1999-03-103912REPS354101999-03-10Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous354135413541Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Government to ensure Centrelink provides adequate levels of public service to the millions of Australians who rely on Commonwealth income support payments.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills3541r6743541Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills3541r7383541Bill presented by Mr Tim Fischer, and read a first time.354109:33:003541Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill delivers on the government's election commitment to Australian exporters, and particularly small and medium exporters, to continue to support in a very tangible way their efforts to expand into new markets overseas.The bill does this by extending the life of the Export Market Development Grants scheme for a further two years, to the 2000-01 grant year.The bill also continues the process of simplification of the EMDG scheme, a process that the government initiated in 1997 with the passage of the streamlined and more carefully targeted Export Market Development Grants Act 1997.I can report that this process of simplification has been well received by the exporting community. In the first year of operation of the 1997 act, all grant recipients received a full 100 cents in the dollar of their entitlement, attesting to the accurate matching of the scheme to eligible exporters for that year.Furthermore, over 200 new small and medium exporters entered the scheme because of the lowering of the minimum expenditure threshold from $30,000 to $20,000.In total, 2,933 exporters were assisted by the scheme in 1997-98, and those exporters received an average grant of $52,626.However, as might be expected with a completely new act, usage has revealed areas where some finetuning is now required.In addition to extending the scheme for a further two years, the bill therefore introduces twelve amendments of a housekeeping nature that restore or clarify the original intention of the 1997 act and assist the smooth administration of the scheme. There are no major policy issues associated with these amendments.The amendments:. ensure that certain exclusions to grants history as specified in the act are applicable to all circumstances associated with a first time applicant;. rename the `grants entry test';. ensure that trusts must be `genuinely carrying on business in Australia';. ensure that trusts have access to `new markets';. ensure that the limitation on claiming first-class airfares applies to all travellers;. correct an incorrect reference and some illogical wording;. ensure that late-lodged applications cannot be received;. provide that applicants may receive three grants in respect of each `new market'; and. provide that the three-year limit on the life of an `approved body' is also applicable to an `approved body' established under the previous act.The bill also safeguards the effective operation of the scheme by making some administrative matters non-disallowable, and further facilitates the fulfilment of Austrade's charter by improving that organisation's ability to disseminate EMDG data.The Export Market Development Grants scheme is delivering real benefits to exporters and this bill will further improve the scheme. I commend this bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills3542r6553542Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Ms Worth for Mr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.09:37:003542Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The cost of health care in Australia is now around $42 billion, that includes the Commonwealth, the states and the local authority sectors of health care. About $23 billion of that is the Commonwealth's expenditure. Last year, under the Commonwealth health care agreements, the Commonwealth delivered an extra 19.2 per cent to the states, which rather blunts what the opposition have been saying—that we are cutting back funding to the public sector. In fact, that is one of the most generous payments to the public sector in the last two decades.As I said last night, when Labor came to power about two-thirds of Australians were insured. Today only about one-third are insured. Again as I said last night, we have moved from having two-thirds of the public looking after themselves to only one-third.UU5HORNEMr Horne—And a million Australians had no health cover.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—And, as I said, you do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that you have one-third of all Australians now reliant on the public system who were not doing that when you guys came to power. That is now a charge on the public purse.UU5HORNEMr Horne—A million Australians didn't have cover.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson and the member for Hinkler. The member for Hinkler knows that he must direct his remarks through the chair and not respond to the interjections of the member for Paterson.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Let me examine the proposition put to parliament by the Leader of the Opposition on 24 November last. He said that if we directed the $720 million a year, all costs that the states were ever likely to need would be met. But, quite frankly, that would not be the case. What would happen is that the number of people privately insured would drop from the current 30-odd per cent down to 22, 21 or 20 per cent. That amount of money that you put in to the hospital system now, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us do, would then be gobbled up. We would then be in an even worse position in three or four years time where you would have 80 per cent of the population reliant on the public system and only 20 per cent reliant on the private system.It is said that one per cent of people dropping out of private health insurance costs the Commonwealth $83 million. In other words, if you take eight times $83 million, the $720 million that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about is virtually gone. So, with an eight per cent drop in private health insurance, we are back to square one again, but with nearly four-fifths of the population reliant on the public system. How the opposition cannot see this just defies logic.I have some other figures that are very interesting. The total cost of the 30 per cent rebate will be $1.46 billion, of which $380 million is devoted to the current circumstance. On average, it costs the Commonwealth $1,041 for the health care of every uninsured person. The cost to the Commonwealth for an insured person under the scheme, prior to the 30 per cent circumstance, was $628. Under the new scheme, with the 30 per cent rebate added in, the cost to the Commonwealth will go up to $814. So that means that for every person we can induce back into private health insurance the saving to the Commonwealth will be $227 per person. Doesn't that make eminent logic? With that $227 per person, you can enhance the public system.Last night the member for Shortland was saying that the last thing she wanted was to see the American system. But the consequence of what Labor is saying is that we will go into the American system. Because if we drop now from 30 per cent privately insured to 22 per cent, as I pointed out, the $700-odd million will be gobbled up and then we will have nearly 80 per cent of the population reliant on the public system. We will then have the health funds, with only 20 or 22 per cent of the population, being less efficient and with smaller economies of scale, so they will have to raise their premiums, and it will become a descending spiral.What I am saying is that every time we can get someone back into private health insurance we save the Commonwealth $227. It is one of the best incentive schemes you can imagine. We had the Deputy Prime Minister telling us about an incentive scheme for exports, but here is one right in our own backyard, and we are passing it up. We are passing it up because, as the Prime Minister described them, the opposition has been captured by the cultural dietitians—the social engineers. The other alternative, of course, is that we go to the British system where there would be no choice. The thing we have always valued in Australia, and particularly Queenslanders because we had our own free hospital system ahead of the Whitlam days, is the element of choice.The Medicare levy covers only 13 per cent of the contributions to the public health system, and this is another point that the opposition might consider. The Medicare levy covers only 13 per cent of the Commonwealth's cost, and it raises $3 billion a year. Interestingly, private health insurance raises $4 billion. Voluntarily, people contribute much more than is raised by the Medicare levy. If you wanted to have a user-pays system based purely on our taxation, and if you wanted to do what the opposition said—that is, make Medicare the sole vehicle of health care delivery—the Medicare levy would have to go to 11½ per cent. Whether you are charged at 1½ per cent and pay the 10 per cent out of consolidated revenue, you are still being taxed. Whether you are being taxed through your Medicare levy or through indirect tax, income tax or company tax—it does not matter—the equivalent of 11½ per cent has to be found for health care.What are we going to do? Are we just going to continue to let that cost spiral upwards or are we going to put a mechanism in place, draw a line in the sand and say, `We are encouraging people to go back to private health insurance,' and, in so doing, save the Commonwealth $227—nearly a quarter of what it would cost if that were not the case?When we came to power in 1996, the cost of pharmaceuticals was increasing at a rate of 16 per cent a year. The opposition, when it was in government, had no control over health costs. Sixteen per cent a year was the increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals. When we came to power we brought in a number of measures—not all of them as palatable as we might have liked—such as increasing the co-payment, putting a premium on certain drugs and devising a plan for more appropriate prescribing. Over the short period that we have been in power, the cost of pharmaceuticals has dropped from an increase of 16 per cent a year down to nine per cent a year. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme costs $3 billion a year.I spend a lot of time in nursing homes, I spend a lot of time with the elderly and I go to a lot of respite centres. I have very close relations with older people, self-funded retirees and other groups. The one thing I can tell this parliament and the one thing I can stress to the opposition is that many of those people want to retain their private health insurance. The one thing that many of them wish to retain, as they reach old age and many decisions are taken out of their hands, is access to private health insurance, and they go to incredible lengths to retain that right. They want to have the security of knowing that, if they have broken a hip or if they have some major operation or medical procedure, they can get the best of care in a hospital of their choice and they can go into retirement with that certainty in their lives. We have heard a lot of nonsense from the opposition in this Year of the Older Person about what a dreadful thing this is for the government to be doing. I think it is a great thing for the government to be doing. Thirty per cent of the cost of private health insurance is being rebated not only to taxpayers but to the elderly who have paid their taxes over the years. They will get 30 per cent back in the form of a rebate. I think this is one of the most important bills that we will introduce in this term of parliament, and I think that the opposition's case is totally devoid of any credibility. I commend the bill to the House.09:47:003544Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—There is absolutely no doubt that this bill, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998, is not the innocent piece of legislation the government claims it to be. Whilst there are some aspects of this bill which—with some conditions—we support, we have serious concerns about other elements of the bill. The bill makes a number of amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973. The government claims this bill will improve the efficiency of the private health insurance industry and make private health insurance more attractive to consumers by enabling greater flexibility in the product offered.A range of measures is applied to increase flexibility and deregulate the industry. Whilst some of these are minor changes and some are probably improvements, some are measures which we on the Labor side object to and will strongly oppose. They are an attack on the principles of universal insurance under the Medicare arrangements, and they open the door to removing the forces which keep most specialist fees down. The consequence would be much more expensive medicine.One of those changes would be to allow health funds to pay benefits for out-of-hospital procedures which are undertaken in approved procedures facilities. This is a major change which we do not support. Minor operations—or category C, as they are known—can already be performed in doctors' surgeries. If there is an argument for better remuneration to cover equipment, disinfection costs and so on, this should be done through the framework of the Medicare rebates and not by using the private health insurance funds.This proposal would give this benefit to privately insured patients while Medicare patients would have to either pay extra or potentially queue for the same service in a public hospital. There is also insufficient detail provided about how the proposed approved facilities will be regulated and how single doctors will take part in quality programs which exist in day surgery centres now.Medical lobby groups have a range of concerns about this proposal. We should note the objection of the AMA to these changes. Dr Brand, the President of the AMA, has noted their displeasure that they were not even consulted about the changes which he said `would for the first time take away Medicare's position as a monopoly insurer'. He went on:Our major beef is that there has been no consultation with the profession about the biggest change to Medicare since it was introduced in 1983.Allowing specialist consultations to be covered by private health insurance would change Medicare irrevocably. According to Dr Brand:Medicare is the monopoly insurer on out-of-hospital consultations. These changes change all that completely.Dr Brand said that GPs would not be covered by the changes, but he was particularly concerned that specialists would have to sign a contract with funds to qualify for the higher fees.In a Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing on the bill, the AMA stated that the only way the changes would work was if funds started directing patients to doctors who had agreed not to charge patients above the schedule fee—which would, of course, increase the control funds had over patient care and what doctors charge.And what about the continually perplexing question of increasing private insurance fees? Significantly, this bill proposes to deregulate the increase in premiums by health funds. In the first instance, this would be done by moving the decision from the minister to the Private Health Insurance Advisory Council and, secondly, by completely deregulating the premiums. This is very sensitive stuff and potentially expensive for government, which will lose any capacity to control the cost of providing that 30 per cent rebate. And all this, I might add, from a government whose Prime Minister assured us all not that long ago in this very place that each and every application for a fund increase would have to be approved by him first—a rather cynical exercise that I reflect upon when I think of the last parliament.A further concern I have is the effect that these changes will have on some more sensitive areas of health delivery—namely, palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation. This will severely disadvantage older Australians because it means that funds can offer policies targeted at young people and not offer to cover these categories of major costs for older people in our community. I am sure we are all very well aware of the marketing ploys that private health insurance funds should and must use, but with that comes a cost to those more expensive areas requiring cover, when they work out how much money they are able to get from one sector of the community versus another. When you consider the number of services some of those areas of our community need, obviously our older community have a greater demand on health care services. I am particularly concerned that the implications of some clauses in this bill are that health insurance funds can make that commercial choice. I am very unhappy about that.The government claims the bill will not produce additional costs to government. However, if this bill is passed in its present form, costs to government will occur. For example, each one per cent increase in private health insurance usage encouraged by this more flexible arrangement would cost government anything up to $45 million per annum for the cost of that infamous 30 per cent insurance rebate—or, as the member for Fremantle very eloquently commented last night in this debate, the cost of all of those red and white umbrellas. It is a bit of a joke.We will most certainly be opposing those elements of this bill, as we have outlined during this debate. I am particularly concerned when I hear some of the comments from the other side of the House. This is obviously far more insidious an attack on our Medicare system than some members are admitting to, when you carefully consider—as I have been doing through this debate and as I will be doing as it continues to its finalisation—the comments made from the other side in terms of the innocence they claim in relation to any attack on Medicare.I have been travelling the country quite a bit lately on a committee inquiry and I can tell you that in some of the more regional and rural areas of Australia the number of times I am told as I go into small country areas that there are no longer any doctors bulkbilling really alarms me. The trend is really quite scary. I believe that every measure so far taken by this government—and here is yet again another one, or parts thereof, in this bill—is actually encouraging the withdrawal of certain services within certain areas, a decision made purely on a commercial basis sometimes by the local practitioners concerned.Somehow this has to be addressed. It is no good going into a small rural area and finding that there is either one—if you are lucky—or none of the local GPs or medical services bulkbilling. I do not know how people at the low socioeconomic end of the community can possibly afford private health insurance, with or without a 30 per cent rebate. I really urge the members on the other side to look very seriously at all of the implications—good and bad—in this bill and have a more honest approach to it.If you are genuinely going to stand up, hand on heart, in this parliament and say that you thoroughly and absolutely support Medicare, then do it. But do not do it by stealth and do not do it by misleading the community with such comments as `We and the Prime Minister all think Medicare is the best thing since sliced bread, and we will preserve it' but then go and do things that white-ant it. Nothing disappoints the community more, I can assure those members, than that sort of misleading behaviour. You only have to, as I have said, go out and talk to your community and listen to what is happening at that basic level of medical service delivery and you will know, as much as we do, that these actions are not enhancing the Medicare system at all. They are in fact debilitating it and putting it into question.When the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hinkler, accuses the member for Shortland, saying that he thinks we on this side are taking us down the path of the American system, how wrong he is. With the greatest of respect to that gentleman, he is wrong. We do not want to see the American system of medical health care in this country and we will fight to the end to make sure that that does not happen. Please reconsider some of the aspects of this bill where we believe very strongly, on the facts available, that you are in fact starting to white-ant even more the Medicare universal health system. I implore you to reconsider.09:57:003546Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—First of all, in introducing my remarks in support of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 , it is important to remember why we are actually trying to do anything at all to support private health insurance. Going back to the earlier part of the 20th century and thinking about those things that have become the foundation of Australian society as we know it and the sorts of values that we are going to take into the next century, central to them are egalitarian principles. In the health system in particular, the vehicle for egalitarianism in Australian society has been a very strong health insurance ethic, and Medicare in one sense has entrenched the whole health insurance ethic in Australian society.Prior to Medicare we had a system where people were encouraged to take out private health insurance. It built on a set of values which said that, if you can possibly do it, you should look after yourself; the government will help you to look after yourself, and those who cannot look after themselves will be cared for by the beneficence of governments. With the advent of the Whitlam government and subsequently the Hawke governments, it then became a universal health insurance system, the basic concept being that everybody, irrespective of their means, would be covered by a universal health insurance system for outpatient services and in-patient services, and that only those who were unable to do so because of very low incomes would not have to make a contribution to Medicare.The reason we support private health insurance is not dissimilar from the reason that we on both sides of the parliament support private education: we believe that as Australians we ought to live in a country where people, having made a contribution to public service provision, should be free and able to afford choice. If they want and can afford to do so, they can go into the private system, having made a contribution to the public one.The concept that quite a few speakers from the opposition benches of the Australian Labor Party constantly—but not universally—espouse is that anything you do to reduce the demands placed upon Medicare is in some way destroying Medicare. I am very happy, and I was challenged by the member for Canberra to do so, to stand up in this parliament and say that I am strongly committed to Medicare. I am strongly committed to the concept that all Australians ought to make a contribution to public health service provision, according to their means.I also would say that there are two things that separate the Australian health care system from the American system. The first is that we have a universal health insurance system. In the same way that for the Labor Party the state aid debate occurred in the 1950s in relation to education and is now over, I think the Medicare debate is well and truly over on the coalition benches. That having been said, I fail to understand why it is that if you try to do whatever you can to reduce the number of people relying on Medicare that in some way you are dismantling it or destroying it. If, on the other hand, we were to say that people could opt out of making a Medicare contribution through their Medicare levy that would be destroying Medicare, and I would be the very first person to stand up here and deride such a measure.This bill makes a number of amendments to the National Health Act 1953. These reforms will improve the efficiency of the private health insurance industry, about which a lot has been said by the member for Fremantle, certainly by the former minister, Graham Richardson, and also by the former Labor Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Brian Howe. There were constant attacks on the efficiency of the health insurance industry, and this bill is doing something to address the issue and to try to make it more attractive to consumers by enabling greater product flexibility. The legislation complements, of course, the government's 30 per cent rebate.There are five main items in the bill. The first is to allow registered health benefits organisations to offer discounted premiums to contributors that are based on administrative savings. The minister would have the power to determine the maximum discount. If you have your premiums taken directly from your bank account, or if you pay three, six or 12 months in advance and savings accrue to the fund, then those savings can be returned to you, as the contributor, in terms of discounted premiums. There might also be a group of members in a particular workplace who are covered in a group scheme by a fund. The fund ought to be able to offer some sort of financial incentive to those contributors to participate in such a scheme. The amount of the discount would of course relate to the extent of the administrative savings. This makes sense and it goes on in every other aspect of economic life. I fail to see why it should not apply to the health insurance sector.The second item that the bill covers is the loyalty bonus schemes. One of the thematic criticisms, particularly from older people is, `I have been in private health insurance 35 years. I have never had a claim and I am paying the same premium as someone who has only been in it for 12 months.' At times I have been tempted to say—in fact, I have said it to people—`I'm sorry that you did not get leukaemia or had to have your hip re placed or suffer a brain tumour and had to use your insurance.' That is a flippant remark but you never hear people saying, `I've had house insurance for 35 years and I'm disappointed that I have never been robbed and had to use it.'Nonetheless, a valid point that consumers have repeatedly put up is that, if they have remained in a fund for a long time, they ought to be given some kind of reward for being loyal to private health insurance generally and to one fund in particular. This is a very important point and it is popular. It recognises the period of time over which contributions have been made. So the kind of loyalty bonus that the bill allows for might be a reduced premium, a cash payment, goods and services of some sort or, indeed, a higher level of coverage.The third main provision in the bill is to allow waiting periods to be changed for certain conditions or ailments to reduce the incentive for hit-and-run behaviour. Over the years I have certainly seen the situation where a man and a woman marry and, after a couple of years of marriage, without having private health insurance, they start to plan a family and so they say, `We will join a private health insurance fund because we think we might have some children.' Four or five years later they drop out of the fund, having taken the benefits from it without the many years of contribution that might go behind it. There can be a similar situation for joint surgery and other areas of medical need.The fourth provision is to allow the funds to cover the patient copayment for prescribed pharmaceutical benefits for in-hospital treatment. Some of the funds already do this. As members know, the concessional copayment is $3.20, the non-concessional copayment, or general copayment, is $20.30. But, under these provisions, it will only occur when a person has bought a 100 per cent cover policy. That makes sense.Another thing that annoys people is that, having bought a 100 per cent policy, they turn up for a procedure and say, `Here I am. Do whatever you like to me; I am fully covered.' But much to their consternation and surprise the poor patients discover that they are not covered. This provision removes an important irritation for a lot of people who have had the misfortune to need to use their private insurance as in-patients.The fifth provision, which has been criticised by quite a few speakers on the other side, is to allow health funds to pay gap benefits up to the schedule fee for out-ofhospital procedures that are undertaken in accredited facilities. This means that the Medicare benefit would be 75 per cent of the Medicare benefit schedule fee—the same as applies for in-patient services—and 25 per cent of the schedule fee would be covered by the private health insurance fund. In addition, a facility benefit would be paid, and this introduces a concept that is new but nonetheless necessary. This is in recognition of the extra costs that are involved in establishing an approved procedures facility.One of the things that, to their credit, was pursued by Graham Richardson and, prior to him, by Brian Howe and also by the member for Fremantle when she was the health minister was to do whatever they could to diminish the rate of hospital admission in Australia. A number of reports commissioned by the previous government express significant concern about the high rate of hospitalisation that occurs in Australia as compared with that in other countries. In fact, our rate is amongst the highest in the world. Anything that we can do to encourage people to have procedures done as outpatients, whether in free-standing day surgery facilities or in consulting rooms, ought to be encouraged.I remember that when I was president of the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Medical Association we had a major issue where doctors were accused of admitting patients to private hospitals for what were described by the funds and the Health Insurance Commission as frivolous reasons. What we were trying to do was to persuade the doctors that they could do these procedures in free-standing facilities—either well-equipped consulting rooms or day surgery centres—instead of going through all of the expense and inconvenience, and the higher risk of morbidity, associated with the admission of someone into hospital. One of the reasons that they could not, and would not, do it was that the patient would suffer a financial penalty if they were not admitted. Paradoxically, the patient actually paid less out of pocket if they went into hospital than if they had the procedure done as an outpatient. This provision finally addresses that.It also has another intended consequence, but a positive one. It means that the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the other learned colleges, probably the Australian Council on Health Standards, the accrediting body for hospital facilities in Australia, and the department, are going to have to develop an accreditation model for consulting rooms so that the facilities in which things are done to patients and procedures are performed upon them reach an accreditation standard which is acceptable to the profession and to accrediting bodies.The provision which has been deleted is something that I certainly was not all that comfortable with; that is, if we were going to provide higher levels of insurance above the Medicare benefit schedule fee, the doctor would have to be in a contract with an insurance company and a hospital.I must point out the hypocrisy of what the member for Fremantle said in severely criticising that sort of measure, because when the member for Fremantle was the health minister, a health insurance amendment bill was introduced which became known as the Lawrence reforms, which actually intended to do just that—to allow doctors to enter into contracts with insurance companies and hospitals and allow them to insure for benefit levels above the Medicare benefit schedule fee. It seems a little inconsistent to criticise this measure, which has been deleted now in any case, having done everything you could to pursue that for in-patients when you were on the treasury bench.One of the other points which has not been made all that well is that often we forget whom we are here to represent. We are here to represent people—human beings. Sometimes it is easier to think of them as constituents. The Health Consumers Council of Western Australia, when it appeared before the Senate committee on this matter, said:Feedback indicates a strong support for these measures.The Australian Consumers Association, not always sympathetic to measures undertaken by our government, said:The Consumers Association supports the general intent of the Bill which will increase the flexibility in what health funds can cover in their policies and allow loyalty bonuses based only on the length of membership, not number of claims, which reaffirms the government's commitment to community rating.That is another important point: the measure does not allow for no claim bonuses. No claim bonuses are highly appropriate for insuring your car, house or whatever, or any risk rated system. No claim bonuses, as logical and attractive as they are to many consumers, destroy community rating principles. It means that people are then self-selecting. This bill does not allow for no claim bonuses. The Australian Health Care Association said that the proposals are generally sensible. The representative from the Australasian Day Surgery Association said:I believe that all the amendments in this Bill are vital to the future of private medical practice in our country.The Australian Private Hospitals Association said:APHA generally supports the Bill as it would improve health insurance products for consumers by removing some gaps and recognising that an episode of care is not confined to the hospital.The member for Jagajaga, in her introductory remarks, talked about the concept of vision in health care. In that sense, I strongly agree with her. But, in talking about vision, I have to say that these measures are a very important part of building a vision for the kind of health care system that we want. We want people to be operated on only when they need to have operations performed upon them. As far as possible, they should be done out of hospital rather than in hospital. As far as possible, we need also to be building in incentives and pressures upon the medical profession to see that the facilities in which people do things receive as much attention as the credentials of the person doing it.In going to the concept of accrediting consulting rooms for these sorts of measures, by allowing private health insurance to cover 25 per cent of the schedule fee for outpatient services, nothing will get people moving more quickly towards providing appropriate standards and having them measured than providing a health insurance benefit for services provided. I can say that with some authority.In her introductory remarks, the member for Jagajaga said, in speaking of our government, that private health insurance is the only route to a proper medical system. She then went on to say, as many speakers on the other side have said, that we are going to have a two-tiered medical system. I say to you, as a person who spent nearly a decade servicing the second poorest socioeconomic area in the country, that we already have a two-tiered system. We have a two-tiered system because for 13 years we remained wedded to the proposition that everybody, irrespective of their income, should be provided for by government and should rely on the public system.Every political and financial disincentive was provided to people not to look after themselves. I have repeatedly seen people who have spent 30 or 40 years, through no fault of their own, living in public housing flats, at the age of 70, with two quadripods and a hemiplegia from a stroke, having to try to jostle to get into a public hospital alongside people who could, and should, be looking after themselves.I have endured the attacks of Labor Party leaders who have said that people do not need private health insurance. I will never forget, in March 1993, during the federal election, when the then Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating, said, from the Royal Adelaide Hospital, `You don't need private health insurance; Medicare can look after all your needs.' What really annoyed me was that at the time he was reported to be worth $5 million. Despite what the gallery may think, I have not yet worked out how you make that sort of money in the parliament.At Christmas time that year, I saw Wrans, Hawkes, Keatings, Whitlams—a series of Labor luminaries—booked into some of the most prestigious private hospitals in the country. And I admire them and support them for doing that. They have the capacity to do it. But to then go and tell the poorest people in the country that they do not need any help to look after themselves and that they do not need financial help and assistance from government to be able to afford access to the same facilities, that is where you lose me.I think there are some people on the Labor side who know what I am talking about. There are 700,000 people with private health insurance earning $20,000 a year. As you know, in parliament we earn about $80,000 a year, which is a lot of money by community standards. But how somebody on $20,000 a year or less paid private health insurance, prior to the 30 per cent rebate, of between $1,500 and $2,500 a year is beyond me.I will never forget the president of the Tasmanian Pensioners Union, a really good woman, saying to me, `You know, some of our members go without food to pay for it.' And at the same time the Labor Party frontbench in government was saying, `No, you don't need it. You are wasting your money.' I had better not get started on this line because I get very wound up about it. The provisions of the bill are an important part of a series of building blocks that the government is putting into place to see that private health insurance as a product is something that is attractive, sustainable and ultimately reasonably affordable to those people who want to take it out.Every time I say something in the parliament I sense that I am lengthening my period of service on the backbench. As you can see, I am in the back row. I do not think that I can get any further back. I think that the time will come in our country when we will have to look seriously at some kind of bipartisan long-term planning to take some of the politics out of health policy. I believe that some of the coalition's anti-Medicare program in its early days is well and truly behind us. Some of the ideology that drove Labor policy, certainly for the first 10 years of its government from 1983, also needs to be put behind us. I believe that the time will come when, as you go up through the income scale, if you do not take out private health insurance you ought to be making a greater contribution to Medicare than the minimum baseline of 1.5 per cent. I strongly support these measures. As the consumers have said to us, they are going to make the product more attractive to them. They are part of a series of measures that the government is undertaking, to its great credit. I am very proud to be a part of it.10:17:003550Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) makes a number of amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973. Before I proceed to give my submission on the legislation, I will make a couple of points relating to the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bradfield. I was very pleased to hear that he did speak in support of Medicare and that he acknowledged the general anti-Medicare position of the coalition parties over a long period of time. I do not know how he could be reasonably sure that all that anti-Medicare position has disappeared. We certainly hope that it has.I felt there were some inconsistencies with his presentation because, if we are really going to have choice, the public system needs to provide acceptable levels of service. But if the government is going to prevent funds from going to the public service system, it is not going to provide the service that the public are entitled to. He misses the point relating to Medicare. It is not failing because people do not want it. It has a problem because fewer providers are servicing it.Bulk-billing is the means by which low income families access medical services, but because of the government's refusal to allow an increase in medicines they are withdrawing from bulk-billing, and this is creating major problems for low income people. Nevertheless, I do welcome his constructive contribution and his acknowledgment of the obvious need to have some sort of a bipartisan approach to the health issue generally.The government's stated objectives in this legislation are to allegedly improve the efficiency of the private health insurance industry and make private health insurance more attractive to customers by enabling greater product flexibility. The amendment once again highlights the strained relationship between the universal and publicly financed Medicare, which covers medicine and public hospital services, and the voluntary private health insurance industry, which provides coverage for hospital services and other health services such as physiotherapy and dental services.In all of the debate on Medicare, many opponents overlook one basic tenet that underlined its introduction. Everybody knew that health care was expensive and would not get less so. We all therefore supported Medicare on the basis that we healthy Aussies were able and had a responsibility as citizens to look after those who were not as fortunate as we were.In referring to the objectives of the bill, the government claims they are to be achieved by a range of measures which include increased flexibility and deregulation of the industry. Some of these are minor changes and others are desirable improvements, which we will be supporting. Some of the changes are acceptable, subject to some limitations. There are a few measures which Labor should, and will, oppose outright.Labor would welcome greater flexibility, which would enable health insurance funds to offer their members more affordable products. This would be particularly applicable in the area of hospital cover, where consumers want to know what the total cost of their treatment will be before they go into hospital. For too long, privately insured patients have found themselves out of pocket after hospital treatment, despite paying high premiums.This legislation also seeks to widen the rules to allow health funds to offer loyalty bonus schemes, in recognition of the period of time a contributor has been in the fund. This is a welcome move. What is not welcome is the move to permit funds to pay a benefit for minor surgery procedures performed in doctors' surgeries. This is a change which is not supported. Minor operations under category C can already be performed in doctors' surgeries.While agreeing that there is an argument for better remuneration to cover equipment and disinfectant costs, this should be done through Medicare rebates and not private health insurance funds. There is insufficient detail provided about how the proposed `approved facilities' will be regulated and how single doctors will take part in quality programs, such as exist in day surgery centres now. On this particular point the Bills Digest gives a very balanced position on this legislation:Estimating the possible impact of this measure is difficult because of several unknown factors. It is expected that procedures provided in such facilities will substitute for procedures which would otherwise have been provided in a hospital or day hospital because only existing items in the Medicare benefits schedule are to be approved for use in these facilities.It is possible that savings may accrue to health funds because these procedures will presumably be performed at a lower cost than would have been the case in a hospital or day hospital.However depending on the level at which the proposed facility benefit is set by the minister the overall cost to the health fund may end up being higher in which case contributors with the appropriate cover will be likely to face increased premiums. In addition, it is possible that these facilities may offer greater ease of access for patients and may result in increased demand for the particular procedure available in this facility.So there are two possible problems with that part of the legislation. The procedure may therefore actually undermine the attractiveness of private health insurance.In 1994-95, the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicated that 81 per cent of patients treated in private acute and psychiatric hospitals had private health insurance, while only 55 per cent of those treated in private day hospitals were insured. The effect of this legislation would be to disadvantage Medicare patients who would have to either pay extra or queue for such services in hospital or in a doctor's surgery.This legislation, however, amounts to an attack on the principle of universal insurance under the Medicare arrangement and originally was aimed at opening the door to remove the restrictions that keep most specialist fees down. But the government got cold feet on this when the ALP protested and public opinion got too hot for them. Surely, if we are to be seen to be not only responsible but also fair dinkum in regard to Medicare, we need to keep fees from rising too high. Specialist fees are already a major torment for many patients who know that, whatever coverage they have, the cost of specialist fees is going to be a major headache in most cases. Surely it is our clear responsibility not to make any amendment to our legislation that will in some way permit easier fee rises upon ill Australians. The consequences of the alleged freeing up would be to make major medicines much more expensive for the mums and dads of Australia.Any amendment to private health insurance should be seen as supplementary to our Medicare system, not instead of the system. It is recognised by none other than Dr Dick Scotton, the original architect of Medicare, that the scheme needs to encourage more competition to control costs of doctors and private hospitals. One suggestion is that for Medicare to function effectively 40 per cent of the population must have private health insurance. Currently, 30.1 per cent of the population have private health insurance.The government may claim some sort of victory in this area with some funds claiming an increasing membership as a result of the 30 per cent rebate. But the rebate is only solving part of the problem of our health system while starving the public health services which provide the majority of health care. But critics are still reserving their judgment as to whether the 30 per cent rebate will assist in attracting people back into the private health system. Press reports indicate:While the 30% rebate has stimulated heavy inquiries many callers are believed to be existing members asking about using the bonus to upgrade their coverage.This report was by Jack Marshall in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 March, while Michael Reid, a general practitioner from South Australia, writing in the Financial Review on the same day, said:The only deviation from the supply side measure has been the misguided private health insurance rebate instituted by the current administration. This initiative may provide short term respite for the private health insurance industry. In the medium term however it is destined to only exacerbate the existing problems by preferentially attracting `high use' individuals into the system.There is a qualified medical practitioner, who has hands-on experience, who is actually saying that the 30 per cent rebate is not going to solve the problem and is really a waste of public money.The Medicare system is continually under attack from this government, and from people such as the Victorian Premier, who is reported as saying that Medicare will not survive into the next century. These views are supported from time to time by the AMA, by surgeons and by the private hospital lobby. Clearly, conservative politicians have an ideological opposition to state controlled health systems, no matter how beneficial they are to the public. These views are supported by the private health lobby, who are seeking at all times to maximise their profits by providing increased health services at increased costs. The government's bill proposes to deregulate the increase in premiums by health funds. This would be achieved, firstly, by moving the decision from the minister to the Private Health Insurance Advisory Council and, secondly, by completely deregulating premiums.This whole issue is a very sensitive one for the government and potentially is also very expensive for the government and for the taxpayer because the government will lose any capacity to control the cost of providing the 30 per cent rebate. Already we have seen one national health insurance fund increase its premiums—the 44,000-member Defence Health Benefit Fund has increased its premiums by 22 per cent. This is the important point to remember, and for the government members to take on board: as health funds increase their fees, the value of the 30 per cent rebate to fund members is reduced and, of course, that creates an additional burden on the taxpayer. But, more importantly, at the same time much needed finance which should be going to the public sector is likewise reduced.The aim of the government should be to provide a first-class health system to the Australian public while ensuring a control is being kept on costs. The costs that particularly need to be looked are those relating to fee charges by specialists and profits to be made by the excessive costs of much needed drugs. A great deal needs to be achieved in the area of specialist fees as they relate to the availability of hospital beds. Nevertheless, medical costs are being kept under control by Medicare, and this is one of the big pluses of Medicare. This means cheaper health costs to the Australian public.In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 January 1999, health writer Marion Downey made this claim:Growth in Medicare costs is showing the real rate of growth in expenditure was2.9% in 1997-98, significantly lower than for any year since 1992 and lower then the average annual growth rates over the period 1984-88 to 1996-97.Australia spends 8.6% of its gross domestic product on health care making it a middle ranking country in terms of costs, despite a private health system that is the second largest in the developed world . . . proportionately three to four times the size of that in all the other developed countries apart from the United States.Areas of uncontrolled expenses in particular drugs do remain. But drug manufacturers are participating in trials which they hope will prove that spending on drugs saves money elsewhere in the system.While this may be true, we on this side of the House will be opposing any amendment that appears to give the green light to pharmaceutical companies to increase the price and increase their profits by increasing demand for their products.One of the issues that needs to be raised in any debate on health insurance and any proposed amendment is the relationship between the system and older people. Schedule 2 of the bill permits insurance funds to limit the scope of policies to exclude palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation from these new, out-of-hospital products.Paragraph (bf) of schedule 1 of the National Health Act 1953 requests that all public insurance tables offered by health funds must include benefits for palliative care, rehabilitation and psychiatric care. Item 9 of the government's legislation amends paragraph (bf) to the extent that new products to be offered by health funds to cover services envisaged in parts 5 and 6 of schedule 1 of this bill will not be required to include benefits for palliative care, rehabilitation and psychiatric care.The Australian Catholic Health Care Association has also expressed their concern about this exclusion in their submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The executive director of that organisation, Francis Sullivan, said in part:When previous amendments to this act were proposed to the Senate, we were concerned about the requirement on health insurers to cover rehabilitation, palliative care, psychiatric care and the like. At that stage of course it was talking about acute service. Our same concerns are there in regard to any service that people believe they are going to be insured for, whether they be in a hospital or outside.This association has sought the reason for specifically singling out palliative care, psychiatric and rehabilitation care for exclusion prior to the passing of this amendment.This is a question that maybe government members can answer for us. Nevertheless, this provision will severely disadvantage older Australians because it means that funds can offer policies targeted at young people and not offer to cover those categories of major health costs for older people.It is very important that older people have the maximum coverage that they want. I have heard other speakers today, I think the member for Hinkler, saying how very important private health insurance is for older people who have been in the fund for long periods of time. For that very reason, for that peace of mind, it is very important that they do have that range of coverage, particularly with most health costs occurring in the last two years of life. It is important, therefore, that older Australians have the full range of health care options available. This legislation does not give older people this flexibility.Mr Deputy Speaker, 1999 is the International Year of Older Persons. We should be particularly sensitive that, in any amendments that are made to the health system, absolutely nothing is done that causes added strife or burdens to any older people—and by that I do not just mean those who have retired.10:35:003554Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—As a former GP for 26 years, I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill. Most members of this House are acutely aware of the serious problems this country is facing because of the dramatic fall in membership of private health insurance.The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 is part of the blueprint of legislation that this government has drafted in order to address the numerous problems that we are facing and provide funds with an opportunity to be more competitive and flexible. Some of these measures, particularly the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance, has already taken effect and will not only ensure that those people already covered will not drop out but also encourage new members into the private system.I was very pleased to see an advertisement in my local paper the other week for Western Australia's largest private health insurer, HBF, apologising to the public because their phone lines were so busy with membership inquiries at the moment that some people were unable to get through. Although perhaps HBF could have anticipated the increase in business and acted accordingly by putting on more phone lines, it is pleasing to see that the government's 30 per cent rebate is creating the desired affect.Putting it simply, people have not had such a good deal in years. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 is further evidence that the government is working with the private health insurance industry to get Australians a better deal.The main items in this bill help to make private health insurance more attractive to consumers. As it does so, I think it is important to recognise that health insurance is unlike any other form of insurance; yet it is probably one of the most important for many Australians, particularly the elderly. It is unique, mainly because of the concept of community rating. The concept that the ill or elderly are not charged more when it comes to insurance premiums is one that this government wholeheartedly supports. That is why I particularly welcome the measure to introduce loyalty bonus schemes to recognise the period of time a member has paid premiums. This rewards long-term members, based on the length of their membership, not on how many claims that member has made.The no-claim bonus we all know with car insurance should not be introduced with private health insurance, as it would be an attack on the premise of community rating by penalising the sick and the elderly. Instead, the loyalty bonus addresses a fundamental inequity with the current system. That is, a member who has paid premiums for 40 years is not any better off than someone who perhaps waits until their retirement to take out private health insurance without contributing a cent until that moment. Or someone who takes out private cover to have a baby costs the fund thousands of dollars for the birth, then drops out afterwards. A complicated birth can cost anything up to $100,000.A no-claim bonus would also concern me as I could see people using the public system when they are sick, despite having private cover, because they do not want to lose their no-claim bonus. I know you do this when you have a small dent in your car, but the consequences are not as widespread as placing preventable strain on the public health system. The reforms to pre-existing ailment provisions to allow for waiting periods to be extended in particular instances will also encourage long-term membership of private health insurance and discourage `hit-and-run' members in the process.Other measures in this bill include reforms to allow registered health funds to offer discounted premiums in specific circumstances, reforms to allow health funds to cover costs of pharmaceutical benefits prescribed whilst in hospital, and measures to allow funds to pay gap benefits up to the schedule fee for out of hospital procedures which are undertaken in accredited facilities.The measures in this bill are long overdue and have been welcomed by the key stakeholders, who want to see Australia's health system remain sustainable, fair and of world-class quality. This includes the Health Consumers Council of WA, the Australian Private Hospitals Association and the National Seniors Association.I know they will also be welcomed by the constituents of Moore, many of whom voted for the Howard government on the basis of our comprehensive policy to address the fall in private health membership and take the pressure off our public health system. The Howard government is the first government, since the slide in private health insurance membership began after the introduction of Medicare, to actually offer some commonsense reforms. It is indeed a shame that the Labor Party, both now and while in government, have some ideological opposition to private health insurance. They somehow believe that private health insurance is a luxury for the well-off. Not only is this assumption incorrect—aged pensioners on very low incomes form a large part of private health insurance members—but it also ignores one very fundamental truth.I think the time has come, as previous members said, for us to take a really good bipartisan look at this whole issue. We all have a vested interest in seeing private health insurance membership flourish. Our greatest hope of maintaining a high quality health system is to ensure that those who can afford to contribute towards the cost of their health are encouraged to do so. Anyone who believes that Australia can enjoy full and universal public medical coverage whilst maintaining low and globally competitive taxation rates is incredibly naive. The range of measures currently being introduced by this government allow funds to be more competitive and attractive to consumers who, as any advertising executive will tell you, are a discerning bunch who will not buy something unless it is value for money. I commend this bill to the House and wish its speedy passage.10:41:003555Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Health is probably going to be the greatest issue to confront this nation into the next decade and into the next century. There is no doubt this will happen as the nation grows older and lives longer and because medicine itself is improving all the time. If you think back to only 20-odd years ago, the number of procedures you could have in a doctor's consulting rooms and the number of referrals you had were very limited. The fact is that today pathology outstrips anything we could have dreamt of a short while ago—similarly with radiology and all forms of specialist treatment. They are of course improving our quality of life, they are prolonging our lives—and all to our general benefit.Along with that goes a cost. Whilst we had these great and dramatic increases in technology and advancement in medicine we had no changes of any positive note under the previous government in relation to the private health care industry. Of course it is only one of the two segments: we need to look after both public and private health. To that end, we should put a blunt instrument to what the opposition refers to as our decimation of the public health system, because this government has in fact increased public health spending by some 19.2 per cent in real terms for public hospitals.The public hospital system is under a lot of pressure. You can continue to throw money at it, that is true, but in doing so is that money well spent? If you go back a few short years you find that we had 70-odd per cent of Australians investing in their own health. And no limit of studies are available across any range of topics which will indicate to you that, where people take responsibility in the first instance for themselves or have some input into their own wellbeing—whether it be for education or health or any other service in society—that ensures that they take a greater interest in themselves and in doing so ensures that they have a more responsible approach to whatever outcome they are looking for.When the state takes over total responsibility and removes any care from the individual, we then look to blame others, we look to expect a free ride. That is not possible in the health care industry. It never has been and it never will be. The unfortunate reality today, with only 30-odd per cent of the population in private health insurance, is that we find that there are too many people relying on the public health system unnecessarily.Because of those increases in numbers and because of the increase in the number of procedures, the complication of the procedures and the financial implication of those procedures—because of that combination of factors—our health system in different states at different times has come to the point of breaking. We see in the New South Wales state election that the Premier is trying to make a big issue of health, and so he should, because quite obviously it has failed in New South Wales under Mr Refshauge. The problem is that they are talking about opening new hospital beds, opening new hospitals and making more operations available. That is all well and good but, if we do not look at the bigger picture, that is only a bandaid solution.One of the measures in this bill that is being opposed by the member for Jagajaga and those opposite is the provision that would allow minor operative procedures to be undertaken in GPs' offices.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Specialists.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—And specialists' offices.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Only specialists. Read the bill.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—The member for Jagajaga interjects and tells me that this should not occur.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—No, I said read the bill.