labor remain too arrogant and out of touch to accept the verdict. They are too clouded by old ideology to be able to support practical and positive policies. They are too obsessed with getting back into government to stop for a minute and consider what is actually in the best interest of Australia.There is no doubt that the national interest was paramount in the Treasurer's mind when these appropriation bills were drafted. The Howard government's sensible and responsible approach to economic management—which is evident in the three budgets we have brought down in our first term—has paid big dividends for the Australian people, including the people in my electorate of Forde. We will continue to take a strong and steady approach, and this term will see an even bigger social dividend delivered as a result of our economic management.That is what good government is all about. It does not need to be clouded with ideology or policy debate by publication. It is about getting the basics right and keeping the faith with the Australian people. That is precisely what these bills do, and that is precisely what we will continue to do in our second term of government.17:56:003363Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I rise to speak in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 . I would like to start off by congratulating SOCOG, the Carr Labor government and NRL on the magnificent double-header at the Olympic stadium on Saturday. I am pleased to say that I went there with my mother, who is 83 not out, and, notwithstanding a dicky knee, I can say that travelling from Blacktown to the Olympic stadium by public transport was, for us, just tremendous. Not only did we get there very quickly but my dear mum was able to negotiate the walk and the stairs. Perhaps the best aspect of it was that Manly got thrashed by Newcastle, and my team—the Parramatta Eels—beat St George-Illawarra. I thought it was a great event for New South Wales and a real test of the facilities there, and I am sure everyone is going to look forward to the Olympic Games in the year 2000.I want to talk today about competition policy, and I am not sure which economic commandment that is. I want to speak up about the dairy industry in my state and what have been the results of competition policy. The dairy industry is worth about $10 billion, with farm gate production being worth $3 billion. It is our third largest agricultural industry.I want to thank and acknowledge our dairy farmers and all those who work in this industry. I do so almost apologetically, because you never hear the National Party members from my state of New South Wales talking about dairy farmers or those who work in the industry. They do talk about competition policy but not how it impacts on this industry.Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Not in New South Wales. The member for Page, if you will just be patient, was the one who signed the agreement. Has competition policy been a success in the dairy industry? The federal member for Page, when he was the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, enthusiastically embraced competition policy and took the key decision in relation to the dairy industry. That was to deregulate from the farm gate. By the way, for those who may be listening, the member for Page is a National Party member. Competition was forced on the Carr Labor government by this initial decision and by the threats by the Howard government to withhold compensation funds to New South Wales.Not one New South Wales National Party member spoke up in the parliament to defend the industry—not even the honourable member for Page. Presumably, the National Party was foursquare behind the decision to threaten New South Wales. There are fewer jobs in the industry. The estimate is that as many as 550 out of 1,800 dairy farmers will leave the industry in New South Wales alone as a result of full-blown implementation of competition policy.This government's practice of blindly following ideological policies without examining the practical outcomes will cost New South Wales over 30 per cent of its dairy farmers. In Queensland the figure is higher—600 out of 1,600. Why are National Party members from New South Wales so deaf, dumb and mute about this loss of farmers?The humble milko faces extinction. Already squeezed by increasing retail space and longer shopping hours, the cuts to their margins will be disastrous for this entire sector of the industry. These people are small business men and women who employ on average six or seven young runners to help with delivery. Over 1,000 young people in New South Wales aged between 13 and 18 face the loss of their part-time jobs. What kind of message does this send to the youth of today? Are the milk vendors the unacceptable face of small business for the National and Liberal parties who pontificate so regularly about their devotion to small business?There are fewer jobs in the industry. Are the surviving businesses any more profitable? Farmers in New South Wales are already copping a 3c per litre cut to their margins in just six months and will most likely face further cuts in the future. That is the nature of a deregulated market. Vendors are dealing with a 7c per litre cut in their margin, as well as a loss of customer base, as the supermarket chains stitch up exclusive deals with processors. Clearly, their businesses are less profitable and are in a dance of death with supermarkets as a result of these policies. The processors themselves have already had a 12c per litre cut to their margins, and there are milk depots in danger of closing as a result.So we have a 22c per litre cut in the milk distribution chain, if my maths are correct. Wouldn't it be great to be able to say that the consumers of milk in New South Wales are enjoying a 22c decrease in the price of milk? Isn't that what competition policy is all about? Has the retail price to the consumer for a litre of milk fallen? No. What we have seen is an increase in price to the consumer. Milk prices have gone up in New South Wales by as much as 5c per litre and will continue to rise every three months as the supermarkets gouge more and more from their customers. In Victoria, the price of a litre of milk in the post-deregulated world is 20c higher than it was prior to deregulation. The price of milk has increased, not decreased, as a result of deregulation.Where has the money gone? It has gone into the pockets of the large supermarket chains. In the first three weeks of deregulation in my state, Woolworths and Coles pocketed an estimated $60 million by not passing on their savings to the consumer. So when my constituents do their shopping at Mount Druitt or Plumpton or Blacktown and Penrith they are paying 27c a litre more than they should have to. What a triumph of competition policy!Who are the undisputed winners of deregulation? It is not the farmers, not the vendors, not the processors and not even the consumers. It is the biggest supermarket chains in the land. The National Party and Liberal Party federal members have worked tirelessly—not for the farmers, not for the vendors, not for the processors, not for the consumers but for the supermarkets. The National Party in this House is the party for supermarkets: it is the supermarket party. They are the champions of supermarkets. I trust this will not be lost on the voters in rural and regional New South Wales in the forthcoming New South Wales election. Dairy farmers and the industry must surely feel betrayed.We may also look at the issue of transport. Transport costs in the industry have increased as a direct result of deregulation without any efficiency gains—quite the opposite, in fact. Where one truck used to deliver milk to a geographical area, there are now several trucks on the road as individual retailers insist upon their own transport arrangements. If it is efficiency in an industry you seek by deregulation, then quite clearly five or six trucks are far less efficient than one.Increased choice to the consumer is another supposed advantage of deregulation. Has this occurred in the milk market? Again, the answer is no. Supermarket chains such as Woolworths have signed exclusive deals with processors to lock out choice to the consumer. So has the policy of deregulation and competition achieved its aims in this industry? The answer must be an unequivocal no. I am not alone in this belief. Most in the industry would agree with me. Most consumers would agree with me, and certainly the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry would agree with me. In the Land newspaper of 22 October 1998, the minister said that deregulation had clearly not worked in the New South Wales dairy industry, where retail prices had risen and farm gate returns had dropped. One might also ask what he is doing about it.The federal member for Page, who, as I have said, used to be the agriculture minister in New South Wales, and the man responsible for the implementation of this policy, admitted on the Alan Jones 2UE radio program that the policy is not working because the theory says that the consumer should get a cheaper product. He admitted his own policies had hurt farmers and went further to say that national competition policy, as a whole, needed to be reviewed. It is a pity that the member for Page cannot repeat those words in the House.When my New South Wales colleague and the current Minister for Agriculture, Mr Richard Amery, contacted the chairman of the National Competition Council, Mr Graeme Samuels, with his concerns about the effects of deregulation, Mr Samuels' response was that it was not supposed to work that way. That is hardly a satisfying result. Mr Amery said:Our experience of deregulation in the . . . milk market has demonstrated that none of the theoretical benefits of deregulation have occurred.Let me repeat that—none of the so-called benefits of deregulation have occurred. He is not alone in his belief that competition policy produces none of the benefits that the theory claims. On 3 September 1997, the federal member for Richmond called the `assumption that greater competition will mean lower prices and that consumers will benefit' a `great tragedy'.The Deputy Speaker, the member for Cowper, also said in this place that the ACCC `appears too focused on the theory of competition rather than the reality'. He also said:I believe that while we must have competition—there is no doubt about that—it has to be leavened with a degree of sanity.But at the end of the day these have been merely so many words by National Party members from New South Wales. They have achieved not one deviation from national competition policy.I find it ironic that I am quoting from so many members of this government as to why the policies and priorities of this government should be reassessed. I keep hearing the cliche `If it ain't broke—don't fix it' about any number of issues. Not only was this industry not broken; the conservative parties in their quest for an ideologically pure world have set about destroying this industry with a blunt object. That object is a blind adherence to its failed national competition policy.Mr Ian Langdon, the Chairman of Dairy Farmers said in the Financial Review:Deregulation was never going to lead to cheaper milk for the consumer.Industry experts and consumer groups warned the government that the introduction of deregulation in this industry would not achieve the aims it wanted. Deregulation has clearly hurt the dairy industry. It was the wrong policy for this industry. I am not saying that the industry did not need reform, did not need to find efficiencies.In a rapidly changing world such as ours, change is important, reform is necessary, but what type of reform? The same type of reform that was undertaken in the telecommunications industry, which has profited by deregulation? A litre of milk and a telephone are two entirely different things and they need to be treated differently. The trouble with economic theory is that it treats every item as a widget, a bland and characterless item. The trouble with the real world is that the only place where bland and characterless items exist is in the government party room.Change, as I have said, is important and necessary. It has been said that everything changes; if it does not it dies. Changes to how industries work are of vital importance to both themselves and the community in which we all live. But reform must exist for a reason. There must be a positive outcome from change, or it is a failure, it is wrong. Change cannot continue to occur for change's sake. That is too shallow a reason when the stakes are so high. Reform for the sake of this narrow, economics based ideology is ultimately a hollow excuse for change, because it fails to take account of the individual and it fails to take account of the community who are left to pick up the pieces. Reform cannot take place in a vacuum.Every industry is different, and so industry policy by government must be able to take account of those differences. A government cannot have a single industry policy that covers every industry, such as this government has. A blind adherence to deregulation and competition will hurt as many industries as it helps and, as such, a government must focus on the individual industries with their individual needs if Australia is to profit from the reform process.Three elements have a stake in the success of the industry. Any reforms that take place affect all. All have a stake in the process. All must be included in the process: management; the unions, who represent the men and women directly employed; and the government, who represents the community, the end consumer. When a government sits back and does nothing—deregulation—then the community who elected it, who are looking for leadership from it, go unrepresented. The Australian community has been unrepresented by this government for three years now. Unions are a fact of life, a product of the real world. They have a legitimate place at the negotiating table, and reform would proceed a lot more smoothly with their inclusion. Time spent bashing the unions or trying to break them up is wasted time in the reform process. It is inefficient.A government concerned about maximising the returns of any given industry must work closely with that industry, all three elements, to produce the best outcomes. It must tailor its approach to existing industries based on the individual needs of that industry. And it must set the ground rules correctly for new and emerging industries. Total deregulation is not the answer, because it has failed so many times.I have said that I support competition and that I am not opposed to deregulation, but they are not the sole answer to, nor should they be the sole policy for, industries heading into the new millennium, as this government would have you believe. This open slather unregulated system is failing in so many areas and it must be recognised that some regulation is necessary to achieve the optimum outcome for both an industry and the community.What it all comes down to is balance, getting the balance right—getting the economics right, as well as getting the social outcomes right. A narrow focus on deregulation is not the answer to our problems. What is needed is a more broad examination of theory and effect. What is needed is the flexibility in policy to cope with the different circumstances that different industries face. What is needed but is so sorely lacking in this government is a conscience. But perhaps the last word should go to John Ralston Saul with two quotes:Competition is an event in which there are more losers than winners, otherwise it is not a competition.The second quote is:Unregulated competition is a naive metaphor for anarchy.Dairy farmers of New South Wales, beware of National Party candidates bearing gifts.18:13:003367Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In my opening comments in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99, I would like to tell my colleague the member for Chifley—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that I have no shyness in saying that I do not agree with parts of competition policy, as I will say here in this address and as I say in the party room. I think there are two conditions for competition policy: the first is that genuine competition occurs, and the second is that the competition that occurs should be in the national interest.I also have to remind him, though I do not want to be nitpicking, that it was his party which introduced this process to Australia and sent his government and subsequent governments down this path. It is somewhat of a steamroller, because it permeates all of the private sector and the state and local government structures in the way that people get their rewards from the system. So it is not just going to be a simple matter of saying that you are going to solve the problem by putting regulation back in. But I do not take issue with a lot of the things he raised. I myself have been more than critical of what has happened to the dairy industry.I would like to use this opportunity today, as I did not have a chance to speak in the address in reply, to place on record my appreciation to the people of Hinkler for electing me for the third time. This is the first time that the seat has been held for three consecutive terms by the one party and, I am pleased to say, on this occasion by the National Party.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Just. Just for me too.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Just indeed. The member for Dickson gives me a perfect opening and I thank her very much. The Governor-General outlined, in his address at the opening of the 39th parliament, an exciting path that the Howard-Fischer government had mapped out for this country. It was only possible because we did the appropriate belt tightening during our first term and we returned the budget to surplus after many years of very poor fiscal management.Allow me the indulgence of reflecting on the election campaign before moving on to those weighty matters. I cannot mention all of my supporters and campaign workers, but my sincere thanks should go to my two campaign directors, Graham Colyer from Miriam Vale and Rod Wilson from Calliope; and their deputies, Dick Bitcon from Bundaberg, Don Holt from Gladstone, Ernie and Elaine Jobson from Burnett, Greg McCann from the Boyne Valley and Alf Bonanno from Isis for their outstanding efforts. Of course, I owe many thanks to my entire campaign committee, including many local party members and others who are not members of the party, who went out of their way to assist me. There were too many to name here but I must single out my wife, Margaret, and my family and staff for a superb effort.I am humble that all of these people devoted so much time and energy to helping Paul Neville and the Nationals win the hearts and minds of the people of Hinkler. As the member for Dickson said, it was never going to be an easy task. Labor ran a very well crafted campaign and it is a tribute to their candidate that, after months of effort, the ALP thought they had the seat in the bag on election day. A tough and almost incomprehensible redistribution—the third in as many elections—had eroded the National Party heartland and replaced it with a traditional Labor town at Mount Morgan. The redistribution of the seat alone represented a notional 2.42 per cent swing to Labor. That was the effect of the addition of Mount Morgan and the hiving off of the North Burnett region into Wide Bay.However, as a happy footnote, on election day itself Mount Morgan swayed only 1.22 per cent back to Labor on the 1993 figures—which was the last comparable election—and 7.87 per cent on the 1996 figures. For that I thank the people of the great gold town of Mount Morgan, which holds a very special place in Australian history as the town that saved the new Federation when it was threatened by huge foreign debt in 1902. Would to heaven there were more Mount Morgans around today. Taking the 1993 figures, the seat was notionally Labor by about two per cent. The members opposite should be sobered by the fact that the National Party's two-party preferred vote rose 2.37 per cent on the 1993 election outcome.The marginal status is nothing new to me because, when I first won the seat from Labor's Brian Courtice in 1993, I had to do so with a swing of 4.8 per cent to win by 0.3 per cent. The electorate saw fit to hand me a 10.1 per cent increase in that margin in 1996, again at Mr Courtice's expense, but I have never assumed in all this time anything else but that Hinkler was a marginal seat. So I can assure the member for Dickson that I never operate on the theory that, because you get one good result, somehow you are safe.There were many factors running in favour of the coalition in 1996, including the huge protest vote against the then Keating ministry. I think there was also a recognition that, after 13 years in power, the centralist nature of the Labor government simply did not answer the legitimate expectations of regional Australia.The task in this more recent election was made more difficult by the emergence of a third force in conservative politics, and it was also never going to be easy for the government to go to an election with such a complex issue as taxation. We had a new party, One Nation, a taxation system and an almost incomprehensible redistribution, so it was a very difficult task. I pay tribute to all of my supporters for the way they rallied round. It was very satisfying to be rewarded by the people of the electorate after all of the `experts' and commentators had written it off for the National Party.Another interesting feature of the election campaign was that the One Nation vote fell in the Burnett section—Burnett being one of the state seats within Hinkler—from 34 to 22 per cent. In the area covered by the state seat of Bundaberg it fell from 29 to 16 per cent. That is the clearest possible demonstration that the National Party is the best party to represent the interests of regional and rural Australians. It was remarkable that, in just a few short months, so many people attested to that fact by redirecting their votes back to the National Party.One of the things that astounds me when reflecting on the campaign is the barefaced hypocrisy of the Labor Party. For three months the Labor Party cynically pumped the Australian public full of pious drivel that they were as pure as the driven snow and that they would neither solicit One Nation preferences nor direct preferences their way. Some elements of the media proved especially gullible, buying the ALP's spin and the idea that they would have nothing to do with One Nation hook, line and sinker. There must have been some red faces when it came to light that the Australian Labor Party—using grubby yellow and black how-to-vote cards—had publicly grovelled at the polling booths on election day after One Nation votes.I have seen this technique once before in my electorate. In a state election in the seat of Gladstone they printed a green how-to-vote card to try to grovel for Green preferences at the last minute. It caused such outrage in Gladstone that it actually backfired on them. Once again, after all this pious drivel, the Labor Party was not above going to the people, especially in Brisbane, seeking One Nation preferences with this shoddy, unofficial how-to-vote card.The National Party, I am proud to say, outlined what we were going to do and why. We were always committed to ensuring that our how-to-vote cards were focused on achieving the best possible chance of the return of the Howard-Fischer government, in Australia's best interests. The noisy baying of the thought police did not come into the equation for our candidates and our sitting members.Just because one disagrees with One Nation's populist anti-trade and anti-job policies, one should not take the one-eyed view that the ALP is somehow going to be a better alternative to them—not that I would ever support One Nation. I think the ALP in my area has shown itself not only to be not worthy of representing the seat but its relationship with the electors of my electorate over the last nine years has been very duplicitous.The reality is that a Labor government was always going to be the bigger threat to Australia's future than a solitary One Nation senator. History will record that our decision was the right one and that the National Party beat all the odds with wins particularly in the seats of Wide Bay, Richmond and Page.The major focus of the budget, which I would now like to move on to, and indeed of the 1998 election, was the government's attitude towards regional and rural Australia. At the opening of parliament, the Governor-General put it in a nutshell:The government is strongly committed to rural and regional Australia, and recognises the hardships which country people have endured in recent times. The new ministry . . . has a Transport and Regional Services portfolio, headed by a senior Cabinet Minister, to focus specifically on the needs and concerns of country Australia.The government's new tax system will contain significant boosts for regional and rural Australia, particularly through the $3.5 billion per year reduction in the cost of fuel. The government will help strengthen the economic and social fabric of rural and regional areas. Priority will be given to establishing Rural Transaction Centres in smaller rural towns as a means of restoring access to services lost over more than a decade. An injection of funding for road, rail, telecommunications and environmental infrastructure, and for flood mitigation, will also deliver substantial benefits to regional Australia.These are the words that regional and rural Australians have been longing for some time for. The situation came home very forcibly to me when the Mount Morgan branch of the Commonwealth Bank—the last bank in the town—closed during the election campaign.The reasons that I mentioned earlier are the key ones why regional and rural Australians voted overwhelmingly to stick with the Liberal and National parties. But that places us, as two parties, under a great obligation. The confirmation of why the Governor- General's words are so important is contained in my first speech in this place. I bring my words to the attention of the member for Chifley. I have never been frightened to say what I believe about this. I said:. . . the closing of court houses, the downgrading of police stations, the removal of DPI officers and the selling off of post offices are testament to an insensitive bureaucracy. These facilities are the human face of government in remote areas; they are part of the fabric of the community. It has never been more so than now in times of recession, rural debt, low commodity prices and drought.Bear in mind that I was talking in a 1993 context.I join with those who say enough is enough: hands off rural communities.I am proud to be part of a government which has unashamedly adopted this ethos. I am proud to be part of a National Party which has been so successful as an advocate for people living and working beyond the capital cities and for our major wealth generating industries—agriculture and mining. The Howard-Fischer government is working hard on tax and social reform while progressing necessary economic reform to improve the lot of rural and regional communities. The government will maintain the impetus of economic reform, recently applauded by the International Monetary Fund, to enhance Australia's ability to capitalise on opportunities in an increasingly competitive world.However, at the same time we will continue to be sensitive to community concerns, particularly in regional Australia, about the impact of the pace of change. The review of national competition policy is early evidence of this commitment. In particular, I applaud the appointment of Ray Braithwaite, a former member of this House with hands-on experience in rural Australia, to the National Competition Council.I have often said that the benefits of reform must be fairly shared. Although I believe in the spirit of competition as the basis for a capitalist system, I feel there is less competition in Australia, not more, as a result of the national competition policy. I believe that large firms are using their market influence to destroy competition. I do not think Australia should become a nation of serfs working for conglomerates, large retail organisations, oil companies and the like. If national competition policy means gutting the country towns of Australia—and the town and shire councils that hold them together—and if this is the price we have to pay, I am not prepared to pay it.It is almost six years since the federal and state governments commissioned the Hilmer report and implemented national competition policy. It may have brought benefits in some areas, but many have missed out and some people are still hurting in the process. I have always said—and I said this at the beginning of this address—that, if we are to advance competition policy, two conditions must prevail. First, there has to be a clear social and community benefit from carrying out competition policy. Second, genuine competition and choice must occur. Reforms are not ends in themselves. Both I and the National Party believe in the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said:The care of human life and happiness . . . is the first and only legitimate object of good government.