1999-03-093912REPS343101999-03-09Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice343134313431Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday in the Senate Senator Harradine, in relation to Minister Reith's failure to honour his deal regarding youth wages, said:It means that at least half of this Senate cannot accept from this government at face value what it says . . . the word of certain ministers cannot be taken at face value.Prime Minister, if Senator Harradine cannot trust the word of your minister, why should young Australians trust him not to cut their wages and attack their job security?3431Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In the long years that I have been in public life I have rarely met a person of greater integrity than the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The minister for workplace relations continues to enjoy my total confidence. This government deals in facts, and the fact is that the vote in the Senate yesterday was a blow to the job prospects of thousands of young Australians. The vote in the Senate yesterday was a recognition by those who sit opposite us, and others, that they have no alternative strategies to deal with youth unemployment. It was a reminder of the extent to which the Labor Party in particular is bereft of any policy—the extent to which the Labor Party, which has now been in opposition for three years, has spent no time over that three-year period in developing alternative policies. It merely falls back onto the old remedies and, in the face of repeated attempts by this government to do things to improve the job prospects of young Australians, merely lifts its hands and casts its vote at the direction of the trade union bosses who continue to dominate it.34313431Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to back away from its commitment to protect age based youth wages? What would be the implications for young Australians if age based youth wages were abandoned?3431Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I want to make it very clear to the House that the government has no intention of backing away from its attempts to protect youth based wages. The legislation rejected in the Senate yesterday will, after a lapse of three months, be returned to the Senate after passage through this House because we are determined to persevere with our attempts. We as a government are at least trying to do something to reduce youth unemployment. Every single step this government has taken to enhance the job prospects of young Australians has been opposed by the Australian Labor Party. They opposed our proposals on unfair dismissal, they opposed our proposal to introduce work for the dole, and they have voted on several occasions to strike down our proposals in relation to protecting youth wages. The reason we want to protect youth wages is that young people's prospects of getting a job under the present system will be greater, and will remain greater, than they would be under the system that the Labor Party supports. If you abolish youth based wages, you will reduce the opportunities of young Australians to get work. McDonald's, which employs 44,000 young Australians under the age of 21, argued very recently that the removal of junior wage rates—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am very interested to hear the members of the Labor Party interject with hostility when reference is made to an organisation that employs 44,000 young Australians. Apparently in the eyes of the Australian Labor Party it is disreputable to employ young Australians. McDonald's has given job prospects and career prospects to thousands of young Australians over the years. I want every young Australian to know that the Labor Party sneers at the very reference to McDonald's. Let me say again that McDonald's employs 44,000 young Austral ians under the age of 21. At a recent youth employment seminar, McDonald's argued that the removal of junior rates would ensure that young Australians were unable to compete with adults in the work force. They further argued that it would result in the virtual disappearance of entry-level positions. It would mean fewer jobs in total, and it would make the school to work transition more difficult.But let us go beyond McDonald's; let us go to the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission in a study has found that a one per cent increase in youth wages would reduce employment by two per cent in the retail industry, by 2.5 per cent in the cultural and recreational services industries and by five per cent in the accommodation industry. That is not the finding of an employer. This is not the finding of the Liberal Party or the National Party. This is the finding of the Productivity Commission.The ACCI has found that the replacement of age based wages would increase the cost of employing an 18-year-old by 40 per cent and of a 19-year old by 25 per cent. I might well ask the rhetorical question: how does anybody who sits opposite really imagine they are helping young people by increasing by 40 per cent the cost of employing an 18-year-old and by increasing by 25 per cent the cost of employing a 19-year-old? It stands to reason, it is a matter of elementary logic, that if you increase the cost of employing young people you are going to reduce the number of jobs available to young people. That is why we are opposed to what the Labor Party is doing, and that is why we will re-present this legislation in three months time.34323432Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The Prime Minister might have taken some note of McDonalds on the GST. My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday in the Senate, Senator Harradine said this, and I quote:. . . I had accepted the word of the government in relation to the common youth allowance.Is the Prime Minister also aware that, in relation to an undertaking given to Senator Harradine to provide relief for families facing greater financial burdens, the government has, and I quote Senator Harradine:. . . not done so.Prime Minister, do you agree with Senator Harradine that you have not acted on this undertaking to him? If Senator Harradine cannot trust the promises you make to Australian families, why should Australian families trust you?3432Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I did see those remarks attributed to the senator. I do recall an exchange between the senator and myself more than a year ago in the context of the youth allowance. I indicated then that when the government's tax plan came down there would be special provisions inserted to assist Australian parents in raising children. It is fair to say at that particular time, which I think was in March 1998, in response to a question asked of him by Senator Harradine, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, responded, indicating two things. He indicated that the family tax initiative that was a centrepiece of our very successful 1996 election campaign had been introduced at a cost of more than $1 billion, and that provided significant relief to Australian families.I also said that, over and above that, when the taxation plan came out that would also contain, over and above other provisions and other reforms, additional relief for Australian families. Senator Hill gave an answer to that effect. It is also fair to say that on any analysis the taxation plan hugely benefits low and middle income families, and that the additional assistance given over and above the taxation cuts to people who have the responsibility of raising families are very, very considerable indeed.Naturally, along with any other senator, or indeed any other member who wants to discuss further aspects of the government's taxation plan, the Treasurer and other senior members of the government and myself are willing to do so. But I want to make it very clear that every undertaking that I have given to Senator Harradine, either directly or through Senator Hill, has been honoured, and certainly and most assuredly in respect of taxation the commitment that I gave was honoured in full.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He doesn't think so!34333433Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of recent media reports which reveal that 53 per cent of the population believes unemployment is the most important issue the government should be dealing with? What is the government doing to tackle this major issue, and what are the repercussions of the Labor Party's action in the Senate last night in voting down the youth employment bill?3433Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his question. I am aware of that research. When you think of it, it does not really come as a surprise, when you ask the community to rate issues of significance, that there is a general understanding in the Australian community about the social consequences of unemployment. To put it another way, Ted Evans, the Secretary to the Treasury, said famously a few years ago that the level of unemployment we have is the choice that we make. That is a very sensible and informed comment.Last night, when confronted with a choice, we saw the Labor Party vote against the creation of jobs and against the protection of existing jobs under the junior wage rate system. It is, I think, very apparent that the Labor Party is entirely out of touch with concerns in the Australian community about youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is already far too high. It is over 24 per cent, and that is why this government is so determined to do all within our power to give young people the chance of a job.It is commonsense. You do not need to be a rocket scientist or an economist to understand that if you put up the wage rate of an 18-year-old by $130 a week a lot of employers are going to say, `We cannot afford that sort of cost in employing and giving a young person a job.'Rob Gerard, who is with ACCI, runs Clipsal Industries. It is a family business, a reputable business, well regarded. On radio this morning he said, `I've got to say today is in my opinion one of the blackest days for youth in Australia.' He then went on to reflect his own circumstances and his own experience. He said, `What will happen when junior rates go is that people will not put on the youth.' He referred to his own experience in his company and that, as he said, `Not everybody can have a university degree. I think the big thing for youth is to get your foot in the door and have a job to start.' That is a commonsense statement.We have the literary giants over here fighting about Labor Party policy but unable to understand not only the simple and commonsense proposition that what they did last night will undermine the job security of young people but also that one of the reasons why this government has been promoting this measure is that it would actually open opportunities today denied by the existing system.The fact is that the Labor Party, in the action they have taken, will be responsible, I believe, for many young people losing their jobs and many job opportunities being lost to young people. I believe it is a fair prediction—obviously there are a number of variables—to say that, when junior wage rates are abolished in the middle of next year, if we are unable to secure the passage of this legislation, the youth unemployment rate will go to over 30 per cent in this country. The responsibility for that will rest fairly and squarely with the Labor Party and a weak leader who has no capacity to stand up to the factions and to the union bullies who tell him what to do, even though thousands of young people will be disadvantaged as a result.34333433Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday, in the Senate, Senator Harradine said that Mr Reith's industrial relations agenda will lead Australia down a path of conflict, disruption and distrust? Is this the agenda that you fully supported in the House yesterday? Prime Minister, if Senator Harradine cannot trust you, why should the rest of Australia trust you not to lead Australia down this low wage, low skill path?3434Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, let me start at the end of the Leader of the Opposition's question, when he talked about this low wage path. Has the Leader of the Opposition actually forgotten the fact that, in the 13 years that the Labor Party was in power, real wages in this country were suppressed? Has he forgotten the fact that, in the time that we have been in government, there has been a significant increase in real wages? But that increase in real wages has been built on gold—it has been built on the gold of higher productivity. Because of the economic policies that my government has followed, we have been able to deliver to Australian workers a prosperity which Labor could never deliver. We have delivered to Australian workers higher real wages and more disposable income via the combination of higher real wages and lower interest rates.So lesson No. 1 for the Leader of the Opposition is that, far from taking this country down a low wage path, we have in fact taken this country along a high productivity and high wealth highway. I am very proud of the polices that this government has followed. We have followed all of them in the teeth of the most ferocious opposition from the Australian Labor Party and the pathetic gyrations of the Leader of the Opposition. When he thinks things are going badly, he condemns the government's policies and when things are going well he says, `Well, it's not due to what the government has done; it's due to what was done by the Labor Party five or 10 years ago when it was in government.' You have this funny graph—the path of economic policy bobs and weaves in between Liberal and Labor governments. When there is something good in the economy, it is due to the Labor Party and when there is something bad in the economy, it is due to the coalition parties.The reality is that we inherited a deficit of $10½ billion. We inherited a low productivity economy. We inherited a high interest rate economy. In three years, we have made Australians proud of the economic performance of this country. In three years, we have stared down the worst economic downturn which the Asia-Pacific region has ever seen. In three years, we have delivered great economic leadership to this country. The pathetic question asked by the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates how bereft the Australian Labor Party is not only of leadership but also of policy.34343434Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what action the government has taken to provide a range of career and education and training opportunities for young Australians? Is the minister aware of any policies that will impact on these opportunities?3434Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Moore for his question. In stark contrast to the message that the Labor Party in the Senate gave to young Australia last night, this government has demonstrated that it cares about the job opportunities of young Australians. The skill levels of young Australians are rising as a result of the new apprenticeship reforms. We now have almost 200,000 young people in traineeships and apprenticeships, whereas the Labor Party, in government for 13 years, under union pressure, adopted policies that set out to destroy the apprenticeship system.We faced up to the issues of literacy and numeracy. We faced up to the issues of school to work transition. The Labor Party, last night in the Senate, gave young people the message that it does not care about their future, that it does not care if its policies are going to destroy job opportunities for young people.Why does the Labor Party take this attitude to junior wage rates? They take this attitude because this is the policy of the ACTU. It is the policy that Lord Crean of Hotham pursued for many years while he was President of the ACTU. The next anointed leader of the Labor Party is sitting over there. Kim Beazley has anointed him, Lord Crean of Hotham, as the next leader of the Labor Party. He is the person who, more than any other, has championed the policy which is now dominating the Labor Party, aided and abetted by the member for Batman.All one can say to the member for Hotham is he had better watch out for the bomb thrower, because there is a bomb out there which has got his name on it. This is a divided party under a weak leader, and the only thing that this leader stands for is the policy that his sectional union mates have forced onto him. He is a person without any concern for the job opportunities of young Australians. If you were to get out there, if you were to talk to young Australians, if you were to talk to businessmen, you would find out that young people in this country want jobs and that businessmen depend on those junior wage rates to give them jobs. This is a party which is divorced from reality and shows no concern for young people.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Boring! Boring!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. All members on my left know that that sort of behaviour is quite unacceptable, and I issue a general warning to all of them.Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton is now included in that general warning.34353435Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Can the minister confirm that 44 per cent of federal awards have no junior wage rate scales at all? Isn't it the case that the government's proposed legislation would require the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to insert junior wage rate scales into all awards, resulting in wage cuts for nearly half Australia's young workers? Aren't your comments on this issue just like your government's promise that no worker will be worse off? Another reason why the Senate and the public do not trust you!3435Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—It is true there are a large number of federal awards that do not have junior wage rates and, if you look at those industries which do not have junior wage rates, many of those industries do not have young people working in them. If you take the building industry, for example, the unions many years ago saw off the end of junior wage rates. As a result, if you are a young person, the opportunities for you to get a job in the building industry and get a foot on that bottom rung of the ladder have largely been denied.In that particular industry, the fact of the matter is that, if we had junior wage rates, there would be something of the order of an extra 6,000 jobs for young people, giving them the experience, the opportunity to learn the trade on the job and the pathway to contribute to the building industry.You people for years have denied young people a chance of jobs in lots of industries in this country, which is why we want to see this legislation in place at the earliest opportunity. Opportunities should be provided for young people. We are entitled to put this measure to achieve that.Lastly, in respect of this vacuous, empty claim that existing people would lose their entitlements, what we are proposing—and you ought to be able to support this—is that the Industrial Relations Commission would have a discretion to insert junior wage rates and, in doing so, would obviously take into account the circumstances of existing employees to ensure that they were fairly treated. You are the great supporters of the Industrial Relations Commission but, when you voted last night, you voted to limit the discretions of the commission in respect of the maintenance of a system which has served Australia very well.I thank you for the question because it just demonstrates that, when it comes to giving young people the chance of a job, last night you voted against it.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum which the minister presented—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave is not granted. The member for Brisbane will resume his seat.34353435Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, are you aware of any recent surveys on the Australian economy? Would you inform the House what these indicate about the current state of the Australian economy?3436Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. No doubt he was asking me about the release today of industrial trends from ACCI and Westpac. The survey of industrial trends released had Mr Mark Paterson, the Chief Executive of ACCI, saying:Results of the March quarter survey of Australian manufacturers show a leap in business confidence matched by continuing strong growth of demand and production.Mr Bill Evans, the Westpac General Manager Economics, commented on this survey:This surge in business confidence, coupled with the healthy rise in December, represents the largest two quarter rise since the stockmarket boom of mid 1997, and the economic recovery in 1983.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What did the NAB survey say?CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition asks what the NAB survey said. Quoting Mr Alan Oster, the NAB survey said:Overall, the National's latest Monthly Business Survey suggests that the strong domestic activity depicted in the Statistician's recent National Accounts for the December quarter 1998 was maintained in the first couple of months of 1999.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Maintained.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Indeed, maintained. You are complaining about `maintained', are you? Let me finish the quote. He is complaining that it is only maintained!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his marks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As Alan Oster says:Indeed, business conditions in February appear consistent with GDP growth continuing at an annualised rate of about 5%.We are only maintaining five per cent! Mr. Speaker, you have got to hand it to these people. No wonder Tanner and Latham look like geniuses. This is what the so-called official economic thinkers of the Labor Party were saying in July. This is what their shadow treasurer said:After three Costello budgets we have slower growth, we face the Asian crisis. It's not what I call a fireproofed economy.The Treasurer fireproofed the economic car by taking out the petrol. That is what he said in July 1998 when the Australian economy was growing at 4.9 per cent and we were the fastest growing economy in the world: we had taken the petrol out of the car. WTG!On The Newshour With Jim Lehrer in the United States yesterday—which is probably one of the premier current affairs programs in the United States—Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said this:If you were looking for a miracle economy in this crisis, it would be Australia. It is sort of in Asia, should be a victim and yet they have grown five per cent in the last year. Somehow they've managed to ride this out.8I4MARTINMr Martin—That's Austria, is it?CT4Mr COSTELLO—No, it was actually Australia. I suppose the Australian Labor Party would prefer it if it were Austria. And you are not the Austrian Labor Party either, my friend—although you may know more about that economy than this one. The ANZ job advertisements series which was released today showed that job ads rose 8.4 per cent in February—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—In trend terms.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, yes, trend terms. Thank you. Why do I keep getting Dorothy interjections from the Labor Party frontbench?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Treasurer has an obligation, as every minister does, to respond to questions through the chair and not to respond to interjections.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I respond through you to the question of trends. In trend terms, the number of job advertisements to January was 13.7 per cent higher than last year. It would be one thing if the Labor Party said, `We the Labor Party got the economy wrong, we the Labor Party shouldn't have opposed your efforts to put the budget back into balance, we the Labor Party congratulate the government for its economic management and we the Labor Party rejoice with Australians that we have so far ridden out the Asian crisis as one of the strong economies of the world'—that would be a respectable position. But to maintain this doomsaying and hope to talk the economy down to have a self-fulfilling negative effect, to oppose every single measure that has been necessary to get the budget back into line, to oppose tax reform, to oppose labour market reform, to oppose monetary policy reform and to oppose the fiscal repair job is essentially to say that the Labor Party can take no responsibility and take no joy whatsoever from a strong economy which is giving opportunities to Australians. And that is what this government stands for.34373437Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, you have just invoked McDonald's in terms of job creation for young people. Do you also agree with their submission to the GST inquiry that `the introduction of a GST will cause the majority of food prices to rise', `unemployment is expected to rise as operators in the food service industry are forced to retrench staff', `youth unemployment is likely to rise'? If McDonald's do not trust your GST, how do you expect young Australian workers to?3437Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I know what McDonald's had to say about youth wages, and I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that the burden of what McDonald's has had to say about the GST and food is that the last thing you should ever do is have an approach to the GST whereby some food is exempted and some food is included. I have not only seen that through the public submissions but had the benefit of discussing that with the Managing Director of McDonald's, Mr Charlie Bell, more than 18 months ago, where Mr Bell contrasted the experience of McDonald's in New Zealand with the experience of McDonald's in Canada and the United Kingdom, and he said that the take-out from that was that the last thing you do is to go down the Canadian path or the United Kingdom path.It is a ridiculous situation where you have food inspectors testing whether pies are hot, cold or warm and you have all sorts of additional GST or VAT police going around carrying out these inspections. The message coming from McDonald's on the GST is: don't go down the Democrat path and exempt food and try to include takeaway meals. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.34373437Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister inform the House of the success of the government's Job Network? Is there growing community support for the government's approach? Are there any alternative views to this approach, and how does the government propose to address them?3437Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The member for Boothby will be pleased to know that the Job Network is continuing to go from strength to strength. In February, the Job Network placed 24,000 eligible job seekers on benefit into real work, compared to just 12,000 from the CES in February last year. In other words, the Job Network is now performing 100 per cent better than the old CES.While the government is responsible for the system which has brought about this improvement, we are not actually doing the work ourselves. The hard work is being done by Mission Employment, the Salvation Army's Employment Plus, Centacare, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and all these great charitable community based and private sector organisations which comprise the Job Network—organisations which all members in this House should support.I have been asked about alternative views, and never let it be said that this government is deaf to the wisdom which occasionally emanates from the other side of the House. Just a week ago, the member for Werriwa said:Only by remembering these groups—that is to say, groups like Mission Australia and the Salvation Army—and giving them more to do like running schools, health centres and recreation services can society and our sense of moral responsibility be restored .On this count, the member for Werriwa is absolutely right, and that is why I have been frequently saying that the Job Network is the Third Way in action. But that was until I came across the latest book of the member for Melbourne where he described the Third Way as mere cocktail politics: `Pour two nips of market forces, throw in a few platitudes, add a dash of socialism and stir vigorously.' And they are all stirring vigorously over there.The member for Melbourne says we do not need a new label for vacuous pragmatism. At least the member for Melbourne and the member for Werriwa have ideas. They make speeches and they write books which people read and listen to and report. They have ideas about the principles on which the Job Network is based. The only thing the Leader of the Opposition can generate—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. This is not even remotely within the framework of the question that was asked of him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order on relevance. I ask the minister to return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The member for Werriwa and the member for Melbourne have ideas relevant to the Job Network. All the Leader of the Opposition can generate is bad headlines like `Crean rising to the top of the ALP', `Beazley must move fast to regain focus'—10000Mr SPEAKER—The minister knows that this has no relevance.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—and `Beazley the issue, not Brereton'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You don't send a boy out on a man's errands. Sit him down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.34383438Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Minister for Arts and the Centeneary of Federation representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Minister, are you aware that yesterday Senator Harradine said that relevant to his consideration of further partial privatisation of Telstra was whether Telstra could meet proper service levels for regional Australia? Given that Senator Harradine has made it clear that commitments given to him by the government over the government's first one-third privatisation of Telstra have not been met and that the government cannot be trusted, how can any promise you give to regional Australia over service levels under a 49 per cent privatised Telstra be worth the paper it is written on?3438McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—Rural and regional Australia will be big winners under the further privatisation of Telstra. The government has made it abundantly clear in the lead-up to the last election and since—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I remind members on my left for the last time that I have issued a general warning and I will not be as tolerant next time. I will simply take action. The minister has the call.XH4Mr McGAURAN—This is an opposition that catcalls, having ignored rural and regional Australia's telecommunications infrastructure problems for some 13 years. With the further privatisation of Telstra, we are able to direct hundreds of millions of dollars directly into rural Australia: $671 million, in fact, as a national package, of which will go $250 million to the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia, $120 million to establish and fund a television fund to expand SBS to eradicate black spots, up to $150 million to install telecommunications infrastructure to give untimed local access calls, and $70 million to establish rural transaction centres—the list goes on and on.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, on the question of relevance. The minister is simply reciting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. There is no point of order. The member for Perth will resume his seat. The minister is being relevant to the question he was asked about Telstra and regional Australia, and he is will continue to answer the question.XH4Mr McGAURAN—You need only to look at the legislation before the Senate at present to see the safeguards installed for country Australia. The package on the full sale of the Telstra facilities separates the regulatory and shareholder functions and roles of the Commonwealth. The cornerstone of telecommunications policy is transparency and accountable regulation through proper processes based in legislation. We are well aware, obviously, that the use of the shareholder power to achieve regulatory objectives in relation to Telstra is inappropriate and would cause conflict with our Corporations Law requirements, but the point is to look at the legislation: every safeguard is spelt out in exacting detail.34393439Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and it goes to the government's position in respect of the provision of a strengthened oil code for the petroleum industry. With imminent changes in respect of petroleum retail site regulation being proposed, will the Prime Minister confirm the timing of the various steps in the process of achieving a successful implementation of the oil code?3439Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In response to the honourable member for Mallee—who, along with many members in both the Liberal and National parties representing rural and regional Australia, has taken a very strong interest in the need to achieve an appropriate balance between further competition in the oil industry and the protection of the rights and the interests of small business, particularly small service station proprietors—I can confirm previous assurances that the repeal of the sites and franchise acts will not be proclaimed until the oil code is finalised between all parties in the industry. The draft oil code was developed after extensive consultation with all sections of the industry, and the benefits to the industry and small business from the oil code will be significant.The new code will apply to a larger range of operations than did the previous legislative regime, so providing better protection for service station franchisees. The code will also contain specific provisions on issues like setting of tenure, renegotiation of contracts and unilateral variations that will give the industry greater flexibility to respond to such changes as new entrants in the petroleum retail market.At all stages we have sought to involve industry players, and that will continue as we finalise the code. I repeat that we will not proclaim the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill until an acceptable agreement is reached on the final implementation of the oil code. As in any issue where there are differing perspectives, we will of course expect all parties to participate in the finalisation of oil code with a spirit of compromise and reasonableness. I say finally, by way of reminder to all members of this House, that the Liberal and National parties stand second to none, as far as the political parties of Australia are concerned, in protecting and defending the interests of small business.34393439Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's self-congratulation on the Australian economy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—I am, Mr Speaker. Is he the same Treasurer who is now the Australian record holder on the international trade deficit, the current account deficit and the size of the foreign debt? Treasurer, if you can't even tell the full story on the economy, how do you expect people to trust you on the GST?3439Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I welcome the question. I am very glad that it has finally been asked. I am aware that the member for Hotham was out claiming that the current account deficit was the highest on record in nominal dollars, unadjusted by GDP or for inflation. It would be like saying that the CPI is now at the highest level. It would be like saying that household disposable income is at the highest level. It would be like saying that employment is at its highest level ever. In absolute numbers, employment is at its highest level ever. In GDP terms—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham leaves me with no choice but to require him to leave the chamber under standing order 304A.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will leave the chamber or be named.The honourable member for Hotham thereupon withdrew from the chamber.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The current account deficit, measured as a proportion of GDP, which is the way it is traditionally measured—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—You never did!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I always did, my friend—is at 5.4 per cent of GDP. The previous peaks in the current account deficit were at 6.5 per cent in 1985-86; 6.6 per cent of GDP in 1989-90; and 6.6 per cent of GDP in 1994. Not only was the current account deficit at 6.5 per cent of GDP in 1985-86, under a Labor government, but also the inflation rate was then 9.2 per cent and the variable mortgage interest rate was 13.5 per cent.In 1989-90, when the Labor Party peaked the current account deficit again at 6.6 per cent of GDP, inflation was 8.6 per cent and the variable mortgage interest rate was 17 per cent. In 1994-95, when the Labor Party again peaked the current account deficit at 6.6 per cent, inflation was at 3.9 per cent and the variable mortgage interest rate was at 10.5 per cent. The Labor Party then claims that the current account deficit is some kind of record because it is now at 5.4 per cent. But look at the economic climate in which it occurs: a headline inflation rate of 1.6 per cent and a variable mortgage interest rate of 6.5 per cent.Let us make an obvious point in relation to the current account deficit, which is: if you are going through the largest regional recession—if I may say so, there was no Asian regional recession in 1985-86, 1989-90 or 1994-95—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—It was booming!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Asia was booming—you would expect, as you have seen in Australia, low commodity prices. At the moment, commodity prices are the lowest they have been in 20 years, or so.Mr Tanner interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Melbourne tries to get a reputation as being intelligent, but it is only by comparison. These are the lowest commodity prices in 20 years. Let me make the point that, when commodity prices are low, you would expect to get low prices for your exports. A current account deficit is likely to widen when you get low prices for your exports. It is axiomatic. The one thing that we will not be doing in relation to this current account deficit is trying to get the current account deficit narrower by putting the domestic economy into recession.Let us remember what happened in 1989-90 when the Labor Party blew the current account deficit out to 6.6 per cent of GDP. The Labor Party Treasurer prescribed the following remedy: that this was the recession that Australia had to have. Labor's answer to a current account deficit was recession, and it was a deliberate policy in 1989-90. It was no accident that you took mortgage interest rates to 17 per cent. Your Treasurer said that it was a policy to bring on a recession in response to a current account deficit.That recession cost Australia dearly. It has taken us nearly nine years to recover, in an employment sense, from Labor's 1989-90 recession. It has taken us nine years to get the unemployment rate down to 7½ per cent—which is too high, but is the lowest in a decade, coming off the recession record of Labor at 11.3 per cent. The recession of Labor at 11.3 per cent was done under a minister for employment who is now the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this country.In relation to a current account deficit with external price weakness, this government intends to keep the domestic economy running strongly. We can afford to keep the domestic economy running strongly on an inflation rate of 1.6 per cent. We will keep it running strongly on an interest rate of around 6½ per cent. I say to the people of Australia: in this economic climate, when we are going through the biggest financial downturn on the external front that we have ever seen, a responsible government would be keeping a strong domestic economy because that is what is keeping them in jobs.34413441Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister advise the House of recent developments concerning the government's Infrastructure Borrowings Tax Offset Scheme?3441Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I know that it is of great interest to all in the House but particularly to those in Brisbane. I was pleased to announce today that Brisbane's proposed cruise ship terminal has qualified for federal government support under the Infrastructure Borrowings Tax Offset Scheme, subject only to satisfactory environmental assessment and the scrutiny of the ATO.The cruise terminal at Hamilton on the Brisbane River will be eligible for a $10 million tax rebate over five years. This is great news for Brisbane, great news for jobs and great news for the Australian cruise industry. Internationally, the cruise industry is now growing at an annualised rate of around four per cent. It is the fastest growing sector in the international tourism industry. Up until this point in time, we have been losing some investment opportunities and jobs here because we have not had the necessary infrastructure and the necessary back-up. So the reality of the building of this infrastructure will make a very real difference. It would not have happened without the government's rebate. The financiers of the project had underwritten their offer subject to receiving the rebate. So it is indeed good news that this has happened.This terminal is likely to kick-start a $170 million development, including a 280-room hotel and tourism facilities including an aquarium, a large screen theatre and a whole range of other things. It will generate 2,500 construction jobs over 18 months and 1,200 permanent jobs after that. This project follows four projects worth some $900 million that were announced in January as qualifying for assistance under the scheme. I believe that it is an outstanding example of the government's commitment to improving Australia's infrastructure that has a real impact on opening up new economic opportunities and in particular creating new job opportunities. I believe that it will be warmly welcomed by all members of this House.34413441O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, are you aware that your new tax arrangements will force the Queensland sugar industry to borrow $20 million to pay your GST and will cost the industry a further $2.3 million per year in additional diesel fuel costs for rail transport of sugar cane? In view of the projected low export price for sugar and the devastating long-term effects of recent floods on cane growers, why are you seeking to burden the industry further with a GST? Won't these people be losers under your GST? How could you say to this House on 24 November 1998:We are not going to implement any measures that will be detrimental to the farming community.3441Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I will answer one of the last parts of the question first. The government's tax reform package is going to without question benefit farmers right across Australia. That has been substantiated by independent analysis that has been undertaken at the request of New South Wales farmers and the University of New England. The average farm across Australia is going to be about $5,400 a year better off in disposable income. That is accepted and acknowledged by farmers across Australia. It does not matter whether they are sugar cane farmers in North Queensland or horticulturalists in Victoria or South Australia. That has been acknowledged, because farmers understand that the tax reform package is going to provide a much better economic environment from which they are going to operate.It is going to take the burden of taxation off exports, particularly for the sugar industry. The sugar industry has to export a lot more on average than any other agricultural producer in Australia. On average we have to export 80 per cent of what we produce in agricultural industries in Australia, and we are going to remove $4½ billion worth of burden from our agricultural industries. We are going to remove the burdens of transport costs, because our agricultural producers primarily are operating in rural and remote Australia where the tyranny of distance and those transport costs impact on them disproportionately to the rest of Australia. We are going to lessen the burden of those transport costs with our tax reform package. So nobody can stand in this place and say that we are going to add burden to the cost of production in Australia.Yes, the member for Corio and I took the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to visit the devastation in North Queensland and we spoke to representatives of the sugar industry and representatives of the horticulturalists up there. Yes, there is a variation in commodity prices across the world that we cannot control. But what we can do is provide them with a lower interest rate regime, which we have done, with plenty of opposition from the Labor Party. The Labor Party did not want to introduce those changes in Australia that provided low interest rates for rural Australia. We now want to introduce taxation reform that is going to provide further benefits to rural Australia, and it is the Labor Party who are opposing that. The people in rural Australia realise that this government is serious about providing them with a better economic environment from which to operate and compete in the world market. It is only the Labor Party who are opposing it.Distinguished Visitors344210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I notice that we have in the chamber the Hon. John Hodges, former Minister for Immigration. I extend a welcome to him.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice344234423442Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister outline to the House what progress has been made with the development of the Speedrail Very Fast Train proposal. Can the minister advise whether the New South Wales government has indicated that it will support the project?3442Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I acknowledge his very real interest in this matter. The great irony at the moment is that essentially so lacking was the support from New South Wales that without the direct intervention of the Prime Minister we would not even have got to the proving up stage. But the current minister in New South Wales yesterday issued a statement claiming some credit for being the first to sign a document for the proving up statement. No interest whatsoever has been shown. They stood in the way, and yet yesterday the minister wanted to claim credit for signing a piece of paper ahead of the rest of us, a piece of paper that would never have come into existence if it had not been for the drive and the foresight of the Commonwealth government and in particular the Prime Minister.Since coming to government, the fact is that we have been very quick to recognise the obvious benefits that modern rail technology can deliver to a country like Australia, and particularly to regional areas. So in 1997 we invited private sector proposals to develop a high speed train service between Sydney and Canberra because we recognised, as indeed do many in the community, that there are real opportunities in delivering a fast service between here and Sydney, and in the future probably between other major capitals as well.On 4 August last year the Prime Minister announced that the three governments had agreed to proceed with a proving-up process with Speedrail in relation to its proposal to build the Sydney-Canberra high speed train link. The fact is that New South Wales claimed it was not opposed yet would do nothing to endorse this proposal until just before Christmas. It has remained reluctant to become involved despite the obvious benefits to the people of New South Wales. I believe it is a commitment that this government has shown that will be welcomed across the Australian community. In terms of the lack of commitment by New South Wales, the remarks yesterday by the minister in that state mark him, I think, as being capable of considerable hypocrisy.MG4LEEMr Lee—Through you, Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to table the document from which he was extensively quoting during the answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading from a document?