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—I have read the bill, and the fact is that you have got it wrong. The bottom line here is a situation where we are using hospital beds unnecessarily when these procedures can be done more cost effectively and in a more timely way outside of the hospital wards, which means that we do actually free up places for more urgent and more complicated surgery. How those opposite can oppose such a measure is certainly beyond me. It seems the argument they are running is that there will be some additional cost to the health care funds. Why aren't they looking at the actual provision of health care to the individuals that need it? If it is such an issue for Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, as it is in every other election, why isn't every measure that can be undertaken to reduce hospital waiting lists and surgery waiting lists being looked at in a positive light? I see that the opposition's reasons for removing schedule 5 are political rather than having any real substance at all.The opposition is also concerned about the government seeking to delete the transfer of the allowance powers. Right now they reside in the hands of the minister. I think it is right and proper that the independent regulator should be able to have this power to be able to decide on premium increases or premium changes, because when you remove it from the hands of the minister you also remove the possible political overtones. We hear it shouted from the opposition time and time again what the Prime Minister may or may not have said about these issues, or what the Minister for Health and Aged Care has said about these issues, of the increases in prices and of trying to ensure that there is some certainty in the marketplace. So why not remove it from that position altogether and give it to the independent regulator whose job it is? The member for Jagajaga says that the government must regulate it as paying for 30 per cent of the price increases. It seems that she is hell-bent on everything that she has touched in this place being regulated. It is part of the socialist agenda perhaps, but surely in an area such as health we should be looking at a mix match and having both private health insurance and the public health system working hand in glove to ensure that we get the best outcomes.The third point that I raise in relation to the objections to this bill is the fact that the ALP is seeking to delete the provision, saying that the minister must have the interests of the industry in mind when disallowing the rule changes. It is just unbelievable to think that the minister should not have the industry's interest at heart when discussing these issues. Surely, if we do not protect the industry, which in turn ensures that many Australians, some 30 per cent of them, some millions of Australians, contribute voluntarily to their own wellbeing, we are being irresponsible. I know that it is against the personal agenda of the member for Jagajaga to have private health insurance. It is against the agenda of the Labor Party. That has been spoken of and that has been reported time and time again, with the removal of the bed day subsidy and of the full tax deductibility of private health insurance. The fact is that over 13 years there were no positive measures put in place that did anything to reduce the number of people who were removing themselves from private health insurance. So they stand on their record, which quite condemns them for doing nothing and feeling there was no need to look after this most essential part of our health industry. Neither the private health industry nor the public health system can stand alone. It requires the two to work in a cohesive manner if we are going to address the very great health needs of the Australian population in years to come.If we were to do anything other than to support the private health insurance industry and to support people's needs to have choice and to move away from a regulatory system to a deregulated system, we would lock ourselves into a totally inflexible position. Any number of portfolio areas have been deregulated and have seen flexibility introduced into the system. If you look at industrial relations, we have moved away from a centralised system to giving people choice. Surely in a democracy choice should be uppermost. It should be uppermost in our minds in relation to health also.If we continued down the path that Labor took us on of very little change, very little motivation to do anything of a positive nature in health, we would have found that there would have been so few people in the private health insurance system that it would have collapsed altogether. We are not talking about a decade or two decades time; we are talking about tomorrow—a very short period of time. What then would happen to the very disadvantaged people that the member for Jagajaga often refers to when they found they were not able to get a hospital bed, not just for elective surgery but for important surgical procedures as well? I do not believe that the opposition are looking beyond their ideology and looking at the wider problem here. It is a problem of an ageing population, a population which now has access to the highest standards of medicine in the world, of medicine which continues to increase both in technology and in cost. If we as a people do not address those measures, we will find that as we grow older we are putting people into the invidious situation of not being able to feel safe and secure about the thing most important to all of us, and that is our health.My electorate is not a wealthy electorate by any means. We have very a low median income, we have a very much older population in many sectors, yet people in my electorate believe that private health insurance is not a luxury but an absolute necessity. They do not do it out of some greater good; they do it because they believe that the piece of mind that it offers to them is essential. The sort of thing that they come to me with every day, as I am sure constituents come to other members in this chamber with, is: `How do we deal with the gap? We have paid for 30 years into a health care fund, we finally need it and then the gap just about wipes us out.' If we do not start to address such issues, if we do not start to look at how we can make provisions for those things, we are being absolutely negligent. That is what the government is trying to do here. Over a period of years we have foreshadowed our intention to see the regulations surrounding health insurance diminished.The opposition fought long and hard—here, in the Senate and in the public debate—to get rid of the 30 per cent rebate. It really defies logic as to why you would do that. As the member who spoke before mentioned, the phones have been jammed with people wishing to get to private health insurance providers to find out how they can take up private health insurance as a result of this. We have rekindled in the public their interest not in the welfare state looking after them but in looking after themselves first and foremost. That is what private enterprise and self-incentive is all about. That is what this government is trying to achieve here. It is a shame—and disappointing—that those opposite have not seen fit to support this bill in its entirety but have picked out the three issues that I mentioned earlier.Schedule 5 is simply going to free up hospital beds. How much simpler can it be if we free up extra hospital beds? It does not matter what party is in power, whether it be state or federal, that is going to be positive to the people that actually require those services. They do not sit there and wonder why there is no bed. They just ask and plead, `When is it going to be available?' They want to know that we are not here arguing about some semantics but that we are trying to get on and achieve a positive outcome for them.The way we can do that is very simple: the ALP can stand up and not move against schedule 5 but actually support it. That is a positive measure that they can take in this place. It would be one of the very first positive measures that they would have made in the health industry, because they did not do that for 13 years in government. They have not done it in opposition because they have continued to go against everything that we have tried to achieve.With the disallowance, they are always complaining that we should be removing from the hands of government the regulation power to intervene, yet they almost contradict themselves by saying, on the one hand, that the minister should retain the power and not pass it on to PHIAC and, on the other, that the minister should remove his interest in the industry in relation to the disallowance rules.This is not the last time that the health issue is going to be raised in this place. I believe that it will become the largest single issue facing the Australian population and the world population in general in a very few years time. In Australia it will be specifically poignant because we are living longer. We are living longer, we are growing older and, therefore, the need for health care is going to grow at an exponential rate. It is going to be through measures such as this bill, previous bills that have entered this House and, no doubt, further measures which are still forthcoming that this government will continue to do its best to address the needs of the Australian population and their demand for, and their right to, the best possible health care system that this country can offer.10:56:003558Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank honourable members for their contributions and I will sum up the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 before we move to consideration in detail. I have been pleased by the support this legislation has had, as evidenced by the submissions that came before the Senate committee. Let me give you some examples. The Health Consumers Council of Western Australia said:Feedback indicates a strong support for these measures.The Australian Consumers Association said:The Consumers' Association supports the general intent of the bill which will increase the flexibility in what health funds can cover in their policies and allow loyalty bonuses based on the length of membership, not on the number of claims, which reaffirms the Government's commitment to community rating.The Australian Health Care Association said:The proposals are generally sensible.The Consumers Health Forum said:Generally, we are pleased to support the intent and form of the changes contained in the bill.The National Seniors Association said:Our organisation feels the Federal Government has established an objective to reinvigorate the private system and this proposed legislation deserves endorsement without significant alteration.The Australian Day Care Association said:I believe the amendments in this bill are vital to the future of private medical practice in our country.The Australian Private Hospitals Association said:APHA generally supports the bill as it will improve health insurance products for consumers by removing some gaps and recognising that, at the most, episodes of care are not confined to a hospital.Medibank Private said:. . . in particular, steps that allow the value proposition for private health insurance to be extended and encourage efficiency in the industry.That is an extraordinary range of support from a very broad number of organisations, just about every one of which is critical of us from time to time. It is disappointing therefore that the Labor Party should take such a negative approach to this legislation. It seems to simply not understand the direction in which health care is moving in Australia.The Labor Party has indicated that it is seeking to delete schedule 5 for procedures and approved facilities. This simply echoes what has been done in recent years in health care agreements with the states. Out-of-hospital care is often cheaper; it is often more appropriate. Things are vastly different today from when Medicare was conceived in 1984 and the rigid distinction that may have existed then between in-hospital and out-of-hospital treatment does not exist with many procedures today. It seems inconceivable to me that the Labor Party is attempting to have people treated in hospital when there might be a more appropriate and certainly less expensive alternative.The Labor Party has claimed that the rebate for procedures will drop from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. This just shows that the Labor Party does not understand this section. Any procedure would be a direct substitution and the same benefit will apply as if it were in hospital.The Labor Party is suggesting that there will be an inflationary aspect for people with insurance. This is wrong. If anything, there will be a deflationary aspect to this. In fact, the AMA is concerned that this may actually push prices down. More appropriate care and more appropriate settings are things we need to encourage. They are things which are actually cost effective.The shadow minister produced data from 1994 to 1995. I am glad she at least acknowledged that the data is up to five years old. Things have changed in the last five years. The Labor Party has suggested that if it is a good idea to encourage more office based surgeries then it should be done for the dominant part of the health care sector, that is, the 70 per cent of Australians who do not have private health insurance. I agree entirely. She was not shadow minister when we signed the health care agreements, but if she has a look at the health care agreements she will see that is exactly what we have done.By and large it is disappointing that the Labor Party seeks to be negative and opportunistic on something that is broadly supported and of itself will help to contribute to a more vigorous and vibrant sector.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3559Schedule 1, items 1 to 16—by leave—taken together, and agreed to.Schedule 1, heading to part 5 and items 17 to 22—by leave—taken together.11:02:003559Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition opposes these items. I want to again bring to the attention of the House the reasons for the opposition's position. I went through the issues last night but, given the minister's comments just now, I want to respond to those comments and explain why it is that we are opposed to part 5. It is interesting that the minister has seen fit to remove part 6—and we will come to that in a minute—because of the concerns in the community about what the extension of this idea more broadly into community medical practice might do. We may hear some reasons why he intends to do that when we debate the next item.I want to make reference to the fact that the Medicare agreements have nothing to do with private medical practice. Although I do understand that in the most recent Medicare agreements there is a desire by the minister to see more activity take place out in the community—and that is an aim we would certainly agree with—that has nothing to do with medical private practice, which is funded under the medical benefits schedule paid for by the Commonwealth. It is up to the Commonwealth and this Minister for Health and Aged Care to make sure that the vast majority of patients who have no health insurance and who go and see specialists and get their rebate via the medical benefits schedule are considered. They are the ones who are going to be affected by the changes we are debating today.If a specialist doctor can get 130 per cent of the schedule fee because he or she enters into a contract with the health benefits fund—if that is what this clause amounts to, and of course it will—then what is the incentive for that specialist to take on a Medicare patient for whom he or she will get paid only 75 per cent of the schedule fee? What will happen to the patient who has no health insurance and who gets back only 75 per cent from Medicare when they visit a specialist in the community who charges 130 per cent of the schedule fee? Who is going to pay the difference? Of course it will be the patient.So the Labor Party is strongly opposed to part 5 of this bill because it will increase the costs to patients. It will also increase the costs of private health insurance. If contracts are entered into between private medical specialists and health funds at a rate of 130 per cent of the schedule fee, who do we think is going to pay? It will be those who take out private health insurance. The increase in costs that will mean for the individuals, for the health funds and for the health system as a whole is certainly a very strong reason for opposing this part. Labor certainly does oppose it and will do so here today and in the Senate.The second reason for opposing it is that we are not at all clear—and the minister may like to comment on this; I will be pleased to hear his response—about how the minister intends quality control be monitored and high standards of medical practice in these office based services be ensured if part 5 is successful. We do have a very good system of control to monitor quality in day surgery. I would be interested to hear from the minister how he intends to make sure that accreditation and quality control happens if part 5 comes into fruition.11:07:003560Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I do not intend to get into a lengthy debate on individual points. Clearly the forms of the House allow the opposition to say what they wish as often as they wish. Just to answer those points, I could not expect a party full of union officials to understand how business works. This will only happen if it is in the financial interests of the health insurance fund. If a fund can save a day in hospital at $400 to $500 by paying a doctor a few dollars extra, that is a whole net saving to the fund and hence to the premium.Far from fees going up, fees will go down if anything, although, to be fair, what I think it would do is lower the rate of increase. I would not be as silly as the former health minister, Dr Lawrence, to suggest that these sorts of measures would make premiums go down, as she suggested at the National Press Club in 1995. Far from being a cost to funds, it is likely to be a benefit and to encourage the most appropriate care.It is interesting that the Labor Party should be talking about increasing the cost of premiums when part of the problem here is the very decision they themselves made to take rebates from 85 per cent to 75 per cent for in-hospital care and to whack the other cost directly onto the health funds. That was quite unreasonable at the time. That led to price inflation and there were no trade-offs. The whole point is that there is a trade-off.Ms Macklin interjecting—8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—There is a trade-off. You can interject and you can giggle, but the fact is that a fund does not have to enter a contract unless it is in its interests to do so. History shows that that is exactly what will happen.The second point relates to quality, which has been an issue of concern to me. We have very challenging issues across the whole of the health care sector relating to quality. There is no simple solution because it is very difficult to regulate the day-to-day, hour-to-hour or minute-to-minute practice of a wide variety of doctors. It can only be done cooperatively.We did announce in the last election, and I would expect we would be funding in this budget, a national institute of clinical studies. That was designed specifically to look at issues of quality across the whole of the health care sector to find a way of driving cost-effective, high quality health care. The two are not mutually exclusively; there is very good evidence from overseas that good quality medicine costs you less rather than more. We hope to deal with these issues in that manner, but it is no easy task. Nor is the problem solved in in-hospital care.Schedule 1, heading to part 5 and items 17 to 22 agreed to.Remainder of schedule 1—by leave—taken together.Amendment (by Dr Wooldridge) proposed:(1) Schedule 1, Part 6, page 15 (lines 2 to 31), omit the Part. 11:11:003561Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition supports this amendment because it is removing part 6 of this piece of legislation. This legislation was introduced in December last year by the current minister after apparently no consultation whatsoever with the AMA. The AMA, when they got to look at the bill, were understandably concerned that they had not been consulted, given that the purpose of this part of the bill was to radically change the way in which health insurance would apply to out-of-hospital specialist services.The minister met with the AMA two days later. I understand he took the issue back to cabinet and, what do you know—they agreed that this part of the bill could be removed because the AMA did not like it. So as for which members of parliament respond to the pressures of union officials, Minister, I would have to say that the evidence in the debate that we are having right now would lend support to the notion that the Liberal and National parties are the ones that respond when the AMA says jump.Nevertheless, it is the opposition's view that this would have been a very dangerous extension. It is interesting that the minister seems very happy with everything that is in part 5. Part 6 is, of course, just an extension of part 5. Part 5 is all about enabling private health insurance to cover certain office based procedures delivered by specialists in their rooms. Part 6 is about allowing specialists of any type to have private health insurance coverage if they enter into contracts with private health insurers. The same arguments apply in part 6 as apply in part 5.We should all be aware that this is what the government wants to see happen. The government does not have a fundamental commitment to Medicare because, if it did, it would be trying to strengthen the role of the medical benefit schedule in keeping costs down. What this government wants to do, which has not been done since the introduction of Medicare, is extend private health insurance to cover specialist procedures and specialist services outside of hospital.Australia has been successful at keeping down its health spending because of the role the medical benefit schedule has played in making sure that, in the main, specialists keep to that schedule. It is the great success of the Australian health system that we have a medical benefit schedule that most doctors adhere to. That is particularly the case with general practitioners, but even a large number of specialists adhere to the medical benefit schedule. Not many specialists overcharge. The ones that do certainly do so dramatically and hurt their patients. Those who do the right thing and keep within the bounds of the schedule ensure that patients are protected.This government has flagged to the community—though not today, because they are moving to remove this part—that they would like to see private health insurance cover specialist fees. That is so specialists can go out there and negotiate contracts to any level whatsoever. There is no cap in the bill and there is no suggestion that it should be at 100 per cent of the schedule fee or 130 per cent of the schedule fee. It is whatever the private health insurers might like to pay doctors.Concerning this idea that, as the minister says, it will only happen if it is in the interests of the private health insurance funds, nothing could be further from the truth. The experience in Australia is that, if private hospitals and doctors say, `We need more money,' then the health insurers just say yes and write the cheque. That is why we have had a massive explosion of cost to private health insurance. There is no experience either here or in the United States that, without strong controls by a national government to make sure that the cost of medical services are contained, we will not see medical fee inflation. The action of this government, in indicating to the public that they want to extend private health insurance, only means that costs will rise. (Time expired)11:16:003561Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The government is seeking to delete this section but for very different reasons than the opposition. We do not have government by agreement with unions or other interest groups. We flagged this change in the middle of last year. We did not feel that we needed the AMA's or anybody else's agreement. The AMA may be aggrieved about the process—people are aggrieved about processes from time to time—but the nature of government is that you have the right to make decisions. The AMA put to me that this would be highly divisive within the medical profession, that it would jeopardise a number of other things on which we are working cooperatively. In the whole scheme of things, it is not of great moment. I thought it was very much in the longer term interests that we should attempt to work cooperatively and that is why I was happy to remove it.The shadow minister has made a number of comments: that the schedule keeps costs down, that the increase in private health insurance costs have somehow been related to the payment of above schedule fees. While the schedule may keep unit costs down, it does nothing on volume. Naturally, the unit cost times volume is the cost to government. When we came to government, the Medicare benefits schedule, at about $5 billion, was out of control after 13 years under Labor.Certainly areas like pathology and radiology were growing at unsustainable rates. Ultrasounds were increasing over 20 per cent per annum compound. Pathology was something that we had no control over, and these are very large parts of the schedule—well over $1 billion. They have come under control in recent years, not by nature of the schedule but by nature of cooperative work with those parts of the medical profession.I find it very interesting to go back to what the previous health minister, the member for Fremantle, was saying in 1995 when she passed legislation to allow health funds to contract with doctors for in-hospital services. It was oversold. She did say that this would bring fees down. Now the same party is arguing that a minor extension would push increased costs. That is a completely contradictory argument and you cannot get away with it. If we have had an explosion in costs in health insurance, it is because of years of neglect.The Productivity Commission shows very clearly why that is so. The first reason is that we have a different product. It has gone from being a product that gave you choice of treatment in a public or private hospital, to being a product where you buy private insurance in private hospitals, so that it is more expensive. The second reason is adverse selection. Again, you get into a bit of a spiral: older, sicker people stay in while younger, fitter people drop out. Neither of these has anything whatsoever to do with above schedule costs. The Labor Party is simply wrong there.We were hoping to take away a disincentive for doctors to choose one form of treatment over another. It seems fundamentally silly when, for example, a doctor can do a gastroscopy—a very simple procedure today—in a hospital and the patient can be reimbursed 100 per cent of the scheduled fee, or they can do it in their rooms and the patient is reimbursed only 85 per cent of the scheduled fee. Fifteen years ago, they would have been done only in hospitals. That, clearly, is silly. It is ludicrous. Changes to medicine have outpaced the Medicare benefits schedule. In the whole scheme of things, it is not a massive change. It is something the government was prepared to remove. That is basically the reason why we are seeking to do it.NaN:00:003562Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The minister is trying to play down this very significant change which, from the information that has been made public, certainly seemed to run very fast on a meeting that he had with the AMA. The minister would also know that this move to extend private health insurance to cover out-of-hospital medical services does absolutely nothing to contain the volume of services. If there is any experience in Australia of private health insurers playing a role to control the volume of services, I would like to know about it. I have never heard of any examples of that happening in the Australian situation.We have extensive examples of that happening now in the United States of America. The reason it is happening in the United States is that they faced a situation of massive medical fee inflation, driving up the costs of private health insurance and of health care in that country. What was the response of the private health insurers in the United States of America to this massive medical fee inflation, which this minister wants to open up in the Australian situation? The response of the private health insurers in the United States has been to introduce managed care to control volume.That is exactly what they want to do, and I have no doubt that the minister knows all about it. Certainly the other groups in Australia that knows all about it are the doctors and the patients. The one thing doctors and patients certainly agree about in Australia is that they do not want a US style of managed care to intervene, to have a group of health insurers deciding what medical procedures a person will or will not get as the only way in which health funding in Australia can be contained.Australians want to know that when they go to the doctor they are not going to have to pay through the nose. If the government is unwilling to contain medical fee inflation and wants to encourage the increase in the costs of going to the doctor—because of the sorts of measures we are debating today—the direct result of the changes to the private health insurance sector and the private medical system in Australia will be managed care. It will be the only way in which health costs can be contained.From Labor's point of view, that is not the way that we would like Australia's health system go. I agree with the minister on the point that it is a good idea to do as many procedures and to deliver as many services as possible outside of hospitals. Which are the hospitals that are under the most pressure in the Australian health system? Of course, they are the public hospitals. Let us make some changes to medical practice, general practice and specialist practice that make it in the interests of doctors and patients to do things outside hospitals for the vast majority of patients that do not have private health insurance. They are not going to be able to afford to buy the new product that will be created as a result of this bill, and they certainly will not be able to do so when it drives up the costs of medical services.Labor certainly does not agree with the direction that this minister has in mind. It is a very radical change; it is not a minor change. He is trying to say, `Don't anybody worry; don't anybody have too close a look at it.' It is high time we all had a very close look at it. It will have a dramatic impact on the costs of going to a doctor in Australia. We now know the minister's true agenda: he wants to extend private health insurance into areas that previously have been covered only by Medicare. And it should stay that way.11:24:003563Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I really have to respond to that rhetoric without any intellectual basis behind it. The shadow minister goes from talking about volume in the Medicare benefits schedule to talking about volume in private health insurance—two totally different concepts—and merges the two. So the fundamental basis of her argument was incorrect in the first place.She then talks about fee inflation in the United States being the thing that drove up health care costs. That is incorrect; it is technology that drove up health care costs. It is the uncontrolled supply side of health care, both in physicians and in technology—which we have addressed and which the Labor Party have opposed, as they have opposed every major change we have tried to do in health. So it is hospital costs, technology costs, doctor numbers and CT scanner numbers that are driving health care costs in the United States, not fee inflation by doctors. The shadow minister talks about this dramatically increasing the cost of going to doctors. It is just rhetoric; it is rubbish. If anything, it would reduce the cost because it would have covered some out-of-pocket expenses.Then she makes the leap that this is somehow managed care, seeming to attempt to divorce herself totally, which she cannot do, from what the Labor Party did in 1995. On becoming minister, I was able to find out the motives for much of the legislation that had been passed. I was able to find out the motives for the coordinated care trials. I was able to find out the unspoken agenda of the previous government. In fact, what she is accusing us of a psychiatrist would call `projection', in that it was the agenda of the Labor Party but they never had the honesty to talk to the Australian people and medical profession about it.Yes, the public hospitals are under pressure, but just because they are under pressure does not mean that we cannot look at some other part of the health care system. We have signed health care agreements with the states to provide increases in public hospital funding unimaginable to the Labor Party—by far the greatest one-off increase in public hospital funding ever.If hospitals are under pressure, you have to look at why they are under pressure. There are two reasons: firstly, the nature of the agreement that the Labor Party signed with the states in 1993, where there was a big one-off increase in funding up-front to get the states to sign off, with very flat funding for the next five years—and so, at the end of the five-year agreement, the hospitals are under pressure. The second reason was that the states drew money out after the Commonwealth put extra money in. The extra money the Commonwealth put in was a sleight of hand—they took money out of the financial assistance grants to the states and put it into the health budget. So the net effect was that the states were not much better off.We have been able to address both of those things in a way the Labor Party was never able to in government. It will mean that, over time, the states can address their issues of concern to public hospitals. But having done that—having found the extra resources and having won the agreement—we now have to look at other aspects of the health care system, and the two are separate. The fact is the Labor Party is rooted back in 1984. A former member for Jagajaga, Brian Howe, said that if Medicare does not evolve—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—He was the member for Batman.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Batman, I am sorry. I was thinking that he formerly held your seat, but he is just your mentor. If Medicare does not evolve, it dies. The fact is that health care is changing. What was done in hospitals in 1984 is now done routinely in rooms in 1999. It is a different health care system, and this is seeking to keep up with that but really no more.11:29:003564Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—When going over this issue of medical fee inflation, the minister might like to have a look at the experience in the United States before managed care really took hold and look at the levels of medical fee inflation. I understand, looking at some recent data from the United States, that they are very concerned that it is about to break out again.I will also remind the House of how we came to have gap coverage of 100 per cent of the schedule fee in private health insurance. It was a resolution of the New South Wales doctors dispute to give equal coverage to public and private patients and to get rid of gaps for the private patients. Of course, this did not happen. That was not the result of the decision to go to 100 per cent of the schedule fee. What in fact happened was that the doctors concerned took the 100 per cent and then charged extra on top of that.The experience all around the world is that if you offer gap insurance, it is just an invitation to put up the fee. It is very likely that we would now see that as a result of the contracts that have been signed because of this minister's changes to the legislation. I understand that the sorts of contracts that have been signed in some hospitals in Australia are offering specialists 130 per cent of the schedule fee. So we have now gone from specialists being paid 100 per cent of the schedule fee to their being paid 130 per cent of the schedule fee if they are prepared to enter into contracts. The implications of that for the cost of private health insurance are very significant indeed. That is why Labor will continue to oppose any shift of private health insurance into community based medical care, not because we do not want to increase the activity that happens in the community; we do. If it is a good idea, let us do it as part of Medicare.11:31:003564Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—That is just complete rubbish. The fact is that the one fund that has been signing almost all the agreements, HBA in Victoria or Mutual Community in South Australia, seems to think that this is going to bring their costs down. When the legislation was originally passed by Dr Lawrence, if you go back and read the questions and answers given at the National Press Club in 1995, she said, `Let's be frank; this will bring doctors' fees down.' So that is what Dr Lawrence argued it would do in 1995, and in 1999 the shadow minister argues completely the opposite. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have your hollow rhetoric in 1995 to meet a political end and then argue 180 degrees differently in 1999. If it was good enough for Dr Lawrence then, it is good enough now.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.Schedule 2, items 1 and 2.Amendments (by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—proposed:(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 16 (line 18), omit "or", substitute "and".(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 16 (lines 19 to 22), omit subparagraph (iii).(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 16 (line 34), omit "or", substitute "and".(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 17 (lines 1 to 4), omit subparagraph (iii).11:32:003565Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition opposes the amendments that still leave in the capacity to extend private health insurance to office based surgery. I will not go over the arguments again. These are consequential amendments.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.Schedule 2, item 3.11:33:003565Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We oppose item 3 for the same reasons that I have outlined before. It is a consequential amendment to the proposals in part V.Schedule 2, item 3 agreed to.Schedule 2, item 4.11:34:003565Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition supports this item. It is consequential to the government's proposals on loyalty bonuses, which the opposition supports.Schedule 2, item 4 agreed to.Schedule 2, items 5 and 6.Amendments (by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—proposed:(6) Schedule 2, item 5, page 18 (lines 18 to 21), omit subparagraph (iii).(7) Schedule 2, item 6, page 18 (line 33) to page 19 (line 2), omit subparagraph (iii).11:34:003565Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition opposes these amendments for the same reason I outlined before. They are consequential amendments that still see the extension of private health insurance for office based procedures.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2, items 5 and 6, as amended, agreed to.Schedule 2, item 7.Amendments (by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—proposed:(8) Schedule 2, item 7, page 19 (line 16), omit "facility; or", substitute "facility.".(9) Schedule 2, item 7, page 19 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (c).11:36:003565Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition will oppose these amendments for the same reasons outlined before. They are consequential amendments to the introduction of parts 5 and 6. We want to see reference to part 5 removed as well as to part 6.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2, item 7, as amended, agreed to.Schedule 2, item 8.11:36:003565Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition opposes this item as well. It is only necessary because of the changes the government is introducing as part of its extension of private health insurance to out-of-hospital care.Schedule 2, item 8 agreed toSchedule 2, item 9.11:37:003565Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition opposes this item as well. This is one of the most confused elements of what I would have to say is a very confused bill. It varies the requirement that the health funds must include, within any contract for the provision of hospital care, coverage for treatment in respect of palliative care, psychiatric care or rehabilitation care. This is a very important requirement which protects the interests of older people, and it certainly would be very wrong for insurance policies to be written to include a range of services that are used by people of all ages. Some health funds might craftily exclude precisely those services which are most frequently used by older people. It certainly would be significant discrimination against older Australians and would undermine the principle of community rating that protects the most vulnerable in the community from being excluded from the shared coverage that universal insurance provides.The government actually seemed confused about what they were trying to achieve by permitting for the first time palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation care to be excluded from coverage. The explanatory memorandum certainly gives no rationale for this measure. In the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, the expert witness from the Department of Health and Aged Care denied any knowledge of the provision and testified that there was nothing in the bill that dealt with the exclusion of these classes of services. Nevertheless, it is referred to in the explanatory memorandum. The official who made that point is certainly wrong. It seems as if the department did not know what was in its own bill.The opposition is of the view that there should be no such exclusion and will therefore oppose this item. We would like to see the deletion of the objectionable provision by which older people could be victimised by the exclusion of the categories of service that they rely on from policies which provide coverage for office based services at approved facilities. The government has been asked to explain its position, and it came back with the view that part 5 is intended to provide for treatment. The minister has made it very clear today that part 5 is about providing for treatment in out-of-hospital settings as a substitute for in-hospital care—something that we certainly agree with. The government envisages that this cover would be provided in conjunction with hospital cover, but that is not required by the legislation—in fact, the opposite is permitted. As I read the legisla tion, the private health insurance funds will be able to offer a policy that is just about covering people for out-of-hospital specialist procedures. Of course, if the government gets its way, those particular policies will not have to cover palliative care, rehab or psychiatric care.The choice of whether to offer those particular areas—palliative care, psychiatric care and rehab—in a lower cost setting would be left to the fund on the understanding that it would remain a compulsory requirement to provide these services in conjunction with any hospital insurance. I have to say that this is hopelessly convoluted and fails to recognise the importance of these services and the financial incentive to the funds to find a way to deny older people this type of coverage. It certainly is going to see a very significant opening of the stable door in the false belief that the horses—the private health insurance funds—have no desire to bolt. This door should remain firmly shut and the opportunity to disaggregate an expensive group of services to give some people discounts at the expense of adequate care for older Australians should be denied.The government should accept that it has not understood the consequences of what it proposes and that this is a mistake in what I admit is a very technical area. I look forward to the government reconsidering its position and accepting that it needs to remove this item.11:41:003566Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I accept that it is highly technical and so I forgive the opposition for getting confused. The fact is that we were more than willing to put psych, rehab and palliative care in hospital tables, and we argued the case for that before the Productivity Commission. I think they are areas where you can put an argument that there is a real issue of potential market failure and that these would be unlikely to be covered unless it was mandated to do so. But just because someone is not better off does not mean, conversely, that they are worse off. The default position is the current position, that they are covered by Medicare, so no-one is worse off. It is not logical to me to extend that into surgery based services when it is still a requirement in hospital based services where nearly all of this is carried out.11:42:003567Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—There is nothing in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 that talks about surgery. It talks about professional services. The bill talks in part 5 about office based professional services. And then in the explanatory memorandum it specifically mentions that funds will be allowed to offer policies that exclude palliative, psychiatric and rehab care. Maybe the Minister for Health and Aged Care does not want to deal with this in the House today, but I hope that by the time the issue reaches the Senate the government will have had a rethink and made sure that the bill in its form in the Senate does not include this pernicious attack on the needs of older Australians.11:43:003567Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Far from being a pernicious attack on older Australians, the fact is that the government met its responsibilities. The government sought to require the funds to cover psych, rehab and palliative care, and not just for older people. Psychiatric services are used extensively by younger people, and my concern 2½ years ago was to ensure that younger people would not be disadvantaged by losing access to psychiatric care. So it does affect the whole community, not just older people as the shadow minister is attempting to point out. I believe she is wrong. I believe people are more than adequately covered. As a small gesture of goodwill, I will recheck, but I am confident that the status quo with respect to hospital services where all these services are carried out with private health insurance is maintained.11:44:003567Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—There is no suggestion that it changes the hospital based cover. That is not the point. The point of this item is that it enables the new policies that health funds will be allowed to offer—that is, health policies that cover only out-of-hospital, office based services—to exclude palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation care. Of course, a lot of that happens outside hospitals, and so it should. I have no doubt that the minister thinks that is a good idea, as I do. So we certainly do not want those things excluded if the government gets its way and part 5 comes to pass.11:45:003567Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The shadow minister seems to misunderstand that the default situation is the status quo, which is what we have got now, and no-one is worse off.Item agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3, items 1 to 3—by leave—taken together, and agreed to.Schedule 3, items 4 and 5—by leave—taken together.11:46:003567Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—by leave—I move:(16) Schedule 3, page 20 (lines 28 to 31), omit paragraph 78(4)(d).(17) Schedule 3, page 22 (lines 16 to 18), omit paragraph 78A(8)(d).The purpose of these amendments is to change the way in which the minister's powers are defined with regard to what he might or might not do when he considers rule changes to private health insurance.One of the things which we all have responsibility as members of parliament to do is, of course, to make our decisions in the public interest. The bill makes it clear that, with regard to any changes that the minister might make to private health insurance rules, he would be making those in the public interest. Certainly, as far as that part of the bill is concerned, we agree.It then goes on to say that the minister should consider the interests of the industry. The important thing for any health minister to have as his or her primary responsibility is the interests of the public. The interests of the public should be the overriding and only interest that any government should have in mind when considering changes to the rules for private health insurance.With regard to the idea that ministers take into account the interests of the industry, in many instances, these may conflict with the interests of the public. For example, the interests of the industry might suggest that it would be a good idea to reduce competition between the health insurance funds. That would dramatically conflict with the interests of those who hold private health insurance. From Labor's point of view, it is very important that the minister's primary and only responsibility, when considering rule changes, be only those things that are in the public interest.11:48:003568Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The government opposes these amendments. The net effect of them is actually to increase the minister's power. Clearly, as minister, one acts in the public interest. If you do not, the public has a chance to comment on that every couple of years in an election. The real effect of these amendments, by being able to look at the whole industry, is that I would be able to take wider views into account, so it strengthens my capacity, which at the moment is extraordinarily limited.Amendments negatived.Items agreed to.Schedule 3, items 6 and 7—by leave—taken together, and agreed to.Schedule 3, items 8 to 18—by leave—taken together.11:49:003568Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition will certainly strongly oppose these items. This minister is really trying to wriggle out from any responsibility for any future increases in private health insurance premiums. We have seen, just in the last week or so, a massive increase—a 22 per cent average increase—in private health insurance premiums for the Defence Force insurance fund. This 22 per cent premium increase is the first increase we have seen since the government's introduction of its health insurance rebate.The minister gaily approved this massive increase. What he wants to do now is remove any responsibility whatsoever for any future increases. Maybe he knows a bit more than we or the public do; maybe he knows that the sorts of increases that will be sought over the next couple of years by the health insurance funds are very significant, and he wants to distance himself and the Prime Minister from any of those increases. Of course, he will not be able to, even if he plays no role, because the opposition will be making it very clear that he has walked away from any responsibility in this regard.As a result of the government getting through its 30 per cent health insurance rebate, whenever health funds put their health insurance premiums up by as much as 22 per cent, who do you think will be paying 30 per cent of that massive increase in health insurance costs? Thirty per cent of the increase in health insurance costs will be paid for by the taxpayer, because of this government's brilliant idea with regard to health insurance rebates—just an open-ended cheque by this government of taxpayers' money, with no accountability whatsoever by this minister.This item seeks to remove any shadow of responsibility which this government might have had for private health insurance premium rises. The taxpayer is going to be paying 30 per cent, but who pays the 70 per cent? Who pays the vast majority of any increase in private health insurance premiums? Of course, it is the individual who has the premium.Some of those defence health fund members who saw their premiums go up by 22 per cent just last week have gone backwards. Not only have they paid an increase of 22 per cent on their premiums but also they lost the targeted health insurance rebate, which was the government's first attempt to support the funds. Individuals are having to pay 70 per cent of any increase, because $7 out of every $10 by which health insurance goes up is paid for by the person who has health insurance.Does this minister want to take any responsibility for that? Not one bit. He does not want to take any responsibility for the fact that he is allocating a huge amount of taxpayers' money every time health insurance premiums go up. He does not want to take any responsibility for the fact that, every time health insurance premiums go up, people are going to be out of pocket. This is the most blatant example of any minister walking away from his responsibilities to those who have private health insurance. The opposition will certainly oppose this measure.11:54:003569Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I present the supplementary memorandum. The government does not agree with the opposition's point of view. History is illustrative. How many premium increases do you think the Labor Party varied between 1984 and 1996? The answer is: not one. Every single premium increase went through without even the minister examining it. If you look at the Labor Party's track record in government, you find that it simply let the funds do what they liked. It is very easy to stand up and be critical but it is also incumbent on you, if you are going to criticise, to offer some sort of alternative. That is, of course, what the opposition never does. There is never any alternative offered.In relation to the defence health fund, which did have a large premium increase, in their wisdom they chose not to increase their premiums in 1998. I do not know why they did not do so but they did have a relatively low premium. They had higher drawings and higher claims than expected and the fact is that, without that increase, the fund would have gone broke. I put it to the shadow minister: what would you have done? The alternative would be to let the fund go broke. The alternative would be to do what the Labor Party did for 13 years in government, and that is allow every one to go through without any examination whatsoever.We are talking in the context of a fund that had chosen not to put its premiums up last year, that had had higher drawings and that was going to go below the statutory safe reserves. The fact is that there was no choice. While I regret it, there was no alternative. The alternative for me to deny it would be to have it challenged in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and risk having a health fund go broke in the interim because of what would have been quite irresponsible actions on my part, had I taken the course of action that the shadow minister seems to be agreeing to.In the end, the sensible thing is to have a regulatory body that takes the politics out of the matter and looks at it on the merits. It should have been done years ago. That is the whole point of PHIAC. To have a body of experts regulating the industry rather than doing it on some arbitrary political whim, as certainly happened under the Labor Party, is a vast improvement.11:56:003569Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This is pretty extraordinary. If we want to talk about health policy over the last 13 years, I am more than happy to do so, because I recall that it was the Liberal-National opposition that even went to one election without a health policy. Now they go to elections saying they agree with the Labor Party's health policy, which is Medicare. We do have a health policy which we are very proud of. It is called Medicare. We know that this government's true agenda on health policy is, bit by bit, to destroy Medicare.Returning to the items that we are discussing, the minister says that the issue of regulation of fees should go to a regulatory body. Why is it, Minister, that this bill is actually going to see the complete deregulation of fees? Why is it that we are discussing in this bill not just the moving of responsibility for approval of fees to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council—that is the first part of your moving out of any responsibility for approval of fee increases—but the whole deregulation of fees? The minister did not mention that fact. It will not be the case, according to this bill, that the regulatory body continues to approve health insurance premiums. In fact, the government's intention is to deregulate fee increases altogether so that the minister and the Prime Minister can wash their hands of any responsibility for private health insurance premiums.11:59:003569Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I cannot let pass the suggestion that we agree with the Labor Party's health policy. It is true that we did go to the 1990 election without a health insurance policy. We certainly did have a health policy, which had issues on health, but it did have a hole in the health insurance area. I would point out that the Labor Party went to the 1996 and 1998 elections without any health policy to speak of. They were tawdry documents that contained errors. They would have cast 30 per cent of the population that relies on private health insurance and the 40 per cent of the population that feel they may want it at some point in the future completely adrift. I am happy to highlight that difference at any point because the Labor Party has picked a dud here.11:59:003570Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am pleased to see that the previous shadow minister for health has just joined the debate. I have no doubt he will have something to say about the difference between the health policy that Labor took to the 1996 election and the 1998 election and the government's health policy. Labor does support Medicare. It is Labor's policy. Every piece of published polling shows that that is what the public knows too. Why is it that every time you open any one of the national newspapers and look at what the public thinks about which political party gets health right, Labor is always way ahead in the polls? The reason is that, since 1983, Labor has had a very strong health policy that is all about Medicare.The government when in opposition chopped and changed over 25 years. If we look at the Prime Minister's attitude, he has wanted to take the knife to Medicare. He has wanted to destroy Medicare at every turn, until 1996 when he finally read the polls in the newspaper and realised that, if he kept saying that, he would not get elected. So he went to the 1996 election and said, `Now don't worry anybody. Just be comfortable and relax because I won't hurt Medicare.' But now that this government are in office we see, as we see in this legislation that we are debating today, continuous attacks on Medicare. That is really what they are all about. What is most important is that the public know it.The public know that, in 1996 and in 1998, Labor took very strong policies to the electorate about improving access to public hospitals, about making sure that pensioners who need access to dental care could get it. They know that, as a result of this government's attitude to people who need dental care, that was completely wiped out. That was not mentioned in the 1996 election campaign. When this minister was in opposition and when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition they did not tell the public that they were going to abolish the Commonwealth Dental Program. When they got in they abolished a very important part of health service delivery. It was Labor that intended to put it back, and Labor that promised to put it back in the 1998 health policy. We have a very strong commitment to public hospitals. That is where our priority lies. If this government was seriously committed to Medicare, instead of putting $1½ billion into private health insurance rebates they would have put it into public hospitals.12:02:003570Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I actually came in here to do House duty. I did not realise everyone was contributing so much to this very important debate. I understand the Minister for Health and Aged Care actually accused the Labor Party of having no policy at the last election. Given that I was the member for Jagajaga's predecessor as the shadow minister for health, I thought I might make a comment or two on that.It is a bit rich for the minister for health to claim that Labor had no policy at the last election, given that he basically had two policies, two promises, on health. The first was the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. This 30 per cent rebate cost a massive amount of money—almost $2 billion a year. It was a $2 billion a year announcement made on the day the government released its GST tax package. The minister just disappeared. He could not be found. A minor press release went out on the day, but was the minister for health out there selling this $2 billion new promise on health? No.You are entitled to ask why the minister for health was not out there selling the Prime Minister's 30 per cent tax rebate. The answer is: it was John Howard's policy; the member for Bennelong's policy. The minister for health knows it is going to be a flop. The minister for health knows that this policy is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money at a time when the public hospital system could use every extra dollar it obtains.That was the first policy—the Prime Minister's 30 per cent tax rebate. The second policy was so bad it never even got launched. The second policy was the minister's claim that he would develop a new plan to fix up the problem with gaps; a new plan that he would negotiate with the surgeons. The minister for health has come back into the chamber. I am sure he remembers all the hints that he gave us in the lead-up to election day that he was going to announce a policy on gaps. It was such a good policy he never even got to announce it. They had a meeting of the surgeons in the northern suburbs of Sydney and the surgeons put the kybosh on his policy, so it never even got launched. It is a bit like the minister looking into that mirror and seeing himself when he accuses one of the parties in the election of not having a policy. It was him.In contrast, Labor's plan at the last election was to put an extra $500 million a year into public hospitals. If we were to ask the people in the gallery today what the biggest problem is with the health system today, I am sure they would say it is the public hospital system. Whether or not we have got private health insurance, if we are sick we rely on our local public hospital or the big teaching hospitals to look after us or our families. It is the public hospital system that we all rely on whether or not we have private health insurance.This minister for health says that we do not need extra money for the public hospital system because he fixed it in the last Medicare negotiations. Unbelievably, he said on radio during the election campaign that he had fixed the problem in public hospitals through the last Medicare negotiations. If you ask any doctor out there, any patient or any nurse whether there is enough money going into the public hospital system, they will tell you that this government should promise, as Labor has promised, to put extra funding into the public hospital system. That is the priority that the member for Jagajaga has been stressing every day since the last election. Put the money where it is needed, put the money where it will do the most good—that is, in the Australian public hospital system.12:06:003571Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I made a mistake. I said Labor did not have a policy in 1996 or 1998. I should have said 1993, 1996 and 1998 because in 1993 they actually had a policy but they never delivered on it. They promised new initiatives to contract the private sector to provide elective surgery for public patients on waiting lists. Nothing ever happened. They promised to have private hospitals included in regional health services planning under the Medicare agreements. Nothing happened.Mr Lee interjecting—8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—You are going to hear it a lot more times; it is good. They promised an aged care industry review to examine the adequacy of nursing staff to meet the increasing dependency of those living in hostels. Nothing happened. They promised national rural health programs to focus on expanding rural health centres. Nothing happened. They promised access to Medicare rebates for bone densiometry for women at risk of developing osteoporosis. It did not happen. They promised the establishment of a national health promotion authority. It was never done. They promised the legislative reform of the National Health Act to ensure Australia's commitment to the promotion of health. It did not happen.They promised language services would be provided in public hospitals. It was not delivered on. They promised the establishment of a national health advisory council on ethnic health. It was not done. They promised a continuation of the national health strategy. The national health strategy was wound up. They promised to deliver on a national primary health care policy. It was not done. They promised a national environmental health strategy, and that was never delivered on. So, while they had a health policy, they did nothing between 1993 and 1996 to deliver on it and I should have added that into 1996 and 1998.Mr Lee interjecting—8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—I apologise to the Labor Party, yes. I will just make a couple of points. First, Medicare is in better shape now than when the government took over in 1996—there is no doubt whatsoever. Had we gone on and not addressed the issues that clearly Labor had had policy fatigue on and found were too difficult for them, then we would be in real difficulty, but Medicare is in better shape than it was three years ago.The opposition also says their policy is all about Medicare, and I actually agree—their policy is all about Medicare. It has nothing about those people who either have or would like to have choice of private health insurance because, in the words of Graham Richardson, the Labor Party is biased against private health insurance.12:09:003572Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, and appeal to the Minister for Health and Aged Care to perhaps consider responding to this particular point: that is, that the particular clause we are considering at the moment takes away from the minister the responsibility of having to approve increases in private health insurance premiums. It is my understanding that in doing this the minister for health will be breaking the Prime Minister's promise.After the 1996 budget the Prime Minister was hit with lots of questions about increases which had been approved in two private health fund premiums. During a doorstop in Brisbane the Prime Minister gave an assurance to the people of Australia that he would ensure that Australians got the full benefit, to the last dollar, of any concession on private health insurance. So the Prime Minister intervened and subsequently required that all increases in health funds had to be approved not only by the minister for health but also by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister gave an assurance that every future increase in private health fund premiums would have to be approved by the minister for health, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—It was not a core promise.