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:003370Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I do not think a week goes by in this chamber when we do not hear the Prime Minister or his Treasurer telling us how they are the champions of small business, the champions of regional Australia and the champions of women in the workplace. This evening I would like to explode some of the Prime Minister's myths and the Treasurer's fanaticism with respect to deregulation and competition policy—the promise it supposedly offers, the disaster it really delivers. There are many examples to draw from: the bread industry, the egg industry and in New South Wales—as you know too well, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, in your own electorate—the milk industry. When we look at these industries I have mentioned, we quickly recognise three staple foods—the basis of most diets. They have not only seen a major price escalation in recent years because of deregulation but also been most adversely affected by a GST.The history of the deregulation of the milk industry in New South Wales goes back to 1993 when all sectors of the milk industry agreed at a milk industry conference and requested that the New South Wales Fahey coalition government of the time support deregulation. The agreement was forthcoming, with a time lag of five years before that deregulation occurred. This was to allow time to develop a fund to pay out any vendors—any farmers—who were adversely affected by the changes and who would be compensated accordingly. All angles were covered—everyone was going to be a winner.Fortunately, when the time did come in 1998 for deregulation to proceed, New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Richard Amery, would not accede to the farm gate price for milk being included in deregulation. This act, and this act alone, ensures that at least dairy producers are still receiving a reasonable price for their milk. Although they have been losers in this process, they have not lost out as much as others in the chain. We should also remember that, prior to deregulation, New South Wales had the highest farm gate price for milk and the lowest retail price. Vendors were making a good living and getting a good return on their investment. But ACCC practices were not being observed, so deregulation simply had to take place.Last week I met with a number of milk vendors in the electorate of Paterson and from the wider Hunter region. By the end of the week I had compiled a list of nine family partnerships that between them have lost $1.75 million. These people are not big business people. They are ordinary mum and dad—husband and wife—operations running a tough business in difficult times. We are talking about a couple who deliver milk to the doors of residential addresses, service stations and small and large supermarkets.What we saw in New South Wales was a squeezing of producers, processors and vendors. Milk vendors who had previously bought their milk from Dairy Farmers Cooperative and sold it to service stations and supermarkets lost those contracts. Certainly they still delivered milk to those businesses, but they now did so under the guise of a delivery fee rather than a sale. Previously, milk vendors had received 12.5c a litre from the sale of milk to supermarkets and 13c a litre for the sale of milk to service stations.Dairy Farmers, now using the effects of the deregulation of the industry, claimed both of these businesses as their own. They claimed those larger consumers were their customers and that they had the right to sell the milk and the vendors simply had to deliver it. Vendors were now paid a delivery fee of 5c a litre to supermarkets and 8c a litre to service stations. A fall of 12.5c down to 5c and 13c down to 8c may not seem like a large amount of money, but for most of the vendors it was their staple income. These people had bought the businesses with agreed prices being in place, expected income and profit levels commensurate with their investment and insurance from the dairy industry that the situation would not change dramatically after deregulation of the milk industry. After all, wasn't deregulation about making it better for everyone?Losing over 50 per cent of the gross profit of milk sales from the largest customer to Dairy Farmers has seen the value of these milk vendor businesses decimated. And do not forget, these people bought these businesses on the levels of turnover and the customers on the books. The value of these businesses was not lost due to poor management, economic downturn or a decrease in the consumption of milk. These people lost their business values because the much touted deregulation forced on the New South Wales milk industry by competition policy cleared the way for the larger players in these markets to use monopoly power to reap great profits from small business. This went to the extent that people who had bought their vending business outright were forced to sign franchise agreements with Dairy Farmers or face losing their milk quota altogether.I know a number of vendors who refused to sign the franchise. They believed that when they had purchased their business they had actually purchased the right to those customers. Wrong. Under deregulation, because they did not sign a franchise agreement, they lost the right to even acquire milk—Dairy Farmers refused to sell them milk that they could resell. We now have a case where a supplier can put an independent trader out of business to force an exploitative position.Whilst small businesses such as the vendors and suppliers have been hurt by the deregulation policy, the farmers who produce New South Wales milk have not fared any better. Dairy Farmers are small business people and they have come under attack by the deregulation of the milk industry in New South Wales. On 1 July 1998 farmers saw the price of milk in New South Wales drop from 53c a litre—farm gate—to 50c a litre.Did the consumers reap the benefit of such a fall? No. Farmers should have been heartened on 22 December last year when a Christmas present from Dairy Farmers was a 1c in the litre increase. How was this reflected in the retail price? Previously they had been getting 53c; now that 1c a litre in farm gate price saw an increase of 5c a litre in the price of milk. It was 1c to the farmer, 2c to the processor, 1c to the retailer and 1c to the vendor. Competition policy really was working well! Consumers again have paid the price for the deregulation of the milk industry—and all in the name of increased competition.What makes this worse is the fact that the government, in its blind rush to bring in deregulation, did not bother to listen to the industry groups concerned. The chairman of the dairy processor, Dairy Farmers, Mr Ian Langdon, had made the comment in defence of retailers that `deregulation was never going to lead to cheaper milk for the consumer because regulation had kept prices to the consumer unbelievably low'. I will repeat that: regulation had kept the prices unbelievably low. So why this mad urge to deregulate an industry where farmers were reaping a benefit, where consumers were reaping a benefit and where vendors were getting a return on capital?I thought competition was all about making things more efficient, reducing costs for consumers and allowing small business to compete on an even footing. I would like to ask just who benefited from this process in terms of the small businesses and consumers. There are 1,800 dairy farms in New South Wales. They directly employ 12,000 people, and all of those jobs are regional jobs, such as in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker, such as in my electorate and such as in the electorate of the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who is at the table. Why is the federal government's competition policy attacking the foundations of these small businesses? Why is the federal government allowing consumer milk prices to be continually increased, even though there is supposed to be greater competition making better conditions for the consumer?The changes in price I have just mentioned are interesting facts. Consumers have only seen milk prices increase, vendors have seen their market prices and profits lowered and the farmers who produce the milk have watched their farm gate price fall as well. So where are the profits going? To the big players in the milk industry, that is where; to the milk processors such as Dairy Farmers and the big supermarkets. The competition which has for so long been touted as the answer for lower prices and more variety, from July 1998 to October 1998, has allowed supermarkets to reap an extra $60 million from the consumer and small business.The government claims that small business is the key to increasing employment in our economy. The government claims that small business is of paramount importance to the Liberal-National coalition government and that it wants to improve conditions for small business. The government claims that it supports regional jobs. Competition would provide them with greater choice, greater opportunities for market exposure and greater security in the industry. Well, weren't they sold a dump on competition policy?The logical question to ask is: why did milk deregulation happen? National Party member Ian Causley admitted that the deregulation program originated by the former coalition government in New South Wales had been a failure. Mr Causley said:The policy is not working, because the theory says that the consumer should get a cheaper product.This sounds like `it looked good on paper'. So I call on the government to answer this question: how is this excuse going to ease the financial burden of milk vendors in my electorate and every other electorate in New South Wales? How is this going to repay the life savings spent by some of these milk vendors in purchasing their business? How is it going to get back the mortgaged homes of milk vendors that they have lost? The final question is: how does the government explain to every consumer of milk in New South Wales why the Liberal-National coalition experiment with milk prices leads to them paying more per litre? The simple answer is that it cannot. The government cannot explain why. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has pushed competitive pricing as far as it would go, and then some. Once the Liberal-National government of the Hon. John Fahey, now the federal Minister for Finance and Administration, let the deregulation cat out of the bag, there was no stopping it taking the cream.The New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Richard Amery, called in December 1998 for an inquiry by the ACCC into the buying and pricing powers of supermarkets. To date the ACCC have refused to conduct an inquiry, citing insufficient evidence. What evidence do they want? Do they buy milk? Do they do the shopping? Surely if they do so in New South Wales there is ample evidence. Obviously, 1,800 dairy farmers, 12,000 farm employees, 8c a litre and milk vendors being pushed to the wall is not enough for Professor Fels and the ACCC.I would like to ask the question: is the government refusing to support the call for an inquiry because it was the mistake of the then New South Wales Premier and now Howard government finance minister? Or is the ACCC not wanting to admit that it was wrong? The evidence in New South Wales is damning. The deregulation of the milk industry failed to achieve a single objective. Prices went up, not down. Small business and consumers lost at the expense of big business.The New South Wales experience should have rung alarm bells for the Howard government's competition policy, but it has not. The federal government is now, on the advice of the ACCC, actually threatening to withhold $10 million of state grant funding from New South Wales because of its refusal to deregulate its rice industry. Here is a situation: New South Wales is virtually the only producer of rice in Australia, with a rice industry that the parliamentary Leader of the National Party, the Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer, described in the answer to a question last year as `an outstanding example of a well organised, export orientated industry successfully exporting to the world, including Riverina rice into Japan.' He stated that on 23 June last year.I am sure you have heard the expression `If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' We have a successful rice industry making inroads into Asia at a spectacular rate and we have a government with a history of deregulation disasters. The majority of all rice, as I have said, is grown in New South Wales. One of the largest rice growers just happens to be Mr John Elliott. In addition, there are several hundred smaller growers, again often family partnership businesses doing the best they can. They are not huge entities but they are working hard at keeping costs low and they are certainly remaining competitive and are producing a top quality product.We are value adding that product, and that creates Australian jobs. It improves the export payment for our rice. It is basically good for the country. The largest rice producer, John Elliott, has stated that if deregulation is effected in New South Wales he will export his rice to Korea for processing—or value adding, in layman's terms. That will cost Australian jobs—not city based jobs but jobs in regional areas where we need them—and increase unemployment and see Australian dollars go offshore.The other effect that that deregulation has brought, time and again, is the devastation of small family unit businesses being taken into big company ones. We will see families and small partnerships forced off their land, not because they were inefficient or because they were bad business people but because they were small and because deregulation gives power to the large and powerful companies. Big business will grow at the expense of smaller family businesses and partnerships. Once again, it looks as though a few parties will gain at the expense of the consumer, other producers and Australia as a whole. This is not groundbreaking news: the federal government have this information. They know exactly what John Elliott wants to do and they plan to do nothing. I must admit to a mistake: the government do not plan to do nothing—in fact they will fine New South Wales $10 million if it does not deregulate that industry.I have personally watched the human tragedy caused by milk deregulation in New South Wales. I do not want to watch it again. I call on the federal government to take a close look at deregulation and competition policy. I also call on the government to acknowledge the problem that has been caused by competition policy, to respond to Minister Amery's request and to demand that the ACCC investigate the pricing and purchasing powers of the supermarkets. Prime Minister, do not just look at models on paper; as your coalition colleague Mr Causley has already stated, the theory did not work. There is more than just getting a theory wrong in this situation. There are jobs, businesses and, at the base of it all, families who need our help.20:19:003373Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—May I also say that I listened with interest to the member for Paterson and some of his comments about the deregulation push, in the cognate debate on the appropriation bills. It always amuses me when people attempt to rewrite history. My recollection of history, having led the grains industry for many years, is that it was not the coalition government that began the roller-coaster of deregulation and the ACCC but in fact the previous Labor government that did. Whilst I share the member for Paterson's grave concerns about the impacts that changes in the business world have on small businesses, particularly family businesses, I too witnessed at first-hand the devastation on family businesses of interest rates of 22 per cent and 23 per cent—in fact, some of the pastoral houses were charging 25 per cent and 26 per cent—as a result of the economic policies of the previous Labor government.I do not rise to talk about such negative things but to talk about the government's policy in terms of telecommunications and the commitment that we have to ensure that regional and rural Australia—and, in fact, all of Australia—has an efficient and effective telecommunications network. As you and the House would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, we are of course locked into a process begun by the previous Labor government where we currently have a mobile phone system which is totally inadequate for the country that we live in. We have inherited, through a commitment by the previous Labor government, a phone system which is suited to high density populations and level terrain more akin to Europe than to Australia.There has been great alarm in the community in general, but particularly in rural and regional Australia, that the analog mobile phone system is about to be phased out. That system has served this country well. It has its shortcomings, particularly in the areas of data transfer and security of phone conversations—as perhaps a few past high-profile leaders of the Liberal Party may be aware—but it is a system which works exceptionally well in the bush. It is a system which bends around mountains, travels through rough terrain and even penetrates the impenetrable walls of this great House.It was a system which has allowed people in the bush security. It has allowed farmers wives and their children to travel on remote roads in the full knowledge that, should something go wrong, they would be able to use a system which could travel anything over 100 kilometres—a system which the bush has grown to use and to love. As all people in Australia tend to do with new technology, Australia's regional people have used the system to great effect. That system is due to be closed, as I say, and part of that phasing-out begins at the end of this year. In fact, the current Howard led government was successful in extending that phase-out but, in doing so, was not able to prevent its ultimate demise and therefore the need for an effective replacement for it.As I have said, the current mobile phone system that has been brought into being by the Labor government—the digital phone system—is highly inadequate at distances over 32 kilometres. It is highly inadequate at distances where people in regional Australia normally operate. In addition, as we well know ourselves, it is inadequate in areas of building density, of rough terrain, and where line of sight is not available.It is a great credit to this government that we have chosen a system. In conjunction with Telstra and a number of other telecommunications companies, we will now see the introduction of a phone system far more suitable to Australia and to its people. The CDMA network—the code division multiple access network—which is in use in a number of countries and particularly in America, is the system which is going to be introduced. Trials of that system are already under way in Swan Hill. Initial results from those trials should give great heart to those people in the bush who are currently concerned about their future in the mobile telecommunications network. May I assure those people, not only of Groom but of all those seats right to Kalgoorlie, which is the biggest rural seat in the world, that telecommunications through the CDMA network will provide them with a more than adequate—in fact, a bonus—replacement to the current analog network.Initial tests by Telstra indicate that that system will have a range, under good conditions, of some 10 to 15 per cent greater than that of the analog network and many times greater than that of the digital network. It has the added bonus of being able to transmit data and various other transmissions, including Mobilenet memo and, at the same time, of being secure, as we have grown accustomed to with the digital network.This system will suit regional Australia. In fact, it will suit all of Australia. It is a system which, I suspect, will in time certainly grow and be used by the vast majority of those people who do not live in the capital cities. It is a system which I am looking forward to seeing the introduction of in my own electorate. I have already had discussions with the relevant authorities within Telstra to ensure early trials to reassure those people who have raised their concerns about the phase-out of the analog network that, in fact, this system will meet all of their needs. We will see the handsets of this system going on sale by the middle of this year and Telstra will begin to switch the system on by the end of September 1999.This system is the next era in mobile communications for regional and rural Australia, and we will see an increase in the use of such communications. I can say, not only as someone who uses a mobile phone heavily but as someone who has a great number of constituents who use such systems heavily, that such a system not only will provide personal reassurance and safety as well as convenience, but also will give rural Australia a system which will allow us to be more competitive. And don't we know we all need it. At a time when many of our commodities are facing continuing pressure as a result of the Asian crisis, of overproduction and oversubsidisation, more and more farmers in this day and age rely on instantaneous communications to ensure they are able to keep up-to-date and to make the most of the marketing opportunities that present themselves. Communications these days is no longer a system of coming in at lunchtime, if you are lucky, and more often at night and checking the news to see what has happened on the commodity markets of the world. These days, farmers download through the net, into their tractor cabs, the latest prices direct from Chicago or from the Sydney Futures Exchange or wherever.Marketing decisions are literally made on the move—marketing decisions which can make or break a farming operation which, in this day and age, is running on the slimmest of margins. Farmers these days no longer rely on the arrival of the latest rural publication, once a week, to decide whether or not they should commit part of their crop or to gain information on the level of production in the world. These days, those decisions are made hour by hour. Every morning when farmers head out to their fields, they are mindful not only of commodity prices but also of currency fluctuations and the latest USDA or European production figures. An efficient and effective mobile phone network is therefore essential.Even in the more densely populated—so to speak—regions of agricultural production in Australia, this system will be greatly appreciated by those people who, over the last three to four years and since 1991 in some cases, have struggled with an antiquated and highly unsuitable digital phone network. I can only congratulate both the minister for telecommunications, Senator Alston, and the government on urging Telstra to bring forward this technology by some 12 months. Not only will it allow farmers security and peace of mind, but also it will mean that we are assured of a telecommunications system that actually works, in a situation that most Australians find themselves in when they are outside the capital cities.In the area of communications, the government's commitment continues far beyond the mobile phone network. It continues to pursue the area of ensuring that rural populations are able to access the latest in telecommunications systems, both land based and satellite.I am currently involved in discussions with a township in my electorate which has done a great deal to ensure that, rather than sit back and complain that their town is dying, they ensure that their town is growing. The township of Clifton, some 60 kilometres south of Toowoomba, is actively pursuing with Telstra, with my full support, with the support of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Macdonald, and also with the support of the Deputy Leader of the Government, Tim Fischer, the availability of local calls to its nearest business centre. Unfortunately, Clifton lies just outside the recommended radius for local calls. That disadvantages that township in so far as it is not able to operate a business connecting itself to its bank, to its accountant, to its solicitor and to its supplier at local call rates. In fact, the calls made by most businesses in Clifton are at STD rates.Toowoomba is Clifton's business centre. Being the largest inland city in Australia outside of Canberra, Toowoomba is a growing and prosperous centre. The importance of Clifton, as a township, being linked to Toowoomba at local call rates has a threefold effect. It means that businesses that are set up in Clifton are able to be competitive, they are able to take the most advantage of modern technology and, of course, they are able to grow.Clifton may have sprung to national prominence as a town that was not able to get a doctor. We have now solved that problem. With the efforts of the local community, we have secured a general practitioner, I understand from Tasmania, who finds the area very easy to live in and conducive to his lifestyle and to his ambitions in medicine. But the real challenges for Clifton are to grow the industries in that region. One company in that region—Davis Engineering—may not be on everyone's lips, yet it is a company which competes not only with other Australian companies based in capital cities—Sydney and Melbourne—but also with companies based in all the industrial countries in the world to produce brass fittings. It has taken modern technology by the throat and decided that being a company at Clifton, rather than being a company at Toowoomba, Brisbane or Melbourne, has its own advantages.Davis Engineering do not want to be held back by the fact that they have to make STD calls every time they lift the phone. They do not want to have to rely on a convoluted system which means, to access the Internet at local call rates, they have to leapfrog into the main server in Toowoomba. Companies like Davis Engineering are looking for the opportunity to be on the same footing as a company at Bankstown, Archerfield or anywhere in the world. I certainly support the people of Clifton in their push to ensure that their rural community does, in fact, have every opportunity not only to use all the telecommunications facilities, but to use them at competitive rates, equivalent to their competitors.It is a great time for regional Australia. It is a time in which we as a nation look not only to our cities for strength and growth, but also to our regional communities for their tenacity, their inspiration and their innovation. Being a member of a rural community and a city the size of Toowoomba gives me a great opportunity to see the many advances that this country can make.One of the things that businesses and industries in my region are most concerned about is the unfair dismissal laws and the fact that, in expanding their businesses, they expose themselves to litigation in the event of the company employee, for whatever reason, not measuring up to the task at hand. It continually disturbs me that companies that do want to expand in our region are held back by such restraints and by a line of thinking which really has no place in a modern and competitive world.If industries in Groom, or industries in Brisbane, Melbourne or Perth are to compete against our competitors—our competitors are no longer in Australia; they are international—we must have a modern industrial relations system which does not hold a company back for making decisions which are in the best interests of the company, of the company's viability and of employment in that region. What is too often forgotten by those people who wish to tie companies tightly into a knot over rules and regulations relating to unfair dismissal is that when that person leaves the employment of the company they are replaced. If unions are really as active and doing the job as they profess—I do know a little about a union; I headed one for a long time—they will ensure that employers who are unfair and behave irresponsibly are brought to account.What we need to see more of in this country is an encouragement of companies to employ people and of industries to take the opportunities when they present. Those opportunities will also cover the area of employing young people. No-one is more concerned than I, in a town like Toowoomba which has relatively low unemployment but a growing level of youth unemployment, to see the sorts of things we hear today about the youth wage. Young people whom I meet and talk to are looking for their chance in the employment field. To see that chance denied them, and to see them have to compete against a 30-year-old or 40-year-old person with experience and maturity because they are both going to be paid the same wage will only lead to one thing—youth unemployment.I can only urge those people who sit across from me, and whose opinion from time to time I value and whose opinion from time to time I dismiss, to think very carefully on this one very important issue. If we are to create the opportunities for this country, if we are to create the opportunities for