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the document confidential? The minister has indicated that the document is confidential.34433443Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. With your Minister for Finance and Administration suggesting in the Sydney Morning Herald immediately after the election that the government would review the parliamentary super scheme, then more recently indicating to me that the government has not decided on any review, and with your reported comments last week justifying the current scheme, can you inform the Australian public—this is the important point—why no review is now planned when at the very least my constituents, and no doubt the rest of Australia, see a preservation age of 55 as a simple first step in bringing fairness and credibility to the scheme?3443Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have made a number of statements about this and I have been asked a number of questions. I remain of the view that, taken in isolation, the superannuation arrangements for members of parliament throughout Australia are by community standards generous—taken in isolation. It is also the case that, taken in isolation, the remuneration of people holding high political office in this country does not compare favourably, does not compare well, indeed, with the remuneration of people who hold high positions in the media, in business or indeed in many other walks of life.I have expressed the view that I think many people in public life, given the commitment that they make—and this applies to men or women irrespective of their political parties and irrespective of whether they are in state or federal government—work well beyond their remuneration. But I think it is also realistic to say that it will ever be thus, and anybody who imagines that you are ever going to have the same approach to salaries in public life as exists in commerce, in the media or in sport for that matter are deluding themselves. Most men and women do not go into public life for the money. They go into it because they have certain attitudes and values and beliefs. That is a point of view that is probably not as widely shared in the community as it ought to be, but I think it is nonetheless a fair statement of the situation.I have never ruled out, nor has the government ever ruled out, further examination of parliamentary superannuation arrangements, and in particular the matter to which the honourable member refers. I know it is seen by the public and seen by others as the most prominent and obvious of the criticisms that can be made. I remind the honourable member—I am sure he is aware of this—that the contributions that are made by members of parliament to their retirement arrangements are in percentage terms much higher than the contributions made by many other people. I think that is also something that has to be borne in mind.I will be perfectly candid with the honourable gentleman—he asked the question knowing full well that I have expressed this view before—that I think the absence of the 55 trigger age is a source of natural criticism. But I would ask him and I would ask others who want to look at this thing objectively to not just look at one element of it but to take into account the total remuneration package which is made available. The oft quoted example that I have used has been brought into very sharp relief in recent weeks because of the retirement of the chief executive of one of the major trading banks in Australia. I offer no criticism of that man; I think he did a magnificent job with the Westpac Bank. But it is interesting to compare the remuneration of the chief executive of the Westpac Bank and the remuneration at the National Australia Bank, or indeed other banks, with the remuneration of the man who in my government is charged with the responsibility of the financial system, the federal Treasurer. That observation could have been made, I am prepared to concede, when the former govern ment was in office as well. I think these things ought to be borne in mind.I understand the interest of the honourable gentleman in these issues. They are important issues, and we have to justify ourselves. I do not offer any criticism of the honourable member for asking the question. I just ask that all honourable members, when they are dealing with these issues, take everything into account and bear in mind that there are people of quality in national life on both sides of politics who make a lifelong commitment to building a better Australia, according to their vision of what represents a better Australia, and, when you compare their remuneration with that of people in the media, in business and in sport, I do not think you can say, as to the best of them, both men and women, Labor, Liberal and National alike, that they are over-remunerated.34443444Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of the extensive traffic delays that have occurred recently on the Sydney-Newcastle F3 Freeway? What action has the government taken to minimise these delays, and why were these initiatives not in place over the busy summer holiday period?3444Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his vigorous advocacy of the transport needs of his constituents on the Central Coast. He never ceases to raise these matters with me, and certainly I am committed to doing what I can to help him.The F3 is a vitally important link, of course, and part of the national highway network. It provides a commuter link between Sydney and the Central Coast and—on up the road—to Newcastle and so forth. Some 38,000 cars a day now use that, which must be a massive increase since the freeway was first begun in 1963. It forms the main northbound artery from the city for holiday traffic as well, and this became a particular focus of difficulty during the recent Christmas holidays. Anyone who travelled that freeway in January, as the member would well know, and was caught up in one of several traffic jams up to 20 kilometres long, involving in some cases delays of up to 16 hours, will know how much frustration there was over the whole thing. It would, no doubt, anger the member for Robertson's constituents and others who were caught in those jams to know that they were basically unnecessary. The Commonwealth agreed to fund the variable messaging system that was wanted when it wrote to the New South Wales minister in June of 1997.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—It's the national highway.4K4Mr ANDERSON—That's right.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—It's the national highway—you pay for it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Melbourne.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We did. We put up the money for a signage system and the New South Wales government has not done anything with it.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will not warn the member for Melbourne again. The minister has the call.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Our commitment to the road cannot be doubted. Well over a billion dollars has been committed to that road over recent years. To deal with this problem of inadequate signage we put up $10 million and we find that, some months down the road, nothing has been done with it. A great deal of that frustration could easily have been avoided.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Auditor-General's Reports3444344410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 1998-99—No. 32—Performance audit—Agency management of parliamentary workflow and No. 33—Audit activity report: July to December 1998—Summary of outcomes .Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents34453445Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Telecommunications Carrier Industry Development Plans—Progress report;Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration December 1998;Supporting Applications of Issues form the Advances to the Minster for Finance and Administration during December 1998;Advances to the Minister for Finance and Administration January 1999;Supporting Applications of Issues form the Advances to the Minster for Finance and Administration during January 1999;Australia and the IMF Annual Report;Australian and the Asian Development Bank Report;Australia and the World Bank Annual Report; andReview of the ACCC Annual Report 1997-98—Government response.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance3445344510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of this government to honour commitments given by its ministers.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:12:003445Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We have had occasion in this parliament over the last few months to refer to the overweening arrogance and sense of hubris which has pervaded the government benches since the last election when they managed to scrape back into office with the support of 48½ per cent of Australians. This was one of the poorest election results for a government in a considerable period of time and it came at the end of a record swing against a first-term government. It did not seem to us that they had a great deal to boast about.They have basked in the product of hard, tough decisions taken by the Labor Party when we were in office over a lengthy period of time, which at the beginning of their government they were prepared to fess up to when the Prime Minister had to say that he inherited an economy better than good in parts. He has basked in a productivity improvement which is entirely a product of the enterprise bargaining arrangements that we put in place and which—in securing the wage rises that workers have been able to and therefore generate a bit of consumption off it—have secured the underpinnings of contemporary growth, growth based essentially on consumption but with those important indicators related to investment tailing off. So the picture that they present is a picture of having got growth back to a level that they inherited based on decisions largely taken by Labor governments over the previous 13 years—tough, hard decisions that we took and for which we paid ultimately a substantial electoral penalty.They have been the beneficiaries of that and, being beneficiaries of that, they have no right to the arrogance—nobody has any right to arrogance anyway—and hubris they have displayed. But that arrogance and hubris is a characteristic which I suppose is exposed, generally speaking, only to us here in this place. Occasionally it seeps out with the little things and the big things that we are all prepared to acknowledge here—and the cartoonists do an even more effective job than we could ever hope to do in this place with it.But what this government is not entitled to, in any shape or form, is its massive deceit. The government has only itself to blame for what it experienced in the Senate last night. Government ministers have been in here in question time today complaining about the fact that they were ignominiously defeated in the Senate last night on their workplace relations bill in relation to youth wages. They have been grizzling and fussing in this place all question time on that fact.The Labor Party has 28 out of 76 seats in the Senate; the Liberal Party and the National Party have 37. It requires grand scale incompetence for this government to lose a vote in the Senate—either grand scale incompetence or a behaviour that so massively annoys the minor parties and the Independents that they feel themselves constrained in dealing with the government. Over the last few years the government have been very well treated by Senator Harradine. He has been prepared to give them a great deal of ice to skate on. From time to time he has been prepared to acknowledge, in passage through parliament, things which in his own conscience he could not support but for which he has sought some guarantee of amelioration from the government in order that he could permit the government to go on and implement the policies that they particularly wanted to implement. He has been massively betrayed in exactly the same way that this country has been massively betrayed.Let me go to the issue of what happened with the youth wages bill. We on this side of the House all know that wages are going to be competency based and that, when you base wages on competency, experience is going to come into it and at the end of the day competency based wages are going to produce something like a youth wages outcome. It stands to reason that that will occur.In dealing with the Democrats and Senator Harradine when these matters were considered previously, the government said to them that they would not introduce anything in relation to youth wages until they had seen the Industrial Relations Commission report on the matter—a report they sought as part of the underpinnings of the legislation they put through. The high dudgeon now being expressed by Harradine and by the Democrats in relation to this is because that was a promise betrayed. They also know why it was betrayed, because they have had access since then to the strategies of the minister concerned. They have had access to what he intends to do about industrial relations generally, employment policies generally and the conduct of his portfolio generally. What they have had portrayed for them is massive deceit.When it comes to the issue of what to do with the middle-aged unemployed, they suggest that you just badge them—you take the middle-aged unemployed, you stick a badge on their lapels, you tell them you are doing something for them and then you stick them back on the pile. That is what you do for them; that is their philosophy. When you say you are going to defend the proposition that no worker is going to be worse off, what you do is then prepare to bring into place an attitude, a policy and legislation in relation to awards in which every time a person changes jobs from this point on they lose their award protection. That is there sitting in their policy. And when they say they believe there ought to be an underpinning to wages, proud of the fact that the Industrial Relations Commission over their screaming objection has put in place a small remunerative increase for the lowest paid workers, they then say in their document that they are going to introduce policies and legislation in a manner that eliminates the capacity of the Industrial Relations Commission to put that in place. That is part of the deceit when they say that no Australian worker is going to be worse off.When they say to the Senate that they are going to ensure that there is genuine value in the goods and services tax compensation package, what do they say in Mr Reith's letter? They say, `When we cut wages we will also cut the family benefits that we say are absolutely central to the goods and services tax compensation arrangements.'The simple fact of the matter is this: individual senators have come to believe that the word of this government cannot be relied on in any circumstances, that when they are given undertakings those undertakings are not worth the paper they are written on, that you have situational ethics in this government writ large, that the values of this government do not incorporate honesty with the people with whom they deal and honesty with the Australian people, that as far as this government is concerned what you say on the day is good enough and you hope like heck that 12 months from now when something else comes on the table you will just simply be able to wash it away.We had another example of the Prime Minister in this regard here. Senator Harradine is a believing man. Senator Harradine is prepared to take what is said to him at face value. And when the Prime Minister said something to him as he put through that common youth allowance—which has been so extraordinarily discriminatory against young Australians in regional Australia and which has posed such enormous problems for so many young people across this country when combined with the difficulties that have emerged with what they have done with Centrelink—Senator Harradine, knowing that there would be great difficulties arising from this, nevertheless gave a tick to pass it through the Senate. What has this government done with that promise? The promise that was made to him was that they would see taxation relief in the family area explicitly related to this. And they have seen none whatsoever—nix, nil, nought, nothing.Senator Harradine knows this because he has been sitting on those GST committees. He knows that the compensation package that has been put in place has the support of no experts in this community in regard to the government's principal claim for it that it will make up for the cost of price rises associated with the GST. He knows that that compensation package is meaningless. So, when the Prime Minister came in here today and said, `That compensation package is what in fact implements my promise to you on the common youth allowance,' Harradine's response to that is to say, `Go and tell it to the Marines.'He knows exactly what the government intend with that compensation package when they come next to consider their industrial relations legislation of the future—concealed from the people of this country until we were prepared to expose it in this place. He knows that that inadequate compensation package will not even deal, as far as he is concerned, with the offsets in relation to the GST. He knows that it is not even remotely going to be there after those industrial relations changes go through and that it in no way relates to anything to do with the common youth allowance.He has also had other bitter experiences, and they relate to the Telstra legislation when he was offered a series of promises. What he has discovered since then is that services to rural and regional Australia have declined since partial privatisation. One of the promises made to him related to the Hobart Work Management Centre. He has since discovered that that centre has been closed, with the loss of 25 jobs. The government has still not included any criteria for the proposed inquiry into Telstra performance in its legislation. Although they said that there would be a proper study of Telstra before they proceeded to a further privatisation, they have included within their budget the numbering, which indicates that that is a foregone conclusion.Senator Harradine knows, and every senator now knows, that the government made statements during the election campaign that they had done modelling on the goods and services tax which indicated that the effect on employment was going to be beneficial, that they had modelling that indicated that their compensation package was sufficient. After the exposures in the goods and services tax committee, it is amply evident that no modelling took place, as effectively claimed by both the Treasurer and before him the Treasury officials. Now the committee has come out and stated that those undertakings, those suggestions, those promises that were made by the Treasurer during his appearance in the election campaign on goods and services tax matters before the Press Club about what the government had done were simply dishonest.What has happened is that the likely impact on the economy of the goods and services tax has again been concealed. There was the suggestion that it would create growth, but all of the conservative modellers—the people actually modelling it—are now coming in and saying that there is no growth in this. Any growth in jobs? There are no jobs in this. There was an undertaking that there would be no GST on education, but there will be a GST on school uniforms and excursions—a whole plethora of activities associated with a goods and services tax.We were told that there would be no problems for the charities, yet there are to be taxes on every conceivable area of charitable activity. We were told that there would be no problems for local governments, but there will be a tax on access to swimming pools, on access to maintenance and on a whole range of services that local government performs. It is no wonder that this Senate is beginning to massively distrust this government.The Senate knows something else, particularly in relation to this youth wages question. The Senate knows that what was being said by Reith in that now infamous letter to the Prime Minister was that he was going to position the Senate for bogus confrontation. That is what his intention was. That is the explanation for why he broke his promise that there would be no consideration of youth wages until the IRC had considered it. That is why he seeks now to provoke the Senate in relation to unfair dismissals. That is why he seeks to manufacture an explanation for breaching a whole range of promises associated with awards, promises about opportunities for people in unemployment and promises dealing with issues about unemployment in this country.He knows that every senator knows that they are simply being positioned for effect. This has nothing to do with serious policy and everything to do with a government electoral strategy and everything to do with a political strategy to gut the Senate. Well, we are on to you and you are now paying the penalty. (Time expired)15:27:003448Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—What a miserable effort, without any animation whatsoever. I watched the body language of the members of the opposition: they were like tombstones in a country cemetery. I watched the member for Kingsford-Smith and he was hiding his face behind his hands, and that is what this matter of public importance is about. It has nothing to do with what hap pened in the Senate. It has nothing to do with broken promises from government ministers. It is all about leadership and the fact that the Labor leader has lost the control of his party, lost the support of his troops. He is standing up here to try to gain some of that back. Well, today, he failed. I watched very closely what was going on on the opposition benches and he did not have the support of his troops. I thought it was rather an unanimated performance, quite frankly.The Leader of the Opposition has an absolute gall to stand up in this parliament and talk about broken promises by government ministers. He is the grand wizard of broken promises. We have heard time and time again in this parliament about some of the performances. I recall very clearly my first election to this place when there was a great debate about the position of the Australian economy at that time and about the budget and whether it was in balance. The Leader of the Opposition was asked quite clearly by the media—he was certainly put in that place by the then opposition—to come clean with the Australian people about the position with the budget. He very clearly said, `We are in surplus.' Of course, it is now history that he was not telling the truth, that the budget was in fact in serious trouble, and by the time the election was over the deficit was $10.3 billion.It is very interesting to look back on some of the comments that have come out of the Labor Party. I was very interested to see the rewriting of history recently—the Labor Party is very good at rewriting history. Gough Whitlam, since he lost the position of Prime Minister and left the parliament, has attempted to rewrite history. Of course, the member for Kingsford-Smith decided that that history was not quite correct and that he was going to correct some of the anomalies in the history put forward by Mr Whitlam.I also listened with interest to the speech given by a former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, that was on television the other night, and to his comments about the member for Kingsford-Smith. A comment I heard many, many years ago came back to me—that you have to accept one thing about Gough Whitlam: he is acerbic. And he certainly was acerbic on that particular night; he left no stone unturned in letting the people know exactly what he thought of the member for Kingsford-Smith.It is also interesting when you go back to people like Graham Richardson. Graham Richardson had a comment to make about Labor's record and the $1.3 billion deficit that was left to this government. This is a quote from Graham Richardson:It is a fact that he was finance minister—That is, Mr Beazley—during the Keating years. I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe that Beazley knew of the size of the deficit that Labor left the incoming Howard government in 1996. His claim that Treasury had given the Keating ministry a set of false figures just doesn't ring true. There is little doubt he is still doing what he would see as the honourable thing. He is protecting Paul Keating. He can't bring himself to admit that Keating instructed him and his colleagues to say nothing of their fears of a budget blow-out.It is very clear that the Leader of the Opposition is still carrying on that false argument. He left this country an enormous deficit. He will not own up to the fact that that was a statement he made that was dishonest, yet he comes into this parliament and tries to attack this government about broken promises.I listened with some interest to some of the argument that the Leader of the Opposition put up. One thing he did not address—and I believe that the Australian people need to see through it—is the role of the Senate in this particular system of government. As far as I understand it, the role of the Senate is to look at legislation. It certainly is there to protect states' rights—that was right at the core of the constitutional matters at the time—but it was not put there to govern, and it certainly was not put there to be a house of disruption. And that is what it is at the present time.At every turn, the Labor Party are aiding and abetting the Democrats and the Independents in the Senate to knock back legislation that the government has approval for from the people to put through this parliament. There is no doubt in my mind that they cannot accept that the Australian people have rejected them. The people have rejected them out of hand and they cannot accept that. The lower house is the people's house yet the opposition are trying to govern through the Senate.They stand up here today and talk about the Democrats as if they are an independent party. We must have rocks in our heads if we believe that the Democrats are an independent party: they are another branch of the Labor Party. There is no doubt about that. Have a look at the former leader of the Democrats. She could not get across to the Labor Party quick enough—and kicked some of these people into the back stalls of course.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—They love her.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I can tell you that they do not love her at all, because she has kicked some of them out. Where was she from? She was from the Democrats. I think that Senator Harradine wants to look very closely at his position. When I go around Australia and talk to people, they are disgusted with the performance of Senator Harradine in the Senate because he was elected on very few votes in this country. Have a look at Tasmania: it has fewer than 400,000 people and 12 senators. You want to have a very good look at the influence that Senator Harradine is having on this parliament with his position.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—What about Senator Colston?4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Don't talk about Senator Colston. You knew all about Senator Colston and you did nothing about it. The Leader of the Opposition knew all about Senator Colston and he did nothing about it. The Leader of the Opposition also knows what Senator Bolkus is like and he does nothing about it. The Leader of the Opposition has no leadership qualities because he cannot control the people on his side of the parliament. If you have a look at what the Prime Minister has done on this side of the parliament, I can tell you that he has certainly done his job—sometimes we think probably too fiercely. But the Leader of the Opposition does nothing.Let us have a look also at the reason for this particular debate in the Senate. There is no doubt that if you go to the Australian people and talk to small business—if you are not a member of the Australian Labor Party or the union movement—then you will hear from business what the real problem is with regard to employment. They will tell you very, very clearly that they are absolutely terrified of the Brereton unfair dismissal laws. They are absolutely terrified, and people will not employ because they know that there is an unfair dismissal case waiting to happen in most of these instances.At the same time, if you talk to small business they will clearly tell you the advantages of a youth wage. I know from experience with friends that I grew up with that they started in some of these businesses at a low rate. They were on a youth wage and they got experience. With that experience they were able to carry on in that business, and they are still there today because they had the opportunity to get a start. But the Labor Party do not agree with that because the union movement will not let them agree with it. We have seen the percentages; we know the numbers on the other side.But, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you have a look at the spouses of the members on the other side, you will see that the situation is even worse. The Labor Party are the most incestuous group of people you have ever come across, because if they are not union representatives their spouses are, and they are absolutely controlled by the union movement. They have no independent thinking. They have no idea of business. They certainly do not speak to business, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition has no ability to speak with business.The Leader of the Opposition raised interest rates. I thought that it was rather interesting when the Treasurer today indicated some of the performances of the Labor Party in government. At the time that the interest rates went to those extraordinary and disgraceful levels, I was a member of the New South Wales parliament. I can tell you about the businesses that were destroyed and the lives that were destroyed by that cynical exercise by the Labor Party. You would not believe the people that came through my door. The mortgage rates paid by young couples were going up every month—up, and further up, to 17 per cent and 18 per cent. (Quorum formed)The member for Kingsford-Smith is busy rewriting Labor history, but there is one thing he has never denied, and that is the fact that he pinched the ballot box on the back of his motorbike when Paul Keating was beaten by the left-wing candidate in the preselection for Bankstown. He has never denied it. So that is where he gets involved. As I said, interest rates destroyed lives and businesses. There are still businesses today that have had to reschedule their debts, and they are still battling because of the sheer incompetency of the Labor Party in government.The Leader of the Opposition also raised the matter of Telstra, and Senator Harradine's attitude to Telstra. I would like to say that the whole problem with Telstra started with Labor in government. They were the ones who introduced the competition policy. They were the ones who allowed Optus and Vodafone to come in as competitors. But they did not have the business acumen to know how to set it up. There is no doubt in the wide world that if the reticulation system of Telstra had been corporatised separate from Telstra itself, you would have got some true competition. That is where the problem lies. It was because of Labor that it all occurred. Now if we do not privatise Telstra, then it cannot compete. There is no doubt in my mind that it is Labor who has burdened the bush with the problems.The only way to overcome that now is in the same way as you overcome the payment of the transport costs in the city. The city does not pay for its transport costs. Coming from a state government, I am well aware of that from the Booz-Allen report. But there is a CSO, a community service obligation, that is paid to cover the costs of city transport, and it should be the same for telecommunications in the bush. If it were done that way, you could get some true competition instead of this rubbish coming from the other side that says you cannot privatise Telstra. You started it. You have to agree that the government should finish it now, otherwise Telstra will just go down the gurgler; it will not be able to compete. I think that is something that the Leader of the Opposition should get away from, this hypocrisy, and start to deal with the facts in these particular issues.There is no doubt that this motion today is all about bluff—it is all about the fact that the leadership on the other side is under threat. We have literary opinions coming from members of the other side. We have the member for Kingsford-Smith openly challenging the leadership. There is no doubt at all that that is what this is all about. It is a bluff, smoke and mirrors, if you like, to cover up the real cracks that are appearing in the opposition Labor Party.As far as the Senate is concerned, I think they need to look very closely at the policies that were taken to the people by this government. Under the Westminster tradition, this is the government; the government is formed in the lower house. The government took its policies to the people, and the Senate should take note of that.15:42:003451O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—It is a pleasure to follow the member for Page. Talk about serving me up dorothy dixers! I will have great fun dealing with them. The genesis of today's debate, which is really highlighting the fact that so many government ministers are now dishonouring commitments that have been given to the community, lies of course with the Prime Minister himself. Who can forget the statement of 2 May 1995 in which he said:A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition Policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.The Prime Minister of the country cannot keep a commitment to the Australian people as blunt as that—and it does not just lie there. Remember the promise that `no Australian would be worse off' under changes to industrial relations legislation? Remember the promise that `Fightback is dead'? Remember the promise of `Jobsback', the grand plan to create more jobs by reducing wages, built on the theory that if workers cost less employers will employ more of them?That was the philosophic basis behind Jobsback when John Howard was shadow minister for industrial relations. What do we have now in what Kim Beazley correctly referred to as the `infamous Peter Reith document'? It is simply a rerun of Jobsback; it is a rerun of that whole policy. In fact, in the letter he goes so far as quoting the architect of that policy, Dr Des Moore, who said that if you lower wages `it will create a further 500,000 jobs in the Australian economy'. They actually believe this. They know very well that the wage structure is a pyramid and that that pyramid has sitting on the top of it a few people, like Bob Joss, retiring Managing Director of the Westpac bank—who was referred to at question time by the Prime Minister—on his multimillion dollar salary. It has a few people at the top and lots of people down at the bottom half of the pyramid.What happens to a pyramid if you pull the bricks out of the bottom layer? The whole pyramid settles down, particularly for the people in the bottom one-third. That is what this is all about: another broken promise. Remember the words, `No Australian will be worse off'? Now we are back here in this parliament proposing that wages for unemployed people be discounted and proposing that, under the name of `wage flexibility', the wages of the lowest paid and least powerful people in our community be further discounted. We are seeing trend after trend set in place by this Prime Minister. Remember the gradual moves from promises to core promises to non-core promises? Remember the promise, `We are going to lift the standards of parliament'? Within three years the conflict of interest rules have been so watered down that no minister will ever be accused of being in breach of any conflict of interest rules because there simply aren't any.The genesis of today's matter of public importance—the breaching of promises and the ongoing breaking of commitments made to the Australian people—lies with the Prime Minister himself. It has arisen not just today, not just since the election, but from the day he made that commitment in his statement in 1995 that the GST or anything resembling it was no longer coalition policy. All he did was wait until he was in government to break promise after promise. So we reach the point today where this will now become an ongoing saga. As a result of the Senate having rejected his proposal for youth wages, we will now start to hear the reasons why the job situation in Australia cannot be fixed. If the Senate blocks the Telstra legislation, we will start to hear why the money cannot be spent in regional Australia on the telecommunications system, and there will be all the other reasons that will flow as a result of—as the Leader of the Opposition said a few minutes ago—`these incompetent failures' to negotiate through the Senate.Let us talk briefly about this failure to negotiate through the Senate. The member for Page said that the Senate has become `a house of disruption.' You now have a government almost in apoplexy about the fact that the minor parties in the Senate side with the opposition and block their proposals. Big deal! What do they think happened in 1972 when Whitlam was in office? I ask them to go back and get for us the long list of legislation brought forward by Whitlam that was blocked by them in the upper house, breaking Sir Robert Menzies' own adage. Menzies himself said, `The upper house was never meant to frustrate government.' They were the words of their own spiritual leader.Yet Whitlam was forced to a double dissolution in 1974 because of the constant blocking of his legislation by an opposition that controlled the numbers. We saw a government pulled down by the blocking of supply in the upper house in 1975. Where was John Howard in all of this? At that time he was a junior backbencher learning the ropes—and learn them he did. In the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments, just about every single achievement was accomplished not by an opposition agreeing to support legislation in the Senate but by a government having to negotiate, with the Democrats and the Greens, every single compromise through the Senate.One of the two most dramatic changes in the economy was the huge lift in skills and standards driven by the training guarantee levy. This was opposed by that other mob as `a tax on jobs', yet that huge lift in skills came about through negotiation with the Democrats in the Senate to bring that legislation into effect. The other dramatic change was the huge rise in the size of superannuation funds in Australia. How did the fact that we now have a capital base that has allowed us to wean ourselves off foreign borrowings come into being? It came into being with the superannuation guarantee charge. That was opposed by the other side all the way through the Senate. They always called it `a tax on jobs', but it was negotiated by compromise.So what is this squealing about having to go to the Senate and negotiate a mandate? It may be a problem, but they are the architects of it. They have to understand that that is part of the process.In the couple of minutes left to me I will go straight to the Telstra issue. This will now become serious because this government will now breach all the undertakings that were made to regional Australia about forcing Telstra to invest in upgrading the mobile phone system and about forcing Telstra to put in place satellite networks to make it possible to provide proper communications outside the CBD areas. They will now renege on every one of those commitments. They will blame the Senate, they will blame Labor, they will blame Senator Harradine, and they will say that without that privatisation these things are not possible.Let me say one thing about all of this. In Victoria—where the government has the numbers and has done all of the things that the Institute of Public Affairs has set as the agenda—the privatisations have been done, public servants have been sacked and they have got rid of the debt, but the jobs record in Victoria under the Kennett government shows that the unemployment rate has been higher than the national average for 72 of 75 months. The policy has not created jobs. This policy of privatisation will not create jobs. You will now be held to account for these promises you deceitfully made to regional Australia as we campaign in the seats and tell the truth about what has gone on.15:52:003452Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I always enjoy following the member for Burke. The retrospective on the Labor years underlines how they cannot get out of living in the past. The coalition government has now won two elections since the people of Austral ia threw out the government which the member for Burke is so keen to eulogise.He went one step further and tried to eulogise the Cain and Kirner years in Victoria. In that respect, he must be on a stage all of his own. The reason why the Cain and Kirner governments were thrown out was that they had just about ruined the great state of Victoria. The Kennett government, and the fine team of men and women that Jeff Kennett leads, have done a great job in bringing Victoria back to the forefront of opportunity in this country.The MPI which the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward today is quite simply an act of desperation and hypocrisy. It is an act of desperation by an opposition leader with his use-by date fast approaching. He leads a rabble riddled with division. The division is festering on the Labor benches, in the drift and indecision that characterise Kim Beazley's lack of leadership.Just look around the Labor benches. He presides over a bunch of prima donnas battling one another for their own place in history. The ambitious individuals with a very keen eye on their own career prospects put out their works, put out their ideas, because they know that there is no place for ideas in the Labor Party today. It is a policy void where anyone with ideas needs to shop them around in the media or produce a book to get them out there, because there is no place for ideas in the Labor Party.The member for Brand's idea of political activism is to wait to simply exploit the reactions of a few people to government initiatives and the coalition's vision that has been endorsed by the electorate. No ideas, no alternative plan for the future—just the single, short-term political tactic of feeding off the crumbs of day-to-day political discourse and whatever the papers happen to dish up.This MPI is evidence of all of these facts, and there will be more evidence tomorrow, when all that the Labor Party can do is trawl over the newspapers to try to work out some short-term political tactic. It is no wonder that commentators and, if we believe what is printed in the media, those within the Labor Party, are talking about who will be the Leader of the Opposition into the future. Who will be the successor to Kim Beazley and, more particularly, what might they stand for? That, in itself, would be quite an expedition for all of us. I am sure, just like those on this side of the House, that the Australian public has not seen anything that they could look at to understand what the Labor Party stands for. They have not stood up for anything other than to oppose the ideas and the vision for the future of the coalition government.You hear precious little, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the opposition about the big themes that occupy the minds of our nation. There is precious little about the concerns and future aspirations of ordinary Australians: jobs; home ownership; fair, affordable and responsive government activity; their general wellbeing, safety and personal security; tackling drugs and how their future fortunes and standards of living will be improved. There is nothing from the Labor Party about those issues.You also hear nothing from the Labor Party about the less obvious but extremely important policy questions that we as legislators, and hopefully leaders of our nation, need to discuss and put together some ideas about. You hear nothing from Labor about how we secure future prosperity from the opportunities in our country; how we improve our competitiveness in a world where nothing is reserved for Australia's personal benefit. You hear nothing from Labor about the impact of changing technologies in our lives, what is happening in business circles, changing relationships between people, and even our general health.You hear nothing from the opposition benches about the awesome challenges which parents and families face from the modern world and social change. You hear nothing about those matters. Substituted for discussion and discourse about these things are short-term political tactics, represented by today's MPI.What is Labor about in terms of the types of government services that we need and that we can afford, and how should we plan and pay for these into the future? You hear nothing about that. You hear nothing about the transformation of our local and global workplaces. You hear nothing about the shape and future capacities of our ageing population. Labor have nothing to say about health and the productiveness of our ecosystems. They have nothing to say about the impact of genetic manipulations and genetic pollution and the enormous dislocation that will be caused if we allow corporations to own genetic strings as intellectual property, even if they merely discover and describe the genetic make-up of a naturally occurring organism. They are important issues which are not at the forefront of people's minds. So you do not hear anything from those opposite about those things. Beazley Labor is nowhere on these questions and on the more obvious big issues facing this country. This is what causes the Leader of the Opposition's desperation.I mentioned hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition is also clearly evident in today's MPI. All you need to do is to compare his rantings a few moments ago with his own track record. He seems to rely on comments that have been made by disgruntled Senator Harradine and some second-hand reports from the Democrats, who feel that they are not quite getting their way.Let us look at the Beazley thesis. The Beazley thesis is that somehow elections do not matter; elections are just a passing event in the political landscape or, in the case of the Labor Party, in the internal struggles for domination within that side of politics. He thinks that elections do not matter. Let us look at youth wages. That was his key point. He said that youth wages underlined some concern about the government and its ministers not keeping their promises.Let us look at that matter. In the Workplace Relations Bill, we put in an extension to the youth wages provisions that had been left to us by the former Labor government. That was part of the package; it was an important jobs measure for young people. We heard from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business today that he is anticipating, in the building industry alone, 6,000 more jobs from having youth job wages available in that industry. So we put that in the Workplace Relations Bill—a bill that was passed, coloured by the Australian Democrats, through an agreement that was negotiated between the Democrats and the government.What has happened with that agreement? It has been fully implemented in every respect. But now we are going back to revisit this agreement. People are pointing to elements of the agreement that were not breached at all as somehow being evidence that the government has not kept its word. That is wrong. The workplace relations agreement negotiated between the Democrats and Minister Reith has been fully implemented. In addition, the government initiated a report from the Industrial Relations Commission about the future of youth wages beyond the year 2000.Coming back to the Beazley thesis that elections do not matter, we actually had an election in the meantime. And, doing what governments and any responsible political movement should do, we put our pitch to the electorate. We put a comprehensive package of policies to the electorate, one of which was a commitment to maintain youth wages. It was an explicit election commitment that the government entered into with the Australian people. And what are we trying to do now? What is our sin? What is our crime? Trying to implement a policy commitment. That is our crime—that the government wants to implement what it went to the electorate with. It was a manifesto commitment that was supported by the electorate. And our crime, so charged by the Leader of the Opposition, is that all we want to do is implement that commitment.Let us just work through Opposition Leader Beazley's thinking here. If elections do not matter and something that has been said by a minister prior to an election is the only thing that counts, where is Labor on tax? When he was part of the Labor government before the last election, they stood up at one point and said, `If the GST is passed by the Australian people, we'll vote with it.' According to the Beazley thesis where elections do not matter, a minister from the ALP said, when in government, that if a GST were passed by the Australian community Labor would vote with it. They might have happened to have another view down the line but, under the Beazley thesis, that does not matter. Ministers, an ALP Prime Minister—the whole Labor movement—said, `If a tax reform GST is supported by the Australian people, we will vote with it.' Where are they now? That is the Beazley thesis that underlines the hypocrisy in this MPI today and the Labor Party's position.But I could go on even further. I have got a whole list of things that Labor said they would not do if they were re-elected, and they did: the Commonwealth Bank, the airlines—there are just so many of them. There was the l-a-w tax cut. That was not just said by a minister; it was passed by the parliament. We dipped out on that as well. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. It is easy to understand why the Leader of the Opposition is in such a difficult and desperate situation that he needs to make political capital out of these things.In my closing remarks I plead with Senator Harradine to look at what the electorate said. Senator Harradine attracted a primary vote which was a little over half the primary vote I attracted—one member of the House of Representatives. He got 0.2 per cent of the primary vote in this country. If Senator Harradine wants to mark his place in history, why doesn't he get behind the government's plan to make Australia a better place for all of us into the future, underline the success of this nation under a Howard government and set it up for the future? Why doesn't he make that his mark in history?I have met Senator Harradine. I enjoy his company. But I am concerned that he is overplaying his hand in this regard. He attracted a bit over half the primary vote that I attracted in the federal seat of Dunkley. I try hard not to question the legitimacy of Senator Harradine's view, but I have to point out that the vast bulk of Australian people have voted on these issues. Senator Harradine, do not leave as your mark in history a reason to reform the Senate. Support the government's program. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Committees34553455345510000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 22 March 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 22 March 1999Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 22 March 1999. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Final report on Multilateral Agreement on Investment.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 25 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.2 NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on communications to the external territories.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.3 ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on alternative means of providing banking and like services in regional and remote Australia.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within the time remaining prior to 1.45 p.m. Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mrs 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.2Mr 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.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Pyne to move:That the House:(1) condemns the inappropriate use of resources by some student unions;(2) opposes students being forced to fund student union political activity as a prerequisite for entry to university;(3) acknowledges that all citizens, including students, should be free to choose whether or not they want to belong to a union; and(4) notes the contribution that responsive and responsible student unions can make to university campuses.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Business3456Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 be returned from the Main Committee to the House for further consideration. Miscellaneous3456Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998 Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Bills3456r7173456Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.16:05:003456Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 introduces a number of measures announced in the budget which have not been dealt with previously. The bill contains 11 schedules dealing with a diverse range of issues. There are some, although not many, beneficial measures in the bill, and we welcome these. Others are technical in nature, correcting loopholes, inconsistencies and drafting errors. There are, however, measures in this bill that reveal the true colours of this government; a government that, despite its hollow rhetoric and its plastic populism, actively promotes welfare dependency. This government is not serious about getting people off welfare and into work. It is all talk and no action.Some weeks ago we saw Minister Reith's secret plan that revealed that, between 1990 and 1998, the number of people on allowances for longer than six months had risen by 357,700 to 546,000. That is an increase of 200 per cent which the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business included in his secret agenda. As the weeks go by, so does the prospect of those people finding work. They are being denied the opportunity to stand on their own two feet to support themselves and support their families. They are desperate to find a job. They need help, but it is not forthcoming.Since coming into office this government has put up barriers to employment. It has abolished labour market programs and disbanded the CES, replacing it with the failed Job Network. And now we have the GST, a regressive tax that will only destroy jobs and provide no incentive for people to get off welfare and into work.The Prime Minister is a little bit like a lifesaver who sees swimmers in a rip, turns his back and says, `Oh, it is good to see people out there keeping fit!' The swimmers are the unemployed—obviously in need of help—but this government has thrown them into the rip offering no way out, no life raft and no way back to shore. The government talks about mutual obligation, partnerships, cooperation and social contracts, but actions speak louder than words. The reality is that the Prime Minister's mutual obligation is a one-way street. The government is welshing on its end of the bargain.Clearly, the scale of welfare escalation under this government is unprecedented. These are the undeniable facts: the proportion of long-term unemployed is increasing. More than one in three of all unemployed people have been out of work for longer than 12 months, and people are spending longer on unemployment benefits under the coalition—seven weeks longer, in fact. All the while, the government is letting these people languish on benefits, they are becoming less skilled by the week and they are further eroding their employability.There can be little doubt this government's policies have directly led to rising levels of welfare dependency and, if the GST gets through, matters will only be made worse—rubbing salt into an already infected wound. This government has done nothing to provide incentives for people to move from welfare to work, and measures contained in this bill—and many other government policies—make claims of a concern for the transition from welfare to work into nothing but a cruel hoax. Once again, it is all talk and no action.This government has left the long-term unemployed out to dry. Sure, it has come up with the plastic populism of a few cosmetic programs. We have 6,700 people working for the dole. That is bandaid help for just one in 27 of the 180,000 young unemployed. The fact that there are just 108 takers for the 12,000 literacy places reveals the extent of the government's failure to get Centrelink and the Job Network doing their job properly. I know the member opposite, the honourable member for O'Connor, is a critic of what the government has been doing with Centrelink and would agree with that particular point.Of course, there is also the GST. The government is making the taxpayer pay more. This is because the real price of the GST is a massive blow-out again in welfare spending. Whilst the compensation measures are inadequate, they will result in significant additional expenditure and the price of that compensation will not be enough to stop a growth in poverty and despondency.The government's tax proposal leaves an unemployed person losing up to 70c of every dollar they earn over $140 per fortnight—an amount that becomes almost 90c in every dollar when you add income tax. And that is before they pay the 10 per cent GST on every dollar they spend. What kind of incentive is that? How does the government expect people to move from welfare to work with those sorts of disincentives?But there is more. Take the example of sole parents—a particularly cruel example of what the government is up to. A sole parent re ceives more money under the government's tax package if she does not work than if she goes out and finds a part-time job. How is that fair? A further 300,000 low income Australians will face tax rates of more than 80 per cent if the tax changes go through the Senate. How is this reducing poverty traps and providing real incentives for people to get off welfare and into work? This government does not understand that people should be clearly better off for working and that people should be rewarded for working—not penalised as a number of the measures in this bill do and as a number of measures in the tax package do as well.If we get into a situation where you can get as much on the dole as you can get in a low-paid job, we may as well give up and go home, because this government is not concerned with providing incentives. What it is concerned with is cutting welfare benefits and cutting wages, and the more it cuts wages the more it will cut welfare benefits. That is the hidden agenda of this government. It does not have a real concern for providing incentives for people to move from welfare to work.Unlike this government, Labor sees social security as an agreement between the taxpayer and the unemployed. The government is responsible for setting the terms of the agreement. The taxpayer has a right to make sure that their taxes actually do some good and that they are not wasted. And the unemployed want to get a job because this is the only way they will get back onto their feet. But the government has to make sure both objectives are met. The way to do this is to make sure that the unemployed are not languishing on benefits with their hands tied by a whole series of disincentives to move from welfare to work. The unemployed must be actively improving their skills so they can get a job from day one, and we need government measures to encourage that—not government measures contained in this bill and in the tax package which discourage that movement from welfare to work.In addition to this, we need to provide incentives in the tax system for people to get into the work force. The only genuine new idea on welfare reform that is on offer is Labor's proposal for tax credits. This is the way people are encouraged to work, without the price of poverty, crime and dependency. But this government, as I said before, continues to place barriers to people moving into employment.I will now deal with a number of the measures in this bill which typify the approach of this government which discourages, time and time again, the movement from welfare to work. Schedule 2 changes the income testing and other arrangements for participants in the Community Development Employment Project scheme, an ATSIC funded employment initiative for indigenous people. Currently, most CDEP recipients are not entitled to receive another social security benefit. For many people, this means they are worse off than if they were receiving a social security allowance, such as Newstart allowance, because they cannot access additional entitlements like rent assistance. The exception is sole parents, who can receive parenting payments. Any CDEP income is on top of this and is treated as ordinary income. This means the sole parents with CDEP income are better off than other CDEP participants.This bill proposes to make a number of changes, some of which adversely affect sole parents. While some of these measures improve the position of CDEP participants without children, sole parents will be much worse off. The amount by which sole parents will be worse off depends on their circumstances but for some it will be approaching $200 a fortnight. As pointed out in the memorandum to the bill, the changes to the treatment of CDEP participants who are not sole parents address the concerns raised in the Spicer report. It is of note, however, that the Spicer report did not actually recommend the specific changes proposed by this bill, although the report did adopt the principle that CDEP participants should be treated no less favourably than Work for the Dole participants and recommended that consideration be given to extending the $20 Work for the Dole supplement and other entitlements currently available to allowance recipients to CDEP participants. However, the Spicer report also adopted the following principles: firstly, that CDEP is a unique scheme in which participants work to achieve various outcomes for themselves and their community; and, secondly, CDEP participants should be treated no less favourably than low income earners. These principles suggest a different way of dealing with the inequities in the current system. If CDEP participants other than sole parents were treated in the same way as low income allowance recipients, they would be subject to the ordinary income test under which their entitlement to a social security allowance would not be affected by the first $60 per fortnight of their CDEP wage, but reduced for income over that amount.The net effect would be that some CDEP recipients who are not sole parents could remain entitled to a part allowance as well as additional entitlements like rent assistance. This is the more expensive option and the government, as usual, has taken the cheaper route of treating these CDEP participants in the same way as participants in the Work for the Dole scheme. You know the hallmark of this government: if it means investing in the future, if it means investing in people, educating them, training them—abolish it; get rid of it. That is the way the labour markets went and that is the mentality behind some of the changes in this legislation.Nevertheless, there are some proposals contained in the changes to the CDEP which will improve, marginally, the position of some CDEP participants, and that is fine. But the story for sole parents is very different, as I said before. Sole parents on the scheme are currently treated as low income earners and are able to keep a substantial part of their parenting payment. This bill proposes to treat them in a way which is just slightly better than work for the dole participants, but it represents a substantial decrease in their current entitlement. The government, again, has gone for the cheap option. Moving from welfare to work is expensive; it requires investment. The government is not prepared to do that. There are some very good reasons for not taking the approach outlined in respect of sole parents. It is for those reasons that we oppose those measures which affect sole parents.Part 1 of schedule 3 introduces a new refundable special employment advance of between $50 and $500. When you look at it, you say, `That sounds pretty good.' It is not until you get to part 2 of the schedule that you see what is really going on. Part 2 abolishes the non-refundable $100 employment entry payment and restricts the non-refundable education entry payment of $200 to pensioners. With the stroke of a pen, another small but very important measure, which encourages the movement from welfare to work, has been knocked out. Once again, the government has put its boot in and pushed down the most vulnerable sections of the community who should be encouraged to move from welfare to work or from welfare to education.The advance contained in part 1 is just a sweetener to soften the very bitter impact of part 2. What kind of a sweetener is it? To start with, the advance must be repaid in full. So they are getting rid of an advance and putting in a loan: it is just a loan. What's more, the loan is also subject to very strict conditions. To qualify, a person must either have earned income from casual work and had their social security entitlement reduced under the income test but have yet to receive income from that work, leaving them in extreme financial hardship; or, having received a definite offer of a job for at least six weeks, be unable to take up that offer because they lack the necessary financial resources. You have to be virtually destitute. A person will not be regarded as being in severe financial hardship unless the value of their liquid assets is less than two weeks worth of their social security entitlement.Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—The member opposite interjects. How would you understand if you spent most of your life with the winners in society and did not mix with the losers? That is the mentality of this government. The victims of this government's policies, the people that need a hand up, need such measures. You should not be coming along and ripping away $100 here or $200 there from some of the most vulnerable people in the community who need that assistance to move from welfare to work. It is just obscene that you could even contemplate putting a measure such as this in a bill and still pretend to believe in the principle of mutual obligation, which implies a two-way street. There is no mutual obligation under this government; it is just a one-way street. No measure demonstrates that more than this one.This advance would be available only when income from the employment in question would reduce the social security entitlement by at least 50 per cent. What sort of incentive is that? Hardly anyone will qualify and, if they do, they will have to pay back the money. This epitomises the government's approach to getting people off welfare and into work.The financial impact statement in the memorandum provides a fair indication of what the government is giving in return for abolishing and restricting the existing entry payments. The new advance is expected to cost—get this!—in the order of $1 million a year. That is a big encouragement for people to move from welfare to work! Getting rid of entry payments will save between $14 million and $18 million. It is the same story that we had with the abolition of the labour market programs, the abolition of the CES. Anything that is available to give people a helping hand is out completely. The unemployed are simply being sold a pup.This is the third time the government has tried to abolish the employment entry payment, and that is very significant because it demonstrates the government's bona fides on this measure. It is the third time the government has tried to restrict access to the education entry payment. On the first occasion it was defeated in the Senate and on the second the bill never got beyond its introduction, but it is back here again today. Labor's view of this issue has not changed. Abolishing and restricting the entry payments represents yet another reduction in the work and study incentives that are required. We will be opposing this measure.Schedule 4 of the bill introduces a new non-refundable crisis payment of an extra week's entitlement for people released from custody or fleeing their home because of extreme circumstances such as domestic violence. This appears to be one of the few genuinely beneficial measures in the bill and I welcome it.Schedule 5 alters the operation of the two-year newly arrived migrant waiting period so that it will apply to New Zealanders who currently wait only six or 12 months because of a clause in the social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand. This schedule also ensures that the waiting period must be served in Australia for all payment types. Under the existing provisions, migrants waiting to become entitled to certain types of payment, including Newstart allowance, can serve the bulk of the waiting period overseas. The current situation is open to abuse, allowing migrants to come into Australia with the expectation that they will return overseas to serve out the waiting period.Schedule 6 of the bill makes a number of technical changes to the treatment of social security recipients who live or travel overseas. The changes generally ensure that people residing overseas are treated consistently.Schedule 7 seeks to require Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients who look for work outside their local area to accept offers of work outside that area. Under current rules, an unemployed person is required to accept job offers where the work is within 90 minutes travelling time from their home. Failure to accept such work can result in reduced paymentSchedule 7 proposes to extend this so that, if a person seeks to work in an area that is more than 90 minutes travelling time from their home and is offered permanent full-time employment in that area, they will be required to accept the offer and a failure to do so can result in reduced payment. A person who has been seeking such out-of-area work may be exempted from this requirement in a number of circumstances including, among other things, where they are under 18 or over 50 years of age; they or their partner are pregnant; or they have a severe medical condition.I understand that the government's rationale for this proposal is that the current rules allow a person to satisfy the Newstart allowance requirements by applying for jobs outside their local area in the knowledge that they do not have to accept such jobs if they are offered. I can see some sense in that argument. I would note, however, that I am somewhat concerned that a person who knows that they may be punished if they seek out-of-area work and refuse an offer of such work might be discouraged from seeking employment further afield. I think that is a risk with this measure.Schedule 8 seeks to remove what is really a loophole in the provisions under which a person who moves to an area of lower employment prospects without sufficient reason is required to wait for 26 weeks before becoming entitled to Newstart or youth allowance. As the current rules apply only to Newstart allowance recipients, people can avoid the rule by moving to an area of lower employment prospects before applying for the allowance or by having their allowance cancelled and reapplying after the move. This schedule will close off this loophole by providing that the 26-week waiting period will apply from the day the person moved to the new area, whether or not they were receiving a Newstart or youth allowance on that day.The schedule also contains a measure that will change the rule by providing for reinstatement of the allowance when the person returns home or moves to another place where employment prospects are not lower than those in their original home. We are not opposed to this change in principle; however, I do have some concerns, particularly about people who move to an area of lower employment prospects and then apply for a Newstart or youth allowance for the first time.My concern is that most people in this kind of situation, who may never have had any dealings with the social security system, will have no idea that they will be penalised in this way. It is all very well to say that they should have informed themselves of the situation before moving, but this is just not realistic. And if they tried to ring Centrelink, we all know that they had an 81 per cent chance of not getting through. The conditions this government has created mean that it is very difficult for anyone out there to be informed of anything—given the gridlock that is occurring within Centrelink.While the proposed measure allowing reinstatement of the allowance if the person returns home may be of some assistance, returning home may be easier said than done. For example, a person might make commitments in their intended new home, such as signing a rental lease. Or they may simply lack the funds to return. My fears in this regard might be allayed somewhat if the government could tell us what they intend to do to inform people, including people who are not already in receipt of a social security allowance, of the new rules. I will be very interested to hear from the government about that.Schedule 9 of the bill seeks to change the way the liquid assets test waiting period affects people applying for Newstart allowance or sickness allowance after a period of study—another miserable, mean measure, which once again discourages that movement from welfare to work. The waiting period of up to 13 weeks is imposed on a person applying for an allowance if they have liquid assets above $2,500 or $5,000 for couples. The exact length of the period depends on the amount by which liquid assets exceed these amounts. In most cases the waiting period starts from the day the person became unemployed.In certain situations, a person can be regarded as unemployed despite the fact that they are in full-time study. This means that a person with substantial liquid assets who loses their job and then studies for 13 weeks or more may not have to serve the waiting period if they apply for an allowance after completing their studies. The schedule seeks to provide that a person who is engaged in full-time study cannot be regarded as unemployed for the purposes of the liquid assets test period. The result will be that the liquid assets waiting period will commence on the day a person ceases their studies. The fact that they may have used a significant part of their liquid assets to support themselves while studying is relevant only to the extent that they will be left with fewer liquid assets when the test is applied.It is just impossible to understand the reasoning behind this proposal. I take it that the measure is not aimed at people who apply for Austudy payment or youth allowance when commencing their studies, as these payments are also subject to the liquid assets test. The memorandum suggests that the measure will provide greater consistency. But in many cases it will just mean that a person who loses their job and decides to study will actually have to support themselves for longer than if they simply applied for Newstart allowance upon losing their job.In the former case, they support themselves throughout their studies and then, depending on the level of their remaining liquid assets, they will be subject to a waiting period of up to 13 weeks. In the latter case, the longest they will have to support themselves for is 13 weeks. Given that the maximum period during which a person is required to support themselves under this test is 13 weeks, I do not see why people who choose to study before applying for an allowance should have to wait longer than this. This measure provides a disincentive for people to study. We intend to oppose this measure.Schedule 10 of the bill proposes to reduce the rate of pensioner education supplement from $60 to $30 per fortnight paid to pensioners with a concessional study load less than 50 per cent of a full-time study load. Disability support pensioners and invalidity service pensioners will not be affected by this change.Schedule 11 corrects a drafting error in the Health Insurance Act to reflect the original intention that newly arrived residents are subject to the two-year waiting period before becoming entitled to a health care card.The majority of measures contained in this bill represent further cuts to government spending in the welfare sector—cuts with which we have become all too familiar. As well as adding to the pain and hardship felt by the elderly and families, they make it harder for the unemployed to move from welfare to work. Once again, the government is welshing on its end of the bargain, absolving itself of its responsibilities.Who is going to take up the slack for people who are affected by the harsh measures in this bill? The government's motives are clear, and the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag the other week. He says that he expects the welfare sector to do more, but the welfare sector is already stretched beyond its limits. ACOSS has said that something like 65 per cent of its membership is in financial difficulty. The Prime Minister comes out and says, `We believe in a social coalition between the government, the charities and individuals.' But there is no two-way street in this coalition. Who gets slugged by the GST? The charities. The government's mutual obligation is just a one-way street. The government, as it is with the unemployed, as it is with the charities, is simply welshing on its end of the bargain.The effects of the GST aside, St Vincent de Paul in its submission to the Senate GST inquiry highlighted the government's appalling hypocrisy with the reduction in government funding, saying:In the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, demands on the society's services increased by 30% . . . We know why that is: because the government is cutting back continuously its expenditure with measures such as the ones I have discussed today. This is what St Vincent de Paul says:. . . while in the same period government funding has fallen by 16%.Where is the social contract? Where is the mutual obligation? The weight of the evidence presented to the Senate GST inquiry by the charitable sector shows that the GST will hit charities for six, forcing the closure of services and cuts to assistance available to the needy, and there will be many more of them when the government has finished implementing some of these measures. The chorus of voices from organisations like St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, the Adelaide Central Mission and the National SIDS Council all make a mockery of the Prime Minister's pledge of a social coalition. The massive compliance costs and the effect of the GST on fundraising activities will place considerable pressure on the financial viability of community service organisations. The government social coalition is based on the most appalling hypocrisy.Most importantly, where does the government stand and where does the opposition stand? I think there are a couple of things we need to get straight. The Labor Party is the only party in this House that does not believe in something for nothing. What the Liberal Party has been offering is nothing for nothing to Australia's unemployed over the last three years. And the further measures demonstrated in this bill and demonstrated in the GST package show that we are heading for more of the same. What we need in this country is an active welfare policy. An active welfare policy starts from the belief that the best form of welfare is a job, and if a job cannot be found then the individual has a responsibility to work with the government to train or engage in beneficial community activities. In return, the government has a responsibility to provide resources.What the Prime Minister is learning—he is a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to welfare reform—is that an active welfare policy costs money; money the government is not prepared to spend, as demonstrated by this bill today. If you do not invest in rewarding work over welfare, if you do not invest in education, if you do not invest in training, you will never allow the downtrodden to walk on their own two feet. If you do not make those investments, you will pay a lot more later. But this government, particularly from the GST package, is very weak in controlling the strong and very strong in controlling the weak.If you look at this bill and you look at the harsh, punitive measures contained in the attack on the CDEP sole parents and contained in the attack in the changes to the liquid assets test and the employment entry payment, you can see the very truth of what lies at the heart of this government's approach to getting people off welfare into work. It is a one-way street. The government has no belief in providing incentive, no belief in allowing people to stand on their own two feet. It simply has one policy and one policy alone—lower wages, lower welfare benefits, no investment in the work force and no investment in training. It is a one-way street. This government is very weak in controlling the strong and very strong in controlling the weak. For those reasons we will be opposing those measures in the bill that further this government's aims.(Quorum formed)16:38:003463Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Colleagues, thank you for coming to listen to this speech. I appreciate that.2V5SWANMr Swan—It's your magnetic personality!HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—It must be. The Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 is about two matters. It is about fairness and about repairing the problems that the `smarties' have discovered in the system. In that regard the bill is eminently sensible and deserves to be supported by both sides of the House.In relation to the 11 schedules, I propose to deal with perhaps seven of them this afternoon. I would like to start with schedule 2, which is about the fairer treatment for people on the CDEP program. There are two elements to that: it introduces the CDEP scheme participant supplement of $20 per fortnight and allows CDEP participants to access the `add-ons', such as rent assistance, bereavement payments, telephone allowance and the health care card, the rationalisation of income tests in relation to CDEP wages to provide for a direct deduction of up to the maximum basic rate of allowance and so on.It surprised me quite significantly that the member for Lilley was seemingly very unhappy with this particular measure. He spent a lot of time in his speech talking about getting people off welfare and onto work, but what he was suggesting and what he was arguing for was in fact quite the reverse. I do not know, from his comments, whether he has ever really seen a CDEP program. I do not know whether he understands how they work or, indeed, how they do not work. I think that his suggestion and his demand that this should not be an attack on single parents who are members of the CDEP program works quite in the face of what he was trying to suggest. If we went down the track that he was suggesting, it would reinforce the welfare dependency ethic that occurs in these Aboriginal settlements. It is hard enough at the moment to try and get people in the CDEP program to work.In that regard, I speak with experience. In my electorate, I have a CDEP program of 125 participants on Palm Island. Palm Island is a deed-of-grant-in-trust island about 40 kilometres off Townsville. It is an idyllic place. It consists of an Aboriginal population of perhaps 4,000 people. It is a magic island, but when you go there you feel very sad, very concerned, unhappy and frustrated because of the conditions there. There seems to be no community leadership, no-one can get the place firing, youth suicide is at very high levels, health problems are terrible and there are education problems. I do not know what the participants of the CDEP program do. I am yet to discover what these 125 people do for their money.It is perfectly proper for the government to bring CDEP benefits in line with Work for the Dole benefits. I support that particular measure. The Labor Party does not seem to support it. I think the measure is fair and equitable. But I think the time is coming where there has to be a much greater degree of accountability in the operations of CDEP programs in this country, particularly on Palm Island where, for the enormous amount of money that we expend on that island, I do not see any result at all. I do not see any further employment, I just see further welfare dependency, and that is very sad for those people on Palm Island.I will be going over to Palm Island again very shortly. I will be talking to the CDEP people over there. They have 10 vehicles in their program, none of which works. They have spent money on these vehicles and none of them operates. I was in the mechanics shed there about two months ago and I said to a young man who was there, `Are you a mechanic?' He said yes. He was working on a motor mower. He said, `Look, I'd like to get some of these vehicles going.' I said, `Well, why can't you?' He said, `Well, I've put an application into the CDEP people to get approval to fix the vehicle.' I said, `Can you fix them?' He said, `Yes. But I can't get a decision. I put in the application six months ago. There is just enough of that manana time.' I turned to the CDEP chairman and said, `Look, are you happy if this fellow fixes this vehicle and gets it going?' He said, `Of course.' His eyes brightened up and lightened up and he had the approval there and then on the spot. But why can it not work faster than that? Why does it need me to go to Palm Island to try and get these problems resolved? These CDEP projects have to operate more efficiently than that.Schedule 3 of this bill, which is the special employment advance, again is a measure that the Labor Party opposes tooth and nail. The member for Lilley is correct: it has been to the parliament on two previous occasions. This is the third occasion. This is only about replacing the current up to $300 advance with an up to $500 employment entry payment. The difference between us is that the government expects that, when a person has achieved full-time work, having been helped to get into full-time work, they pay back that loan that has helped them get into full-time work.What is wrong with that? I think it is eminently sensible and reasonable. It is part, I believe, of the principle of mutual obligation that we as an Australian government should help people in times of need. I know I see it every week where people know that, if they only had the money to get themselves this, that or the other, they could go and get themselves a job: well, this is their opportunity. But, having got the job, they should keep it and repay that money that the Australian public have given them to assist them to get their job. So I have no problem in supporting schedule 3.I note that the Labor Party supports schedule 4, which covers a one-off crisis payment to assist new and existing customers in financial hardship. And don't I know about that, from the area that I come from in North Queensland! Up in Townsville and Thuringowa, we see regular natural disasters like the recent floods, cyclones and so on. We are subject to those sorts of things on a yearly basis, and you can very easily get crisis situations occurring under those circumstances. You can also get them in such circumstances as your home being burned down or, perhaps more regrettably, in such circumstances as domestic violence. It saddens me to know how much domestic violence there is, and there certainly does not need to be that kind of situation in our community these days. So schedule 4 is a sensible measure and one that certainly should be supported.Schedule 5, where we are looking for waiting periods to apply equitably to all newly arrived residents, is a measure which will close a loophole where the smarties have discovered that in fact you do not have to serve all your waiting period for benefits in Australia but that you can come to Australia and then duck off back overseas whilst you are serving your waiting time. That is clearly ridiculous and unacceptable, and I am pleased to see that the opposition is also supporting the measure.Schedule 7 is the amendment relating to unsuitable work for Newstart and youth allowances. This expands the definition of `suitable work' to ensure that people who seek and are offered work outside their local area will be required to accept that work. Some have suggested that this measure will force job seekers to move away from home and away from family and friends. This measure does not force people to apply for jobs outside their present living area or region. But, presumably, if someone is fair dinkum in looking for employment outside their immediate area they would also be prepared to move there or at least to travel or commute on a daily basis in order to do that job once they have secured it.The world has changed greatly from when I was first out in the work force looking at my career prospects as a young person. Today, of course, competition for jobs is fierce. So we should not be providing people with incentives to drop out of the work force or to avoid engaging in paid employment when the offer is there. Rather, we need to frame our social security system in a way that removes such incentives from people who find it more comfortable to stay on the dole than to actually go out and look for work.I was pretty surprised earlier this year by an article in the Townsville Bulletin about a private employment agency that ran an ad looking for a young person to fill the position of junior clerk. Only one person responded to the ad, much to the agency's amazement. The employment situation in Townsville is quite good at the moment. A lot of new jobs are being created because the Townsville regional economy is very strong. But it cannot be so good that only one person applied for the advertised vacancy.This is not the first time that something like this has happened. I was over the road from my office in the K-Mart complex last week, and one of the shops there had a notice on the counter saying `Junior required', but they could not get anybody to apply for the job. We keep hearing about the youth unemployment rate currently being at a tad over 24 per cent, yet here we have people who have jobs available but cannot get people to apply. Employment National, next door to my office, has a big sign up saying `Jobs for juniors here', but they cannot get enough people to apply.Why is that happening? Why are people who are certainly not employed at the moment not applying for those jobs? We all need to ask ourselves that question. I heard of a situation where an irate local business manager had a couple of casual kitchen-hand jobs available. The job involved food preparation, serving customers, washing-up, wiping the floors down and so on, but he could not get anybody to work in that job, either. That is very concerning indeed.In these instances, the main reasons cited by employers for young people not being interested in these jobs was the lack of incentive for them to do so. Judith Sheridan, the job agency worker who placed the advertisement for the junior clerk's position, said she believed that some young people were turning down jobs they did not like because of the `cushion of the welfare system'. I get this feedback from employers on an all too regular basis.I can still clearly recall the time when the Treasurer was asked on talkback radio why unemployment payments were not equal to the minimum wages of ordinary workers. The Treasurer replied that if this were the case there would be no incentive for people to find work, and that is absolutely right. We should not be providing people with incentives to drop out of the work force. Rather, we need to frame our social security system in a way that removes those incentives from people who find it more comfortable to stay on the dole than to go out to work. The provision in the bill to expand the definition of `suitable work'—(Quorum formed) It is such a shame that the Australian Labor Party would waste the time of the members of this parliament, who have been in their offices working for their constituents, by bringing them in such a useless fashion down to the chamber. In conclusion, I say that these particular 11 measures are all about getting fairness back into the system, catching those who are using loopholes in the system and closing those loopholes. It is about getting people off welfare and back to work.16:56:003466Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Contained within the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 are a number of measures which further the government's agenda of punishing those who are unable to fend for themselves, of punishing people who are unable to find work and of punishing people who are genuinely seeking educational opportunities. Also contained within the bill are a number of measures which are worthy of support, and which will receive the support of the opposition. I propose to discuss those schedules to the legislation with which we have major problems and which we will be opposing.Schedule 2 of the bill changes the social security income testing and other arrangements for participants in the Community Development Employment Project scheme, which is an employment initiative for indigenous people. While the measures that are involved under schedule 2 do improve the position of CDEP participants without children, one of the measures for sole parents will put them in a much worse-off position—in some cases a sole parent will lose more than $100 a fortnight, which is a huge amount of money for these people—and the incentive for participating in the CDEP scheme will be greatly reduced. We will be opposing that schedule.Schedule 3 of the bill abolishes the employment entry payment and limits payment of the education entry payment to pensioners who commence a course of education. The schedule seeks to replace the employment entry payment with a refundable special employment advance of between $50 and $500. This is the third time, as my colleague the member for Lilley has pointed out, that the government has tried to remove these payments. In fact, the Senate rejected the first attempt and the measure was never debated again after it was introduced for a second time. This time the government is proposing to replace the $100 employment entry payment and the $200 education entry payment with an advance of between $50 and $500, but this advance has to be paid back out of future income.A person will not be regarded under this provision as being in severe financial hardship unless the value of that person's liquid assets is less than two weeks worth of his or her social security entitlement. Because of the strict eligibility conditions applying to the proposed advance and the fact that it is repayable, it will not come close to making up for the abolition of the employment entry payment. So these measures represent the removal of yet another work and study incentive.The other schedule with which we have a great deal of difficulty and will be opposing is schedule 9, which tightens the rules under which people can be precluded from receiving social security benefits for up to 13 weeks on the basis of their liquid assets. Quite contrary to what the government has asserted, this proposed measure does not produce greater equity. If a person in this situation applies for Austudy or the Youth Allowance in respect of that person's studies, he or she will be subject to the liquid assets test. If that person does not apply for income support and relies on his or her liquid assets for 13 weeks while studying, the person should not have to wait again when that person completes his or her studies and applies for the Newstart allowance.We are very critical in particular of those three proposals in this legislation. We are seeing a situation where the government is attacking yet again the position of sole parents, in this case those participating in the CDEP scheme, and reducing work incentives for these people. We are seeing a situation where the government is yet again launching an attack on education and employment entry payments in the context of rising long-term unemployment and declining skill levels in this country. And we are seeing a situation yet again where the government is requiring people who have supported themselves on their liquid assets for 13 weeks or more while studying to wait up to another 13 weeks before being able to receive the Newstart allowance.We are seeing here the continuation of a pattern, of an agenda, by this government of making it harder for the unemployed to get assistance. We are seeing a pattern of the government making it harder for Australians to get access to educational opportunities. To borrow a phrase, we are seeing from this government that it has exhibited once again its philosophy of punishing and straitening Australians who cannot fend for themselves, who are not in a position to fend for themselves and who are trying their very best to take advantage of educational opportunities, but those opportunities are being withdrawn from them through some of the provisions in this legislation.In my own electorate of Rankin, this pattern has been repeated time and time again. In the education area the Common Youth Allowance is just a fiasco. We are finding that not one cent of money has flowed to the schools who have been asked to cater for the young people who have been forced back to school—the 15- to 17-year-olds. The government had promised $4.1 million for Queensland; not one cent has flowed. Those kids are being forced back to school. The government promised the money but there has not been one cent.In the health area, the dental waiting lists at Logan Hospital are now incredibly long. Why? The government completely abolished the Commonwealth Dental Program. It completely withdrew its involvement in the provision of dental services.I have conducted a survey of child care in Rankin to have a look at the impact of the government's policies. Overall there has been a reduction of about 40 per cent in the number of people using child care. People who cannot afford child care under the new arrangements are being forced to withdraw their children from child care.The Job Network is proving to be an abysmal failure. There are examples of people in Logan who have sought employment by going to the relevant government agencies only to be told that they have to travel to Mount Gravatt or Ipswich to talk to the job provider because that is the job provider who has been allocated that task for that individual. For those people who do not know, Mount Gravatt and Ipswich are a long way from Logan City. This is yet another example of the ridiculous application of government policies that are just not working.There are two Centrelink offices in Rankin. One is in Woodridge and the other is in Browns Plains. The staffing cuts there are producing enormous stress amongst Centrelink staff and their ability to deal with clients is greatly diminished because they just do not have the staff.We are seeing a further instalment through a number of measures outlined in this legislation of a program to return our nation to a nation of entrenched privilege, where access to education is available to only the privileged and where those unfortunate enough to be unemployed are having the social security safety net torn from under them.This government wants to see a divided Australia. Let us be clear about this. It is entirely relaxed and comfortable about the emergence of a social underclass in Australia. I think that is a most disturbing trend and it is incumbent on any government to do whatever it possibly can within its power to rectify that situation to avoid the emergence of a social underclass of people who are long-term unemployed and of children who live in families where their parents have never had a job, who do not see the work ethic. That is what is going on in Logan City. It is going on all around Australia. And a number of the measures outlined in this legislation do nothing to improve that situation; in fact, they actually reduce the benefits that are available to those people—people who are not in a position to fend for themselves.The whole issue of the transition from welfare to work is one that the Labor Party has embraced and the coalition government has ignored and has expressed quite clearly its complete indifference to. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in his now infamous document actually talked about Labor's family tax credits and when he was asked about that in question time he said, `We are not enamoured of it.' The main reason he is not enamoured of it is that it is Labor policy and he does not like the idea of picking up someone else's policy even when it is a good policy.Subsequently the Prime Minister and the Treasurer ruled out the use of family tax credits. What we are trying to achieve on the Labor side of politics is a smoothing of the transition from welfare to work—not by punishing those who are on welfare and reducing the payments to people on welfare, as a number of measures in this bill before us today actually do, but by providing genuine incentives to move from welfare to work.That involves reductions in effective marginal tax rates for people who are considering a move from welfare to work. The government boasts that in its tax reform package it does some of that, but what it does not say is that it then reduces the rewards for work by applying a goods and services tax. So reducing income tax but then replacing it with a goods and services tax does not necessarily provide any additional incentive to move from welfare to work.Our tax policy and the proposals that we are obviously in the process of developing provide genuine incentives by providing tax credits and by reducing the tapers—the withdrawal rates—on social security payments. We have a situation in Australia where the social security payments interact with each other. That has an effect known as `stacking'—where, as someone is trying to make a decision about whether they will move from welfare to work, they look at what is left in their pockets as the various benefits are withdrawn and they make quite a rational decision not to do it. Why? Because they end up keeping somewhere around 15 cents in the dollar of whatever they earn.People on high incomes complain that 48 cents in the dollar is too high, but they do not seem to have any sympathy for people on low incomes and people on unemployment benefits who are out of work and who face the prospect of keeping only 15 cents in the dollar and whose effective marginal tax rate is therefore 85 per cent. People on a tax rate of 48 per cent think that is too high but that 85 per cent is not too high for people on low incomes and people receiving social security payments. The solution to all this seems to be, from the government's point of view, to apply a goods and services tax which, as I said, produces adverse work incentives. It reduces the rewards from work by reducing the purchasing power of any income that people do earn.In addition, as we heard from the member for Lilley, the goods and services tax will directly and adversely affect those charitable organisations that have taken on the onerous task of picking up the slack where the government has cut people off welfare. It is bad enough that people who are genuinely in need of support are being cut off welfare. But it is even worse when the organisations that are expected by the Prime Minister to pick up the slack are being penalised by the goods and services tax through the impact on their operations and the impact on the paperwork. The paperwork burden on some of the charitable organisations will be enormous.At the Senate GST inquiry, a litany of evidence has been provided by charitable organisations about the adverse impacts of the goods and services tax. The St Vincent de Paul Society described the GST as un-Australian. A whole range of other charitable organisations are pleading with the government not to go ahead with the goods and services tax.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to relevance. The honourable member is speaking about the goods and services tax. I ask that you draw his attention to the fact that this is a bill about social security and that you direct him to return to the subject.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I thank the honourable member for Blair. I am sure that the honourable member will bring his attention back to the bill before the House.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I would hope that the honourable member for Blair would see the relevance of what we are talking about here, which is the transition from welfare to work. In a number of the proposals in the legislation that he is supporting, there will be reduced incentives to move from welfare to work. In the schedules that I have outlined—Mrs Elson interjecting—83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—No, I am sorry. There will be reduced incentives to move from welfare to work. The point of the goods and services tax is that it further reduces the rewards from work. That is the point I am making. I am sorry that the member for Blair has not been able to understand what I thought was a fairly simple and straightforward point. Australians are screaming out, not for division but for social cohesion. They are screaming out and seeking the support of governments to help them fashion a stronger and safer community, but we will not get a stronger and safer community by dividing the nation. We will not get a stronger and safer community by mean-spirited policies and punishment of those who are genuinely in need. We will not get a stronger and safer community by setting Australians against Australians. We will get a stronger and safer community through a genuine commitment to reducing unemployment, and we will get a stronger and safer community by encouraging participation in education and lifelong learning for all Australians—not only for those Australians who have the private means to afford it. That is a critical point. This government has withdrawn funding from education. It has limited funding to state education, and it is reducing incentives for work.Many, if not most, of the measures that are being proposed by the government are working in exactly the opposite direction. They are measures which are reducing the access to education for ordinary Australians and in particular for those who cannot otherwise afford it. Many, if not most, of the government's measures are reducing the incentive to work and in fact are increasing the incentive to stay on welfare while reducing the amount of welfare that is available.It is time that this government developed a coherent strategy and had a philosophy that could be embraced by all Australians—a philosophy of working together, of uniting the nation, of creating social cohesion and of creating a stronger and safer community. I have to say that the only party that is committed to this task of creating a stronger and safer community is the Australian Labor Party.17:14:003469Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I am pleased to support the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 today, which basically gives effect to various measures announced in the 1998-99 budget in relation to social security assistance. The intention of these measures is, as always, to create a fairer social welfare system that is much simpler and more efficient to administer. The bottom line, as far as I am personally concerned, is fairness. But what those opposite do not seem to comprehend is that by creating an efficient system, you can actually make it fairer.Labor has always liked to see two things as being mutually exclusive: that if you want to make the system more cost effective, you are suggesting it to be less generous. This is not the case at all. Most Australians, and certainly the vast majority of my constituents in Forde, want a social security safety net that is designed to fairly accommodate the needy, not the greedy. It should be a system that provides a hand up to those who have struck hard times and a system which provides incentives for people to personally strive to improve their situation.The Howard government has made remarkable achievements in just a few years in reforming our social security system, and it is paying massive dividends for everyone—for both taxpayers and the vast majority of welfare recipients. What Labor fails to understand is that their sloppy administration, their myriad complicated welfare systems, their throwing of money at the situation actually created a very deep resentment and anger in the Australian community. Like many of Labor's social policies, it was divisive and destructive.Labor let the social welfare system run rampant for 13 years, and the only beneficiaries were those who were ripping off the system because the vast majority of genuine recipients were bundled in with them as bludgers. In the eyes of many Australian taxpayers, that is how they were tagged. They suffered the stigma, and the Howard government is now working hard to remove that stigma. We want to give people who are genuinely dependent on assistance a chance to hold their heads up high. By cracking down on the rorts and cheats, saving taxpayers more than $46 million each week, we help to legitimise those very genuine people and to decrease community anger, resentment and division.You see, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is where Labor gets it all wrong. By making the system simpler and cutting back on some of the complications and excesses of previous schemes, we help to create a greater understanding with the Australian public at large. By getting rid of the cheats, we help to dispel the myth that people on benefits are not genuine.I cannot begin to describe what a difference the concept of mutual obligation has made in building relationships between welfare recipients and the general Australian community. Again, it comes back to the fairly simple idea that it is all about a proper balance between rights and responsibilities. It is an idea that is the very essence of the commonsense approach of the Howard government in office. I personally feel that it boils down to the fact that the very best assistance you can give to anyone is a hand up rather than merely a handout. The old saying: `Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime,' is very true. But, of course, Labor and the Democrats have their own versions of this. Labor's version is: `Give a man a fish a day and he becomes dependent on you for survival.' The Democrats' version is: `Teach a man to fish and he is an extreme and dangerous threat to nature's natural resources.'Seriously, though, the way in which we as a government have approached the issue of Australia's welfare safety net is miles apart from the approach of the Labor Party. Our first step was to acknowledge what, frankly, the rest of Australia already knew—that there was a problem with the welfare cheats and not enough was being done to properly target payments. Labor's social security minister actually said in this House in 1995:. . . we have very effective compliance measures and measures to counter fraud.But history has proved that they were not effective enough. In just a few years the Howard government has put in place proper measures to crack down on fraud and overpayment, resulting in a massive saving of over $46 million a week—billions of dollars each year. I stress that these savings were made not by cutting benefits in any way but by making sure that those who were eligible to receive the benefits actually did. Most Australians reckon that this is fair enough.As I said at the outset, this bill puts in place further changes to ensure greater fairness and simplicity in the social security system. For example, one of the measures in the bill makes changes to the operation of the two-year waiting period for new arrival migrants so that they will now apply fairly to people from all countries. This change will require New Zealand citizens, like people from all other countries, to be Australian residents as well as having lived in Australia for the required period.I would like to add that the initial decision to apply the two-year waiting period for receipt of welfare payments by new immigrants is a measure that is strongly supported by the Australian community. I received many favourable comments from local residents, who described it as commonsense and who wondered why Labor had not done something about it many years ago. Again, it is about weighing rights against responsibilities.People who decide to come to Australia and live here enjoy many rights, and it is not unreasonable to expect them, in exchange, to take some responsibility for their own financial support for at least two years. Another aspect of this bill is that it will provide a special employment advance of $500 to help an estimated 30,000 people with the start-up cost of taking up employment. In doing this, we are also abolishing the employment entry payment and the education entry payment, which were introduced as incentives to people taking up work. Evaluations have proved that they were of little consequence whatsoever in this decision. They were also limited in eligibility and, in most cases, capped to just $100. In short, these payments were found to be ineffective.This new special employment advance will provide more substantial help to many more people. The other difference is that it will be fully repayable, again ensuring that responsibilities are taken into account as well—a hand up, as I said before, not a handout.Measures like this are just what the Australian public believe should be part of the welfare system. It must be fair to everyone, working taxpayers included. What Labor and the minor parties fail to recognise is that we are all in this together. The social security system is not the preserve only of Centrelink customers and should not work to meet their interests alone; it is an issue that is for all Australians.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.The bells having been rung—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! A quorum not being present, the sitting will be resumed in six minutes.Sitting suspended from 5.25 p.m. to 5.31 p.m.The House having been counted and a quorum being present—10000Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It gives me pleasure to continue to talk in this debate. As I said, what Labor and the minor parties fail to recognise is that we are all in this together. The social security system is not the preserve of only Centrelink customers and should not work to meet their interests alone. It is an issue for all Australians. The member for Lilley was quite confused in his earlier statements that we do not encourage people to work, and in his negative approach to our Work for the Dole program. I have seen massive changes in community perceptions since we introduced the concept of mutual obligation, particularly in relation to the highly successful Work for the Dole program that the member for Lilley sought to put down.In my electorate of Forde, we were privileged to have one of the very first pilot programs for Work for the Dole and have since benefited from many different local programs. Our unemployed are assisting with Meals on Wheels and the landscape beautification programs and with hands-on help by providing practical assistance to people in crisis and on many local community projects. I keep in close contact with many of the operators of local Work for the Dole projects and they have been astounded by the response from the local community. People stop to congratulate the young people involved, and some local residents have been so impressed that they have regularly offered lunch and drinks to participants working on-site. The young people involved feel that they can hold their head up high when they tell their friends and family what they do. They feel like they are contributing to and being accepted by our local community.The projects that they are working on bring real benefits to our community. Might I add that some of those working in the field on our Work for the Dole projects are being offered full-time employment by local business people who stop to talk to them and are very impressed that they display their willingness to work. Work for the Dole—in fact, the whole change in approach by the Howard government—has meant that people who are on some form of government assistance are increasingly no longer viewed with suspicion. Many have been given a very direct role to play in contributing back to the local community. Others are now required to meet tougher standards and, in any case, the bludger perception is slowly but surely being changed.I believe that our reforms to the social security system, including mutual obligation, Work for the Dole and the measures outlined in this bill, are a positive step in the right direction. It is only by demonstrating that we consider that the views and rights of working taxpayers are as important as those relying on the tax dollars that we can begin to expect them to be more involved and concerned about the welfare system. Our social security welfare system, and the social problems we confront as a nation, are not, as I said earlier, the preserve of those directly affected. We are all in this together. (Time expired)17:34:003472Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 highlights the stand of this government on social security issues and highlights the uncaring nature of this government. It is a very ideological government that does not understand what it is like not to be at the top of the heap. The agenda of this government is very much `blame the victim', and this comes out in a number of the measures in this bill. If the government is serious about giving people real opportunity, we must invest in them—our human resources. We must encourage people to move from welfare to work. We have to get serious about education and training programs. But what we see is failure after failure from this ideologically driven government. There would certainly been no efficiency dividend based upon its performance.Firstly, we have the Centrelink fiasco where—to give one example which highlights the situation—81 per cent of calls at the moment get the engaged signal. Of the 341,000 calls for 1998, only 65,000, or 19 per cent, get through. If you cannot get through to your Centrelink office, let alone turn up at an office to see someone, and have some human interaction to talk about your problems, then there is very little opportunity for you to move forward into work and to get assistance.Then of course there is the Job Network, the great alternative scheme. We see Minister Tony Abbott come up to the despatch box here question time after question time and proclaim its virtues but we still have the situation where contracts were given to people working out of flats in Bankstown, without offices, without a desk and without any services. I still see complaint after complaint in my electorate office about people just not being given an appropriate service.As a substitute for action, we have reaction. As a substitute for policy, we have rhetoric. We have the rhetoric about Work for the Dole; a scheme which involves some 6,000 people, a very small scheme—a scheme which enables those opposite to help perpetuate the myth that somehow it is the unemployed who are to blame for their situation. We now have the program which I call `Read for the Dole'. As if anyone in this parliament would oppose people getting English language skills, getting literacy skills. No-one in this parliament would disagree with that. But the government has put it up as a policy to create a situation whereby it is arguing that people will be punished if they will not participate in these programs. The fact is that this is the same government that cut programs such as the adult migrant English service, which provided an appropriate mechanism to give people skills to move into work and into Australian society once they migrated here.Now we are going to have a tax on jobs through the GST. One of the odd circumstances about the Senate inquiries that has occurred is that the government has failed to have a single good news day. The government's own economic modellers went before those inquiries. They all pointed out the problems with the underestimation of the inflationary impact, the problems with the impact on job creation, the problems with the compensation package being inadequate. Whether they were from business, whether they were from community organisations or whether they were from pensioner organisations, there have been a series of complaints about the fact that the government has failed to properly consider the implications of its tax package. That is why, prior to the last election, we developed the concept of tax credits to provide an incentive for people to move from welfare to work.But all this is in the ideological context which we see with this government—the individualisation of the welfare debate. This government wants to shift the focus of that debate away from the broader goals of what sort of society we want and the alleviation of poverty and the social problems that come with that poverty, to the relationship between the government and the individual. That individual is stigmatised as a victim. That individual has to demonstrate why they are worthy of any assistance from the government. It is that very subtle change in emphasis away from the goals of a society to a focus on the individual which has permeated even this debate that we have heard here this afternoon.The member for Herbert gave an example of a K-Mart office—I think it was a K-Mart office—across the road from his electorate office where a job was advertised but they could not find someone to fill the job. I am sure that occurs; the fact is that there are some vacancies which are not able to be filled. But it is the context in which the member for Herbert raises it and the context in which this government pursues legislative change. The member for Forde spoke about how there are all these dole bludgers out there—those terms were used—but it is really about stigmatising those individuals.I think that this parliament should be better than that. When there is some eight per cent unemployed, it is absurd to say, `Oh, well, I've got this example of someone who could not find someone to work for them,' as if that represents the macro-economic picture. It is that microcosm of the debate, that bringing it down to the individual and then talking about how to punish them, which really concerns me.In this bill before the House this afternoon there is a classic example of this government's attitude of punishment, payback and lack of compassion—that is, the attack represented in this bill on indigenous sole parents. This bill will reduce the amount paid to indigenous sole parents who participate in the Community Development Employment Project—CDEP.The CDEP, which was introduced by the Fraser government and expanded under the previous Labor government, is indeed a very good project. I participated in a review of the project as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. At the end of the 1997-98 financial year, some 37,000 indigenous Australians were participating in this project and they came from 254 organisations. There has been a slight expansion to some 600 people in the last couple of years. Since its inception as essentially a rural program, it has now been expanded into urban areas. It represents nearly one-third of ATSIC's total expenditure. An independent review of CDEP was established, resulting in the Spicer report which reported to the board of ATSIC in December 1997. Mr Spicer said:The importance of CDEP to governments and the 30,000 indigenous Australians involved, cannot be overstated. In some localities, CDEP often represents the community itself. Without it, some remote communities would simply not exist.So we have recognition by the government's own inquiry of the importance of the project.Currently, the sole parents who participate in the project are able to receive a parenting payment. If they earn income through CDEP, this is treated in the same manner as is income from any other type of employment. In other words, sole parents in CDEP are treated the same way as are sole parents who receive parenting payment as well as some income from employment.Under this bill, indigenous sole parents will face a much harsher regime for assessment of income. While non-indigenous parents are able to earn up to $100 per fortnight, after which their parenting payment is reduced by 50c for every dollar of income, every dollar earned by an indigenous parent through the CDEP scheme will reduce their parenting payment by just that—one dollar.Part of the Howard government's agenda is to use the social security system to entrench inequality. What incentive is there in this—in spite of the rhetoric from those opposite—for moving from welfare to work? Here we are providing a legislated disincentive, through this amendment bill, to the most discriminated against, most disadvantaged group of Australians—our indigenous Australians. Participating in CDEP is effectively work for the dole.There are other things in this bill which I am concerned about, and one of those is the increased disadvantage for newly arrived migrants. The two-year newly arrived residents waiting period for social security is, I believe, one of the most regressive measures introduced by the Howard government. It has produced a situation where people we have welcomed to Australia on the basis of their skills can literally starve because they have no access to income support. We have seen articles in publications like the Good Weekend about just that happening—about families in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne literally not having enough to eat. To make things worse, cuts to the Adult Migrant English Service have made it impossible for some of these people, many of whom have very impressive qualifications, to improve their English sufficiently to find work.Up to now—not due to any social conscience on behalf of those opposite but due to incompetent drafting—these people have at least had access to health care cards. This bill is going to remove that access. It is not enough for the government to create a situation of absolute poverty; we are also going to take away their health care cards. So if they get sick as a result of their inability to have any form of income support then basic health care is withdrawn from them as well. Are we really so badly off as a society that we have to do that? I would have thought that any compassionate society in 1999 was a bit better than that.This bill also would introduce more draconian limitations on access to unemployment benefits. Currently, if a person receiving Newstart allowance or youth allowance moves to an area of high unemployment without sufficient reason, they lose their allowance for 26 weeks. If the person is not regarded as unemployed under the act at the time of the move, this penalty does not apply. This bill will change the situation so that, if a person becomes unemployed within 26 weeks of moving, the waiting period still applies. The way the bill is drafted, even if the person moves while employed and subsequently becomes unemployed, they could be caught by this penalty. This shows the absurdity of the government's agenda, which constantly sees the most disadvantaged people in our society suffer the most from government cutbacks.I also want to talk about the abolition of the employment entry payment and the limiting of the education entry payment which are included in this bill. The employment entry payment and education entry payment provide a small amount of assistance—$100 and $200 respectively—to social security recipients who move into work or education. The government has tried twice before to attack these payments and failed. This bill would replace the $100 employment entry payment with a loan of between $50 and $500, so that whatever amount Centrelink agrees to advance to the recipient has to be repaid in full.People moving from social security payments to paid employment are likely to be in a precarious financial situation. Many have accumulated credit card bills, bank loans and debts to friends and relatives in order to survive while they have been on unemployment benefits. On top of this, when they start work they will now have to repay any funds they have been advanced. If they are unable to repay the debt, Centrelink will garnishee their wages. This liability comes at a time when we should be supporting people to help them make the transition from welfare to work. We should be about encouraging people in employment rather than imposing additional burdens upon them. But this is consistent with the lack of compassion shown by this government.Not only will the employment entry payment be changed from a payment to a loan but this bill makes it extremely difficult to qualify for the loan. Only people in the most difficult financial circumstances will qualify. Surely we should be recognising that anybody moving from reliance on social security to employment is in difficult circumstances by definition and should be encouraged to make this transition. Instead, the government wants to make it even harder.This bill would also restrict the education entry payment to pensioners. This means that people receiving payments such as Newstart allowance will no longer have access to the payment. The education entry payment is a mere $200 to assist a person with the transition to education. The government says that it does not provide sufficient incentive, but this argument shows how poorly this government understands the situation of people reliant upon social security payments.The education entry payment is not just an incentive to start study; it is intended to help people during the first few weeks of a new course of study, with all the additional costs that come in. Besides the difficulties of adjusting to new subject matter and new ways of learning, people starting education face the costs of textbooks and other materials—and $200 might not sound like much to people in this House, but it is a lot for a person who is living on $161.70 a week, which is the maximum rate of Newstart allowance for a single person.Without the education entry payment, many unemployed people will simply be unable to afford to start a new course. And of course, if this government has its way, there will be a GST on all those books and items which they need to participate in education, despite the rhetoric of this government that education is GST free. At the same time, the government intends to decimate the support services that are there for university students by introducing voluntary student unionism legislation.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—Hear, hear!R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—`Hear, hear!' I hear from those opposite. Well, the government does not want them to have counselling, child care, access to student loans, financial advice or assistance with academic problems; what the government wants is an ideologically driven government.These changes are quite consistent with the approach of the Howard government to social security and employment issues since 1996. In that time we have seen vocational education training programs eliminated, offices closed, staff cut, services reduced and payments slashed. Child-care assistance has been decimated and newly arrived migrants have lost access to the social safety net for a period of two years.In my electorate, Arabic interpreter services at Marrickville Centrelink have been cut by 40 per cent. Who will explain the next wave of draconian changes to my Arabic speaking constituents? I am sure that this does not concern the government because they would prefer it if people miss out on what little they are still entitled to receive.How can this government claim to have any interest in reducing unemployment or helping battlers when all it has done is attack the unemployed and disadvantaged? If members of the House are serious about addressing unemployment, we have to support people, provide incentives and give them that leg up in the transition from unemployment to education or employment. We have to provide them with the financial support they need to make that transition. We also have to provide them with the other services and support they need, including accredited vocational training and advice in a language that they can understand.From what the shadow minister, the member for Lilley, and I have outlined and the amendments that we intend to move, it is very clear that we believe some of the measures in this bill will only increase the obstacles for the disadvantaged, while continuing the process of decimating assistance and support. This bill does very little. In fact, it does the opposite of the government's rhetoric about moving people from welfare to work. I think this government will be condemned, as it has been increasingly, for the legislation. Those opposite who are chuckling might not care about the people of Grayndler or Arabic interpreter services, but I assure them that these services matter to the constituents that I represent. (Time expired)17:55:003476Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank those honourable members who have participated in this frequently interrupted debate. I thank those who have made a constructive contribution. Some have chosen to attempt to be destructive rather than constructive and probably, in their strident criticism, they have even misunderstood some of the elements of the legislation. I have come to expect that the honourable member for Lilley will be full of wild claims. That seems to be part of his style. So I guess I was not surprised by some of his remarks, even though some of them were clearly inaccurate and not a correct reflection of what is included in the bill.The honourable member for Forde and the honourable member for Herbert made much more constructive contributions and, I think, recognised the importance of the government's role in providing a safety net, ensuring that that safety net is always there and provides assistance to those in need. It is in advancing the cause of fairness that this legislation is brought before the House.The opposition has made a number of ill-informed comments about the bill. It is sad that it has not been able to resist the temptation to make cheap political capital out of the sensible initiatives that are proposed in the bill. As I said earlier, the main thrust of the bill is to ensure consistent treatment of income support customers. I would expect that all members would see that these changes are fair and reasonable.In summing up I refer specifically to three of the important initiatives contained in the bill. I share the concern of many in Aboriginal communities that people working on the Community Development Employment Projects scheme have not received the same levels of benefits as those who have been participating in work for the dole or, for that matter, those who have opted out of the scheme altogether. This bill removes this anomaly.CDEP workers will be eligible for the $20 per fortnight supplement available to people on Work for the Dole projects, as well as additional benefits such as rent assistance, telephone allowance and pharmaceutical allowance. The $20 supplement will be available from 20 March this year. This is a major benefit for CDEP workers and has the support of ATSIC.Extending a crisis payment to assist people forced to leave their homes is another government initiative to support the victims of domestic violence and others facing a domestic crisis. Members opposite have been very keen to talk about the tragedy of domestic violence in the community. Here is a positive initiative being taken by the government and I would expect their support.The bill also contains provisions to ensure that a minority of unemployed people do not minimise their opportunities for obtaining work by relocating to areas of high unemployment or by declining a suitable out-of-area job which they had originally sought. Those who relocate to areas of high unemployment are likely to lose their benefits but, because of an anomaly at present, some people are able to cancel their benefits, move to a location with high unemployment and then reapply for the benefits.In other cases, a person is able to satisfy the activity test for benefits by applying for jobs in centres outside their immediate area but can subsequently decline to accept a job offer without penalty. I am sure that members will agree that it is only reasonable that people be expected to accept jobs that they have sought and then obtained. This legislation removes those anomalies.The government has also decided to replace the employment entry payment with a special employment advance. The opposition has criticised this step. What is overlooked by opposition members in their contributions is that the employment entry payment did very little to ease the transition from welfare to work. The payment was neither targeted nor timely. Unlike other income support payments, the employment entry payment was not means tested. It was simply issued automatically to people who went off payment for four weeks. The payment was made after the person had commenced work, thereby doing little to meet the up-front costs of people entering employment. In fact, many people did not even know why they were getting this extra payment.In place of this very blunt instrument, the government is proposing to introduce the special employment advance, which will provide more accessible support for people entering employment or facing reduced benefits because of income earned but not received from casual work. The special employment advance will provide up to $500 to people in need for payments other than the disability support pension. The employment entry payment was only $100 and was available only once a year, whereas the new payment will be available as required—up to $500 outstanding.The new payment will be more widely available. Unlike the employment entry payment, the advance will be available to people who are either facing up-front costs for employment or have earned income from casual work which would reduce their benefit but have not actually received this income. This advance therefore recognises the prevalence of casual and part-time work by offering assistance to people who remain on payment. Repayment of the advance will be flexible to avoid causing financial hardship and discouraging people from taking up work.With regard to tightening the focus of the education entry payment, the need for this payment has been overtaken by other reforms. The government has provided further support to assist people to take up work or study. Under the old system, students on Austudy received less than people on unemployment benefits. The new youth allowance arrangements are more generous and flexible. Students on youth allowance can also access the youth allowance income bank or obtain an early advance.Under this government, students aged to 25 can receive benefits like rent assistance for the first time. These measures will do more to assist and encourage people to seek and accept work than the old system, which indiscriminately provided a late token payment for people cancelling their benefits. It will assist people who remain dependent on income support.In his comments, the honourable member for Lilley made a number of outrageous claims which I thought were over the top even for him. To suggest that this government's record on unemployment is anything other than impressive would certainly defy most observers. Unemployment has consistently gone down under this government, and we have indeed an outstanding record of reforming the economy to provide real jobs to people. I think it is time the honourable member for Lilley gave the government credit for its outstanding achievement in this regard. For him to not do so just reflects the embarrassment that he must feel about Labor's dismal performances in government.It is also quite extraordinary of him to try to blame Centrelink for the fact that people were not taking up the literacy and numeracy places that were made available. Under the old arrangements it was not Centrelink's job to place these people into these programs; it was entirely voluntary. And any number of alternative options were available. Everyone surely acknowledges that in this modern society literacy and numeracy are really essential prerequisites to productive employment. The government's initiative to make this training compulsory for people who have a literacy and numeracy deficiency will certainly enhance the skill of the national work force and make people more employable and better able to fill positions. So once again we had the member for Lilley clearly misunderstanding the circumstances of the literacy training initiative.I turn specifically to a number of the initiatives which I understand the opposition have indicated some intention to oppose. The first is in relation to the double-dipping provisions which are being eliminated in this legislation—the changes in relation to sole parents and the CDEP. The opposition is opposing these measures. I might add that the measures have the support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. And they are surely fair. Is the opposition seriously coming into this chamber and suggesting that people should be entitled to receive two benefits? That seems to be the position that they are proposing to defend.The changes provide greater equity for all CDEP participants. Sole parents on the CDEP receive most of the pension as well as their CDEP wages. This is not available to partnered parents. Some parents on the CDEP have effectively been able to double-dip on public funds. Under the changes to the CDEP scheme that are proposed in this legislation this inequity will be removed. Sole parents will still be better off by participating in the CDEP. The vast majority of existing participants will be better off under the changes that this government is proposing, which ATSIC supports, which are clearly fair and equitable but which, for some strange reason, certain members opposite are vowing to oppose.There has also been some opposition expressed to the special employment advance. The EEP, the employment entry payment, is paid to customers who go off social security payments to take up work. It is not income tested, as I said before, and thus it is payable regardless of the person's available resources. In contrast, the special employment advance will be available only to those who genuinely require financial assistance. What the opposition is proposing is a payment made after people have actually entered employment and, for that reason, it is not targeted to provide the benefits on the most timely occasion. This measure is explained by the figures contained in the financial statement.The costings of the special employment advance reflect the belief that the new scheme will in fact assist people back into the work force and thus they will move off income support payments. The requirement to repay the special advance recognises the nature of the payment; that is, it is an advance of the income support payment the person is currently receiving. It is appropriate that the advance be repaid. It is, after all, a loan. The qualification criteria are not unduly strict; they merely ensure that only those who genuinely require assistance actually receive that help. That is a fundamental principle of Australia's social security system. An evaluation of the EEP scheme indicated that recipients often were unsure why they had received the payment and often received the payment after they had actually commenced work, so it was largely immaterial in their decision to enter the work force.Moving to the liquid assets tests waiting period, this measure again removes an inequity that exists in the current system. A person who undertakes study and subsequently claims social security payments could serve significantly less of the liquid asset test waiting period than a person with the same liquid assets who does not undertake study. A person who undertakes study relying on their own assets will reduce the period of the liquid assets waiting period that the person is required to serve, as their assets will have been reduced. This measure is consistent with the government's policy of ensuring that those with sufficient resources should support themselves for a reasonable period before calling on public funds.The measures before the House improve our social security system and make it fairer. They are advances which improve the objectives of the safety net which our social security system provides and they are measures which should be supported by the House. I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.The House divided. [6.12 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.3479Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:17:003479Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 7, item 2, page 99 (line 19), omit "(1)(ha)", substitute "(1)(g), (ga) or (ha)".