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—As the member for Jagajaga interjects, it obviously was not a core promise; it was one of these disposable promises. I ask the minister to explain to the House today what has changed since the Prime Minister gave that personal guarantee to all of those Australians out there with private health insurance that he would personally have to approve future increases in premiums.Minister, what has changed since the Prime Minister assured us that he would have to personally vet all future increases in health fund premiums? The Australians out there who have private health insurance know that if the minister and the Prime Minister wash their hands of any responsibility for supervising premiums they will lose the benefit of that rebate. They will be hit by higher premiums which will leave them with having to pay more, irrespective of the government's 30 per cent rebate. So, Minister, please tell us, what has changed since the Prime Minister gave us that personal guarantee? What has changed since the Prime Minister intervened to help you after that budget outbreak in 1996?12:12:003572Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—What the Prime Minister promised was to make health insurance cheaper for Australians, and the fact is today it is cheaper, with the 30 per cent rebate, than when we came to government. That was the promise.And what has happened in the last three years? We have three years more experience. When the Prime Minister made that comment I suspect he did not realise that in 13 years of Labor they had in fact allowed every premium increase to go through without any scrutiny whatsoever. He perhaps did not realise the hypocrisy of the Labor Party, although I have drawn his attention to that.We are not proposing for the foreseeable future that we will actually keep scrutinising them. The fact is that, under that, we can do it for the foreseeable future. But in the end we now have a health insurance industry that is in better shape, that is more competitive. I know it is a bit harder because of the regulators—Ms Macklin interjecting—8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—We could get rid of it tomorrow. What I am telling you is that for the foreseeable future we are going to continue to do it. I know the Labor Party has difficulty understanding this, but this is now a more competitive industry that is in better shape, and competition is what will protect the public in the end.Schedule 3, items 8 to 18 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole. Amendments (by Ms Macklin)—by leave—negatived:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 3 to 5), omit subclause (4).(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 6 to 9), omit subclause (5).Remainder of bill agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3573Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—put:That the bill be now read a third timeThe House divided. [12.18 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills3573r7233573Debate resumed from 10 February, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.12:24:003573McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 . We consider it an inadequate bill in some ways which I will outline, but it is clearly all that the government is prepared to do in response to the circumstances confronting the domestic shipbuilding industry, and particularly those companies building fast ferries in the face of significant international competition. Obviously we would not wish to stand in the way of legislation which will provide that industry some assistance to compete in the distorted market that is the international shipping market and particularly the international market for fast ferries.It is not our intention, as I said, to oppose the legislation, but we are firmly of the view that the legislation should indicate that the bounties will continue until a new OECD shipbuilding agreement is reached. The current situation is that all of the competitors of the Australian domestic shipbuilding industry—all those people competing with Incat from Tasmania, with the flourishing North Queensland shipbuilders, with Oceanfast and Austal and all those companies building ferries and associated shipping in the Fremantle area—continue to receive assistance assessed by the Shipbuilding Industry Review Panel as approximately double that received by the Australian industry. We are firmly of the view that, until that circumstance is changed, that bounty should continue. We will campaign for that, we will support the industry in its demand for that and, if the voters on a future occasion give us the opportunity, we will do that; but we will not fail to pass this bill. We will not fail to pass this bill because it is the only support on offer. Within the time limitations of that program, I think this has some advantages over the existing bounty scheme. Therefore, I welcome those and indicate that that will be, in some of the principles, the direction in which we would be likely to go.It is a strange set of circumstances that leads us to this bill. One thing that was not strange was that, just by sheer coincidence, the government announced its intention to renew this bounty in the middle of the election campaign and in an area where it was considered politically beneficial for the government. But why did it have to do that? We had an effective, operating support system. The reason it had to do it was that in the 1996 budget the coalition announced it was going to axe the bounty. It then became apparent that the Senate would not pass a measure to axe the bounty, and the government therefore grudgingly agreed to extend the bounty to June 1999 and set up the inquiry.One of the ironies of that announcement during the election campaign is that my colleague the then shadow minister for industry and the member for Hotham, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in responding to the government's inadequate announcement, concluded his press release by saying:Labor looks forward to the Prime Minister's next poll-driven backflip, which will probably involve extending the Book Bounty for the seat of Bendigo. Hopefully this time he will go more than half way.The member for Hotham got that absolutely right. There was a backflip on the book bounty, it was announced in Bendigo and it was about half what the existing situation is.With regard to this ships bounty, I think most members of this parliament—perhaps not everybody but most members—would think it would be better if we did not have it. Most members would think that it would be better if the competitors had no bounty and then we would not have a bounty, and our people could be out there competing in a fair market. All the signs are that they would win, but they would have to keep up to the mark to win. They would have to stay efficient to win, they would have to stay effective to win, they would have to manage well, they would have to have R&D, they would have to have good design, they would have to produce good products and they would have to sell them well. That is what we want. But with this sort of bounty, in the context in which the OECD is proceeding with snail-like enthusiasm towards concluding the OECD shipbuilding agreement, we cannot send our industry out to compete in the international marketplace without at least some comparable level of support.This is not about protecting the domestic industry from competition; our market is wide open. We are talking about a successful, internationally competitive, export based, high technology industry. That is why we find it so disappointing that the government, in its response to the circumstances confronting the industry, has come up with a response—which is fairly typical but nevertheless disappointing—which is that they have done the least they think they can get away with, rather than the most they think they can afford. Why did that come about? Why is it such an awkward compromise in simply extending what had been extended to 1999 for another 12 months with a phase-out—not because anybody seriously believes that by 31 December 2000 there will be an OECD shipbuilding agreement.I have had the honour of representing this country at the OECD. It does some wonderful research. It is an organisation that does a lot of very important things. Since I had the opportunity to be there, the OECD has grown—new members have been introduced with the opening up of democracy in what used to be called Eastern Europe. But, even with the smaller body with which I dealt, agreement making is a lowest common denominator process. There is significant resistance to an agreement. One of the reasons there is significant resistance to an agreement is that, if there were an agreement which removed the bounties, the Australian industry would defeat many of the European industries. We are already selling into the European market, which they resist very strongly.I had the opportunity at a meeting to discuss with the Norwegian minister for shipping the competition in the European market. She would not believe that the assistance received by our industry was only that which is in the bounty legislation. She said, `Your industry could not be beating the Norwegian shipbuilding industry in the European market with such a low level of agreement.' I invited her to come to Australia to examine the circumstance but I suspect she has not come here in the subsequent five years, because they do not actually want to know that our industry could beat theirs.We have to accept that might not be the circumstance forever and that, if we advocate opening up the market so we can have a chance to win, sometimes we will lose. That happens—that is the consequence of open markets—but we have an advantage driven by skill, technology and management and by very skilled, well trained work forces. That is the sort of industry on which Australia should be focusing.So why did we get such a limited, awkward compromise from the government, such a limp-wristed response? There is no doubt it was a very awkward compromise won in a cabinet that basically does not agree with providing this sort of assistance and so, to get them past the election—because a number of marginal seats are affected when you see where the distribution of employment in this industry is—they therefore papered over the cracks for a limited period. But, if they are pretending that by 31 December 2000 there will be a shipbuilding agreement in place, they are, in my view, living in fantasyland. I hope they are right; I think they are wrong.If they are wrong, we will have to have some major discussion next year about what is going to be the circumstance for this industry in the international marketplace. I make it very clear that our position, in broad principle, will be that we support an OECD agreement; that we support this government seeking to achieve that agreement and that, if we become the government, we will pursue ratification of such an agreement; but that, in the absence of such an agreement, we will continue to provide effective, targeted bounty support to this industry to enable it to compete in the distorted international marketplace.We said at the last election we believed that removal of bounty assistance should not occur without ratification of the OECD shipbuilding agreement, which would end all shipbuilding bounties and similar assistance in signatory countries. In a statement we made it clear that overseas measures of the sort to which we are referring are subsidies currently ranging from nine to 25 per cent. That compares with a proposal for Australia of five per cent assistance—not that we think we should be in the competition up at the nine and 25 per cent level—we support the five; it was the previous level.Of course, in other countries it goes beyond a 25 per cent bounty; there is outright import prohibition. We all know that applies in the United States. The so-called Jones Act in the great, free-trading United States is one of the international trade scandals of the last years of the 20th century—that the United States bans the operation within its borders of ships that are not built in the United States. Successive Australian trade ministers and other ministers, but particularly trade ministers, have made representations to the United States, to be met with embarrassed shuffling of the feet because there is no rationale for this ban. It is a sort of 19th century hangover, but there is no political constituency for change at the moment.In my view the potential to create that political constituency for change in the United States exists because the need for other parts of the United States economy to become efficient will lead to some demand which will enable such ships to operate within the United States. If time permits I will come back to some other developments which I think may well allow Australian built ships, particularly fast ferries, to get some exposure in the United States by trading from neighbouring countries into the United States in a way that exhibits their superior skill and capacity—if they are good enough; I think they are and the industry thinks they are—and creates a demand in the United States. That is our commitment; that is our view of the international circumstance and the way in which we believe the Australian government should be responding.How is the Australian government responding? What does this bill do? The explanatory memorandum indicates that this bill provides assistance which will cost, with administration, $82 million over five years, $28.3 million of which is expected to go to construction bounty payments, that is, payments to extend the shipbuilding construction bounty from 1 July 1999 to 1 December at a rate of three per cent and then to establish a phasing arrangement for vessels which are contracted for sale by then and delivered by the end of 2003. In addition, it is expected to cost $51.5 million to set up a new regime to provide for the payment of a research and development bounty to registered shipbuilders for eligible research and development expenditure at the rate of 50 per cent of innovation expenditure up to a total of two per cent of the eligible construction costs of what is called the `bountiable vessel'. In plain English, it must be research and development to apply only to construction and modification completed on or before 30 June 2004. Therefore, the research and development has to be done over the next 18 months but paid until 30 June 2004. It in effect means that, in addition to assistance with meeting production costs to enable them to compete on the distorted international marketplace, the bounty is designed to encourage the industry to focus more on research and development to stay at the cutting edge of technology, which is where they have been and which has enabled them to succeed, and also to allow design elements to be met through that scheme.That is the element of the scheme that I support. That is the element of the change that the government has introduced which I think is a positive. They have moved to encourage product research and development and design innovation. Those are the drivers of 21st century economic success. It is very welcome that the government is providing some assistance to this industry for those purposes. Not that it is not an industry that is active in that area—it is, that is why it is successful—but we should be encouraging them to continue to do so.My concern is that this is taking place in a context of cumulative decline in Australia's assistance to business research and development and to publicly funded research in this country. If the government recognises, as it does and should, that the success of our domestic shipbuilding industry depends upon creativity, knowledge and the application of skill and intellect to the development of new products and new designs of products, why does it not recognise that that is true about industry as a whole and move away from its fetish with cutting assistance to research and development which has led, for the first time since Australia has been collecting this data, to a decline in business investment in research and development? That is a tragedy in a modern economy; an unbelievable outcome in a modern economy. We have a government that is making policy changes that are leading to a reduction in business investment in R&D. Outside this area there is no indication that the government is showing any serious interest in assistance in the area of design, which is also very important.I want to take some time to look at the nature of this industry and its strengths and its position in the context of a modern international economy such as Australia. It is an industry which, at the end of June 1996, employed 6,672 Australians. That has been a rapid increase in employment. The ship building industry was in long-term decline but since the early 1990s it has turned that around and increased employment to nearly 7,000. It is an industry with very strong market prospects internationally. It is an industry where Australia does very well. The last figures I saw indicated that Australian firms built 40 per cent of all ferries sold in the world in 1997—27 out of 67—and exports of these vessels earned Australia approximately $300 million in 1997. Significantly, it is a very decentralised industry. It is an industry which has a major impact on regional economies in Tasmania, North Queensland and in the Henderson area near Fremantle in Western Australia.Incat, the very successful international producer of fast ferries, is the largest private sector employer in Tasmania, with over 900 employees, and accounts for more than 10 per cent of that state's export earnings. Its success and the training, skill and innovation that it has developed have spurred other marine industries to develop in the area. We have seen the emergence of an adjacent maritime industrial park, which people hope will generate many more jobs.We have an industry of increasing importance in North Queensland and we have a very interesting example of a cluster development in shipbuilding in the Henderson area of Western Australia, which is based on an initiative taken nearly 10 years ago to set land aside for that purpose. That was in the eighties, when a lot of people were very doubtful that it would succeed—and I was one of them. But it has succeeded. The impetus that the then state Labor government gave to that development has proved to be very successful. It is an indication of the modern trend towards the so-called cluster development of high technology industries.It is an industry that is highly competitive internationally. It receives something less than half the rate of assistance available to its European rivals and finds it incredibly hard to break into the other two major developed markets: the United States and Japan. That is not because of a lack of skill or quality but because of market impediments or bans. It is also an industry suffering some consequences of the downturn in Asia. It has a big market selling into Asia. I was associated with initiatives to sell fast ferries into China. There are many parts of South China in which you will find Australian ferries moving between major ports, transporting large numbers of people very successfully. It is a successful export industry for this country.Significantly, it is very much what we have come to call an industry of the future. When you talk about industries of the future people think you only mean industries that might be created from now, such as some of the exciting new things in biotechnology. They are industries of the future, but industries of the future are also current industries that apply modern science and technology, high levels of knowledge intensity and high levels of skill to existing strengths to create successful new industries, in this instance a successful new manufacturing industry.It is one of the classics: an industry of the future that has been built, in a sense, from the ruins of the old industry, because the old shipbuilding industry was in what everybody thought was terminal decline. It has now established an effective niche in the international marketplace.The market for fast ferries is changing, with greater emphasis on size and speed. The Shipbuilding Industry Review Panel predicts that future developments will see 140- to 150-metre catamarans carrying 2,500 passengers and 700 cars. Whatever the nature of that change, their general assessment is that there will be substantial demand for fast ferries in the period to 2005, both replacing older vessels and providing new services.The most exciting new service option that might open up the United States market would be if relations between Cuba and the United States changed, because Australian fast ferries would be perfectly designed for that rapid transit between Cuba and Florida. There are some people already aware of that option who are looking at buying pier space to service that market, which would blossom the day after it became possible to legally make the trip. The Australian industry could greatly benefit from that and could show to the people in the United States what they are missing out on. These ships are growing in size, they are growing in complexity and they are growing in value per vessel, adding up to a very important modern high technology industry.It is also very important for the future of our economy because, notwithstanding the very strong economic growth figures of the moment, there is a hole in the heart of our economy, which is the failure of the economy to develop strengths in the knowledge intensity, high skill, high wage industry. When you look at Australia's skill pattern in manufacturing compared to the OECD, we have the lowest level of employment in high-tech manufacturing and we are one of the few in which that percentage is declining. Of the figures I saw we were one of only two, but I am not absolutely sure because the figures did not cover every OECD country. But, as far as I can assess on the figures, and it appears to be the case, Australia has the lowest level and is one of the few, perhaps one of only two, in which that percentage is declining.Our growth in high technology exports has been very strong. High technology manufacturing and elaborately transformed manufactures are the fastest-growing areas in the world, where relative prices are increasing. But we are losing momentum from the very rapid increase in exports of high technology manufacturing, such as fast ferries, pharmaceuticals, electronics and aerospace.As we lose momentum there and look increasingly to the very important agricultural and mining industries for our export income and to low technology, low skill strategies, we find ourselves internationally selling into a falling market. The relative prices of low skill manufactured products and low knowledge intensity manufactured products, as well as agriculture and mineral products, are falling. The high skill, high knowledge intensity, high technology industries are where relative prices are rising. To be successful in the medium term we are going to need more focus in that area. One of the worrying signs is that Australia's research and development remains concentrated at the low technology end of manufacturing.I reiterate: the government has introduced measures with which we disagree. We think they are too limited and they are inadequate. We would have done it differently. We would have done it in a way which we think is more realistic in terms of assisting the industry to compete in the international marketplace in which it finds itself, but we will not be opposing these measures. We are not proposing to amend them. We support some elements of the change—the increased emphasis on research and development and on design—but we think it is very important that the government recognises that this industry of the future, which faces a significantly distorted international marketplace and is an important regional employer, should continue to receive support from Australians for so long as those situations continue so that, if it stays efficient, effective, technologically at the cutting edge and internationally competitive, it can succeed.Australian taxpayers cannot write a cheque to guarantee that any industry will succeed but they can say, `We will create the circumstances and provide the incentives and assistance to enable you to compete successfully, to enable you to go into the 21st century as a key part of a high skill, high wage, high knowledge intensity, high technology industry creating good jobs for Australians into the next century.'12:54:003578Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I welcome the opposition's belated support in not opposing the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999, but what the member for Fraser overlooks is that the Australian shipbuilding industry supports the government's package of measures. No mind that he wanted to do it differently; the industry supports it. On a national scale, the traditional shipbuilding industry is small compared to other manufacturing industries. However, in Western Australia and in Tasmania—those two states in particular—a new generation of shipbuilders has emerged over the past decade. Today the shipbuilding industry based in my state of Western Australia occupies a significant world market niche in high speed, aluminium hulled ferries. It is a very important component of Western Australian industry and exports.Our expertise in the design and manufacture of high speed passenger and vehicle carrying ferries has made us a world leader. The industry, in particular in Western Australia, is a fascinating case study of the local factors which can contribute to the development of an internationally competitive industry. In a competitive sense, the industry is an example of a growing market where entrepreneurial flair, superior design and technology, and a young, skilled and largely non-unionised work force combine to produce a new type of vessel on greenfield sites. The non-union, flexible labour force is a key element. It is an export oriented industry sector that employs almost 3,000 people across Australia and exports 90 per cent of its product which was valued at about $500 million in 1998.Why then this legislation which, in effect, extends a government bounty, albeit as a mixture of construction support with innovation support, in a competitive, innovative industry? The answer is that the Australian companies which are leaders in the fast ferry industry at present must be able to keep ahead of the anticipated competition but in a particular time frame. I will elaborate, but we should embrace this legislation against the backdrop of the world shipping scene. Traditionally, the shipbuilding industry around the world has been characterised by a strong degree of government assistance, the prevalence of which is generally associated with strategic and defence considerations, the significance to many nations of exports and the direct employment and multiplier effects of the industry upon the local economy.The perceived existence of significant beneficial externalities due to the numerous linkages that shipbuilding has with a wide range of related and support industries is also a significant factor in this tradition of national government assistance to shipbuilding industries. The conjunction of the skills and technology necessary to build high quality ships can be of vital importance in promoting other industrial aims. However, there is no doubt that the tendency for governments to provide assistance to shipbuilders has, over the years, led to a distortion of competition among countries and shipbuilding companies alike. Unfair pricing and dumping practices have emerged and the extent of support is said to be far from transparent in many cases.As a result, in 1989 the United States initiated discussions to provide guidelines for acceptable practices in the shipbuilding industry. This United States initiative resulted in the development of the Agreement Respecting Normal Competitive Conditions in the Commercial Shipbuilding and Repair Industry. The goal of the agreement is:. . . to establish in a legally binding manner, normal, ie. subsidy and dumping free, competitive conditions in the shipbuilding industries in the OECD countries. In this way it will provide a "level playing field" for nearly 80% of the world shipbuilding industry.In 1994, the OECD shipbuilding agreement was signed by the USA, the European Union, Japan, Norway and Korea, which, collectively, equates to around 80 per cent of the world shipbuilding capacity. However, the agreement is yet to come into force because, despite support from the USA administration, the US Congress has not yet ratified it. They are being pressured to do so.From Australia's perspective, this should be put in context. Most of the shipbuilding in the OECD countries which are party to the agreement at this stage is the traditional large scale construction of steel hulled ships, such as tankers, bulk carriers and container ships. The industry is a mature one, the technology associated with constructing steel hulled vessels is mature and economies of scale and scope dominate production and marketing. There is considerable overcapacity in steel shipbuilding. It is against this world market that the Australian shipbuilding industry was able to flourish in the niche market of aluminium fast ferries for passengers and vehicles.Nevertheless, the Australian shipbuilding industry does operate in the global environment where other governments heavily subsidise their shipbuilding industries and tariff and non-tariff barriers hinder access to potential markets. The high level of government assistance provided to shipbuilding industries in other nations is a major distortion of the global market for ships, but the existence of subsidies overseas does not justify per se the provision of similar assistance in Australia. The importance of this legislation is that it recognises the need of Australian companies to increase the pace and level of innovation, if they are to keep ahead of competition. It allows a time frame for changes to Australia's current bounty arrangements.The OECD shipping agreement is before the US Congress. That is the last step of ratification required. But the recent developments in the European Union give good grounds to believe that the high subsidies afforded to shipbuilding overseas are all but temporary. The current legislation before the House seeks to provide modest assistance for a limited period of time with a new emphasis on innovation, while the industry seeks to become more competitive by virtue of an increasingly level playing field around the world.One could point to the tension between the economic benefits of adherence to trade liberalisation concepts, on the one hand, and the existence of a government subsidy for a competitive exporter, on the other. But, first, the bounty is extremely modest, with a total entitlement of five per cent. The European Union currently allows production subsidies of up to nine per cent and also supports generous regional policies under which major investment subsidies are payable. Secondly, there is no doubt that Australian shipbuilders see the bounty as a necessary contribution to ensuring the competitiveness of the Australian industry during this transition phase while the worldwide environment moves away from heavy subsidies.The key provisions of the bill are important: first, to extend the payment of the shipbuilding construction bounty currently in existence from 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2000 at the rate of three per cent; second, to establish a phasing-out arrangement for vessels which are contracted for sale on or before 31 December 2000 and are delivered on or before 31 December 2003; third, to provide for the payment of a research and development bounty to registered shipbuilders for eligible research and development expenditure—and this is important—at the rate of 50 per cent of innovation expenditure up to a total of two per cent of the eligible construction cost of a bountiable vessel; and finally, to provide for the research and development expenditure bounty to apply to the construction and modification completed on ships on or before 30 June 2004. The bill thus sets a time frame for the continuation of the bounty and this time frame is set to coincide with the cessation of European Union subsidies.There is no doubt that the most important recent development on the world scene is the new shipbuilding policy in the European Union announced by the Council of Industry Ministers in May 1998. As a result of this strategy, shipbuilding will not receive special treatment after the year 2000; direct operating subsidies to European shipbuilders will not be available to vessels with final contracts signed after 31 December 2000; and from the beginning of 2001 aid to shipbuilders will be confined to assistance for the purposes of innovation, research and development, restructuring and environmental protection.The current legislation before the House is very much in line with the European Union position. The member for Fraser overlooks the significance of the shift in emphasis to innovation support rather than construction support. This is no compromise by the government—not at all. The government recognises the fact that research and development innovation is the key to a sustainable industry. No single technological development is expected to give shipbuilders a significant competitive edge. Rather, several innovations are necessary to ensure future competitiveness, including designing ships with better resistance properties, improved sea keeping properties and more efficient structures. That is why the legislation introduces the shipping innovation scheme. The government recognises that technological innovation will be a significant factor for sustaining advantage and for growth of the industry. Clearly, over the years the existence of this bounty has had a profound impact on the development of Australia's lightweight shipbuilding industry. The bounty has provided a classic policy framework for the development of the new industry. It has been a significant contributor to Australian producers being able to compete in a market widely recognised as containing a range of distortions.I turn to a specific case in point which illustrates why this legislation is necessary and appropriate in its terms. There is no doubt that Australia has captured a vast share of the world fast ferry market, and our two leading players in Western Australia and Tasmania have a substantial international presence. They are, however, small in the global context. The industry could be overwhelmed by superior production resources in major shipbuilding economies or by some breakthrough technology accruing as a result of much higher levels of fundamental R&D undertaken overseas.The story of Austal Ships, a company established in Western Australia in 1988, is worth the telling. It is only one of the new shipbuilding firms but it is in fact the largest. In the early 1990s, Austal established its reputation as the leading supplier of 40-metre catamarans to the Pearl River Delta area in the People's Republic of China. By 1997, Austal had delivered its 29th high-speed ferry to Chinese owners. During 1994, Austal introduced its `AutoExpress' range of large passenger and vehicle carrying fast ferries and was quickly established as a world leader in this growing market.Austal's work force has grown from about 40 in 1988 to over 1,100 people today. The Western Australian Department of Commerce and Trade states that for every one person employed by the industry another three are employed in support industries. The industry has been a catalyst in the development of other internationally competitive activities, such as the production of life raft systems and aircraft style seats, the majority of which are exported. With over 175 employees involved in accredited training programs, Austal was named Australia's Training Employer of the Year in November 1998 by the Australian National Training Authority. The number of apprentices is probably over 200 by now. The training award was followed up with the Large Advanced Manufacturers Award in the Australian export awards announced in December 1998.More recently, Austal has delivered its eighth high-speed vessel, an 86-metre vehicle and passenger catamaran to Turkey. It has showcased its product diversity with the delivery of the first of eight 35-metre aluminium patrol boats for the Australian Customs Service National Marine Fleet on 16 February of this year, as scheduled. This new class of patrol boat will be used for coastal surveillance, and this experience could open up even more overseas markets. Austal currently has 18 vessels either under construction or on order, including a vehicle and passenger ferry for Ireland, one for charter to Denmark, a 60-metre cruise boat for the French Caribbean, a 52-metre passenger catamaran for Germany, a 52-metre passenger catamaran for New Caledonia, and two 42-metre passenger catamarans for Norway.There is no doubt that the aluminium shipbuilding industry in Western Australia has been achieved in a number of ways. Austal is headed by an innovative and determined man, John Rothwell. Together with his skill and creativity, the most vital input into shipbuilding in Western Australia is the skill of its labour force—a highly skilled and highly flexible work force. Technology and innovation have been crucial in achieving a competitive advantage for Western Australian shipbuilding, but one cannot escape the fact that government policies have been important to the establishment and success of the aluminium shipbuilding industry. In line with the European Union regime, and in anticipation of the OECD shipbuilding agreement, we should maintain as far as we are able the conditions in which Australian shipbuilders have been able to achieve competitiveness.The recent Asian financial crisis has shown how quickly industry has to react to radically changed domestic or international environments. Long term, with the phasing out of construction support, the government can still assist firms to achieve competitiveness in new and sustainable ways, such as in research and development emphasising innovation. This legislation recognises that the provision of the ships bounty has been useful in redressing the uneven playing field, but it also recognises that its availability will be phased out with the adoption of the new European Union measures.This government recognises that long-term access to government subsidies is not conducive to fostering an environment in which world-class companies can grow and compete. But this legislation recognises that shipbuilding offers the level of technology and value adding which is lacking in many other sectors. As an industry, it acts as a stimulus in developing skills and competencies which can be applied to other sectors.Currently our aluminium hulled vessel sector is facing increasing international competition and the continual dissemination of our technology and skills around the world. The government has a role in ensuring that our shipbuilders retain their current edge until the new era of the shipbuilding regime around the world is ushered in by the European Union and, in time, the OECD countries.The opposition wants the five per cent production bounty until the OECD agreement comes into effect. Our position is far more sustainable: we will phase out bounties yet maintain support for innovation. This is in the long-term interests of the industry. The government of course strongly supports the OECD agreement. At the meeting of the OECD council working party on shipbuilding in Paris in December 1997, OECD and non-OECD countries indicated strong support for the agreement, and indicated that they would probably become parties once the agreement was enforced.In the meantime, this legislation responds to the recommendations of the Shipbuilding Industry Review Panel. This panel was commissioned by the government to examine the long-term strategic direction of the Australian shipbuilding industry under a range of scenarios. The key findings of the review are reflected in this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.13:11:003582Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 is an excellent showcase, if you like, of this government's failure to understand industry, of its lack of understanding of the world in general and of its overall capacity to look ahead. The amendments, as the member for Curtin said, effectively put into the legislation the recommendations of the Shipbuilding Industry Review Panel. That panel was only established because the government was not able to get through the Senate the cuts to the bounty in the 1996 budget.The 1996 budget wiped out the bounty on 20 August 1996, then and there. That was typical of a whole range of things that the government initiated in that particular budget, both within industry and the social context. The Senate supported some amendments and did not support others. I will not try to understand or even explain that. The fact was the government was faced with a situation where the bounty was not removed. In January 1998, almost a year and a half later, the minister established a review panel—I mean, this is good, prompt acting government! The review panel effectively said, `Minister, you have got it all wrong. The bounty is absolutely vital and, what is more, you can go further, because innovation and research and development are also important.' Mind you, this is the same government that had just cut the tax deductibility of R&D in that 1996 budget.So the 1996 budget attacked the industry from two points—it wiped out the bounty and it reduced the prospect of the R&D tax write-off. It attacked the two key parts of what had become a major industry. But then should we be surprised? If you go back to McEwenism and post-McEwenism that we found in 1983 when we came into government, that shipbuilding bounty was only for domestic shipping. The mentality of many of those opposite—driven by primary industry exports and raw material exports—is about protecting domestic markets and forgetting the world because they do not think we can compete in the world. That was the view of the conservatives and it still is.They really do not think we have a place in the world in terms of manufacturing and that therefore there is no role for government in looking for a place and making sure that a place is achieved. So the shipbuilding bounty in 1983 was only for domestic ships—that is, things built for the Australian market. It is not all that dissimilar to the American system. Where the Americans excluded imports, we made it more difficult by putting a bounty on local production.That was indicative of the McEwenism mentality which said that Australia was not really a producer of things and that we would have a tokenistic approach to industry—we would throw out some dollars, put up some tariffs and make our barriers higher for our domestic purposes, knowing full well that our market was so small that our unit costs would be enormously high and the market would be non-viable.There were wonderful examples of those in 1983. Ericsson came to Australia with great fanfare to establish a capacity for communications. They built factories and were supposedly the epitome of internationalisation—a part of world production, technology and manufacturing. In 1983 many of us were flabbergasted to discover that Ericsson were not allowed to export out of Australasia—they were allowed to manufacture and sell only within Australasia. Ericsson Sweden sold into Asia; Ericsson Australia had no capacity to do that. In 1983, almost all those so-called industries that were established here were not able to market outside this country. So we had a shipbuilding bounty which was only for domestic production, and we had local international companies producing only for our very tiny domestic market. Therefore, as consumers we were paying enormously high prices because they were designed and invested only for our local volumes, which were very small. So the unit cost production was very high—whether it was the auto industry, Ericsson's or a range of others.Those who have examined it ask why we did that. The reason was very simple: we had been a primary producer for a couple of hundred years or close to it. We drove our international negotiations and trade agreements firstly via primary industries and then raw materials—wheat and wool, and then iron ore and coal. If you are driving international agreements on those issues, you want to argue for access to markets for those products—so long as you get access to markets for your coal into Japan, do not worry about reciprocal access for manufactured goods; so long as you can get access to American expertise, do not argue with America about what they do! Our trade deficit with America in the 1996-97 year was about $12 billion—about a billion dollars a month in deficit.On the other hand, try to export steel into America as BHP did and you will find yourself subject to massive dumping actions, the risks of which are enormously high. We were building up some very good markets in America with special steels and some quite skilled products. What did the Americans do? They took dumping action, and all those exports stopped. Try to export ships to America. You cannot. Yet we import American managers to tell us how to run the country and who lecture us almost daily about opening up our markets and being part of international trading. This is from a country that is totally closed. The ironies are enormous.Japan is no different. It needs our coal, so it allows us to export it to them. It does not want our rice, manufactured goods or our intellectual property goods, so our trade negotiations have been always based on primary industry and raw material and access to markets for those. In that context, we have allowed ourselves to be duped quite seriously and continuously.This is not about protecting our markets or our manufacturers; it is about recognising that world trade is a complex matter. Most trade is within companies—between subsidiaries of the same company. I expect that with international shipbuilding, if the international agreement ever comes in, it will be very simple to get around—companies will simply invest in other countries. In my view, in the next resurgence of investment in Asia in four, five, six or seven years time, we will see the establishment of industries there which will not be a party to these agreements.We have seen country hopping. Light globes are an excellent example. We see them being moved from country to country—from Belgium to Brazil to Italy to France to Indonesia. You name it. They move the manufacturing around the world negotiating, country by country, for advantage, whether it be for tax breaks or concessions; whether it be for access to cheaper labour or to lower workplace conditions.This is not simply about level playing fields. I do not remember who coined that phrase, but no playing field is ever level—perhaps the modern laser directed ones may be. I have always thought it ironic when people use that term, but they are incredibly complex. We are a very tiny country in a very tiny market. Why would the mammoth of America exclude us from trading with them? Why would a country with an economy as big as that block our steel exports? Why would a country with an economy as strong as Japan's block us exporting to them? Why would it? The fact is that it does not choose us deliberately. Simply, within its own complexity of its own trading arrangements and vested political interests, it does what suits it. It does not do it from some philosophical point of view or some economic theorist point of view. It is simply an amalgam of years and years of negotiations, of habits and of patterns of past behaviours. Yet we hear the member for Curtin talking about the theory of trade. Well, there is no theory of trade that applies; there is simply practice—years and decades and centuries of practice and habits and patterns, and we are a very new entrant into that.Another example of where our manufacturers and our exporters face difficulty is the use of foreign aid programs—where large countries use their foreign aid budgets as financing packages to reduce the costs of their goods. An excellent example is a company called Bradken, which spent five years in India tendering and competing for a railway project which was going to be financed partly by its international aid programs. Bradken eventually won the contract, which was worth $150 million, with the best product for the best price. When it got to the final negotiations for the signing of the contract, it discovered that the German government was offering the German tenderer a finance package which made their total price much cheaper. That was part of an aid program—it was not commercial; it was not protection; it was part of their aid budget. So the German aid budget was financing the purchase and production in both India and Germany of rolling stock and equipment.The Australian company, after five years of investment, discovered it was not competing at all; it never had been because we do not have those kinds of programs. The fact is that we apply these rules absolutely. We sign an agreement and we keep it. But what we find is that the agreement that we are signing is only a part of the international negotiations. It is only part of the international trade. My warning to all members of the House is that the agreement on shipbuilding and ship modifications, if it ever does come in, will be only a part of it. Be wary, because there will be ways around it, as there have been on almost every other device. We are probably one of the few countries that would enforce it properly. We will carry it out in the spirit of the law and the agreement as we always have. I think we need to question the assumption that other countries will do the same.This is necessary now because in a year's time the countdown is going to be terminated. This simply extends it in another form for another year by a government that did not want it in the first place. That is the irony: the government did not want it in the first place. It would not be there now if the government had its way. So, in effect, it is a mopping up exercise.The tragedy is that this is an industry that has a very short lead-time for building up. The figures for Austal or Incat show how quickly they can gear up to production. If you can gear up that quickly here, you can do it somewhere else just as quickly. In other words, this industry could be wiped out in three or four years time, or even less, by a serious competitor. As that market grows, there will be serious competitors who will have both international negotiation backing and financial backing, and this stuff is going to look very minuscule.The real challenge is: what is the next step and what is the government's role? The answer is that the government does not know and is not interested because it does not really understand the problem. It does not understand the question. Listening to the contribution of the member for Curtin, someone who represents an area that is directly involved, the assumption is that this is simply here until the European and OECD agreement comes into force. What a fairy story! If that is the basis of the government's position right now, then heaven help this industry because it has a very short future. To say that industry supports this package—of course it supports it; it could not oppose it. I suppose the word would be more that it tolerates it. I think the industry understands the world that it works in, more so than the government.We have been listening in recent days to a debate about depreciation. Since we had a change of government in 1996, the term `business welfare' has become a very big thing. I find it strange that political parties that are dependent for their existence on business financing, which they receive in very large lumps, should go around talking about business welfare. It is obvious that we are talking about two kinds of businesses: the financial businesses, which seem to be the major financiers of the government; and the real businesses that actually produce the wealth—the ones that produce exports, that make things and that actually employ people. The two of those have quite different objectives and ethoses. Those who produce the wealth have a very different view of the world from those who recycle it.The advice given to government, in the main, seems to come from the recyclers. The producers seem to be very much out in the wilderness—they are the ones who get the welfare. As to this current proposal by the Ralph review about depreciation—I have been hearing all my political life about how depreciation is a form of business welfare, but it has become very strong in recent times. I can recall asking people from Treasury and Finance, where is the zero point? When isn't it welfare? When is writing off the equipment a legitimate cost? Is it one year or 10 years—what is the figure? When does it stop being welfare and become a proper expenditure? Wages are a proper expenditure and they are tax deductible. Other things such as advertising are tax deductible. The fees you pay the bank are tax deductible. But the depreciation and writing off of the money invested in your equipment is, somehow, welfare.From a government that talks about that and for whom the phrase `business welfare' has now become almost the norm, the Ralph review picks it up and carries it further to reduce business welfare. At the same time, I have been watching what has been happening to one of our great success stories in this country, which was the decision by Australian governments to invest in our own defence manufacturing, to stop buying off the shelf overseas and to start producing here.I have watched over the last six months with absolute dismay a major investment by the Australian people in submarines—which will be without doubt the best diesel electric submarines in the world—which was always a high-risk venture with incredible complexity and detail of indigenous know-how being built up, being bagged by overseas merchants who want us to stop building in Australia and to buy offshore. I have watched this project being blackguarded across the country, and I have not seen one bit of defence of it. I have watched government members leading the charge to attack, and then I start hearing the nonsense from government speakers about their support for industry.The submarine project represents the greatest breakthrough technologically and in terms of confidence in ourselves as a country to be able to both design and build, using the best of overseas technology. The idea that it is somehow risk free or not prone to difficulty was always understood. The government should always be defending that, otherwise we will go back to the situation where we import, whether it be German, American, British, Italian or French equipment—as we have done in the past.It is in the interests of the companies that are involved in selling to us in these ways for this blackguarding to go on. They cannot believe their luck that the people leading the charge are in fact government members. The people who are actually out there bagging Australian industries the strongest are members of the government, which means that the next time a defence project comes up guess what will happen? We won't dare risk it in Australia—`We can't do it; we are too small; we haven't got the depth; we don't understand it well enough.'There is just one thing to point out with this: the system in that submarine which is the most complex and difficult is the weapons platform—the integration of the navigation and weapons system. The company doing that was originally Rockwell, who built the systems in the American nuclear submarines—the world's leader and the world's best. The software they used was imported with special approval from the American government—the first time ever—unlike the F111s and so on. We had the world's leading company doing that in Australia and teaching our people. What have we done? We have told them they are incompetent. We have told the whole world that we are incompetent and we have told those companies that they are incompetent.I cannot believe what that is doing to our international reputation and to the confidence of future Australians who would work in the fields of electronics, IT, software development, or whatever it might be. That is all related. These amendments are about the same issue: understanding what we do and being appropriate to help encourage and develop that. The government has finally had to put forward amendments of this nature. We are not opposing them, but they do not go far enough because the government still does not understand the question. The answer is not what is important; it is asking the right questions. This government does not understand the questions being posed. (Time expired)13:31:003586Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The member for Curtin spoke on the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 , but she spoke without mentioning pretty much the history of her government's approach to shipbuilding and the shipbuilding bounty. She failed to mention or recognise that in the 1996 budget the bounty was eliminated, and that it was only through arguments and fighting from this side of the House that the need to continue to have this bounty and to continue to assist our new industries in fast ferries was brought before the public; or that we continued to get negative responses from the government until they finally realised that maybe they had done something wrong. We then had a review panel set up and, from that, of course, the advice was received that there was a need to continue these bounties into the future and that we could be at a loss, with other parts of the world catching up to us.Other parts of the world, as we know, do subsidise their shipbuilding, and they do it in a very interesting way in sometimes assisting their regions. They do that quite legitimately to assist the employment opportunities and, therefore, the social cohesion of their regions. Sometimes it is not that transparent to see how they do that, but they certainly do it. I believe that it is a legitimate form of government assistance.Coming from a region which has had a major company like Incat develop a major fast ferry industry, which I think now has about 45 per cent of the world's fast ferry trade for the size they make, has been a major plus. I know it has been a major plus, and so does Tasmania, that we have had this industry with a thousand jobs, high skills and other industries now running off it giving people opportunities to gain those skills and a very good income. So it fits into everything that this side of the House believes in—a high skill, high income society.The need to continue the bounty has now been realised by government, and this bill is an indication of that, going towards innovation and R&D. We must remember that in the 1996 budget the government started to hit R&D as well—knocking the tax incentives down—which also affected this industry. It showed the government's lack of understanding of industry and industry policy and its very narrow view.The member for Newcastle, who has just sat down, mentioned some of the issues that we are starting to hear from that side of the chamber. Those opposite want to bag an Australian industry that is up and running and competing against the rest of the world. And the rest of the world only needs an inch and they will certainly try to grab the lead and move in there.The Incat ferries out of Tasmania are the most technologically advanced boats that you can buy in the world, We build them in Tasmania, in a region of Australia. That should be a lesson that we can build industry in the regions. It is a major lesson that we should learn, and it is a lesson that government should take on board. If it takes a little assistance, then so be it. It will require a little intervention and a little assistance to those regions. If we do this by getting companies to be innovative and use R&D so that they are keeping up and looking to the future and to the next generation, that is fine. That is what we should be doing, and we should be encouraging them. If this bill does that, it is a bill worth supporting.We should not forget that this bill has only come about because some of us on this side, and many other people, brought to the public's notice the need to continue to have a shipbuilding industry and a shipbuilding bounty, and we have had to turn around government thinking to that effect. The member for Curtin ought to do a little reading on the period of the last government. She mentioned the USA. The United States of America is not an easy country to sell ships to, and I will be very interested to see the day when Incat sells a ferry to the United States.There are other parts of the world which also have a lot of barriers, so let us hope the OECD agreement may bring down some of those. If we do move towards a more open world market, that is fine, but let us not have Australia being the one out in front but cutting back assistance to our industries, while other countries, which are not in front, are giving their industries the assistance that they need to jump ahead of us. That would be the last thing that we want to do.When I heard the simplistic views of the member for Curtin, I thought that if she was influencing the party room and the government—and if that is the thinking of the minister—then we could be in trouble, and we might not have any of these industries in 10 years. The rest of the world will be endeavouring to give their industries the advantage, and they always have done that. But I am optimistic that, with Germany and Spain, and through the OECD, at least there is a framework for us to work through. They have never been backward at it and they have always supported their own industries, so to see them take a totally different view will be a novelty. As I said, they see regional development and intervention by government in a regional policy position as a legitimate thing—and I think we should always have that on our agenda as well.This bill gives effect to two support measures for the Australian shipbuilding industry: an extension of the shipbuilding construction bounty and the introduction of a research and development expenditure bounty. The construction bounty will be extended from 1 July 1999 until 31 December 2000, at a rate of three per cent. It is currently five per cent. It is not a very high percentage, and it has come down from many years ago when conventional ships were built.I think it is important to look at the research and development side and to have a bounty encouraging that direction. The safety equipment industry and other small industries have developed from the success of Incat. These other industries have grown up around the hub of the harbour where Incat is developed at Prince of Wales Bay. With R&D, and giving them an opportunity to make sure they stay in the R&D field through tax incentives, I believe we can encourage more industries which are not actually connected with the shipbuilding industry. Other industries may find that their products can benefit from the technology that has been developed, and that is of major significance and major importance, I believe. But it is only by government giving R&D a carrot through the taxation system that those smaller companies can be encouraged to do that and to move on.The research and expenditure bounty will be payable to registered shipbuilders for eligible research and development expenditure at the rate of 50 per cent of innovation expenditure up to two per cent of the eligible construction costs of a bountiable vessel. This bounty will be applied to construction and modification completed on or before 30 June 2004.I hope this helps our industries and that they will look towards the next generation, the next trip, the next boat and the boat after that. In Tasmania, our boats have been constantly getting bigger, longer and more technologically advanced. We are now getting to the point where a vessel for drive-on trucking will not be that far away. Trucks will be able to drive on and drive off in a very quick manner, and the turnaround time will become very small. When you can turn around a vessel in 1½ to two hours, it really means something when you are crossing a strait—even a strait like Bass Strait—in six or seven hours.The Labor government looked at ways in which government could assist to increase the capacities of a company to take risks and to be smarter. We did that from 1983 on in the 13 years that Labor was in government. I believe it was a good and proper policy and we saw a lot of outcomes. I saw the outcomes with defence budgets going into joint venturing with technology, using and building the submarines in South Australia. It was a major positive piece of industry policy development, in the sense that the knowledge and skills that you gain from such a large project and from spending so much money in your own country trickle over and you lift the skill level of your work force. That can shift into the next generation of opportunities coming from that. We should not be backward in doing those things in this country.Whether through restructuring or addressing market access issues, or encouraging innovation and commercialisation across industry sectors, the Labor government relied on industry to say how it could be most effectively and efficiently helped. I heard those on the other side say that industry is supporting the changes to this bill and is supporting this bill. Of course they would—there is assistance in it. I do not think there is as much assistance as industry would have liked. Industry would have liked a little bit more security when the government was first elected. It would have preferred not to go through the arguments, finally convincing the minister and the government itself that the ships bounty should continue into the future.As I said, the playing field is unequal. It always has been unequal in shipbuilding right around the world. To imply that this OECD agreement of shipbuilding countries is going to wipe away the whole culture that has existed, or to suggest that it is only on the old conventional shipbuilding area, is a very naive view of how the world operates. We will certainly need to be very agile, I believe, in watching what those other countries are doing and in watching whether we are actually breaking down the barriers that exist now which continue to stop us putting the ships that we build in Australia into some other countries. As I said, like a lot of countries, it is very difficult to put a ship into the United States of America if it is built outside the US. The breaking down of those barriers could assist us, but it could also be a double-edged sword against us.Incat has built 45 per cent of the 41 high-speed passenger ferries operating around the world. Recently, they delivered three 81-metre catamarans to Europe, each capable of carrying 700 passengers and 180 cars while operating at a speed of up to 44 knots. This is quite a speed for a ship of that size, and it is quite a thrill to be on board. They are still exporting to Europe and other parts of the world. Each boat is getting slightly bigger and slightly faster. They are experimenting, improving and testing the product they manufacture all the time. This bounty will continue to help keep them be competitive, but it is certainly not giving them any great advantage in the world trade of shipbuilding.We need to keep the business in Australia—particularly in Tasmania, where we need to keep it going as much as we possibly can. We must remember that our unemployment rate is at 10.7 per cent. If we were to lose this industry, we would lose 900 jobs in one swoop. It is interesting to note that this is a bounty that we actually fought for at the last election. We certainly had it up there, and I think that is what made the government match our side and continue this bounty. We must continue to assist and intervene in these industries.The government would also lose tax revenue from industries of this size. I think the one in Western Australia employs over 1,000 people. To lose two industries would mean a loss in tax revenue and, of course, there would be a cost in supporting the unemployed people. We would lose the high skills that we have developed here. This is a highly skilled industry—an industry that we should be encouraging. It is one of the industries that we on this side of the House have spoken about. It is a highly skilled, high income industry that we support for the future—unlike the other side of the House, which supports the cutting of wages, the lowering of skills and going for a low wage economy. I do not support that, but I do support the bill. (Time expired)13:51:003588Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the members for Fraser, Newcastle, Lyons and Curtin for their contributions to the debate today. The member for Curtin represented in a very able fashion her electorate and also Western Australia, where there is the largest cluster of shipbuilders and employees in this industry.These amendments to the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989 are to implement the government's election commitment to support the shipbuilding industry. The commitments that the government made were to extend the shipbuilding bounty at the rate of three per cent until 31 December 2000, to introduce a three-year phase-out period for the production bounty, and to establish an industry-specific bounty scheme for research and development expenditure from 1 July 1999 to be called the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme, or SIS.As other members have noted, including the member for Lyons, the shipbuilding industry is an important regional employer, particularly in Tasmania, Western Australia and Northern Queensland. This bill will extend support for the industry and will help it grow and meet the challenges of the future with increased confidence.In 1997, arrangements were put in place with this government which extended bounty payments at the rate of five per cent until 30 June 1999 for eligible shipbuilding activities. These arrangements were introduced pending a review of the industry. In January 1998, the government established the Shipbuilding Industry Review Panel to undertake an independent review of the industry. The aim of the review was to examine the long-term strategic direction of the industry. It also assessed the assistance arrangements of competing nations and progress in implementing the OECD shipbuilding agreement.During consultations leading up to the establishment of the review, the Australian shipbuilding industry publicly acknowledged that the bounty should terminate when an effective OECD shipbuilding agreement came into effect. Such an agreement would remove measures and eliminate practices which distort competition in the international market for commercial shipbuilding and ship repair.The Shipbuilding Industry Review Panel reported in June 1998. The legislative amendments contained in the bill are a direct response to the recommendations of that review. The bill reflects the full intent of the review. These new arrangements for Australian shipbuilders are comparable to those being adopted in the European Union. This should minimise the risk of distortions unfairly impeding Australian shipbuilders from competing in global markets, particularly in Europe.The bill provides for the establishment of an industry specific bounty scheme for eligible research and development. This scheme, as I mentioned before, is called the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme. The SIS will entitle shipbuilders registered under the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989 to the payment of a benefit at the rate of 50 per cent of expenditure in eligible R&D activities, up to an amount equal to two per cent of eligible production costs of a bountiable vessel.The Australian lightweight shipbuilding industry has in part gained its success from design innovation. The establishment of the SIS will help focus the industry's efforts on new processes and products to maintain its competitive edge. These measures will provide transitional support for Australia's lightweight shipbuilding industry, which has been very successful in competing in global markets. They are designed to sustain the industry through a period of uncertainty pending the introduction of effective measures to eliminate the subsidies and other market distorting practices in the international marketplace.The new emphasis on innovation will help underpin the long-term competitiveness of the Australian industry by moving industry support away from construction assistance to an increasingly innovative culture. The package will provide certainty for the shipbuilding industry and secure investment. The shipbuilding industry was a major player in the shipbuilding industry review and agreed with its findings. The industry is well aware of the new arrangements and supports the initiatives contained in this bill. I look forward to the support of all members for this important legislation for Australia's shipbuilding industry.