our young people, our regional people and for in fact all Australians, then we must do one thing: we must take a practical approach to all things in life, whether they be telecommunications or employment.20:38:003377Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—One of the functions of this set of appropriation bills is to appropriate money for expenditure the government has already undertaken using the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration. One of those expenditures which has been paid for, using the advance, is the massive GST advertising campaign the Howard government ran immediately before the federal election.The cost of that campaign to date stands at $16.8 million, the largest ever government information campaign run by any government in Australia's history. The campaign was unprecedented in its size, speed and proximity to the election campaign. Above all, it was questionable because it used public funds to advertise a policy position of the Liberal and National parties.While they are the government they did not then, and do not now, have any legislative authority to implement the policies contained in the advertisements. That is one of the key issues that needs to be considered. This advertising campaign would be reasonably construed by any casual observer to be an ad hoc extension of more than $16.8 million of public funding for the Liberal and National parties election campaign. Most people who have a serious interest in these matters do not think that is an appropriate use of public money.The bill in fact attempts to appropriate $19.443 million for this particular program. So I assume that the government is planning even more pro-GST advertising before the end of the financial year. The opposition believes all of that expenditure is inappropriate. I have been given authority by the shadow minister, Senator Faulkner, to announce tonight that, when this bill goes to the Senate, Labor will be moving a second reading amendment stating that all of the expenditure on the Community Education and Information Program on the tax system is an inappropriate use of public money.The purpose of that amendment will be to ensure that there can be no suggestion that by passage of the appropriation bills this expenditure has in any way been made legitimate. That expenditure has already been the subject of a limited scope performance audit by the Auditor-General. His report has been referred to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit.It would not be appropriate to allow the bill to pass the House without mentioning all of the issues raised by the Auditor-General in relation to the Community Education and Information Program for the coalitions's tax package. They are: was the expenditure for the purposes of the Commonwealth? Patently, it was not. In terms of the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration, was the expenditure urgent and unforeseen? I will be dealing with this in more detail later. Was the use of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs databases for unsolicited mail a breach of the Privacy Act? There has certainly been opinion since then that it was. Was the subsequent use of the Commonwealth copyright material during the election campaign appropriate? Were arrangements made to deliver party and government advertising material together to give the coalition parties an electoral advantage?The question of whether the expenditure is beyond the law turned on technical issues not ethics. The Auditor-General's findings were not conclusive in all areas, largely because of a lack of clear guidelines in many of those areas. Two weeks ago, as Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit I attended the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees fifth biennial conference. Fortuitously, it was attended by the auditor-generals of almost every state. Three of them had faced the same difficulty of examining the appropriateness of government expenditure on advertising and trying to determine what is legitimate and what is not.In each case they had great difficulty because of a lack of any guidelines to judge questionable programs by. They believed that setting those guidelines was a matter for government and parliament, rather than for an auditor-general to unilaterally impose. In the same way that most auditors use accepted accounting standards, they do not use accounting standards that they make up themselves. They would for that reason welcome some kind of guidance for the executive of government in this area.The Commonwealth Auditor-General has, in audit report No. 12 on the community education and information campaign, recommended a set of guidelines and these are the focus of the JCPAA reference which is on at this time. The Auditor-General also suggested that it may be appropriate to tighten controls over the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration. It will be an important inquiry. The quality of the guidelines it produces will have an important bearing on the future health of our democratic process and proper accountability for public expenditure.Critical to this debate is how the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration was used to fund this inappropriate expenditure. The advance is a contingency reserve managed by the Minister for Finance and Administration for necessary expenditure that is urgent and was not foreseen at the time of the previous appropriation. What it does is give the Minister for Finance and Administration a capacity to deal with emergency requirements for expenditure, such as a natural disaster, or for additional expenditures of program money where that is urgent and the amount appropriated has been exhausted.Because it involves the spending of money that has not been appropriated and therefore given appropriate scrutiny by the parliament, use of the advance is a sensitive issue. The general issue was subjected to detailed scrutiny in 1988 by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. The findings were tabled in parliament in report 289. The Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration is not a political slush fund. It has, at least up until now, been administered according to appropriate guidelines. Those guidelines are public and of long standing. They were set out in finance circular No. 1981/8, reference 77/876, attached to JCPA report 289.Typical situations meeting the test of urgency are having accounts on hand with insufficient funds to meet them or having insufficient funds available to meet salaries and wages. Where a competent authority has approved that payment be made, the presumption is that it will be made as soon as possible. Nowhere amongst these definitions of urgency is proximity to an election. Of course, the conventions adhered to by public administrators with proper standards is that the opposite is the case and that once an election has been called the government becomes a caretaker.This expenditure was not initiated, and apparently only that part of it which could not be cancelled was made within the caretaker period. The issue here is that the expenditure was not urgent. Without an appropriation it should never have been incurred. To suggest now that it was urgent because expenditure had been made and there were bills to be paid is a gross misuse of the advance. It amounts to a precedent for allowing ministers or their departments to incur expenditure on anything without regard to the fact that they have no appropriation. They could then use the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration to pay for it on the shallow pretext that it is urgent because the supplier has presented an account. That would circumvent section 83 of the Constitution which says:No money should be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation by law.The other set of eligibility criteria for access to the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration is that an expenditure is unforeseen. The guidelines, which date back to May 1981, say that an expenditure may be unforeseen, both as to the amount and timing, and may include price increases that occurred after appropriations were settled; where it was known prices would increase but not by how much; where, due to a clerical error or inadvertence no amount or an insufficient amount was included in an appropriation; where, at the time the appropriation was settled, it was not known that expenditure would be required; and, finally, where, at the time the appropriations were settled, it was known that a payment would be required but there was considerable doubt as to the timing of the payment. In this case, the government are relying on the fact that they appropriated money in 1997-98 for the program and, at the time the appropriations for 1998-99 were settled, they believed the program could be completed and paid for before the start of the financial year.The Commonwealth Auditor-General found that, if the government had exercised the smallest amount of diligence on this matter when preparing the appropriation bills, it would have recognised that that was simply not going to happen. That leaves the government without any satisfactory justification for its use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration. The fact is that the money has been spent and the accounts paid from the advance. If the money is not appropriated by the end of the financial year to cover this expenditure, it will remain a final charge against the advance. That would leave responsibility for this expenditure squarely where it belongs—in the hands of the Minister for Finance and Administration.To emphasise what I mean in terms of public accountability, I would like to quote from a legal opinion given to the JCPA by the Attorney-General's Department and attached to report No. 289:The relevant provision commits to the Minister, and to no one else, the power to form an opinion that particular expenditure meets the requirements set out in sub-sub-paragraphs (A) and (B). It is a power expressed in subjective terms. However, the Minister is not free to form any opinion he pleases. His opinion must be not unreasonable and it must be formed having regard to relevant considerations—including the correct legal meaning of the expressions `urgently required' and `unforeseen' and for permissible purposes. (Reference to the Minister's delegate, which occurs also in the guidelines, is not, strictly speaking, correct. Rather, the Minister for Finance has, I understand, authorised the holders of certain offices in the Department of Finance to exercise the power for him and on his behalf).To my mind, that means the finance minister is ultimately responsible for the actions of his delegate.There are two other matters which I want to talk about tonight. Firstly, I want to take this opportunity, because there was no formal condolence motion in the House, to speak about the passing of one of South Australia's great premiers, Donald Allen Dunstan. Don made a remarkable contribution not only to South Australia but also to the nation. Before he had even become Premier, he had made great change to the national policies of Labor, most notably by removing the White Australia policy from its platform.He was the model of a social reformer in the late 20th century, taking a socially and culturally conservative state and making it freer, more tolerant and cosmopolitan. He is best known for his contribution to the arts, but at the time he carried the weight of multiple major portfolios, including Treasury, Attorney-General's and economic development. It must have been a huge burden to carry, but it gave him the opportunity to personally direct reform across a range of issues.Fortunately, he had the support of some excellent ministers like Len King, who Don enlisted to take the weight of the Attorney-General's portfolio off his shoulders, and the late Hugh Hudson, the member for Rankin's father-in-law, who built South Australia a modern education system. A broad range of reform was pursued across areas as diverse as women's shelters, consumer protection, liquor licensing, gambling and plans for the development of a new satellite city at Monarto. Dunstan recognised that Adelaide had not become too large for its planning and transport problems to be effectively dealt with. That remains the case today.Dunstan put a great deal of effort into developing a modern machinery of government. Towards the end of his premiership, I was the most junior clerk in the policy division of his department. It was an opportunity to see from the inside the model for professional and progressive state administration in the country at that time. In South Australia we have not since seen its equal. He also set some directions for South Australia's economic development which have only recently come to fruition. It was Don who saw the potential for a sophisticated, high value tourism industry in South Australia's Mediterranean climate, wine, cuisine and cultural life.Don was blessed not only with great intellect and the political skill to achieve reform but also with the financial support of Gough Whitlam. Whitlam was trying to implement a social program with similar objectives to Dunstan's. Many of Whitlam's programs fitted and financed Dunstan's program. Only months before his dismissal by Kerr, Whitlam left South Australia with a financial endowment in the form of the railway transfer agreement, which sustained the Dunstan program for several years, even beyond state Labor's term.It was a very different era to the one that we are experiencing now. The state's finances were much less a constraint than they are today. To put his achievement into today's context, it is only necessary to point out that, under Dunstan's treasurership, debt as a proportion of gross state product fell from 49.6 per cent to 23.7 per cent over the nine years that he was in office.It is a measure of Dunstan's leadership that, while many of the changes he sought were controversial and met great opposition—including from a hostile upper house—there are few in our community who could imagine life now without those reforms. He is a great loss to our community.The final matter I want to speak about tonight is the new funding round for cooperative research centres. I want to speak in favour of one application which is of great merit, and this is an application for a new cooperative research centre for viticulture. The current CRC for viticulture is reaching the end of its funding cycle, and it is worth noting the substantial research successes that have been achieved by it. In the last six years it has achieved major advances in grapevine genetic improvement, molecular diagnostics, grape berry maturation, integrated pest management, nutrition, irrigation, objective grape quality measurement and novel fermentation control methods.What is as important is that the viticulture CRC has provided education and communication mechanisms which have ensured that the new technologies it has produced are rapidly and widely taken up by the wine industry. One of the most pleasing characteristics of the wine industry today is that it has very effective leadership and a clear sense of direction, as set out in Strategy 2025. That sense of direction is being more than matched by investment. That enthusiasm to invest, which is currently being fuelled by export opportunities and high prices, will bring its own challenges over the next few years.Australia faces tough competition in our international markets, particularly from other new world producers like Chile and South Africa. That competition will inevitably put real pressure on the Australian industry. That is why we need to take every practical step to extract maximum value from our production. The wine industry's peak bodies—the Winemakers Federation of Australia and the Winegrape Growers Council of Australia—have recognised this fact and have committed to a substantial rise in industry research levies to the maximum permitted under current legislation, which can ensure the ongoing viability of the new viticulture CRC.The ongoing participants in the viticulture CRC include a number of universities, state government agriculture and research departments, the CSIRO, wine and dried fruit research institutes, the Winemakers Federation and the Winegrape Growers Council. The new proposal includes an expanded group of participants, bringing in the Wine Industry National Education Training and Advisory Committee, the South Australian Phylloxera Board and a number of additional universities and state agriculture departments.I hope none of this has escaped the attention of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I will watch with interest the progress of the application.20:55:003380Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 . I support these bills and the program of reforms that they will facilitate.Some members opposite are fond of saying, ad nauseam, that this government places too much emphasis upon economic issues and not enough upon social issues. There are two answers to this criticism. Firstly, the Labor Party has always underestimated the importance of getting the economic fundamentals right. Good economic management is about low interest rates, low inflation and getting the budget back on track for the future of Australia. Secondly, the coalition has an extensive social agenda, but we are roundly criticised by the opposition and some sections of the media for not having one, because ours is not a left-wing agenda. Our social agenda is one of individual responsibility, reward for effort, mutual obligation and the responsible management of change.With regard to the first point, this government has been extraordinarily successful in repairing the Australian economy. Having inherited an economy that was bruised and battered from the worst recession since the 1930s, we set about balancing the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates, thereby stimulating employment growth.This, of course, is the whole point of responsible economic management: creating a society in which those who are in the labour market looking for work can find gainful and rewarding employment and make a full contribution to the community. There can be no more desirable social goal than this. If they do not have a job, some people lose their skills, social contacts, motivation, structure and their sense of self-worth and identity. Any social agenda which does not have employment growth as its centrepiece is robbing the most vulnerable members of our society of this essential human dignity.It continues to amaze me that the Labor Party will talk long and loud about social justice, yet when they are offered opportunities to increase employment—one of the most important elements of social justice—they reject it if it is not in keeping with their ideological agenda.There is no question that abolishing youth wages will lead to an increase in youth unemployment, yet the Labor Party is intent on doing just that. There is ample evidence that the government's Work for the Dole schemes have led to many long-term unemployed people finding employment in the private sector, yet the Labor Party continues to declare its opposition to this successful program.Then we have the pathetic, ridiculous debacle of the Labor Party in the House recently, because the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business write letters to each other regarding possible options to reduce unemployment. The Australian Labor Party thinks it is outrageous that the Prime Minister would write to his employment minister asking him to outline some initial options for advancing the government's priority for action to reduce unemployment—of course still within the guidelines of meeting our election commitments.The Australian Labor Party is so bereft of policy—a policy vacuum, so to speak—that, when offered some form of sensible policy, their frontbenchers are relegated to the back bench, as in the case of the member for Werriwa.There is a welter of evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, to the effect that overly restrictive unfair dismissal laws lead to higher levels of unemployment than would otherwise be the case. This has been acknowledged by the OECD, by the Yellow Pages small business surveys and, I can tell you, it has been confirmed by the feedback that I have received from businesses in my electorate. The government responded to this evidence by implementing regulations to exempt small businesses from these laws for the first year in which they take on a new employee.Any political party which was truly concerned about social justice would have supported these regulations. But what did the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats do? They voted them down. They voted down the single most important social justice measure which has confronted them in this parliament. In so doing, they consigned an enormous number of potential new jobs to the scrap heap. That shows the Labor Party's real concern for the unemployed: just dump them on the scrap heap and then criticise us for working to help the unemployed into jobs.Why the newspapers are not dedicating their front pages to informing the nation of this betrayal to the unemployed by Labor I will never know. There are over 800,000 small businesses in Australia. Even if only half were prepared to employ an extra person, as many as 400,000 new jobs could be created. I spoke recently in this place about the impact that these restrictions on employment are having on our young people. I pointed out that young people are increasingly having to put their lives on hold because they have not been able to find permanent employment. These people are marrying, buying a home, and having children later than previous generations. They are paying a high social cost for the Labor Party's failure to recognise the realities of today's labour market.I was interested to read a recent article in the Australian Financial Review by Nina Field. Extrapolating recent social trends and projecting them into the future, some futurists have predicted that the average age at marriage will be 37 or 38 and that couples will tend to have children much later in life than they have in the past. This would be all very well if it were simply a matter of personal choice on the part of the people concerned. But in many cases they are not making these decisions as a matter of choice but perhaps because their financial and employment situation renders them unwilling or unable to commit to marriage, buy a home or have children as early as they would like.In the letters section of the Australian Financial Review, Mr Geoff Hogbin of Waverton in New South Wales has written in to point out that research by Harvard University and the University of Bonn has shown that hiring and firing restrictions reduce employment levels. But this real world data means nothing to the Labor Party, which have come to a decision because it is in keeping with their ideology and with what their trade union masters would have them do. I said earlier that the coalition does have a social agenda but that, because it is not a left-wing agenda, the Labor Party and some sections of the media declare that we have no social agenda at all.In the time I have left, I want to touch briefly on some of the social issues which the constituents in my electorate of Makin regard as important and which this government has embraced. The electorate of Makin has been a great supporter of the government's Work for the Dole program. The idea of mutual obligation is an important one from the government's point of view and, from the feedback that I have received in Makin, this idea has strong support in the general community, particularly by parents of young people looking for work. Furthermore, it has been strongly supported by young people in my electorate. Young people that I have worked with do not want an easy option, and they do not want to be continually churned through training programs with little prospect of a job at the end. They understand that the principle of mutual obligation is one that accords respect to them by acknowledging that they can make a contribution to their community while they are looking for work. Given this choice, the vast majority of young people have shown that they are eager to be part of their community rather than succumbing to Labor's exclusive ideology.I would also like to take the opportunity to speak on another issue that is highly relevant to our community today, and that is our Tough on Drugs Program. In its first term, the government committed $215 million to Tough on Drugs. In this term we are proposing to build on that with a four-year $75 million package for stronger law enforcement, a further $23.4 million to set up four more federal police mobile strike teams to strengthen the fight against international drug trafficking, another $10 million for the National School Drug Education Strategy, more than doubling our original commitment of $7.5 million, plus a range of other measures.The government's Tough on Drugs Program is a response to the very real fears and concerns that the community has about the drug menace in our society today. I am proud to be part of a government that recognises the dangers that illicit drug use poses to our community, and particularly to our young people. Again, our young people have shown, in the main, that they are more sophisticated than some of the adults who would peddle to them the flawed theory that these drugs should be legalised. I was very pleased to read in a recent survey of young people conducted by the Adelaide Advertiser that the majority of young people surveyed were against the legalisation of heroin and other currently illicit drugs.In my electorate of Makin, I have been able to work closely with parents, school principals and local representatives of the police force to promote the message that drugs do pose a danger to the community, and to point out the many dangers to physical and mental health that illicit drug use carries with it. In the area of treatment and rehabilitation of heroin addicts, some approaches in my home state of South Australia have achieved remarkable success.Drugaid South Australia, for example, has used naltrexone as part of an abstinence based program, and has claimed a success rate as high as 90 per cent. Importantly, Drugaid has expressed concern about calls to legalise heroin, and has grave concerns about heroin trials in other countries, such as those in Switzerland. In particular, Drugaid has alleged that the Swiss heroin trial has now just turned into a full maintenance program, and is doing nothing more than providing heroin without also providing necessary rehabilitation.I share those concerns and I am convinced that to legalise heroin, or provide it to addicts without providing treatment and rehabilitation, is tantamount to admitting defeat in the war against drugs. Furthermore, there are other drugs available which have proven to be effective in treatment, such as buprenorphine, levo alpha acetylmethadol, tincture of opium and naltrexone. To this end, I believe that our state governments should all look seriously at the establishment of drug courts—so ably lobbied for by my colleague the member for Hughes, Danna Vale, in New South Wales—so that when drug addicts become caught up in the criminal justice system they can be offered a way out of their dreadful cycle of drug dependency, crime and despair with a support network of counsellors, treatment and rehabilitation.Another issue of importance is that of reconciliation with Aboriginal people. The Prime Minister indicated, soon after being re-elected, that he was serious about achieving genuine reconciliation with our indigenous people. Notice that I say `genuine reconciliation'. I believe that as long as so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people remain in a state of welfare dependency, poor health and sanitation, high infant mortality rates and low life expectancy, there can be no genuine reconciliation between us all as Australians. No amount of pontificating about the past will assist disadvantaged members of our indigenous community, unless we are prepared to boldly and honestly tackle the problems of today.I have said previously in this place that the government will be spending $168 million this financial year on indigenous specific health programs, representing a real increase of 37 per cent since 1995-96. As part of this spending, we have established 35 new or expanded health services, with priority being given to rural and remote communities.Finally, as I said before, the government is in favour of the responsible management of change. This philosophy is exemplified by our approach to the issue of constitutional change. The government believes in giving power to the community in debating and deciding this all-important issue. An agreed position was arrived at by the Constitutional Convention of 1998, and this position will now be put to the people of Australia through a referendum later this year.While the Prime Minister has stated his position very clearly, he has made it equally clear that members of the Liberal Party are free to vote as they wish when the referendum is held. This is in stark contrast to the position taken by the previous government. The previous government decided that there should be a republic, produced a