(2) Schedule 7, item 5, page 20 (line 2), omit "(2A)(i)", substitute "(2A)(g) or (i)".The two amendments are minor amendments to the bill required to correct a drafting error in schedule 7. Schedule 7 expands the definition of suitable work. The schedule is intended to ensure that a person receiving youth allowance or Newstart allowance cannot apply for work in a particular area but then refuse to accept such work on the grounds that it is unsuitable. In this case, `unsuitable' means that it would require the person to relocate or require more than 90 minutes travel or because transport is not available. The current version of schedule 7 contains a drafting error which means that only the first aspect, the requirement to relocate, is included. The amendment is technical, restoring the intention of the provision. I appreciate the cooperation of the opposition on this matter. I table a further explanatory memorandum.18:18:003479Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I would like to reiterate our opposition to three aspects of the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 as we consider it in greater detail. We are opposed to the measures which will hurt sole parents in the CDEP scheme, the changes to `liquid assets' and also the changes to employment and education payments.We say this for a very serious reason, Minister: these amendments are all part of punishing people who are trying genuinely to move from welfare to work. We say that these measures fit into a pattern of other measures contained in the tax package where the Liberal Party is encouraging a one-way street to welfare dependency, rewarding welfare over work instead of work over welfare. This is a very genuinely held view of ours. We believe that you are doing great damage with elements of the tax package which are discouraging people from moving from benefits to work and the further measures in this bill which do the same.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3479Bill (on motion by Mr Truss)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3479r7203479Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.18:21:003479Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—The Airports Amendment Bill 1999 makes five changes to the Airports Act 1996 and the opposition has no concerns about four of those changes. I will deal with those four changes first. The first one is extending the regulatory mechanism for activities around airports to include non-structural activities which cause intrusion into airspace. At the moment certain activities within a prescribed area around an airport are defined as controlled activities and are subject to approval from the department. Basically, this mechanism ensures that developments around airports do not affect the safety, efficiency and regularity of air transport operations.This bill extends the definition of those controlled activities to include non-structural activities such as operating a source of light that is capable of blinding or confusing pilots—an extremely bright sports stadium, for example—any activity resulting in air turbulence capable of affecting normal flight and any activity emitting smoke, dust or gas that affects the ability of an aircraft to operate within visual flight rules. It is worth noting that these new provisions do not apply to ordinary domestic or household activity and that the bill also gives the Commonwealth the power to make regulations setting out the standards associated with these activities.The second change effected by this bill with which the opposition can agree is that of clarifying that the excision of land from an airport site will not require the surrender of an entire airport lease. I understand that new airport operators have requested these amendments to make it clear that they are not obliged to surrender a lease if they make minor land acquisitions or disposals at airport boundaries.The third change is clarifying that the Airports Act does not apply to military operations at airports that are jointly used by the military and civil operators. In that respect, this bill removes some inconsistencies in the act that could have had the unintended effect of extending the act to Department of Defence operations at jointly used airports.The fourth matter is making it clear that the granting of rights such as easements to use land does not constitute an acquisition of an airport lease. Again, airport owners do not necessarily have exclusive use or possession of the leased area—for example, the area may involve easements, licences or restrictive covenants and these amendments make it clear that these types of interest do not fall within the act's definition of `interest' in relation to an airport lease.I turn now to those amendments about which the opposition does have concerns. This is a group of clauses in the bill that extend the time available to phase 2 airport owners to have access undertakings to airport services approved by the ACCC. What we have in place at the moment is an access regime designed to give some protection to the users of airport services where airports have been privatised. It is a regime that recognises that airports are natural monopolies and that the users of airport services are entitled to have some additional protection because of this in negotiating access to the services that they need. It works like this: under section 192 of the Airports Act 1996, 12 months after signing the lease for a privatised core regulated airport, a ministerial determination is made that subsection 192(2) of the Airports Act applies at that airport.As a result of this determination, any airport service for which an access undertaking under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 has not been accepted—and that is the important thing—by the ACCC, then that will be declared for the purposes of part IIIA. That declaration then triggers the comprehensive access regime contained in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. This process of automatic declaration recognises that airport users should not be subject to any delay involved in having to apply for services to be declared if for whatever reason they cannot get a satisfactory outcome in access negotiations, which are supposed to have been going on for the year. The Airports Act itself does not actually list airport services subject to declaration; instead it outlines criteria against which airport services can be accessed. What it says is that services provided at core regulated airports are both:(a) . . . necessary for the purposes of operating and/or maintaining civil aviation services at the airport; and(b) . . . provided by means of significant facilities at the airport, being facilities that cannot be economically duplicated . . . In practice, the services likely to be declared range from aircraft movement areas such as runways, taxiways and parking areas to passenger processing areas, refuelling facilities, emergency maintenance facilities and access to the airport for buses, taxis and the like.For airport users it is a pretty important range of services. It is important for airport users to feel that they are getting a fair deal when it comes to getting access to those services. I think it is fair to say that most airport users feel that the declaration mechanism is there to ensure that there is no undue delay in getting access regulation in place. I also think it is fair to say that airport users consider it a recognition of the monopoly position of the airports and they see it as shoring up their capacity to negotiate terms and conditions of access.Like the phase 1 airports that preceded them, the phase 2 airports have a condition in their leases giving them a window of 12 months in which to avoid that declaration process and to get their own access undertakings in place. The purpose of an access undertaking is pretty clear: it is to give the owner some certainty about access and to avoid the potential for disputes about whether to declare a service or the terms and conditions on which to grant access. That is the first point. Getting an undertaking up and approved is in the interests of the airport owners. And it is in their interests, and to their advantage, to get moving on it as soon as possible. In this debate we should not forget that airport owners signed up to operate the airports accepting that a condition of the lease was that they would have a window of 12 months to get these undertakings in place.That is the airport owners. We also have the airport users. They are the other part of this equation. They also have an expectation that if the 12-month time frame applies, which it does, and that if owners are being unreasonable or dragging their feet or whatever, the automatic declaration will automatically cut in and they will have that protection in place.The opposition believes that there really has to be some very good justification for turning around now, several months down the track, and arguing that this particular condition has to be changed. So far in this debate the government has not provided that justification. But that is not all: we were really surprised to find that the government has not consulted airport users prior to deciding to extend the time frame. A number of airport users from Qantas down to small general aviation companies simply did not know that this proposal for the extension was even on the table. When they did find out, their reaction was, not surprisingly, negative because they do not see why they should be disadvantaged because the airport owners cannot meet the 12-month condition. Airport owners say that the 12-month time frame is not realistic given the other obligations that they have to meet during that time.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.(Quorum formed)XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—Before the dinner break I was explaining the relative disadvantage of the access regime between airport owners and airport users. I was in the middle of saying that airport owners say that the 12-month time frame which is set down in the legislation for them to negotiate access is not realistic enough, because they have other obligations to meet during that time period, a big obligation obviously being the preparation of airport master plans. But I think the argument of users in respect of this is a very fair argument.They argue that these airport owners, as potential owners, actually knew what was expected of them when they embarked on the process, because they knew that they would have to meet certain obligations, including an access undertaking, within the first 12 months as laid down in the act. I would argue that they accepted those obligations and therefore they should have planned and budgeted accordingly. Surely it was incumbent upon them to make sure that they had the resources to meet those obligations before they bid for the airport leases. That was and is the commercial reality of taking up such leases.I have great difficulty in seeing the appropriateness of the government's proposal to now turn around and change the rules because some owners now cannot say that they meet that obligation and—and this is an important `and'—when there is a perfectly good fall-back mechanism in place. It begs the question of whether we are going to change the rules every time one lot of players—in this case, the owners—tell us that they cannot meet some other condition in the future. Surely there is some advantage in putting and keeping the pressure on the phase 2 owners to actually get their undertakings under way and approved, thereby giving some degree of certainty to the users of services at their airports.Airport users also argue that phase 1 undertakings did not fail through lack of time, which is what phase 2 owners are arguing, but because they fell short of the requirements of the Trade Practices Act. I know that there is some debate about that and I know that there is some criticism of the ACCC role in the process, but I think it is worth noting that both and Melbourne and Perth airports did manage to lodge an undertaking within the 12-month period. Given that experience, it seems reasonable to assume that phase 2 owners should have a smoother and clearer path ahead of them, and there is no obvious reason why they should not be able to put in the time and the resources to get undertakings lodged within the prescribed 12 months.There is also the issue of setting up a different set of rules for phase 1 and phase 2 airport owners. Phase 1 users at least had some resolution of the matter, despite the owners not having acceptable access undertakings in place because of the 12-month limit. Obviously it is a long way from being a complete resolution, but users at least knew which access regime was going to apply to them, instead of actually having the matter drift on and on for a further 12 months.Finally, on this point of the argument of the users versus the argument of the owners, it does not seem to me to be good public policy to grant a blanket extension to all phase 2 owners irrespective of how well or how poorly each of them is managing their access negotiations. Shouldn't we at least be asking each owner to show that they are going through the stipulated process in good faith? Shouldn't we require each owner to justify their particular need for a further extension of time? How do we know that the owners are not being unreasonable or are not going to use this extension, as one user put it, `to flex their market muscle' in access negotiations?If we do not put some conditions on this, aren't we just sending a signal to the owners that it is okay for them to come back at the end of two years and say, `Oh, sorry, I didn't manage to get it done. In these next 12 months we have a lot of other things to do and a lot of other demands on our resources, so perhaps we'll need another 12 months to finish this process'? You can see why, generally speaking, airport owners prefer access undertakings—the negotiated outcome of the first 12 months—to declared services at the end of that 12 months when the minister steps in. You can see why airport users prefer the services to be declared by the minister.The problem with making a decision on this legislation is that it is something of a balancing act between these two different interests. But, in this instance, when a regulatory regime was put in place precisely because of the situation of a natural monopoly of the owners and precisely to give users some measure of certainty at the end of that first year of private operation, Labor does not believe that the government has made out its case for the extension of time.There are some wider implications here as well. If we want people to support the airport privatisation process, then we have to establish that it is about more than revenue raising or ideological obsessions. We have to establish that it is about providing a better use of what is, after all, an important community resource, and it is about providing fair access to that resource. There are signs in other areas that airport owners are already seeking to get around aspects of the regulatory framework, most notably the price cap mechanism. Pulling bits and pieces out of the existing regulatory framework cannot contribute to confidence in the process.The opposition will not hold the bill up here, but I do signal that we will vote against a blanket extension of 12 months when this debate resumes in the Senate. We are saying to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, `You have not made your case. We really think you should sit down and talk to the airport users: you should talk to Qantas, you should talk to Ansett and you should talk to the regional airlines and the smaller airport users. You have not adequately informed them of your plans and the rationale for this change. You have not involved them in discussion to see whether some alternative approach can be taken.' They have a right to ask for that consideration so that the users of services at phase 2 airports are not so obviously disadvantaged.20:11:003482Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—It is my pleasure to speak on this Airports Amendment Bill 1999 . The bill really is a straightforward one. It is no big deal. The way in which the member for Dickson has spoken about it clearly shows that, as in so many things, there is a lack of involvement of the other side of the House in corporate matters. The privatisation of airports, undertaken in the last couple of years, was quite a significant step. It has been a great success from a government point of view because the revenue raised from that privatisation was significantly greater than people realised.We are seeing the superb running of airports as a result of that privatisation. It is opening up all sorts of new possibilities, particularly for Canberra airport which is dear to my heart and close to my electorate of Eden-Monaro. Some great regional advantages will come out of the privatisation of that airport. With that sort of background, it was only logical that, after the first phase of privatisation, some of the aspects of the contract involved in that privatisation would be looked at and some changes made. And that is what this bill is all about.There are a number of minor amendments. The matter concentrated on by the shadow minister is in relation to the extension from 12 months to 24 months. Quite frankly, I really cannot see the big deal. Some people are saying that the phase 2 owners would be in a different situation from phase 1. From consultations that have taken place, the phase 1 owners are not concerned at all and various things have been put in place. To think that Perth airport might be competing with Canberra airport, or Brisbane airport might be competing with Canberra airport is a nonsense. This `competitive advantage' thing does not make any great sense.The main aspect of this bill is the extension from 12 months to 24 months of the period whereby the owners can sort things out with the ACCC in relation to the users and the lessees on their airports. There are a number of things that take place in airports that clearly fall into that monopoly side of things, and that is why the criterion—that within 12 months the owners would put in place with the ACCC undertakings for access for those users—was there in the first place.We found in the phase 1 sale that that 12 months was very onerous because, in that 12 months, many things had to be done as far as the airport owners were concerned. Primarily, they were focused on putting together their master plans. Each of the new owners was required to put together an airport master plan and to show where they were taking that airport for the future. That is a pretty reasonable sort of task in itself. They found that the 12 months was really a bit tight and, consequently, this bill will extend that to 24 months. Nobody is going to get hurt; all the criteria are there. The users are not going to be disadvantaged during that period. What it actually means is that, by giving them 24 months instead of 12 months, we can ensure that they will get it right and the documentation and those sorts of things will be well and truly in place in a very appropriate way, so that there will not be any problems. I think that in giving it only 12 months you will see a great rush of activity, and often that is when things fall apart. Most of the feedback we are getting is that phase 1 owners are not perturbed at the fact that the phase 2 owners will get that extra 12 months to put in place matters with the ACCC.I mentioned that one of the main reasons why some of the airport owners have had difficulty doing this within the 12 months is that their major focus is on putting together a master plan. In relation to Canberra airport, which is one of the phase 2 owners that will fall within this criteria, I can say that they presented their draft master plan at the end of November last year. It really shows some exciting things for this region and justifies the reasons why we have moved to privatisation. They will be able to use the airport as a great impetus for development not just in Canberra, but in the whole region. That is what I personally have an interest in, in representing the south-east region from Canberra—that Canberra airport, as a result of this privatisation and in getting these sorts of things right, will be a gateway to the Snowy Mountains and the coast.The master plan—`Canberra airport, a regional asset: the economic impact of the Canberra international airport on the capital region'—came out after an ACIL study was done. This is the sort of work that has had to be done in this 12 months as part of the contract to purchase under the phase 2 airports. Terry Snow, the executive chairman of Canberra airport, in putting forward the master plan, highlighted the potential for the region, and it was quite revealing. Many of the people in this House will know Canberra airport very well because they fly into it when they come here to parliament, and they fly out again. There are currently 70 businesses operating in the Canberra airport, employing directly 1,660 people. That is a fairly significant commitment to the region.UU5HORNEMr Horne—It can be more.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—The member for Paterson, who is sitting opposite, says that it can be more; that is right. If you look at the master plan they have put together, you can see that there will be significantly more. That is the current situation. To give you some other figures, the airport has a turnover at the moment of $361 million, and it is adding $174 million into the region's GDP. Within the next 10 years, based on the ACIL report, those 1,660 direct jobs at Canberra airport will increase to over 3,000. There will be a turnover of something like $665 million, which is an increase of 84 per cent, an injection into the region's GDP of $298 million, which in fact will be an increase of 71 per cent. That really is quite exciting stuff for the region.The owners of Canberra airport, as a phase 2, are affected by the requirements in relation to sorting out ACCC matters, and they will be given that additional time. I applaud Terry Snow, the executive chairman of Canberra airport, and John Milton, who are running things out there. They have done a terrific job in taking over the Canberra airport, sorting out these sorts of matters, and they have done some great work in their first 12 months in putting together the master plan.As I said at the beginning, all this bill simply does is give an extra 12 months to make sure all of the trade practices aspects are in place with the ACCC. Nobody is affected; it is not any big deal at all. The other aspects of the bill are fairly minor matters, which I note the opposition agrees with anyway. I think they really should support this bill and allow the great progress that we have made with the privatisation of airports to continue in a very positive way.Motion (by Mr Anderson) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3484Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Anderson) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—We already have a motion before the chamber.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a motion before the House at the moment and that should be put.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is what I was doing. The question is that this bill be read a third time.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—I draw your attention to the state of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—But we already had a motion before the House.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Nonetheless, the House is inchoate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sorry, the minister has already moved a motion.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—With respect, I understand that, but the House is inchoate, so that is a matter that takes precedence, I would have thought.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No. The question before the House is that this bill be read a third time.The House divided. [8.28 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr D.P.M. Hawker) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills3485r6553485Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Ms Worth for Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.20:34:003485Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 is going to be a very popular bill in my electorate, I can tell you. This particular bill allows registered health benefit organisations to offer discounted premiums to contributors based on administrative savings. That is a very welcome initiative indeed.This bill also allows health funds to offer a loyalty bonus scheme to contributors in recognition of the period of time over which contributions have been paid by or on behalf of the contributor. When this becomes the law of the land, it will be particularly welcomed by the older people in my electorate—the seniors—who have been contributing to private health funds all their lives. This particular bill also allows for waiting periods to be modified for certain conditions, ailments or illnesses to reduce the incentive for so-called hit-and-run behaviour. That also is something that will be widely welcomed.Also contained in the bill is a provision to allow health funds to cover the patient co-payment for prescribed pharmaceutical benefits for in-hospital treatment. I know from my particular experience of being in hospital that that would be a very valuable and welcome addition indeed. The other main item covered in this bill would allow health funds to pay gap benefits up to the scheduled fee for out-of-hospital procedures which are undertaken in accredited facilities. Surely a very sensible amendment in this bill.But I bet that the opposition are going to oppose this. Time after time we hear, `No, no, no,' coming from the opposition. I think it is time for the opposition to think in the national interest instead of in their own particular personal interest. I remind the opposition that what other people are saying about the bill certainly needs to be observed. For example, the Australian Consumers Association supports the general intent of the bill to increase flexibility in what health funds can cover in their policies and allow loyalty bonuses based only on the length of membership and not on the number of claims, which reaffirms the government's commitment to community rating. I stress that: it reaffirms the government's commitment to community rating. Medibank Private said that they:. . . support the government's initiatives contained in the bill, in particular steps that allow the value proposition for private health insurance to be extended and encouraged in the industry.What are the National Seniors Association saying? What they said about this bill in Senate committee hearings can best be described as `glowing'. They said that their organisation:. . . feels that the federal government has established an objective to reinvigorate the private system, and that this proposed legislation deserves endorsement without significant alteration.I invite the member for Jagajaga to hear that again: that this legislation deserves endorsement without significant alteration. I know, as I move widely in my electorate, that these amendments certainly will be widely welcome.On Labor's side, they simply do not want to acknowledge that private health care matters. That is really sad. It matters when you talk to struggling pensioners, for whom the main issue in their lives is to maintain their private health insurance. It matters to them. I quote the words of Graham Richardson on 2GB on 20 November 1998:There is an ideological bent here that says that Medicare is perfect—which is ridiculous; and therefore can't be changed—which is also ridiculous; and therefore nothing should be done about private health—which is also ridiculous.Had we taken the Labor approach, the `nothing' approach to the problem—(Quorum formed) This is the third quorum that has been called on me this evening. It is a terrible waste of the parliament's time. It is a terrible waste of my colleagues' time, but thank you for coming in, colleagues. You would know that if we had taken the Labor approach—the `nothing' approach—to this problem, private health insurance coverage in Australia would have slipped to 20 per cent within five years. I inform the member for Jagajaga that that would have resulted in an extra $2.5 billion in Commonwealth spending under the health care agreements as compensation to the states and territories. It would have also resulted in adding an extra 1.2 million bed days every year to the public hospital system, stretching the public health system well beyond its limits.I sometimes wonder if it is the agenda of the Labor Party to move in the direction of pulling both the private sector and public sector hospital systems down. It would have also resulted in generating a fall of about $1,000 million in the public hospital revenue paid for by private hospital patients. It absolutely stuns me that, out of blind ideology, Labor cannot see that the falling level of private health insurance membership in Australia is hurting our public hospital system as much as it is hurting those people who rely on private health insurance for peace of mind: the little old pensioners who struggle to meet their private health insurance payments. The member for Jagajaga knows who they are. They are in her electorate, in my electorate and in the electorates of the member for Deakin, the member for Boothby, and the member for Petrie.Last year when the 30 per cent rebate was trying to find its way through the Senate opposition, I received a letter from Mrs Robyn Stricklen, a constituent in North Queensland, so concerned that the government's reforms would not get through that she faxed a plea to me in Parliament House to deliver to the Labor and Democrat senators. I would like to read that plea, in part, again today because it does bear repeating. I quote:When my son was 5 years old, he developed a severe headache and constant vomiting. I took him to the outpatients department of the Mount Isa Hospital, and the young doctor there examined him and told me he had a migraine. I had my doubts about this as he was getting weaker and the pain was worse.Next morning I took him to an old Scottish doctor we had in the town at the time. She immediately diagnosed him with meningitis and we had to take him straight up to the hospital for a lungapuncture . . . The inconsiderate treatment he received during his stay left much to be desired. When he was released, I went into town the next day and joined up with a private health insurance fund . . .At various stages when I felt that we needed the money elsewhere and I thought of dropping out of the fund, I remember these times. Never again will I subject my family to the health care they received.Mrs Stricklen may be just one small member of our national Australian community, but you will find a Mrs Stricklen in every single community right throughout our country. They are there in the thousands. There are 700,000 Australians with incomes of less than $20,000 a year who have private health insurance. That is a very sobering thought. In my electorate of Herbert, in Townsville there are 30,265 privately insured people. That certainly sends a message to the government, it sends a message to this parliament and it should send a message to the opposition, of the value of private health insurance in this country. We need to get these further measures through the parliament. They are designed to work in association with the government's 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance holders. I commend the measures to the parliament tonight.20:45:003486Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—What I want to do tonight is set out the opposition's view on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998. It is a particular challenge as this bill is a quite remarkable concoction of a variety of proposals and shows every sign of having been thrown together in haste—in fact, such haste that, apparently, the Minister for Health and Aged Care forgot to consult with some of the key groups in the health sector, such as the AMA. When he finally did so, some weeks after introducing the bill, he had a sudden change of heart. He went back to cabinet and removed—and we will see the amendments either later tonight or tomorrow—some of the central elements that were being proposed. This seems indicative of the arrogant and rather slapdash style of this government.Broadly, the bill contains a range of measures intended to further the government's goal of deregulating the private health insurance industry. The government believes that private health insurance will be more attractive if the industry develops more diverse products. It is understood there will be a series of other bills in the coming months to further reduce regulation on the industry. This view fails to understand the extent of the industry's failure to come to grips with its own problems, the need to control costs and eliminate gap payments, which turn the public off private health insurance.The minister is putting blind faith in the 30 per cent rebate, which he is promoting enthusiastically, using $7½ million of scarce health funds, public taxpayers' funds, to advertise the rebate. He is doing this despite there being saturation advertising by the private health insurance industry itself which really has the responsibility for attracting new customers. The minister knows that there has not been a wave of new members joining the funds, as he had hoped. There are, in fact, queues of existing members wanting to claim their rebates and I understand that over $200 million has already been handed out to those existing members.The minister also knows that Medibank Private has reported that only 6,000 new members signed up for hospital insurance in January and that they represent over a quarter of the market—that is, Medibank Private. That is nowhere near the 500,000 new members required if the government is to achieve what, by any estimation, would have to be seen as a modest target of 33 per cent of the population having private health insurance.The industry itself, in the last few weeks, seems to have gone very coy about how many new members are joining. It is only three months since we had the private health insurers giving sworn evidence that they believed the rebate would fix all their problems and attract over 2½ million new members and boost the participation rate to 45 per cent. But at industry conferences they are now admitting that the rebate will be only a short-term boost and the long-term problems of the industry are continuing to grow.The minister must be dreading the day in mid-May when the figures for the March quarter are finally released. The figures for the December 1998 quarter, which were released recently, show that another 23,000 people deserted private health insurance despite knowing the government was blindly pressing on with its health insurance rebate.The issue in private health insurance is about ever-expanding gaps and value for money. But the minister seems to be deaf to the public who are voting with their feet and deserting the funds. So deaf is the minister that he has recently approved a massive 22 per cent increase—I repeat: a 22 per cent increase—in premiums for the first fund which has sought an increase in its premiums since the rebate came in. I will discuss this in a little more detail in a minute.The fact is that the government seeks to wash its hands of responsibility for future price rises in private health insurance through the legislation that we are debating tonight. And let us make no mistake about it: that is what this government is seeking to do in this bill tonight. What that will do, when the public finally get to find out about it, is unnerve the public and further diminish confidence in health insurance as a reliable product.Rather than being the saviour of the health insurance industry, the government is turning out to be its worst enemy, through its inconsistent and ill thought out attempts to prop up the industry without addressing the glaring and deep problems that it faces.In looking at whether this new legislation will help to fix up any of the underlying problems, what we need to consider is why the industry has been regulated in the past. Essentially, the private health insurance funds are offering a product that seeks to spread risks equally among the different risk groups and to provide insurance against unexpected medical costs at a fair price. In the past, before Medicare, private health insurance was the dominant form of protection against the costs associated with illness, and the strong arguments for community rating whereby everybody contributes to the common pool have been accepted by both sides of politics.Community rating is of course at the heart of Medicare. The result is that people have to pay according to their capacity to pay and not according to which illness they might be struck down with. The role of private health insurance alongside such a universal health insurer is not the same as it would have been if there had been no such national insurer. Labor does support the role that private health insurance plays as a complement to Medicare and can see arguments for some of the changes to the current rules that we are debating tonight. However, the arguments we advance are based on what is good for the health system as a whole, not what should apply to the small part of the health system, which should be ensuring that quality health outcomes are achieved for all Australians in a framework where Medicare is central.If the government is serious about supporting Medicare it would accept that this is the main system for health insurance in Australia. For those who wish to have the benefits of private hospital insurance, we of course have a legitimate provision of private health insurance offering a choice of doctor, a higher level of hotel services in private hospitals, and, particularly in the current environment, an ability to obtain elective procedures without waiting to have them done in a public hospital. These roles are complementary to Medicare. Waiting lists at public hospitals are excessive, due to underfunding and a shortage of doctors in the public sector because various specialists can earn more in the private sector. The challenge is to fix these problems so that Medicare offers a reasonable service and people do not have to be scared into private health insurance as a backstop for a system they believe may fail them when they need it. It is unacceptable—certainly unacceptable to the Labor side of politics—for private health insurance to become the only route to proper medical treatment or for the difference in the standard of care between public and private hospitals to become a gulf which results in a two-class US style health system. This is the road the Howard government is taking us down.The measures being taken so far include a surcharge on the Medicare levy for high income earners without private health insurance and the subsidy for private health insurance—two goes they have had at that so far. Associated with that have been significant reductions for public hospitals which have produced hospital waiting lists and have created an air of crisis in our public hospitals, which does scare people into the private health insurance fold.I turn to the specific measures contained in this bill. The most objectionable part of this legislation is the three-stage process in schedule 3 to remove government involvement with the approval of price increases. In 1997, the same Prime Minister we have now took personal responsibility for approval of premium increases after the public controversy following the introduction of the original means tested health insurance rebate scheme.This bill proposes initially that decisions to vary the rules for a fund be separated from decisions to change the rates charged. For rate variations it is proposed that the notification period for premium increases be reduced from 60 days to 14 days and that increases in the first instance are still approved by the minister. Decisions to disallow an increase will be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.But in the second stage the approval of price increases is to be delegated to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council under generally similar conditions. There are no provisions in this bill setting out the criteria which PHIAC are to use in approving price increases nor any requirement for them to adopt guidelines or publicly explain their decisions. Similarly, there is no cap on the increases that can be approved nor any special provisions in relation to reducing requests for increases above CPI. This is significant, given that the government has agreed to fund 30 per cent of the cost of every increase. So 30 per cent of the cost of every increase that the health insurers want to put forward will be approved by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council and the taxpayer will be the bunny, as a result of this government's move.The bill provides that phase 2 must commence within two years of the commencement of phase 1, but no minimum time is set. In fact, the minister could enact this legislation and, very shortly after, delegate the decision to PHIAC. Clearly, the intent of what we are debating here tonight is to remove political responsibility from the government, and there is no attempt to place any sort of restriction on the increases. Labor opposes these measures and will move that they be deleted. If the minister is not prepared to stand accountable for the price impacts of his decisions, he is not fulfilling the responsibilities that ought to rest with his office.The third stage of price deregulation that is contained within this bill starts with a maximum of another two years and totally abolishes control over price increases. This is even less acceptable than phase 2. Again, there is no minimum period set for the length of phase 2 and it is possible for the government to advance the whole process to occur within a few days.This bill amounts to little more than a ministerial escape hatch. Unwilling to take responsibility for price increases for private health insurance, this minister wants to avoid any future public wrath and to wash his hands completely of accountability. And well he might, because the government is doing nothing whatsoever to encourage cost containment in the private health sector. Just last week we have seen the minister gaily approve a 22 per cent increase in premiums for the Defence Health Benefits Fund. This is a huge jump which has wiped out the effect of the 30 per cent rebate for many Australian ex-servicemen, defence personnel and their families in one blow. Listen to these figures. A typical retiree was paying $154 a quarter under the old scheme, including the previous means-tested rebate. The huge 22 per cent increase comes on top of the abolition of the old rebate, resulting in that private health insurance fund member paying an additional $10 a quarter—so not paying less for his health insurance but paying an additional $10 a quarter despite the 30 per cent rebate.The minister said before the last election that nobody would be worse off—I think we have heard that before—under the new rebate arrangement. However, because the funds have failed to control costs and the minister is, of course, prepared to approve any increase no matter how large, he has just wiped out the effect of the rebate for these members in three short months. Senator Herron yesterday described the 22 per cent increase as reasonable. It just goes to show what this government thinks. The excuses he offered were that the last increase had been 16 months ago and that a lot of new people had joined the fund, pushing up costs. These are ridiculous justifications. Particularly given the low rate of inflation, there should have been a clear public statement by the minister as to why he was prepared to approve such an outrageously high increase.When the rebate legislation was debated, I predicted that many people would see the temporary reduction in premiums wiped out within two years because of the failure of the government to tackle the underlying problems. This government is always in a rush to deliver, and in this case it took only three months to break its promises, not the two years that I had thought. Members of other funds must now be waiting in trepidation to see what will happen with their premium increases in June. As part of a shabby political deal, the members of the Australian Health Insurance Association agreed to defer their price increases from March to June to give the rebate a chance to attract members before the prices went up. The funds should have been aware that an artificial delay in adjusting premiums would increase the amount that premiums would have to go up.They also should have known that their widely touted goal of achieving 45 per cent coverage is completely unachievable. The government, of course, has adopted a target of increasing participation to only 33 per cent, with a premium increase of just four per cent. Only the government can explain how it expects this to be achieved. But, if there has not been a huge take-up by new members in May, the minister knows very well that he will receive a raft of proposals for premium increases which will blow the four per cent planning target out of the water. The funds know that the minister is prepared to approve any increase they request. Of course, the proof is in the pudding—just as we have seen recently: 22 per cent was deemed to be reasonable for the Defence Health Benefits Fund. No wonder the minister wants to get out of any responsibility.A further section in schedule 3 provides that the minister may disallow rule changes other than rate increases on the additional grounds of public interest and, secondly, the interests of the private health insurance industry. The first of these changes is supported, but I have grave concerns about the way in which the second ground could be applied to reduce competition or to force the funds to operate in a political way. Labor will amend the section to delete the second leg of this schedule by removing the proposed new section 78(4)(d).In terms of more attractive products, I turn to the next part of the bill. Labor supports the objective in the explanatory memorandum for the bill of making the private health insurance industry more efficient and encouraging it to produce more attractive products. The principal measures being proposed are to permit loyalty discounts for longstanding members and to allow discounts for bulk buyers, that is, employers offering health insurance as part of an employment package. With the safeguards built into the legislation, these proposals are acceptable. The extent of the discounts is limited, and it is possible that this measure may open the door for some of the smaller funds to merge with the larger ones.Labor also agrees that it is unfair on other fund members if some people are allowed to hit and run, that is, take up membership where they join for a relatively short time to obtain coverage for treatment that they know they will need in the near future, only to leave the fund straight after treatment. However, I would suggest that to be consistent there should be strengthening of the portability arrangements so that people can take advantage of more competitive products and move to a new fund without suffering unreasonable waiting periods. This problem will be exacerbated by loyalty bonuses and the increasing complexity of the terms and conditions of policies held by different funds. This issue has been raised by the former Private Health Insurance Ombudsman in her last annual report. She cited there an example where the rules may have breached the conditions of registration under the National Health Act. I understand that she has raised the problem with the minister but has yet to receive a reply.Part 4 of the bill permits insurance funds to cover the patient co-payment for pharmaceutical products dispensed within private hospitals where this is done as part of a product that offers no-gap coverage. Labor will be supporting this part of the legislation as well. The payments are restricted to the out-of-pocket expenses in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule for pharmaceuticals dispensed in hospital. The implementation of this measure, however, needs to make sure that there is not a loophole that allows private hospitals to dispense quantities of drugs for use at a later date. If this were allowed to occur, it would imply significant cost transfer onto insurance funds. This measure will, of course, cost the insurers and it will add to the government's health expenditure as a result of the 30 per cent rebate.I want to spend the remainder of my time on part 5 of the bill which would introduce a new category of approved facilities in which various categories of surgery currently carried out in hospitals or day surgeries could be undertaken. The bill would enable private insurers to offer coverage for a new facilities fee which would be chargeable to cover the additional costs of equipment needed to undertake office based surgery in a safe environment with proper infection control. However, the amount that would be covered by the existing Medicare benefits for the procedure in question will drop from 85 per cent of the schedule fee to 75 per cent, which is the proportion paid in hospitals. In other words, the gap between the Medicare rebate and what is charged will be increased.This extension creates a very bad precedent, as private health insurance, since Medicare was introduced, has never been allowed to cover medical services outside of hospitals. This has allowed the Medicare benefits schedule to be the primary determinant of prices charged in the community. Allowing private health insurers to cover gap payments above the schedule rate will have a significant inflationary impact on people without insurance as well as those with it. This concern is highlighted because under this proposal the funds are to be permitted to offer a table of benefits solely for procedures in such facilities.I want to refer to some data which I certainly acknowledge is a little old but it is the only data that I have been able to get hold of in the time. I am referring to some data collected by the Department of Health and Family Services in 1994-95. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table of data from the Department of Health and Family Services.Leave granted.The table read as follows—Charges for in-hospital medical services by type of service, Australia 1994-95Type of ServiceFess charges ($m)Schedule fees ($m)Over Schedule in hospital (%)Over schedule billing out of hospital (%)Specialist visits135.7125.3+8.3+1.7Pathology117.6106.0+11.0+1.5Diagnostic Imaging89.685.6+4.7-3.1Obstetrics81.3 58.0+40.1+5.8Operations516.9429.1+20.5-2.9Assistance at ops.36.632.7+12.0-9.9Anaesthetics172.6140.9+22.5+4.0Radio/Nuclear therapy2.52.3+11.8+1.6Other53.249.7+7.0-0.8All specialist Services1,206.11,029.7+17.1-0.2Source: Department of Health and Family Services.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—This table compares the total fees charged with the schedule fee across major specialist services for in hospital and out of hospital services. This is further broken down to show the average extent to which actual fees exceed schedule fees. We see here there is a clear pattern that in all specialist services there was a markedly higher fee charged for in hospital services—where gaps can currently be insured up to 100 per cent of the schedule fee, or even higher, where contracts exist between specialists and hospitals—compared to the situation that exists out of hospitals where there is an absence of gap insurance. What this has meant in practice is that fees have been kept closer to the schedule fee on average.Let me use a couple of examples to demonstrate this. If we look at specialist visits, we see that over schedule billing in hospitals for specialist visits is plus 8.3 per cent, and for out of hospital visits it is plus 1.7 per cent. Members will notice that, on average, specialist services delivered in hospital were 17 per cent more expensive, highlighting the extent to which gap insurance creates an environment where fees can be increased because there is a greater capacity to extract a further patient payment in hospital.The present gap policy was introduced as part of a settlement of the doctors dispute in New South Wales on the ground that 100 per cent schedule fee coverage would put public and private patients on the same footing for in-hospital care. The figures show that this has not occurred and that private patients are paying just as much as if gap insurance coverage had not been allowed. This measure is an invitation to lift medical fees in the community. Let us make no mistake about it: that is what this measure will do. It will see medical fees in the community increase and we will lose control of what people have to pay for urgent medical care.The proposal for office based surgeries does not provide for them to be required to meet the same sort of stringent controls that apply to existing day surgeries. There are no additional resources or powers provided for the Commonwealth to undertake any sort of monitoring role. There is no reference to the states having the role of inspection and quality control that they currently do for private hospitals and day surgeries. There is a need for the government to spell out how many staff will monitor this new sector and where the funds will come from to ensure high standards are maintained. There is little detail of the range of procedures that will be approved for such facilities.A final point is that the arrangements for ministerial approval of procedures do not include the minister taking into account whether the procedures are cost effectively carried out in such facilities. If it is a good idea to encourage more activity in office based surgeries, then it should be done for the dominant part of the health sector—that is, the 70 per cent of Australians who do not have private health insurance. It should be done as part of Medicare. If this government was seriously committed to Medicare, it would make sure that this new idea that it thinks is a good idea is made available at a reasonable price for Medicare patients, and not limit it to private patients and not allow it to be done in such a way that it will drive up the overall cost of medicine in our community.The explanatory memorandum claims that the measures in the bill will have no financial impact. This is clearly incorrect. If, as intended, the bill results in higher levels of health insurance of course there will be an increase in cost to the government because of the open-ended nature of the 30 per cent health insurance rebate. This is another example of the government wanting to look like it is doing something to boost private health insurance but not expecting any real improvement. That is what it looks like. Of course, the government has also not addressed the price effects of any of the new measures. The cost of the loyalty discounts and the discount for employers will affect the entry premiums. The extent of the discounts is not disclosed in the bill.What Labor would say is that we have a very different vision for Australia's health system which is founded on Medicare. There is a clear role for the private sector if it can come to terms with playing a complementary role to Medicare instead of trying to compete with Medicare and drive it out of existence. To achieve this, the government needs to abandon its current direction and pursue strategies to promote a healthy private sector. Those sorts of strategies would include controlling costs in private hospitals and negotiating with doctors—not offering open-ended gap insurance by saying, `If you enter into contracts with private hospitals or with these new out of hospital specialists, we might offer you a contract of, say, 130 per cent.' What is that going to do to the price of medicine in the community? Of course, the only thing that it will possibly do is drive up costs for people who need specialist care.The government should also be developing simple, easy to understand packages of health insurance so that consumers can actually make comparisons about what they are buying. We also need to see a reduction in administration costs through amalgamations of and other improvements in efficiencies with health funds.In summary, the opposition will support the introduction of loyalty discounts and discounts for savings on administrative expenses. We support the tightening up on waiting periods, subject to amendments to increase the portability between funds to make it easier for people to transfer. We support the provisions allowing insurance coverage for gap payments for pharmaceuticals dispensed in private hospitals, subject to the closure of any loopholes which might blow out costs.But Labor opposes strongly the extension of private health insurance coverage to office based surgery because the blow-out in costs will be significant for patients, private health insurers, private health insurance members and the health system. Above all, Labor opposes the reduction in oversight by the government of premium increases for private health insurance. The government has created a mess in the private health insurance industry and has ignored all the expert advice that it has had available, but it will not be allowed to escape accountability for future price increases in insurance premiums. It will not be allowed to escape accountability for the consequences of its drive for a privatised vision of a US style, two-tiered health system. The bill that we are debating tonight is yet another step in that direction and both parts of it will be opposed. (Time expired)21:17:003493Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Neither the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 nor the other government measures will see a US style health system. But we do know what the Labor Party's vision for the Australian health system is like, and that is the United Kingdom's National Health Service. What they want is a large public sector and a private sector for the elite because there will always be some people who can afford to pay. What they totally neglect to realise is that there are almost one million Australians on incomes below $20,000 who are holding private health insurance.The government supports Medicare. The government supports community rating. The government supports the private system and believes that the private system plays an important role in taking the pressure off the public system. We actually have a bit of balance in our view—we support both. I worked in both. I worked in the private system, I worked in the public system and I am tired of the Labor Party continually attacking the private health system. We know that they oppose it. We know that the Labor Party opposed the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance. We know that they oppose the privatisation of Telstra. We know that they oppose labour market reform. We know that they oppose tax reform.In fact, we now know what is the defining principle for which the Australian Labor Party stands, and that is they oppose government policy. So you have this situation where the Australian Labor Party is now a reactionary party. They now react to government policy. The Liberal and National parties are the parties producing sensible, incremental reform. What a far change from when the shadow minister for health was an activist in the political economy movement and she gave a speech at the 1983 Karl Marx Centenary Conference in which she declared:What does the dismantling of capitalism and the building of socialism involve? It is all too clear that spontaneous uprising is not around the corner. Planned insurrection is only a dream in some people's heads. We are talking about transformation . . . the essence of this is that it is a strategy for a war of position, where we can gradually make incisive interventions into the sovereignty of capital.There you have it—they want to make `incisive interventions into the sovereignty of capital'. The shadow minister for health really should come clean about what she meant when she gave this speech. Is that still her view? Who are these great bastions of capitalism whom the shadow minister for health would seek to oppose and make `incisive interventions' into capitalism? They are the private health funds—47 funds, of which 44 are not-for-profit funds. Any money they make goes back into their reserves. They do not make a profit.It is important to put the private health system into perspective. Of the $43.2 billion spent in 1996-97, $13½ billion was spent by the non-government sector in health; that is, 31.3 per cent of total health expenditure. The non-government sector spends more on health than state, territory and local governments put together. In 1995-96 there were 1,027 acute care hospitals in Australia—704 were public and 323 were private, and that does not take into account private patients who choose to be treated in a public hospital.Due to the increased trend towards day surgery procedures, treatments that have previously involved a length of stay in hospital are provided in out-patient clinics, day care facilities or community health services. In the period from 1989-90 to 1995-96 there was a 11 per cent reduction in available public acute beds, and they were the years that Labor was in government. You had a drop in beds from 3.7 to three beds per 1,000 of population. At the same time you saw the number of private acute care beds increase by five per cent.Looking at the differences between public and private hospitals, the national hospital morbidity database showed that, in 1995-96, 3.6 million people were treated in public acute hospitals and 1.6 million in private acute hospitals, one-third of all hospital admissions were in private hospitals, 50 per cent of all hospital surgery was in private hospitals and there are currently no services provided in public hospitals that cannot be provided in leading private hospitals—the only exception is donor organ surgery.The public and private systems are mutually dependent. The coalition believes that people should have a choice whether they are treated in private or public hospitals and that the private system plays an important role in relieving the pressure from the public system. When you have a decline in the number of people insured, increased pressure is put on the public hospital system.In terms of people covered by private health insurance, the health funds provided for a total of 1.5 million episodes of care for the 12 months ending December 1998—1.1 million were in private hospitals, 253,000 were in public hospitals and 124,000 were in day only, free standing hospitals. One of the important parts of this bill addresses one of the perverse incentives that currently exists in the funding situation. Someone can have an episode of care in a private hospital and that is 100 per cent covered by the funds. If they have it done in a day surgery facility out of hospital then it is only 75 per cent covered by the funds. That means that people, in order to avoid the gap, will choose to be treated in hospital, which will be more expensive. We are going to allow the funds to cover the gap for those out-of-hospital treatments.The private health system and private health insurance are still being constrained by the laws and regulations which prescribe how the health funds, medical practitioners and private and public hospitals work. These reforms are important. They are very far reaching. They complement the government's 30 per cent rebate.If you look at the history of private health insurance, when Medicare was introduced in 1984 about 50 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance. It is now about 30 per cent. That means that private health is less able to play this key role in relieving pressure on the public system. The private sector, as I have said, plays a very important role—31.3 per cent of total health expenditure, 50 per cent of all surgery.The Industry Commission looked into private health insurance two years ago. They produced a 500-page report. It is a very good report. There were 22 recommendations in that report. The government is acting on most of those recommendations. There are still some areas, like community rating, which the government affirms, and the re-insurance pool, in which there will be further important structural reforms for private health insurance.As I have said before, the government supports the principle of community rating. It is a much fairer principle than risk rating. Risk rating would see poor people and people in ill health unable to afford the premiums. Community rating protects people on lower incomes from the high cost of premiums.Looking at the bill, schedule 1 allows the funds to, firstly, provide discounted premiums. Secondly, it allows the funds to provide loyalty bonus schemes. Previously they have not been allowed to provide loyalty bonus schemes. It also changes the waiting periods to deter the problem of hit-and-run. That is where someone joins a private fund, goes through the waiting period and then has all their elective surgery or planned pregnancy while they are covered. This specifically addresses areas like joint replacements and obstetrics, where there is often quite a lag time.Amongst the younger members who join the funds, something like 30 per cent of them are churning through the funds. They are joining and then dropping out. When they join they serve the waiting period and then they make big claims; when they drop out they do not rejoin. That is adding to the problem of premium rises and adverse selection. The profile of the private health funds does not reflect the community profile, it is weighted towards people who are more likely to claim on their benefits and young, fit and healthy people have been dropping out. As that has happened, premiums have risen again. You have this inherently unstable structure in private health insurance and the reforms contained in this bill will address that.Importantly, it allows the health funds to cover patient co-payments for the pharmaceutical benefits. Fifthly, it allows gap benefits to be covered for out-of-hospital procedures. That is important and I have already touched on it. Advances in medical technology mean that many procedures can be safely performed outside hospitals. This measure allows the funds to make savings because you then have a procedure that can be performed out of hospital at a lower cost.Schedule 3 relates to having the premiums overlooked by PHIAC. The funds will have oversight from an independent body. The shadow minister made much of the minister not being able to disallow premium rises. When you look at Labor's record in government, there were something like 167 premium rises and not one was ever disallowed by the minister. In fact, the minister has very little latitude to disallow a change to a health fund. Under this schedule, exactly the same rules that govern the minister will be operating for PHIAC. So PHIAC will be operating in exactly the same way as the minister. I am not sure why the Labor Party opposes this, because the reality has been that when the Labor Party were in government none of these premium rises were ever opposed by the minister.Last of all, I want to touch briefly on the 30 per cent rebate. That was an important bill that we debated last year. It was passed by the parliament. The anecdotal evidence is that people are rejoining the funds, especially younger Australians. All the 30 per cent rebate has done is restore to the funds the same level of assistance that was there when Medicare was introduced. When Medicare was introduced, it was always intended that it would stand side by side with a very strong private system. It is much less able to play that role with the premium levels so low. In fact, a survey showed that 67 per cent of people supported the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance.Last year, when I was in my electorate people were continually raising the problems of private health. I have an electorate with a very high percentage—something like 22 per cent—of its population over 65 years of age. My electorate is in the top seven in Australia in terms of numbers of elderly people. I also have almost 48,000 people out of 80,000 holding private health insurance. So 48,000 of the electors in my electorate hold private health insurance, and they were very grateful to have the 30 per cent rebate.On average, about 39,000 voters in each electorate hold private health insurance, and yet the Labor Party opposes this. The reason that they are opposed to it is ideological: `It is the private sector; it must be bad.' We already know that in order to be a member of the Australian Labor Party it helps to have been a trade union official, a political staffer or a government employee. The private sector, in the Labor Party's view of things, is inherently bad.The Minister for Employment Services has done a survey of the 64 Labor members of the House of Representatives and he has found that only two or three were not trade union officials, government employees or political staffers working for the Labor Party or whatever. You have a situation where 52 per cent of the Labor Party front bench are former trade union officials. It is even worse in the Senate, where 67 per cent of Labor Party senators are former trade union officials and 50 per cent of the class of `98, the new intake of the Labor Party, are former trade union officials. We would expect to have a certain proportion of trade union officials in a party that is the political wing of the trade union movement. But most people would say that perhaps 67 per cent in the Senate and 52 per cent of the front bench in the House are perhaps a little high: it is a bit of a narrow base for a political party.The 30 per cent rebate has been important in giving people some relief from premium rises, but we do need further structural reforms. These reforms are important. As I said previously, we also need to look at issues such as unfunded lifetime community rating, changes to the reinsurance pool to promote healthy behaviour, and that sort of thing. I commend the bill to the House.21:33:003496Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 is yet another example—and we have seen quite a few—of this government's obsession with the private health sector. Do not worry about the Labor Party's views of the private health sector; in this case the government has an obsession about it. It amazes me when I look at these bills that the party which generally advocates letting the market rip in almost every other area is so protective of private health insurance and private health providers. We have heard the minister say in recent days in reference to youth wages to let the market determine the lowest level and let the market determine what they should be paid. But when it comes to the private health sector, to the doctors and the private hospitals, no: we have to protect them and make sure their incomes are secure.The government is again in this legislation embracing what are very regressive subsidies and industry protection—something that it would normally repudiate in other areas—at the expense of universal access. We know how hard it fought, for instance, to remove tariffs on the textile, clothing and footwear industries, the motor vehicle industry and the shipping industry; yet here we have the government adding to the protection of this industry sector.Part of its consistent focus on tax rebates, subsidies and industry support includes measures which are clearly denied to other sectors of the community. As I suggested earlier, if you compare and contrast Mr Reith's attitudes to deregulating the labour market and lowering wages with this government's meticulous protection of the incomes of medical practitioners and hospital operators in the private sector, you would have to worry and wonder about this government's priorities.It has expended a massive effort, and huge amounts of money too, on propaganda—and that is precisely what it is—which denigrates, for instance, wharfies' wages. We heard a huge campaign about the elite blue-collar workers earning huge sums of money, it was claimed, for working very few hours per week. They were pilloried in this place and elsewhere by the minister responsible; yet here we have the government protecting the wages of doctors and those employed in private hospitals, and those owning private hospitals, for that matter—who in this community are, you would have to say, in a uniquely privileged position which is already costing this country dearly.I have a great deal of sympathy for the medical profession. They work extremely hard. I worked in a university medical faculty for a number of years and I taught medical students. I know many of them. They are not poor: they are by community standards very well paid. They earn a great deal more than those on average weekly earnings in this community, as do those people who invest in private hospitals. Yet here we are throwing out huge sums of taxpayers' money which will directly or indirectly end up in their pockets and increase their incomes.It is perhaps not well understood that at the turn of the century medical practitioners were paid roughly the same as primary school teachers were. I would be the first to acknowledge that technology has changed and that the demands are probably greater, but the demands of education are very great too, and we do not reward teachers nearly so well. Yet we have this government prepared to spend taxpayers' dollars to the tune of $1.8 billion per year on the 30 per cent rebate, prepared to spend further money in this bill and also prepared to use the advertising dollar of the Commonwealth.We know of at least $8 million in direct advertising and we are told by the Senate estimates committee of up to $20 million in indirect forms of communication to the public to basically say, `You should take out private health insurance because the public system is no good.' I am deeply offended by those advertisements—deeply offended, as someone who has been committed to the public health care system for a very long time.It would appear that no effort is too great to protect the position of those in the private health sector, most of whom enjoy incomes and profits beyond the wildest dreams of the average Australian family. The most spectacular of these manoeuvres was the recent massive 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance and the extraordinary advertising blitz.When I think about it, I cannot ever remember seeing a government advertising a private product, which is basically what they are doing. They are saying, `Buy private health insurance.' Every night on the television you can see it. In newspapers and print advertising you can see it. This is a product which is only available to and only taken up by a small percentage—30 per cent—of the population. The remaining 70 per cent cannot or will not have it. So the government are advertising to a small part of the community, using everybody's money for that advertising and using everybody's money to prop up the private health system. I think it is obscene, and this legislation adds to that obscenity.I cannot remember either seeing so blatant an attempt by a government to deliberately undermine one of its own programs—Medicare and the public hospital system. If you look at those advertisements, that is precisely what it does. In the first advertising series about private health, it deliberately denigrated the public hospital system. Remember all those beds travelling down the roads; the byways crowded? Once you got private health insurance, you went through the lot at speed. The message is very clear: the public health system is no good; the public hospital system will let you down. I cannot believe that a government advertises so negatively against its own programs.This time around, with a 30 per cent rebate—and to the tune of $8 million at least, we understand—the series compared the public system with being squeezed under a leaky bus shelter in the heavy rain. That is what the government think of their own public health system. The advertisements tell us that the only way you can be rescued from this grimness is to take your little red and white umbrella and rush into the private hospital sector—the private medical sector—and you will be saved from the downpour. You will be saved from the grimness of that bus shelter. So we have all these brightly coloured umbrellas that are going to rescue the citizens who can afford private care while the rest suffer. What kind of a message is that to deliver to the community? What kind of a use of taxpayers' funds is that?This legislation, before it was amended, was proposing a massive attack on Medicare by reintroducing what has been a long-held conservative policy, including in Fightback, of overall gap insurance. Every economist of note, at the time and subsequently, has attacked such insurance on the grounds that it is a blank cheque to providers and a massive impost on the total cost to the health care system. It always blows out costs. In that respect, the backdown by the government is welcome, but I am sure that after further discussion with the medical profession the government will find the formula that is acceptable to them and it will bring it back.I want to talk this evening, in addition to the gross injustice that has been perpetrated upon 70 per cent of the Australian community, about the payment of benefits for out-of-hospital procedures. This is another cost increase. It is also discriminatory and it is also expensive. Medicare patients cannot get access to it, and they are bound to be charged extra or have to wait in a queue. Again the government is attacking its own system—one it purports to support.In our view, if there is a problem and there need to be further fee increases, this should be done through the framework of Medicare rebates and not through private health insurance funds, which are available only to a small percentage of the population. The proposal in this bill, as it stands, will give this benefit uniquely to privately insured patients while Medicare patients will almost certainly have to pay extra—because you can be sure that the doctors will not rest easy until they get it—or queue for a service in a public hospital or in a doctor's surgery because patients with private health insurance are being given preference. Doctors are sure to introduce new fees to Medicare patients as a result. I do not think there is any doubt about that.Earlier I mentioned the protection of doctors' incomes and profits from the private health sector—not because I want to attack them—as I say, I have taught them; I have been a minister for health—but it seems to me obscene that the taxpayer is putting in extra funds and funding advertising for this group. Why this largesse to such a privileged minority? Why are we as parliamentarians asked to endorse this? If the government put half as much energy and half as much money into the public system, we would have shorter queues, we would have a better quality of service and there would be fewer pressures of the kind the government is inclined to complain about. You would have better working conditions too for salaried officers in the hospitals.I think it is worth having a look at the average wages of the community and the incomes we are protecting through this 30 per cent rebate and through the measures in this bill. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, when the comparisons were made in 1996, close to one in every two adult Australians lived on an income of less than $15,600 a year. Doctors earn, overall, about 10 times that. Let us take some other comparisons, because they can be contested. A busy general practitioner—and this is according to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners—can net about $150,000 a year, which is roughly four times average full-time weekly earnings. Despite complaints from some GPs about their salaries, they earn what has been described as good, solid middle-class incomes. Compared with their specialist colleagues, certainly they are hard done by, and the relative value study outcome will be very interesting. We will see who wins that debate.According to the national survey by the ABS in 1997, the average income of GPs was $70,000 a year after all costs and before tax. In the city, it was around $96,000 a year. The same survey found that the top 25 per cent of GPs grossed around $240,000 a year which, after practice costs, translates to an income of around $145,000 a year—hardly poorly paid; well rewarded for their services, in my view.Specialist incomes are much higher than this already. The lowest published estimates come from the ABS, which estimates that average specialists earn around $300,000 gross annually and $160,000 after costs are taken out. As I said, they are very conservative estimates. Professor Peter Baume, a former Liberal minister for health, undertook work for us in 1994. He found that eye surgeons in the early 1990s netted in excess of $150,000 per year and, in gross terms, perhaps averaged $350,000 per annum. There were some specialist areas where surgeons earned up to $500,000 a year.Those earnings are made up of various components, including payments from Medicare, their private health work, compensation work, and so on. But what we are suggesting here is that we give them even greater advantage. Make no mistake about it, these rebates, this sort of gap insurance, extending it to out of surgery rooms—there is no cap. There is no way that this government seeks to prevent those funds being taken in the form of higher premiums—that is, higher costs—to the private health insurance funds from the doctors and from the hospitals. There is no cap; it is economically ludicrous. Any economist will tell you that any operator in this sector worth his or her salt will go in and capture a big proportion of that additional funding and, in the case of the 30 per cent rebate, the taxpayer will have to go on paying 30 per cent of a higher and higher figure. In absolute terms, they will be paying more in two years time than they do today. Sure, they will still get their 30 per cent rebate, but the taxpayer will be paying a lot more, and it will be a huge windfall for medical practitioners and private hospital proprietors.As I say, any economist worth his or her salt will tell you that that is the logical outcome. Indeed Access Economics did some work for the AMA which said precisely that in relation to gap insurance. It is well known, and it is well understood. Yet this government comes to us and says, `We have to put all this additional money and advertising into the private health sector,' at the expense of the public system. It is not as if this is new money. This is money that has been taken directly out of the public hospital system, which is then advertised by the government, which is supposed to support it as second class, as second rate. We know that is what they want to achieve: one system for the indigent and one for the rest—those who can afford private health insurance.I think that is an appalling outcome for this community, and I think it is something that would be opposed very clearly by the majority if they understood clearly what the outcomes would be. This 30 per cent rebate, too, has been surrounded by a lot of misleading advertising, and there will almost certainly be increases in premiums as a result of the changes I have indicated. I think that this legislation, while it has some elements with which I do not disagree, falls very short on the question of balance.The public hospital system, the public health system and those people who work in the public system deserve better than this, and as long as this government is obsessed by private health insurance, putting all of its energy and effort into the private sector, the total cost to the community will blow out and there will be no improvement in the quality of services.21:47:003499Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Listening to the member for Fremantle is quite an amazing experience. She really did not learn very much at all during the time that she was health minister, because if she had, she would know that increasing spending in the public health system does not decrease waiting times; it actually increases them. That is what has happened in my home state of Queensland. A huge injection of funds was put into the public health system, and what that did was increase numbers on the waiting lists. Explain to me the logic of that. Where did it go? It went into the health bureaucracy. If you believe the Labor Party, that is where they want the money to go—into this massive health bureaucracy.The member for Fremantle also spoke today about the fact that GPs are paid incredible salaries for what they do. I have to point out to her that this is a group of people who face increasing pressures, and many of them are also suffering from depression. They have to deal with suicide, all sorts of things, because of the amount of pressure placed on their lives day in, day out. They are also a group of people who face potential litigants every time someone goes in to see them. Many people go and visit doctors as a cheap way to sue. If you spoke to a number of doctors, you would find that that was the case—that a great many people go to a GP, they try to find something wrong with their health or procedure and use it as a way of engaging litigation.But tonight I am speaking about the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 to improve Australia's health care system, and it surely must rank very highly in terms of Australians from all walks of life. From the moment of its election to office in 1996 and again in October 1998, the Howard government has been committed to ensuring that Australia has a viable, dual track health system. The Howard government is committed to a health system that gives average Australians choice. This government is also committed to addressing the problems that have beset Australia's public health system. To that end, the Howard government committed a record level of funding for public hospitals, a real increase of 19.2 per cent. We have also put private health insurance within the reach of more Australians, with an injection of $1.7 billion into the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. That puts a choice between the public and private health systems which is within the reach of the majority of Australians.The bill before the House today complements this 30 per cent rebate by introducing greater flexibility to the range and variation of products that health funds can offer their consumers. There are a number of ways that the bill achieves this, and it is important to note that the changes this bill will make to the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973 are consistent with some of the recommendations of the 1997 Industry Commission report on private health insurance.For the benefit of those opposite, some of those recommendations were aimed at enhancing community welfare by making public health insurance more responsive to the needs of the community. Greater flexibility in product range will make private health insurance much more attractive to consumers. When more people take up private health insurance, it will go a long way to relieving the pressure on the public system. That is what those opposite fail to understand—it is all about the pressure on the public system. It is a position that this House has heard before and, no doubt, will hear again. However, it seems to be lost on the members opposite because they are so opposed to this government's health policy. This is a fact that I wish return to later.The Industry Commission made a point in its summary of the issues surrounding the decline of public health insurance that is somewhat self-evident but, nevertheless, worth reiterating. The point is that the decline in private health insurance membership depends `largely on community perceptions about the value of private health insurance compared to service under Medicare, and how policy measures affect that comparison.' Over the past few years, the cost of private health insurance has been rapidly rising. Many of my constituents have written to me on this issue on many occasions. It was a matter of great concern to them because they wanted choice in the delivery of their health care, but many of them were beginning to feel that if costs continued to rise they would have no option but to pull out of private health cover.The net effect of people pulling out of private cover was the rather invidious result of causing premiums to rise. Private health insurance was locked into this vicious circle of declining membership and increasing premiums. In fact, between 1984 and 1998 the percentage of the population with private health cover dropped from 50 per cent down to just 31 per cent. This increased the pressure on the public system and, as the Industry Commission noted, it led to a deterioration in the safety valve role that private health insurance played for the public system.The federal government is determined to repair that safety valve so that those in the community who cannot afford private health insurance can have access to an efficient public health system. The 30 per cent private health insurance rebate is the biggest step in that direction—and it is a popular step, as many of my constituents have told me. This bill before the House will add to the positive steps that the 30 per cent rebate has taken, and it will do this in a number of ways. The first way is that the amendments to the National Health Act 1953 will give greater flexibility to private health insurance products by allowing health funds to give discounts on premiums to consumers on the basis of administrative savings. A discounted rate on the premium will increase the affordability of private health insurance already discounted by the government's 30 per cent rebate.The amendments establish four ways in which discounts can be offered on the basis of administrative savings made by the funds. Many funds already offer these discounts. However, the government is putting in place amendments to the act so that discounts will be directly linked to administrative savings made by the funds. What is more, the amendments give the minister the power to determine the maximum percentage of the discount.The first way in which a person is eligible for a discount is if they pay their contribution six months in advance. The second way is if a person makes their payment via a payroll deduction. The third way is if payments are made through a direct debit from a person's account at a bank or a financial institution. Fourthly, discounts are also available for groups—workplaces, for example, will benefit from this. All of these discounts are available because they are the result of administrative saving on the part of the health fund. That is, the cost of processing these payments is reduced so the saving is passed on to the consumer for the benefit of the consumer. There are limitations under these amendments. Funds cannot accumulate discounts if a consumer meets one or more of these criteria. For example, if a person pays their premium via direct debit and in advance, they will be able to claim the discount for only one of these.A second major amendment to the National Health Act of 1953 provides for the establishment of loyalty bonuses on the part of the funds. These would be available to health fund members on the basis of the period of time in which they have been paying their contributions, and I think that is a very fair and equitable thing. Possible bonuses include lower premiums, cash or a higher level of coverage of goods and services. That is an excellent way of making private health insurance much more attractive for average Australians.The third amendment to the National Health Act 1953 deals with an issue that will allow funds greater flexibility in regard to waiting times. This particular amendment will address a practice that the funds claim costs them—and ultimately Australians—a great deal of money. I am referring to hit-and-run behaviour, as it is known. That is the practice where people join a fund for the minimum period required, have a procedure and then opt out of the fund once the bills have been paid. Whilst the definition of pre-existing ailment will remain as it currently stands, this amendment will allow for an extension of the waiting time in regard to particular conditions that are often the source of this hit-and-run behaviour.The fourth amendment to the act will allow health funds to cover patient co-payment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS medicines, while the patient is in hospital. It was really good to see the member for Jagajaga supporting this particular amendment as well.The fifth amendment is one that brings eligibility for coverage on certain procedures into line with technological progress. It is now possible for many procedures once only performed in hospital to be done safely outside of hospital in accredited facilities. Many people these days are able to have procedures such as the removal of wisdom teeth under general anaesthetic done in a surgery. This amendment recognises the important role that procedures such as this will play as procedures and technology improve.There is one final issue I would like to raise while the House is considering issues that affect the Australian health care system. I spoke earlier of the Howard government's commitment to a dual track system of health care—a system that recognises the complementarity of public and private systems. From the feedback I have been getting from my constituents, this approach has been supported by a very broad cross-section of the community—from very young families just making a start, to pensioners, to self-funded retirees and to families with adult children. They have applauded the government's efforts with the 30 per cent rebate.The Howard government is taking a logical approach to the problems of Australia's health system. It is so unfortunate that the members opposite cannot do the same. Their ideological blinkers and their naive revisionism will do nothing to fix the Australian health system.In the February sittings of parliament, I raised some concerns that I had about a proposed agreement between the Queensland Labor government and their union mates and how it was affecting public hospitals in Queensland. The gist of my argument was that, despite the fact that the Labor government is claiming record levels of funding, they have already admitted that waiting lists have lengthened in Queensland.What is even more galling is the fact that the sweetheart deal that Mr Beattie has done with his union mates has done nothing but cause a blow-out in hospital operating costs because they are only concerned about one thing—that is, keeping jobs for the boys. Imagine my indignation when a copy of a branch newsletter by Labor Senator Brenda Gibbs came across my desk last week. Senator Gibbs claims, in that incredible Labor logic, that essential services are being threatened by the government's 30 per cent rebate scheme, because:. . . the coalition lines the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of those less fortunate.