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3589Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly) read a third time.Bills3589r7223589Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time. 13:57:003590Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 proposes to implement changes to the recognition of software expenses for businesses as announced by the government in the 1998-99 budget and modified by some subsequent announcements. Essentially, those changes fall into three broad categories: first, expenses associated with developing year 2000 compliant systems; second, minor or redundant software expenses; and, third, a new, consistent regime for non-minor software expenses.To come to the first category, which is expenses associated with becoming year 2000 compliant, the legislation will allow an immediate deduction for expenditure in relation to new software or for substantially rebuilding current software to ensure Y2K compliance for an existing computer system.In relation to year 2000 compliance expenses, the Commissioner of Taxation has ruled as follows. He has ruled that expenditure incurred in initial work on computer software to determine the extent to which it is not Y2K compliant will be on revenue account even if no further work is necessary. He has ruled that expenditure incurred in modifying and testing computer software to make it Y2K compliant will be on revenue account even if it also provides minor software improvements. He has ruled that, where expenditure incurred in modifying and subsequently testing computer software also involves substantial improvements not related to making the software Y2K compliant, it will be necessary to apportion the expenditure between the expenditure related to Y2K compliance, which will be immediately deductible, and the improvement expenditure, which will be deductible over time. However, Y2K compliance expenditure that involves replacement of the whole or substantially the whole of the unit of hardware equipment containing the computer chip or firmware is of a capital nature.The government accepts the commissioner's ruling, but it is proposing to legislate to broaden expenditures immediately deductible to also include expenditure on acquiring new software, including upgrades, or substantially rebuilding current software which has the predominant nature of ensuring Y2K compliance, provided that it is incurred up to 31 December 1999.The proposal to encourage Australian business to become Y2K compliant is sensible and it should be supported. Indeed, there are lives potentially at risk in matters such as air transport. There appears to the opposition, however, to be a gap in these proposals. According to the proposed section 46(75), there is no scope for immediate deductibility of expenditure incurred after 1 January 2000. That expenditure therefore falls for consideration under the proposed new general rules and would generally be written off over 2½ years.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice359035903590Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Do you recollect inserting in your industrial relations bill a clause which stated:Before 22 June 1999, a Full Bench must prepare a report for the Minister on the feasibility of replacing junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives.Do you recollect this further clause:The report must include assessments of:(a) whether it is desirable to replace junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives; and(b) the consequences for youth employment of abolishing junior rates; and(c) the utility of junior rates;(i) for different types of employment; and(ii) for different industries; and(iii) in the school-to-work transition.And do you recollect a further clause which stated:The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after the Minister receives it. Minister, with such a clear-cut set of directives for the IRC over your name, why should anyone accept your claim that your agreement with the Democrats contemplated introducing legislation before such a report was received?3591Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the first part of the question is that of course I recall it because it was part of the agreement with the Democrats and because it has been on the public record since it was agreed between us. What you failed to point out in your question is that it made no reference to the timing of any initiatives that the government would want to take on this issue. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we accept that we have a political responsibility to look after young people.The fact is that you are slipping and sliding because you are under the dictates of the ACTU as usual. The people who suffer as a result of your ineptitude, your weakness as a leader, are the very young people who will be denied opportunities when this exemption is removed. This question betrays the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition who, when it comes to looking after young people, denies young people and simply sings the tune of the ACTU as he normally does.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why don't you accept the defence? You're lying.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham made a statement which could be deemed unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw.DT4CREANMr Crean—I withdraw.35913591Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. A young job seeker in the electorate of Parramatta is today described on the front page of the Daily Telegraph as `a victim of politics'. What measures has the government taken to ensure that job seekers get a fair shot at work experience and a real job? Are there any institutional vested interests working to frustrate the government's policies in the area of youth job creation?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Reid. Members on my left have been remarkably unruly during this very early part of question time.3591Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for his question. I certainly have seen the article in the Daily Telegraph today which is entitled `A victim of politics'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will not refer to the headline in a newspaper.WI4Mr REITH—I would hope that every Australian sees today's Daily Telegraph because it puts, in an objective and independent way, the consequences of the Labor Party voting against jobs for young people.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Is the member for Parramatta—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Before raising my point of order, I point out to you that there was a bit of shouting on that side about which you have made no comment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I intend to point out to the member for Fraser that that was not a timely interjection.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—It is still true.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will withdraw that remark.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will proceed with your point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—My point of order relates to standing order 145 as to relevance. The minister for employment is referring to an article which refers to a young woman who has been unemployed for the last two years. It cannot therefore be relevant to refer to a change in the law that might happen in 18 months time in order to explain why a person has been out of work for the last two years.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Watson. I will listen for relevance. That is the least which the Speaker can do. In the hubbub that has been going on in the chamber I could scarcely hear the minister's reply. I call the minister.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, you would have to conclude that the point of order betrays the sensitivity of the Labor Party frontbench. They have voted against the job prospects of tens of thousands of young people. They have undermined the security of 170,000 or 180,000 young people. I dare say we can expect a lot more points of order as we on this side put our concerns about this issue.It was quite incredible that not only did they vote against the jobs for young people but also, when the vote was announced in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was a great victory. Furthermore, he said, `We are rather chuffed about it.' They vote against young people and they have the gall, the arrogance—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—The insensitivity.WI4Mr REITH—the insensitivity and the lack of concern for young people to boast about the fact that young people will be denied the opportunity for a job because they do not have the leadership, the strength of leadership, to stand up against the factions—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, you mentioned before that you were going to treat both sides evenly. You have admonished the opposition frequently for raising newspapers in this House. Will you make sure that that fraud stops it too?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson will withdraw that reference to the Leader of the House.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—It is probably a terrible reflection on frauds, so I withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson will withdraw that unconditionally.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I did withdraw it unconditionally because it is a terrible reflection on frauds.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Watson does not withdraw without that sort of refer ence, I will be forced to take action against him under standing order 304A.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I said three times—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! All I require from the member for Watson is a simple withdrawal.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—that I withdraw it unconditionally.WI4Mr REITH—As the Sydney Morning Herald pointed out in its editorial this morning, it is not something which young people whose job security is tied to youth rates would be chuffed about. That is a very fair—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, do you intend dealing with my previous point of order on newspapers?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have already mentioned the newspaper incident to the minister and I ask the minister to respond to the question.WI4Mr REITH—I think many people are going to ask themselves why it is that the Labor Party is chuffed, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, because it has attempted to thwart a very reasonable proposition, namely, a proposition which would not only protect young people's jobs but also provide opportunities for jobs for young people in those industries which no longer have junior wage rates.When you have a policy and no leadership, a vacuum is created, and we are beginning to see the results. It is resulting in an opposition which, when it comes to these important national issues, is simply incapable—constitutionally incapable—of addressing the issues on a reasonable basis, a merits basis.Going back to October 1998, we saw headlines such as `Beazley pleads for unity'; `Beazley pleads for unity as a result of the disunity within his own ranks'. Today we saw the headline `Beazley battles to revive the party'. There were other headlines today.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you said you were going to stop him holding up newspapers. He is doing it again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the minister to return to the question from the member for Ballarat. WI4Mr REITH—I certainly will, Mr Speaker, but this is a very relevant point to make. Here we have a very significant issue. Many young people are to be deprived of job opportunities in the future and they are entitled to know what it is within the Labor Party that has driven the Labor Party to this policy of opposition for the sake of opposition. You can trace it to the disunity within their own side, an inability to articulate a clear policy and a failure at the leadership level to stand up to the ACTU and actually do something in the interests of young people. This is typical of the Labor Party—splintering on policy; no leadership. The sad thing is that, as the headline in today's Daily Telegraph stated, the people who are the victims of these politics are young Australians who will be denied job opportunities as a result.35933593Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is also directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, didn't you tell the Prime Minister in your leaked letter on your future intentions that `linking Senate reform to fixing unemployment may be a sensible agenda leading up to a third term'? Minister, isn't your determination to slither around your agreement and bring in legislation in advance of an inquiry, which you sought, part of the confected effort to produce the appearance of disagreement with the Senate?3593Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government's policy on youth wages has been a matter of public record certainly since 1996. In 1996, we had a proposal to remove the ban which was to come into effect in respect of junior wage rates. We were unable to secure the removal of that time bomb which we inherited from the Labor Party. I was very concerned that, if we were unable to remove that time bomb ticking away, in June 1997 the operation of that act would come into play and the jobs of many young people would be lost.Therefore, we implored the Democrats to reconsider their opposition to our proposal and, as a consequence of their reconsidering the position, they adopted a compromise agreement with the government. That compromise agreement was that we would have a review by the Industrial Relations Commission and the government would agree to the abandoning of the policy position that we had put in the legislation and, instead, agree to a deferral for three years. That was our position.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, it wasn't.WI4Mr REITH—It was exactly our position. The Leader of the Opposition read out parts of the agreement which specified the agreement. There is no more to that agreement. We had everything in that agreement. That is the most comprehensive agreement ever made between a government and a political party in the Senate. Every aspect of our agreement was contained within that agreement.What the Labor Party now say is, `Oh, well, the government subordinated its policy position to the Industrial Relations Commission.' With great respect to the Industrial Relations Commission, from our perspective it would be an odd day that this government would ever subordinate its policy position to the Industrial Relations Commission. Furthermore, back in 1996 we did not know when the next election would be. But it was certainly always clear that our intentions were that, at the next election, we would campaign on this issue—and on this issue we did campaign in 1998. We had an absolute black-and-white policy. We put it to the Australian people.We, unlike you, believe that when the government puts a policy to the Australian people and they vote for it the people are entitled to see the parliament fulfil the promises made by, on this occasion, the government. We have an absolutely clear position on this. We made a commitment to the Australian people. We are very determined to see that commitment fulfilled. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition he will rue the day that, for the weakness of his leadership, he failed to act in the interests of protecting young people and their jobs.35933593St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. The Work for the Dole Scheme has proven very popular in my electorate of New England. Is the minister aware of reports of institutional opposition to the Work for the Dole Scheme? What needs to be done to ensure this opposition does not jeopardise opportunities for young people in the future?3594Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I am aware of union opposition to this scheme, which has now helped nearly 18,000 young Australians, of whom 42 per cent have gone on to paid employment or further education or training. Unfortunately, union opposition has now stopped contracted Work for the Dole projects at Port Macquarie and Armidale in the electorate of the member for New England, and it has also stopped planned projects at Dorrigo, Grafton and South West Rocks.Thanks to the intransigence of the Australian Workers Union—which has just parachuted Big Bill Ludwig's son into the Senate—500 young Australians have missed out on the chance to gain valuable work experience and make a contribution to their communities. This tragedy has occurred because the New South Wales government has given the unions a veto over all Work for the Dole projects involving state government agencies or instrumentalities in New South Wales. This has happened even though the five projects in question were supported by local National Parks and Wildlife Service officials. It has happened even though the five projects in question were initially supported by the local union organiser. It has happened because the Carr government is completely subservient to the Sussex Street soviet.I have been asked what needs to be done to ensure this opposition does not jeopardise opportunities for young people in the future. The first thing that needs to be done is that the New South Wales Minister for the Environment, Pam Allen, who is a former women's coordinator of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, needs to spend less time junketeering to Lord Howe Island and more time supporting her own departmental officials.The second thing that needs to happen is that the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, whose union is the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, needs to stop kowtowing to the Sussex Street soviet. Doesn't Bob Carr know it! As he said the other day, `I've had lunch after lunch with union offi cials, and union leaders are putting their own jobs and their own superannuation before me and the best interests of this state.'Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!DT4CREANMr Crean—Come on, pull him up!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! If the member for Hotham was not quite so vitriolic, the minister may have heard me call order. I ask the minister to return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I have been asked what needs to be done to ensure this opposition does not jeopardise opportunities for young people in the future. The third thing that needs to be done is that the Leader of the Opposition, who is a member of the Miscellaneous Workers Union, needs to avoid repeating the mistakes of Bob Carr in New South Wales: opportunistic in opposition, followed by broken promises and pedestrian policies in government.Opposition members interjecting—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—That is not my comment; that is the comment of the member for Werriwa, who is also a member of the Australian Services Union.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister is drawing a very long bow and will resume his seat.35943594Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and it follows his answer to my previous question. Minister, is it not a fact that the sunset clause on youth wages does not come into effect until the middle of next year? Is it also not a fact that you will have the IRC report by the middle of this year? With a full 12 months to deliberate on that report, why have you found it necessary to slither around your commitment to the Senate by insisting on a vote right now?3594Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the first two parts of the question is obviously yes. That is a statement of fact. In terms of our approach to the timing of this issue, one of the aspects which we believe is important in the legislation that we are proposing is that it will provide the opportunity for the insertion of junior wage rates into awards which currently do not have them. We believe that will create many job opportunities throughout the Australian economy.Given that it is the government's clear policy position that that would advantage those young people who are today unemployed, we actually believe that we have a commitment to get on and provide them with those opportunities. That should hardly surprise you. On this side of the House, it is our view that youth unemployment of over 24 per cent is unacceptable. It is our view that we as a government have a responsibility to do all within our power to give young people a chance of a job and as soon as we possibly can.The third point I would make in response to the question is that, if you look at the circumstances of employers, they are now confronted with a state of real uncertainty about the wages bill that they will have to face in June next year. Employers who are considering employing somebody today will also now have to take into account the uncertainty that in June next year they may well face a very significantly increased wages bill. The uncertainty that is I believe already generated as a result of the failure to resolve this issue will in fact be starting to impact on employers' behavioural patterns in employing young people.So I believe on that basis there is a real imperative and responsibility on this parliament to provide certainty to employers, to give them a regime in which it is clear what their wages bill will be, so that they can get on and continue to employ people.I conclude by saying this. The Labor Party is supporting an aspect of this issue which is being advanced by the ACTU—that is, that all 18-year-olds should be paid an adult rate. If you had to impose an adult rate of 18, the wages bill for employers nationally would be increased by the order of $360 million. That is a cloud of uncertainty over the employing intentions of employers. We believe this situation needs to be resolved. The sooner it is, the more jobs there will be for young people. 35953595Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of assertions that the government is pretending Australia has a strong economy? What is the government's response to such an extraordinary statement?3595Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Wentworth for his question. My morning was interrupted by an AM interview this morning when I heard the astounding claim that the government was pretending to have a strong economy. There was an interview with the member for Hotham. I do not want to be accused of taking anything out of context, so let me read the question:Would you agree with the comments of Warren Snowdon that disloyal backbenchers should be sacked?Answer:Look, the problem for us is behind us now.Journalist:But do you agree with that idea?Answer:No, no. The issue for us is a government that is pretending that we have a strong economy . . . Which was a funny answer to a comment from Warren Snowdon about sacking disloyal backbenchers. The opposition now claims that the government is pretending we have a strong economy. Let me refer to the assessment of Stanley Fisher, the First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, who said this back in November 1998:The Australian economy has done remarkably well and the policy framework has changed amazingly. You have a very coherent monetary policy now; and you're running a fiscal surplus now.Stanley was presumably just pretending. I suppose the Economist magazine was pretending on 6 March when it said this:Last year Australia was one of the rich world's fastest growing economies with GDP growth of 4.9 per cent while New Zealand sank into recession.Another institution known for pretending on economic matters is the IMF. In its assessment of the Australian economy in November 1998, the IMF `commended authorities for implementing sound macro-economic policies and structural reforms which have built the foundation for Australia's impressive record of strong growth and low inflation in recent years'. `Directors noted that fiscal consolidation and the inflation targeting framework had contributed to a fall in long-term interest rates.' I suppose the G7 and the OECD are just pretending when they have lower growth rates than Australia—presumably keeping them low so Australia looks good: the G7 on a growth rate of 1.5 per cent; the OECD on a growth rate of 2.6 per cent.This pretence has now gone international. We had Professor Krugman from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology pretending on The Newshour With Jim Lehrer on 8 March 1999: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.That is the assessment of Krugman, the IMF, an analysis with the G7, and the OECD. It is an analysis of Stanley Fisher and it is an analysis of the Economist magazine. So it is just one gigantic international pretending conspiracy, according to the shadow Treasurer who made this assessment. This apparently is the only correct assessment, the assessment he made on 21 July 1998:And now we face the Asian economic crisis. It's not what I'd call a fireproofed economy . . . the Treasurer has fireproofed the economic car by taking out the petrol.He also said:After three Costello budgets we have slower growth . . . There is only one pretender here and it is a pretender who is pretending to be a shadow Treasurer—the member for Hotham—who is yet to make one speech on the Australian economy since he has held that position.Distinguished Visitors359610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Joe Keil, Samoan Minister for Transport and Trade. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice359635963596McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, at the time of striking your deal with the Democrats on youth wages, did you indicate to them that you had no intention whatsoever—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right.5I4Mr McMULLAN—That is right; she is. At the time of striking your deal with the Democrats on youth wages—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Fraser has the call. He will start his question again.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I would be delighted to, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. At the time of striking your deal with the Democrats on youth wages, did you indicate to them that you had no intention whatsoever of awaiting the outcome of the commission's inquiry?3596Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—We had an agreement with the Democrats, and the agreement was honoured by both the Democrats and by the government. It was also our policy position that we believed there should be an exemption from junior wage rates. That has been the government's policy. That has always been the government policy. And I can assure you that we intend to pursue this policy, because that is the way to best protect young people's wages. The alternative—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I raise a point of order under standing order 145 on relevance, Mr Speaker. This question asked the minister whether he had been honest—not his view about the policy but whether he had been honest in his dealings—and we have not heard anything about that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The minister is entirely consistent in his answer and will continue.WI4Mr REITH—The contest here on the substance of this issue is whether or not there is an alternative to the age based system. That is the basis of the contest.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I have a point of order which goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. This was a very specific question. It did not go to the policy at all; it dealt with the dealings between the government and the Democrats—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—and whether they indicated that they would introduce their legislation before as opposed to after they had received the IRC report.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have already ruled on relevance and the minister has the call.WI4Mr REITH—I am happy to deal with the process, so let me answer that. But, in referring to the process, I also make the point that the government has had a clear policy position and there is a substantial issue at point, and that is whether or not there is an alternative to the age based system we have today.Mr McMullan interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—You want to go to the process. I am prepared to take the time to deal with your question, but let me deal with the substance of the issue. The question is: is there an alternative to the age based system? When you were in government, there were repeated efforts to obtain some viable, practical alternative which was non-discriminatory. At no stage has such an alternative been found.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under the same standing order that was raised by the member for Fraser, it is all very well for him to talk about—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Let me finish my point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—It is all very well for him to talk about what he thinks should be the answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question and I call the minister.WI4Mr REITH—The reason we have had four or five points of order is that when you expose the real issue at heart here the fact of the matter is that you had no practical alternative to the existing system—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will refer to the opposition through the chair.WI4Mr REITH—And that is why it is grossly irresponsible, it is reckless indeed, with the lives of young people that you should abandon the existing system but provide no practical system that can give people a reassurance that they will continue to have the jobs that they have today.Let me go to what you want to talk about, which is process. We will go to process for a moment. The fact of the matter is that when we entered into the agreement with the Democrats no-one had a timetable as to the next election at the end of 1996. We said, `We have a policy position. We have compromised our policy position to obtain a deferral for three years, but we will continue to advocate the first proposition we put, namely, that the exemption should remain in the legislation.' And we have been true to our policy position. We have been consistent and we put it to the Australian people in the last election. That is an open and transparent process, and we have had the strength of our position to be prepared to stand up and protect the jobs of young people. You have put on a display—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will refer to the opposition through the chair.WI4Mr REITH—of weakness, an inability to defend the rights of young people to have a job.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.WI4Mr REITH—I have finished. Thank you, Mr Speaker.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I take a point of relevance anyway to get your determination on that, Mr Speaker. The point of relevance goes to this. The simple fact of the matter is—UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—He's finished!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Yes, I know, but I will take the point of relevance for a ruling anyway. The simple fact of the matter is that the date of report by the IRC was beyond any election date.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The point is that he was asked specifically—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition sought only to argue a case, not to take a point on relevance.35983598Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, what action is the government taking to ensure that students have the right to choose the associations to which they belong and services provided on university campuses? Is the minister aware of alternative policies on this issue?3598Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question. I know her commitment to ensuring that students have equal rights on campus with the rights they enjoy off campus. This government is strongly committed to giving students choice in the associations to which they belong and in the university services they purchase. The basic right to freedom of association has been routinely denied to students on university campuses for far too long in this country. It has had a quite significant effect on the quality of student life on campus. I think every member of this House knows that a very small proportion of students are active in university elections, because they know that they can have very little effect on the services that are provided on campus because those services at present are compulsorily funded.The government's commitment to voluntary student unionism will put something like $100 million back in the pockets of students. It will mean that large numbers of students will have something like $300 extra that they will decide how to spend when they become university students. The government has no doubt whatever that this will lead to a more vibrant student life and will lead to much more responsive university services. Part-time students have been classically undersupported in university services over the years because of the nature of this compulsory fee. The abolition of the compulsory fee will ensure that the needs of all students are at last properly addressed.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan.BT4Dr KEMP—I am aware of alternative positions to this. I notice that in the Labor Party's 1998 election platform the Labor Party said, firstly, that it strongly opposes voluntary student unionism and, secondly, and I would have to say hypocritically, that it believes up-front undergraduate fees are undesirable in Labor's Australia. What utter confusion, because the only compulsory up-front fee that students are met with on university campuses at the moment is the fee that the Labor Party supports, and the only reason why the Labor Party supports this fee is that it is a fee supported by its union mates. It is a party that comprises 100 per cent union members when only 14 per cent of the Australian population actually belong to trade unions. It is a sectional party putting sectional views. This government has faith in young Australians and will legislate accordingly.35983598McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It relates to his statement in his last answer when he said that the issue is whether there is a credible alternative to age based wages. I have to say, Mr Speaker, we thought the issue was whether anyone would take him at his word ever again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will get to his question.5I4Mr McMULLAN—If the issue is whether there is a credible alternative to age based wages, isn't this exactly what you commissioned the Industrial Relations Commission to report on? Isn't the commission due to report on this matter in three months time? Why didn't you wait for this report on what you call the issue before introducing your legislation?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will give the minister the call after I have issued a general warning to the House. There is far too much persistent interjection. I call the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.3599Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—What the honourable member seems to fail to understand is that the government has a policy. We think this is an important policy and we intend to pursue this policy. Yes, we were prepared to agree to the commission looking at the issue as a means of deferring the time bomb going off in 1997 to the year 2000 to give us an opportunity to advance the case, to mount the political campaign and, as circumstances turned out, to allow us to put this issue to the Australian people in the 1998 election. But, if you think that we were ever going to qualify our position on the basis of discussions with the Democrats, you have got another think coming. The fact is that we have a position. We think it is an important position. As much as we were prepared in a constructive way to negotiate with the Democrats, you must have rocks in your head if you thought we would abandon our position to the position being adopted by the Democrats.We are determined to look after young people. The fact of the matter is that, with 52 per cent of your frontbench out of the trade union movement, as usual you are doing what the trade unions say. Do you know what the consequences of this are? They were very well put this morning by Julie Owens, who is the HR manager at McDonald's. She was asked about the practical consequences. They ought to know, because they employ a lot of young people. I say to McDonald's that I reckon basically they do a pretty good job. I know there are tens of thousands of young people who have had a start to their working career by working for McDonald's getting that experience, and good luck to them. Our position is that we would like more kids to have the same chance. Your position is that you will deny those young people a chance. What did Julie Owens say this morning when asked, `What would you do if you had this big increase in wages?' She said:What we would do immediately, we would have to stop recruiting people virtually immediately and assess the situation. The existing staff I think would get fewer hours. We would have to look very seriously at doing business a little bit differently to remove some of the labour from the stores, so maybe replacing it with capital.That is Labor's position: take away the jobs of young people and let's put the machines into McDonald's. As far as we are concerned, young people are entitled to a job in this country, and I tell you what: we will do all that we possibly can to secure them that opportunity.35993599Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Can the minister inform the House what action the government is taking to ensure that the two-year waiting period for most social security payments is applied consistently to newly arrived residents?3599Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question and the keen interest that he takes in ensuring that Australia has an equitable and fair social security safety net. Yesterday the House of Representatives passed legislation to close a loophole which has had the effect of treating New Zealand citizens differently from other migrants. As a result of this loophole, it has been possible for New Zealanders to qualify for a large range of social security benefits without effectively serving the waiting period that has been required of people from other countries.The anomaly stems from the fact that New Zealanders are not required to obtain a permanent visa before remaining permanently in Australia. So, under these new arrangements, people will be required to serve a full 104-week waiting period and they will have to serve that time in Australia. Under the old arrangements it was possible for people to serve quite a bit of that waiting period in their own country, and that was obviously unfair. So the new rules will apply to all new residents and will provide that the waiting period start on the day that the person becomes an Australian resident and end after the person has been an Australian resident and in this country for 104 weeks. All countries and all arriving migrants will be treated the same.I am pleased to also inform the House that the New Zealand government has agreed to these new arrangements. The legislation will now go to the Senate and I trust that it will give it a speedy passage because it will save Australian taxpayers around $35 million in benefits that have been claimed because people did not have to serve the waiting period in this country.2V5SWANMr Swan—Why don't you invest it in Senegal?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley seems to have forgotten the general warning that was issued.36003600Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister confirm that his written agreement with the Australian Democrats provides that junior wage rates will be exempted from antidiscrimination requirements until 22 June 2000, and also provides that the IRC inquiry into junior rates must report no later than 22 June 1999—one year before the date? Minister, was it ever your intention to allow consideration of the IRC's findings before the abolition of junior rates or did you agree simply because it was the only way to get the Democrats to pass your legislation? Were the Democrats just another group you deceived to get your way?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Deceived?DT4CREANMr Crean—Speaker Sinclair said it was all right, if that helps, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I consider the word `deceived' has implications that are less than charitable. DT4CREANMr Crean—The Prime Minister has used `deliberately deceived'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham does not have the call. I will allow the question to stand. I still consider the matter less than charitable, as I said. The minister will respond.3600Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I think this is—what is it?—the third time that the agreement has been put up in a question today. I boxed it yesterday; the Democrats were boxing it. This agreement is getting a new lease of life. I say, in respect of that agreement, that the then Leader of the Democrats, now the member for Dickson, was prepared—Government members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—No, in fairness to her, she was prepared to sit down—she, I believe, genuinely acknowledged that the government, in going into the 1996 election campaign, had a policy of industrial relations reform—and discuss the issues on the merits. I say that fairly. We have had our disagreements, and I must say her movement to the Labor Party rather lowered the esteem in which I held her. But, leaving that reflection on her judgment, the fact is we in the government, by and large, were happy with that agreement.Why were we happy with it? Because it was a very significant advance in workplace relations. It has always been our view that this is an area where legislative reform is important, but it is also important that employers and employees evolve better workplace relations over time. That is why we as a government are committed to an evolutionary policy on workplace reform. That has been a very successful policy. For example, the number of disputes is down to a record low.But that agreement was a whole agreement that contained the comprehensive matters which were discussed and was a full agreement and, on that basis, I think it advanced the cause. But there is also no doubt that this issue was unresolved at the time. This parliament has a responsibility to resolve the issue, and I say let us vote for jobs for young people.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable—VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Get up, Rosso.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Under the provisions of standing order 304A, I require the member for Bruce to excuse himself from the House.The honourable member for Bruce thereupon withdrew from the chamber.36013601Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Could the minister advise the House of the potential for increased exports in the wine and flower industries, and detail any benefits to both our national economy and my electorate of McEwen?3601Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—It is nice to get the sixth solid question asked in this question time compared with the failed attack from opposite.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I would like to make the point that there are many small, medium and large winemakers and wine producers in many country electorates—including McEwen and even the electorate of Flinders, quite apart from the electorate of Riverina and elsewhere—which are part of a great exports strategy, and full credit to the Winemakers Federation of Australia, Ian Sutton and others, who have now driven forward our wine exports over 10 years from just $15 million to $900 million of job creating export effort. I might add the additional dimension associated with this is that quite often the wine industry is about providing a lot of youth employment in regional Australia, especially in the picking season for grape and related fruits, in a way which is very positive for regional economic development.I want to salute the wine industry, which has reached the stage where for every 10 bottles of wine consumed in Australia 15 bottles are now being exported. We are exporting to France and to Italy great quality Australian wine. We are exporting to the USA and to Japan. I know their economy presents a lot of opportunity, even though it is in a trough at this time. Our exports of Australian wine to Japan rose last year by 135 per cent—a great effort by the Australian wine industry.I know Windy Hill in the electorate of the member for McEwen and other great Yarra Valley locations have come from nowhere to everywhere in producing high quality, value added wine exports to the world.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Windy Peak, not Windy Hill.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Windy Peak? I get confused with the Bombers. Pillow talk—my wife barracks for the Bombers.Government members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I am proud of my wife; I am not proud of the team she barracks for. There is also a very useful export effort opening up with regard to the cut flower industry, again from the electorates of McEwen, Riverina, Mallee and many others—$24 million worth of cut flowers now being exported from Australia. The demand for those Australian flowers has been affected by recent economic difficulties in Asia. We have just had the 12 leading Asian heads of mission here this last couple of days with Minister Downer and I examining all aspects of that. Export growth to the US and the Netherlands is particularly strong. Cut flower exports to the USA and the Netherlands increased 30 per cent last year.I am particularly pleased that exports of proteas such as those grown in Kinglake in the honourable member's electorate doubled last year. The cut flower market is a tremendous market. It is a $30 billion worldwide market and Australian industry is moving rapidly to get an enhanced share of that market, working closely with Foreign Affairs and Trade and Austrade to open up more market access and capture those markets in this lucrative trade. Austrade's Nagoya office recently coordinated an Australian stand at a Japan flower festival that attracted 120,000 visitors over three days. The City of Wagga Wagga is involved right now in a project in China to further advance flowers and related products into the Chinese market. That $24 million will double soon enough. I congratulate our outstanding exporters in cut flowers as well as the wine industry. I congratulate our exporters in turning the tide against difficult odds at this time.36023602Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. When the Industrial Relations Commission invited Australian citizens and community organisations to make submissions to its inquiry on youth wages, did you advise those people that you in fact intended to resolve the issue three months before the inquiry was even scheduled to report? Minister, weren't the 63 people and community organisations who went to the time and expense to make these submissions just another group you deceived or perhaps misled to get your way?HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 76, it is my submission that the words used by the honourable member for Batman relating to `deceived' contain imputations of improper motives and the question should be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invite the member for Batman to rephrase the question.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: in making your ruling on the honourable member's point of order—WI4REITHMr Reith—He has made it.MG4LEEMr Lee—I have not heard the Speaker make a ruling. Mr Speaker, before you make your ruling will you take into account the fact that the current Prime Minister was allowed to use the expression `deliberately deceive' in the last parliament?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. In an effort not to frustrate the intention of the member for Batman, the Speaker has invited him simply to restate the question, obviously excluding that word.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—Mr Speaker, I will take your direction, but clearly indicate that the question was based on previously accepted terms by you as the Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I accept your, as it were, admonition, but it is not my intention to frustrate your wish to ask the question. I simply make the point that I do not think that word should be persistently part of the parliamentary repertoire.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—I hope that rule also applies to the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is stepping outside what has been an act of grace by the chair.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—Mr Speaker, on the basis of your new ruling, the final paragraph of my question is as follows: weren't the 63 people and community organisations who went to the time and considerable expense of making these submissions just another group you misled to get your way?3602Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—No. We had a clear policy on this in the election. It has been the subject of a lot of debate and, furthermore, we put a submission ourselves.36023602Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. What measures are the government taking to ensure that small rural and regional communities have access to a range of financial, government and other basic services? Is the minister aware of any reason why these measures may not be delivered?3602Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledge that she is very much a champion of the need for a fair slice of action in relation to access to things like education, transport and a range of things in rural areas. One of the real problems that we have faced in much of the bush in recent years has been a loss of face-to-face services, particularly in such areas as banking. When it comes to banking, studies have shown that it can have a real impact, a very serious impact, on a small rural community when the last bank pulls out—some studies suggest over $300 per capita in expenditure on an annualised basis.We as a government have been able to do some useful things in that area through, for example, the CreditCare movement. During the last election we also committed ourselves to an expenditure of $70 million over the next few years on rural transaction centres. This is aimed at setting up in the order of 500 rural transaction centres in country towns around Australia—smaller ones, essentially those with a population of less than 3,000.This program is dependent upon the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra. The RTCs will not duplicate or force out existing small businesses but just the opposite: they will seek to be complementary and they will look at banking, post, Medicare Easy Claim, and phone and fax facilities. In the future I suspect, with modern telecommunications being what they are, we will be able to use them for other things such as telemedicine and extension of education services.In short, they can be very valuable. I think they can make a real difference. The problem is that Labor is prepared to put all of this at risk. It is intent upon essentially denying us the opportunity to give the Australian people a social bonus in rural Australia worth close to $700 million. This will deny people in rural Australia a further $250 million from the Natural Heritage Trust. It will deny them $150 million over three years to extend untimed local calls to those people who live outside standard zones.Mr Tanner interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—The member for Melbourne would know a lot about living in remote parts of the country. Perhaps he would rather be like the spokesman opposite for regional services. My opposite number, during the up session, issued a defensive press statement asking, `Where is Cheryl?'Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—And the answer was, `Out in regional Australia, where she often is.' But when she was asked in her own electorate where she had been recently she said, `I have only paid one visit to regional Australia.'XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Two!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Oh, two trips to regional Australia. We are talking about an extra $81 million for the RTIF—a very valuable program in remote areas of Australia. The team that you are now part of, My Opposite Number, wants to deny that to people who need those telecommunications in rural areas.Ms Kernot interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—That is $36 million over three years to enable local call access to the Internet.Ms Kernot interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson is warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—And so it goes on. There is $25 million for extending mobile phone coverage. These are very important and urgently needed programs in remote and rural Australia. If you had the slightest interest in doing the right thing by rural Australia in these times you would stop opposing the measure that enables us to deliver them.36033603McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, at what age do you consider a young Australian should be treated as an adult? Do you believe a 20-year-old who votes, who might well be supporting a family and who does exactly the same job as a 21-year-old is an adult and therefore should not be paid at some discounted wage rate?3603Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I will say it slowly for the honourable member. The government's policy is that we reckon the existing system works pretty well. It protects young people's jobs. We vote for jobs, you vote against them. It is as simple as that.36033603Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of recent reports concerning problems with food and medical shortages in East Timor? What is the Australian government's response to these reports? Is the minister aware of the establishment of reconciliation committees to deal with the problems of East Timor?3603Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Blair for his question. I recognise the interest he shows in the issue of East Timor. There are today in some of our newspapers reports of severe shortages of rice and other essential supplies in East Timor. Our ambassador, John McCarthy, who visited there very recently, confirms that this is the case. The honourable member will be pleased to know that I have instructed two AusAID personnel to travel to East Timor this week to investigate the immediate humanitarian needs and to recommend to the Australian government how Australia can best assist. We are fully prepared to provide assistance. I would say that we are yet to see any evidence to support claims, which are fairly widespread, of a deliberate Indonesian government policy to withhold essential supplies for East Timor.These problems in East Timor on the ground are another reason why it is so important to calm tensions in East Timor so that people there do not suffer further hardship. I am pleased that a number of reconciliation processes have been set up to try to calm tensions, including the Association of East Timorese for Peace, Xanana Gusmao's direct dialogue with pro-integrationists, Komnasham's Peace and Stability Commission and, as I noticed in the newspapers this morning, Mr Beazley's reconciliation committee.The amount of bitterness is still very substantial in East Timor and it is very important that everything be done to try to achieve reconciliation. That extends beyond the shores of East Timor, right over there into the Australian Labor Party.36043604Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and it relates again to an industry where youth wages do not exist—that is, part of an industry where youth wages do not exist under current legislation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Come to the question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Is it not the case that the introduction of a youth wage in the truck driving industry, where you wish to situate it, will cut the wages of a 19-year-old driver by as much as $86 a week? How can you have any credibility at all when you say that, under your industrial relations system, no Australian worker will be worse off? Will you advise the Prime Minister to call off the charade and admit that his rock solid guarantee is nothing more than a hoax?3604Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition a particularised response in respect of the trucking industry, but I can say more generally that, where industry sectors do not have junior wage rates, by and large—and it is a generalisation—there are very few young people who actually have jobs in those industries. Secondly, the government's proposal is that the insertion of junior wage rates should be a matter for the Industrial Relations Commission. This is incredible hypocrisy from the Labor Party. They are always saying, `You ought to enhance the powers of the commission, you ought to trust the commission to look after people's interests,' and when we do so they get up and complain that we have made that provision.The Industrial Relations Commission is, in our view—maybe not in yours—perfectly capable of looking after the interests of existing employees in any industry where they decide to introduce junior wage rates. It has been able to do so in the past. We believe in the commission having the capacity to do so in the future, protecting young people who are currently employed and also, more importantly—something which you are not interested in—actually giving young people the chance of a job which is currently denied by you and the ACTU.36043604Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, can you inform the House what action the government is taking so that Australia can benefit from capable people working beyond the age of 65 years?Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton has been issued with a general warning and will not be warned again.3604Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question. I know of his concern for older people in the community. Indeed, recently when I was with him in his electorate I saw the care and the interest which he displays for his constituents. This goes to a much broader question, that is, to the question of an ageing Australia whereby more and more of Australia's population is going to be over the age of 65 and living into their 80s and 90s. There is a shrinking population base of younger people who will form the taxation base as we go forward into the next century.Accordingly, this government—and it is my responsibility, together with the Attorney-General—has removed the compulsory age limit of 65 for statutory office holders. This is the third such signal, the other two being the removal from our draft public service legislation of the compulsory retirement age of 65 and the putting in place of a pension deferment system whereby, from 1 July last year, any pensioners who choose to defer their pension for up to five years can in fact receive a tax-free, lump sum payment of $21,000 for that deferment.This government is very serious about seeing that older Australians have the opportunity to work longer. That deferment scheme is for full-time work, that is, at least 20 hours a week. Importantly, we want to see older Australians working longer so that we can preserve that taxation base and, indeed, involve people with the wisdom and the experience that we are currently being denied. One very worrying statistic is that Australian men between the ages of 55 and 59 are the fastest declining participants from the work force in the OECD. That is a great concern to this government.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Mr Speaker, you have heard of the concerns that we have for young workers, but we also have concern for older workers. If this is to be a truly civil society, Mr Prime Minister, then it is very important that this country benefits from the wisdom of older Australians.Opposition members interjecting—SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—If this lot over here want to disparage the wisdom and the experience of older Australians, they do so at their electorate peril!36053605Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, is it not the case that Group Training Australia—the nation's largest employer of apprentices, with more than 26,000 currently employed—presented evidence to a Senate committee last week that up to 5,000 apprentice positions could be lost due to a combination of a GST on services provided by group training companies, subsequent loss of sales tax benefits and the coalition's reduced training incentives? Minister, how can Group Training Australia trust you to deal with these concerns on the basis of full and fair consideration when they know you have a reputation for breaking promises, welshing on deals and putting politics first?3605Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I must say I did not see the submission. It was probably referred to my colleague Dr Kemp, who has responsibility for apprenticeships. But can I close my contribution at question time today—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—All 10!WI4Mr REITH—It has been a 10 out of 10 performance, as one of my colleagues has very kindly suggested. All I say to the Labor Party, particularly to the new members, is that I was a new member myself after the second election in 1985.