preferred model, and proceeded to push that model as hard as it could. No consideration was given to the wishes of the general public or to the notion of sponsoring a broader debate in the public arena without prejudice. The wonderful spirit in which last year's Constitutional Convention was held was due in no small part to the role of honest broker played by the coalition government, and the Prime Minister in particular, on this issue.For my own part, I am a strong supporter of our current Constitution, which I believe has served us well for nearly a century. It must never be forgotten that we are one of the most stable and longstanding democracies in the world. The onus is on those who would seek to change our Constitution to show that this would result in an improvement of our system of government.I know that some of my colleagues are in favour of change, and I understand and respect their point of view. It is a mark of maturity to be able to handle this debate in the way that we have, allowing our members to hold different opinions. Our supporters in the general community appreciate this, and they appreciate the fact that we have not sought to impose a particular position upon the community. On the other hand, we know that there are many traditional Labor supporters who are disappointed that their party has not accorded them the same courtesy.These are some of the ways in which this government has conducted itself on social issues, showing that we are responsible managers of the social and economic agenda. These bills will enable us to continue our program of responsible management of the Australian economy and the Australian society, and I commend them to the House.21:09:003384Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise tonight to take the opportunity in speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 , and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 to make some comments about the effects of the 1998-99 budget on my constituents in the seat of Chisholm. There are three main areas of budgetary spending I would like to focus on, namely, Centrelink, health care, and small business and its interaction with industry policy.Looking through all of the major additional appropriations provided for in these bills, I note that money is allocated to the Department of Family and Community Services for the running costs of Centrelink. Like so many other electorates, problems associated with Centrelink are rife within Chisholm. Distressed users of Centrelink constitute the most constant flow of inquiries coming into my office. The money allocated by the government for the running costs of Centrelink is woefully inadequate in enabling Centrelink to provide an efficient service to the public.This is evidenced by the enormous delays experienced by clients who are forced to continue redialling Centrelink for often basic information. Figures produced by Centrelink show that 81 per cent of all people calling a Centrelink service last year did not get past the engaged signal. This is a phenomenal figure.There are also other problems. During 1997-98 there were 10,000 complaints lodged with the Ombudsman about the agency, more than any other Commonwealth agency. Last November, Centrelink announced its plans to cut 5,000 employees from its work force. In my electorate, staff cuts and voluntary redundancies have been implemented in the Box Hill and Oakleigh offices that service not only many residents around the Box Hill and Oakleigh areas but indeed many residents of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.Problems of computer errors, long delays in gaining interviews with Centrelink staff, and the slow processing of queries are just a few of the problems that residents in my electorate are experiencing. These problems are even more acute for people trying to access this service who have language difficulties. Phone based services are also problematic for the elderly, who are often uncomfortable with dealing with this form of technology.All of these inadequacies in the Centrelink service represent more than just teething problems. They indicate that Centrelink has systematic problems caused by insufficient funding, excessive staff cuts, and a lack of recognition that the agency's clientele are generally the most vulnerable in our community: the elderly, the long-term unemployed, young people, and those with poor language skills from disadvantaged backgrounds.Looking for work can be a soul destroying exercise. The constant rejections, the responses from employers that `You were just not up to it' regarding why you did not get the position or the silences can eat away at one's self-esteem. A constituent who recently came to my office showed me one week's worth of job applications she had sent off in response to positions she had accessed through Centrelink—some 20 in total. She had received not one response from an employer in respect of these applications. She believed she had sent out over 80 applications to jobs accessed from the touch screens inside Centrelink offices, and had just one interview. She had previously been in the full-time work force, had reasonable skills, but could not get an interview. To her, the services provided by Centrelink were a cruel hoax, and she was constantly frustrated by references in the media to those living on the system. `What choice do I have?' she asked in angry frustration about it all. Her story on Centrelink and its impersonal approach underlines this government's philosophy of small government, based on user pays and competition for all sectors, even competition over those who provide for the poor and disadvantaged in our community.Perusing the appropriation bills I also note that extra funding is provided for private health care initiatives. While this government is content to channel money into promoting its rebate scheme, it appears that it has been sloppy in the administration of the Commonwealth seniors health card for self-funded retirees. I have received many inquiries to my office from residents angered that the scheme was advertised as being applicable from 1 January 1999. Seniors who purchased pharmaceuticals after 1 January but before they were issued with their health card were urged by Liberal politicians to retain their receipts on the basis that they could be claimed and reimbursed once they received their card. Upon presentation of their receipts, many older residents found that they have been unable to receive the reimbursements, and there is some doubt as to whether they will ever receive recompense.This misleading information put out by government members has led to confusion among many retirees. The government would be well served to correctly publicise all of its health care programs rather than just pour money into the latest foray into resurrecting private health insurance.Another serious health related issue that has been brought to my attention is the lengthy waiting lists for dental patients. While many of these complaints may not be classified as an emergency, they are often very painful for the sufferer and can inhibit their ability to eat. As many of these public patients in my electorate are elderly, this places them in a very uncomfortable situation.As an example, an 80-year-old constituent visited my office after being advised that she would have to wait two years before she could get someone in Box Hill to look at her teeth. Her problem was not classed as an emergency, so she came to my office to seek what alternatives were available to her. Sadly, we said there were none. She could pay to see a dentist privately, which she could not afford to do, or she could wait two years. There was no longer a system where she could visit a dentist and have this supported through a government rebate. I intend to ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care a question on notice about these waiting lists. I will be very interested in the response.This comes in the context of the cruel decision by the Howard government to abolish the Commonwealth dental scheme in its last term of office. Long waiting lists in both the public dental and public hospital systems have been combined with the loss of services arising from the closure of 43 Medicare offices. In the region surrounding my electorate, the Medicare office in Clayton was shut in April 1998, forcing thousands of people to travel long distances to access the service. This decision still upsets many residents in the area, who see it as quite ironic that an office in a thriving shopping centre, accessed by bus and train and near a major hospital, was shut down.A rather interesting feature of this appropriation bill is the commitment of $2,085,000 to meet the litigation costs of the waterfront dispute. The government waxes lyrical about the need to maintain budget surpluses and how we must all tighten our belts, yet here we find the government having to dig into its coffers to fork out money it need never have spent. The waterfront dispute was a public relations disaster for this government. Not only did it prove beyond argument what we already knew, that this government is driven by an ideological opposition to the right of workers to take collective action, it also exemplified its clumsy attitude towards garnering the consensus that is needed to achieve genuine workplace change.Helping to fight a case they must have known was questionable legally, after it was revealed that Patrick had acted outside the Workplace Relations Act, is an indictment of this government. It also reveals a lack of focus by the government on the issues we need to address to ensure Australia reaches out to more export markets and achieves a higher level of economic growth.It is often said that small business is the engine room of growth in the economy. Many small businesses are dependent on some form of government assistance to help them get off the ground. There appears to be no direction in industry policy coming from the government. In fact, its only plans for small business revolve around the removal of unfair dismissal protection and a GST to add to their paperwork nightmares.What we need to do to grow small business is to look at providing more support in the area of research and development. Small businesses are often overlooked for R&D funding and have suffered, along with all businesses, from the removal of the 150 per cent R&D tax concession offered under the former Labor government. There are also cogent arguments for making available tied grants directly to businesses that meet a relevant criterion.In order to illustrate some of the difficulties of small business that have been brought to my attention, I would like to explain to the House by way of example. In my electorate of Chisholm there are 6,778 different business locations. It is quite a thriving retail and office centre in the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. In the past few weeks Mr Kevin O'Brien contacted my office in relation to his disgruntlement with the Taxation Office. Mr O'Brien runs a company called Medical Equipment Management, MEM, from Mount Waverley in my electorate. It is a small business that designs and manufactures electrical safety test equipment for hospitals, although more recently they have been looking at expanding into the domestic electronic field. MEM exports their products to New Zealand and is looking at moving into other markets in the future.I first heard of Mr O'Brien when he wrote to my office, upset at the treatment he had been given by the Taxation Office, which had sent him a rather blunt letter concerning an outstanding payment. The letter demanded payment and threatened legal action. It was the view of Mr O'Brien that a simple phone call could have resolved the problem. It illustrated to me yet again the loss of human contact that plagues our modern society. I would like to read from his letter as it most eloquently indicates the range of problems and frustrations small businesses experience day to day:Over past years, because of my efforts in having an Australian product available, my sales have saved over $500,000 in Australia's overseas balance of trade. I am also receiving orders for export.My R&D expenditure over the past 12 months exceeded $30,000 none of which is Government supported and another Government Department insisted that all electrical equipment must be passed for EMC before January 1, 1999, another cost of $2,300.I do not have a mobile phone, I drive a 14-year-old car and my gross salary was approximately $24,000. I am entirely dependent on my customers' payments to pay my bills.These words from Mr O'Brien of Medical Equipment Management provide an interesting insight into the many obstacles encountered by small businesses. Mr O'Brien has expressed a concern felt by many small proprietors—that this government is only interested in helping established, larger businesses while neglecting those smaller, innovative companies that operate in niche areas.It is incumbent on all members of the federal parliament to try to remedy these issues by supporting a comprehensive industry policy that restores research and development assistance. Yet all we hear from the government is how the GST is the panacea for all business worries, and how it will somehow miraculously create jobs and make life simpler. We on this side of the House believe that the GST will be a job destroyer and that it is bad for business. The GST will be a tax on inputs and there will be items that have not previously been subject to tax that will suddenly attract the 10 per cent hike.During the Senate inquiry there have been a plethora of new areas and groups identified as attracting a GST—funerals, those living in mobile homes and caravan parks, local scouting organisations and even charities. The government's estimates on the impact of the GST on the cost of living have been shown to wildly underestimate the expected price increases, and the paltry nature of the compensation package has also been revealed. It is time for this government to overcome its obsession with wharfies and the GST and recognise that there is a crisis within many of our government services that needs urgent attention. The irony of the government's approach is that, while it constantly talks of tax reform, it speaks very little of the purpose of taxation, which is to provide of course affordable, accessible and high quality services to the public.As I have said previously, those in our community who can least afford to spend time waiting to get through to Centrelink or to sit endlessly on a hospital or dental waiting list are suffering through this neglect. I look forward to the return of a Labor government to restore a commitment to supplying world-class, properly funded public services whilst also providing encouragement and innovative assistance to growing small businesses.21:23:003387Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—We know that the ALP oppose tax reform and we have just heard a very interesting speech in the appropriation bills debate which says how the Labor Party oppose a GST but want more government services. There was a very interesting graph in Business Review Weekly last week which showed that the indirect tax base in Australia is declining. That is why you see very high levels of wholesale sales tax on the goods that it covers. That means that, if the Labor Party want to increase government services when we know they support wholesale sales tax and they oppose a goods and services tax, the only solution is for them to have higher income tax, because we have a shrinking indirect tax base—it is shrinking every day. The economy is shifting from one that, back in the 1930s, was based around manufactured goods; it is increasingly based around services. The only solution to increased government services is either to have tax reform and a new tax system, as the coalition has proposed, or higher income tax, which is the Labor Party's solution. That is the only way in which they could support their policies.I would like to speak tonight on private health insurance. The coalition is not prepared to sit back and watch the demise of the private health system like Labor did during its 13 years. The private health system and private health insurance are an integral component of the Australian health system. Australia cannot afford to be solely reliant on a public health system. We need to look at the problems that face private health insurance. Since the introduction of Medicare, the private health insurance participation rate has declined from 50 per cent in 1984 to its present level of approximately 31 per cent. The average decline in the participation rate under Labor was two per cent per annum.Only by looking at the reasons for the decline in the participation rate can the problem be rectified. The simple reason is that people are not satisfied with the product of private health insurance and quite a large proportion of the population do not perceive it as value for money. The most common causes of dissatisfaction with private health insurance are premium increases. A recent survey showed that 67 per cent of the dissatisfaction with private health insurance was associated with premium increases. Outof-pocket expenses and the number of bills that the patient receives are also important and account for about 10 per cent each of dissatisfaction with health insurance.A major cause of premium increases is adverse selection. Lower risk people have been leaving as premiums rise. Younger, fitter, healthy people are leaving as premiums rise and those who expect to make a claim on the funds have been joining. The Industry Commission estimated that adverse selection accounted for around 17 per cent of real premium increases during the 1990s. The premium increases have caused the membership profile of the funds to differ from the community profile as younger, healthier people drop out and high-claiming members join or remain. That is an unintended effect of the principle and policy of community rating.Premiums also increased due to hit-and-run membership. These are members who join, go through their waiting period for elective surgery, make a claim on the funds and then drop out. There is also a large proportion of premium increases that have been policy induced. These have been things like the Labor Party's decision between 1984 and 1986 to withdraw the Commonwealth bed day subsidy, and to reduce from 85 per cent to 75 per cent the MBS payment from the government for in-patient treatment. The withdrawal of those subsidies to private health funds was estimated to account for something like 39 per cent of the current level of premiums. Out-of-pocket expenses were meant to be addressed by the Lawrence legislation of 1995. That has been an abject failure. The intention of that legislation was to promote contracts between health funds and medical practitioners. That has failed.Patients can receive a ridiculous amount of bills. Sometimes you can get a bill from a surgeon, an anaesthetist, a pathologist, a radiologist, a physiotherapist and so on. A number of hospitals are addressing this problem and are making sure that people have one bill when they leave after an in-patient stay.Australia, like most of the world, has a baby-boomer generation approaching retirement. Japan is the country which is closest to having the largest cohort approaching retirement. We cannot afford to be solely reliant on the public health system, which means that the government will pick up everything, or just have a private health system for the rich, which is more the UK model and is the sort of model that you suspect the Labor Party supports. The Liberal and National parties believe that all Australians should have access to high quality health care with strong and viable public and private health systems working together. I am proud that, thanks largely to the efforts of this government and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, no government has done more to create a sustainable balance between the public and private health systems.The ALP do not believe in a balance between the public and private health systems. They feel that private health insurance is only held by the elite or well off in the community. They do not realise that it is held by many singles, couples—especially elderly ones—and families on modest incomes. In fact, almost one million Australians on incomes of less than $20,000 have private health insurance.Despite the fact that, on average, there are 39,000 electors in every electorate in this House who hold private health insurance, we still have every member of the ALP voting against the 30 per cent rebate. And they have not given up. They are still opposing it. They want to refer it to a Senate committee. They do not support it. I believe the Labor Party are very short-sighted in their opposition to the 30 per cent rebate, because the private system plays a key role in relieving the pressure on the public system. Labor Party members need to speak to their constituents, to get out into shopping centres and to find out what their constituents really think on this issue. I know a lot of elderly people in my electorate who receive only the pension and continue to maintain their private health insurance.In regard to the public hospital system, the Commonwealth government is providing $31.3 billion over five years, 1998 to 2003, to the states and territories under the Australian health care agreements—formerly the Medicare agreements—to maintain their public hospital systems. That is $7.2 billion more than Labor's last Medicare agreement.In relation to private health insurance, since the government was elected in 1996 it has introduced financial incentives for health insurance. From 1 July 1997 the Private Health Insurance Incentive Scheme provided up to $450 for private health insurance members. Higher income earners without private health insurance pay an extra Medicare levy surcharge of one per cent. These initiatives help to slow down the decline in the participation rate of the funds.After the vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate late last year, from 1 January this year there is a 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance. This has replaced the previous incentive scheme. Anecdotal evidence that I have received suggests that there was a good take-up rate in January and February of private health and also suggests that it is attracting young, fit, healthy people back into the funds, which is an important objective of addressing this problem of adverse selection.The government has also listened to the concerns of the medical profession and has legislated to prevent health insurance funds from interfering in the clinical treatment of patients and it is encouraging medical practitioners to inform their patients of any out-of-pocket expenses. The government has made it easier for health funds, medical practitioners and hospitals to address out-of-pocket expenses. There are examples like Melbourne Private Hospital, SportsMed in South Australia and Ezyclaim, which is offered by Mutual Community, which are establishing hospitals which offer one bill and no out-of-pocket expenses. The government has also introduced simplified billing and informed financial consent trials. Several trials are due to report.Recently I received a very balanced letter from one of my constituents regarding this balance between private health and public health. It reads:Dear Mr Southcott,Thank you for your work on our behalf. With regard to Private Health funds, my ex-husband & I belonged to Mutual Hospital all our married lives till we both retired & could no longer afford it.During the past year I've had a large operation and chemotherapy, and am tremendously proud of the work done by the Royal Adelaide Hospital, and the Medicare system.I am very proud of that—I worked at the Royal Adelaide Hospital for three years, although not when she visited. The letter goes on:On the other hand, my sister who has loads of money, speaks highly of the Private Health scheme.My thoughts are therefore, that both are equally important.Single people without families can afford lots more, but they face a lonely old age.Yours faithfully . . . That is a very balanced letter. She says that there is a role for both. That is the attitude of the government.There are a number of other reforms to private health insurance that the government has introduced, but there is still more that needs to be done. Other reforms include allowing coverage for total episodes of care and allowing the funds to offer discounted premiums to groups and loyalty bonuses to people, which previously regulations prevented them from doing.One of the major problems the government is anxious to address is the problem of adverse selection, which causes the private health membership profile to not be reflective of the community profile. Community rating prevents funds from discriminating based on risk. As I mentioned before, the unintended effect of the principle of community rating is that it encourages hit-and-run membership and promotes people waiting to join until they know they will receive more in benefits than they will pay in premiums. I personally do not think that it is fair that someone who is 65 and has been in a fund since they were 15 years old pays the same premium as someone who is 65 and joins today.In evidence to the Industry Commission, the Australian Institute of Actuaries described premium increases as being a natural result of an inherently unstable funding system. That is an important point. We still need to address the way the private health funds are set up. The 30 per cent rebate is helpful, but we still need to address the regulation and underlying structure of private health insurance.The commission made a recommendation to overcome these problems of adverse selection and hit-and-run membership. The Industry Commission believes that, with unfunded lifetime community rating, the effect of adverse selection could be moderated without undermining the principle of community rating. Recommendation No. 1 from the Industry Commission inquiry states:The Commission recommends the introduction of (unfunded) lifetime community rating for private health insurance, under which people entering insurance late, for example after the age of 30 years, would pay higher premiums than those who enter early.Community rating works best when health insurance fund membership levels are high. That way you have a profile of the fund that really matches the community profile. With private health fund membership levels now approaching 30 per cent and with 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the 20- to 40-year-old age group joining a health insurance fund, utilising it and then dropping out, we have to question whether the current system of community rating is really serving Australians well.I should restate that the government is committed to the principle of community rating and to reinsurance, whereby funds that have a lot of high cost patients have their risks spread within and between health funds. But the reform of unfunded lifetime community rating would reward people joining who hold onto their health insurance membership. Essentially, under the commission's recommendation, premiums under unfunded lifetime community rating would be determined by the age of entry. That rewards joining young and holding onto your membership. It changes the whole culture from being one where you look at your annual premium to really calculating what you will pay over your lifetime.The important points in looking at unfunded lifetime community rating are, firstly, to ensure that no present members are worse off; secondly, an amnesty period to ensure that people who are not presently members over the specified age have the opportunity to join before the age premium increases; thirdly, grandfathering of existing members; fourthly, to allow for short periods of absence, especially due to financial or economic difficulties such as unemployment; and, fifthly, to allow portability between the funds. We need to seriously consider this as a fundamental reform to health insurance because, without reforming the structure of health insurance, the pressure on the public system will become untenable. I believe that unfunded lifetime community rating, if you look at that sort of model that I have talked about, will increase the total number of insured members, it will improve the profile of members, it will deter hit-and-run patients and encourage long-term membership, it will help to contain premiums and it will reduce the burden on the public health system.Another area that needs to be addressed is the reinsurance pool. At present there is little incentive for the funds to improve their funds management. We need to reform the reinsurance pool to create an incentive for funds to control their claims, to promote preventive health measures, to promote healthy behaviour amongst their fund members and to improve the health of people who hold private health insurance. Unfunded lifetime community rating and changes to the reinsurance pool would help to structurally reform the private health system and create a stable health system. I think they are reforms that are well worth looking at, and I encourage members of the House to look at these reforms.21:39:003390Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—In