`Those less fortunate' include people like the former member for Blaxland who, despite the fact that he had a property worth a few million dollars, was too lousy to pay his own way in the private health insurance scheme. What is more, he even jumped the queues ahead of people that he claimed to protect.It happens in my own home state. The Labor Party gives us a spiel about being committed to the public hospital system but, if they happen to be in government and it is one of their family, they do anything that they possibly can to ensure that they jump the queue and that they do not partake of the public hospital system. How absolutely hypocritical is that! Senator Gibbs stated:Labor, on the other hand, remains committed to ensuring that all Australians have access to the best possible hospital care. Resources—She continues—should be allocated on the basis of need, not according to wealth.The fact of the matter is that Labor have ruined Australia's health system. They have not learnt their lesson. They are only concerned with scoring cheap political points, and they continue to go down that track. I am sure that Senator Gibbs and her branch members are not interested in the fact that public health funding is a real problem. The fact of the matter is that only the coalition has the policy to get Australia's health system back on its feet. This bill is part of that policy, and I commend the bill to the House.22:02:003502Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I must say I find myself in a unique situation: I agree with what the previous speaker, the member for Petrie, said about the Australian health system. It is in crisis because of the decisions and the cuts that those members on the other side of this House have sanctioned.This legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 , is another attack on public health and universal health care. Every day, in every way, this government wage war on average Australians and on our health system here in Australia. They have set about ruining what was once the best health system in the world.This legislation, like all this government's legislation, has been drafted with a view to looking after the mates—the mates of the government. Once again, the government have shown that it is not Australians they care for—not the Australians who rely on the government for health care. Australians are not the people that are important in their health care formula, rather it is the health insurance industry that they are interested in protecting. It is the health insurance industry that they are here in this parliament to protect and make sure that they earn a good living. When I think of health care I think about service delivery and about making sure that there is plenty of money for public hospitals.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Shortland will resume her seat. I would encourage the honourable member for Bowman to do his colleague the courtesy of observing standing order 57. The honourable member for Shortland.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—My understanding, and what I have always been led to believe, is that health care is about delivering quality services to the Australian people. But all this government has done since I have been a member of this House is introduce legislation about health insurance. I was interested to read in the regulatory impact statement that was attached to this legislation details of those people who had been consulted. It was hardly a diverse group.All the relevant government departments have been consulted. The Australian Private Hospitals Association, the Australian Health Insurance Association, the Health Insurance Restricted Membership Association of Australia, Medibank Private, the Medical Benefits Fund, the Australian Consumers Association—they are in there on their own—the Australian Catholic Health Care Association, state and territory based health insurance councils and state and territory based private hospital associations have been consulted.Where are all the consumer groups? Where are the pensioner associations? Where is the consultation with ordinary Australians—the Australians that use the health care system? Even the AMA was not consulted—an association that you would expect the government to consult on legislation as important as this, legislation that is going to impact on the working conditions of doctors who are the members of the AMA. Consultation was non-existent. The only consultation was with the government's friends in the private health insurance industry. This was reinforced in the explanatory notes for the bill, which stated the importance of this legislation to cater for the interests of the health insurance industry. The interests of the health insurance industry? What about the interests of the Australian people, I ask?I believe that it is time that this government started to address the real health needs of the Australian people. When I spoke in the debate on the health insurance incentives legislation I stated that the initiatives were doomed to fail. What was driving that legislation is the same thing that is driving this legislation—that is, the government's philosophical commitment to the health insurance industry rather than a philosophical commitment to the health of the people of Australia.As I predicted, that legislation has had very limited success. The longer it is in place, the more we see the failure of it to address the issue that it sought to address. We have had the government throwing money into advertising, and I must say that my office received numerous phone calls of complaint from people living in the Shortland electorate, saying that they did not believe the government should be putting the taxpayers' money into advertising when it could be putting it into health care, into the public hospitals that have been downgraded under this government.As we all know, the 30 per cent health insurance rebate has not led to an influx of new members. Private health insurance funds are still struggling. Along with the complaint about the government's advertising initiative, another predominant complaint I have received in my electorate office this year has been about the failure of health funds to give the full 30 per cent rebate to their customers.The people of Shortland believe that they have been duped by this government, that the government has not told them the truth. These people were unaware that the previous rebate would be withdrawn and that the ensuing 30 per cent rebate would equate to about 23 per cent. These are pensioners. These are people who were counting on the government to deliver—and the government has failed them. But, of course, if you were on a high income, you received the full rebate. Once again, the government was looking after its mates, those people with money—not the average Australian, not the pensioners, not the people whom I represent here in this parliament.This latest piece of legislation will lead to a further increase in premiums. The government seeks to deregulate the health insurance industry, initially by transferring decisions relating to premium increases to the Private Health Insurance Advisory Council, and then by completely deregulating premiums. We all know what accompanies deregulation; we have seen it time and time again: deregulation is always accompanied by increases in costs.So what will that 30 per cent rebate do for the people of Australia; and why is it that the government seeks to move away from it? The answer is: the government knows that it cannot deliver cheaper premiums to the people of Australia. So what it is trying to do is distance itself from that 30 per cent rebate; it is trying to escape the blame for its actions.When introducing its 30 per cent health insurance rebate last year, the government guaranteed Australian people lower premiums—but it sure did not take it long to distance itself from that promise, just as it is distancing itself from having to be accountable in the future for premiums. It was a promise that the government obviously could not keep, even when the legislation was introduced—and it knew it.This government has always been determined to destroy Medicare, and this legislation is yet another step down that path. It is the most significant attack to date on the principles of universal health care—universal health care, a measure this government is completely opposed to.This legislation will open the floodgates and make it impossible to keep specialist fees down. The legislation will allow selected specialist services to break the key element of Medicare—the medical benefits schedule which sets the rebate for medical services. This has always been the critical element of Medicare's success in keeping the costs of health down in this country. If the control for setting the rebate is broken down, then health care costs will skyrocket. That will make it more and more difficult for all Australians to access quality health care. That is something that we on this side of the House believe is essential. We believe that all Australians should be able to access quality health care; we do not believe that it should be determined by a person's ability to pay.This legislation will make it harder for every Australian to access quality health care. It will lead to increased costs and a breaking down of that critical element that has been so vital in the success of Medicare. This government has never liked or supported Medicare and has always been looking for ways to dismantle it—to dismantle what is or, should I say, was the most successful universal health care system in the world.This government is determined to send us down the US path, where there is a two-tier system—a system that is inequitable; a system that focuses on profit and not on health care, service delivery or patient care. We will have a system like they have in the US, where 40,000 people are uninsured. In the US, if you are uninsured, you do not have Medicare, you do not have a system of universal health care.What we have, and have always had, in Australia is a society based on fairness—a caring society, a society where every person can access quality health care. But what this legislation does—along with all the other legislation this government has been introducing—is move away from that concept of fairness, that concept of accessibility to quality public health for all Australians.The problem with private health insurance has always been the gap. This government has in no way attempted to address that. The costs of private health insurance will continue to skyrocket, despite all the incentives and handouts to the government's friends in the private health insurance industry.Included in this legislation is the ability for procedures to be conducted on patients out of hospitals, in approved facilities. This can already be done in day hospitals. Minor operations are carried out on a daily basis in day hospitals. I believe that setting up this other tier within the health system for out-of-hospital procedures will once again break down the universal health care system that exists in Australia.It will develop a system where those people that can afford to have minor operations in surgeries and approved facilities will be able to jump waiting lists and, once again, move away from the principle of universal health care. It will not help the ordinary Australian person. It will do nothing for the public hospitals. It will possibly make those day hospitals a little less viable. It will impact on the private hospitals that those opposite seek to support at every possible opportunity. It will tend to lead to a system where people in public hospitals have to wait longer for treatment.Another matter that has been of great concern to me in recent times is the impact of this government's policies on the community rating principle. I am concerned that there has been a move away from community rating and that gradually it will be eroded. Already a number of funds offer policies whereby people can elect to accept some of the risk and have an excess up-front. Coupled with that, people can exclude certain categories of surgery from their health insurance. This is, I believe, the first step towards moving away from community rating.I note that palliative care and rehabilitation are no longer getting the funding that they have in the past. In this International Year of the Older Person, I cannot help thinking that, given this government's record, we will find more and more costs placed on older people. Older people, pensioners, were so disillusioned by this government's 30 per cent rebate. They were the ones that were relying on health insurance and had stayed in the funds when they could not afford to continue paying the premiums. These people were dis appointed when they did not get the full 30 per cent rebate. In the International Year of the Older Person, we find that these people are moving away from palliative care and rehabilitation—services that are of the utmost importance to older people. Further down the track it is going to be harder for them to access private health insurance. The principles of this government are very questionable.In touching on one final point, I must say that nowhere has this government faced up to its responsibility in the area of dental health. Last week I visited an Aboriginal medical service at Kempsey. As we walked in, a sign on the middle of the wall for all members of parliament to see read `We need dental health'. An amount of $35 million is all it would cost this government to implement the Commonwealth Dental Health Scheme that it slashed.I think the government would be much better advised to put their efforts into providing a dental health service, a good public health service, to the people of Australia rather than putting their money into the health insurance industry. This is just an extension of the legislation that was introduced at the end of last year, legislation that has already been shown to be unsuccessful, legislation that has been doomed to failure from the day it was introduced. Rather than continuing to put good money after bad money, I encourage the government to move away from their philosophical commitment to private health insurance. Instead of putting all the health dollars into insurance, I urge them to start putting some money into our public hospitals and health service delivery and to start meeting the health care needs of the people of Australia.22:21:003505Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—In rising to speak in this debate tonight on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 I must say that I was disturbed at the presentation of the member for Shortland. I have always been a fan of her predecessor. He always argued his case in a very cogent way. I was disappointed tonight that, having always had constructive presentations from the previous member for Shortland, her presentation tonight just mouthed off the rhetoric on health that the ALP is notorious for.I come from Queensland. Up until the Whitlam years, Queensland always had a dual hospital system—the so-called two-tiered system that the member for Shortland criticised. That meant that people could have a choice of care, either in a public hospital or in the private system. If they wanted to go in the private system they took out health insurance, and it wasn't all that expensive an option.During the Whitlam years, the Queensland government was forced to come into the national scheme and, let me say, despite valiant efforts from various governments, both coalition and state Labor, the system has deteriorated somewhat since. Part of the reason for that has been that the ALP has progressively pursued a mantra of a socialist health scheme. It is their long-term ambition to make it so expensive that everyone will be covered by Medicare and we will all be treated the same, so to speak. It removes the element of choice and it removes the element of self-help. Quite frankly, I think many of the Labor members in this House do not believe in it, because you find when you talk to them privately that the vast majority of them still have private health insurance themselves.I have also seen what Labor governments do when they are in control of a health system. I refer to what they did in Queensland, not in the current turn of parliament but prior to the Borbidge government. In 6½ years they ran the health system there are into an almost incredible mess. And I can quote Bundaberg, because for 15 years I was on the Bundaberg hospital board. So I know something about the costing of hospitals and how they run—the tricks the Commonwealth plays on the states and the states play on the Commonwealth. I know that a bit of cost shifting and argy-bargy goes on.At the same time, having worked in that hospital system, I can remember that, when we left the board after three years of that final five-year term, we were about to build in Bundaberg a three- or four-storey hospital block which was to contain a CSSD unit, operating theatres, a million-dollar laundry and wards. It was almost ready for construction at the time the board was replaced. Six and half years later the state Labor government still had not built that ward. Interestingly, every time a Labor health minister came to town a sense of outrage would ripple through the community and the minister would make yet another promise. The promise went up progressively from $18.1 million to $30 million, but we still did not have the hospital block.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The chair would be grateful if the member for Corangamite would resume his jacket rather than be in here without the jacket at the present time.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—So I do not take kindly to these pious platitudes built around the Year of the Older Person. I think that at the federal level the previous Labor government knew quite well that many Australians would have to take an active part in their own health care and their own age care. The fact that they introduced, for example, the system of bonds for hostels was evidence that they accepted that principle. Why they could never accept it for nursing homes remains one of those things I will never understand. Then, in their last four years in office, they reduced the capital spending on nursing homes by 75 per cent. They knew the realities. They knew that people would have to take responsibility to a large extent for their own health care.The other interesting aspect of this is that when Labor came to power, 13 years before its demise, nearly two-thirds of all Australians—or certainly 60 per cent or better—were privately insured. When they left office, barely one-third were insured. In other words, we had two-thirds of Australians largely taking responsibility for their health care. By the time they had finished, only one-third were doing that. And you do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that that was going to place the health system and the health budget under enormous constraint.As the figure fell to 31 per cent, Medicare was not taking up the slack. In nearly every state, hospital waiting lists were increasing. In fact, since we have come to power, we have had to give special funds to the states to help them with that very circumstance. The member for Shortland made great play of how we cruelly cut out the so-called dental scheme—as if they had pledged that forever and a day. I see the member for Throsby looking at me—DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Well, you cut it out a little bit early as well, you know.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—It was to be a pilot scheme.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Hinkler will address his remarks through the chair.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was meant to be a pilot scheme. It was meant to help the states catch up. Had the Labor Party intended that that would continue, it would have had it in its forward estimates, but it did not.I have a similar situation in my own electorate. We got one of those special grants for a specialised birthing unit. All the various forms of birthing were experimented with on a two-year pilot scheme basis. At the end of that time, nearly all the successful schemes that were tested during that time were taken into the maternity section of the Bundaberg Base Hospital—all bar one, which was to allow women to keep the one midwife all the way through the gestation period, which was not practical. All the others were included. But what happened at the end of it: again, this dreadful coalition government cut out the birthing unit in Bundaberg! It did not—any more than the federal government cut out a dental scheme. You never intended that dental scheme to go any further than the pilot scheme itself, and similarly with the birthing scheme. So you build rhetoric around these issues.Debate interrupted.Adjournment350610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 350722:30:003507Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—In last night's adjournment debate yet another member, the member for Grey, raised questions of aspects of the Family Court. How many more times has this issue to be raised in this chamber before something is done about this life destroying monster in the community? Two weeks ago there was a tragic stabbing at Newcastle Family Court. While I am not aware of all the circumstances of this attack and therefore do not wish to comment on it, the same restraint did not apply to Barbara Holborow, a former magistrate of the New South Wales Children's Court, who immediately wrote an article, a very simplistic article, for the Sydney Morning Herald . She was correct to say this:Without doubt, the family court is the most emotionally charged of any of our law courts.Of course it is. And why? Because society is trying to put a legal solution, too often a legal straitjacket, on a human emotional situation. But what is Barbara Holborow's solution? More surveillance and metal detectors in Family Court buildings. Regardless of surveillance cameras, metal detectors and security officers in these courts, the bitterness and the frustration because of the current Family Court rulings will continue. And while ever emphasis continues to be placed on women's evidence and there is seemingly total disregard for men's feelings and circumstances this potential explosive mix and pent-up frustration will continue, to the detriment of our society.There are few issues in this society that are causing more frustration and more bitterness. Like most other MPs, almost daily I see constituents totally confused, angry and frustrated by Family Court rulings. On the very day of the Newcastle stabbing, I interviewed a constituent who has been refused permission to see his children for seven years despite the fact that he believes the children are in danger because the mother is on drugs. Another case the very same day was where a father and his parents, the grandparents of the children, were denied access to the children despite the judge being sympathetic toward them. Because the mother's barrister had argued that access was upsetting the mother, and this then transferred to the children, access was denied. The woman was represented by a barrister; the man, because of lack of funds, represented himself.It is not more surveillance cameras, metal detectors and security guards that are needed in Family Court matters but a dose of commonsense, more fairness from the judges and a more equitable approach to access to legal aid. For example, how is it that only one party in a case, usually the woman, has access to legal aid? The feelings of men in regard to Family Court matters are too often disregarded. Until the unfair mess that is the family law is sorted out, there will be more acts of violence perpetrated through sheer desperation. The difficulty too often is that the law is being used to sort out what are essentially emotional problems.Another issue increasingly being brought to my attention is the cases of women accusing their former partner of sexually molesting their child or children. In over half of the cases I deal with, this accusation is made. It is a nonsense but, given the hysteria in New South Wales currently concerning paedophilia, people are using this to make untrue and vile accusations against their former partners. I do not want to go back to the days when women were left with the financial burden of bringing up the children of broken relationships, but the way the Family Court operates is not the answer, and I challenge anyone to prove it is.It is a tragedy that this court is bringing so much frustration and bitterness into our society. It is going to come out in more and more cases of violence, which everyone deplores. But while ever the Family Court continues to act in the unfair, unjust and totally biased manner in which it is operating, these frustrations will continue. We are imposing a terrible burden on society.350722:35:003507Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Gilmore's own Shirley Fenton-Huie is trying to gain funding to tell the stories of the servicewomen, the heroines of Australian conflicts. So far she has had no luck in attracting the resources to record this import ant slab of history, that women also went to war. But what of the women who stayed at home? Yesterday at noon, as I stood in the sculpture garden of the Australian War Memorial listening to the speech by the Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon. Jocelyn Newman, I looked at the audience. Sitting quietly in neat rows were women, the representatives of thousands of women who served Australia in times of conflict.These women might have been in rows in the paddocks, planting and harvesting the food for a nation, with hands unused to the soil, in the solitude of a country at war. They might have been in rows, albeit less quiet but neatly, in the factories, processing plants and packing sheds around the country. Quietly the women of this country baked the cakes, made the sandwiches, set out the cups, saucers and plates in neat rows and waited to serve, refresh and entertain the soldiers on leave. Again, none too quietly, I hear tell, but certainly neatly, thousands of women knitted, sewed and crafted millions of articles for those serving overseas. And I know that their goods were well received in the trenches and on the battlefields. On many Anzac Days I have watched these same women bring their neatly dressed children and grandchildren to stand in rows along the roads' edges to cheer on the men who went to various wars and conflicts, never mentioning the parts they themselves played.As I stood listening to the ceremony yesterday, I wondered where the men were to salute and celebrate the women's contribution. Apart from a few officials and politicians, there were, sadly, not many men. It came to me then that quiet service and unassuming performance of duty in neat rows is not the stuff of movies or heroes. Do not misunderstand me. There is no doubt that the men and women of the services who went to war knew of and greatly appreciated the sterling efforts of these women at home. But no telling of their story has been passed down through the generations, as this service was not seen as action packed or exciting by those who promulgate the myths of war, like the movie industry and associated media.The men of the next generations down the line have not heard the tales of adventure from these women. They do not know of the sacrifices, of the toil or of the selfless donation of all but life and limb to the cause. These men have no reason to come today and still we have not told them. My own knowledge is limited.The guesthouse that I co-own was taken over as a training centre for the WAAFs during World War II. Many women have returned to Ranelagh House to recapture the memories and the spirit of those days, to meet again with their colleagues from long ago at reunions of the many classes that passed through the portals—although, sadly, their numbers are dwindling.They tell me of the trials and tribulations suffered there, of how hard they found the training, the weather and the work of the house. Many have told of how those hard times were `character building', and how the hard lessons learned stood them in good stead for other trials in life, and always they put the positive view of their time during conflicts.Many women are still paying the price, alongside their men, caring for and tending men whose bodies, souls and/or minds are still broken by war. They keep the home fires burning, keep the children quiet, yet encourage them to grow and prosper from war experiences, and teach them how to love someone who perhaps is too troubled to be able to fully return that love. They say a woman's work is never done and many of the women at the service today still bear the weight of that truism.In some small measure I want to assist in the telling of these women's stories. In my own electorate of Gilmore, some of these women have been applying for and receiving `Their Service, Our Heritage' certificates, but there must be many who have not. I call on the women of Gilmore to tell the tales of keeping Australia going. Yesterday was the last International Women's Day for this millennium, and today I would like to begin the search for the stories of these quiet, unassuming women.These women might have been members of formally structured organisations such as the CWA, the Land Army, the Red Cross or one of the thousands of other localised, less formal groups of women who have aided the war efforts of Australia through the last 100 years. Once assembled, we will work together to ensure that that history is recorded and passed on to future generations so that the whole story of war is told. So that, in time, one might see many more men at ceremonies like that held yesterday, sitting or standing in neat rows, commemorating the efforts of the women in times of war.350922:39:003509Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Youth suicide is one of the most perplexing problems facing our society today. It is a phenomenon that is hard to comprehend, yet it is a very real problem and one that communities, families, schools and young people themselves have to come to terms with on a daily basis.In Australia, more than 2,000 young people take their own lives each year, and youth suicide rates are increasing in Australia and throughout the world. People always ask: why did it happen? How could a young person with his or her life stretching before them destroy that life, the hope, the possibilities that that life had? The parents who cared for the child that they lost find it so hard to come to terms with the loss. The friends of the young person find it difficult to understand why they did not realise that the person was suicidal. Everyone associated with the young person has his or her life changed forever. That is why I have decided to share with the House tonight a unique and exciting approach to this serious problem, a problem that is affecting all our communities.In 1997, a student at Belmont High School in the Shortland electorate committed suicide. This student was popular, an outstanding student and liked by all. The school community was so devastated by the loss that it decided to act to stop this happening again. The usual approach is for a caring, well-meaning adult or adults to take the initiative and try to develop programs and strategies to utilise the services of health and medical professionals. Counselling is provided by skilled caring adults, people trained to give this support. Unfortunately, young people are not usually consulted or utilised in the development and implementation of suicide prevention programs.Belmont High School decided to adopt a different approach and it is this approach that I would like to share with you tonight. At Belmont High, the school community became involved in the Life program, a unique program that has been extremely successful. It was introduced into the school in February 1998 after students and supervising teachers attended a two-day workshop, where four people who had completed a Canadian suicide prevention program called Living Works conducted the workshop.Belmont High School is the first and only high school in Australia that completed the workshop and introduced the program. The workshop taught them the appropriate suicide prevention techniques to use to help a student at risk of committing suicide. The students involved in the Life program meet every Friday at recess and lunchtime, and are always available to talk to other students. They work together to build a stable and reliable group for students who need support, and they also work to make the school community aware of the risks and how to deal with these risks.The program is special in that it is the students who take responsibility for and deliver the program. It is the students who provide the support, the counselling and intervention for students at risk. The students have spoken to many community and school groups about the problem of youth suicide. They have been creating awareness in the community and educating people about this very serious problem.The students have produced posters that have been placed in prominent positions in the school. These posters detail where students can go for help. This program has been most successful at Belmont High School and I encourage you to take it back to your own electorates. It has improved community awareness and made all students more aware of the problem. It has promoted a caring community atmosphere in the school and given students the skills they need to help their fellow students.It is a different approach to a vexing problem. It is an approach where the young people take responsibility for a problem that is affecting them. I raise this matter tonight to give Belmont High students the recognition they deserve and to share their success with other members.351022:44:003510Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to speak, once more, on behalf of the people of Kurnell. But, first, may I say that I was very pleased to hear the comments from the member for Shortland about Belmont High School. It is a program that interests us in Cook and, in fact, we are having a youth suicide forum, a bringing of people together, so we will take on board the recommendations that the member has made. I think it is an issue which all parliamentarians should be involved in. Maybe we could work together on a bipartisan basis to discuss information. I congratulate the member for Shortland for that.Early on the morning of 28 February, a Thai Airways flight took off at 1.45 a.m. over Kurnell. This was clearly in breach of the curfew that exists at Sydney Airport. Two thousand people live at Kurnell and there was considerable outrage in the community at this flagrant abuse of the curfew provisions. Many of the local residents have come out in protest at this breach. The Mayor of Sutherland Shire has called on the government to act in this regard. The penalties involved for breaching the curfew seem to be of the order of $80,000 with a maximum fine of $110,000.When Thai Airways were asked why they had allowed this flight, why they had insisted this flight take off, a spokesman said that it was because they were unable to get accommodation in Sydney because of the Mardi Gras. I have to say it defies imagination that no rooms were available at all in Sydney on that weekend. We know that there was pressure on accommodation but certainly in the area surrounding the airport it can be proved that there were rooms available. While we welcome the tourism opportunities provided by Thai Airways in coming to Australia, they need to be reminded that they need to be responsible citizens in coming to Sydney and flying over Kurnell. Most people in Sydney would not appreciate having a fully laden jumbo jet flying closely overhead at that hour of the morning.The issue of aircraft noise has been of major concern to many of the electorates surrounding the airport. We have the curfew in place for good and proper reasons. While we see the need for the construction of a second airport and while the EIS is under way—and we know that in due course the minister for transport will announce the results of the EIS—we have to live in the meantime within the constraints of Kingsford Smith Airport, the cap provisions of 80 movements an hour and the curfew that currently exists.In saying to Thai Airways that we welcome their bringing tourists to Australia, nevertheless they have to be responsible to the citizens of Sydney. It is, in fact, the citizens of Kurnell who have to put up with much of the aircraft noise from the airport. Some 56 per cent of all flights now take off or land over Kurnell. While, in terms of noise distribution, it is part of the long-term operating plan that Kurnell is exposed to more noise, the residents are making two claims. One is that there has been inadequate compensation in terms of noise insulation at Kurnell as a result of the flights taking off and landing over that area.The second is that greater penalties should be in place to take issue with this Thai Airways example. Flights are allowed to take off after 11 o'clock at night—cargo flights and propeller driven aircraft—but it is highly unusual to have this type of breach by a jumbo jet. There seemed to be a fairly cavalier attitude by the spokesman for Thai Airways in response to an approach on this matter. We would certainly be looking forward to discussions with the minister and asking him to see what penalties can be imposed. 351122:48:003511Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—This morning Australians woke to the news that Australia had bowled out the West Indies for a record low 51 to win the First Test in Trinidad. Congratulations to Steve Waugh for his first Test victory as captain, to Michael Slater on his 12th Test century, to Glen McGrath for his 10-wicket haul and to all our cricketing heroes. Not far from Trinidad, across the water in Florida, a hero of mine passed away—Joseph Paul DiMaggio, the Yankee Clipper, aged 84.DiMaggio was more than just a ballplayer. He was a perfectionist on the diamond, the idol of millions of sports lovers everywhere, particularly those of Italian descent. He is one of the triumvirate of original Italian American heroes. Just as Fiorello La Guardia, who became Mayor of New York City, paved the way for Italians in politics and Frank Sinatra broke the barriers in show business, Joe DiMaggio did it on the diamond. His deeds encouraged many kids from non-Anglo backgrounds to play the game and gave them the confidence to succeed.Di Maggio came up to the majors in 1936. In 1941, he hit safely in 56 consecutive games, a record that will stand forever, and played 16 seasons in centrefield before retiring in 1951. Most eyewitnesses said they never saw him make a mistake running the bases, which he did with speed, judgment and grace. He won three most valuable player awards, hit 361 homers—with 1,537 RBIs—played in 10 World Series with the New York Yankees and was an automatic selection to the Hall of Fame. The great American novelist, Ernest Hemingway, spoke of him in The Old Man And the Sea:Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio.Simon and Garfunkel were moved to sing about him in Mrs Robinson in that opening line which we all remember:Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.When he gave the game away, the Yankees retired the No. 5 shirt. He married Marilyn Monroe. Once she met him after a very well attended public appearance and gushed, `You've never heard applause like it, Joe,' to which the quiet DiMaggio replied, `Oh yes I have!'I am a baseball fan and a Yankees fan, having been drawn to the game and that team by the exploits of their legends—The Babe, Larrupin' Lou, The Mick, Yogi and especially Joe D. I played the game and at one stage dreamed of one day donning the famous pinstripes in the very stadium where Don Bradman shook hands with Babe Ruth. My abilities did not quite match those ambitions but for 10 years I coached juniors in an attempt to help them fulfil their dreams.Some of them are doing just that today. One of those whom my team regularly played against was Graeme Lloyd, the first Australian to pitch in the World Series—and he did so as a New York Yankee. Australian baseball is on the up. There are six Aussies playing in the majors, with five signing contracts with American major league ballclubs last year alone. All told, over 100 Australian hopefuls have signed. One of the players I helped to coach, Andrew Lineham, has signed with the Houston Astros.There are two baseball clubs in my electorate of Deakin, the Ringwood Saints and the Blackburn Orioles. This week the Orioles play in the division one final of the VBA. I send Bruce Dicker and the boys my best, and hope they play to their limits and bring home the pennant.The major league baseball season is a long one, as it was in DiMaggio's day—154 games from April through to late September. One of the American writers stated today that DiMaggio played in an era when baseball unquestionably was a national pastime. DiMaggio performed with an elegance and grace that drew respect bordering on awe. He was far more than one of the best centre fielders of all time; he was one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century.A sportswriter once asked DiMaggio why he played so hard every day, even in the seemingly meaningless games. He replied that he did so because in the stands there might be a fan seeing him play for the only time. That is an attitude we should all emulate in all our endeavours. 