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order as to relevance, Mr Speaker. The minister has to put some part of his answer in some general way to the question asked.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition makes a point on relevance. I would have thought the minister was in fact making a general comment about apprenticeships and making a comment about new members of parliament in that context. I call the minister.WI4Mr REITH—That is a very wise ruling, Mr Speaker. I had not realised back then that it would be 11 years before we would get into office. I say to the new members that you can listen to the ones who sit on the front bench and lead your party, but understand that, in the end, these issues are decided on their merits and the merit of this issue is give young people a job. It is time the Labor Party understood. Put aside the ACTU. Show a bit of leadership and give young people the chance of a job.83YHOAREMs Hoare—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance, one that is not as timely as I would have liked. I concede the fact that the minister can in his answer make a—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is the point of order of the member for Charlton?83YHOAREMs Hoare—The minister can make a statement about apprentices; but, as for new members, we are not apprentices.36063606Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Mr Speaker—Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Eden-Monaro will resume his seat. The member for the Northern Territory persistently ignores the rulings of the chair and will leave the House, under the provisions of 304A.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—What did he say?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory made a remark which I heard and which the member for Eden-Monaro thought offensive. The member for the Northern Territory had, however, at that stage been asked to remove himself from the chamber, and I require him to do so.The honourable member for the Northern Territory thereupon withdrew from the chamber.OK6Mr NAIRN—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Can the minister inform the House of progress with regional forest agreements in New South Wales? Has the Carr government kept its promise to provide to you data to support its unilateral withdrawal of another 450,000 hectares of public land from sustainable forestry operations? Are the small rural businesses which have been destroyed by this and earlier decisions receiving proper compensation under the joint Forestry Industry Structural Adjustment Program, and have real jobs been found for the workers who have been made unemployed?3606Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I have previously informed the House of the Carr Labor government's refusal to negotiate regional forest agreements with the Commonwealth and its refusal to supply ecological and economic data to support its unilateral withdrawal of vast areas of forest from sustainable logging and to substantiate its consequent harvest projections. That situation remains unchanged, and there is no progress in those negotiations. It therefore follows that not one lost forest job in New South Wales and not one small business closure in the forest regions of New South Wales results from any action attributable to the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth government is yet to come to any agreement with the New South Wales government.Honourable members will also recall that, as a result of this breach of agreement by the Carr government, I was left with no choice but to suspend the Commonwealth funding to the joint Forestry Industry Structural Adjustment Program, otherwise known as FISAP. I was confronted with the position of being asked to pay out the vendor finance before they had signed the transfer. Quite simply, the Commonwealth government is not going to fund unilateral Carr government actions upon which we have not been consulted and over which we have no control.The job losses and small business closures which will arise out of these New South Wales government decisions are clearly caused by, and are solely the responsibility of, the New South Wales government. When I discussed these matters with Minister Yeadon, he told me, `We will fund the business component of FISAP ourselves.' He later further wrote to me and said, `We have made no assumptions about the availability of Commonwealth funding in our arrangements.'QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Perhaps he should make a ministerial statement: it would be more appropriate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister was asked a question about the Regional Forest Agreement. As far as I can tell, that is what his answer is focusing on.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Mr Speaker, I was also asked whether people were being paid out for the jobs they have lost through these unilateral actions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have deemed the answer relevant.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Thank you. Later he wrote to me—this is the minister in New South Wales, Mr Yeadon—and said, `We have made no assumptions about the availability of Commonwealth funding to assist in this exit payment.' The New South Wales government is now hiding behind public officials who have written to the applicants for business exit assistance. I quote from that letter:As the Commonwealth government holds the primary responsibility for business exit assistance funding, I regret to advise you that the Forestry Structural Adjustment Unit is unable to process your application at this time.Let me tell you again that the fact is that the New South Wales government—having driven people out of their employment and taken away their businesses; having been told that, because they have not concluded these agreements, they are not to get Commonwealth funding; and having said to us that they did not need it—are now getting their public servants to write to people and say, `Sorry, mate. We haven't got any money for you.' That is an outrageous situation and it stands in stark contrast to the statements made by the coalition opposition in New South Wales, who have promised to immediately reinstate negotiations on regional forest agreements so that people who do get unfortunately affected can be paid out.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I ask that the minister table the document from which he was quoting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am required to ask the minister two questions. Was he reading from a document?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I was certainly reading from a document.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the document confidential?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—It is, Mr Speaker.Personal Explanations360715:22:003607Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in various answers in question time today implied that I accepted that junior wage rates would be introduced in legislation by the coalition before the Industrial Relations Commission reported on its inquiry into the matter in June this year. I do not accept and never did accept any such implication. The minister has misrepresented this aspect of the negotiations.15:23:003607Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has as much right to be heard as the member for Dickson. Does the minister claim to be misrepresented?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I certainly do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The member for Dickson has in a personal explanation claimed that there was an implication in answers that I gave. There was no such implication—absolutely none. It may suit the Labor Party that she might make such a claim, but the fact is no implication was there.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has made the point and will resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Speaker has had a rather bad day, as well, as a matter of fact. It strikes me that on a number of rulings I have not needed the assistance that has been so freely given.Questions to the Speaker360836083608Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. I noticed yesterday that when the member for Burke had the call and you asked him to resume his seat he did not do so but the microphone was turned off. Twice in question time, you asked ministers to resume their seats. In both cases they did not and in both cases the microphones were left on. Can you explain what the process normally is?3608Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I also noted that. There is an arrangement that when the Speaker calls on someone to resume their seat the microphone is switched off. Obviously, as every member will appreciate, that applies regardless of where members sit in the chamber.36083608Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I have another question for you, Mr Speaker. In future, will that occur for ministers as well?3608Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have made it perfectly clear to the member for Newcastle that the existing arrangements are that the same rules apply—a fact that he must have known for as long as he has been a member of this chamber. The rules are that whenever the Speaker requires someone to resume their seat their microphone is switched off.36083608Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, I know I am asking this question on what is considered to be a bad day, but I was wondering why it is that, when we come into this chamber, we have to wear a coat. Why is it not considered a suitable standard of dress to simply wear a collar and tie? I ask this question because, as I understand it, you are looking at some issues relating to dress in the chamber.3608Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will respond to the member for Cowan at some appropriate future time when there is at least some residual element of decorum in the chamber.Documents36083608Reith, 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:Australian Securities and Investment Commission report of the investigation into Burns Philp & Company Limited; andAustralian Securities and Investment Commission report of the Special Investigation into Spedley Securities Limited.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance3608360810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Batman proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The adverse consequences of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business' misleading and partisan approach to employment and industrial relations.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—15:28:003608Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In commencing this afternoon, I start where I finished my last question to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business today. I therefore pose the following question: how can the Australian community trust the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to deal with their concerns about employment and industrial relations on the basis of full and fair consideration when they know the minister has a reputation for breaking promises, welshing on deals and putting politics first? That question is the crux of the issue before the chair.WI4REITHMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The honourable member for Batman will resume his seat.WI4REITHMr Reith—There are forms for making substantive allegations. The Speaker has accepted the MPI in the words that have been put to him, but that does not provide a licence for people to breach the standing orders. The standing orders are quite clear: if you want to make a substantive motion then there are forms to do so. An MPI does not provide a general licence for slurring people. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to require the member to stick within the rules of this House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the House for his contribution. The standing orders and practice of the House will be followed, and I will be listening very carefully to every contribution during this debate.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The issues I raise were clearly accepted by the Speaker today in the form of a question posed to the minister which he again failed to answer. They also go to what I believe is a major concern in the Australian community at the moment. That goes to the issue—2K6BROUGHMr Brough—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Batman stated that this was placed in the form of a question. It was not a question; it was a statement. Therefore, he is incorrect in his assertion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. There is no point of order.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Obviously, I understand the sensitivity of those on the other side of the House this afternoon, because the issue before the chair goes to what the Australian community expects at the moment. That relates to not only a question of honesty but a requirement that those in government seek to do whatever they can to build a sense of integrity back into government and, in doing so, to allay the Australian community's feelings about a sense of insecurity in their lives.I believe that the Australian community correctly demands from government that they sow the seeds to build a sense of society which is healthy and supportive of our fair go values. With respect to the issue of a lack of security, I also want to touch in passing on why the issue of employment is so important at the moment and why it is so integrally related to how you handle the complex issue of industrial relations.We hear from time to time from the minister for employment and his mate the Treasurer stories about how good the Australian economy is going. I think the minister should acknowledge today that one of the most reliable indicators of potential problems that are ahead of us, when it goes to how the economy is performing, is his own department of employment's leading indicator. I refer to the fact that, at 2 p.m. today, the department of employment's leading indicator of employment and cyclical employment was released. I wonder why the minister or the Treasurer did not refer to this very reliable indicator in question time today.That goes to the fact that the leading indicator of employment has unfortunately—and I say `unfortunately' because we are all concerned about the issue of jobs at the moment—fallen for the eighth consecutive month in January this year. That, I indicate, is despite the inclusion of the national accounts data for the December quarter 1998, showing what was described as `a robust rise in real GDP'.I suppose, in light of our fears and concerns about what is in essence a very reliable indicator about what is down the track in perhaps six or eight months time on the employment front, that it really comes back to what this government is going to do about building confidence, a sense of community and a belief in the integrity of government back into this parliament and into the minds of the Australian community.I acknowledge in passing that, unfortunately, what we see from the minister for employment is not new to government. In some ways, I suppose, it comes as part and parcel of what we expect from ministers for employment in successive Howard governments. I refer in passing not only to the failure of the government to front up to its code of conduct but also, by way of example, to the previous performance of Senator Vanstone as Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.We also had serious questions about trust in what we regarded as an endeavour to mislead the Australian community about the previous government's capacity to achieve an unemployment rate of five per cent. Perhaps more importantly, I refer to a very serious endeavour—I mention in passing the Wright family—by this government, a very senior minister, a cabinet minister, the then minister for employment, Senator Vanstone, to hoodwink the Australian community in a deliberate way, despite an indication to the contrary by the department that facts presented were wrong.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Once again, my point of order is that the shadow minister is not entitled to make accusations of others unless it is by way of substantive motion. The fact is that he is making accusations about a minister. If he wants to do that, he should do so by way of substantive motion. He is not entitled to do it under the guise of an MPI. He ought to stick to the issue and, in that way, perhaps avoid the personal abuse which has characterised his contribution so far.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. I call the member for Batman.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The facts speak for themselves. The then minister was even forced to face up to the Senate, under pressure, and own up to the fact that she had misled the parliament and the Australian community on the issues relating to the Wright family.That is the background as to the lack of integrity of this government. And that is what this debate is about. It is about the approach of this government, and especially the misleading and partisan approach of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, to employment and industrial relations. It is about whether or not you are deceitful in government; it is about whether or not you are honest in government. It is about whether or not you seek to deliberately mislead the Australian public through stunts rather than an honest approach to try to solve the problems that the Australian community expects you to solve. I suggest to the House that we do have a deceitful minister when it comes to his hidden policy agenda.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call on the honourable member for Batman to withdraw that statement.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the suggestion about being deceitful and suggest to the House that we have a minister who seeks to mislead the Australian public about his policy agenda. I go to the question not only of the junior rates debate but of the Reith papers released just over a fortnight ago.I am pleased that the minister did release all those papers, because we did not have all the papers, especially the Textor material. We have found them interesting reading. On the question of his misleading the Australian public, we want to deal with the nature of the agenda. We have a very serious problem on the jobs front. It is also about time the minister fessed up to the fact that it is not about the problems of youth unemployment alone. Middle-aged unemployment is also a serious issue.What really amazed and dismayed me, on reading the Reith papers—that so-called forward agenda that was forwarded to the Prime Minister for consideration—was that, when it came to the issue of mature age unemployment, he merely sought to dismiss it as a minor issue: `But if we get caught, perhaps for appearance's sake'—I suppose this goes to a question of honesty and integrity in government—`we might badge a few programs so as to create the impression that we are doing something when we are not doing something.'On the issue of the agenda, what we now have before the Australian community is an agenda that calls for the destruction of the award system.Mr Crean interjecting—UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Hotham will remain silent.Mr Crean interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Are you defying the chair?DT4CREANMr Crean—No; I am not.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Good. Be silent.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—What we have exposed now is a very serious agenda—put forward by those who are better off when it comes to the consideration of problems in the community—based on a sense of hate and a desire to punish those who have not had the same opportunities as all of us in this House.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am prepared to put up with a fair amount, but to accuse me of being driven by hate is beyond the realm of any sort of reasonable comment. The remark is offensive and should be withdrawn.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I agree with the Leader of the House that to be accused of being driven by hate is not particularly appropriate. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the remark.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Withdrawing the reference to hate, I refer in passing to why I believe that the minister's approach to employment and industrial relations—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am not going to debate it. I have asked you to withdraw.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I have withdrawn it, but I am also seeking to clarify—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I apologise.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—With all respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is getting beyond a joke.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I apologise. I did not hear you withdraw.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—What I was raising in passing was the basis of the belief in the Australian community about why we have a minister who bases his approach to politics on principles—which he believes are appropriate—which lead to politicians, and in this instance the minister, seeking to mislead and pursue a partisan approach to government. There is no better example of that lack of principle, honesty and integrity in government than that exposed by and expressed in a statement made by the minister in Perth on 9 July last year, when he said:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side you're on.That implies taking sides in a partisan way with respect to politics. He went on to say:We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.I am pleased to say that we on this side of the House are on the side of all Australians irrespective of whether they are an employer, or employed, or unemployed and seeking a job.Let us go to the issue of junior rates. It is a complex debate. I cannot accept a situation whereby a minister sits down, negotiates a package for so-called workplace reform, enters into an agreement which suggests that there will be a review of junior rates, encourages individuals, employers, community organisations, trade unions and church representatives to go to the expense and time of making submissions, and then seeks to short-circuit that process because it no longer suits his personal circumstances, ambitions and personal policy agenda. Fair is fair! In industrial relations—and perhaps the minister does not understand this—one's respect amongst workers, employers and unions is based on keeping your word. Your word is your bond. It is your honour. You trade on that. That represents your capacity to do the best thing by the people you represent.Unfortunately—and I understand the sensitivity—the minister for workplace relations, by his very policy documents of December last year, by his very statement in Perth last year, represents a politician who I consider approaches politics on the basis of seeking to mislead and hoodwink the Australian community and acts in a partisan way at a time when we require practical and principled approaches to government to create jobs and to make further progress on the industrial relations front. He stands condemned for endeavouring to mislead the Australian community about the employment of young people, about the basis of the agreement with the Democrats, and where we go forward with respect to government. (Time expired)15:43:003611Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—That speech by the member for Batman, I believe, reveals that the Labor Party have no reasonable alternatives to offer in this important issue about youth wages. When they took the opportunity after question time to raise a matter of public importance, rather than discussing the great issue of the day—namely, the question of junior wage rates—the shadow minister spent 13 of his 15 minutes in a speech of nothing but personal abuse. There are literally tens of thousands of jobs at risk as a result of this issue. It was not until the 13-minute mark of a 15-minute speech that he actually referred to junior wage rates. Prior to that, on a number of occasions he was required by the chair to withdraw unparliamentary and offensive remarks.Young people must be saying, `What is our future when the political process is so degraded, so degenerated, that the issue which goes to whether or not we have a job doesn't even get a mention from the shadow minister responsible for employment?' It is a national disgrace that a speech like that, on an issue as important as this, should be given. It gives force and effect to and vindicates the heading in today's Daily Telegraph. Their page one spread provides an editorial and the heading is `A victim of politics'. No truer headline was there from the Daily Telegraph. They say that, when the Labor Party voted against the youth wages, they voted for politics and not with any care or interest for the young people who would be affected by that decision. I simply dismiss the personal abuse, the vacuous statement that has been made.I say to the parliament in response to the issue of new junior wage rates that it is very important that that system of junior wage rates be retained. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Australians today who have a job and whose first job was with an employer who gave them a job on the basis that their wage was discounted because of their age. I did a radio program this morning on 3AW. They sent a reporter down to Swanston Street, and they had a discussion with a young girl. She was 15 or 16. Her first job was with Hungry Jacks. She got half the adult rate, but it gave her the chance of a job. Now, at age 19, she is an assistant manager in a retail outlet in Swanston Street. As she said to the reporter, that first job gave her her first chance.There are many Australians who will never go on to university. There are many Australians who, for one reason or another—educational disadvantage, socioeconomic disadvantage, the remoteness of where they live—will not go on to a tertiary education. For those people their first job is absolutely vital, and yet today we have a system which works but which is under threat by the votes being used by the Labor Party in the Senate. It is an extraordinary proposition that, when voting on a system that has worked so well, a system which, when abolished, will have such disastrous implications for young people, the Labor Party are slavishly following the dictates of the ACTU with the votes that they are casting in the Senate. There are about 420,000 young people today who have a job because they have a junior wage rate system available to them. We are informed by the retailers that some 160,000 or 170,000 jobs for young people will go with the loss of this exemption for junior wage rates.JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—That's a disgrace!UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Shame! Shame!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You see, this is the commentary of the trade union movement. We have one on duty at the moment—a frontbencher on the other side. He is a former trade union official. In fact, half the frontbench of the Labor Party are former trade union officials. They run the trade union officials' agenda. The fact is the ACTU is opposed to junior wage rates, and that is the explanation. A strong leader would stand up and say, `Hang on. It's all very well for the ACTU to have a policy.' But, given the fact that young people's jobs are going to be at risk, the Labor Party, if it had a strong leader, would dismiss the ACTU's instructions and stand up for young people. But, no, we have a weak leader and a disunited frontbench—which Simon Crean acknowledged on radio this morning—unable, therefore, to stand up for decent policy. And who pays the price for this? Who are the victims of politics? It is the young people who today are unemployed.When you think of Australia's circumstances, we have had a number of years of solid growth. When we came into office we inherited a $10½ billion deficit. We fixed that up. We got interest rates down. We have given a helping hand to businesses—large businesses, and particularly small businesses. They have been out there trying to give people a job.Mr Tanner interjecting—Mr Sidebottom interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Melbourne! The member for Braddon is not in his place and will not interject.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We have done very well against the backdrop of the Asian crisis, but it is still a fact that over 24 per cent of young people do not have a job—are unemployed. When the shadow minister started his MPI today he said the leading indicator on employment is down this month—it was released by my department today. That is true. It is the eighth consecutive month. Whilst the general economic scene is good, there are concerns about where employment is going in the future. He took that concern about a possible `worsening situation', as he put it, as justification for voting against a measure to create jobs. The logic of this absolutely defies explanation. If you acknowledge that it is important we do everything we can to create jobs, why wouldn't you vote against a measure which denies young people the chance of a job?Let us cut to the quick of this issue. If you abolish junior wage rates for, say, an 18-year-old, in June next year that person will be entitled to a wage increase of $130.55. A lot of young people would say, `Gee, it'd be great to have a wage increase of $130.55. The young person who was reported on the radio this morning made the sensible comment, `Well, there's no point having a wage increase if you don't have a job.' It is as simple as that—it really is. You do not have to be a rocket scientist, you do not need to be a Nobel prize winner for economics, you do not have to be a mathematician and you do not have to be a great engineer to work out that, if you put up the wages of young people by over $100 a week, a whole lot will lose their jobs. That is what will happen.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I have several times called the member for Melbourne's attention to the fact that he should not continually interject.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I have yet to hear from the Labor Party how it is that a young person could have a wage increase of $130 a week, yet not one young person will lose a job. What they say is that a 17-year-old who works in McDonald's can make french fries just as well as a 23-year-old or a 25-year-old. In some ways you can see the superficial attraction of that argument, but the real question is: what is the maturity of that 21-, 22- or 23-year-old compared to the 17-year-old who is probably in their first job? Are they equivalent? Are they of the same value to the employer?Julie Owens was asked these questions this morning, and she ought to know. She runs the human resources area for McDonald's. They employ 40,000-odd young people, so she ought to know. This is what she said about the issue of whether it is discriminatory:They are definitely worth more. An adult is worth more. It is not only whether you can work the cash register and make French fries, it is also those other general employment skills. It is looking people in the eye, initiative, self-confidence, communication and even the ability to organise yourself. It is how much supervision we have to give the people. So it is all those general maturity, work experience, life experience skills that make an adult more valuable.The Labor Party says, `Oh no, that's not right.' They say a 17-year-old is exactly the same as a 22-year-old.I have four sons. There are five years between the eldest and the youngest. No disrespect to my youngest son, but in terms of maturity and experience you would have to say that when he was 17 he just did not have the same experience and value for an employer as my then 22-year-old had. I reckon that is commonsense. The Labor Party says that this is shocking discrimination. If it is discrimination, then we on this side say, `Let us discriminate in favour of young people having a job. Let us have a commonsense system.'The Labor Party also run the lie that young people will be exploited by this measure. This is not changing the system. We are trying to preserve the system. This is the system we have today. There are probably people on the Labor Party back benches—if they have ever had a job apart from being in a trade union—who themselves have worked for junior wage rates.The fact is that this is a system that we have today, and we think we should hang on to it. Let me acknowledge that there has been a search for an alternative, the skills-competency based alternative. But that never really picks up the point that Julie Owens makes which is that you might be just as capable as a 16-year-old in making french fries but that there are still differences between 16-year-olds and 23-year-olds. It is called life experience, as my colleague makes the point.As far as the employers are concerned, they have made their estimates. The member for Melbourne says, `Why listen to the employers?' The reason you listen to the employers is that they employ people. If their view is that they are going to employ a lot fewer people, you cannot just stand up and say, `Who cares what they say?' They create the jobs. They provide the jobs that are there now. You could say to the employers, `You're irrelevant.' But I tell you that in June 2000 and in the months and years following they are going to be very relevant indeed.My concern is that with the end of the junior wage rates system in the middle of next year, and in the months and years following, we will see not a decline in youth unemployment—which is what we are trying to achieve—but in fact a lift in the level of youth unemployment. It is hard to make predictions about these things—you need to make assumptions about what is exactly going to happen—but I do not think there is anything unreasonable about the estimate that youth unemployment could go over 30 per cent if this measure is not eventually carried by the parliament. That is why it is serious.I say to the opposition that is why this deserves a lot more than just a 15-minute spray of personal abuse. You can attack my integrity. I would have to say that the Australian public are rather cynical about politicians, and I do not think one politician name-calling another is the strongest point you have ever made.I think what Australian parents are going to be worried about is whether the jobs their kids have today they will have in 12 months time. I have already had one parent tell me of her son—who is 15 and has a part-time job in a bakery—who said to her yesterday morning, `Mum, does this mean my employer has to pay a lot more for me to hang on to my job?' That is another very interesting point because, whilst the exemption falls out in the middle of the year 2000, employers make decisions about hiring people well in advance, if they can. That is not in every case, but often they do. Unfortunately, already the vote against this proposal this week is creating a real level of uncertainty amongst employers. They are going to wonder whether, if they do put somebody on now, they will be caught with a much higher wage structure which they will not be able to afford in their business.I also have a different view about small business than do those opposite. They basically think that all small business people are going to exploit everybody they can. Most small business people—and they are not all perfect—want to do the right thing. Most small business people run family businesses and would love to give a young person a job, provided it is on a reasonable basis.The Labor Party talk about partisanship, yet they put up a former ACTU president on the MPI. Quite frankly, what a joke. You people do not treat this issue seriously, yet it is a serious issue. That is why this government is determined not to be distracted by personal abuse but in fact to press ahead to preserve the jobs of young Australians. This is a great country, and I would like to see every young Australian have the chance of a job. I believe they deserve it.15:58:003614Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Australians like the idea of a fair umpire. They understand that employers and employees sometimes have differing interests. They also understand that these differences do not need to be solved by out-and-out conflict; that they can be solved and are best solved by discussion and negotiation. If differences cannot be resolved, then an impartial and fair umpire intervenes and adjudicates the dispute. But the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who is walking out of the chamber, does not understand this. He does not understand that Australians believe in a fair go. He is the minister for scapegoating. He believes that the role of the government is as a crusader for big business interests. In his own words, he is `on the side of private capital'. He believes the government should take sides in industrial disputes. He believes the government should intervene in Industrial Relations Commission hearings and help employers seek injunctions against industrial action.We have seen the saga of the Hunter Valley Coalmine No. 1 dispute when he actually promoted a view that the CFMEU and Rio Tinto should just slug it out, regardless of the impact on employment, on the economy and on local living standards. It amazes me that the current minister has not learnt any lessons from the Patrick fiasco of last year. The thousands of ordinary citizens who joined with the MUA at peaceful assemblies around the nation surely should have shown Mr Reith that Australians do not like their government taking a partisan role in industrial relations.But what did we see? A series of question times in which little by little the information came out. It was like the script of a bad movie: Dubai mercenaries, Army troops being trained, balaclavas, dogs and mace on the wharves. What we saw here was a bad movie with the minister playing the role of a cross between an angry Mr Sheen and Rambo on Viagra charging in on the waterfront on the side of private capital.This experience surely should have shown Mr Reith the advantages of a well regulated industrial relations system. Instead, what we saw in the minister's leaked document was a hard-right ideological manifesto secretly delivered to the Prime Minister. Once the document's contents were revealed, he ended up releasing it to the press gallery himself, complete with attachments. The community division caused by tactics used during the wharf dispute does not worry him. Instead, he presses for the acceleration of labour market deregulation. He wants to further reduce the ability of the Industrial Relations Commission to resolve disputes fairly and peacefully. He wants to pare back the safety net role of awards to a bare minimum and introduce even lower wages for the long-term unemployed and workers in regional areas. What this minister wants is an American style working poor: low wage, low skills, people who are forced to work in two or even three jobs just to have enough money to feed their families.Mr Reith proposes incentives to employers to hire the long-term unemployed as follows:Incentives to employers to hire the long-term unemployed could be supplemented by considering the introduction of a discounted wage for the long-term unemployed . . . and by exempting the long-term unemployed for a defined period from the unfair dismissal provisions . . . It is not enough that the long-term unemployed have suffered so much; they are to be stigmatised. And even when they find a job they are to be standing next to their fellow worker on less pay and with no ability to fight back if they are sacked by an unfair employer. It is saying to the long-term unemployed, `You will be forever second-class citizens.' And this is all to hide the government's pathetic effort on long-term unemployment which, despite their saying the economy is going so well, has increased from 28.4 per cent by five per cent up to a January 1999 rate of 33.6 per cent.Of course, this minister tried to take on the MUA and he did not do too well. So he has decided now to fight it a different way. He could not win against the men of the MUA, so he will fight the boys and girls of Australia. And that is why he has introduced this youth exploitation bill which was rejected in the Senate the other night. In proposing this bill, this government alleged that it was `attempting to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market'. The reality is that this bill, if reintroduced, will result in low paid young workers who will be exploited by ruthless companies with the assistance of this government. Every time a wage increase is argued for in this country, it is argued against by the forces of capital which Peter Reith represents, on the grounds that it will cost jobs. We heard exactly the same argument against equal pay for women. It is appropriate that in the week in which we have had International Women's Day those arguments should be confined to the dustbin of history.Contrary to what this government would like the Australian people to believe, the union movement has taken a mature and sensible approach to the issue of junior rates of pay over the years. This fairness and equity has been achieved in certain industries by moving away from age based wage setting and implementing a competency based or skills acquired system of wage fixation. And what is wrong with that? But the minister's attitude on this is consistent with the way he continually misleads the Australian public.Regarding unfair dismissals, when he introduced the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill (No. 2), he said in this House on 26 November 1997:The exemption applies only to businesses employing 15 or fewer employees. This size of small business was chosen because of the precedent provided by the Employment Protection Act 1982 (NSW), introduced by the Wran government . . . What nonsense. That legislation was in fact to apply to people who were redundant in the wake of the 1981-82 recession. There is a massive difference. If the minister for industrial relations does not understand the difference between termination and redundancy, then I think he should go and have a look again. It is typical of this minister that in introducing draconian reactionary legislation he tries to blame someone else—in this case, the Wran Labor government, when even the Greiner government and the Fahey government in New South Wales did not try to move down that track.We see it again with his statement about AWAs. We had the commitment that no worker would be worse off under the Howard government. And we argued against the government's proposals at the election, because we said that once people changed jobs employers could exploit them by saying, `Either you sign this AWA or you do not get a job and the person behind you in the queue will take it.' It is becoming standard practice. There is now a test case before the Federal Court to see if this take it or leave it approach indeed amounts to duress. It is quite clear in my mind that it does.What we see in this minister—whether you look at disputes such as the maritime dispute, whether you look at the issue of youth wages, whether you look at AWAs, whether you look at the unfair dismissal legislation—is one who is partisan and ideologically driven. We see a minister who stands up every time for the interests of private capital. But it is not getting the minister too far, it must be said, because, looking around the chamber here, I am doing a bit better than the minister. Here he is, a challenger for the leadership, and he just got into double figures. If you count the minister himself, there were 10 people in the chamber whilst he debated a matter of public importance which was seriously questioning and condemning his performance.I believe that there is something else that has got to be said about the youth wages legislation which highlights how partisan this minister is. He talks all the time about these individuals and attempts to reduce what is effectively a structural problem to the relationship between an individual, the young woman on the front page of the Daily Telegraph today, the government and the industrial relations system. I think this partisan minister would be taken a bit more seriously if just once he had something to say about someone like Bob Joss and his package when he walked away.MK6MOSSFIELDMr Mossfield—How much did he get?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The estimated package over the six-year period in salary and in shares is $45 million. But we do not see anything about that. If you look at salaries at the top end of town, we see increases of 50 per cent in one year for the head of the Macquarie Bank, 40 per cent for the head of the Commonwealth Bank and 54 per cent of the head of ANZ. We see all that, but we have a minister who has nothing to say about it. He talks about young people trying to earn a quid, and we hear rhetoric from these people over here that does not stand up to scrutiny. (Time expired)16:08:003617Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—There are three issues here today in this discussion of a matter of public importance. Adverse consequences are mentioned and the words `misleading' and `partisan' are used. Let us deal first with what have been the adverse consequences claimed by those opposite. Unemployment is the lowest it has been basically all this decade. Real wages under Labor decreased 10 per cent under a fixed, centralised system. They have increased five per cent since 1996 and the legislation brought in by this government. Unemployment down since 1990—fact. Real wage increase under this government—fact. Industrial disputes the lowest since 1913—fact. It is indisputable, despite Bill Kelty stating before the 1996 election that World War III would break out if the coalition was elected. They are empty threats, and we will hear a bit more about threats a little later on. The fact is that we have the lowest level of industrial relations disputes since 1913.On the Job Network, as a minister said at the dispatch box yesterday, the CES in February 1998 placed 12,000 eligible job seekers into work. In the corresponding month, February 1999, under the Job Network 24,000 eligible job seekers were placed in work. That is not an adverse consequence in my opinion or in the opinion of anybody who has just received work under this scheme. The policies of this government are delivering to the Australian workplace and the Australian economy.On Work for the Dole, there was an interesting little interjection today by the Leader of the Opposition that was probably not picked up by Hansard. When the question was raised about Work for the Dole, his comment was, referring to 18,000 participants, `Is that all?' So has he now changed his rhetoric around, saying, `Let's put more people into Work for the Dole'—the same program that he wanted thrown out only 12 months ago? Of course, now he realises there is overwhelming support from the public, not only those who are participating but also from the wider community. Forty-two per cent of those 18,000 people have gone on to a job, higher education or training. The point to remember here is that these were long-term unemployed people, people who had been churned through short-term labour market programs by those opposite, which is how they got their long-term unemployed rate down to short-term unemployed rate. Ours is a policy that has worked for people. It has put this government in good stead with the public and has made your failings that much more evident to the wider community.Now we protect youth wages. We have moved in this House, and it has now been rejected in the Senate, that we should protect youth wages for the years to come. I spoke this very day to a person who employs young people in the tourism industry, a guest house operator employing four young people. They have already made the decision that those four young people will be dismissed on 23 June 2000 if this is not taken over. Labor is condemning those young people. They will know that they have that hanging over their head now and will have that hanging over their head for the next 12 months. That is what you are condemning young people to. As it starts to drift through the ether out there and into the universities and the high schools, they say, `What is this? Our competitive advantage is going to be taken away by people who have no understanding for us.' Those are the people who sit in here in their ivory towers and try to make out that they are there for the workers. I will point out shortly that they are there for 24 per cent of the workers, the union work force and no other.What we have already outlined is that the Job Network has worked; Work for the Dole has worked; and we know that protecting youth wages is what is needed in Australia. Unemployment is down, real wage increases have been delivered under this government and industrial disputations are down. That is delivering choice, that is delivering opportunity and that is delivering incentive to the work force of Australia.Now we talk about misleading. They went on and on about how Minister Reith has somehow misled people. What a load of bunkum. This minister has put on the record from day one where he stands. We stood by youth wages in the last election and we have delivered on that promise in this chamber. But who has been pushing for a central wage fixing system again in this term? Those opposite say that the central wage fixing system is gone, it is a thing of the past, it was a mistake perhaps that should not be revisited. At the same time they are saying that, Deputy Opposition Leader Crean is running around out there talking up the unions and trying to set up another accord. So once again he is duplicitous in what he is trying to achieve. Why go back to a failed system which does not deliver choice to workers when it has delivered in fact lower real wage outcomes for the work force of Australia? It was supported by Keating, who was rejected by the public; it was supported by Hawke, who was rejected by his own side; and Beazley is going to find himself rejected in the same manner in the not too distant future.They went on and on about a supposedly partisan approach that this minister has taken. Let us look at who led the speeches today—the honourable member for Batman. Looking up his biography on the Internet, it states:Federal Research Officer, Miscellaneous Workers' Union. . . Assistant General Secretary, Miscellaneous Workers' Union. . . General Secretary, Miscellaneous Workers' Union. . . Member, Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive. . . Vice-President, Australian Council of Trade Unions. . . President, Australian Council of Trade Unions. . . Member, ILO, Governing Body. . . Life Member, Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union. . .He is representing today in this place not all the electors but the 24 per cent of the work force in the unions. That is whom he is representing.As for your employment spokesman, the member for Brisbane was also an organiser—of the Queensland Teachers Union—and was the Deputy Secretary of the Queensland Teachers Union from 1980 to 1990. He had a real job for two years in his life—he was a teacher from 1975 to 1977. This is what he had to say in a recent speech about whom he actually supports. Does he support the work force in general or does he support one small part of the work force? He states:Our own experience and that of other like nations tells us that the most productive enterprises are those with secure, well trained and well remunerated workers.Then he goes on to say:The very best of those are unionised.That is all he has to say—`Unions, unions, unions.'In fact, there is a very substantial body of research—he goes on to say—to support . . . that a unionised workforce with progressive management is the most productive combination.The fact is that the best and most productive workers are those who work hand in glove with their employers. They are more productive because they have a working relationship one on one.Those opposite are trying to take us back to the days when we did not have good communications, when it was important for an individual to be represented collectively because we could not disseminate information. Today we have heard nothing more than class warfare from those opposite, talking about the rich over the poor and talking about the unions rather than the work force as a whole.I said earlier that I would come back to a threat. Bill Kelty issued a threat to us, saying that we would have more industrial disputation after we were elected in 1996. Of course, that has been proven to be incorrect. So what does the member for Brisbane say in a recent speech? This is very incisive so please have a close listen:There is a simple fact of political life and human nature that is worth recalling. It is unrealistic to encourage and support conservative governments following radical IR policies and then expect a future Labor government to pursue moderate policies. As with most things, the pressure for an equal and opposite reaction grows proportionately. The further this government drives the pendulum to the right, the greater the pressure for Labor to pull it back, and back to a higher mark. You want to go further than you ever went in the last 13 years. You want to have a centralised wage fixing system. You want to take away choice from workers. You want to put it back directly into the hands of the few, the union leaders who will find themselves in this place in the years to come.We saw the members for Capricornia and Hunter issue a press release on the 16th of last month after the Gordonstone dispute in Queensland blew up. Did they support the workers up there? No, they supported only the CFMEU workers. The press release said:This caucus—in a caucus motion which everyone of you unanimously voted for—expresses its support and solidarity with the CFMEU—not with the work force. Wake up to yourselves. Twenty-four per cent of the work force is in the union work force. Add it up—76 per cent is not.If you want to be representative of the workers, you should start supporting all workers, from the 15-year-olds that want to start work in this country right through to the 65-year-olds who want to see it through. You have neglected Australia's work force; you will continue to neglect Australia's work force. This minister and this government are delivering. The facts are that we have lower unemployment, lower industrial disputes and higher real wages. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Parliamentary Zone3619361910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the Joint House Department for construction of the Western Formal Gardens. Miscellaneous36193619Motion (by Mr Fahey)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 8, private members' business, being called on forthwith.361916:20:003619Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I move:That the Public Works Committee Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998, No. 310, made under the Public Works Committee Act 1969, be disallowed.I did not lightly decide to instigate this disallowance motion, but I believe, fundamentally, it was a wrong move by the government and it sends a wrong message. It is a surrender of parliamentary power and scrutiny to the bureaucrats and it is a decision that this government and future governments will regret. Had the public known of this move, the minister's office would have been flooded with protest telephone calls and protest letters.Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is far too important to leave to the bureaucrats and, given the mess they have made of Sydney airport, they have not shown that Sydney airport should be surrendered to their care. In the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 9 March, it was reported that there were growing calls for an independent inquiry into airport management. Could anyone think of a worse time to be surrendering parliamentary scrutiny? It is sheer folly—an inquiry into airport management and the government removes the last layer of parliamentary scrutiny!I know the argument that government members will make: that Sydney airport is no different from other airports. But it is different from other airports. They have been privatised; Sydney airport has not been privatised. I do not argue with the removal from the scrutiny of the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works of the airports that have been privatised but, as I said, Sydney airport has not been privatised. It is 100 per cent in government ownership.The government did not privatise Sydney airport for understandable reasons, but this government has now given in to the bureaucrats and will let them have unfettered running of the airport. People often complain about the inability to influence parliament. One way is through public hearings of committees of the parliament. This has always been the great strength of the Public Works Committee, especially with reference to airports. Most people accept the need for an airport, but they do not want it in their own backyard—have a look at Badgerys and various other airports.No airport has generated more controversy over the past decade than Sydney airport. During the public hearing process we always have a huge attendance. We have conducted inquiries at Sydney airport on things ranging from the car parking to the new road system to the sprinkler system to the new stand areas—all the vast range of works that have been going on there. People came to that committee and put their arguments either for or against the proposal. That is what the bureaucrats hate. This is what they have been trying to avoid for many years. They do not want the public to have a say. They want to make their decisions in secret and then impose them on the public.Another argument I am sure the minister, having been briefed by the bureaucrats, will use is that the Public Works Committee process delays the work. This is an absolute nonsense and anyone from either side of the chamber who has served on the committee, under both Labor and coalition administrations, will know that this is a folly. Because of the importance of the Sydney airport to the Olympics, the committee many years ago took a decision to expedite all work there. At no time have we delayed one aspect of Sydney airport work and absolutely no-one can point to any case where we have delayed any work at all at Sydney airport. We have always given co-current documentation, we have allowed expressions of interest to be called even before the reports have been tabled and we would often have hearings of a Friday or a Monday of a sitting week. Under no circumstances can it be claimed that the committee ever delayed any work. Those who make this claim—as they will—should be forced to produce the evidence.I have been around long enough to see this attempted bureaucrat takeover before. When Labor was in power, two Labor ministers tried to exempt the Sydney airport from Public Works Committee scrutiny at different times. On one occasion it got as far as our caucus notice paper and it was not until I turned up at the caucus and read it in the notice paper that I knew that this was on—I knew the bureaucrats had been at the minister yet again. We soon got that removed from the caucus paper. I lived through threats from various ministers, but I always stood firm, especially on Sydney airport, because I believe fundamentally that, of all the airports in Australia and all the public works that the Public Works Committee scrutinises, the Sydney airport is the very one in most need of scrutiny.The bureaucrats associated with the Sydney airport hate the Public Works Committee. They hate having to be accountable. They hate public scrutiny. It will be to the minister's everlasting shame that he has been snowed by the bureaucrats. It is no `Yes Minister' here; it is a weak and compliant minister, a minister not knowing what is happening being snowed by his bureaucrats. The minister may go along with it, he may talk the government members into going along with it and he may force them to vote for it, but do not expect us on this side to vote along with it.What are we really talking about? What is involved and why is it so important? The Public Works Committee by act of parliament has to examine and report to parliament on every public work in excess of $6 million. The very fact that the bureaucrats have to justify expenditure often means that this committee makes many savings—millions and millions of dollars—that this parliament often never hears anything about. I could go on about the $35 million saved on the Albion decontamination project in Melbourne—that was report No. 6 of 1997—or the $10 million saved on the Australian Geological Survey Organisation project or how, under the chairmanship of the current Minister for Forestry and Conservation, up to $50 million was saved on the east coast armaments depot. This is taxpayers' money that the committee saved.The committee has a reputation for doing its job and this is what upsets the bureaucrats so much. The bureaucrats want to be answerable to no-one—least of all to parliament. It is not their money; it is the taxpayers' money. So they want to spend it how they like and how dare parliament interfere. Imagine the joy when the bureaucrats knew they had a weak minister in the Minister for Finance and Administration and a compliant minister in the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.If people want to fully understand the issues involved, they should obtain a copy of the report of the 9 February briefing by the bureaucrats of the Public Works Committee. It is a public document. It is good reading and I recommend it to anyone really wanting to know what we are up against with the bureaucrats. It is all in this report.How much money are we really talking about? The bureaucrats admitted before the Public Works Committee last month that their borrowing program was $1.45 billion. If they go belly up, who will pick up the tab? Let me quote the chair of the committee, the member for Pearce, who at the 9 February 1999 briefing posed the question to the bureaucrats:So if you made decisions that created a financial problem there could be an implication in terms of the expenditure of taxpayers' money.Mr Mrdak, Assistant Secretary, Airports Environment, Department of Transport and Regional Services, on page 16 said:That is right.There you have it. You and I, the taxpayers, will be responsible for this $1.45 billion that they are going to borrow. And they want no scrutiny. The minister says that no scrutiny is needed for $1.45 billion of taxpayers' money. In the next two years, in an orgy of spending, this unsupervised group of bureaucrats will spend $700 million of taxpayers' money at Sydney airport and they do not believe and the minister does not believe that they should have any supervision at all; they should just have carte blanche to shovel money at Sydney airport.This parliament, if it does not vote the measure down, will be complying with rorts and shonky deals. We on this side will push this to the vote because, when the corrupt tendering practices are revealed, when the deals that are done are revealed and when the shoddy work is revealed, it will be on the public record as to who voted to exclude this group of bureaucrats from parliamentary scrutiny.They cannot run Sydney airport now. You only have to pick up the paper any day of the week and read about Sydney airport, whether it is a radar system, the queues there or whatever. The bureaucrats cannot run Sydney airport now and yet we are going to let them raise $1.45 billion and spend an unsupervised $700 million to paper over the inadequacies and shortcomings of Sydney airport. A more glaring example of dereliction of duty could not be recorded.It will be on the public record, when the rorts and shonky deals are revealed, as inevitably they will be. I say that because there will be a huge amount of pressure to get Sydney airport completely finished for the Olympics. In that case there will be shonky work done, there will be shonky deals done and there will be millions and millions of dollars spent unsupervised. One day it will all come to light. It will be revealed, and that is what the bureaucrats do not want: they do not want any scrutiny of that at all.Recently it came to light that, because of shonky deals in relation to the Olympic village, there was an $11 million rort. That was only two weeks ago. When we are talking about $700 million or $1.45 billion, $11 million is really not a lot of money. That $11 million was the result of the pressures to get that housing finished and the deals that had been done there. This group now want to throw $700 million of taxpayers' dollars at Sydney airport in a spending frenzy.I do not mind their spending the money; it can be justified. I do not object to the $700 million going to finish Sydney airport, but at a time when calls are being made to investigate the management would any person in their right mind let this crowd loose with $700 million? Would they let them loose with absolutely no supervision and remove the one layer of supervision that this crowd has at the moment? The track record of those running Sydney airport is abysmal.Where in this is the member for Bradfield, the chair of the airport task force? Does he know about this? Where does he stand on this issue? What about the member for Cook, who came into this parliament last night and made a speech about Sydney airport? What about the member for North Sydney, the current Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who had been the chair of the Sydney airport task force, or even the member for Hughes? Has it been discussed in the coalition party room? I bet it has not been discussed there. Where do those members stand on these issues?When the vote is called—and it will be called because we intend to call it—they will all troop in here and blindly vote with the government. But what will they be voting for? They will be voting, as I will inform each of their constituents, to allow the management of Sydney airport to spend $700 million of their money on schemes over the next two years and to borrow an unsupervised amount of $1.45 billion. It will be too late to come in here then and cry crocodile tears. They will vote to allow Sydney airport's management and its expenditure to be totally unsupervised—always knowing that the taxpayer is the bunny who, at the end of the day, will pick up the tab.Finally, we have to ask: what would be gained? At the Public Works Committee meeting on 9 February 1999 the member for Oxley, a member of the committee, on page 16, asked:Specifically what benefits would be gained either practically or economically, in terms of not having to report to this committee?Ms Hodge, who is legal counsel for Sydney airport, replied:I suppose management time in the sense that the requirements in the Airport Act are quite onerous and it takes up a lot of management time to comply with those requirements.That was the reason given: the bureaucrats, who are on thousands of dollars—much more money than what we are on—found it onerous to come before a parliamentary committee. That was their own admission. That is the only reason that they want it: they find it onerous, in terms of their time, to come before a committee. Ms Hodge went on to say:I go back to my original point of it being another layer of oversight. From a point of principle, one considers whatever competitors are required to comply with, and then we see that there are reasonable grounds for requesting an exemption, also having regard to the two grounds for seeking an exemption under the PWC act.That was their reason. I then said:So is it a matter of principle with you? It is not economic or anything, but just principle?The bureaucrats do not want to spend their time justifying the borrowing of $1.45 billion or the spending of $700 million. They find it onerous. Well, tough.This is what this whole thing is about. The bureaucrats want to, unsupervised, borrow $1.45 billion and, over the next two years, shovel $700 million into Sydney airport. They want to do it without scrutiny and the last thing they want is a parliamentary committee overseeing them. It is a disgrace that the minister has allowed himself to be snowed.I have great respect for the minister, whom I have known for many years. I am sure that he was unaware of this. Maybe it was an onerous aspect of his job. I realise that he would have many papers crossing his desk and I know how the bureaucrats can snow ministers who have a very heavy workload.I say to the minister that it is not too late to reconsider. He need not push it; he can vote with us on this issue and not disallow this motion because it is a very important issue. We hear much about parliamentary scrutiny today. It is important that we have parliamentary scrutiny. We are not talking about small amounts of money; we are talking about huge amounts of money.The Public Works Committee—and this is no reflection on the current chair or even the former chair—was snowed under with this. The former chair of the committee, now the minister, received a letter which left the minister's office two days before parliament was dissolved, indicating that this course of action was going to be followed. The committee was dissolved when parliament was dissolved. We first became aware of this I think on 8 December at the first meeting of the new committee. We immediately asked for a briefing and we received that briefing at the next meeting of the committee, which was on 9 February. At that time I think it had two days to run—I believe it was a Tuesday—and the motion would have become law two days later. That is why we decided to move this disallowance motion. It is an important motion.I know how this place works. I know on this side we do not have the numbers and this disallowance motion will probably be voted down. It will be a great tragedy if that happens. We on this side of the House are not going to let go of this matter. We will continue raising the issue. We will raise it in all possible avenues, in the media and with the constituents of members who vote for it. Any member of this federal parliament who votes to let a group of bureaucrats loose on something like Sydney airport, to allow them, unsupervised, to borrow $1.45 billion—$1.45 billion we are talking about!