speaking on these appropriation bills, it is an appropriate time to focus on the shift of this government's policy in implementing some subtle and not so subtle changes to the whole structure of government and the focus of government and departmental interaction. The Prime Minister went to the election last October with a promise of what he called a great reform. This great reform was a one-dimensional tax package—a regressive, old- fashioned, inappropriate tax package. It was a single issue platform with a few sweeteners in other areas for a small number of interest groups. But he managed to persuade enough people in enough of the right places that this one-dimensional government had something going for it with a one-dimensional tax policy and was re-elected.However, what we have seen through the processes of the last few months is that not only was the government's tax package one-dimensional, regressive and unfair but it was based at best on completely misleading assertions and at worst on lies. So the government was re-elected with great fanfare about the GST—great fanfare created by spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to promote their campaign position and, worse than that, a position that was not true. But, without all this fanfare, the quiet and laborious work of the Senate has over the last few months discovered what we, Labor, had being saying about the GST all along, and fleshed out much of the detail. It is not just that their economic assumptions were wrong, not just that they did not do the economic modelling as indicated earlier, not just that there is no positive employment impact and not just that large chunks of education and health will actually be hit by this tax. The tax will attack all sorts of deserving, struggling organisations that contribute to our community in so many ways. We have seen numerous examples over the last month or so, from the Scouts to St Vincent de Paul to surf lifesaving to war widows to a number of other worthy organisations that I think even in this House we could have no argument over their serving a worthwhile and valuable role in our community.As if it weren't enough that these organisations and many others would be damaged by the GST, it has been shown through the Senate inquiry process that the GST will be counterproductive by working against many other policy objectives, even this government's own policies. The one-dimensionality of the whole tax package has really come home through the public hearing process of the Senate. We have seen a stream of departments, other than Treasury, acknowledge that they have had no policy role whatsoever in the construction and development of the taxation package and that no work has been done by other departments to assess whether there are any negative impacts of the GST on their focus constituencies.Departmental written submissions provided to the Senate committees alleged that most people would not be worse of as a result of the GST, that there would be minimal impact in terms of implementation and that the application of and exemptions to the GST as proposed were mostly logical. However, when departmental representatives were questioned, the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Family and Community Services admitted to having no involvement in the creation of the tax package. These departments, the specialists in the areas of health, aged care, disability and child care, have had no say on the package and made no assessment of its potential impact.There was over the recent term a change in the departmental responsibilities. The former Department of Health and Family Services and Department of Social Security, as they then were, had budgeted running costs of $428 million for one year. The revised figures for the new Department of Family and Community Services and the Department of Health and Aged Care put the figure at $70 million. This money would not be regarded as money that was wasted, or certainly not in normal circumstances, where it would be well worth spending that money for the administration of the departments and for paying for the expertise and skill in the departments to provide specialist input into government initiatives. Despite costing us this amount of money—it is a pretty hefty sum, we must say—under this government the departments do not even get invited and in fact are not permitted to use that expertise to provide information to the government.The departments themselves have admitted that they had no input into the formulation of the GST, they have not been commissioned or, it seems, permitted to undertake any analysis or research into the impact of the GST, they have had no policy role—no scope to address whether certain goods or services should be exempt because to tax them would be contrary to other existing policy objectives—and have been invited by Treasury to comment only on implementation issues.Specifically, the Department of Health and Aged Care has advised that it has done no work on the impact of GST costs in the aged care sector. The Department of Family and Community Services has done no separate work or research on the impact to its client base. Even more staggeringly, the Department of Family and Community Services—as we know, responsible for overseeing the largest range and variety of social security payments to low income earners and disadvantaged members of our community—has provided no view to Treasury or the government about the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation package for these people.The Department of Family and Community Services has done no work to ascertain the efficacy of the compensation package for people with disabilities and, although child care is technically exempt, it is still potentially affected by administration costs. The department admits it has done no work on the viability and cash flow implications of a GST to child-care centres.This government has refused to use the expertise of health and family specialists at all in the formulation of the tax package and invites no assessment of the potential detrimental impact of the GST in these areas. How can we, in these circumstances, have any confidence in the government's claim that there will be no negative impact on the community's health, when the Department of Health and Aged Care officials admit that no analysis has been undertaken to determine how the proposed tax will affect the community and our community's health as a whole?The subtle change we are witnessing in the way government is run means that departments' involvement in public policy is being undermined by this government. It is the failure of the Howard government to have the confidence to allow the departments to fulfil their mission statements. It is an attack on the vital role departments play and it puts the government in a position of potential conflict with its other stated policies. This is not just an idea dreamt up by me with some indignation—rightful as that might be—about the government's indecent rush to dupe the people of Australia about the GST. It is in fact clear, if one looks at the mission statements of the departments involved.Most clearly, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care states in the leading sentence in its mission statement that its role is to lead by `providing expert policy advice and analysis to the Government'. The department's corporate plan says that `key to its response' is `drawing together all the organisational areas concerned with Medicare funding', including MBS, PBS and Australian Health Care Agreements, to provide a `more coordinated approach to health financing and access, with an eye to rewarding quality and cost effective care'—a coordinated approach which cannot possibly succeed when the department is locked out of any discussion on such a major reform.The Department of Social Security, as it then was, in its annual report for 1997-98 describes in its vision and mission statement that its function is to `lead the development and implementation of health and family services policy, according to the Government's objectives and directions'. The continuation of their mission statement says that, as `national leaders in health and family services', the department `provides expert policy advice and analysis to the Government' and `implements government policy in a way that addresses both individual and population needs, focuses on outcomes and supports the key role of families in providing care and support.'It is clear from the process that I have outlined above and from the evidence given to the Senate committees that the government is curtailing the department's clearly stated and important role in the public debate. Contrast this with Treasury's mission statement, which is clearly focused on the economy. Its mission statement says that its role is to `improve living standards of Australian people by providing sound and timely advice to the Government on economic policies and developments'. Even Treasury acknowledges, however, that it should: . . . seek to achieve these objectives and ensure its advice is sound and timely by maintaining effective liaison . . . with other government departments . . . to ensure that:Policy responses are coordinated, consistent and constructive.It is impossible to say that anything near a coordinated, consistent and constructive approach has been taken by this government in the development and introduction of its GST package. Do departments abdicate their responsibility and allow the government's subtle agenda of shifting any inputs from the departments by saying it is simply a policy question and therefore should be determined by government? A strange sort of comment that probably would not even be heard in Yes, Minister , let alone be the foundation for Australian politics in the late 1990s.It is clear that the tax package is totally a Treasury creation. It is purely an economics issue and not a social policy issue, and there is no attempt to balance both. The government's tax package is a triumph of the simplicity of bad policy over well-considered and thorough consultation with its own experts, let alone with the community's experts. A glaring example of this is in the area of health, where the health department expressly refused to have a view on the impact of the GST on other policy issues.Legitimate queries can and should be made of the department about the potential impact of a GST and whether it works against other stated government policy objectives, such as reducing smoking or skin cancer. Charging a GST on sunscreen and on some sizes of Nicorette packages, for example, raises a legitimate question that a GST will be a disincentive or counterproductive in these policy areas. It is also unclear as to how health education and prevention services will be treated, such as for breast cancer screening. The departmental refrain, in the face of such questions by the Senate inquiry committee, is that it has no view to express on such policy issues.Even when the department was permitted involvement over the implementation of the GST, decisions on health products and the applicability of the GST have been taken so that they line up with existing arrangements, including the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, on the basis that this `makes it possible to administer the whole thing without too much difficulty'. Again, this highlights that no decisions were taken on applicability of the GST having regard to public health issues at all levels: reliance on medicine, use of services, spending patterns of families and any other detrimental impact.Even another small example, like the impact on pharmacies as businesses, can be used to highlight this. The department asserts in its submission to the Senate inquiry that it will not be difficult for a pharmacy to administer the GST, but then concedes that it does not know if pharmacies will be eligible for part of the $500 million that has been set aside to assist small businesses with the implementation of the GST. There was a salient quote from Aged Care Australia during the committee hearings:GST is not about economic models but it is about real people, because we believe that its impact on real people will be the measure by which the government and its opposition in its various forms will be judged. People do not really care about the models; they care about the impact, and whether the system is fair and just.We now have a government that does not want to even consider, let alone weigh and change, its tax policy by taking account of considered and detailed evidence from a plethora of sectors within the community. If we attack the government's GST plans because they are damaging to important community organisations, we are accused of failing to see the benefits to business and the flow-on benefits to the community. Yet when we point out the lack of sound economic evidence to back up the government's economic claims, it instead fixes its focus on its tax cuts, hoping to divert attention from its misleading information.The benefits to the community must be looked at as a whole. We cannot just look at `economic benefits', or a tax bribe or assumed flow-on. We must look at issues that are not economic in the classical way but are just as important to people's lives—their health needs, their service needs, their care needs, other services to the community and the valuable work of charitable organisations that are vital to our community.Finally, the government should be called in check on this issue. It is not just the insurmountable problems with the tax package itself: it is its unfairness and lack of clarity and damage. It is also the clearest sign yet that this government is driven simply by the Treasury, not by good public policy which takes a holistic approach to government.21:54:003394Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Post-election we have been greeted with a great deal of hubris from the Howard government. Having experienced, as it did, a near death experience, it is very excited at having been re-elected. I think I need to point out at once that Labor, as an opposition, received 51½ per cent of the two-party preferred vote of all Australians. So there is not a great deal of legitimacy behind the triumphalism of the re-elected Howard government. Nevertheless, that has not stopped it. It has pressed ahead vigorously in relation to the GST, claiming a mandate for that. It has gone further, I think, in endeavouring to map out a post-GST agenda, as leaked documents from the minister for workplace relations reveal, indicating an intention essentially to drive down wages and conditions of ordinary Australian workers under the veneer of a solution for unemployment.In my book, there is no justification for the backslapping, the complacency, the arrogance, which we are now seeing from the Howard government. I refer, in that respect, to a number of the critical indicators of economic performance. I will deal with the current account deficit, foreign debt and bankruptcies. I want to deal with those indicators because they are precisely the indicators by which now Treasurer Costello used to mark the former Labor government. To give the House some samples of this, I quote the now Treasurer when the Liberal Party was in opposition. I take the House back to a debate on a matter of public importance on 1 June 1995:But I say to those opposite: do not think for a moment that you can sit down, as the Prime Minister did, and say to the people of Australia, `It's all hunky dory; it's a golden age.' Do not think that anybody out there actually believes that the problems of the Australian economy are over . . . do not think it is acceptable in this country to have a widening gap between the rich and the poor; do not think it is acceptable in this country to have the creation of a new underclass . . . in Australian society permanently locked out of the work force, with unemployment being the great cause of poverty that it is.Those remarks are quite reasonable. At no time perhaps are they more apt than they are right now. On the PM program on 30 June 1995, the now Treasurer, in relation to the current account deficit, said:Four million dollars an hour is the rate at which we went backwards, and I feel a cold anger on behalf of the Australian people today that Mr Keating could have done this to our country . . . we have this announcement, at 11.30 this morning, that we've produced the worst monthly number in the history of Australia . . . Mr Keating should come into the Parliament . . . He should apologise to the Australian people for what he's done . . . Why can't he come into the Parliament and apologise and indicate to the Australian people how he went so wrong and what he's going to do to turn around.He liked that line about cold anger. He used it again later that day when he spoke to the Competition Policy Reform Bill. He said:Today, on behalf of the coalition and on behalf of the opposition, I feel a cold anger for the Prime Minister . . . of this country . . . I stand up here today on behalf of future generations of Australians and I protest at the policy of this Prime Minister to hock them into debt in the way that he has done.That is pretty strong stuff. What was the figure that the now Treasurer was talking about? He was talking about a $2.9 billion current account deficit. We do not have to talk about monthly current account deficits any longer. The Treasurer got rid of them. We now have quarterly current account deficits. The current account deficit for the December 1998 quarter has just been released. It came in at $7.968 billion—the worst quarterly figure in this country's history.Where is the Treasurer and his cold anger now? What has happened to that? What has happened to the idea of the Treasurer coming into the parliament and making an apology for running a current account deficit of that magnitude? What a nerve he has talking about the debt on behalf of future generations of Australians when what we have seen is foreign debt on the rise, going up in the order of 20 per cent and going up as a proportion of GDP. The way in which the current account deficit and foreign debt have risen indicates all too clearly the insincerity of the remarks by now Treasurer Costello when his party was in opposition.It is interesting to note that the economic analyst Stephen Koukoulas indicated in the Financial Review today that the government's policies:. . . will eat away at national savings by its planned tax cuts from the middle of 2000—not the ideal policy response to a current account problem.Indeed, if we take the Treasurer back to his remarks on the second reading speech of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1993-94, he said:The real solution to the current account deficit problem was, and still is, to increase national savings.But, as Stephen Koukoulas points out, he is now intending to go down the opposite path. Stephen Koukoulas concludes his article by saying, amongst other things:. . . the Government is not working hard enough to avoid the next current account crisis, whenever it may be. Indeed, in the area of superannuation, the Government is moving backwards, with tax changes and the scaling back of compulsory superannuation contributions dampening household savings.That is exactly right. It indicates that the government's complacency in relation to economic management simply is not justified.When the coalition launched its debt truck back in September 1995, the Prime Minister claimed that he had a plan to reduce foreign debt. In fact, what we have seen is foreign debt continuing, indeed increasing, with rapid growth. Under the coalition, net foreign debt increased by over $12 billion or more than six per cent over the three months through to the end of last year—an increase of almost $700 for every man, woman and child. Since the government was elected, foreign debt has increased by over 21 per cent. We are entitled to ask: precisely what has happened to the debt truck in the meantime?Similarly, we have seen an alarming increase in bankruptcies. I think one of the measures of government's performance ought to be the number of people who end up in that most distressing condition of bankruptcy. There were some 4,050 bankruptcies in the December quarter of 1995. In the quarter after, there were 4,400 bankruptcies. In the latest available figures for the December quarter ended last year there were 6,480 bankruptcies—an increase of over 2,000 bankruptcies and a rise in the order of 40 per cent.What a terrible legacy to be leaving this country. Even during the difficult 1991-92 recession, bankruptcy rates were something like 50 per cent lower. All up, over 57,000 Australians have gone broke under this Prime Minister. Those figures tell us something of the toll of massive insecurity and hardship caused by this government's economics policies, and they tell us something of the pain and suffering that bankruptcies cause. Behind each bankruptcy statistic are a number of family members, creditors and others who depend on those people, as well as the cost to society of rebuilding lives. On all those fronts, there is no justification for the backslapping, for the complacency and for the arrogance that we are seeing from this government.We have also seen a number of post-election revelations. Firstly, concerning the GST, we have seen from the Senate inquiry that there has not been appropriate modelling of the impact on employment, there has not been modelling which might demonstrate that the tax system was broke, as the government claims. We have also seen revelations that the government was less than candid in its GST advertising program. We have seen, for example, that the information provided in the taxpayer funded booklets did not make reference to the impact of the government's intention to withdraw the savings rebate. That was not included in the cameos. It made no allowance for the impact of the assets test and it similarly did not quantify the fact that those repayments to retired people were for 12 months only. In many respects we have seen that the government's advertising and promotion of the GST to Australians prior to the election was misleading.We have also seen revelations concerning its handling of the gas emergency in Victoria following the Longford gas disaster which happened shortly before the October election. We have seen that, while the Prime Minister was happy to announce on election eve a $100 million program of assistance to Victorians, in fact, some $7 million of that program has been spent and the government considers the program to be closed. What a fraud; what a con on Victorian people.We have also seen revelations concerning the private health rebate. As I drive along the Tullamarine freeway and other places, I still see those advertisements saying that all Australians who take out private health insurance will receive a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. In fact, there are lots of people who are not getting the 30 per cent that the government and indeed the private health funds promised them. On those counts, this government's performance falls far short of what we would see as an appropriate level of performance from a government.You might ask: what would Labor do differently? It ought to be pointed out that the opposition leader, Kim Beazley, has established a number of subcommittees of the shadow ministry which are working on policy development and, in tandem with the caucus committees and through the involvement of Labor Party members, will be working up policies appropriate for our time to be presented to the national conference. I think it is important that we be looking ahead to the 21st century. We will be looking to those questions of national identity that we considered when looking at the idea of an Australian head of state.There are very serious social problems which now confront us as a community, in particular the issue of drugs. In my own state of Victoria, the spate of heroin overdoses has been most distressing for all of us. I think it is the responsibility of all of us as politicians, and certainly the responsibility of government, to leave no stone unturned in the fight against drugs. I am disappointed at what I see and read as the Prime Minister's narrow attitude in this area.In the matter of economic approaches, I want to say that there are some major areas where our approach is quite different from that of the government. First, we do not display that same obsession with public debt. There was recently a letter from the distinguished economist Fred Argy to the Financial Review which pointed out that the British government has set itself targets of balancing current spending with current revenue over the cycle—that is to say, it can still run structural budget cash deficits, it can keep public debt at a stable prudent level of 40 per cent of GDP and it has also undertaken to use vigorous countercyclical fiscal action if unemployment starts to rise again from its level of 6.2 per cent.Mr Argy points out that these are in fact the same targets as the previous conservative government had on the fiscal front. He says they are admirable fiscal principles but they ought to be compared with the Australian government's practice of maintaining structural budget cash surpluses and running down public debt levels as fast as possible, even though our public debt levels are lower than those of other nations and there is a lot that we need to do to improve our nation's productive and social infrastructure. Mr Argy says that the quality of life of Australians is much more dependent on health, education, community services, public transport and other public goods than on what happens to share prices.I think it is also true to say that we would run a very different approach to tax policy. There was a very good and thoughtful contribution to the International Herald Tribune just in the last few days by Frank Levy where he talked about President John Kennedy's statement that a rising tide lifts all boats, referring to the power of economic growth. He then went on to say that in President Kennedy's time lack of formal education was no obstacle to getting a good job. So if you were displaced by mechanis ation you could get on the bus, go to the city and find a factory job at higher pay. He says all this has changed.In the past two decades the labour market has changed much faster than people have been able to change their skills. So less educated men and women take a double hit. They are the workers most hurt by change, they are the parents who must make the biggest improvements in their children's education to avoid repeating the cycle. He concludes that since good times do not automatically benefit everyone, winners need to use some of their extra income to compensate losers. If they do not, then more people will stop supporting policies that encourage growth. In practice, this means that tax policy should work to soften, not reinforce, the distribution of the benefits of growth.Unfortunately, we have a government which do not take that view and indeed are proposing to introduce a GST, which will shift the tax burden towards those who are less well off. Their GST package proposes that over 50 per cent of the income tax cuts involved go to the highest 20 per cent of income earners, a most unfair and regressive way of looking at the taxation arrangements.The government says, `We're trying to make tax simpler as well.' I do want to point out to the House before I conclude my remarks that I recently got from the tax office a number of papers which were sent out to businesses advising them, amongst other things, of the GST transitional arrangements. It is extraordinary to read just how complex these arrangements will be. Let me commence. The briefing says:You should be aware that contracts or agreements which you have entered into before 1 July 2000 and which involve the supply of anything after that date may give rise to GST obligations.How the GST will impact on these contracts or agreements will depend on whether:the contract or agreement is reviewable or non-reviewableit is with a buyer who will be entitled to full input tax creditsit involves the supply of goods or real property or services.Contracts involving construction, or the periodic or progressive supply of things other than goods or real property, that span 1 July 2000 give rise to some valuation considerations.We then go on to read definitions of what are non-reviewable or reviewable contracts, supplies made under a non-reviewable contract and the transitional rules. They set out five different scenarios about whether you might be entitled to an input tax credit, whether the payment has been made before 2 December 1998 and, if you are not satisfied with these five different scenarios, they conclude with an extraordinary chart indicating just how complex the transitional arrangements concerning the GST actually are. It gives the lie to this government's claim that introducing a GST is going to simplify our taxation system. In fact, if this is any guide, it will make it immensely more complex. In closing, I seek leave to have this extraordinary chart incorporated in Hansard .