351222:53:003512Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—Earlier this year a constituent contacted me with a story that I am sure will become more common as the government's contracting out agenda gathers pace in Centrelink. This constituent and his family returned from holidays to find a letter from a Brisbane based debt collection agency stating that it was the first and final notice of a debt. There was no explanation given about how the debt originated and only the merest reference to Centrelink at the top of the letter. The letter came as a pretty nasty shock to my constituent because at no time had he ever received anything from Centrelink advising him of a debt. All the debt collection agency could tell him was that it was an Austudy debt—not how it came about.My constituent then had to make over 10 telephone calls to various sections of Centrelink and to the debt collection agency in Brisbane. Finally a breakthrough. Apparently, on closing its doors and merging into Centrelink, Austudy had sent some of its overpayments to private debt collectors, but without the corresponding file for each debt. My constituent was therefore in the position of having demands made on him by a debt collection agency that could not tell him what the debt related to. I think that most people in that position would do some investigating before handing over the money.To add insult to injury, my constituent was being charged interest for the six or so months since the debt was raised—the six or so months when Austudy had closed without notifying him of the existence of the debt and the six or so months since the debt collector had taken over the debt. This is a glaring example of the absurdities and inefficiencies of the government's contracting out schemes. Where was the efficiency or the cost saving in any of that scenario, let alone any accountability or service to the client?There was certainly no efficiency or cost saving for my constituent who spent hours on the telephone trying to sort out the mess. He had no say in whether the debt was to be rounded up by Centrelink or by the private agency but the difference in time wasted and the cost to him is significant. If it had been Centrelink chasing the debt, he would have been saved the run around by dealing directly with the agency that had the information he needed to satisfy himself that the debt was in fact legitimate. Centrelink has quality control measures built into its debt collection procedures—a system of written notification and reminders, information about appeal rights in the event of a queried debt and letters complete with the name and contact details of the relevant officer who has the information relating to the client's debt. Clearly there is no such quality control in private agencies when it can take six months to get the first and final notice.Ultimately for clients dealing with Centrelink there is recourse to the Ombudsman. According to the Ombudsman's office, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over the activities of private parties contracted to perform functions for government agencies is unclear. That is not good enough. This government goes on and on about being in favour of giving people choice. When did my constituent get a choice to have his overpayment handed over to the private sector, thereby forgoing any standards of accountability or recourse?If the debt was handled by Centrelink, he could have called Centrelink from Rockhampton for the cost of a local call instead of having to call the debt collection agency in Brisbane on a number of occasions. The debt collection agency only has a long distance number, no 1800 number. Remember that this is a man just out of full-time study with a young family that has a budget that I am sure does not stretch to numerous long distance telephone calls.As to any advantage to Centrelink's operations flowing from this contracting out arrangement, I fail to see them. Whatever the letterhead at the top of the letter of demand says, Centrelink is obviously involved, so people's first reaction is to call Centrelink. Even if clients do not call Centrelink immediately, Centrelink is inevitably going to come into the fray because the debt collector will refer people back to Centrelink for background information relating to the debt. So you have Centrelink staff's limited time and resources spent helping a person whose matter they have supposedly handed over to an outside agency. And you have a private contractor with no ability to give people the information they deserve to know in these circumstances and no accountability for the way they operate.Meanwhile, Centrelink staff are still held accountable by the public for perceived poor service and Centrelink time and resources are still having to be directed towards a function that was supposedly contracted out in the name of efficiency. This idea of contracting out is used as a justification for cutting the numbers of Centrelink staff, but as this example demonstrates it was the deficiencies of contracting out that caused more work for the Centrelink staff in the first place. Contacting out does not deliver results for Centrelink and it certainly caused my constituent a great deal of unnecessary anxiety.351322:58:003513Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—In the short time I have left tonight I want to raise the concerns of the 300 residents of Patonga in my electorate. Patonga is a village on the banks of the Hawkesbury River. It is situated within sight of the metropolitan area of Sydney, about a 10-minute boat ride from Palm Beach.The people of Patonga do not have any mobile phone access. It is the only town in my electorate that does not have mobile phone access. There is only one road in and out of Patonga. They are surrounded by the national parks in the area and they are cut off on many occasions by bushfires. The people of New South Wales will remember the major bushfires of 1994 when many areas were isolated. Patonga was one of those townships that was isolated, but unlike most other areas they had no phone access whatsoever for the emergency vehicles, the bushfire brigade or the many boats that travelled across from the Hawkesbury River.I will be speaking with Minister Alston tomorrow. Whilst I realise it is not a direct government decision as to where mobile phone reception is, surely under the service obligations of the carriers something could be done to provide the township of Patonga with mobile phone reception—whether it be Telstra or Vodafone or one of the other carriers. In this day and age, coming up to the year 2000, it is something which most people, certainly those close to the capital cities, expect to have. I will continue to keep lobbying on my constituents' behalf until we manage to secure mobile phone reception for the township of Patonga. Then I will work on their TV reception, which is also very substandard.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:003513House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices3513The following notices were given:Mr Barresi to move—That the House:(1) continues to support the staging of the Sydney Olympics as an opportunity to showcase Australia, its people, culture and above all our sporting traditions;(2) acknowledges the commitment, work and performance of Australia's athletes and sporting organisations as they prepare to participate in the 2000 Olympics;(3) deplores the disrepute caused to the Olympic ideals by the continuing bribery allegations;(4) notes the concerns expressed by the local and international community at the loss of integrity in the Olympic movement and its possible effect on the successful staging of Australia's 2000 Games; and(5) requests that SOCOG calls on the IOC to fund any shortfall in sponsorship finances which may result from inappropriate action by IOC members.Mr Tim Fischer to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to export market development grants, and for related purposes.Answers to Questions in Writing3514The following answers to questions were circulated:3514(Question No. 34)343514Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural 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.3514Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) does not categorise any of its programs as "positive discrimination". DIMA is concerned with the entry and settlement of migrants. It provides a number of specialised programs that facilitate the early settlement and equitable participation of migrants, both citizens and non-citizens, in Australian society. The programs are largely based on the settlement needs of migrants, such as, the lack of English, the lack of familiarity with Australian society, the lack of initial access to accommodation and the consequences of torture and trauma. DIMA is also committed to providing employment equity in the workplace and to valuing the diversity of its staff.(2) Not applicable.3514(Question No. 124)1243514Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment, (ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, (E) what fees were applicable and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles, (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.3514Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:It is not a requirement for potential candidates seeking appointment to statutory or non-statutory bodies within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio, or consultants engaged by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, to disclose the information sought by the honourable member. Therefore, records are not collected or maintained by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on the information sought by the honourable member.Notwithstanding that records are not available to answer the honourable member's question, Mr Bruce Lloyd holds two appointments on portfolio bodies. Mr Lloyd was the Member for Murray, Victoria from 20 March 1971 until 2 March 1996 when he retired, with the Australian Country Party, National Country Party from May 1975, National Party of Australia from October 1982. Details are set out at Attachment 1, copies of which are available from the House of Represenatatives Table Office.Enclosed for the information of the honourable member, is a list which has been prepared by my Department of all Ministerial appointments made between the period 30 April 1996 to 31 August 1998 (Attachment 2), copies of which are available from the House of Represenatatives Table Office. Also enclosed is a copy of consultancy services included in the supplementary information to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy Annual Report for the periods 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 (Attachment 3), copies of which are available from the House of Represenatatives Table Office. 3515(Question No. 197)1973515McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:What Government scrutiny takes place of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in the election of board members and the administration of the organisation's accounts.3515Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Elections for members of the board of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (the ATSIC Act) and zone election rules made by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs under section 138 of the ATSIC Act. As required by subsection 132(3) of the ATSIC Act, the elections are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is a Commonwealth authority as defined under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, and is subject to financial audit by the Auditor-General under Section 8 of that Act. The annual audit of the Financial Statements, with the audit opinion published in the annual report, includes a review of the administration of the Commission's finances.The Commission is also subject to audit by the Office of Evaluation and Audit (OEA), which is set up under Division 9 of the ATSIC Act. OEA has legislative responsibility to evaluate and audit a number of indigenous organisations, including the Commission, and is required to report on all such evaluations and audits to the Minister as well as to the organisation concerned. Results of audits by OEA are taken into account by the Auditor-General when doing his annual audit.3515(Question No. 210)2103515Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What steps did his Department take as proponent to ensure that the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) provided the Government and public with an objective, cost effective and high quality assessment of the proposed project.(2) Is he satisfied with the steps taken by his Department.(3) What did his Department estimate to be the total cost of the EIS.(4) What was the actual cost.(5) Did the Government obtain value for money.(6) Was an extensive list of errors and inadequacies identified during a review of the EIS by reputable observers including the Commonwealth's appointed environmental auditor; if so, will his Department seek financial redress from the consultants who prepared the EIS; if not, why not.3515Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department sought expressions of interest for consultancy support in the preparation of the EIS for the second airport proposal in newspaper advertisements on 25 and 27 May 1996.The expressions of interest were examined to identify those consultants best able to prepare the EIS, based on their qualifications, skills and experience in environmental assessment and airport related matters and the firm's experience in the management and co-ordination of major projects.As a result of this assessment, a number of organisations were invited to submit detailed tenders, based on a tender brief consistent with draft EIS guidelines prepared by the then Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency.Following a competitive selection process, which was based on a review of submitted proposals and formal interviews, Rust PPK Pty Ltd (now PPK Environment and Infrastructure Pty Ltd) was selected as the preferred tenderer and a contract was signed on 19 September 1996.Contract management has subsequently been administered fully in accordance with Secretary's Directions for contract management and then Chief Executive Instructions for contract management made pursuant to the Financial Management and Accountability Act, 1996.(2) Yes.(3) Budget provision of $15.048 million has been made for EIS studies.(4) Expenditure to 15 January 1999 was $12.179 million and total expenditure, once the EIS process is completed, is anticipated to approach the allocated budget of $15.048 million.(5) It is not possible to estimate in monetary terms the value of the EIS process.(6) No. It is not unusual for a large and complex environmental assessment of a major project to attract a diversity of comments and criticisms. All submissions on the Draft EIS and the comments of the Auditor are being taken into account in the preparation of the Final EIS and, where necessary, further work is being undertaken.3516(Question No. 212)2123516Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) Did the Government exclude from consideration of the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) interaction between the proposed second airport and Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport; if so, why.(2) Would construction of the second airport at Badgerys Creek necessitate (a) tighter integration of aviation operations at both airports or (b) operation of the two airports in unison.(3) Is it a fact that the operation of the two airports in unison would have a significant impact on areas of Sydney not currently affected by airport operations; if so, (a) was this adequately considered in the EIS process; if not, why not, (b) has the number of residents who would be affected been estimated; if not, why not, and (c) have studies been proposed, commenced or completed to identify the number of residents who would be affected and the degree to which they would be affected.3516Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) No.(2) The airspace management for the Sydney region would have to take account of operations from all airports in the region. This situation currently applies in Sydney and in all other cities with more than one airport.(3) The interaction between the proposed second airport and Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport would depend partly on the alignment of the runways for the second airport. For this reason two runway alignments for the second airport are being considered in the EIS process. Chapter 22 of the Draft EIS includes a discussion of the interaction between the airports and further work on this topic is being undertaken for the Final EIS. 3516(Question No. 213)2133516Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What was the basis of the forward aviation demand forecasts used in the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) and who prepared them.(2) What percentage of international travellers in the forecasts were projected to come from Asia.(3) Have economic conditions in Asia affected the projections referred to in part (2).(4) Is his Department using revised aviation demand forecasts; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are they and (b) to what extent do they affect the need for a second Sydney airport.3516Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The air traffic forecasts for Sydney were prepared by the then Department of Transport and Regional Development in consultation with a range of expert agencies including the Federal Airports Corporation, Tourism Forecasting Council, Bureau of Tourism Research, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics and the airlines. The forecasts were developed using econometric modelling augmented by input from the expert group on factors likely to be relevant to the future levels of air traffic in Sydney.(2) At the time the forecasts were prepared some 50% of international visitor arrivals to Australia came from Asia. This proportion was expected to increase in the short to medium term. The longer-term forecasts of international passenger movements did not disaggregate by country of origin or market sector.(3) Yes.(4) Yes. (a) Revised forecasts will be contained in the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Second Sydney Airport proposal. Although the overall Sydney Basin forecasts have been adjusted downwards, the forecast growth in air traffic is still substantial. (b) The revised forecasts do not obviate the need for additional major airport facilities for the Sydney basin in the first decade of the next century. 3517(Question No. 215)2153517Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1)Is it usual practice to undertake a cost-benefit analysis as part of an environmental impact study.(2) Can the purported benefits and environmental and social penalties associated with the proposal to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek be costed to enable cost-benefit analysis; if not, why not.(3) Would the analysis referred to in part (2) assist decision making associated with an environmental impact statement (EIS); if not, why not.(4) Is it a fact that a cost benefit analysis was not used in respect of the Badgerys Creek EIS because the quantifiable costs far outweigh the benefits.3517Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The scope of work for the Commonwealth EIS process is defined largely by Guidelines based on the Administrative Procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. A separate set of Guidelines is issued for each proposal.(2) A benefit cost analysis on the second airport proposal is being prepared for the Final EIS.(3) Although the results of the benefit cost analysis are likely to be qualified, they are likely to provide some assistance in the decision making process.(4) No. A benefit cost analysis was not undertaken for the Draft EIS because of the difficulty of defining the future capacity of Sydney Airport and the complexity of valuing many of the environmental impacts. Work being undertaken for the Final EIS is designed to at least partly overcome these difficulties.3517(Question No. 229)2293517Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Did studies undertaken in the 1970s underpin the 1984 site selection environmental impact statement for Sydney's second airport; if so, (a) which studies and (b) have any been updated; if not, why not. (2) Was distance from the central business district an important criterion in the selection process.(3) Were sites precluded under the distance criterion; if so, which sites.3517Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Second Sydney Airport Site Selection Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was completed in 1985, took into account some of the work from past studies into the second Sydney airport issue as well as a number of other previous studies relevant to matters addressed in the EIS. However, as an extensive range of new investigations was undertaken for the EIS, it is not appropriate to suggest that any previous studies underpinned the site selection process.Substantial further planning and environmental studies in relation to the Badgerys Creek site have been undertaken since 1986 including the current comprehensive environmental assessment process.(2) Yes.(3) Sites more than about 80 kilometres radius from the Sydney GPO were specifically not included in the site selection process, with the exception of Goulburn which was included as representative of other outlying sites.3517(Question No. 230)2303517Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Does his Department use ANEF/ANEC methodology to forecast levels of aircraft noise; if so, since when.(2) Was ANEF/ANEC methodology used in the preparation of the environmental impact statement for the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek; if so, was it the most appropriate and up-to-date methodology to forecast airport noise levels and minimise the impact on residents in and around airports and flight paths.(3) Does the ANEF/ANEC methodology sufficiently allow for the impact and disturbance caused by noise at night and has it been criticised for this deficiency.(4) Is it a fact that the USA is discarding the ANEF/ANEC methodology; if so, what methodology does it use to forecast airport noise levels.(5) Does the use of ANEF/ANEC methodology sufficiently satisfy important social and environmental concerns. 3518Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The ANEF system has been in use since the early 1980s.(2) The ANEF was one of the methods used to describe noise exposure patterns in the environmental impact statement for the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. Noise exposure patterns were also described in other ways including flight path maps, contours showing the number of events per day above 70 Db(A), and indicators showing disturbance to sleep and to learning. This suite of noise indicators provides a very comprehensive approach to describing the expected noise exposure patterns of the proposed airport.(3) The ANEF includes a particular weighting for night-time noise which was derived from a major study into aircraft noise carried out by the National Acoustic Laboratories.(4) No. The United States Federal Aviation Administration has for some years used a noise metric called the Ldn for noise contouring. This is derived using a very similar methodology to the ANEF.(5) The additional noise metrics referred to in (2) were specifically included in the environmental impact statement to address perceived shortcomings with the ANEF.3518(Question No. 231)2313518Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Does the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) base the assessment of noise impacts on average noise levels; if so, why.(2) Does the averaging technique smooth out peak noise levels.(3) Has his attention been drawn to international criticism of averaging noise levels to determine noise impacts.(4) Is it a fact that residents are affected more by peak than by average noise levels.(5) If the EIS is based on average noise levels, does it understate the noise impacts on residents of western Sydney; if not, why not.3518Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The ANEF system, which was one of the ways used in the EIS to describe noise impacts, is based on averaging noise energy levels. Other ways in which aircraft noise was described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), such as the contours showing the number of events per day above 70 dB(A) and indicators showing disturbance to sleep and to learning, were based on single event noise levels. In addition, tabulated information was included for each Community Assessment Area on the likely range in the number of daily noise events that would be over 60 db(A), 70 db(A) 80 db(A) and 90 db(A).(2) Yes.(3) It is recognised that the ANEF system has shortcomings. The EIS has included descriptors based on single event noise levels in order to address this (see (1)).(4) Studies have indicated that average noise level systems such as the ANEF more closely correlate with community annoyance than descriptors based on peak noise levels. The EIS includes the descriptors based on single event noise levels partly in response to community requests for noise information in this form.(5) See the answer to (1).3518(Question No. 232)2323518Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Did the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) consider the contribution of airport and aircraft noise to sleep disturbance; if so, how.(2) Did the EIS canvass international literature on aircraft noise and sleep disturbance; if so, with what conclusion.(3) Did the EIS identify noise levels at night that cause sleep disturbance, leading to physiological and psychological harm; if so, what levels; if not, why not.3518Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The Draft EIS used the Sleep Disturbance Index to assess the likely impacts of the proposed airport options on sleep disturbance.(2) Yes. The Draft EIS concluded that, of the available analytical techniques, the Sleep Disturbance Index was the most appropriate assessment tool to demonstrate the likely impacts of the proposed airport options on sleep disturbance.(3) The Draft EIS did not establish a causal link between expected sleep disturbance levels from the proposed airport options and likely physiological and psychological harm.(4) Submissions on the Draft EIS have raised some concerns in relation to the assessment. All submissions, together with the findings of the Auditor, are being taken into account in the preparation of the Final EIS.3519(Question No. 233)2333519Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Did the Commonwealth's environmental auditor criticise the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement (EIS) on the matter of the potential of elevated noise levels to harm health; if so, did he accept the criticism; if not, why not; if so, what action has he taken to address the criticism.(2) If the EIS was in error on the potential of elevated noise levels to harm health, who was responsible, his Department or the consultants who prepared the EIS.3519Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The independent auditor has raised a number of issues related to information contained in the Draft EIS.A response to the issues raised by the independent auditor will be contained in the Final EIS that is currently being prepared.(2) See answer to (1).3519(Question No. 234)2343519Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Does the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement adequately address the impact of aircraft noise on the education process in educational facilities.(2) Did the EIS canvass international literature on the impact of aircraft noise on the education process; if not, why not.(3) Has his attention been drawn to studies indicating that the performance of children learning at school or home is more sensitive to noise impact than most other sectors of the community; if so, were the studies taken into consideration during the preparation of the EIS; if not, why not.(4) Did the NSW Environment Protection Agency estimate that children in as many as 300 schools in western Sydney could be adversely affected by aircraft noise at a Badgerys Creek airport. 3519Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Draft EIS presented a significant amount of information on the likely impact of the proposed airport options on educational facilities.Submissions on the Draft EIS have raised some concerns in relation to the assessment. All submissions, together with the findings of the Auditor, are being taken into account in the preparation of the Final EIS. Further work is being undertaken where necessary.(2) Yes.(3) The Draft EIS took into account the outcomes of a range of studies into the relationship between noise exposure and the educational process.(4) This question should be directed to the NSW Environment Protection Authority.3519(Question No. 237)2373519Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 November 1998:(1) Would the development of a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek and the associated aircraft and ground vehicle emissions lead to a significant increase in the concentration of oxides of nitrogen in western Sydney's air.(2) Are oxides of nitrogen known to increase the incidence of respiratory problems such as asthma.(3) Did the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement allow for increased concentration of oxides of nitrogen; if not, why not.3519Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The extent of any increases in the concentration of oxides of nitrogen in western Sydney's air due to the development of a major airport at Badgerys Creek was addressed in the Draft EIS and further work on this topic is being undertaken for the Final EIS.(2) The Draft EIS indicates that health impacts associated with increases in nitrogen oxide concentrations are difficult to assess because available data does not allow quantification of changes in lung function at levels below 30 parts per 100 million.(3) Yes, see answer to (1) above. 3520(Question No. 273)2733520Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Does the construction of an airport have significant impact upon the site's surface and ground water.(2) Did the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement present an assessment of the impact of the proposed airport on regional flooding, creek stability and surface water quality; if not, why not.3520Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The construction of an airport does not necessarily have a significant impact on surface and ground water quality. I am advised that the quality of surface water discharged from the site can be controlled by providing safeguards and implementing procedures to prevent contaminants entering the drainage system. Similarly, properly engineered surface water drainage facilities, and fuel storage and delivery systems would protect the ground water system from obvious sources of pollution.(2) A wide range of surface and ground water issues was analysed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the second airport proposal. In response to the auditor's report and public comments, further work on a number of water quality issues is being undertaken for the Final EIS.3520(Question No. 274)2743520Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Did his Department commission a report, before the environmental impact statement (EIS) was commissioned, on the impact of an airport at Badgerys Creek on the Hawkesbury/Nepean river system; if so, (a) when was the report received, (b) who prepared it, (c) what did it cost, (d) did it conclude that the Hawkesbury/Nepean river system is known to be subject to significant pollution burdens from existing sources in western Sydney, including sources in the Badgerys Creek area and (e) did his Department insist that the report be used for the EIS; if not, why not.(2) Did the EIS conclude that the proposed airport would have significant impacts on the Hawkesbury/Nepean river system; if so, why. (3) Has the Department reconciled two completely different approaches to assessing impact on the river system; if so, how.3520Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. However, the then Department of Transport was a member of the joint Commonwealth, State and Local Government Task Force on Planning for the Sub-Region Surrounding Sydney West Airport which commissioned consultants to prepare a water cycle management plan for possible future urban development in the Sydney West Airport Sub-region.(a) The Department received a copy of the Draft Final Report in November 1995.(b) SMEC Australia Pty Ltd.(c) The then Department of Transport did not contribute financially to this study.(d) One of the conclusions of the study was that water quality was unacceptable throughout the study area, but the most severe problem occurred downstream of the sewerage treatment plants along South Creek due to sewage effluent. A primary objective of the study was to prepare an integrated water cycle management system which would enhance the performance and water quality of the sub-catchments within the sub-region, in the light of potential urban development.(e) No. The study was based on a number of urban development scenarios for the Sydney West Airport Sub-Region which were not consistent with land use planning assumptions used in the Draft EIS. Furthermore, it is outside the scope of the EIS to examine water quality implications of potential future urban development around the proposed airport.(2) The Draft EIS found that there would be moderate local and regional impacts from effluent discharges, particularly from nutrient additions. In response to concerns raised in public submissions on the Draft EIS, further studies on water management for the proposed airport have been undertaken and will be published in the Final EIS.(3) See (1)(e) above.3520(Question No. 283)2833520Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:Did his Department engage a team of consultants to consider the Aboriginal cultural heritage of the proposed airport site at Badgerys Creek; if so, did the team include an appropriately qualified heritage practitioner; if not, why not. 3521Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes. Details of the team members and their qualifications are included in the EIS documents.3521(Question No. 284)2843521Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:If the Badgerys Creek airport proposal proceeds, will the Commonwealth act consistently with NSW legislation in relation to the removal or disturbance of Aboriginal sites or relics encountered during the airport's construction.3521Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:It is not possible at this stage to specify the arrangements under which an airport would be developed at Badgerys Creek.3521(Question No. 285)2853521Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:Is it a fact that the impacts of the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek will extend well beyond the nominal airport boundaries; if so, has the environmental impact statement avoided considering the wider impacts; if so, why.3521Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The impacts of the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek would extend well beyond the nominal airport boundaries. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes a detailed assessment of impacts such as aircraft noise, air quality and surface traffic which are clearly not confined to the airport site. While the Draft EIS also contains substantial information on the extent of supporting off-site infrastructure such as road and rail links, the detailed environmental assessment of such infrastructure is outside the scope of this EIS and would need to be undertaken separately under relevant New South Wales environmental legislation. 3521(Question No. 286)2863521Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:Does the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement present costings for the management, mitigation and monitoring of the impacts of the proposed airport development; if not, why not.3521Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does present separate costings for the management and mitigation of impacts associated with aircraft noise. Furthermore, provision for management, mitigation and monitoring of impacts associated with the on-site construction of the airport has been made in the airport development costs presented in the Draft EIS.While a range of environmental management measures are being considered in the EIS process, it is not the role of the EIS to make specific commitments to any particular measures. The extent of such commitments and the relative responsibility for their implementation are matters that will need to be considered by the Government. The cost of specific environmental management measures will be determined in that context.3521(Question No. 287)2873521Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Does the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement take into account the potential loss of heritage items; if not, why not; if so, to what extent does it do so.(2) Will the Kelvin Park Homestead be lost if construction of the airport proceeds.(3) What heritage items other than Kelvin Park Homestead would be lost if construction proceeds.3521Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The impacts of the three airport options on non-aboriginal cultural heritage were discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and in the associated Technical Paper. There was also a discussion of the steps which could be taken to reduce the impacts of the proposed airport on cultural heritage items. (2) No. The Kelvin Park Homestead would be retained under all three airport options.(3) See answer to (1) above.3522(Question No. 326)3263522Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:Has the Government assessed the implications for migration to Australia from New Zealand following changes to immigration policy recently announced by the New Zealand Government; if so, what are the results of the assessment, especially with respect to New Zealand initiatives on business, investment and skilled migration.3522Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government has examined the implications of the recent changes to New Zealand immigration requirements and their possible impact on migration to Australia from New Zealand.The changes announced by the New Zealand Government are intended to facilitate migration under the business, investment and skilled visa categories. The measures appear to be largely a response to the difficulty New Zealand is facing in achieving its annual immigration target.Many of the changes will more closely align Australian and New Zealand policies on skilled and business migration:. the new long-term temporary business visa has strong similarities in terms of benefits, policy criteria and intent to Australia's temporary business entry (long stay) Independent Executive visa;. New Zealand's new Entrepreneur visa category mirrors Australia's Established Business in Australia category. Both visas give permanent residence to persons who have established successful businesses in the respective countries and are linked to temporary visa options—either the long term business visa (New Zealand) or the Independent Executive visa (Australia).. Revisions to New Zealand's Investor visa will more closely align it with Australia's Investment Linked subclasses. Both visas focus on skills and business acumen rather than wealth and require applicants to demonstrate their commitment by investing substantial sums.. New Zealand's points-tested General Skills category is broadly similar to Australia's Independent and Skilled-Australian Linked (SAL) categories. A number of the new measures replicate changes to the Independent and SAL categories announced in August 1998. These measures include preference being given within the points test to applicants with qualifications gained in New Zealand and increased flexibility in the assessment of work experience.Despite these moves towards similar visa structures, Australia's business migration visas include pathways and choices not catered for by the New Zealand model, such as visa options for experienced business owners and senior executives who wish to go into business in Australia.Under the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement, Australian and New Zealand citizens may enter each others' countries to visit, live and work. It is unlikely that the announced changes will have a significant impact on the level of migration from New Zealand to Australia. The number of New Zealand citizens migrating to Australia in any one year depends largely on Australian economic conditions compared with those prevailing in New Zealand rather than on New Zealand's migration policies. The changes do not, in any case, involve an increase in New Zealand's overall immigration level but are simply policy measures to assist in meeting existing targets.Data on settler arrivals indicates that migration to New Zealand is not being used to any significant extent as an avenue for eventual migration to Australia. In 1997-98, 24.3% of the 19,393 New Zealand settlers arriving in Australia were born in a third country. This proportion has not changed significantly in the past five years. It is also noted that, contrary to claims by some groups, only 5.8% of New Zealand citizens settling in Australia in 1997-98 were born in Asia. Migrants from this region fill the bulk of places in New Zealand's skilled and business migrant intake.New Zealand citizens who migrate to Australia have a reasonably good labour market record and hence have a positive impact on the economy and budget. This positive budgetary impact will be further enhanced once legislation to further extend the two year wait for access to social security benefits to New Zealand citizen arrivals is in place.3522(Question No. 356)3563522Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.3523Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As of 17 February 1999: (a) nil; (b) nil; (c) 3066 and; (d) 27.Officers within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and under Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) are the Senior Executive Service (SES). The SES is employed under the Public Service Act 1922 with conditions of service set by AWAs. As of 17 February 1999 the classification levels for the SES were: SES Band 1—20 Officers; SES Band 2—6 Officers; SES Band 3—1 Officer.3523(Question No. 386)3863523McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Will the Government compensate public benevolent institutions (PBIs) if they can no longer claim sales tax exemption under a goods and services tax; if so, what compensation will be provided.(2) Will the Government compensate public benevolent institutions for the extra administration required to administer a goods and services tax.3523Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Under the proposed tax system, PBIs will effectively have a tax exemption on all their purchases that is more comprehensive than under the current tax system.(2) The Government announced on 6 December 1998 the establishment of a Small Business Consultative Committee to advise Government on the transition to A New Tax system. According to the Committee's term of reference it will make recommendations to the Government on the most effective way to assist small business with the costs of transition to a GST. This will include advising on the distribution of incentives announced in the Government's tax reform plan, A New Tax System and on the amount of funding necessary for this purpose, up to a limit of $500 million.The Government will consider the Committee's recommendations in framing any assistance to public benevolent institutions. 3523(Question No. 408)4083523Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 11 February 1999:(1) When was the State/Territory Nominated Independent Migration Scheme established and what were its precursors.(2) How were the numbers of skilled migrants each State and Territory could nominate established.(3) Were State and Territory Governments consulted before the numbers were allocated; if so, when were they consulted; if not, why were they not consulted.(4) What other individuals or organisations were consulted in each State and Territory before the numbers were allocated.(5) How many skilled migrants could each State and Territory nominate in each year of operation of the scheme.(6) How many skilled migrants were actually recruited under this scheme for each State and Territory in each year of operation of this scheme.(7) From which countries did skilled migrants come and what skills did each individual have to allow them to be recruited under this scheme.(8) Was the level of English language competence tested for each person who successfully came to Australia under the scheme.(9) Have persons recruited under the scheme had prior association with Australia such as other members of the family already being in Australia or the ownership of property or other investments in Australia.(10) How many persons recruited under the scheme settled in non-metropolitan Australia.(11) What was the policy basis for the establishment of this scheme to replace any precursor scheme.(12) Will the scheme be independently assessed for its social and economic value to Australia; if so, when.3523Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Regulations to establish the State Territory Nominated Independent (STNI) scheme came into effect on 1 November 1997. It did not have any precursors.(2) The Regulations provide that the Minister can gazette a specified number of nominations under the scheme for a given financial year for each State or Territory. The relevant regulation [135.222(3)] reads as follows:The Minister must not accept a nomination if its acceptance would result in the number of Subclass 135 visa nominations made in a financial year, for a State or Territory, exceeding the maximum number of Subclass 135 visa nominations, as determined by Gazette Notice, that may be accepted, for the State or Territory, in that financial year.No Gazette notice has been made under this Regulation to date. A notional figure of 200 primary applicants per State/Territory per program year emerged from discussions with State/Territory governments on the scheme. This notional figure has not been reached in any one year by any State or Territory. To date only the South Australian Government has actually used the scheme. Other State/Territory governments have indicated that they will monitor South Australia's experience before making any commitment to participate.(3) A recommendation to establish a scheme of this nature was contained in the report of the Commonwealth State Working Party on Regional Migration which was presented to Ministers in December 1996. State and Territory Ministers endorsed the concept at the Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin on 14 March 1997. State and Territory Government officials were subsequently consulted at several stages in the development of the Regulations.There continues to be ongoing consultation on the scheme via the existing Commonwealth/State Working Party on Long Term Options for Skilled Migration.Individual nominations by South Australia are made by the South Australian Government in consultation with the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB).(4) It was open to State and Territory Governments to consult with other bodies and agencies within their jurisdiction as part of the consultative process. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) consulted with relevant Commonwealth agencies, notably the former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). Consultations on the scheme continue with DEWRSB.(5) No Gazette Notice has been made limiting nominations under the scheme. If the notional allocation of 200 primary applicants is reached, it is open to the relevant State/Territory Government to negotiate a higher figure. I have indicated on a number of occasions that room would be found within the Migration Program if demand under the scheme was to increase.(6) In 1997-98 no visas were granted under the scheme although the first nominations were processed towards the end of 1997-98 (some 6 months after the scheme came into effect). During this 6 month period there were extensive consultations between agencies in the South Australian Government and DIMA and the former DEETYA on the detailed operation of the scheme. In 1998-99 some 132 visas were granted to the end of January 1999 of which 37 were to primary applicants and the remainder to dependents.(7) The country of origin breakdown for the primary applicants granted visas under the scheme was as follows:Applicant country of birthNumber of primary applicantsUK18Fiji 3India 1Ireland 1Netherlands1South Africa 9Zimbabwe4TOTAL37* It should be noted that country of birth does not necessarily correspond to the country where visa was issued.The skill breakdown by occupational group for primary applicants was as follows:Primary Applicants occupational groupingNumber of primary applicantsSpecialist manager1Health diagnostic professional 1Metal fitting and machining 9Other metal trades7Electrical trades13Mechanics3Mechanical and fabricating trades3Total37(8) Yes—all applicants who are recorded in the Skill Matching Database, which is the source for all nominations under the scheme, have had their English language proficiency assessed.(9) Persons nominated under the scheme may have had previous associations with Australia but this is not a requirement of the scheme and is not tested in the regulations. The core requirements are:. that they meet prescribed skill, English language and age criteria; and. that they are nominated by a State or Territory government on the basis of the fact that they have an occupation which is deemed by the nominating government to be in shortage in that jurisdiction(10) This is not known. The South Australian Government is keen to attract more skilled migrants to the State as a whole and it makes use of the scheme in that context.(11) There was no precursor scheme. The policy basis of the scheme was to create a State/Territory government driven mechanism that would enable a higher degree of targeting of Independent migrants to State specific skill shortages.(12) One barometer of the scheme's success will be the feedback from the jurisdictions using the scheme. Feedback to date from South Australia has been highly positive. My Department is also considering the practicability of setting up (in cooperation with participating State governments) a longer term monitoring strategy, which might include some form of longitudinal survey.