—and to shovel $700 million at Sydney airport in a spending frenzy over the next two years is derelict in their duty.We should vote for this disallowance motion and we should not proceed with it. I would ask those on the other side, who know that I am right on this matter, to cross the floor and vote with us. Do not let the bureaucrats have a victory. Do not let them get away with it. Stand up for parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the motion seconded?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:40:003623Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I listened with great interest to the contribution made by the mover of the motion, the honourable member for Throsby. I find it a little sad that, after all these years of serving on the Public Works Committee, which I understand he has contributed to significantly over those years, he should get this particular matter so wrong. I say that in this context. In the course of his remarks, he made reference to the fact that Sydney airport is controversial. Yes, it is controversial. It is controversial because there is a massive amount of building and construction that has been going on in recent times. In the course of that building and construction, there has been a fair degree of inconvenience suffered by the travelling public.The complaints that I get in respect of that are: `When is Sydney Airport Corporation going to finish this work off and make it more convenient? When is there going to be proper access to the taxis? When are you going to be able to get to the car park without getting wet?' The other controversy, which I think was what the honourable member for Throsby was referring to, has absolutely nothing to do with the Sydney Airport Corporation. It is what occurs in the context of flight paths and planes coming in and going on and where they fly over. All honourable members have heard a fair bit about that over the years. If you know anything about Sydney, you know a lot about flight paths. That controversy has absolutely nothing to do with the Sydney Airport Corporation.He went on to say that here we have $1.5 billion shovelled into shonky deals. I point out to the honourable member for Throsby that all of the works that are being conducted at the present time—that is, the construction works—were approved when Sydney airport was under the umbrella of the Federal Airports Corporation. In the course of putting those proposals for construction work on the international and domestic terminals—the car park and the new bridge that is going over the Georges River—all of that was referred by the Federal Airports Corporation to the Public Works Committee. And it was scrutinised and approved by the honourable member for Throsby and his colleagues.That proceeded to a point where government determined last year that it needed to corporatise the operation of Sydney airport to ensure that it was placed on a similar footing to the airports that had been sold. The honourable member for Throsby indicated to us that he did not mind that the airports that were sold were not subjected to the Public Works Committee and that they should deal with their construction works and any building programs in a normal, corporate fashion.But he wants to put the government's instrumentality that has been corporatised into a separate category. He wants them to be subjected in a way in which the competitors at Melbourne, Brisbane and even Canberra are not subjected. He thinks that is appropriate. So he is worried about the shonky shovelling of $1.5 billion into a construction program at Sydney airport, which was scrutinised and approved—it certainly was not knocked over by the Public Works Committee—when the Federal Airports Corporation had the umbrella management of that airport, along with many others. On this occasion they said that, because there has been a change, it is nothing to do with the building program that is there. He wants to say, `This can't happen. This has got to be stopped.'This was done in a way which is very similar to what Labor did all of these years. Where were you, honourable member for Throsby, when the former government sought to exempt Aerospace Technologies of Australia Ltd; when it sought to exempt the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation; when it sought to exempt the Australian Industry Development Corporation? Multibillions of dollars were in that particular industry bank. Where were you when the former government gave an exemption to the Australian National Railways Corporation? I would have thought the Railways Corporation had a reasonable public works type program. There is a fair bit of construction involved in railways.Where were you when the former government gave an exemption to the forerunner of that great and wonderful company Telstra, which is rapidly progressing in the services it is providing to all Australians at the present time? It was not a small capital works program when it was Telecom. It was not a small capital public works program when it was the old post and telecommunications organisation. The Labor government gave an exemption then.Where was the honourable member for Throsby when an exemption was given to the Pipeline Authority? I would have thought the Pipeline Authority could do a bit of construction and get the gas from the Cooper Basin to the people on the eastern seaboard, et cetera. I could go through a list of exemptions a mile long where a legitimate exercise of section 6 of the Public Works Committee Act was undertaken by the then minister of the day for purposes of putting those operations on a proper corporate footing. That is what this government has done. I assure you that I knew about it fully and I fully supported it, despite your trying to make allowances for me—I appreciate that you really did want to be nice to me in saying that I was probably snowed or too busy to know about it.The government passed legislation—I think the Airports Act was supported by Labor—that provided a mechanism for all airports, including Sydney airport, to have any building and construction program checked through under provisions which are pretty onerous. The provisions require public comment; they require a draft plan to be prepared; they require a building supervisor to ensure that all of those aspects are looked at thoroughly; they require consultations with state and territory governments and with the local government body. None of those provisions are there currently.They were not there when your committee looked at the Federal Airports Corporation. Consultation with local government or with any other person—with the whole of the community—or consultation with an airline or other user of an airport are provisions that are contained in the Airports Act. Then the draft has to be approved by the minister and then there is a requirement for it to be properly looked at. This is an extremely onerous process.In seeking to have this exemption thrown out, the honourable member for Throsby wants the Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd to be subjected to all of the things that apply to Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Coolangatta, Townsville and all those other airports that the government sold. He wants the Airports Act and its provisions to apply to all those airports and to Sydney Airport Corporation, because that is the way it has been set up, and as well he wants the Public Works Committee to have a go. It has already had a go, and we all know that Sydney airport is going to be sold.It was going to be sold by the Labor Party, and we have never made any bones about the fact that, as a government, at the appropriate time we will also move to sell. That will be after the noise abatement program—which, if not complete, is almost complete—and insulation of homes and public buildings around Mascot airport has been completed and a decision made on the second Sydney airport. And that has its own controversies attached to it. Those decisions have to be taken, and then the intention is to sell the airport. That is what Labor was proposing and made some moves to do just that.In that context, you are saying that in the period before it is sold you want doubly onerous provisions put on this corporate body under the Corporations Law: to be required to be out there in a competitive marketplace, to be subjected to all of the provisions of the Corporations Law, and to be required to trade on a level playing field. All of those provisions are there and yet you say, `No, we want to put extra provisions and extra burdens on them.' Why didn't you do that to Telstra? Why didn't you do it to the Commonwealth Bank? Why didn't you do it to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and the Health Insurance Commission? Why didn't you do it to the Australian Industry Development Corporation or the Pipeline Authority? Why didn't you do it to all of those bodies that you exempted in your time in government? Because you exercised an appropriate operation of law and an appropriate operation of government by exempting them in those circumstances, and yet you see this as the exception. It simply does not make sense. Let me address some of the other issues—so they do not hang there—about the $1.45 billion that has been poured into this, which is all so shonky.Mr Hollis interjecting—HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—As anyone who passes through Sydney airport would see—particularly in the international terminal—the program has given a massive upgrade and improvement. Yes, the Olympics are coming and, yes, we want it fully operational—that program is quite extensive. It relates to a number of areas, including the redevelopment of the international freight areas. It relates to the aprons. It relates to the runways, and you will see the bulldozers and the various other pieces of heavy equipment that are out there at the present time. I mentioned the bridge, the car parks and the elevated roadways around the domestic terminal—they account for the best part of $700 million. The other $750 million was simply, in the corporatised fashion, a return of the taxpayers' investment in that airport—that is, a cash payment to the Commonwealth on behalf of the taxpayers for all that the Commonwealth has put into that airport over the years.We hear about them going broke and us picking up the pieces. I have to say to you that we now have a commitment, with $700 million going to improving and upgrading the asset. That is the commitment there. There is another $750 million coming back to the taxpayers of Australia for the money that they put in previously. The last valuation of Sydney airport I recall seeing was somewhere in the vicinity of $4 billion, so there is a reasonable debt to equity level. If you look at the value of the first three airports that were sold, the taxpayers got a return of something like $3.3 billion, so I think it is a reasonable sort of approach.There is very much a business like approach to the operation of that airport—not the take-offs and the landings and the flight paths and the control towers, which Sydney Airport Corporation does not control—and to the provision of services inside the terminal. Whether it be the retail outlets or other services, I can say that there is a massive amount of work going on which I inspected just before Christmas. It would be well worth while for all honourable members who are interested to have a look, and I would be happy to arrange it. The work is about such things as the baggage underneath, about the number of windows for people to get their tickets checked through and for their baggage over the counter. All of it is to ensure that there is an efficient operation in the lead-up to the Olympics.So what we see here is a rather silly approach to set aside something that successive governments have done over a number of years. In that context, as I say, the scrutiny is quite considerable. Let me just say that, in terms of what is the management, there is a board. That board of course must report to the minister—in this case as the shareholding minister, to me. How does the parliament get scrutiny? Ministers of the Crown, as the honourable members opposite would know, are always accountable to the parliament for any matter that might be raised in here or through any of the other processes of parliament, and I accept that responsibility.There are times, I have to say, where I would be delighted to see the Public Works Committee take a good look at some of the areas of government, and I am happy to talk to the honourable members about that at some point in time. But in this case, please, put this company on the same footing as the other airports, its competitors. Do what successive governments have done: give them the opportunity that the Corporations Law is designed for in allowing them to trade profitably, to put a return into the taxpayers and to provide that service in the most efficient possible way in terms of the improvements that that $700 million is going into.How is it controlled? The bulk of the construction is fixed lump-sum contracts. You would probably be aware of this from the process of examining it in the days when the Federal Airports Corporation had control of it. There are bonuses for early completion—there is nothing unusual about that. If we can get them there sooner rather than later, and have the operation going more efficiently sooner rather than later, with the opportunity to trade better, that is what we would want. There are liquidated damages for late completion. That is the protection that has been built in to it.There is a project manager and audits that are being independently conducted on the various stages of progress of the construction projects, and that audit has been conducted by Findlay Consultants on a quarterly basis. They report their findings to the board and the board reports to me.So there is a pretty fair mechanism there; it is called the Airports Act. It is probably more onerous than anything that the Public Works Committee was capable of injecting into this particular area because of the strict liability that attaches to it. That puts Sydney airport on the same basis as all the other airports in Australia which it must compete against. What we have here is, sadly, I think, a complete misunderstanding, despite the years of service by the honourable member for Throsby. There is no need in these circumstances for this to occur. The controls are in place. (Time expired)16:55:003626Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—At the outset, can I assure the Minister for Finance and Administration that it is not a misunderstanding by the member for Throsby, your own chair of the Public Works Committee, me or any other member who has been appointed by this parliament to serve on the Public Works Committee.I find rather alarming that at the very beginning of this debate, in the minister's reply to the motion as moved by the honourable member for Throsby, he gave us a five-minute rendition of where he was wrong rather than saying where we believe the action was wrong. I also find it rather alarming that we have the minister for finance get up in this parliament and admit to us and the gallery that he does not know the difference between privatisation and corporatisation.The other airports he is referring to, and with which he wishes to put the Sydney airport on a level playing field, are privatised, which is quite different from what Sydney is at this moment. Sydney is not privatised. Sydney is still 100 per cent owned by the people of this country. To have a minister for finance get up and say, `Well, really, why didn't the Labor Party or the Public Works Committee object when all of these other areas were privatised?' The Public Works Committee was not involved in it. The fact of the matter is that it is not a debate on privatisation; it is a debate on how this regulation was pushed through to exclude the Public Works Committee.In saying that, I think one has to look at the history of how it did come about. As everyone would realise, the Public Works Committee, as constituted, was first brought into this House in 1913. It was in 1913 that our predecessors decided that the expenditure of taxpayers' pounds, as it was then, had to have greater scrutiny than it had had up until that date. So, in 1913, after a very lengthy debate, the parliament of Australia set up a Public Works Committee so that it could become the guardian of the taxpayers' dollars. From 1913, the power of the Public Works Committee has been increased. We have now, in 1999, this minister and this Prime Minister wanting to take away the power of the Public Works Committee. This is the first step of many in which we will see implementations of this sort come about.We on this side of the House are saying, `There has got to come a stage when you draw the line.' This is a stage in the public works where we as parliamentarians believe the line must be drawn. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now take you through the history of how and why this came about. We have, as I said, a Public Works Committee already resurrected, a Public Works Committee that has been praised by countless ministers, whether they be the minister for finance leaving the House, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services or the Minister for Defence—and I might add that I have only just been appointed to it.We have had countless reports since 1916, when the very first document was laid in this House, the first report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which I have researched. I might add for the benefit of the minister leaving the House that the building of Sydney airport was not started until 1920, yet the power of this committee was already in existence; it tabled its first report four years before Sydney airport even came onto the planning boards. Yet now we want to take the power away from an investigating committee guarding the taxpayers' dollars. I know our chair agrees with us, because it is a very hardworking, bipartisan committee. It occurred not through her fault or our fault—we are not blaming past committees or present committees; we are blaming the system. On 28 August 1998, the current minister for finance wrote to the then chairman of the Public Works Committee and said, `I wish to now withdraw, or put into a regulation so that I can withdraw, the power of the Public Works Committee investigating anything to do with Sydney airport,' or words to that effect. He said:The Airports Act, and the regulations made under it, subject airport operators to stringent land use, planning and building controls. These include requirements that a Commonwealth Government-appointed airport building controller. . .Fair enough. He wanted to put that through and he wrote to the chairman of the Public Works Committee. But what the minister failed to tell those who are listening to this debate, and those who are sitting in this parliament now as part of this debate, is that when that letter was written to Mr Wilson Tuckey on 28 August 1998 the Public Works Committee did not meet. The parliament was prorogued because of the election.The Public Works Committee then had to be resurrected by this parliament. It was not resurrected as a committee until something like 9 December. What did we have as the first item of business when that new committee was formed under our current chair, the honourable member for Pearce? We had a motion before us stating that this power was going to be removed from the Public Works Committee because, after all, the Minister for Finance and Administration wrote to Mr Tuckey on 28 August and he did not get a reply. The Public Works Committee dealt with that matter very quickly. I commend the chair of the Public Works Committee on how quickly she did put a letter together, which was sent to the parliamentary secretary on 10 December. I quote from part of that letter:I refer to the letter from the Minister for Finance and Administration, the Hon John Fahey. . .. . . . . . . . .At its first meeting, the Committee—us, the Public Works Committee—resolved that I write to you to request a full briefing on this proposal and the extent to which any procedures under the Airports Act 1996 require a full public consultation process before new works can commence. Committee members were also concerned that the necessary amendments to the Public Works Regulations were tabled in the House on 23 November, without—I repeat `without'—further reference to the Committee and that these amendments will be in force at the end of the first sitting week in 1999 unless a disallowance motion is moved and carried.Committee members are reluctant to relinquish their scrutiny role in relation to major airports, as this provides the only accessible avenue for public examination of such proposals and would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this with you. It would be appreciated if a meeting could be arranged before the expiration of the disallowance period. . .The letter was signed by the chair, Judi Moylan. We then had a letter back from Mr Slipper on 7 January, saying, `I'm sorry, Judi, but you actually wrote to the wrong person.' It was not through any fault of our own. We were advised that the committee falls under the direct responsibility of Minister Fahey and that it was appropriate that the committee obtain a briefing from Mr Fahey's office.Immediately then, on 13 January, we received another letter, from Minister Fahey, stating that Mr Slipper, his parliamentary secretary, had passed it on to him. He noted our concerns in relation to the timing of these amendments. He then stated:However as your letter notes, I wrote to the then Chairman of the Committee on 28 August 1998 advising of the Government's intention to amend the PWC Regulations to exempt the Airport Corporation.. . . . . . . . .As airport lessees, these companies are subject to the Airports Act 1996 (the Airports Act). . . That puts in some chronological order why we in the Public Works Committee objected. In the first place, the committee was not resurrected; there was no committee. In the second place, when the first letter was written, there was no reply, because the then chairman had no right to reply as the parliament had been dissolved. Yet it was allowed to be processed through Minister Fahey into Exec utive Council, knowing full well—the bureaucrats knew it as well—that the committee was not meeting until the day after this matter was to go to Executive Council.That is an affront to any committee of this parliament. It is not just an affront to me, as an opposition Labor person, or to the honourable member for Throsby, as a past chairman, or even to our existing chair. I think it is an insult, even to the current chair of the Public Works Committee, to think that action could possibly be taken, bearing in mind that we had an election in October. We know the committee had not been formed, but at least there could have been some discussion to the effect that, `We're going to push through with this regulation and we're going to make sure that in future the Public Works Committee no longer has control over any action that goes on in the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars or their dollars in Sydney airport.'I believe that consultation should have occurred then. It did not occur, and I am sorry for that. I believe that is why we felt so intensely about this matter. And in saying `we', I do not just refer to those on this side of the House; I refer to `we' collectively, meaning the Public Works Committee. I reiterate that point by referring to the evidence of 9 February, mentioned by the honourable member for Throsby, which clearly expresses the concerns of so many of the members sitting around the table on that day, following the information that was supplied to us by the people who came in to report.Both Minister Fahey in his reply to the honourable member for Throsby and the bureaucrats who gave evidence that day kept referring repeatedly to the act of 1996—the Airports Act. Our chair reminded us—she had the document there that day; a very thick document—that she had gone right through it. She said, `Where is there scrutiny of our taxpayers' dollars?' `Oh, but we're now governed by the Airports Act.' Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, and as every member of this parliament would know, we had before us an amendment to that act last night, and this parliament stifled debate and refused to allow 12-odd speakers from this side of the House to debate the issue.Already, there is going to be change to a regulation which allows the Public Works Committee to scrutinise taxpayers' dollars being spent on Sydney airport because we have got this wonderful Airports Act that was put in place in 1996 and it is already going to govern us. An amendment to the Airports Act was before the House last night and the government would not even allow us to debate the bill. All of our speakers were here, ready to debate the bill, and the debate was gagged. How many more amendments to this legislation are going to be introduced? During this time, we will have meeting after meeting where the Public Works Committee will not be able to scrutinise the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.I believe that in reality what the government is currently attempting to hide is any scrutiny by the public and the parliament. This is why I keep referring back to the Public Works Committee. Having looked at the history of the Public Works Committee, it would be one of the most senior committees, having regard to years of service to this parliament.When I researched the reports of previous public works committees under different chairmen over a period of time, nowhere did I find criticism of the actions of the Public Works Committee. When we are dealing with Sydney airport, I have only to refer to the 1998 report under the then chairman, now the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. The report of the committee stated:The FAC advised the Committee of a proposal to upgrade the airport power supply capacity at the Sydney international terminal at a cost of $5.3 million. The Committee resolved that the matter did not require referral.They wanted to act in such a manner that the work would not be delayed. In the minister's response, he stated:Sydney international airport will be the gateway to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. . . He went on to talk about the additional facilities, what would be required, and appreciating the fact that the then Public Works Committee had investigated the different works. I have not been able to read or research one report where the Public Works Committee, present or past, has been condemned for delaying any action. In fact, when members of our committee specifically asked, `Could you find or provide a precedent where you have been delayed or held up because you have had to appear before the Public Works Committee?' they said, `No, we have not been able to find that.' Even though, in good faith, their corporation had only been there since July last year, they could not find any precedent where the Public Works Committee had at any time delayed them. Even my colleague the honourable member for Mallee said:We have gone out of our way to not impede the progress of what quite rightly has to be hasty progress, particularly if it is Sydney airport and Tullamarine in Melbourne. We have approved concurrent documentation, made definitions about repetitive work in order to facilitate. But we are being asked to forsake what we think is a very important function of this committee to provide public scrutiny of activities at airports.The honourable member for Mallee went on to say in that evidence:I am not all that keen on agreeing to forsake it yet. I have not heard any convincing argument that sways me.We have not heard any convincing argument to date that will persuade us. During that hearing I repeatedly asked, as did the chairman—naturally I had to ask the secretary because the chairman, like myself, had just joined the committee—how many meetings the Public Works Committee had held since the receipt of the letter dated 28 August. The answer was, again, none. The first was when it was brought to our attention and action was taken straight away. Our chairman—I feel sure the honourable member for Pearce will speak after me—stated quite clearly:The concern of this committee is that it is charged with scrutinising government expenditure on behalf of the taxpayer and that the process that it goes through under the Airports Act is not that kind of scrutiny.It is now going to be taken away from us. She continued:We want to be convinced that under the Airports Act there is that kind of scrutiny of the expenditure of public funds—that is, taxpayers' dollars . . .Our chairman went on to say:. . . and we do not see anything. I got the act yesterday and I have been through it. I cannot see anything that provides us with that level of satisfaction that there is proper scrutiny of the expenditure of government funding by taking it out of the Public Works Committee and allowing it to be subject purely to the Airports Act. That is what we are trying to establish. Is this a correct summation?The honourable member for Herbert asked:Can I also confirm that in fact it is the taxpayer who meets any liabilities that might arise in the trading of this operation?Mr Mrdak replied:Yes, to the extent that as a corporate entity, as the shareholder-owner, the Commonwealth is there. But as has been the case with these things, the Commonwealth does not provide guarantees of funding or anything like that. The corporation has to borrow the money . . . But that is not the point. The point of the matter is that, if there is any failure or there are to be any problems, at this stage—the airport not being privatised—it is the Commonwealth, the taxpayers, who are going to bear the burden if there are any mistakes in the future. What we are saying as a Public Works Committee is that we are there to assist. We are not there to try to halt or delay. More importantly, we are also elected by this parliament to scrutinise the expenditure of the dollars. That is why we have moved in this House that the regulation be disallowed. I believe all fair-thinking members of parliament will agree with us and vote with us on this issue. (Time expired)17:10:003630Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—It is unfortunate that the opposition has sought to use this disallowance motion for an exercise in a bit of crude politicking. One of the outstanding features of the Public Works Committee has been the truly bipartisan nature of its work, which has served the public well under both parties. I sincerely hope that, under my chairmanship, this tradition can continue in the interests of the public. I do not think it was the intention of the member for Throsby to take this issue quite so far, but I think obviously some in his party have seen an opportunity to engage in politics.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I take that as a personal affront. There has been only one other speaker on this matter from this side of the House. I have not chosen to be political and I would ask the honourable member for Pearce to withdraw that comment. I believe that reflects on my character.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Member for Prospect, what is your point of order?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—That is my point of order. I have asked for a withdrawal. I believe the statement that has been made has implied that, in some shonky way, I have tried to politicise this motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.QI4PRICEMr Price—Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the honourable member has reflected on the intent and motivation of, I think, Mr Hollis in the statement, suggesting that he was acting on behalf of others. That is a most serious allegation, which should be moved in a substantive way. It is unparliamentary and reflects on the member.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not believe there is a point of order.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—There was no intention to reflect on the member for Throsby in the way that has been suggested. Clearly, there are some precedents here. It is not as though this regulation foreshadows some new or extraordinary process. Members opposite know full well that the Public Works Committee Act provides for this exemption under certain situations and there is established precedent. For the record, I quote from section 6A(3) of the Public Works Committee Act:Where the Governor-General is satisfied that an authority of the Commonwealth is engaging in trading or other activities, or is providing services, in competition with another body or other bodies, or with persons, the Governor-General may make regulations declaring that this Act does not apply to that authority.The Sydney airport issue clearly meets this criteria. The committee initially did express some concern—and I think that was reasonable—about the lack of time to consider this matter. But, to be fair, the Minister for Finance and Administration did write to the committee on 28 August 1998, which provided more than ample notice in anyone's language. We all know that, despite that, an intervening election—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—There was no committee in existence.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—Excuse me, I allowed you to have your say. We know that an intervening election did create a delay in the matter being considered by the committee, but to suggest that the minister deliberately tried to shovel this through without going through the processes is pushing the envelope.I remind members opposite that the act does not require that the committee itself be consulted on a decision to exclude a corporatised body from the act. However, it is a courtesy that the minister did extend to the committee almost six months ago. I agree with the member for Throsby on the need for the public to become involved in these matters that clearly affect many people in the electorates, but the Airports Act does have an extensive consultation provision, as the minister quite rightly outlined in his speech to the House a short time ago.One can only wonder what the agenda is here for attempting to disallow these regulations and exempt the now corporatised Sydney airport from examination by the Public Works Committee. The member for Throsby knows perfectly well, as do others on that side, that his party set the precedent for corporatised entities to be excluded when they used the same procedures in exempting other corporatised bodies.I know that the member for Throsby has a very fine record of service on the Public Works Committee and that he is genuinely committed to serving the public interest. That is understood. I have heard many people speak well of him. But the fact is that 24 government corporations have been subject to this regulation which exempted them from the Public Works Act. Notable amongst these are Australia Post and the Commonwealth Bank. The minister made reference to a number of other corporatised entities—Telstra, the Pipeline Authority and so on. As I said, there is an extensive list. I think the list the minister provided to me covered about 24 government corporations.Most of these 24 corporations that have been exempted were exempted during Labor's 13 years in government. So it is a crazy notion to suggest that when they did it it was okay and that when this government seeks to do the same thing in the interests of efficiency there is something wrong with it. Considering that the minister, in good faith—before I was chairman of the Public Works Committee—advised the committee of the government's intention to do this, I think it is a bit rich to say that he is deliberately trying to stop the proper scrutiny of this process through the Public Works Committee.The member for Throsby also raised the issue of the raising of capital. That is, I understand, a matter that is outside the scope of this committee. The committee's responsibility is to scrutinise the actual expenditure by government on buildings and other infrastructure, so clearly that is a bit of a red herring. It really is not an issue in this particular discussion.Despite the fact that, under a Labor government, around 24 corporations were subject to this regulation, it is quite proper that the Public Works Committee maintains a strong role in scrutinising government spending on major public works. However, we have the precedent, as I said. When a corporatised entity such as Sydney airport already has to meet public interest requirements under another act—and in this case it is the Airports Act 1996—continuing to impose a second tier of scrutiny smacks of bureaucratic processes gone mad. It is just crazy. It is inefficient.This government is working toward greater levels of efficiency in the conduct of our business—something governments have been asking the private corporations to address for at least a decade that I am aware of. If we expect the private sector to improve its productivity and efficiency, surely government should take its own medicine and ensure that sensible procedures produce greater efficiency and effectiveness without compromising public interest. That is the key issue. We are here to ensure that public interest is not compromised. I believe that, with the provi sion of the Airports Act 1996, public interest is covered.While the hardworking members of the Public Works Committee have made a strong commitment to ensure that work at Sydney airport is carried out without delay, exposing this corporation to several tiers of scrutiny over and above that necessary to serve public interest is very wasteful of both time and money. There is no criticism either implied or intended of the work of the committee. Historically, the members of this committee have an impeccable record of doing everything in their power to ensure that projects, particularly in relation to Sydney airport, are completed on time. The member for Mallee has talked to me about this on a number of occasions, and I have heard him speak strongly in the committee in favour of the committee ensuring that work is not delayed, particularly in relation to Sydney airport. Along with other committee members, he has strongly expressed that point of view.The Airports Act is very stringent in the planning and environmental controls it requires of airport operators. Airports are some of the most highly regulated land users. There is a lengthy procedure under the act that sets out the process for airport development, and there is a requirement for the minister to consider all the public submissions in relation to work on airports and to approve or refuse the plan, as the case may be. So there is a very strong requirement for public submissions across a range of interests in the community, and public interest is served under the current Airports Act in that regard.As I said before, the Public Works Committee has undertaken its work in a constructive, bipartisan manner, demonstrating to the public the very considerable benefits of the committee system which operates in this parliament. It is one area where the public can see the benefit of parties working together in the public interest. It is to be hoped that commonsense will prevail and that this cooperative approach will continue to dominate the work of this committee. That is certainly my hope and my aim.To date, developments at the Sydney airport have been able to be carried out very effi ciently, and the members of this committee have performed valuable public service in the scrutiny of these projects. Airports have moved, as have many other government owned enterprises, toward private ownership, and they do operate on a commercial basis. Airports are now regulated by the Airports Act 1996. Sydney Airport Corporation now falls into the category of a private company with the government as a sole shareholder.The Public Works Act has provision to recognise that once a government owned body is corporatised—and I say again that the Public Works Act has that provision—it is competing directly with private entities. Layers of unnecessary procedures place them at a commercial disadvantage. In attempting to disallow these regulations, the opposition is really moving backward because most of the 24 exemptions took place under their 13 years in government.The fact that members on the other side now say that Sydney airport is something different from the previous corporatised entities that have been subject to the Public Works Committee Act exemption and that they now oppose these regulations gives the public reason really to question the sincerity of a motion like this and to recognise it for what it is. Clearly, as I say, there is precedence set there. There is an act which brings this under public scrutiny, and the contemporary commercial reality demands that Sydney Airport Corporation be placed on an even footing so that it can compete with other operators without unnecessary layers of procedure which do not add to or enhance the important element of public scrutiny.So there is no point in going through a hollow exercise for the sake of it, when it serves no purpose in enhancing that process of proper public scrutiny of this work, when it is covered under another act. That is a very important point to be made in the debate today. The government is confident that, in the case of Sydney airport, the public interest is protected by the provisions of the Airports Act 1996—which, the minister reminded all in the House in the course of his speech, was supported by members of the opposition.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It was amended last night.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—Well, acts are amended from time to time; that is not an usual situation. You did it. When your party was in government, you would have amended acts. That does not mean that there is not the level of public scrutiny under that act. It does not mean anything on its own: there may be minor amendments with no relevance in terms of the public scrutiny aspect of the Airports Act in relation to the matter that we are debating in the House today. As I said, the Public Works Committee Act, for as long as it has been in operation—or probably not since the time it was first established; I am sure that that was a later change—has had provision to recognise that, once a government owned body is corporatised, it is competing directly with private entities and that layers of unnecessary procedures place them at a commercial disadvantage. It is not necessary for us to be going through this process today, because that level of scrutiny does exist.Question put:That the motion (Mr Hollis's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [5.29 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Bills3633r7223633Debate resumed.17:35:003633Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As I was saying prior to question time, what the government is endeavouring to do with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 is provide an immediate deduction for expenditure concerning new software where the purpose of the software is Y2K compliance and that capacity for immediate deduction will expire on 31 December 1999. To the opposition, this seems to be too short a time frame because it seems entirely possible that problems which may emerge may not emerge until 1 January 2000 and that, if you do get problems of a Y2K kind emerging on 1 January, there would be a need to fix those problems immediately. We think the general regime for deductibility may not be adequate and that the provision for immediate deductibility would be the better way to go.The government's proposed treatment seems odd to us, because expenses related to developing software to overcome the millennium bug incurred after 1 January 2000 would presumably be urgent—indeed, systems may not be functioning at all. I think we should be encouraging business to remedy any problems and that we should give them an immediate deduction for remedial millennium bug expenses until at least 30 June next year. We think it would be more appropriate that there be an additional period of six months for businesses to get an immediate deduction for measures that they have to take to correct this problem.To the extent that these costs have been factored into the government's estimates of the general software depreciation provisions, there would be savings against the forward estimates, as Labor's amendment simply brings forward expenses that would be claimed later. We will be supporting this measure with an amendment, which we will move in the consideration in detail stage—which I believe will occur tomorrow—to allow an immediate deduction for year 2000 expenses incurred up until 30 June 2000.The second item in this bill concerns minor redundant software expenses. All items of plant and equipment—for example, non-software—valued at under $300 are allowed to be fully deducted in the year of acquisition. The rationale is that it is not worth depreciating the minor asset over its useful life where its value is so low. Software will now be treated in the same manner as other minor assets, but bulk purchases of software packages summing to more than $300 but individually valued at up to $300 will be covered by the new depreciation provisions. The bulk purchase rule could be easily avoided by purchasing the same software under different invoice numbers or at different times. Therefore, the legislation includes a multiple purchase rule so that an immediate write-off of expenditure is available only where the total expenditure on identical software in an income year is $300 or less. This measure will be supported.The third item in the legislation concerns a new depreciation regime for software. On 11 May 1998 the Commissioner of Taxation withdrew taxation ruling IT26 which deals with the taxation treatment of software expenditure. The commissioner concluded that IT26 no longer reflects the correct application of the existing law in relation to software. Without a legislative response, the withdrawal of IT26 would mean that systems and application software would generally not be subject to deduction or, at best, would be depreciated over 25 years.The government therefore announced an intention to legislate with effect from 10 a.m. AEST, 11 May 1998—the time of withdrawal of IT26—to provide for systems and application software to be depreciated at 40 per cent per year. That is to say, it would be fully depreciated over 2½ years.The new arrangements are proposed to apply to expenditure incurred in relation to contracts entered into to acquire software after the withdrawal of IT26. It will also apply to expenditures on specifically commissioned and in-house development of software commenced after that time.Expenditures on in-house development, or commissioned software commenced, or contracts entered into, up to that time will continue to receive the previous treatment until 30 June this year. Thereafter, any such expenditure will be treated under the new provisions.Those new provisions are as follows: all software purchases will be eligible for taxation amortisation over 2½ years at 40 per cent per year. That is the general regime that will apply—the software is to be depreciated over that 2½-year period at 40 per cent per year. However, there will be exemptions: if the non-renewable licence period is shorter than 2½ years, then taxpayers will be allowed to amortise their expenditure over this shorter period; taxpayers who stop using software within 2½ years of acquisition will be allowed an immediate deduction of the unrecouped expenditure at that time; software purchases up to $300 will be immediately expensed—as I indicated in discussing item 2; the cost of commissioning software or developing it in-house for own use will be capitalised—that is, will not be deductible—until the project is completed, at which point it may be amortised in line with the new provisions, ensuring neutrality with purchased software, but should the commissioned or developed software be disbanded, capitalised costs will be deductible at that time; and, finally, the treatment of upgrades and maintenance will be in line with the existing application of the law for determining capital and revenue expenses. Broadly, expenditure on enhancing or upgrading the functional capacity of computer software should be treated on capital account. Expenditure that does not enhance functionality, such as maintenance, testing, code reviews, minor alterations-modifications and remedying defects should continue to be treated on revenue account.Moreover, systems software that had previously been written off as part of the computer hardware—over 3.7 years under accelerated depreciation—will now be amortised over 2½ years. The treatment of software that attracts concessions under other provisions remains unchanged.There should be advantages through reduced compliance costs of allowing expenditure incurred on software developed in-house to be written off from the year after it is incurred rather than being written off over 2½ years from the time each project is completed.There will be special rules available for those who develop software. These taxpayers will be able to make a once only election to pool that expenditure. Once the election has been made, all expenditure incurred in developing software in an income year is to be pooled and written off at 40 per cent in the following two years and 20 per cent in the third year. There will be a transitional arrangement whereby taxpayers who elect to pool for the first income year after 11 May 1998 will be able to elect out of the pooling method in the second income year after 11 May 1998.The government claims the write-off rate of 2½ years strikes an appropriate balance between considerations that software is an essentially capital expenditure which should be amortised for taxation purposes and the relatively short expected life of software arising from rapid developments in the IT industry. This does seem to the opposition to be a reasonable line of argument—that software these days does have a relatively short expected life.We also note that this is a reasonable treatment in terms of overseas comparisons and international arrangements. Indeed, the proposed arrangements for software are broadly more generous than those applying in comparable overseas jurisdictions. For example, New Zealand allows software purchases to be depreciated at 30 per cent straight line or 40 per cent diminishing value—that is, the equivalent to 3.3 years. The United Kingdom provides depreciation of 25 per cent diminishing value—equivalent to a six-year write off. In Canada, software receives either a five- or eight-year write-off period, depending on the industry it is used in, while application software is depreciated at 100 per cent, which effectively results in a two-year write-off period due to Canada's half year rule. The United States provides a three-year write off for newly purchased software unless the taxpayer can show that a shorter write-off is appropriate.This measure is necessary to ensure that Australian businesses are not disadvantaged by the new ruling by the Commissioner of Taxation. Software expenditure is a significant and increasing expense of business and must have a reasonable taxation regime to ensure that Australian firms remain internationally competitive. As I indicated before, Labor will support that proposal subject to the amendment that we propose to move in the consideration in detail stage allowing the immediate deduction to occur up to 30 June 2000.When we are talking about the taxation arrangements for business, I suppose it is worth referring briefly to the fact that we have recently seen the second discussion paper of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation. From the opposition's point of view, as a matter of process this is really the way that taxation reform ought to be undertaken, with release of detailed options for public discussion before government makes a final decision. It certainly makes a stark contrast with the way government has handled the GST package, simply dumping it on people just before an election in a deliberate attempt to hide the detail under cover of $20 million of taxpayer funded, essentially party political advertising. The Ralph team have produced a very lengthy and very detailed document. It deserves a considered response, and we certainly will not be rushing to judgment in relation to it.We agree with the need for business tax reform and we are prepared to give support to measures that come from that review where it can be demonstrated that those changes will improve investment, productivity and growth, adding jobs and strengthening industries rather than the reverse. We will not, however, support in this exercise some kind of reduction of business taxation at the expense of individuals and families or anything which looks like simply dipping into the budget surplus. This exercise should not be about giving tax cuts to business while this government is on about imposing a 10 per cent GST on individuals and families. Labor certainly intends to hold the government to its promise that the business tax package will be revenue neutral. To that extent we have been most concerned to see Treasurer Costello talking about train carriages in a tunnel whereby the first carriage, the GST carriage, has to go through—HK6LINDSAYMr Lindsay—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 81. I note that the member is digressing from the subject matter and I ask you to pull him back to the subject matter of this particular debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—The honourable member for Wills will confine himself to the issues raised in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I am about to conclude my remarks, unless I am provoked by the honourable member opposite.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—You would not be intellectually provoked.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—That is true; it would not be very stimulating. I content myself with making the observation that we have been concerned at Treasurer Costello's remarks on this matter. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why the business taxation should be dealt with after the GST and we are suspicious of the government's motives in that regard.HK6LINDSAYMr Lindsay—Madam Deputy Speaker, I again refer to standing order 81. This is off the subject matter of this debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Perhaps the honourable member for Wills could try and relate the points he makes to the bill in question.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Madam Deputy Speaker, I am about to conclude my remarks. If the member wants to provoke me, I can do something quite different. I content myself with noting that Labor's position is that this bill will be supported. We will be moving an amendment in the consideration in detail stage.17:49:003636Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I am pleased to see the support that the opposition is giving to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 . Certainly it has been widely welcomed by the business community and by people involved in the computer industry, the software industry, the IT providers and so on. It makes changes to depreciation rules for software and it legalises deductions for certain year 2000 expenditure. I note that when the Commissioner of Taxation withdrew ruling IT26 software rules basically fell into a big black hole. The government did respond and did indicate that it would be bringing this bill to the House with effect, I guess, from budget time last year. As things stood, if this bill was not brought to the House today, systems and software would not be subject to amortisation or at best would have to be amortised over 25 years. These days, when computer software is changing so rapidly, that was just a ridiculous situation to allow the country to be in, and the government has moved to correct that. This bill will provide for systems and application software to be amortised at 40 per cent, that is, over 2½ years.There are some other good points in the bill. If the non-renewable licence period is shorter than 2½ years, then taxpayers will be allowed to amortise their expenditure over the shorter period. That is a sensible measure. Taxpayers who stop using software within 2½ years of acquisition will be allowed an immediate deduction of the unrecouped expenditure at that time. That is sensible as well. Software purchases up to $300 will be immediately expensed. However, bulk purchases of software packages summing to more than $300 but individually valued up to $300 will be covered by the new amortisation provisions.The cost of commissioning software or developing it in-house for own use—I stress for own use—will be capitalised until the project is completed. At that point it may be amortised in line with the new provisions. This will ensure neutrality with purchased software and, should the commissioned or developed software be disbanded, capital costs will be deducted at that time. The treatment of upgrades and maintenance will be in line with the existing application of the law for determining capital and revenue expenses. Broadly, expenditure on enhancing or upgrading the functional capacity of computer software should be treated on capital account. Expenditure that does not enhance functionality, such as maintenance, testing, code reviews, minor alterations, modifications and remedying of defects, should continue to be treated on the revenue account.The arrangements that the government have implemented in this part of the bill are in fact very generous indeed, and for that reason as well it will be welcomed by the software and IT industry. Other countries have considerably longer periods of amortisation—typically, for Canada it is five or eight years, for the UK six years and so on. With Australia it will be, of course, 2½ years. That is what is pleasing the software industry here in this country.In relation to the treatment of the year 2000 compliance expenditure matter, I think the government has also developed some very sensible responses to this particular problem. We see that the initial diagnosis to determine whether a computer system or software system is year 2000 compliant will be treated as being on the revenue account. Perhaps that process has already been undertaken in most business instances, but that will be able to be claimed in this manner.Expenditure on modifying software—and this is just modification to become year 2000 compliant like changing the two-digit data fields to four-digit data fields—will also be on the revenue account. Expenditure on certain firmware—for example, if you have to change a chip to change the system from running in two-digit data fields to four-digit data fields—will also be on the revenue account. However—and this is a warning to business—if a business wants to replace the whole of its hardware, that will be treated quite sensibly as an item of capital nature.I am interested in the amendment that the member for Wills suggests the opposition will move in the consideration in detail stage of this bill. I do not think I would be of a mind to support it. What is really being said is that this amendment would act to give business further time to be compliant by the year 2000. I think that sends the wrong message. All of the government's focus has been on getting businesses compliant by the year 2000. If we provide some kind of concession that says, `If you are not compliant by the year 2000 and you have still got to do something, we will grant you these special rules and exemptions,' we will be sending very clearly the wrong message.Business should be doing everything now to become year 2000 compliant. There is no reason why it cannot be done now. We all know that many of the businesses—major and minor—who are very switched on about running professional businesses have already done the job. They already know what their position is and have taken measures to make sure that they do not have a problem when the year 2000 ticks over.Another good point is that—and the member for Wills indicated quite correctly that he felt this was a good way of going—following the exposure draft which the government put out on this bill, back from industry came the suggestion and the request to adopt a pooling method for businesses that develop all sorts of software in-house. It would be very expensive to account for the various stages of development of different software, so the government is allowing all of that to be pooled into one, and that solves a bit of a nightmare for the accounting.In my view, this bill will be welcomed by the business community in my patch in Herbert—in Townsville and Thuringowa—by people as widely divergent as TGS Computers and the Ipex computer company. From the minors to the majors, from small businesses to the major accountancy firms—everybody has an interest in this and everybody can benefit from the bill before the House today. I certainly strongly support it.17:56:003637Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 has two main objectives. Firstly, the bill allows taxpayers to depreciate over 2½ years expenditure incurred in acquiring, commissioning or developing software. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly in view of the fact that we have less than 300 days remaining until 1 January 2000, this bill allows for an immediate deduction on acquiring new software or on substantially rebuilding existing software which has the predominant nature of ensuring year 2000 compliance.This bill has arisen in part as a response to the withdrawal of taxation ruling IT26, which essentially allowed software costs to be eligible for deduction in the year they were incurred. Taxation ruling IT26 was withdrawn on 11 May 1998 because the Commissioner of Taxation concluded that it no longer reflected the correct application of existing law in relation to software. This meant that most software expenditure would be treated as capital and therefore as not deductible in the year that it occurred.The withdrawal of taxation ruling IT26 created uncertainty as to the current deductibility of software. In short, without this legislation most software expenditure could not be written off or, at best, could be written off over a 25-year period. To put that into perspective, without this legislation computer programs written in 1976 could, at best, be fully depreciated in 1999. Considering that the trademark Microsoft was first registered in 1976—when a computer cost $5 million and weighed a little over two tonnes—one does not need to stretch one's imagination too far to see that a more reasonable term for depreciating software is in order.This bill not only corrects the problem caused by the removal of taxation ruling IT26 but also provides a more realistic level of depreciation for computer software—realistic because it reflects the reality that rapid development in information technology has given software a relatively short life. This bill allows a generous write-off to business for costs incurred in the purchase of new software. This will provide business with the incentive to upgrade their software, enabling greater efficiencies through enhanced software capabilities.This bill will subject software costs from 11 May 1998 to the following depreciation provisions. First, expenditure incurred in acquiring, developing or commissioning software will be depreciated at 40 per cent per year on a prime cost basis example over 2½ years. Software purchases of $300 or less will continue to be eligible for an immediate deduction provided that the total cost of all purchases of identical software does not exceed $300 in any income year. Expenditure on software which has not been used or software installed ready for use which will never be used, will be eligible to be deducted. A once only election may be made to pool expenditure on developing and commissioning software, provided that the expenditure is not otherwise deductible under provisions relating to minor amounts or year 2000 compliance. Deductions for expenditure in year one are written off at 40 per cent in the following two years and 20 per cent in the fourth year.This bill also amends the income tax law to allow for an immediate deduction on acquiring new software to ensure year 2000 compliance. This is particularly important because it addresses the costs associated with combating the year 2000 problem, or the millennium bug as it is also known, a problem that will be upon us in just 300 days.The millennium bug, as you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a computer data problem which originated in the 1960s and 1970s when computer systems were programmed to use only the last two digits to describe the year. Only the last two digits were used because computers in the early days had limited memory, so abbreviated data saved space. On 1 January 2000 these systems may interpret the date to be 1 January 1900 or another non-appropriate date. Computers are the vehicles of the information superhighway. Software is their compass, and if this software fails computers may become lost on the information superhighway, potentially disrupting services for individuals, households, businesses, communities and government.Addressing the issue of Y2K compliance is one of the biggest management issues facing business and government today. The millennium bug could affect any computerised system or software that uses dates, including central or mainframe computers; telephone systems with programmable switches—phone systems are almost all controlled by software—personal computers (the device inside the PC that retains the date and time when the computer is shut off often cannot see a four-digit year); automated security systems with computers that automatically lock and unlock doors and elevators; dispatching systems that use the global positioning system to locate vehicles—GPS devices determine distance by measuring how long it takes to get a signal from several orbiting satellites, and these may fail in August this year—and automatic data collection systems like those on electric meters.To put this problem into perspective, there are over 30 billion microchips in use today. These microchips control a range of devices from high-tech medical and military equipment to mundane but essential household appliances. Experts predict that about two per cent of these embedded chips will fail. In other words, 600 million chips may fail to function or function incorrectly.That is just an example of the problem with embedded chips. The problem with computer software takes on an entirely new and daunting dimension. To address this problem, the federal government has been proactive in the area of Y2K compliance. In the last budget speech, the Treasurer announced the government's Y2K initiative. These measures are contained within this bill and they provide an immediate tax deduction for expenses incurred in detecting and remedying software problems associated with the year 2000 millennium bug. These tax concessions are worth over $520 million to Australian business. The federal government will spend around $600 million on combating the Y2K problem on its own computer systems. Australia-wide, government, business and the wider community will spend nearly $10 billion in combating the Y2K problem.Australia's year 2000 preparedness is ranked among the highest in the world, along with Canada and the United States. Proactive legislation like this will provide business with the incentive to tackle the Y2K problem early. This is significant because there are some crucial dates which are also at issue here.With the commencement of the financial year on 1 July 1999, transactions that roll over into year 2000 may be corrupted because they might interpret the 99/00 as 1999 to 1900, causing them to error. On or about 20 August this year, the US Navy's global positioning system—or GPS as it is known—will lose 1,024 weeks due to a programming error. The global positioning system sets the standard for world time. An error in the delivery of accurate time could have enormous repercussions.Typical accuracy of one millisecond is maintained for computers, transport systems, and time and display systems in industrial, scientific, military, radio and TV communications, legal and financial applications. Interest on overnight multibillion dollar short-term electronic funds transfer transactions is computed in these areas by milliseconds, the accuracy of which is derived from the GPS standard.The date 9 September 1999 could prove to be another problem date. Computer programmers in the 1980s often used 9/9/99 as a special value to signify `no expiration date'. However, on 9 September 1999, files which have been assigned this date will expire and may be overwritten with new material. Another auspicious date is 29 February 2000. Many computer programs may be unaware that 2000 is a leap year. These systems need to perform the simple calculation to determine that 29 February exists, otherwise they will not accept the additional day.The Y2K problem is a challenge that this government has tackled head on. The government has established the Year 2000 Project Office to support, advise and ensure a sustained effort on the part of the Commonwealth agencies in addressing year 2000 issues. This bill, coupled with good samaritan legislation recently passed through both houses, is the correct legislative response to dealing with the Y2K challenge. The government has also allowed for generous provision for the depreciation of general computer software and immediate tax deductibility for Y2K software—a compensation to business worth over $520 million. Through information, legislation and compensation, this government is ensuring that Australia, and particularly Australian business, is well prepared to meet the Y2K challenge.Debate (on motion by Mr Vaile) adjourned.Miscellaneous3639363918:09:003639Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business: (1) be required to attend the House and explain why his views of the agreement between the Democrats in relation to the Youth Wage inquiry was clearly contradicted in a statement today by Democrats spokesman, Senator Andrew Murray, who was present at the meeting. Specifically he should explain why youth wages were not included in the items disagreed where the Government reserved the right to legislate at a later date;(2) should explain why his views are at variance with the Democrats understanding that this was a settled matter at least until the Industrial Relations Commission reported in 1999 on the issue of youth wages; and(3) should explain why he misled the House on 26 November 1998 when he alleged there was a clear understanding with the Democrats that he would seek a mandate for this legislation at the next election.We have here in a statement today by Senator Andrew Murray, who was present at the meetings in which everything was negotiated—Motion (by Mr Vaile) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [6.14 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Is the motion seconded?18:18:003640Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I second the motion. Peter Reith has misled the House and he has been caught—Motion (by Mr Vaile) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [6.18 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.18:21:003640Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This minister will not tell the truth. He has not told the truth on this and he has not told the truth—Motion (by Mr Vaile) put:That the question be now put.The House divided. [6.22 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [6.25 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Question so resolved in the negative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—While I am on my feet, I would like to remind honourable members, more especially the honourable member for Blair, that walking into the chamber with a mobile phone is totally prohibited. I am just issuing a general reminder to members.Bills3640r6723640Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.18:33:003640Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—This government's record has been one of indifference and contempt towards the institutions which have been established to protect and maintain the integrity of the protection of human rights in our society. Australia's record as a nation which is committed to human rights goes back over many generations, and the present approach to these issues has its genesis in the treaties that were made after World War II.After World War II, the international community came together, established the United Nations, pledged to do all it could to prevent a similar global outbreak of war as had consumed the global community at that time and also pledged to adhere to principles of human rights which are regarded as universal. The idea of the universality of human rights is an important one which has underpinned Australia's rhetorical commitment, through governments of all colours, ever since that time.In the implementation of human rights agreements entered into by this nation, Australia legislated to put into force provisions of law which would give rise to domestic enforceability of treaty obligations which we had accepted internationally. These were important steps forward because, previous to that, whilst Australia had given commitments that our legal regimes would be in compliance with international human rights, there had not been mechanisms of enforceability, assessment and review which were open to the individual citizen.In implementing and carrying through that agenda, successive Labor governments built arrangements which were convenient, accessible and, largely, free of the formalities that would otherwise apply in the legal system. Regrettably, however, under the current government, there has been a substantial reduction both in the public commitment to the objectives of the human rights commission and its various responsibilities and to the funding that is necessary for it to carry out its responsibilities on a national scale.That cutback in terms of the budget of the organisation is most dramatically felt in regional Australia. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is an agency whose presence in the metropolitan centres of Sydney, Melbourne and, of course, Canberra has been taken for granted for a very long period of time. But it made sure that it had an active presence in cities outside that triangle. Those services, and its capacity to provide a national and comprehensive system of readily available access, have been reduced.The legislation before us does not merely continue the defunding of the agency. It represents an approach to the working of the commission which is in tune with the way in which this government has reduced its emphasis on the overall work of the commission. Certainly, there are some changes that were inherent and necessary in relation to the work of the commission. Many of these flowed from court cases which determined that the way in which the commission's determinations were to be made enforceable through orders registered in the Federal Court could not be sustained as they were inconsistent with the separation of powers doctrine which the court held was infringed in those instances. This has had the consequence that, for the enforcement of orders, there had to be mechanisms which took the proceedings and complaint outside of the commission. This has, of necessity, led to greater complexity and unfortunate legality in those proceedings. The amendments before us do nothing to ensure that the work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission are given proper regard by this government.The government has prepared for the House of Representatives a number of explanations as to the reasons for these provisions, which have been commented on by the shadow Attorney-General. I do not want to go through all of those matters in any great detail. Some of the provisions are procedural and one could hardly object to them. I notice that the Attorney-General is in the House today, shepherding his legislation through the House, or at least being on chamber duty to see what transpires. No criticism can be made of many of the amendments, other than that they are part of a framework which has been diminished by the way in which this government has approached the whole issue of human rights.The problem for the government is not merely about the legislative and funding issues: it is also about appointments. Many of the key offices in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have remained vacant for far too long. I understand that recently an appointment was made to replace Mick Dodson who retired 12 months or so ago. That office has been vacant for nearly a year. It can hardly be the act of a government that is committed to the agency having a fundamental importance in providing community services when an office of such significance has been unfilled for so long.What I would like to do by way of comment today is to consider the way in which this government has approached the structure of the commission and what course it would be wise to follow for the future. One of the themes of this government, ever since it has been in office, has been to question the need for specialist commissioners. Specialist commissioners have been attacked—not by the Attorney but by many members of his government—as representing, in a sense, particular vested interests and as being part of what might loosely be called `an agenda of political correctness'.That is far from the case. Specialist commissioners were placed in the act in recognition that the workload of the commission was substantial and that particular expertise and a broad range of skills on the commission were important. There is no doubt that the work of the Privacy Commissioner, for example, and commissioners responsible for indigenous matters—commissioners responsible for matters that went to all the specific areas that specialists were appointed to—transformed the nature of the work of the commission. They gave it greater representation when issues were coming before it, allowing people to have confidence that there was a range and diversity of tasks that the commission was undertaking, and that the commission would be able to address those matters in a way in which no particular range of agendas before it would be capable of being ignored. It also gave the commission considerable flexibility in the way in which it could address matters which were coming before it.I understand that the government is still seeking to hive off, for example, the work of the Privacy Commissioner and to establish the Privacy Commissioner as a body independent and separate from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but working in a different legal environment. I think that would be a mistake. One of the strengths of the work of the commission has been that it has brought together men and women of considerable social concern under a legislative framework which links back to the UN treaty obligations. It gives it a framework for its operation; it gives it an intellectual grounding that roots it to a tradition which enables it to act independently, and fiercely independently, of its political masters of the day. This will be lost if we start carving off bits of it for particular tasks and dissociating them from the work of the commission.It is true that the Privacy Commissioner has been drawn on for advice and assistance, and not merely in areas which one would have thought were commonly directly associated with human rights issues. The Privacy Commissioner's work and advice has been very important in developing commercial codes in the banking sector and access codes in a whole range of other areas. That work has an aspect to it which moves beyond that which might normally be thought to fall within the work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. But the framework of the work that is done is enabled because the Privacy Commissioner fits within an agency structure whose role relates back to those fundamental human rights which are to be protected by the commission. Once you transform it by giving it a different role with a function which is not directed towards human rights obligations but towards obligations which have a more direct commercial relationship or which are more in the nature of the task that was undertaken by Professor Fels of the ACCC, then the whole nature of that social responsibility might well fall away.It is important to realise that the reason the position of Privacy Commissioner was established was the realisation that, as we move towards a much more integrated digital environment with increased complexity of commercial transactions and far more access to personal information, we need a watchdog that is prepared to stand independent of all the commercial entities that are operating in this field, that will provide honest and straightforward advice to government, that will make sure government itself meets the obligations in the information privacy principles and that is not weakened by being removed from a structure whereby that independence and collegiality are not protected.Similarly, the government says that a number of the tasks that are currently undertaken by specialist commissioners can better be undertaken by the commission in its generalist functions. That is not a proposition which I hold as being justifiable; certainly it is not a proposition which is at all justifiable when you also accept that, under this current government, the funding available to the commission has, I think, been reduced in the order of 40 per cent. That represents a cut in funding which is, amongst all agencies that report to the Attorney-General, the highest. In fact, if you look at the whole of government, certainly some agency functions in other departments have been abolished. But there are few agencies which have been savaged by cuts of the kind that were inflicted on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.If you damage the budgetary framework and reduce its capacity to provide services in a comprehensive and national way, if you indicate that you are dissatisfied with the work of the specialist commissioners, if you plan to remove some key commissioners to a more commercial environment, and if you couple all that with a chorus of denigration from the government on the work of the commission itself and the fact that it is being held out to be an exemplar of the kind of political correctness that this government is so keen to put the boots into, then you will see why we are particularly concerned about the way in which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has been dealt with by this government.It is not the case that this government has been a fierce defender of the commission. In fact, this government has looked for every excuse to avoid there being independent, strong, critical institutions capable of providing the proper checks and balances on government. As well as the commission itself, other institutions which have that task have been similarly cut back.The Ombudsman's Office suffered massive cuts. The Ombudsman is tasked with the responsibility of investigating complaints against government and its administration and providing reports to this parliament about administrative practice. Its capacity to provide national services has been dramatically affected. In my own state of Tasmania, for example, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office has had to close, and the arrangements which were previously in place to enable a combined service with the state government Ombudsman's Office unfortunately were unravelled. This is very much a government which sees its task as being killing the capacity of those who were previously tasked with the responsibility for examining its works, scrutinising its conduct and reporting in an independent way.It is always unpleasant for government to fund and support institutions which may be critical of it, but that was one of the strengths of the previous government. It was one of the strengths of Labor administration through the years that these institutions came into force and were funded and accepted as part of the normal checks and balances of democratic power distribution in our society.It was one of Labor's strengths that the citizen was able to protect him or herself by having access to institutions such as the Ombudsman to complain about government activity or, in the case of those making complaints to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, to address systemic concerns such as disabilities and transport, to address individual complaints such as complaints of discrimination on the basis of gender preference, as occurred in the case of discrimination which was alleged in the Toonan case. There were a whole range of similar matters that were not comfortable to governments of the time but which were accepted as part of the inherent responsibility of a good government to be willing to hear and respond to criticisms founded on arguments that we, as the then government, had failed to completely comply in a full and effective way with obligations which we had accepted internationally.This government has not withdrawn from any of the international obligations which underpin this legislation. Instead, it has started to pull the underpinnings away from the organisation which was established to protect those rights which were to be so entrenched. This legislation provides the opportunity to note how far we have come towards a reduction in the capacity of the Australian community to have access to independent tribunals, effective and cheap processes for addressing complaints, and effective ways of dealing with concerns, both for the government and the private sector. I flag those concerns. I know that our colleagues throughout Australia have over the three years been deeply aware of, and deeply depressed by, these changes. It is a matter of regret that the government has allowed that to happen. (Time expired)18:53:003644Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In light of the opposition's carping in relation to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 and its stance, an appreciation of this bill quite apparently requires, I believe, some background history on the reasons for and the effect of it. In general, the bill seeks to amend the Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation to reform the administration, functions and structure of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In essence, the bill addresses the impact of the High Court decision of Brandy v. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Ors, which was in fact delivered in February 1995.At the time, there was a great deal of media and community reaction to the decision, which was perhaps indicative of the practical effect that this decision has had on the commission, and of the necessity that this government has grappled with in ensuring that a restructure of the commission has a positive impact on the determination of anti-discrimination cases. In Brandy, the High Court declared invalid amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the sex discrimination and other discrimination legislation, and the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1994. Amendments brought about by the later acts related to the process by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of determining allegations of racial and other discrimination, and to the enforcement of the findings of the commission.Under the amendments, a determination by the commission was to be registered at the Federal Court registry and, after the expiration of a fixed period during which a review of a determination might or might not be taken up before the Federal Court, the determination took effect as if it were an order of the Federal Court. In Brandy, it was this enforcement mechanism of a commission determination that the High Court found invalid, as being contrary to the principle of the separation of judicial power.It is interesting that, in reviewing the nature of judicial power, the High Court began with the well-known definition given in the 1909 case of Huddart Parker v. Moorehead. The court commented that the exercise of power by a tribunal to enforce its own orders has sometimes been seen as an essential element in the exercise of judicial power. They noted that in another case, Rola Co (Australia Pty Ltd) v. The Commonwealth (1944), it was the absence of power to enforce decisions which had led the High Court to conclude that there was no exercise of judicial power.Following this reasoning, the court concluded that the commission's power to hold an inquiry to make a determination was not in itself an exercise of judicial power. The judges stated that the fact that determinations of the commission cannot be enforced by the commission was a strong factor weighing against the characterisation of its powers as judicial. The primary issue before the court was not whether the power to enforce a decision is properly characterised as judicial power but whether the amendments conferred that power on the commission or on the Federal Court. The enforcement provisions under consideration in the Brandy case did not directly convey a power to enforce determinations on the commission.The question before the court was not so much whether it was valid for a non-judicial body to enforce its own decision but rather what procedures constitute enforcement. The Brandy decision demonstrates that the High Court was not prepared to depart in any respect from the separation of powers doctrine, and the decision consolidates the High Court's interpretation of chapter III of the Constitution. The effect of Brandy is that chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution prevents the Commonwealth parliament from providing that a decision of a Commonwealth tribunal can be made judicially enforceable by the simple device of registering the decision with the Federal Court and giving it legal force—provided the respondent has not sought review of the decision within a specified time.There is no doubt that the court justified its ruling by focusing on the fortuitous words in the Racial Discrimination Act, `as if it were an order of the Federal Court'. I think that it read `as if it was', but I will say `as if it were'. In holding this mechanism invalid, the High Court expressed its awareness of the ineffectiveness of the earlier process of enforcing a commission determination through independent proceedings in the Federal Court and of the policy considerations for the change to the new procedure.The High Court ruled that the review mechanisms through which a Federal Court was able to scrutinise a commission determination did not permit an unfettered exercise of judicial power by that court. In summary, the High Court found that the legislation gave commission determinations the effect of court orders. Accordingly, the legislative provisions were held to be invalid because they effectively meant that the commission was exercising a judicial function, in contravention of the Constitution.Even the fact that respondents had a right of review to the Federal Court against the commission's determinations was deemed insufficient to save the pre-1995 enforcement scheme. The High Court noted that the review right did not necessarily lead to a fresh hearing of the matter and was exercisable only by the respondent. Post Brandy, it has been necessary to fundamentally change the commission, most significantly in that the commission will no longer conduct hearings or inquiries in relation to matters that cannot be conciliated.The bill confers on the president of the commission the roles and functions of a chief executive officer and centralises complaint investigation and conciliation procedures in the office of president. The bill also simplifies the legislation by implementing a single complaint handling scheme, with common definitions and best practice procedural provisions in the one act.In effect, the bill simplifies dispute resolution procedures in human rights matters by eliminating this second tier of review in the commission—that is, the commission inquiry, which was not directly enforceable—and provides that matters that cannot be conciliated or are not suitable for conciliation will be dealt with in the Federal Court. Under the current system, parties to human rights complaints may have to go through two hearings before obtaining a binding decision.The merits of conferring the human rights jurisdiction on the Federal Court may not at first blush be obvious to all. But it is the only federal court—other than the High Court—with an appropriately wide-ranging jurisdiction. As breaches of the discrimination legislation can involve a broad range of diverse issues, the Federal Court's experience in dealing with a vast range of matters in various jurisdictions is seen to be invaluable in the human rights context.Locating the jurisdiction in the Federal Court will serve to highlight the importance of human rights issues. It will mainstream human rights issues. Further, the Federal Court has real experience in human rights cases, as proceedings for a review or enforcement of determinations are heard there. It will continue to be the forum for proceedings under the AD(JR) Act arising under human rights legislation. The bill enables the judges of the Federal Court to delegate some but not all of their functions in the human rights area to judicial registrars, who will be able to assist with the additional caseloads. Judicial registrars are now part and parcel of the Federal Court regime including the Family Court, the Industrial Relations Court and of course the Federal Court. The High Court, by a majority, in the case of Harris v. Caladine gave its endorsement to the provisions—in that case, to the provisions of the Family Law Act—that allowed for the delegation of judicial powers to registrars. In that case, a consent order made by a registrar was challenged. The registrar made the order pursuant to rules of court, made pursuant to a power vested in the court to delegate to a registrar certain powers of a judicial nature. The powers so delegated were, under the rules, subject to the right of the court to review the exercise of powers by way of a hearing de novo.I point out that registrars are not appointed pursuant to chapter III of the Constitution. The High Court held in Harris v. Caladine that the delegation was valid, noting that it is a commonplace characteristic of modern courts that officers such as masters and registrars exercise jurisdiction, powers and functions in a wide variety of matters. The decision in Harris v. Caladine was a clear signal that, provided the judges of a Federal Court retain supervision and control over the exercise of judicial power, such power could be delegated to court officers without the need to afford those officers the status, title, remuneration or tenure of Federal Court judges. The attractions of such flexibility and potential for economy are obvious.The bill before the House also makes provision for the commissioners of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—other than the Privacy Commissioner, who by virtue of other legislation recently passing through this House is set up as a separate statutory authority—to appear as amicus curiae to argue the policy imperatives of their legislation before the Federal Court, subject to the court granting leave. Until recently in Australia, perhaps as distinct from the position in other jurisdictions including the United States, the intervention of an amicus curiae was relatively rare, being confined to assisting the court in its tasks of resolving the issues between the parties by, for example, drawing the court's attention to some aspect of a case which might otherwise be overlooked.Given the experience of the commissioners, it would seem appropriate that, with the leave of the court, interventions by the commissioners as amicus curiae will be welcomed and will be of great assistance in appropriate matters. The commissioners will also fulfil a highly significant role within the commission—newly defined as human rights advocates and educators, not a role to be lightly dismissed. After Brandy's case, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission listed four principles in human rights which they considered crucial in any consideration in future proceedings—equity in dealing with cases and in access to the commission's processes, accessibility including keeping processes low cost, the availability of specialist knowledge and enforceability.This bill still recognises that the best forum for resolving discrimination complaints, at least in terms of satisfying the first three of these principles, will be within the commission, and the complaint investigation and conciliation procedures will continue to be of significance and effect. It is only where cases cannot be conciliated that the Federal Court proceedings are relevant. The legislation specifically seeks to emphasise procedures which promote access and equity in terms of cost, evidence and procedure. In particular, the application of the normal rules of evidence to human rights proceedings will be to simplify them. For example, proposed section 46PR provides that the court is not bound by technicalities and legal forms. It is anticipated that the Federal Court will develop its own framework of more informal procedures, as necessary.One issue that is worth considering is the question of costs in the Federal Court fee structure. Should a matter not be settled by conciliation, and end up in the Federal Court, it has been suggested that the normal costs rules should not apply in the new human rights jurisdiction. In the normal course, costs are generally awarded for the party who wins the court proceedings—costs follow the event. This raises access and equity issues, but I strongly support the position that human rights matters determined in the Federal Court be subject to a costs jurisdiction rather than a no costs jurisdiction.The discretion that exists within the Federal Court jurisdiction now to determine whether costs are appropriate or not appropriate in certain circumstances continues to apply. The fact is that, in its practical application, costs do not automatically follow the event in the Federal Court. It has a discretion which it exercises in appropriate cases including whether or not it is in the public interest.The fundamental argument against a costs jurisdiction is the risk of an adverse costs order. Conversely, of course, if a costs order were made against a respondent in favour of a complainant it would be welcomed. But there is no doubt that, if a complainant brought a discrimination complaint in the Federal Court and lost, there is a risk that, as in other cases, there would be hardship occasioned to the plaintiff or the complainant, if they have to pay costs. In practice, the fact is that the vast majority of matters already settle at the conciliation stage. In the Federal Court, with the costs jurisdiction, there will be an even greater percentage settling, in all likelihood. The advantages of a costs jurisdiction far outweigh the disadvantages. If a costs jurisdiction exists—I must say that the Federal Court scale is realistic in terms of its party-party costs schedule—this will only encourage and increase the opportunities for complainants to be legally represented and to have a lawyer from the earlier stages of the complaint.It is far more difficult for complainants or plaintiffs to find a lawyer in a no-cost jurisdiction compared with a cost jurisdiction, because many lawyers are able to do a case on the basis that they rely on the outcome, so they do not charge any fees and rely on the costs order if and when the case is successfully concluded. If it is not successful, they do not charge their fees. I would suggest it is a fact of life that without a cost jurisdiction being available many complainants could not get a lawyer and would have to depend on publicly funded lawyers or appear unrepresented. Of course, a complainant will not necessarily need representation in the more informal environment anticipated by the legislation—a less technical, less formal, more user friendly one. But in circumstances where legal representation is required, I suggest that a cost jurisdiction will lead to that result.There are numerous examples of costs jurisdictions where plaintiffs or complainants are represented by lawyers who are able and prepared to do the cases largely on spec. Personal injury cases are a prime example, and I would anticipate that discrimination and human rights cases could achieve the same high level of representation with a similar cost jurisdiction. Finally, on that point, it is planned that the proposed federal magistracy will have jurisdiction over human rights complaints which have not been satisfactorily conciliated in the commission. One of the great attractions of the proposed federal magistracy is that it will also keep costs down for the litigants, the complainants, in this jurisdiction.The government has responded responsibly to the necessity for change within the commission, particularly with the introduction of uniform procedures for handling complaints. I commend this bill to the House.19:09:003647Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—There are two issues raised in this Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . The first is to bring a number of rights mechanisms into line with the Brandy High Court decision. The second is to cut back on those very mechanisms. On the one hand, the bill is seeking to improve the handling of grievances relating to what most of us take for granted as our God-given rights and, on the other hand, it is seeking to reduce the accessibility of those mechanisms for those people who might be said to have less opportunity to pursue their rights.Most of us would accept that it is my right to tell you when you are infringing my rights and, for the most part, I am fully able to stand up for myself. That makes me an unlikely candidate for dealings with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or with the specialist commissioners in disability, race or sex.I am a potential candidate and so are all of us. It is true of most people in the electorate I represent. In my electorate of Fowler, the language count is well over 100. It is a great community, and I would like to invite you all to visit to see how cultural, racial and language barriers are overcome by necessity and by a natural, innate sense of respect for others. You would have to work really hard at being intolerant if you were going to make a thing of it. Diversity in Fowler is pervasive. Liverpool's diversity is worldly. On the other hand—and food writers are increasingly saying so—the scents and flavours of Cabramatta are not of this world.Most of these people are Australians—Aussies. You are, we are; we are all Australians. But do not tell me that lots of them have not been passed over for a job because of language barriers or cultural or racial differences or plain old-fashioned irrational prejudice. It is quite hard for the Australian born Aussie to understand his or her rights, let alone for someone from an often traumatised homeland with a different language to understand them.Equal rights are what makes democracy. Any reduction in the means to pursue one's rights diminishes those rights, diminishes democracy. Any reduction in access to those mechanisms where fairness and the rule of law replace hatred and prejudice creates classes of superior and inferior people. But it depends on where you are coming from. We know where this government is coming from—the law, access, equity should not be concerns of the lesser people; it would be morally instructive for them to rise above their circumstances.In keeping with the government's business management regime, those people who are least able to pay should be made to pay or should be denied access. It is more than sound business practice; it is a corporate plan, a plan to rein in the scandalous abuse by all those non-establishment types, of the all-too-many specialist commissions providing too many cushy jobs to Liberal leaning lawyers and other bleeding heart do-gooders who harbour economically irrational notions that law does not have to be profitable.Well, we on this side would like to take issue. Solving the technical issues raised by the Brandy decision is what this legislation principally, apparently, unremarkably, sets out to do, and like-minded men and women working together within our constitutional and legal framework have no quarrel here. We need to fix it fast if we are going to have coherent, soundly based legislation. We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to those who might need it. And we need it for its more abstract symbolic purpose.The bill has been around for a long time, a disgracefully long time. It is not a priority. It is not the sort of legislation this government sees as important, except in the context of siphoning off some funds. It is not important to this government because it is not really their constituency: a bunch of overly-sensitive foreigners, a bunch of yappy sheilas whingeing about a bit of slap-and-tickle from the boss, people with disabilities, and Aboriginal people.As John Elliott, a man with some exposure to the courts, a man who presided over that great institution, the Liberal Party of Australia, said only this week, `Aboriginal people are the forgotten race'. He said that `they and the drugs problem aren't making the pie any bigger'. He went on to say:We've got to keep Johnny Howard . . . to stay worrying about economic growth and not worrying about saying sorry to a forgotten race.Big Bad John. Between him and Little John, is it any wonder we need a Robin Hood?It is not just Aboriginal people whom the Howard government would like to forget. It is a whole section of Australians who generally do not vote Liberal—people who, on the whole, are not law consumers in any commercially viable sense. Why should they be allowed to put their gripe into the ear of one of those commissions? Why should they have access to the law when people like Abbott and Costello have paid good money to do so? But, of course, human rights are relative. Some people have rights. Others have the right to be human, the right to silence, the right to be trammelled, abused, slurred and treated as less than, well, human.That is the case unless you can afford a good lawyer, or unless you are doing something serious such as pursuing profit but finding the tax laws a little unfavourable—unfavourable enough for you to tie up the administrations and the courts with hokey technical arguments, well paid for of course. This is the pursuit of your rights to pay less than your fair share of tax. It is a business overhead, after all, and the democratic institutions of this nation are there to serve your interests, your rights. It is business, and that is different from the commissions, tribunals, courts and other forums being bogged down with little people's problems. They might stand to lose as much, relatively speaking, of course, but they are not paying for top silks. They do not have to answer to their company's board if the action is not strategically based—justice, fairness, responsibility, compliance, morals and ethics do not figure in the balance sheet.Labor's amendments to costs are critical in this regard. Discrimination is often aided and abetted by the disadvantage of the victim. The offender more often is asserting the power of position, of financial means, or the power of the local language, the power to draw upon collectively held prejudices, or sheer physical power. Labor does not support the government's increases in the Federal Court's schedule of fees in the case of discrimination cases. We are not alone in the view that justice is not served by making it dangerously expensive. Many victims of discrimination are unlikely to have the means to pay more than $2,500 just to take the case to court. The fees should be nominal. They should not be a barrier to undertaking action for oneself, because it is often the case that one is not alone in suffering discrimination. It is often race based, to give the most obvious example.There is no doubt in my mind that the government, with this fee structure, is providing a disincentive for cases to be resolved at Federal Court level. Again, it is market thinking. Demand will be very cost sensitive. Like the GST, the additional expense will not mean much to the well-off but it means a hell of a lot to the less well-off. And who is most likely to be less well-off? As I said before, I would like you all to drop into my office in Fowler and I will show you around. It would help if you are multilingual and like exotic cooking. For the ordinary people of Fowler, from a hundred or so different cultural and language backgrounds, the cuts to legal aid make the prospects of launching a complaint pretty daunting. The new guidelines essentially mean that test cases and class actions will only get a look-in.I and my colleagues on this side like the idea of promoting human rights in Australia. It means we have come of age. It means we are a free country. It reminds us that freedom should be jealously guarded. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the specialist commissioners provide a potent international signal that we do jealously guard our rights. Having a workable, accessible, non-discriminatory system to deal with breaches is, I would have thought, the best way of publicising the existence of those rights. Furthermore, specialist commissioners should not be solely complaint driven. They need to get out into the field and identify practices that are out of line and they need to work to correct them. That is active promotion of human rights. The protection of human rights in this country is not a job which has been completed. But just look at the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) to see just how this government plans to dilute the mechanism by collapsing the present commissioners, with their expert perspectives, into three.Clearly, when it comes to basic civilised rights which should be enjoyed equally by all, regardless of colour, creed, sex, disability or any other artificial or misguided distinction, we should all have a place to go. Not a kiss-and-ride railway set-down, not a 15-minute loading zone or a half-hour House of Reps side-door spot, but a place where we can put the case adequately, under cover preferably, and drive away with the job complete. What the government would like is the sort of one-stop shop Centrelink concept that has been received with as much acclaim as a government charter plane rort. You do not get any answers to your questions even if there is a lucky chance that there is someone there. And it all adds up to pretty messy and confused stuff. We do not discriminate against the sort of discrimination you are complaining about, nor do we discriminate between discrimination cases and other cases. It is called administrative efficiency.Anti-discrimination legislation has had a short history. It postdates pro-discrimination legislation. It is in its infancy. But this government has already slashed into the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As the shadow minister, the member for Barton, previously pointed out, there has been a staggering cut of around half the commission's budget. Staff have been cut. The bulk of the work is now only that which is pressing.Human rights issues cannot be put on a production line. It is a labour intensive area demanding sensitive human judgment. It is difficult ground because it involves perceptions, community values, hurt feelings, individuals, groups, large and small institutions, the law, the states, international agreements and all responsible citizens. Those injured face the indignity and even shame of making a spectacle of their private concern. This bill has two purposes. As I said when I began, we in the opposition are in agreement with the technical adjustments brought on by the Brandy decision but we are not impressed by the proposals to restrict access to the mechanisms for redress by ordinary Australians.19:23:003650Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—On the assumption that this debate on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 will continue tomorrow, I will confine my remarks briefly this evening to one particular aspect of this legislation. Before I do, by way of introduction: as the member for Fowler so eloquently put it, this particular bill has two purposes. Clearly, in relation to the Brandy decision the proposals put forward by the government are sensible and are to be supported.Secondly, the bill proposes to centralise all complaint investigation and conciliation procedures which arise under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 as well as the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 into the office of the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, HREOC. The President then becomes Chief Executive of HREOC, responsible for all complaint handling under federal anti-discrimination and human rights legislation.Tomorrow I want to spend some time talking about the human rights elements of this legislation. Tonight I want to confine my remarks to issues to do with legal aid. I must say that I am very concerned about the government's cutting legal aid funding by $120 million over three years from July 1997. This is having a profound effect on the ability of Australians to enforce their human rights and their rights before the law. I will read an excerpt from a letter from the Chairperson of Victoria Legal Aid which refers to the parlous state of legal aid funding in Victoria. The letter was written by Geoff Masel, who says:Before 1997/98, legal aid commissions were free to set their own priorities for grants of legal assistance. From 1 July 1997, all legal aid commissions are required to apply Commonwealth funding only to cases arising under Commonwealth law and then within the limitations set by Commonwealth government priorities and guidelines.He goes on to say:. . . the financial outcomes of the new policy and the lack of flexibility in determining legal assistance priorities according to current client needs have outweighed those benefits.I think that is important. Later in his letter, a number of paragraphs down, he says:My real concern is that VLA will not be capable of meeting the expected demand for legal assistance in 1999/2000 unless there is a significant increase in Victorian funding for State law cases (which VLA has requested) or a dramatic reduction in the range and scope of VLA activities.Legal aid commissions provide services to the most financially disadvantaged members of our community. This annual report notes that 72% of clients assisted in 1997/98 were on social security benefits and another 24% had no income whatsoever. Until the change of Commonwealth policy this year, the Commonwealth accepted that its special relationship with people on social security benefits extended to meeting their needs for legal assistance. Now these needs have to be met from State funding for cases which arise under State law (which includes the great majority of criminal matters).The Commonwealth is the principal Australian tax gatherer. State governments may not have the level of tax revenue available to them to meet all the legal aid needs of social security recipients who are, in other respects, accepted as a responsibility of the Commonwealth.He goes on to say:However, a year's experience under these new policies has revealed what I regard as a major problem which may not have been foreseen by the Commonwealth.I suspect that the Attorney-General may not have foreseen this particular problem:The Commonwealth law policy creates an artificial division in the supply of legal aid services. The consequence is that Victoria Legal Aid has a pressing demand for legal assistance in State law cases which it cannot meet—while in the Commonwealth law area it has an unexpected surplus of funds.I am not sure whether the Attorney-General foresaw that as a particular problem, but it does highlight an important policy issue which needs to be addressed in a way which provides decent relief for people who require legal aid so that Commonwealth funding is not confined to Commonwealth matters. That means that it is confined largely to issues relating to public administration, veterans' affairs, immigration, family law and social security. State crimes et cetera are now from state funds.Significantly, and I understand some of the rationale behind this, it also places restrictions on those seeking refugee status, even though this is logically a Commonwealth arena. I can give you an example of a case in the Northern Territory where a man was visiting his sister in Darwin with some recipes for her to use in her stalls at the markets. Because he said he might help with some washing-up in her home while he was visiting, Immigration said he was working and tried to expel him. Northern Territory Legal Aid took action against Immigration. But Northern Territory Legal Aid can no longer pursue that action. I wonder if that is fair and reasonable. I suspect it is not. Nevertheless, it is a consequence of the decisions which have been taken by this government.The other area which should be of concern to us, because it also has human rights implications, is domestic violence—now under state law, and the Commonwealth does not provide the funds. That is an issue which we need to contemplate. I do not think it is fair or reasonable that the Commonwealth should put a fence around funds which are available for legal aid purposes so they are prohibited from being used in domestic violence matters.Debate interrupted.Adjournment365110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.365119:30:003651Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—In the House earlier tonight the government used its numbers to gag a motion that would have required the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to come into this House and explain why he has not misled the parliament in relation to a number of statements dealing with the youth wages debate. I want to have a look at some of the background associated with that because the minister has been caught with his hand in the honey jar well and truly on this.The Democrats' industrial relations spokesperson, Senator Murray, has belled the cat today by unequivocally confirming those views we have expressed here for some time about the nature of the agreement that the minister entered into with the Democrats in 1996—it has not been honoured. If you look at the record that is crystal clear because the record shows that, in October 1996, when asked about that matter, the minister said:What we have done is that junior wage rates will be exempted from the anti age discrimination requirements of the act for a further three years from 22 June 1997.But we have not just left it there, acknowledging the concerns that the Democrats have had about this issue. We have agreed that the full bench of the Industrial Relations Commission will, within a couple of years, report on the feasibility of the replacement of junior wage rates with non-discriminatory alternatives.He then described a little of that process and came back to say these things:The act will also empower the commission to extend the exemption on an award-by-award basis in accordance with the guidelines that are established by the full bench . . . That is a fair response to our concerns. That is what Minister Reith said in 1996. He then summed up the situation and said:So we have the exemption continued on for three years. Beyond the three years, we have a process which would allow that exemption to be granted basically on an award-by-award basis. We will have a much more considered and measured appreciation and analysis of the issue in the meantime.The fact is that, in August 1996, the minister embraced the process which he now seeks to override. He embraced the process which now in this House and publicly he decries as a cause of further unemployment.In the course of this debate on youth wages—both in this parliament and outside it—there have been a number of absolute untruths that have been peddled from one end of the country to the other. The government has claimed that youth wages are to be abolished and are to be replaced by a full adult wage regime. There is only one person in Australia who keeps talking about that in the media, and that is Peter Reith, the minister for workplace relations. He is the only person in this country who peddles that—the only person who raises it. It is not being considered by the Industrial Relations Commission. It is certainly not being advocated by this side of the House. But it continues to be peddled in the full knowledge that it totally misrepresents the current debate—a misrepresentation that is put to the public for crass political purposes.It is akin to the other assertions made by members of the government that they want to enshrine and retain junior rates of pay. This bill that was defeated in the Senate this week goes well beyond seeking to retain junior rates of pay. As the minister well knows and as any member of the government who bothered to read it would know, it actually requires the commission to insert into that 44 per cent of awards that do not presently have a junior rates pay scale such a junior rate scale.The minister keeps saying—and he said it again in question time today—that they would have a discretion, that this was a good thing and that we should support the discretion being given to the commission. Let us examine that. Firstly, every one of these awards has already been dealt with by the commission and the commission has exercised its discretion already and said that there should not be a junior rates scale in those awards. Every one of those is a commission determination.What the minister and this government want to do is shift the goal posts. If you read the explanatory memorandum and the documents the government has provided you will see that the commission's discretion extends only to deciding whether or not the area of work would allow someone who is under 21 to do the work. For example, if you are an engineer or a driving instructor you cannot be under 21, therefore there is no point in putting it in the award. That is the discretion. The government is seeking to change the goal posts in this debate on junior rates of pay.But the real crunch comes in the way this minister has handled the matter. He has set about misleading the public in this debate; but worse, he has now got himself in a mess. If you look at the record, what he said in this parliament and what happened in 1996, you confirm the views of everyone else in the room—we now know that what the minister has said about those meetings and that agreement is untrue.365219:35:003652Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I rise tonight to bring to the attention of this House two serious concerns that have recently come to my attention. One is the current methadone program, and with respect I formally ask our government to order a full inquiry before the appropriate government standing committee on the administration and delivery of the methadone program.The second is the sham that is the New South Wales drug court program, which is promoted by the Carr government to assist young addicts but which in reality is simply referring them on to the questionable methadone program.Methadone is a synthetic habit forming opioid drug. The program was initially instigated as a treatment to assist persons with a drug addiction so that they may eventually become drug free and begin to lead a healthy and normal life. I wish to give recognition to Mr Ross Goodridge, Barrister at Law at Edmund Barton Chambers, Sydney, for his research paper on the subject of the abuse of methadone entitled, `The methadone conspiracy: can addicts sue?' I am indebted to him for his scholarship and his diligence and I read from his paper:Between 1991 and 1997, doctors, health departments and clinics gradually introduced a policy called "Methadone Maintenance Programs" to replace the previous structure of "Methadone Treatment Programs". The difference between these may sound subtle but the consequences were anything but subtle. The current term, "Methadone Maintenance Programs", is often used as a euphemism for a process by which a patient's drug addiction is systematically increased to such a level as is only sustainable by resort to the free lifetime supply of drugs provided by the government. In this case, the `patients' are former heroin addicts, who have sought medical assistance in overcoming their addictions.The drug typically provided through this program is a synthetic version of heroin called methadone. The methadone is supplied in progressively larger quantities as part of the program's aim of achieving a certain `target' level of addiction. That target level may often be higher than the equivalent level of addiction at which the drug addict was at the time of entering the program. Once this high level of addiction is achieved, the policy becomes one of addiction maintenance, hence the name "Methadone Maintenance Programs".This policy appears to have been introduced by a number of doctors with the support and assistance of the various government health departments. Governments and their responsible departments have turned a blind eye to this policy of deliberate drug addiction . . . The concept of methadone treatment has been introduced into our vocabulary and conscience as a weapon against illicit drug addiction. However, many are not aware that this `weapon' has now become the leading source of opioid addiction in Australia. That is, there are currently more individuals addicted to methadone than to any other single natural or synthetic opioid, besides heroin.Of further concern is the estimate that some 29 per cent of Australia's 22,000 methadone addicts engage in the illegal resale of methadone on the streets. This sinister fact alone makes Australian governments the largest supplier of illegal drugs in this country.We urgently need a government led inquiry into the administration of methadone and its delivery to the addicts in our streets.In 1998 I worked with Mr Ross Goodridge to raise the awareness of the United States drug court program, which treats the drug problem as a health and social issue and not just as a criminal one. In the United States drug court program, the judge coordinates support for the addict. The addict returns to the court for weekly checks to ascertain that he or she is drug free. Proper rehabilitation resources are provided, with back-up counselling, vocational training and, if necessary, housing. The total objective of the drug court program in the United States is to do everything possible for the person to return him or her to a drug free life.However, with the New South Wales drug court program, the addicts are merely put on the methadone program. Many parents know that methadone does not work. Many parents know that it is a scandal and offers absolutely no hope whatsoever for the addict of ever achieving a drug free life again. The New South Wales drug court program is a complete and utter sham and, at its worst, a cruel hoax on the participants.It is not the intention of the Carr government to assist these young people to return to a drug free existence. I can say this because of a letter that has come into my hands from an organisation in the Liverpool area of my electorate, which has offered to the New South Wales drug court program a rapid detox program which aims to completely rehabilitate the addict and to help the addict to regain a normal, healthy and drug free life.This organisation offered the Carr government free treatment for 50 offenders from the New South Wales drug court at a value of $420,000. This was for treatment that covered up to 12 months. The Carr government refused, preferring instead to send the program participants to the controversial methadone program. It seems to me that the New South Wales government's pilot drug court program is nothing more than a political window-dressing for the coming state election at the end of this month. Even worse, it is a cruel joke on the young participants.If the Carr government was half serious about fixing the drug problem with our young people, they would have welcomed this generous offer from the detox organisation with both hands. This is nothing more than playing politics with people's lives. I would have to say it is shabby politics at its shabby worst. (Time expired)365419:40:003654Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise tonight to raise some issues associated with the provision of public housing. It is regrettable that public housing and issues surrounding the lack of public housing stock appear to have fallen off the mainstream political