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is granted provided the chart meets the guidelines for Hansard .The chart read as follows—22:13:003399Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I am going to take a radical approach to the appropriations debate by actually speaking about the bills, or at least one of them. I want to use this opportunity to make comments on the cost of government in this country. I want to question why Australia needs one of the most expensive legislatures in the world at a time when our government, like others in the Western world, is cutting back on services to taxpayers; in our case, cutting back on services and infrastructure to ordinary people, especially in rural and regional areas, while inflating the services, support and privileges available to MPs and the party machines that support most of them.The current budget for parliamentary outlays, including the cost of the five house departments, is estimated to be around the $346 million mark. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 seeks an additional $1.129 million for recurrent and capital expenditures of the five parliamentary departments.It must be noted that the budgets of those departments have in fact shown a modest decline in the last few years but are again on the upgrade. However, the overall cost of delivering government continues to rise steeply. As if by way of justification for seeking an increased appropriation in his second reading speech, the minister points to savings of $570,000 in the appropriations for the running costs of the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department.I say at the outset that the Parliamentary Library, perhaps the most important of the five departments, has consistently made savings in recent times, and I have far less quibble with the quality of work per dollar spent in that area than I do with the other areas of running government. The library accounts for a bare 4.6 per cent of total parliamentary expenditure while total salaries, entitlements and associated costs for members and ministers account for 60 per cent.Mr Deputy Speaker, $1.129 million may not seem much in the scheme of things, but what we have here is an increased allocation for a system that is already costing the Australian taxpayer around $340 million a year. It is sobering to note the steep upward curve in expenditures for running government in the past two decades. In 1981, before the move to the new House, at $70 million for the year the cost was less than a quarter of the estimated $340 million for this year. Even allowing for inflation, this increase is quite astonishing.While I note cutbacks in many portfolio areas, which in most cases correspond with the downsizing of face-to-face services, the cost of services to members, including burgeoning ministerial staff salaries, has increased significantly. Ministerial staff numbers have increased substantially as decision making is more and more taken away from this parliament and transferred to the executive. In short, democracy has not been a winner from increased budgetary outlays—far from it.Despite the expected further decline of 9,000 staff this financial year in the Commonwealth Public Service, we will still see parliamentary outlays rise to an estimated $346 million by 2001. According to my research, the cost of legislature per head of population in Australia is far and away above the cost in comparative legislatures. In 1992, the latest comparative figures I have been able to obtain, the annual cost per head of running Australia's federal parliament and politicians was $16. It has now blown out to about $19.Let me make some comparisons. In Canada in 1992, compared with Australia's $16 per head, it was $12.30 a head, in New Zealand it was $11.67 and in the United Kingdom, with 56 million inhabitants, it was $A8.66 per head. I do not have a comparable figure for 1992 for the US, but for 1993 it was $US9.30 per head or about $A12.50.We are talking here about only a fraction of the real cost of government. Parliamentary outlays cover services to senators and members by the parliamentary departments and the Department of Finance and Administration. These include Hansard, advisory, procedural, research and administrative support, library, communications support, buildings and facilities management, members' and ministers' staff salaries, electorate office costs, travel within Australia and overseas but not members' and ministers' salaries.On 1992 figures provided by the Interparliamentary Clerks publication, The Table, it cost the Australian taxpayer $283 million to run parliament, or $1.3 million per member or senator. At the same time, in the Canadian parliament—with vast distances, and perhaps best compared economically and geographically with us—the cost was $744,000 per member or senator, $550,000 less than here in Australia. In the United Kingdom the cost was $417,000 per member of the House of Lords or the House of Commons—about $900,000 less than Australia in 1992 figures. But it does not stop there. On my calculations it now costs Australian taxpayers $1.54 million a year to keep each of us here.Not satisfied with the cost of delivering government, the United Kingdom parliament have commissioned a management consultant to draw up plans to modernise the running of the House of Commons. They are also keeping a much closer eye on the entitlements of parliamentarians. Each year the House of Commons Library Research Service provides an updated summary of members' and ministers' pay, members' office costs and all allowances and reimbursements. The information has to be provided in a format easily accessible to the public.Pressure for streamlining the cost of running the Commons has intensified after a series of management blunders that exposed the lack of coordination between the half dozen different departments in the building. Reports suggest there is strong resistance within the House of Commons bureaucracy to any change. I used to laugh at Yes Minister, but now I smile grimly at the realisation of just how accurate and how applicable it is to our situation—not only applicable but two to three times at least more applicable judging by the comparative costs.We need to have a similar inquiry to that commissioned for the House of Commons and the same sort of detailed analysis they have in an easily digestible format. As Paul Lyneham pointed out in A Current Affair on 3 December last, there appears to be a culture within our own five parliamentary depart ments that resists any interference, let alone change.A former public servant in the House, Don Malcolmson, shamefully eased out of the system because he dared raise the issue of cost and waste, has pointed out the culture existing within these departments. It is a culture that has successfully thwarted all previous reform attempts, irrespective of the wishes of the government and politicians of the day. But it is not a patch on the culture of excess existing in our own ministerial and parliamentary ranks. There is something seriously wrong with a system that allows MPs about to retire, or one who has served just one year as a member, to still access taxpayer funded overseas travel.As reported in the Sunday Telegraph on 7 March, these so-called `lap of honour' tours are a disgrace and the major parties stand condemned for not reining them in. The former Speaker and member for Cunningham has seconded a motion I have placed on the business paper of this House, which, among other points, requests the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to initiate an efficiency audit of the current parliamentary corporate support arrangements. With the figures I have dug out since, I wish I had broadened that motion to include all parliamentary outlays because, as I have discovered, the cost of the five parliamentary departments and the need for rationalisation of their costs is a red herring when we look at the cost of parliamentary outlays overall and the bloated system surrounding members and ministers in particular.According to 1982 budget papers, in 1981 ministerial staff totalled 183. In May 1997, after much fanfare from the coalition about reducing the cost of government, according to Senator Kemp's answer to a question on notice from Senator Faulkner, ministerial staff totalled 296. By October 1997 that number had grown to 311 and, as revealed in the Senate estimates hearings last month, as of 31 December last it had grown to 338, with 51 employed at senior adviser level or above—a gaggle of Sir Humphreys, a mafia of minders, and I presume this does not count staff on secondment from departments. One wonders where it will all end.I have placed a comprehensive set of questions on notice to gauge the trends in parliamentary staffing and other costs since the move to this place in 1988. What we need to address is the cost of support services to members, senators and particularly ministers, in parliamentary outlays. As I said, the five parliamentary department budgets and forward estimates were stabilised after the excesses of Mr Keating's last budget, but the upward trend is there again.Parliamentary department costs represent only 40 per cent of all parliamentary expenditure. The rest is out of control, I would suggest. On top of all this, we have the unfunded parliamentary superannuation scheme, the study tours and the laps of honour. With regard to the superannuation issue, I note the finance minister committed to a review shortly after the October election. Since then, I have had a response from him to a question on notice, saying the government has `not decided at this time on any review of the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme.'In an answer to a question without notice on 24 November 1998 on the same issue, the Prime Minister said:My conclusion out of all this is that you will never really solve the problem.In Adelaide last week, the Prime Minister backed further away from any review by simply not ruling out ever changing the system. That is a long way from a commitment immediately post-election when the public ire was raised by several examples of payouts to retiring MPs.Why can't this problem be solved? I will suggest a starting point. You put a clause into the governing laws which makes it impossible for any member of parliament to access their unfunded parliamentary super if convicted of defrauding the Commonwealth. You also insert a clause so that members cannot access their super until age 55—just like the real world—so they are subject to the same rules as ordinary workers. You then conduct a full inquiry of the current system to see how it compares with private sector schemes and with parliamentarians' schemes overseas. Surely, if the government and the ones before were committed to this issue, it would not have been continually put in the too hard basket.All these expenses place Australia's cost of government far and away ahead of any comparable legislature. At the moment, parliamentary outlays are decided by the government, with the Remuneration Tribunal advising on allowances and entitlements of members of federal parliament. The tribunal is an independent body comprising three members—I think it is three; it could be five—usually chosen from business, the judiciary or the public sector. While not personally criticising the tribunal, I think its make-up should more closely reflect the non-public sector, and the resulting allowances more closely reflect those applying to private enterprise.We can have a debate about ministerial or members' salaries. That should be on the agenda. But we should not hide behind a basketful of lurks and perks, allowance systems and super schemes that mock common and acceptable practice within the community, whose members' superannuation is strictly regulated and who mostly dream of a Gold Coast holiday, let alone a taxpayer-funded jaunt or a travel system that does not require receipts.Currently, the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration scrutinises the cost of parliamentary outlays. This committee comprises three government members, two opposition members and one minor party member. So parliamentarians sit in judgment of their own lurks, perks and staffing levels. I have great respect for the role of estimates committees in opening up the books of government to intense scrutiny and accountability, but when it comes to keeping a check on parliamentary outlays, those conducting the scrutiny are the same ones who benefit. We need a far more independent and objective body than a Senate committee to assess our parliamentary expenditure.I suggest the powers of the Remuneration Tribunal need to be expanded to allow it to investigate outlays associated with members' staff. We need an independent body to keep check on the staffing levels of the ministry in particular. If the Remuneration Tribunal's powers cannot be expanded due to limitations in the governing act, then a separate independent body needs to be set up to annually scrutinise government spending on the parliamentary system. Only then will true accountability replace the Clayton's system of accountability currently in place.While the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 seems pretty insignificant in the scheme of things, it really underlines the alarming trends I have detailed in this debate. Here we are approving an additional appropriation for a system that, by any objective assessment, is already bloated. As with parliamentary superannuation, the sooner we address these excesses, the sooner we will win back the confidence and respect of the electorate.Debate interrupted.Committees34023402340210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the honourable the Prime Minister nominating a member to be a member of the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.Motion (by Mr Entsch)—by leave—agreed to:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, Mr Forrest be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in place of Mr Nehl.Adjournment3402Motion (by Mr Entsch) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.340222:29:003402Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise tonight to tell the House about the fact that the people in my electorate of Sydney are dealing with the problem of heroin abuse every day, and they realise that `Just say no' is an inadequate response. Our response to heroin must be three-pronged. It must be: firstly, to prevent people becoming addicted in the first place; secondly, to keep heroin users alive and as healthy as possible; and thirdly, to help heroin users in any way we can to beat their addiction.Governments have been dealing with drug use for some time and have not yet come up with a way of preventing people harming themselves with illegal or legal drugs. In 1996, 526 people died from heroin overdoses, about 3,656 people died from alcohol related causes and 18,580 Australians died from tobacco related causes.Everyone knows smoking is harmful, but about a quarter of Australians smoke. Education about the harmful effects of drug use will help, but it is not the only answer. A law and order approach may also make some difference to the supply of drugs, but the seizure of 400 kilograms of heroin in October last year has done little to affect availability or the price of drugs in Sydney. The US war on drugs has not been successful, and a 1998 report from the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence—Australia's police chiefs—recognised that policing has had almost no effect on the trade in illegal drugs and, in some cases, may have worsened the situation.Without totally eliminating both the supply of and demand for heroin, we will always be faced with what to do for those people who have become addicted. An estimated one to two per cent of the population have used heroin. We do not know how many of these people become addicted. We need to keep addicts alive and as healthy and as connected with society as possible until they can beat their habit. We need to deal with the issue realistically and compassionately. That is why we have adopted the principle of harm minimisation. We want to keep disease transmission to a minimum and we want to eliminate the reliance on criminal activity or sex work to support heroin habits. We also want to minimise overdoses. In just six months last year there were at least 410 reported overdoses in my electorate alone.Many professionals, including health and community workers and church leaders in my area, agree that safe injecting rooms can save lives. In Frankfurt, after the opening of safe injecting rooms, the number of fatal overdoses dropped from 141 in 1991 to 22 in 1997, according to one report. HIV infection rates amongst injecting drug users fell from 70 to 80 per cent to 18 per cent.At a recent meeting of the Redfern Residents Action Group, the majority of locals called for the establishment of a safe injecting room because they are tired of picking up syringes from their backyards, they are tired of picking up syringes from their front doorsteps, they are tired of seeing young kids slumped in laneways and are worried about the potential for abuse when young people use derelict houses as places to inject. The New South Wales police royal commission recommended the establishment of safe injecting rooms. The mayors of most capital cities have supported a new approach to drug use. The Mayor of South Sydney has said that his council will support safe injecting rooms if they are in a legal position to do so, and he has encouraged other councils to make similar moves.We must recognise that different treatment options work for different people and we cannot afford to reject any treatment that may work. Going cold turkey, and remaining completely drug free, as advocated by groups such as the Salvation Army and Narcotics Anonymous, works well for some addicts. Indeed, I know some people who have followed this path. But it is not the solution for everyone and we must be prepared to try other solutions.The first and most pressing need is to increase places in professionally run, adequately funded rehabilitation services. Methadone works for some people, and trials are proceeding of naltrexone, buprenorphine, levo alpha acetylmethadol and slow release oral morphine. But we must also recognise that there is widespread support for a heroin trial. The key is trial: if the trial does not work, it does not have to be maintained or extended to a full program. If a heroin trial reduces the effects of drug dependency and if it reduces criminality and promotes regular contact with health professionals, surely these aims are worth pursuing.Some people have said that safe injecting rooms send the wrong message. I think the message to addicts is that we care enough about you to try anything to keep you alive and bring you back from addiction. The message to kids is that addiction is not a sexy counterculture thing; it is a medical problem which we deal with in a clinical way.340322:34:003403Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I rise to speak on a certain family law matter. I present the case of Bill from Nuriootpa in the Barossa Valley. Bill has a daughter, now aged 7½ years. Bill separated from his partner on 27 February 1992. The first access Bill had to his daughter post-separation was on 29 March 1992 for a one-hour period. One-hour access periods each week continued until 26 April 1992, when four-hour access periods each week started.On 20 May 1992, access was ordered to Bill from 10 a.m. on Saturday to 5 p.m. on Sunday on alternate weekends. This access went very well until 2 July 1994 when Bill was served papers on behalf of his ex-partner accusing him of sexually abusing his daughter. The matter first went to the Family Court on 30 October 1995, some 18 months after the accusation. The judge's decision was handed down on 1 December 1995, including that the mother have custody of the child and that all orders for access be discharged. The judge did not, however, disagree with the father's assertion that he was totally innocent of any wrongdoing in relation to the child.An order was made for the father, mother and child to see a psychiatrist in February 1996. The visit took place—the father's was separate—but the report of the visit by the psychiatrist was not made available to Bill until 9 May 1996. This was in spite of many phone calls by Bill to the lawyer acting on behalf of the child. Visits to a psychologist took place in February and April 1997. The father had not seen his daughter for two years seven months until February 1997. Part of the report from the April 1997 visit reads:The daughter continues to show positive regard for her father and to want contact with him. She was remarkably at ease in his company. The father made application for access to his daughter on 10 January 1997. The case was adjourned until 17 March 1997. On 28 May 1997 the judge ordered that the father have supervised access—in the presence of a counsellor—with his daughter for between two and four hours on two occasions per month. Access occurred on four occasions during July and August 1997.In the nine months from 10 January 1997 to 16 October 1997 the case was adjourned 11 times, primarily due to lack of reports from psychiatrists and phycologists. On 20 October 1997, the judge ordered supervised access—provided by his present partner—from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on alternate Sundays, commencing 26 October. The next day, the mother rang the father to say that the daughter was sick and that there would be no access visit the following day.Access was also denied on 9 November, 23 November and 7 December 1997. Access occurred on 21 December 1997 and was ongoing until 19 July 1998 inclusive. Access went extremely well. In late July 1998, the father's lawyer notified the mother that the father wanted extended access, from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m. Sunday each alternate weekend, similar to that which he had had for over two years during 1992-94, and with no requirement for supervision.On 29 July 1998 the mother called the father's lawyer to say she was in the process of issuing an application in the Family Court to discharge the existing contact orders. She was alleging that the daughter had been returned from contact the previous weekend having been bitten and hit by her father and, therefore, there would be no contact on 2 August. State police contacted the father on 2 August 1998 to say that allegations of assault on his daughter on 19 July had been laid and they wanted to interview him. Charges were laid on 15 September.The case was to go to court on 9 October 1998 but was adjourned twice, to 25 January 1999. On 12 January 1999 police contacted the father, through his lawyer, to say that charges would be dropped if he did not make a claim for costs. The father very reluctantly accepted the offer of the police and charges were dropped on 25 January 1999. The father has been denied access to his daughter since 19 July 1998. He has never seen his daughter on any of her birthdays and has only seen her once on a Christmas Day.The case went back to the Family Court on 19 February 1999. The court decided that the mother, the father and the child should all consult with a psychologist again and that the psychologists's report should be tabled in the court on 28 April 1999.The matter of contempt charges brought against the mother by the father for denying him access to his daughter following the allegations of biting and hitting the child went before the court on 22 February 1999. The judge dismissed the charge, stating that the mother had just cause for denying access. This is in spite of the fact that the police did not proceed with the charges of assault. I can best sum this up in Bill's own words:I feel the Family Court needs to be reminded of this because although the Family Court has not found me guilty of any crime it seems they still wish to persecute me and break down the relationship between my daughter and myself. This needs to be addressed.Bill says that the matter has cost him nearly $30,000. He has continued to pay maintenance throughout these legal matters, now almost $90 per week. Finally, Bill states:This case has left me financially ruined but I will continue to fight for my innocence and my right to see my daughter for as long as is necessary.340422:38:003404O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I also wish to speak about the Family Court, but my issue is more about the judicial resources of the Family Court in northern Tasmania. Members may remember that I spoke of the government's failure to honour its 1996 election commitment to replace Justice Butler in Tasmania. At that time, I drew the House's attention to the effect that the non-replacement of this judge was having on the northern Tasmanian community.When I rose previously, it was to beseech this government to redress the critical situation faced in northern Tasmania. At that stage the situation was that all future appointments for pre-hearing cases had been cancelled, the list of cases outstanding but ready for trial numbered 65 and the courts were in a position to estimate that they might be able to reallocate pre-hearing conferences in February or March of this year. And this was all in the hope that trial dates might be allocated before June. In essence, more cases were being added to the list than could be disposed of by judicial determination or consent orders.The Attorney-General refused to heed calls for the replacement of Justice Butler or, indeed, calls by the Law Council to replace the judges, of which there is a national shortfall. I am here to say that someone did heed our call for assistance. It is a pity that it was not the Attorney-General. The Family Court has decided to fly in at least six judges to northern Tasmania to deal with the backlog and increase sitting times by an extra 50 per cent. This action on their part is to be highly commended, and I wish to offer them thanks on behalf of those families who have been desperately awaiting a resolution to their long drawn-out Family Court matters.But this is not the cure that we need and that only the Attorney-General can provide. It will still take years to clear the backlog. The additional judges are only for one year, and there is no guarantee that we will not be cut back again. Only by replacing Justice Butler can the Attorney-General resolve this issue.Whilst I commend the Family Court for its action, there must surely be a more cost-effective way to do this, and that would be by actually replacing the judge in Launceston. This measure by the Family Court, although greatly appreciated by families in Tasmania, will eat significantly into the resources of the Family Court. It will place additional stress on the regions that the judges are being drawn from and does not in any way address the crisis that family law is suffering in regional areas.Because of the inaction of this government, the Family Court have had to run basically on a crisis management program—flying in judges to deal with a hit list of worst case scenarios. This will not solve the crisis in family law. All it can hope to do is apply a bandaid to the Attorney-General's wounded policy on judicial resources.In October of 1996 the Attorney-General said that he `seeks to improve the existing system'. He went on to say that his `interests are in ensuring fairness to people involved in family breakdown and in providing the best and most accessible services to help them resolve their disputes'. The best solution is not in making them wait forever for a court case.Only five per cent of family law cases ever get to the point of requiring a hearing. It is a sad fact of life that counselling just does not work for everybody. People should not be punished because they require judicial services. Having an accessible judicial system is not providing an inducement to litigation; it is providing a necessary service to families in crisis. The action by this government has been unconscionable. They have neglected the needs of the Tasmanian community, a need that has been finally recognised by the Family Court. Once again I thank them for their actions. In a speech to the Family Court Third National Conference, the Attorney-General said:We must ensure that family law processes are available at a reasonable cost and deal with cases at a reasonable speed. Public dissatisfaction with delays in the Family Court has now become a serious issue. Lengthy delays undermine the `clean break' philosophy underlying the Family Law Act, creating additional costs and stress for clients and making it difficult for them to get on with their lives.This is a sentiment I agree with, but it is unfortunately followed up by a statement that appointing more judges is not the best way of dealing with the delay.The Law Council of Australia, the Tasmanian Legislative Council, senior practitioners and Tasmanian families who have suffered because of this government's neglect have all called upon the government to take action and replace our judge. When will the Attorney-General listen?340522:42:003405Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—Some state health ministers recently recommended mandatory labelling of all food containing— or even possibly containing—genetically modified ingredients. What were the reasons behind this decision? It could not have been a health issue, as not one of the many scientific studies in this area has ever shown any increased danger of genetically modified food over so-called `natural' food. In fact, as the Nobel Prize winning Dr Watson stated, the only person harmed by DNA was President Clinton.So what is the reason behind this decision to label foods that pose no health risk and are, as the food standards code states, essentially equivalent to all other foods? Could it be that the health ministers have been persuaded by the vocal minority of ideological fundamentalists that oppose genetic engineering outright, with no regard to facts?This unreasonable labelling decision has no scientific, health or legal basis and must not be allowed to proceed, for the sake of Australia's future. Biotechnology is recognised as the next technological revolution, replacing the information technology era. Breakthroughs in medical biotechnology have already advanced the treatment of numerous life threatening diseases, from diabetes to cancer.Biotechnology is now revolutionising the field of agriculture through the genetic engineering of crop plants. These new genetically modified crops have already been made to resist pests and diseases without the need for chemical sprays and grow in previously adverse conditions such as areas of high salt. There are many more exciting applications. The United States currently has an area greater in size than the United Kingdom planted to GM—genetically modified—food crops. The Food and Drug Administration, probably the most rigorous health safety organisation in the world, has approved all these crops.Australia is reasonably advanced scientifically in the biotechnology area, with very good research universities and government institutions such as the CSIRO. Our fledgling biotechnology business community is expanding, but it is very susceptible to the lack of venture capital and uncertainties surrounding government leadership in this area.The recent decision to label genetically modified food that is `essentially equivalent' to other foods is of great threat to Australia's future in this area. This gives the message to the public that these foods are potentially dangerous. This will in turn damage those companies that use GM ingredients in their foods, forcing them to try to educate the public on the safety of genetic engineering or, more likely, to seek non-GM ingredients for their foods.All of this combines to seriously jeopardise Australia's agricultural biotechnology companies and our position in the biotechnology race. Australia cannot become a world leader in the information technology arena, but we still have a chance to play a leading role in agricultural biotechnology. Let us not miss this opportunity through ill informed, mischievous misinformation.340622:46:003406Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Despite the anomie and cynicism of our post-modernist age, ordinary men and women believe that politics and politicians can make a difference. Given the commonly held view that Australians are cynical about their politicians, I have been surprised by the number of people who have approached me in the last few months to discuss their ideas on how our society can be made better, especially with regard to issues related to drug addiction and heroin.I have also witnessed first-hand the ability of people to transcend tragedy and be constructive in response to complicated drug issues. Groups like Parents Anonymous, who share their children's problems and who work cooperatively to handle families' and children's problems arising from heroin addiction, fill me with admiration.One area that has recently provoked considerable public debate over appropriate response is the heroin epidemic gripping our society. `Epidemic' is a strong word—unfortunately it is appropriate. Anyone who works, as I do, on the corner of Grey and Fitzroy streets in St Kilda, where heroin deals are done outside my office and people shoot up as I watch them through the window to our car park out the back, knows this is the case.Last week I met with the staff of the Southern Metropolitan Addiction Consultancy Clinic in Elwood. They are under no illusions: they believe the current situation has reached epidemic proportions. They, together with former users and others, through personal tragedies, friends and family, have taught me much about heroin and the urgency of doing something about it that is different to our current unsuccessful strategies. The current death rate from heroin overdoses in Melbourne is about the same as road deaths. The current long-term trend will see deaths from heroin overdoses soon exceed road deaths.As well as younger users, it will surprise many to know that many people who die from heroin are addicts in their late twenties and early thirties. One of the treating doctors described the phenomena to me as a type of `adult SIDS'. There may be as many as 100,000 regular heroin addicts in Australia, with a third of these people residing in Victoria.As long as the use of heroin is identified as a crime and punishment issue rather than a public health problem, I feel the current situation will only worsen. Since mid-1998, as a result of bumper opium crops in the heroin growing countries, Australia has been flooded with high-grade heroin, resulting in a dramatic escalation in deaths. In St Kilda it is $10 a hit, with a higher grade and purity than ever before.The effects of this epidemic have been further exacerbated by the ongoing wave of economic rationalism. It is fine for the Premier of Victoria to suggest that we need to try more dramatic and positive approaches to dealing with this problem. I applaud his recent drug summit. But the decimation of funding for health services, including general hospitals and community health centres, and the funding cuts that this has led to in the treatment options for heroin addicts, have been extremely unhelpful.Currently a heroin addict faces limited options when considering treatment. We are all aware of the waiting lists for beds in every public hospital across the country. When people want to kick the heroin habit they have to wait two to three weeks before going on a program. The public health system is the only realistic alternative for these people. Melbourne has only six detoxification centres which specifically address the needs of heroin addicts.So stretched are these services that they are forced to work under the inadequate model known in the field as `6x6x6', which simply means six female beds, six male beds and six days occupation per patient. This is inadequate for a variety of reasons. Although it is recognised that it takes the body six days to detoxify from heroin, this is only the beginning. With an almost total lack of follow-up counselling and support services, the relapse rate exceeds 50 per cent after three months. This statistic should be totally unacceptable to anyone.The methadone program, still the most successful therapy, takes approximately a year to complete and cuts heroin use by 80 per cent. However, addicts who undergo this treatment still face obstacles. Many pharmacists and doctors are reluctant to be involved in the methadone program. In Victoria 250 pharmacies are involved in this program, as are 100 doctors. This may seem inadequate but it is apparently the best in the country.Proponents of naltrexone report that detoxification with the drug can take from 12 to 24 hours but, again, without follow-up, support and counselling this treatment can also amount to a waste of time. An addict also needs to be free of heroin for five to six days prior to the administration of naltrexone and, again, facilities for this are almost non-existent.Contracting out is an even more insidious way, complicating the issue of treating heroin addiction. One hundred and thirty-two support services are offered to addicts in Victoria, but they are so fragmented that they have evolved into inefficient, autonomous mini-bureaucracies that duplicate services while feuding over government tendering processes. They offer minimalist treatment regimes. Something serious needs to be done. (Time expired)340822:51:003408Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—It is with much disappointment that I rise to speak on a very serious issue on an important day such as International Women's Day. However, I do recognise that once again giving voice to the campaign against the prospect of the film Lolita being released in Australia is a very important issue to Australian women and men and their families.It is with incredulous dismay that I report to the House that just today the Office of Film and Literature Classification gave Lolita an R rating, effectively allowing it to be viewed by the adult population of this country. Yet in X-rated movies it is against the law to depict sexual acts between children and adults, and it is against the law to depict an 18- or 20-year-old as a minor having sex with an adult.In my last speech regarding this issue I mentioned the reactions on the part of some people within the media which followed my initial protest on this issue. On that occasion it was Mr Phillip Adams, in his Weekend Australian article, who poured vitriol on my efforts to take some steps to protect our children. Now I am saddened to discover that Samela Harris has jumped to the defence of the film and, in doing so, has engaged herself in a bizarre effort to support the screening of the above mentioned film.I am dismayed and appalled, as are many of my parliamentary colleagues and people within my electorate of Makin, about the possible release of Lolita. In her article in the Advertiser on Saturday, 6 March 1999, entitled `The will of Irons', Ms Harris describes the protests shown by so many within our community in relation to this issue as `nonsense'. I do not understand how Ms Harris can completely write off as `nonsense' the concern shown by so many in our community in relation to this very serious issue. In the article Ms Harris quotes actor Jeremy Irons—and I accept the quote as accurate—as saying that:. . . he and the director worked to make the paedophile into someone audiences would sometimes like, sometimes laugh at and sometimes feel for. Honestly, the question that has to be asked is: why? Why would you want to make a paedophile into someone to `like', `laugh at' or `feel for'?As I have said before, the most up-to-date research suggests that there are two things that paedophiles crave most and they are more children to sexually abuse and mainstream acceptance and sympathy for their activities. Portraying a paedophile as someone who audiences can `sometimes like, sometimes laugh at and sometimes feel for' could lead to eventual mainstream acceptance and sympathy for these actions. This is totally outrageous and I find it to be very bizarre. How can we as a society accept this sort of behaviour?Further in the article Ms Harris explains how the Lolita film was filmed with caution and how every effort was made to ensure that the young star's mother was on the set at all times and that an older body double was used for all sexual implications. If some in the entertainment industry believe it is not damaging to have images of a middle aged stepfather having an abnormal, deviant and sexually abusive relationship with a child, why bother with an older body double? Because it is not okay—it is against the law; it is illegal to have sex with a child.The article states that a certain actress was not cast for the role of Lolita because her screen reactions had been described as `like a mini-adult'. This statement in itself shows that the directors did not want to portray a middle aged stepfather in the film having an abnormal, deviant and sexually abusive relationship with a child, his stepdaughter, who would fit the image of an adult, albeit a `mini-adult' perhaps sophisticated in the ways of the world. Yet the portrayal of a young innocent child being sexually abused by a middle aged stepfather is acceptable to some. Even Irons explains that it was her youth which made her `terribly attractive'. In his interview Mr Irons said that the actress who played Lolita was:. . . a fawn-like creature who was not pretty and yet because of her youth and lack of self-consciousness she was terribly attractive and also infuriating—all the things Lolita should be. Do they mean all the things a child being sexually abused should be? How can a child defend herself against a grown man? He goes on to say:I think we were lucky to catch her at that age.So here this film portrays an innocent, vulnerable young person as being attractive sexually and open to predatory sexual abuse by an older, more powerful man purely because of her age. How sick and how bizarre! Why would we, as a society, want mainstream acceptance of and sympathy for paedophile behaviour? (Time expired)340922:56:003409Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Today is the 88th anniversary of International Women's Day and the 61st anniversary of Australian Celebrations of Women. I pay tribute to some of the women trailblazers who, through their commitment and struggles in their fight for equity, made it possible for me and my women colleagues to represent our constituents in the national parliament.They include Janet Copley, Val Harding, Betty Mawdsley and Iris Andrews from the Newcastle branch of the Union of Australian Women. There are women like Nora James, Mavis Marshall and Denyse Jones, all life members of the Australian Labor Party in my electorate; women like Trix Bilborough, another ALP member, who has devoted her life to the pursuit of fairness and justice in our community through her work with community nursing; and women like Joy Cummings, a former Lord Mayor of Newcastle—the first female lord mayor in Australia—and Mary McGill, the first female President of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council. There are women like Joan Kirner and my colleague Carmen Lawrence, the first female state premiers—both from the Labor Party. There are women like Jennie George, the first female President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Lowitja O'Donoghue, for her pursuit of human rights and social justice. These women are just a microcosm of all women pursuing equality between women and men. I pay tribute to my mother, Joy Brown, who instilled in me the belief that girls and women can do anything. These values assisted my personal development, allowed me to pursue my formal education and empowered me to make decisions regarding my life. The theme for International Women's Day 1999 is `Valuing and sharing our wisdom' as a reflection of the diversity and the different life experiences of older women during this International Year of Older Persons.I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud the Senate for its decision this evening to reject the youth wages legislation. This is another piece of legislation which affects all young people, including young women. This piece of legislation would have represented one of the most vile and vicious attacks on youth that we have seen from this government, another attack in a long list of attacks on youth by this government since it was elected in 1996.Some of the attacks that I will list include the restriction of Austudy, the decision to make young adults up to 25-years-old dependent on their parents, the decision to abolish funding for the Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition and the decision to introduce up-front tertiary fees for young people and to increase HECS fees. Once again, I applaud the Senate for its decision and await the opportunity to hear the final report that was commissioned by the government from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:003409House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices3409The following notices were given:Mr Zahra to move:That this House:(1) recognises the enormous pain, suffering and economic hardship which has been experienced, and which is still being experienced, by victims of asbestos exposure, and their families; and(2) calls on the Government to:(a) immediately ratify ILO Convention No. 162 regarding the prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos;(b) immediately legislate to: (i) preserve the right to claim general damages for relatives of victims of asbestos related diseases upon the death of the claimant in all States and Territories save New South Wales; (ii) remove time limits on claims for damages by those suffering claims for asbestos related disease; (iii) allow the reuse of evidence to minimise the cost of litigation and court time; and (iv) increase financial assistance for asbestos disease support groups; and(c) instigate a national inquiry into the occupational use of asbestos to determine the: (i) extent of knowledge held by government agencies on the lethal effects of asbestos; (ii) extent of knowledge held by private companies using asbestos in their operations as to the lethal effects of asbestos; (iii) nature of work practices which were employed in Australia in relation to the use of asbestos by both government agencies and private companies; and (iv) adequacy of the existing and ongoing arrangements for the payment of compensation to Latrobe Valley workers affected by asbestos exposure in light of the privatisation of the SECV, which for decades has been the region's largest employer as well as being an employer operating in an industry in which asbestos construction materials were extensively used.Mrs Crosio to move:That the House:(1) notes the high number of self-funded retirees in Australia who are struggling financially at the present time;(2) recognises that the Howard Government's GST will create greater financial hardship for thousands of self-funded retirees because it taxes the essentials of life, will make people receiving low fixed incomes from superannuation or other measures pay the same rate of tax as people on higher incomes and offers inadequate financial compensation; and(3) investigates other means of offering financial assistance and incentive to struggling self-funded retirees distinct from a Goods and Services Tax.Mr Sidebottom to move:That this House calls on the Government to add cystic fibrosis to the list of recognised disabilities contained in the Child Disability Assessment Determination 1998.Mr Cadman to move:That this House:(1) expresses its deep concern at the level of addictive drug taking in Australia;(2) calls on Australians and all Australian governments to enhance their attack on illegal drugs by all means at their disposal; and(3) encourages the development of preventive programs.Mrs Gallus to present a bill for an act to impose a curfew and related restrictions on aircraft movements at Adelaide Airport, and for related purposes.Answers to Questions in Writing3411The following answers to questions were circulated:3411(Question No. 19)193411Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case.3411Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question follows:Austrade has four programs that may be categorised as positive discrimination programs:Indigenous Cadetship ProgramThe Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) through its Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Program provides assistance to agencies for indigenous cadets that they employ. The student cadets must be studying an approved full-time undergraduate degree course at an Australian tertiary institution, and must participate in a work placement within the employing agency during the long break at the end of the academic year. On successful completion of the cadetship they advance to a position in the employing agency that requires specific professional qualifications.Austrade currently employs one indigenous cadet under this scheme. This person completed the second year of a Law/Commerce Degree at the University of Melbourne in 1998 and undertook the work experience component of the program in the Invest Australia Unit located in Austrade's Melbourne office.DETYA supports Austrade and the cadet by providing academic salary support, books and equipment allowance ($350 per annum), compulsory course fees, fares for travel from the cadet's permanent address and place of study, and recruitment assistance.Austrade is responsible for paying the cadet under the general conditions of service which apply to Austrade employees and for providing a work placement for the indigenous cadet during the long academic break (from November to February—approximately 8 to 12 weeks of employment). Austrade is also responsible for paying the annual HECS fees incurred throughout the course of study.Funding CommitmentAustrade funding commitment is approximately $15,500 per annum for the gross salary component and approximately $4000 per year for annual HECS fees. Total yearly commitment is approximately $20,000 on average.Assistance to Indigenous ExportersAustralian Indigenous Exporters ProgramAustrade began the Australian Indigenous Cultures Export Program in 1995, with financial assistance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). The program delivers targeted Austrade assistance to indigenous clients to assist them to achieve exports. Under an arrangement with ATSIC, Austrade's export assistance to indigenous clients can be provided with ATSIC subsiding up to half Austrade's standard fees. Similar assistance from ATSIC is available to support indigenous clients' participation in selected International Trade Displays.Australian Indigenous Export Products DirectoryAustrade publishes the Australian Indigenous Export Products Directory. The 1999 edition was launched on 12 January 1999.Ethnic Exporter ProgramAustrade recognises and actively responds to the cultural and language requirements of its clients. Austrade's brochure An Exporter's Guide to Austrade has been produced in English, Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesian and is distributed through all Austrade offices around Australia and to relevant organisations.A database of foreign language skills within Austrade in Australia has been prepared and has been made available to all Austrade offices throughout Australia.Austrade offices continue to work with a wide range of bilateral and ethnic business chambers and organisations to support them and their members in export-related activities.Women in Export ProgramAustrade is a regular organiser and sponsor of seminars and workshops around Australia that support the specific needs of businesswomen entering the export market. Funding CommitmentAustrade's commitment for the Australian Indigenous Exporters Program, The Australian Indigenous Export Product Directory, the Ethnic Exporters Program and the Women in Export Program for the 1998/99 year is approximately $90,000. This does not include the cost of resources involved in delivering these programs.3412(Question No. 26)263412Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case.3412Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has had an indigenous recruitment and career development strategy in place since 1993. The main aim of the strategy is to attract Indigenous Australians to work in the Department and to encourage them to remain in the organisation.(2) The strategy is funded through the Corporate Management Division. An executive Officer Level 1 officer ($54,640—$59,006) is employed under the strategy. The position also has a program budget ($12,000) for the career development and support of indigenous officers.3412(Question No. 106)1063412Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:On most recent data, what is the incidence of reported crime by type in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074 (ii) 3075 (iii) 3076 (iv) 3082 (v) 3083 (vi) 3087 (vii) 3088 (viii) 3089 (ix) 3090 and (x) 3752.3412Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by my department that in Victoria between 1st January and 31st December 1997 the total reported crime by offence category was as shown in the table below:Offence categoryTotal reported crimein Victoria in 1997*Theft (other)63365Theft from motorcar49223Burglary (residential)47587Property damage42444Theft of motorcar33235Deception32606Burglary (other)27309Assault20438Theft (shopsteal)14520Drugs (possession/use)10403Theft (bicycle)10370Justice procedures9515Sex (non rape)8134Handle stolen goods7072Other6836Drugs (cultivate/manufacture/traffic)5744Behaviour in public4972Weapons/explosives4305Arson4049Harassment3161Robbery2525 Regulated public order2153Rape1355Going equipped to steal741Burglary (aggravated)326Abduction/kidnap281Homicide153Total412822* Source: Victoria Police Crime StatisticsI am also advised by my department that in the specified Victorian postcode areas between 1st January and 31st December 1997 the total reported crime by offence category was as shown in the table below:Offence categoryPostcode3074307530763082308330873088308930903752Crimes against personAssault73446363882710119019Arson6911291414617406Sex (non rape)15123018414371000Robbery11534736010Rape31816920012Abduction/kidnap1101017000Homicide0100101000Crimes against propertyBurglary (residential)2961591332081166119136117Theft from motorcar26211620414925013830038219Property damage2611291691361527919248517Theft (other)2511052491562283628074722Burglary (other)228307715126269727115Theft of motorcar1851171751202289428919117Deception1255312677797113803Theft (shopsteal)60518033443235800Handle stolen goods43287722298161222Theft (bicycle)3926383222338913Burglary (aggravated)2000114000Other crimesDrugs (possession/use)58242442191352305Justice procedures241036433218411105Weapons/explosives2321102010818601Harassment23751651211100 Drugs (cultivate/ manufacture/ traffic)188151611322380Behaviour in public74121110518603Going equipped to steal5003125102Regulated public order21234015200Other5461928141529236Total2138981158512471537576212534733164Source: Victoria Police Crime Statistics3414(Question No. 211)2113414Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) In March 1996, was the Government committed to an open, transparent and accountable environmental impact statement (EIS) process for Sydney's second airport; if so, is that still the case.(2) Did the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, as the Commonwealth's appointed environmental auditor, note in its review of the EIS that access to information about the Badgerys Creek assessment process was provided only at times and under conditions imposed by his Department and that access was denied to important information about the work of sub-consultants; if so, (a) was his Department acting independently or under ministerial direction, (b) why did the Department act in this way and (c) were the actions consistent with an open, transparent and accountable EIS process; if so, how.3414Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government is committed to conducting a thorough and transparent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process on the proposed second airport site at Badgerys Creek.(2) SMEC Australia Pty Ltd (SMEC) was appointed to audit the EIS process on 14 November 1996 and it signed a contract for the audit with the Commonwealth on 6 March 1997. Before the contract was signed, full-time SMEC personnel were given access to EIS material. SMEC was asked, however, not to give access to its proposed sub-consultants without the approval of the then Department of Transport and Regional Development until a contract was signed and appropriate confidentiality agreements were in place.These restrictions applied because of the sensitivity of some of the EIS material, the undefined scope of the audit and the absence of contracts between the Commonwealth and SMEC and between SMEC and its (proposed) sub-consultants. It is common practice for the Commonwealth to restrict access to sensitive information, particularly to organisations with which it does not have a contractual relationship.The issue of access to EIS material was addressed through the development of a Confidentiality Agreement between the then Department of Transport and Regional Development and SMEC. This Agreement was signed on 27 February 1997 and was made publicly available.The administration of the Confidentiality Agreement after 6 March 1997 was based on a list provided by SMEC of its sub-consultants and their specialist areas. The Department asked that access to documents be restricted to SMEC personnel and the relevant specialist sub-consultants.In addition, the Department indicated that it would consider written requests for additional access by SMEC's sub-consultants. Several such requests were received and the Department agreed to them all. On one occasion the Department requested, mainly for practical reasons, that a sub-consultant review a large number of papers at the offices of the Department's EIS consultants.SMEC was given access to the EIS consultant's technical files, with the exception of a small number of files which contained confidential management and commercial information. Additional security measures were introduced in July 1997 when final drafts of the Draft EIS on Badgerys Creek and Holsworthy were available. The arrangements which applied to the audit team at that time were very similar to those which applied to the other agencies which were reviewing the documents at that time.In summary, the Government did not restrict the Auditor's access to relevant EIS material and did not refuse any requests for access to material made after the Confidentiality Agreement with the Auditor was signed and the scope of the audit had been defined by Environment Australia. SMEC had access to all the technical information necessary for it to effectively review the data, methodologies and conclusions of the Draft EIS.3415(Question No. 214)2143415Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What requirements for dumping fuel are imposed on domestic and international air carriers and what is their legislative basis.(2) Are penalties applied if the requirements are breached; if so, (a) what are they and (b) on how many occasions have they been applied since 1993.(3) Is the Government able to eliminate the possibility of fuel dumping occurring over western and south-western areas of Sydney if an airport is constructed at Badgerys Creek.3415Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that the dumping of fuel from large aircraft is an unusual event which is allowed for in certain circumstances where an aircraft must reduce weight. An example of such a circumstance is an aircraft returning to an airport immediately after take-off following an engine failure or other safety related issue and fuel is required to be dumped so as not to exceed the maximum landing weight.Civil Aviation Regulation 150—Dropping of articles (CAR 150), as it applies to large jet aircraft, allows "in an emergency, the jettisoning of liquid fuel or cargo over areas where hazard to persons or property on the ground or water is not created".The minimum height practice is designed to ensure that any jettisoned fuel will be vaporised completely.(2) Yes.(a) I am advised that the maximum penalty under CAR150 for the pilot in command of an aircraft involved in the illegal dropping of an object, including fuel, is $2750.00.(b) The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised my Department that no prosecutions have occurred under CAR 150 in relation to fuel dumping in the period since 1993.(3) I am advised that, whenever possible, any aircraft using Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport that needed to dump fuel would be required to do so over the Tasman Sea at a minimum altitude of 6000 feet. This minimum height is designed to ensure that any jettisoned fuel will be vaporised completely. I am advised that a similar requirement would apply, whenever possible, for aircraft using the proposed Badgerys Creek Second Sydney Airport.3415(Question No. 216)2163415Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a newspaper article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 November 1998 in which the chief of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, Mr Tony Stuart, reportedly suggested that the airport has sufficient capacity to cater for future demand.(2) Did the environmental impact statement for Sydney's second airport consider the logistical, economic, environmental and social consequences of not building a second airport; if not, why not.(3) Did the Government base its assumptions on the future capacity of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport on a study, assessment or report; if so, (a) what study, assessment or report, (b) when was it produced and (c) how confident is the Government in its findings.3415Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the second airport proposal analysed the need for a second major airport for Sydney and considered the consequences of not building a second airport. Further work on these topics is being undertaken for the Final EIS.(3) See answer to part (2) above. 3416(Question No. 235)2353416Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Has the NSW Environment Protection Agency developed a sophisticated model of the Sydney airshed; if so, was the model used in preparing the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS); if not, why not.(2) Were inadequate methodologies adopted as a basis for the air quality assessment in the EIS; if so, (a) why and (b) what action will he take to rectify the use of inadequate methodologies.3416Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As part of the air quality analysis for the Draft EIS on the Badgerys Creek airport proposal, it was planned to use the airshed model developed for the Metropolitan Air Quality Study undertaken by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (NSW EPA). However, the NSW EPA did not provide access to the model and other valid, if less sophisticated, methods were used. The NSW submission on the Draft EIS indicates that the EPA's modelling produces estimates of ozone concentrations, should the airport proceed, similar to those presented in the Draft EIS.(2) No. A number of air quality issues were raised in submissions on the Draft EIS and in the auditor's report. All submissions and the auditor's findings are being taken into account in the preparation of the Final EIS and further work is under way on some of the key issues, including air quality issues.3416(Question No. 236)2363416Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Did the assessment of air quality impacts in the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) allow for an estimated 70,000 motor vehicle movements per day associated with airport traffic; if not, why not.(2) Did the EIS present a misleading understatement of the impact on air quality; if not, why not.3416Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Changes in urban development and the volume and distribution of motor vehicle traffic resulting from operation of the Second Sydney Airport would result in increases in air pollutant emissions over and above those generated by aircraft and other sources within the airport boundaries. In particular, increases in motor vehicle usage would occur along the main road links to the airport sites. The analysis in the Draft EIS indicates that motor vehicle emissions of nitrogen dioxide would be likely to amplify the increases in ozone levels predicted for the airport alone by 20 to 30 percent and that this could potentially expand the area affected by ozone impacts.A number of air quality issues were raised in submissions on the Draft EIS and in the auditor's report. All submissions and the auditor's findings are being taken into account in the preparation of the Final EIS and further work is underway on some air quality issues.3416(Question No. 238)2383416Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:In view of Australia's agreement to restrict greenhouse emissions following the Kyoto conference, did the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement consider the contribution of the airport and associated ground traffic to greenhouse gas emissions; if not, why not.3416Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposal to develop a major airport at Badgerys Creek estimated that the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the airport alone in 2016 would be equivalent to 0.3 percent of the total NSW greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of current NSW projections extrapolated to 2016.3416(Question No. 239)2393416Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Do pollutants such as reactive organic chemicals and fine particles which are produced in motor vehicle and aircraft exhaust streams contribute to increases in the incidence of various cancers.(2) Did the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement ignore the impact on health of reactive organic chemicals and fine particles; if so, why. 3417Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposal to develop a major airport at Badgerys Creek assessed the health implications of increased exposure of the population surrounding the airport site to air toxins and particulates. Further work on this topic is being undertaken for the Final EIS.3417(Question No. 271)2713417Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:Is it a fact that the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) is based on 360 000 aircraft movements per annum but that the risk analysis presented in the EIS is based on 245 000 movements per annum; if so, (a) is it standard practice for an EIS to use two separate figures for aircraft movement, (b) why is there a difference between the figures and (c) does the difference compromise the validity of the EIS; if not, why not.3417Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a),(b) and (c). The proposal put forward by the Government anticipated a major airport capable of handling 30 million passengers and up to about 360,000 aircraft movements per year. Air traffic forecasts developed for the Draft EIS showed that, on the assumption that a relatively high percentage of international flights would operate from the Second Sydney Airport, 30 million annual passengers could be accommodated by about 245,000 aircraft movements each year.It was therefore appropriate for the Draft EIS to assess the airport operating at a level of 245,000 aircraft movements per year, rather than the 360,000 originally anticipated by the Government. The level of 245,000 annual aircraft movements has been used in the risk analysis as well as the assessment of the full range of other potential impacts.Further environmental assessment may need to be undertaken in the future if it was found that the actual level of operations at the airport was likely to exceed 245,000 aircraft movements per year. 3417(Question No. 272)2723417Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) How important is meteorological data in the siting and operation of an airport.(2) How many years meteorological data must be acquired before an accurate profile can be developed for the possible siting of an airport.(3) How many years background meteorological data was available in preparing the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS).(4) Was sufficient meteorological data gathered for the Badgerys Creek EIS.(5) How many years data was used in the Badgerys Creek EIS.3417Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Meteorological data are required for airport design, for analysis of airport operations and for the assessment and management of environmental factors, including air quality and aircraft noise.(2) and (3) The key issue is whether the data are sufficiently accurate to support the airport design and operational requirements. The time period for data collection depends on the meteorological parameter and its application.(4) Several sources of meteorological data were available for the Draft EIS for the second airport proposal. All data sets were examined in detail and the most appropriate used in the analysis of the airport design and operations.The availability of meteorological data was raised in a number of submissions on the Draft EIS. All submissions, and the auditor's findings, are being taken into account in the preparation of the Final EIS and further work is under way on some of the key issues, including meteorological issues.(5) The collection periods for the meteorological data used in the Draft EIS varied from parameter to parameter. For example, the runway useability estimates were based on two years' data collected on the site. In contrast the estimates of the incidence of low cloud were based on records for Sydney and Bankstown airports extending over a 57 year period. 3418(Question No. 276)2763418Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Upon what flora and fauna studies and surveys did the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) rely.(2) On what dates were the studies and surveys originally published.(3) Were new studies commissioned for the EIS; if not, why not.3418Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Full details of the scientific methods employed during data collection and the impact assessment work undertaken are contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and in Technical Paper No.8.(3) Yes.3418(Question No. 278)2783418Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Did his Department commission independent studies which concluded that vertical profiling of meteorological and air quality conditions was essential to achieve an accurate assessment of the impacts of the construction of Badgerys Creek airport; if so, (a) when were the studies undertaken and (b) were the results from the studies taken into consideration in the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS); if not, why not.(2) Was the EIS allowed to proceed without vertical profiling of meteorological and air quality conditions; if so, why.3418Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Information on the vertical structure of winds and temperature in the lower atmosphere would improve the understanding of the meteorology at Badgerys Creek site and such data may be required for the operation of the airport. If available, such data could have been used for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assist with detailed modelling of the air quality and noise impacts of the proposed airport. (2) It was suggested in the Draft EIS that it would be prudent to undertake a sensitivity analysis of the results of the air quality study because of the lack of vertical profile data. This sensitivity study is being undertaken for the Final EIS.3418(Question No. 279)2793418Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:Will the Commonwealth compensate the residents of western Sydney for loss of lifestyle, amenity and property value if the Badgerys Creek proposal proceeds; if so, how.3418Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:These are matters for the Government to consider once a decision has been taken on the second Sydney airport.3418(Question No. 280)2803418Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) What studies were used in the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement to determine the archaeological significance of the proposed site and when were they undertaken.(2) How contemporary were the studies.(3) How much of a site needs to be surveyed for an accurate assessment of Aboriginal heritage to be undertaken.(4) Is he able to say whether a survey of 4 per cent of a proposed site meets internationally accepted standards.(5) How much of the Badgerys Creek site was surveyed and are there proposals to survey more of the site.(6) Did the survey include sub-surface indicators; if not, why not.3418Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) and (2) A comprehensive literature search, oral research and field studies were undertaken in the context of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Reference was made to all recent archaeological work on the Cumberland Plain. (3) There is no general answer to this question. The extent of survey coverage varies according to the research questions being addressed.(4) I am advised that there are no internationally accepted standards in this area.(5) The survey target of 33 per cent of the site area was exceeded for each of the three airport options. More of the site will be surveyed if the airport proposal proceeds.(6) No. Sub-surface testing was not undertaken in order to minimise physical impacts and prevent unnecessary destruction of heritage sites.3419(Question No. 281)2813419Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Did the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) consider social, spiritual, cultural, health and psychological aspects of the Aboriginal environment; if not, why not.(2) Is he able to say whether the factors referred to in part (1), in conjunction with archaeology, make up the Aboriginal cultural value of a location; if not, why not.(3) Did the EIS consider the significance of Aboriginal bush foods, materials and medicines within the proposed airport site; if not, why not.3419Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Social, health and psychological aspects of the communities living around the proposed airport site were considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Aboriginal spiritual and cultural aspects were also addressed in the context of the EIS.(2) On the basis of consultations undertaken with aboriginal communities in the preparation of the Draft EIS, it was apparent that the factors referred to in (1) above are important components of Aboriginal culture.(3) These issues were addressed in general terms in the Draft EIS. However, detailed analysis of the issues was considered to be outside the scope of the EIS.3419(Question No. 282)2823419Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:Was the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service document entitled `Aboriginal Cultural Heritage—Standards and Guidelines Kit' (1997), prepared for the assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales, used in the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement; if not, why not.3419Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) investigations were completed prior to the drafting of these guidelines, which were made available to consultants only after finalisation of the Technical Paper on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.I am advised that the Draft EIS work nevertheless complies with or goes beyond the National Parks and Wildlife Service Guidelines which were current at the time of the investigation.3419(Question No. 296)2963419Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) Is the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in operation; if not, why not.(2) Is it a fact that the LTOP provides for 17 per cent of all flight departures to go north but in practice 34 per cent of all departures are to the north and over the electoral division of Lowe.(3) Is it also a fact that (a) Air Services Australia have replaced an ethic based on noise amelioration with a profit-based ethic, (b) the $800 million road, rail, terminal and associated infrastructure-upgrades at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport are compromising the operation of the LTOP and (c) there is reluctance within Air Services Australia to implement the LTOP and noise sharing arrangement.3419Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) No. The LTOP target is for all movements to the north of the Airport to account for about 17% of all operations at the Airport. Of these 17%, seven percentage points are departures to the north off the main north-south runway and 10 percentage points are arrivals from the north onto the parallel runways. Radar track runway use data indicates that since December 1997 departures to the north off the main north-south runway which overflew the electoral division of Lowe made up about 5% of all movements at the Airport.(3) No. Airservices Australia is bound by Government direction to implement the Long Term Operating Plan subject to the limits set by safety considerations and the operational constraints which may vary from day to day.3420(Question No. 299)2993420Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) Is the percentage of propeller aircraft movement at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport projected to reach 40 per cent of total aircraft movements; if so, when.(2) Is it a fact that the percentage of propeller air movements at the airport is 34 per cent and falling.(3) What is the proportion of (a) propeller, (b) two-engine and (c) jet aircraft landing at the airport on the most recent data.3420Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:During 1998 approximately 40 per cent of the total movements at Sydney Airport were by non-jet aircraft.No. See (1).During 1998 the proportions of movements by aircraft categories were:(a) petrol engined propeller aircraft—3.1%; (b) turbo prop aircraft—36.6%; (c) jet aircraft—57.3%; and (d) helicopters—3.0%.3420(Question No. 300)3003420Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:Will the proposed second Sydney airport solve the aircraft noise impact on Sydney residents and the motor traffic servicing Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, how.3420Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government remains committed to ensuring the effective management of aircraft noise impacts on Sydney residents arising from the operations of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. As part of this commitment it has moved to cap the hourly aircraft movement rate at the airport at 80, and has implemented the Long Term Operating Plan that has been very effective in moving towards a more equitable basis for sharing aircraft noise. To supplement these actions, the Government has proposed the development of a second airport at Badgerys Creek to meet future aviation demand in the Sydney Basin. The construction of a second airport will assist in the management of aircraft noise impacts on Sydney residents by providing an alternative to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport for aviation traffic.3420(Question No. 331)3313420Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 December 1998.(1) Did the Director of Public Prosecutions give an undertaking to the Government of the USA to meet the pre-trial legal expenses of Mr Peter Daniel Clarke before Mr Clarke's extradition to Australia.(2) Is Mr Clarke indigent.(3) If Mr Clarke is without funds to feed, house and otherwise sustain himself in Australia while awaiting trial, what arrangements will be made to enable him to meet those costs pending and throughout his trial.(4) Have arrangements been made to provide legal aid to Mr Clarke (a) generally and (b) to assist him to take evidence on commission overseas; if so in either case what arrangements.3420Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows:(1) No.(2) Mr Clarke claims to be indigent. I am not in a position to assess that claim.(3) The DPP is currently paying subsistence to Mr Clarke at the rate of $583.40 per fortnight.(4) (a) The ACT Legal Aid Office has refused a request for legal aid for the committal proceedings but has not made a decision in relation to a trial if the matter proceeds beyond committal. (b) Not at this stage.3420(Question No. 334)3343420McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) Is he responsible for approving the granting of financial assistance in respect of proceedings under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .(2) Since 2 March 1996, has he approved financial assistance to a person, association, organisation or corporation in respect of proceedings under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ; if so, (a) how many grants have been approved and (b) in each case, (i) what sections of the Act relate to the proceedings for which the assistance was approved, (ii) what sum was or will be paid and (iii) was an industrial organisation of employees a party to the proceedings if so; which organisation.3421Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Under section 342 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 I may authorise the payment of financial assistance in relation to a person's relevant costs in respect of the various proceedings and inquiries referred to in subsection 342(2). I do not personally approve grants of financial assistance as I have delegated the decision making to officers within my Department.(2) Subsection 342(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 restricts the granting of financial assistance to individuals and specifically excludes organisations from being granted any financial assistance.I am advised that(a) From 2 March 1996 to 18 January 1999, 12 applications for financial assistance were approved under section 342 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.(b) (i) Two (2) applications concerned section 208, eight (8) applications concerned section 209, one (1) application concerned section 218 and one (1) application concerned section 219.(ii) Payments made in respect of grants of financial assistance made under section 342 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 since 2 March 1996 amount to $79,659.57 while outstanding commitments amount to $85,634.28.(iii) There exists a long standing practice, endorsed by successive Attorneys-General, to treat applications for Commonwealth financial assistance in confidence. This practice extends to neither confirming nor denying that particular applications have been received and accords with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988. Consequently it would not be appropriate to provide details in relation to any individual applications for assistance.3421(Question No. 339)3393421Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) Did the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) relocate its divisional office for Grayndler from Ashfield to Haymarket; if so, (a) why and (b) will the divisional office for Grayndler be re-established within Grayndler's electoral boundaries; if so, when; if not, will the divisional office for Grayndler remain at Roden Cutler House in Haymarket.(2) Will the AEC relocate the divisional office for Lowe to Roden Cutler House in Haymarket.3421Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:As honourable members are aware, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is an independent statutory authority. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, a divisional office can be located outside the boundaries of the electorate with the permission of the Electoral Commission. The Special Minister of State has therefore sought the AEC's advice on the history of the Divisional Office for Grayndler.The AEC has advised that the Divisional Office for Grayndler was relocated from Ashfield to the AEC's Sydney Head Office site at Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street Sydney, in 1997, following a fire safety report which recommended urgent relocation.The accommodation in Ashfield had been recognised as unsuitable for some time and the AEC had been actively seeking alternative accommodation within the Grayndler divisional boundaries, without success.The Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales wrote to the honourable Member for Grayndler on 29 July 1996 to confirm that the AEC needed to move from its premises in Ashfield because the building was subject to an unsatisfactory safety report. This letter also confirmed discussions between the Divisional Returning Officer for Grayndler and Mr Tim Gartell, of Mr Albanese's electoral staff, that the Member did not oppose any proposal to relocate the Office outside the Divisional boundaries.On 10 March 1997, following an electrical fault in the Divisional Office for Grayndler's premises at Ashfield, the Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales again wrote to the honourable member advising him of her intention to immediately seek the Electoral Commission's approval to relocate the Office, temporarily to a small area on Level 6 of Roden Cutler House. The Electoral Commission gave approval for the relocation of the Divisional Office for Grayndler outside the electoral boundaries on 13 March 1997. Electors in the Division were notified of the relocation through advertisements in the local press.In 1998, the AEC entered into a new lease at Roden Cutler House, which enables the Divisional Office for Grayndler to be collocated with the Divisional Office for Sydney in larger premises. The Division of Grayndler covers 28.9 sq km of inner metropolitan Sydney. It is immediately adjacent to the Division of Sydney, where the Divisional Office is now located. The availability of both rail and bus makes the Divisional Office in its current location more conveniently accessible to electors from other parts of the Division than was previously the case when it was located in Ashfield. Disabled parking is available immediately outside the building, as is metered parking. There are also several public car parks in the immediate vicinity. Arrangements can also be made for parking in the building itself.Pre-poll, postal and ordinary voting services were available for Grayndler electors at the 1998 Election, as usual. A pre-poll centre was located in the Division at 297B Victoria Road Marrickville, which was open from 21-25 September and from 28 September until polling day. Electors were also able to cast a pre-poll vote at any other pre-poll centre across the country. On 3 October, polling centres were open across the Division from 8.00am until 6.00pm, as usual.In relation to the location of the Divisional Office for Lowe, the AEC has advised that on 10 July 1998, the Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales wrote to the former Member for Lowe seeking his views on a collocation of the Divisional Office for Lowe with the Divisional Offices for Sydney and Grayndler in Roden Cutler House. The Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales has already advised the new Member for Lowe that she will formally seek his comments should further consideration be given to relocating the Divisional Office for Lowe.3422(Question No. 353)3533422Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources upon notice, on 8 February 1999:How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by an award, an industrial agreement, a certified agreement, and an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.3422Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) 7; (b) nil; (c) 2787; and (d) 87.(2)ClassificationNumber of employeesAPS Level 2 and equivalents2Executive Level 2 and equivalents12Senior Executive Service Band 1 and equivalents52Senior Executive Service Band 2 and equivalents15Senior Executive Service Band 3 and equivalents6