agenda. Part of the reason for this neglect is probably due to the fact that most people assume that home ownership is a goal that everyone strives for and will eventually achieve. Sadly, this is not the case.For a range of different people, the prospect of owning their own home is simply out of the question. They do not and will never have sufficient money to secure their own home. This situation appears to have worsened in the last couple of years, with only 6.4 per cent of the poorest 20 per cent of the population now purchasing homes compared with 11 per cent in the 1983-84 period.Looking at the performance of the Howard government on public housing, one witnesses a very sorry picture. The Howard government cut $200 million from public housing in the 1997-98 budget, and the states were told that they had to make up the shortfall themselves. Within my home state of Victoria, Commonwealth-state housing agreement funding allocations have dropped from $242,966 to $217,565 during the last three Howard budgets. This downward trend is set to continue, with the government cutting its contribution to the CSHA by $50 million in each financial year from 1997-98 to 2000-01.The CSHA was still unsigned as of last Friday, with state ministers unconvinced that they would be recompensed for the impact of a GST. By handing over GST revenue to the states, the government puts special purpose grants under threat. The South Australian housing minister, Mr Dean Brown, has stated that the lack of compensation for the GST alone would cut more than $100 million from public housing budgets. He further said:There'll be less houses built as a result of that and that will impact upon those who are trying to get into public housing, particularly those on very low incomes, the disabled and the aged.This is a damning indictment by a political colleague of the government's GST package and its effect on low income earners.The Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on housing assistance in 1997 noted that, nationally, about 12 per cent of applicants wait more than five years for public housing, `but that figure conceals wide differences between regions'. The committee heard evidence that in Victoria an older person could wait up to 10 years for public housing.As this suggests, waiting lists are soaring. Between 1987 and 1997, housing waiting lists have jumped from 30,076 people to 53,379 in Victoria. These figures just relate to people waiting for public housing stock let alone all of those people struggling on low incomes in desperate need of rental assistance.In my electorate of Chisholm there was a time when good, cheap public housing stock was a realistic goal for many working-class families. Where I grew up in Ashwood, a majority of these properties have been sold off and are now private property. There has been talk of replacing condemned flats within the Ashwood area with new commission housing, but this is yet to materialise.Probably the most poignant example of the housing problem was illustrated to me via a letter from a local constituent. Justine Ohlson is 19 years of age and is currently living in transitional housing in North Clayton. She meets the criteria to access the priority housing scheme. I would like to read from a letter she sent to me:Priority housing is for people who need accommodation fairly quickly or who have special circumstances.A few days ago I found out it now means nothing at all.I have been waiting for a one-bedroom unit for 16 months now. I phoned Cheltenham office to see how much longer I had to wait and I was told up to another three years. This distresses me greatly. The guy laughed and told me priority hardly exists any more. He said he can't remember the last time they had a vacant house. I've been third on the waiting list for six months now and I am still third.Obviously, this area needs more funding and I would be grateful if you could bring this crisis to people's attention. This problem has become dramatic. . . `This letter came to my office in January this year. Since then, Ms Ohlson has moved to first on the waiting list and has been told her wait should not be too much longer. However, after 18 months on the list, her wait continues.Mrs Ohlson's case is not unique. Those who apply for priority housing are often some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The Young Women's Housing Project in Oakleigh helps place mainly young single women in accommodation who have often suffered homelessness and various forms of abuse. They also assist women from non-English speaking and disadvantaged backgrounds. One of their principles is to offer continuing support by attempting to move their clients from crisis accommodation to medium or long-term accommodation within the same service. Their work in breaking the cycle of despair that develops in many young women is to be highly commended.It is projects such as these that will be placed under even greater pressure if funding levels for public housing continue to decline. Sufficient public housing stock safeguards those on low incomes and in vulnerable situations from poverty and homelessness. In a developed country such as Australia, it is disgraceful that any person should be denied the most basic of all rights—shelter by way of a roof over one's head.365519:45:003655Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Tonight I would like to commend to the House a regional employment growth forum which I attended recently on the Central Coast. The reason I want to mention this forum is that I believe it symbolises what many other areas should be doing: trying to coordinate and use cooperation between a number of groups within an area to seek out additional employment opportunities. Far too often, communities sit back and ask, `What are they doing about employment?' meaning `What is the government doing about employment?' The government can only do so much about employment. Regions have to become aggressive about attracting employment opportunities and seeking them out. We are doing that on the Central Coast.This regional employment growth forum was convened by the excellent Central Coast Area Consultative Committee, chaired at the moment by Ms Julie Becker, and the executive officer is Tom Robertson. They put together a forum of all the local community groups and business groups of note on the Central Coast. The groups attending this forum were the Central Coast Area Consultative Committee, the Central Coast Economic Development Board, the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation, Central Coast Tourism Incorporated, the Gosford Chamber of Commerce, the Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council.You can see, Mr Speaker, that this certainly was a meeting of all the key organisations for job creation on the Central Coast. Not always is that sort of cooperation seen in other areas—to have differing councils cooperating, having boards such as the Central Coast Economic Development Board, set up by the state government, and the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation, established by the federal government, cooperating in identifying employment opportunities is, in some ways, quite a unique situation.This half-day forum, held on Monday 22 February, attempted to coordinate what all these organisations were doing so that we would not have duplication. They set out examples of current projects that are being attempted or constructed, or seeking to be attracted to the Central Coast, projects such as the Somersby industrial estate, which still has 200 hectares undeveloped and represents a big opportunity to create more employment if we could attract more people to that estate. The Gosford City Council has allocated $70 million in their financial strategy to cover their arts centre, library, sporting facilities and upgrading of the Gosford CBD. That will attract some employment to the Central Coast.We identified the fast ferry project as being one that would help overcome some of the commuting problems and increase employment. The Grahame Park development, with the relocation of the North Sydney Bears, is a major project in Gosford city. The federal government has contributed $12 million, along with the state government's $12 million, to build this facility which is currently being undertaken.I was able to highlight at the forum some of the things that the federal government has done to help with employment on the Central Coast, such as the NEIS program, which is ongoing. It helps new businesses get started and then gives them income support for 12 months after they have completed the NEIS program. The Central Coast Export Centre was established through export marketing development grants. We have given financial support to the Business Mentoring Program, which was a pilot program started in Tasmania and was also developed on the Central Coast of New South Wales. That has been a great success.Another example where the federal government has been able to help with local employment on the Central Coast is the Centrelink call centre. We were able to coordinate opportunities that are available for attracting increased employment on the Central Coast and we coordinated what each key organisation on the Central Coast is doing to work towards a future increase in employment.In the last few seconds, I would like to congratulate the participants of the Youth Round Table which was held in parliament over the last three days. I attended some of the sessions. It was very interesting and enjoyable. I think every one of those participants should be proud of the contribution they made to that National Youth Round Table. (Time expired)365619:50:003656Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Over the past two or three months, there has been increased media attention in South Australia concerning the future of Adelaide's primary waste dump, the Wingfield landfill. This is a very important issue for a large number of residents in the electorate of Port Adelaide as Wingfield is located on the eastern side of the electorate. People in Wingfield and surrounding areas which make up the parks have suffered long enough with the antics of the operator of the dump, the Adelaide City Council, and they want the landfill closed. I totally agree with and support this proposition.The Adelaide City Council has had no regard whatsoever for the local community or the local environment, only in how much money it can extract from the operation of the dump. The council receives $13 million in dump fees and pockets about $8 million in profits each year. Without this money, the Adelaide City Council would have an $8 million hole in its annual budget. That is what this argument is about—nothing more, nothing less.Throughout the history of the dump, the Adelaide City Council has not acted responsibly. Every avenue has been exploited to make sure they have been able to maximise their return without any regard to any proper regulatory controls on the operation.Unfortunately, the main reason they have been getting away with this is due to a very poor planning decision way back in 1970 by the local council of the time, the Salisbury Council. They did this without any reference to limiting the maximum height of the dump or a length of time for the dump to operate. It is fair to say that the Salisbury Council would not have foreseen the antics and the lengths to which the Adelaide City Council has gone over the years to preserve its monopoly in the waste industry.With a realignment of council boundaries in 1987, the dump found itself in the Enfield Council area and, with recent amalgamations of councils in South Australia, in the City of Port Adelaide-Enfield. In March 1996 the Adelaide City Council applied to the Environment Protection Agency for the height of the dump to increase to 40 metres. The Port Adelaide-Enfield Council resolved in June 1996 that the height should be limited to 15 metres. The City of Adelaide sought a judicial review in the Supreme Court on the basis that it was at variance with the original planning consent back in 1970. That decision is now the subject of a further appeal and, with concern that an appeal may be successful, the Adelaide City Council is now suggesting a closure height of 32 metres by the year 2004.Then, in steps Diana Laidlaw, the state's Minister for Urban Planning. She intervened and, as of 17 February this year, introduced legislation into the South Australian parliament to set a closure height of 27 metres. The minister said she was acting on advice from the Environment Protection Agency that a 27-metre limit would allow a proper balance between surface water ponding and drainage concerns. This is due to the fact that the Adelaide City Council has continued to operate the dump, expecting no limitation, and its current physical configuration will no longer allow for a lower level for closure.Even the minister says that revenue and not best practice is driving the Adelaide City Council's public campaign for a higher cap. Even the Adelaide City Council admitted as much in the Standard Messenger on 11 January 1995, when a council spokesperson said that the dump was vital for the council's finances. One spokesman also thought it would be a good idea because Mount Wingfield, as it would be called, would become a handy guide to motorists who lost their way on the Salisbury Highway. Really! That is like me suggesting irresponsibly that the dump ought to be on the Victoria Park racecourse because that is the only damn good use for it.Their argument now is just as phoney as all the arguments that have preceded it. The fact is that the City of Adelaide needs to prolong the life of the dump as long as possible as it is responsible for maintaining the site for a period of not less than 30 years. In all the time it has operated this site, it has taken about $100 million in profit, yet put aside less than $100,000—0.01 per cent—for after-closure environmental management and other contingencies. Not only will it have to fill a revenue void but also it will have to find money for the management of this site—a double whammy caused totally by the mismanagement over the years. To this extent, I have no sympathies whatsoever for the Adelaide City Council.365719:55:003657McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—Tonight I would like to acknowledge International Women's Day last Monday, which was the 88th anniversary of the special day. This year also marks the centenary of women's suffrage in Western Australia.In acknowledging these two important events, I would like to acknowledge the women who have contributed to the development of community services. Their volunteer work contributes to a sense of community and their service involvement includes membership of management committees throughout Western Australia. In the community services sector, 85 per cent of workers are women, and 80 per cent to 85 per cent of the members of management committees and boards are women.These women do a wonderful job for their families, for their communities and for the various causes for which they provide a service, but particularly it is the carer services, which are run mainly by volunteers, that provide that support for the families and allow people to maintain their independence by living at home. I do not want to in any way discount the efforts of men. I also acknowledge the men who participate and feel comfortable working in an environment where consultation, cooperation and consensus are the primary modes of communication and decision making. Men are also involved in the community sector, and in other ways they contribute to this work by supporting their women who are involved in the committees and boards and as service volunteers.There are many women I know who have been role models to me, and I could not mention them all. But there are a number of services in my electorate that I would like to acknowledge. The Ishar Women's Multicultural Health Service does a wonderful job in providing counselling support to women and also, increasingly, to couples and to men. The Women's Health Care House is not located in my electorate but does provide a service to women in the lower part of my electorate. Organisations like the Mirrabooka Ladies Tuesday Club is essentially a social club. In providing that social service to the local community, it provides an opportunity for women to get together, to provide support to each other, share information and do some good works of benefit to the community.I think not enough acknowledgment is given to the volunteer work undertaken in any of the communities, but Stirling particularly has 300 community groups at last count, and the contribution of women to these groups primarily is through volunteer labour. I would like to see one day the efforts of volunteers—women, men and young people—counted into the GNP. It is one of the factors that is not taken into account and I think it is time, in these times of economic rationalism, that some of the other costs and underpinnings of society are acknowledged and taken account of.I would also like to take this opportunity to say that the funding of community services needs to be seriously looked at by the government, particularly if they want to minimise the impact on the federal budget of the running of institutions such as hospitals and large-scale health services. It is the volunteer and community sectors which have come in and provided services which are effective, cost efficient, sensitive and responsive and which allow the hospitals to send people home early. Other services help people maintain their independent living via the supporters of community services rather than the support of very expensive hospitals and institutions.In this year, the 88th anniversary of International Women's Day, and the Western Australian centenary of women's suffrage, I look to the government to take these points on board and perhaps come up with a broader range of programs and funding for these wonderful services.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:003658House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices3658The following notices were given:Dr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to health, and for related purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend legislation about higher education, and for related purposes.Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to amend laws, and to deal with transitional matters, in connection with the reform of the financial sector, and for other purposes.Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to provide for transfers of business between some kinds of financial institutions.Mr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 8 March 1999, namely: Landscaping of Western Formal Gardens, Parliament House.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to referendums.1999-03-10Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.Bills3659r704Billsr705Billsr706BillsBills3659Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.10:01:003659Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—As I address the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 currently before the House in this cognate debate, I want to refer to a couple of areas requiring these appropriations. They include over $83 million being appropriated for labour market training and assistance and $2.85 million to meet the litigation costs of the waterfront dispute—that is, over $2 million worth of taxpayers' money which is being wasted by this government in pursuit of its ideological attacks on Australian workers and on its determination to break the union movement—and also $147.47 million for the running costs of Centrelink and $15 million for computer equipment for the Department of Family and Community Services. The reason I particularly address these areas is that these are the areas which directly affect young Australians. There has been other more far-reaching and damaging legislation before this parliament affecting young people and more damaging decisions made by this government affecting young people.One of these pieces of legislation is the youth wages legislation, which was rejected by the Senate on Monday evening of this week. Thank goodness for that. It was rejected by the Senate even before 1 July, when those senators who were elected on 3 October last year take their places—those senators who were elected to oppose and reject the more outrageous and unfair pieces of legislation proposed by this government.Some may say that this debate is now over. However, we found out at question time yesterday that the Prime Minister intends to reintroduce the legislation into the Senate. The reintroduction of the youth wages legislation could take place before 1 July, so it is possible that the legislation could be passed by the Senate, depending on the results of the inquiry by the Industrial Relations Commission into youth wages. However, if the legislation is reintroduced into the Senate after 1 July, the composition of the Senate will include 35 government senators and 41 opposition senators. Those 41 opposition senators were elected to oppose this legislation, and will do so.As I said in the House of Representatives the other day, the youth wages legislation represents the most vicious and the most vile in a long list of attacks by this government on young Australians. If passed, it would force young people to work side by side with an adult colleague, doing the same work and being paid less money. It will exempt junior wage rates from the age discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 for ever and ever. To exempt junior wage rates from age discrimination provisions says that junior wage rates are discriminatory. Why else would they need to be exempt?The argument has been put ad nauseam by Minister Reith that businesses will spend their expanded profits on job creation, that if they do not have to pay a young person a fair day's wage for a fair day's work they will employ more. I do not think so.Another important issue for youth is the casualisation of the work force. Sixty per cent of young people are in at least one casual job. This situation further exacerbates the insecurity of young Australians. Those young people lack tenure; they lack reasonable expectations of pay, of overtime, of leave and of hours. The provision of junior wage rates would further attack any security that these young people may have. Once the junior wage rates stop because a young person has turned 21, so does the work.These young people helped bring this government to victory in 1996. They had been supported for 13 years by a Labor government. They had security. They had never participated in the labour market or tried to study under a conservative government. At the last election these under 25-year-olds came back to Labor, and more of them will come back at the next election. It is important that young people receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. It is just another example of this government saying to young people, `It is your fault that you don't have a job.'This government has a proven track record when it comes to making things tough for young people. We have seen the abolition of Austudy for young people, the introduction of the Youth Allowance for young people and the extension of dependency—making young people dependent on their parents until they are 25 years old; when they are adults—the introduction of up-front university fees, increased HECS fees and young people working for the dole with no adequate training or transferable skill preparation. A leading economist writing in the Australian about Work for the Dole said:Fewer than 4 per cent of the more than 180,000 young adult jobseekers on unemployment benefits are being helped by the Howard government's high profile work-for-the dole scheme, official figures show.. . . . . . . . .That figure amounts to fewer than one in 27 of the target population: the 182,559 people aged 18-24 years who were on the dole as unemployed jobseekers in December 1998.So, first, the Work for the Dole scheme is not working, and, second, young people working for the dole are not being adequately trained and are not receiving transferable skills.We have seen this government withdraw funding for the Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition, and now we see young people faced with the prospect of having their dole cut off because they cannot read or write. We have also seen this government rip out labour market programs which were in place under Working Nation. These programs were integrated and complementary programs which assisted the employment prospects of young people as a comprehensive package. The package included programs to address personal development, skills training, Jobsearch training, literacy and numeracy assistance, assistance with job applications and CVs, and wage subsidies for training periods.Following the 1996 election we saw $1.8 billion cut from these successful labour market programs. We saw the closure of the CES offices where young people could go and be assisted with employment and employment related development without having to go through the maze that is out there now with the Job Network and without being degraded and demoralised in the process. Young people who work hard for their pay may have to face the prospect of working just as hard but for less money. It is not fair that people can be paid different wages to do exactly the same job because of age difference. Young people should be paid based on their skill level and their competency, not on their age.The national training wage award was introduced by Labor as a measure of our commitment to end junior wage rates by 1997. Other awards and other industries could lock into the national training wage award to pay young people—anybody—a wage rate which depended on skill and educational levels, how long the person had been out of education and on the type of industry that person was working in. It is still there; it works and it can be used without resorting to junior wage rates. These measures will see junior wage rates expanded into areas where they do not currently apply and should not apply. It has been suggested that this could allow up to 200,000 young people to receive pay cuts.It is claimed that low wages for young people enhance youth employment prospects and that higher wages will see an increase in youth unemployment. Full-time junior rates are, on average, less than half the equivalent adult wages. We saw the same type of hysteria in 1969, when the Commonwealth granted women equal pay. We saw the media, governments and big business coming out saying, `This is going to result in hundreds of thousands of women being sacked from the retail sector.' That did not happen. Paying young people slave wages is not going to give anyone a job. It is going to reduce the costs for employers, but it will not guarantee the creation of one single job in Lake Macquarie or Newcastle, where real solutions are needed for youth unemployment.Workers as young as 15 pay tax. Young people drive cars. They vote in elections. They sign leases and they enter into contracts. They are old enough to be called upon to go to war, to aim a gun and to pull a trigger. In every other aspect of the community, young people are by the age of 18 classified as adults, except in the area of employment. Many young people who I know and talk to are at a critical stage. They are starting out in life; they are setting up places to live. The costs for young people are high, and having to work for even less to pay for things, including a GST, is a disgrace. Governments must provide hope for young people, not despair. We must nurture and encourage one of our greatest resources. We must invest in them. We must invest in education, invest in training and invest in family support.I turn to a comparison between the prospective junior rates of pay and executive salaries. For example, we see Paul Anderson, the CEO of BHP, on $1.5 million a year base salary. Bob Joss, before his resignation, received three-quarters of a million dollars base salary. George Trumble, of AMP, receives $1.4 million base salary. It is just appalling. And now Bob Joss has joined the ranks of the unemployed, with $36½ million—and we are asking young people to take up a job for junior wage rates.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Is he getting Work for the Dole?83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—He is not getting Work for the Dole. When I say that governments must invest in our young people, I mean that we must invest in young people instead of spending $19 million on GST advertising, instead of spending $7 million on advertising health insurance rebates. We need to make sure our young people feel part of our society. This government continues to ostracise and exclude these people and their valuable contribution. This proposal of youth wages is yet another nail in the coffin of our young people. We must encourage young people and not make things more difficult for them.The problem of youth unemployment presents a challenge which must be tackled to solve this major problem and the surrounding effects. As we head into the 21st century, the government must have a rounded approach to these issues, not the ad hoc approach of blaming young people for the circumstances in which they find themselves and punishing them in the hope that the problems will go away. This approach cannot and will not work. This is part of the government's agenda.The government seems to be following the advice of the International Monetary Fund, which urges a tough line on social welfare and the labour market. The agenda of the International Monetary Fund has encouraged some government departments already to develop plans for two-year limits in unemployment benefits.The IMF also promotes the target of bringing unemployment down to five per cent. That is why the Treasurer supports the target of five per cent: because he supports the IMF's tough line on welfare and the labour market. It is not because he sees the merit in Labor's proposal of the tax credit system, as Australia's five leading economists have; not because he sees the obvious merit in implementing a comprehensive set of labour market programs; but because this is the target set by the IMF and, if this government pursues its reform agenda, there will be huge social expenses and implications.I will finish by quoting a couple of well-known political commentators who addressed the issue of young people's despair only last month, both in the Sydney Morning Herald and on two days running. Adele Horin writes:. . . punishing the young has become a national sport.She goes on to say:It's just that it is rare these days to hear a positive political initiative on youth, or any expression of sympathy for their difficulties. Instead we get a cacophony of complaint as if young people were to blame for the collapse of the youth job market, the rise in inequality, the importation of cheap heroin, and the collapse of their parents' marriages.The Federal Government's dole-for-literacy program is a prime example . . . it is punitive and coercive.Adele Horin also says:Unfortunately, what Dr Kemp gave with one hand, he took away with the other. NSW, for example, gains a $3 million boost a year in Federal literacy money . . . In fact NSW stands to lose $13 million in federal funds this financial year . . . That is under Dr Kemp's enrolment benchmark adjustment formula. There was also a very powerful article by Bob Ellis in the Sydney Morning Herald , on 12 February. It was called `Stop lying to the young unemployed—we've failed them'. He writes:If courage is grace under pressure, they have it. They have done their 110 job interviews, and have been turned down. They have dressed up, pretended, come away rejected, had a drink and got up the next morning.. . . . . . . . .And now we are lecturing them on Mutual Obligation: they must be thrilled with that. For they have put in the hard yards, of imprisonment in schools in crowded classrooms with overworked teachers, in obsolescent courses that led nowhere. They believed us when we told them this misery meant, at the end of it, fulfilment. A job. A career. A family. Continuity. Hope of personal triumph. And now they have done the 110 job interviews, and found we were lying. At least one half of that Mutual Obligation is ours, and we have not delivered. And they do not trust us any more, or believe anything that we are saying. And why should they? We have told them lies. Bob Ellis goes on to say:Lack of career ambition is at least in part the fault of us for not giving them any real hope of career . . . The accusing finger points, and it points at us.I will quote the final paragraphs of Bob Ellis's article—and this particular article reduced me to tears when I first read it. He says:And I hate the society that is inch by inch eroding their self-esteem and wasting their talents and stoicism and grace and is now persecuting them for merely being born with hypocritical word games—mutual obligation, tough love, compassion with a hard edge, downsizing, workplace efficiency—worthy of Georgian England, where nine-year-olds were hanged for stealing purses to feed their families, and prayers uttered up from the gallows for their souls.It is time the lying stopped, and the hypocrisy and the tyranny. It is time, and time already, for a Sorry Day for our young. They are better people than we will ever be, and we are wrecking most of them, and slowly killing some of them, day by day.Thank you.10:19:003663Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to rise today to speak on the appropriation bills. I am particularly pleased to take the opportunity to look at the devastating effect this government's fiscal policy has had, and will continue to have, in my particular area of responsibility—housing. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the funding of housing is largely reliant upon the Commonwealth-state housing agreement.The first agreement came into force in 1945. It was, not surprisingly, like all the best things in this country, a Labor government initiative, that of the Chifley Labor government. It recognised that the basic premise the Commonwealth has is the responsibility to provide housing assistance to people in need.Currently there are more than 360,000 households in public housing. There are a further 235,000 people on the waiting list across Australia. Housing is a basic need and all Australians have the right to good quality and affordable housing. There is no doubt that more resources need to flow into the public housing sector. It is not surprising, however, that the Howard government has a contrary view.Since coming to office, the Howard government has cut funding to the Commonwealth-state housing agreement by $100 million—$8 million in this financial year and $92 million in 1997-98. This is an enormous cut for the public housing sector to absorb and it has significantly limited the public and community housing sector's ability to deal with the growing demand for affordable housing. In his 1997-98 budget speech the Treasurer justified the $100 million cut by stating:Efficiencies in public housing reform will yield savings of $50 million a year.What sorts of reforms was the Treasurer referring to? Did he mean the possible downgrading of maintenance levels of existing public housing stock, maybe cutting back on crisis accommodation or de-funding community housing associations? It is difficult to see where such cuts could be implemented without having a detrimental effect on those most in need. But we should be thankful for small mercies because at least the Treasurer mentioned housing in his 1997-98 budget speech. In the Treasurer's 1998-99 budget speech, housing did not rate a mention at all—not one word.Low cost housing has never been more difficult to obtain. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has reported that 880,000 households in Australia are living in unaffordable housing. The government has no interest in addressing this great area of need. It is clearly not a priority for the current government. Through most of the last 2½ years the negotiations for the next CSHA have been stagnant, initially because of inaction by the minister and more recently because the spectre of the GST hung over proceedings. Prior to the federal election, however, Senator Newman finally made a commitment to funding for a four-year CSHA from July 1999 to June 2003. This process has been derailed, however, by the government's stubborn refusal to properly investigate, and therefore compensate, state governments for the impact the GST will have on state housing authorities.Last Friday the states—all of them—refused to sign the new CSH agreement, as the government's offer failed to include any compensation for the impact of the GST on states and territories—all of them, Labor and conservative, refused to sign.The National Shelter submission to the Senate GST inquiry questions whether or not the CSHA will survive the introduction of the GST. The financial assistance grants will cease after the GST because the states will receive all of the revenue from this GST. Therefore, the future of the specific purpose grants to the states, such as the CSHA, are in doubt. This uncertainty is just another illustration of the inadequacy of the government's research into the effects of the GST on all areas of our economy.The implementation of a GST requires amendments to be made to a whole raft of related legislation, such as the bill amending the Trade Practices Act that went through parliament two weeks ago. The reason such bills are necessary is that the government's plans are so flawed that damage control is needed before the legislation is even in place.The cuts of $100 million to the CSHA, as serious as they are, only tell part of the story. The real cuts to CSHA funding are far greater. They have been hidden away in the budget papers in the hope that the Australian public will not pick up on the contempt that this government holds for the needs of the poorest in our community.On top of the $100 million that has been cut from the CSHA since the Howard government came to office, a further $360 million in funds allocated to the CSHA were never paid. According to the government, the interim CSHA `provides for a number of reforms in the delivery of housing assistance. These include a greater emphasis on accountability and transparency . . . ' Transparency? What a joke! The figures are there all right, but they are tucked away in the budget papers. In order to understand how this $360 million shortfall has occurred, it is necessary to go back to the 1994 Premiers Conference where Prime Minister Keating struck a deal with the state premiers. He guaranteed to maintain levels of funding to the states. As you can imagine, the state premiers were very happy with this guarantee.When the Howard government came to office in 1996 it was faced with a dilemma: how would it be able to extend its program of public sector slash and burn to cover states funding? There was a funding guarantee in place with the states. The government could renege on the guarantee, but that would come with its own guarantee of mutiny by its own state premiers.So at the 1996 Premiers Conference the Treasurer floated the idea of abolishing state sales tax, with the revenue going instead to the Commonwealth. Who could forget the warm response the Treasurer received from the state premiers when they heard his idea? The walkout by the state premiers was a severe embarrassment to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, especially given that they were all supposed to be on their political side—with the exception of the current and future New South Wales Labor Premier, Bob Carr.Therefore, the Treasurer had to come up with another way to rob the states of this much needed funding. The states, he said, would have to help bring the Commonwealth budget into surplus. They would be required to contribute to the Commonwealth's three-year deficit reduction program. In 1996-97 the states were required to pay the Commonwealth $619 million; in 1997-98 the figure was $626.6 million; and in this financial year the figure is $313.4 million.These state fiscal contributions could be made in a number of ways. The states could either pay the Commonwealth from consolidated revenue or they could have the amount deducted from their financial assistance grants. A third way the states could pay this contribution was to have the amount offset against the Commonwealth-state housing agreement.In the last three years, Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT have forgone funding specifically earmarked for public housing assistance to the tune of $360 million. This is not something the premiers, the chief ministers or the housing ministers of these states and territories would want broadcast all over the front pages of their local newspapers. Over three years the Borbidge government gave up over $285 million in public housing funding. In South Australia, the Brown and Olsen governments—it is hard to work out who is in control there at various times—between them gave up over $43 million. Here in the ACT the Carnell government gave up over $20 million. And in the Northern Territory the Stone government gave up $9.6 million.In one respect you have to hand it to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Push the states into a corner and then allow those governments, less concerned with helping the genuinely needy, to do the dirty work of cutting funds. In response the Prime Minister and the Treasurer can just wash their hands of their responsibility. It is a great Pontius Pilate act.I am pleased to note that the Carr Labor government did not take this course of action and all funds allocated to New South Wales went into housing assistance programs. Under housing minister Craig Knowles, the New South Wales Labor government has shown a genuine commitment to social housing. Over the last four years, in New South Wales, the Labor government has expanded the community housing sector by 3,000 dwellings; doubled the maintenance spending to $120 million; established the Aboriginal housing office, with its own independent board and control, with $350 million of housing assets; and established a 24-hour call centre for maintenance inquiries.The Commonwealth could learn a few lessons in social responsibilities from the Carr Labor government. But, instead, this government does not seem to have a clue. Certainly, the minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services in this House is clueless. During question time two weeks ago, the minister was asked a question relating to the GST and caravan parks. He failed to understand that over 100,000 Australians live permanently in caravan parks and he insisted that caravan parks were just tourist accommodation. Next time the minister goes on holidays to the coast, he should poke his nose outside his resort door for a minute, and go for a walk down the road to the nearest caravan park. Then he might get a better idea of the number of people who are living permanently in caravan parks because the caravan is the only form of permanent housing they can afford. There is no doubt that this situation will get worse under the GST.I want to address today some of the submissions that went before the Senate inquiry. The ACOSS submission to the Senate inquiry correctly states that low income families spend a much greater proportion of their income on housing, one of the necessities of life. The increased cost of housing as a result of the GST will have a devastating impact on private and public tenants and first home buyers. The introduction of a GST will see a considerable rise in homelessness.The Senate Community Affairs References Committee into the GST and the new tax system has demonstrated clearly that the GST will decimate Australia's housing sector. Business groups, government advisory committees, community organisations and tenants organisations were all unanimous in condemning the Howard government's GST proposals. The GST will make buying a home more expensive. It will increase rents for public and private tenants and cause a serious downturn in the construction industry. The GST will destroy jobs.A leading industry group told the committee that the GST would have a dramatic impact on employment in the construction industry. The Urban Development Institute of Australia which represents some of Australia's largest construction companies—including Boral, James Hardie and Lend Lease—were concerned that the GST only applies to new homes rather than established homes. New homes are often the most affordable for young families. The UDIA predicts that a house and land package costing $230,000 now will cost $248,500 under the GST. This adds years to a young family's mortgage.The removal of wholesale sales tax is virtually irrelevant as this tax applies to very few building materials at present. The UDIA estimates that the wholesale sales tax charged on materials for the average new home is currently less than $1,000. In contrast, the GST on a medium-priced Sydney home will be $24,728, leaving a shortfall of over $23,000. The situation becomes even more absurd when you look at other indirect taxes such as state and local government levies. Property developers will be required to charge you GST on the difference between the price paid for land and the price for which it is sold after subdivision because this will include state and local government charges paid during the development of the land. This GST will be a tax upon a tax. The so-called compensation package, the first home owners rebate, is grossly inadequate.The UDIA has produced modelling for the impact of the GST on a new home in Parklea near Blacktown in Sydney. This modelling shows that the cost of a normal home in the area will increase from $230,000 to $248,500. The government's rebate will only cover $7,000. There is a shortfall of $10,000 to be borne by the home buyer, and this is a very conservative model. And, given Sydney house prices, a very low level.If Australians cannot afford their own home due to the inflationary impact of the GST, they will also find that rents in the private market have also soared. Although rent itself is not subject to the GST, landlords will still have to pay GST on all their inputs. This means that maintenance, management fees and other recurrent costs will all cost the landlord more. What will they do? They will increase their rents, which will rise substantially. No-one in the sector believes the government's shonky figures. Not one witness before this inquiry backed up the government's arguments about 1.9 per cent inflationary impact.Do not expect public housing to be a safety net for struggling Australian families because peak housing organisations such as National Shelter and the New South Wales Federation of Housing have warned that public housing will be badly affected by the GST. Declining funding and soaring costs will deplete the capital funding available for housing.The New South Wales Department of Housing will have to spend an extra $11.3 million every year on maintenance alone. The so-called `compensation' package offered by the government is a farce. The New South Wales Federation of Housing concluded that a dual income couple, where both parents are unemployed with two children and receive the maximum amount of rent assistance, will be `compensated' by the government an extra $1.76 in rental assistance per week—$1.76 a week will not even begin to compensate a family such as this for its increases in expenditure. Ironically, the compensation package will also cause public housing rents for pensioners and the unemployed to rise, as their rents are indexed to their income. Under the GST, it is the needy and the vulnerable who will suffer most.Residents who live in caravan parks have now been thrown into confusion about whether they will be paying five per cent GST on their rents, 10 per cent GST on their rents or whether their landlord will merely pass increased costs on to them by way of increased rents. Either way, the poorest in our community will pay more.In Adelaide, the Senate inquiry was told that strata title schemes and body corporates would be forced to add the GST to their levies. Gordon Russell of Unitcare Services in South Australia told the inquiry that, if introduced, this would impact on approximately 1.1 million unit owners in Australia of whom 286,000 are aged over 65 and, of course, on fixed incomes. What this means is that strata schemes will be forced to levy a GST, track the GST charged on goods and services purchased and then fight their way through the paperwork to claim any tax credits. Not all strata schemes are large organisations. Some involve as few as two or three home owners. It is absurd for the government to expect these organisations to take on such an onerous role in the administration of the taxation system. This is bound to have an effect on the financial security of body corporates because it discourages savings for future maintenance. This is because the GST is levied at the time body corporate fees are paid, yet the tax credits for GST charged on goods and services can only be claimed when the work is done, which may be some years down the track.So far, we have seen business groups, the welfare sector, community organisations and industry associations tell us that the government has it wrong—that a GST will not help the economy, it will not create jobs and it will leave low and middle income earners worse off. How many more experts do we need to convince Howard and Costello that they simply have got it wrong? To quote once more from the GST inquiry, my colleague Senator Chris Evans asked a question of the department:So the answer to my question about whether there is going to be any work done on the impact of public housing is that it is a macro issue and therefore you are not doing any work on it?Mr Tune:We are not doing any work on it. It is for the states to work out whether there will be any impact if they think there will be one. They are the ones who are running the state housing authorities.What an incredibly irresponsible and arrogant response from this government. It also shows why, last Friday, the states refused to sign the government's new Commonwealth-state housing agreement. They issued a statement accusing the government of not including any compensation for the impact of the GST on states and territories. Why is that surprising when they have not bothered to do any modelling; when they have not bothered to check what the impact would be; when they say, `Even though it is the Commonwealth government introducing this new tax, we wash our hands of any responsibility about the impact; that is something to do with the states'?Public housing is funded by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth therefore has a responsibility to look at the consequences of its tax legislation on those states. The appropriation bills before the House and the budgetary sleight of hand to hide the $360 million in hidden cuts to the public and social housing sector highlight this government's systematic failure to meet its responsibility to provide assistance for the people who need it most in this country.10:39:003668Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I bring to the attention of the committee a situation in Australia which is confronting a number of young people with disabilities. I refer particularly to a couple of those kids who come from my electorate.Last year, on 9 December, there was a very special graduation ceremony at a school called Burbridge, which is in my electorate and which I have known for many years. Burbridge is a tremendous school and has a great record of giving very good service to young people with disabilities. I would like to quote from the Burbridge Bulletin which was put out following this graduation ceremony:Dear Parents and Care GiversGraduating Students 1998Last evening, parents, family members and staff, present and ex-staff, enjoyed dinner at the Princess Road Function Centre with our 1998 graduates. Ben Bleakley, Monique Hince, Mitchell Johnson, Jody Palleson, Rachel Sinclair, these were the graduating students. All graduates were very smartly dressed for the occasion and displayed excellent social skills throughout the evening.Our special guests were Mr Ted Cunningham, MLA, and Mrs Julie Cunningham.The students were acknowledged for their achievements in three post-compulsory curriculum areas of leisure and recreation, career education and independent living. They were presented by Mr Cunningham with beautifully arranged portfolios which gave a snapshot review of the graduates' post-compulsory education at Burbridge School. The portfolios were presented by Miss Colleen Rowan and Mrs Lyn McDougall, assisted by Mrs Dale Powell.Each student has already selected his/her preferred program in the post-schools options for 1999.Following the presentations and dinner, Mr Trenton Harris provided lively music while students, family members and staff danced and socialised.We wish each of the graduates all the very best in the achievement of their personal goals in the future.That was obviously a very proud time for these young graduates and a very proud time for their families. But I would like to look at what has happened to those young people since that graduation. I will deal with just one of those people, Mitchell Johnson, whom I have had the pleasure to meet.Since that graduation, there has not been any work placement funding for this young bloke and others. Mitchell is involved in recreation and independent living skills programs on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but the other days, when he should and does expect to be out doing other, more productive things with his life and with his skills, he sits at home awaiting the availability of funding for supported employment.I refer now to the National Council on Intellectual Disability Campaign Bulletin of February this year, which contains an article on the particular problem that is confronting Mitchell and many others. Under the heading `Recreation . . . Work . . . or "Watching TV" for School Leavers', the article reads:A shortfall in federal funding of supported employment places for 1998 school leavers with disabilities has left hundreds of former students sitting at home with nothing constructive to do during the day.NCID has been advised that the original allocation ran out in December/January 1999 . . . just before the bulk of school leavers would normally take up their supported employment option. A further $5-million is available for new supported employment in 1999, but the Government has yet to determine how it will be allocated. While students with more severe disabilities have already begun their state-funded community access/recreation programs, school leavers who want to work, are (as one agency put it) "expected to continue watching TV while the Federal Government works out its funding policy".Disability agencies in those States which offer the choice between employment or community access programs to ensure continuity of skills development for young adults with disabilities report that, in previous years, federal funding decisions were made well before the start of the new school year.This year, school has resumed, community access has resumed, and still there is no word on funding for the hundreds of 1998 school leavers who are waiting at home for news of when they will be able to start their supported employment.I understand that what is happening is that the government are looking at a number of models—even this late into the new school year, they are still looking at these models—and I understand, via the post-school options working party, that a couple of those models include the old DEETYA model called milestone funding, whereby a certain amount is allocated at the beginning and then when placed in a job, et cetera. Another option they are looking at is the new school leaver initiative from last year, where agencies could apply on behalf of a school leaver with a plan and an amount which would be required to implement the plan. But the funding is not there.I understand that the minister is the person who is not making the decision. For some reason or other, any funding decisions are being delayed until about June. In the meantime, these young people have been referred by Centrelink to various agencies. So what we are seeing is a situation where, from what I can understand anyway, Centrelink is getting these young kids off their books, so they do not show up as a statistic, but until someone in an existing program dies or moves interstate these kids cannot do anything but sit on a waiting list. In the meantime, the minister, with this X million dollars of available money, is sitting on her hands not making a decision. I just find that absolutely outrageous.These young kids have gone through school, they have had tremendous support from schools like Burbridge, and they have tremendous support from their parents and others in the community. But at a time when they should expect to have the opportunity to further develop their skills and to go into some productive type of employment—although it is supported employment; I understand that—they have just run into a brick wall. And that brick wall seems to be the minister. I think it is time that the minister started to earn her money and made a couple of decisions that would enable these young people to flow on to and move into some more productive areas where they can develop their skills.The other issue I want to deal with is one I raised when I made my maiden speech in parliament on 11 November last year. I raised the issue then of half-a-dozen diggers who, because they were not officers, did not get medals that—in my view and in the view of the broader ex-service community—they were entitled to get. At the time I raised the issue I also wrote to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Bruce Scott, and I want to quote the letter, written on 3 December:Dear MinisterPlease find enclosed self-explanatory correspondence relating to the "medals fiasco". I understand you may already be aware of the correspondence I have enclosed.Minister, a spokesman for your office made public statements to the media on your behalf on 11th November indicating that this matter was being reviewed. I would appreciate your advice as to:(a) who will conduct the review;(b) when the review will be completed; (c) whether any opportunity non-government organisations or individuals will be provided to ensure balanced input to the review.As I indicated to you, I am happy to leave the matter with you for the time being but I do seek an assurance on the terms and timing of the review to ensure that the matter is being progressed.I would appreciate being kept informed of developments and to offer any support I can provide to help resolve the issue and ensure that these blokes have justice delivered in the best traditions of our Australian heritage.As I said, that letter was dated 3 December. I have sent copies to various people, including Veterans' Affairs and the RSL.I am very disappointed to say I have not even received an acknowledgment to that letter and I have received no reply. I would have thought that, after some three months, the least I could have had is an acknowledgment. It just seems to me that this discourteous attitude by the minister is simply unwarranted. The letter is not political. It is just a letter from a member of parliament who is endeavouring to do his best for constituents and for people that I happen to feel have been unfairly treated.I think it is unacceptable for any minister of any government to treat a member of parliament this way. If you are going treat a member of parliament this way, what hope do people in the broader community have—particularly these six blokes—of ever getting the justice they deserve? I hope that the minister might take note of my comments and do something in his office to at least respond to what I think was a squarely fair and reasonable letter.There is another issue relating to veterans which I want to draw to the attention of the committee. It concerns probably our most recent veterans, the Australian Gulf War veterans. I want to quote a letter that was written to me by the Chairman of the Australian Gulf War Veterans Association, a very delightful young bloke by the name of David Watts. The letter is entitled `Australian Gulf War Veterans and Health Issues Associated with Gulf War Illness'. He says:Dear Graham,Following our meeting of 25 January 1999, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and assistance with this issue.The Australian Gulf War Veterans Association is currently in the early stages of setting up and getting our affairs in order to help our veteran community. As you may be aware Australia committed approximately two thousand service personnel from all branches of the ADF to the various stages of this conflict. Predominantly these forces were members of the Royal Australian Navy. Around one thousand of those members were involved in the period of hostilities against Iraq.Our association has around 60 members at this stage. Over twenty report they suffer symptoms similar to those reported by veterans of the coalition forces arrayed against Iraq, symptoms commonly associated with Gulf War Syndrome/Illness. A number of those are currently serving members.The association has been furnished with the following limited information from the Department of Veterans Affairs: seven veterans have died to date (March 1998) 4 cancer, 2 accidental deaths and 1 suicide. Over ninety have applied for pensions for over two hundred various illnesses. Around sixty have been granted various pensions, only half of the claim conditions have been accepted as service related. DVA will not release the names of our dead.The core symptoms being experienced by veterans here and abroad are as follows: chronic fatigue, gastro intestinal problems, diareah, chest pain, heart problems (irregular pulse/blood pressure), chronic head aches, eye pain, ear pain, stomach cramps, burning diareah, urinary tract problems, burning semen, nausea, liver problems, kidney problems, bronchial problems, thyroid problems, sinus problems, anxiety, depression, mood swings, bleeding gums, chronic joint pain, muscle weakness, memory loss, reproductive problems, light sensitivity, dizziness, concentration loss, vision problems and bleeding bowels.As I made mention, there are currently no Statements of Principles in force to cover Gulf War Illness under the Veterans Entitlement Act and as such veterans of this conflict cannot get medical treatment at the departments expense. Our association has recently received correspondence from the Repatriation Medical Authority in connection with the above matters however we do not envisage resolving the situation overnight. To that end it is our hope we may gain support of yourself and other Federal Members of Parliament to pass an amendment to the VEA and issue a white specific entitlements card to veterans of the gulf war.I believe an appropriate format in which this could be done would be for the Department of Defence/Veterans Affairs to endeavour to contact all serving and ex-members. They should outline systems to be aware of and advise the veteran to respond to this proposal if the veteran needs medical assistance. On receipt of the veterans' claim a white card could be issued with a letter of explanation as to the symptoms to be treated by Local Medical Officers. Given the lack of counselling to veterans on their return from active service it would also be an ideal time to mention the free counselling available to veterans via the VVCS.I feel that the cards should be valid for an indefinite period until such time as appropriate Statements of Principals can be enacted to give Persian Gulf War veterans fair rights under the VEA to claim medical treatment and compensation from the Commonwealth. The card should remain valid for cancer and PTSD treatment for the life of the veteran as applicable under existing rules.Veterans from the United States and Great Britain already have legislation in place to treat their ailments. I hope we too can mirror that here in Australia in the near future.As I said, that letter was signed by David Watts the Chairman of the Australian Gulf War Veterans Association.On receipt of that letter and having had the opportunity to meet this young man, and to meet other veterans of the Gulf War, I approached the President of the RSL in Western Australia, Ken Bladon, and asked him whether he would be prepared to have a look at these issues, to meet with these people, and to put the resources of the RSL behind these fellows to ensure that their medical problems were addressed. I must say I was then very pleased when Ken Bladon called together a number of his executive from Perth and we had a very good meeting.Ken Bladon and the RSL in Western Australia have picked up the issue and they have now contacted every other state branch and the national body of that organisation. They are going to do what they can, not just to lobby the minister but to ensure that these Gulf War veterans do not have to go through the same prolonged fight that veterans of previous conflicts have had to do in order to have their medical needs addressed and assessed and, where necessary, to receive appropriate pensions and levels of treatment.It seems to me that if we can commit troops from this country along with troops from our allies—including the United Kingdom and America—and if following those conflicts those other countries can look after their veterans in the way that has been described in that letter, then I think that we in Australia ought to be able to do the same.We have reached a stage surely in our evolution as a nation, given the various conflicts we have participated in throughout our history, where the Department of Veterans' Affairs, instead of sitting back and waiting for veterans to fight the bureaucracy, tries to understand the medical issues that veterans have got to deal with as they concern individuals and families.I would have thought that the time had arrived for the department to be able to reach out to those veterans, to find out where they are, to find out what medical symptoms they are experiencing, if any, and to point out to them some of the experiences and medical symptoms that other veterans are experiencing and alert these veterans to some of the possible medical problems that they may confront. It seems to me that this should be something that the Department of Veterans' Affairs should be able to do. I encourage the minister to have a look at the situation and to perhaps instruct the Department of Veterans' Affairs to become a bit more proactive.In terms of the first issue I raised, it is inappropriate for the minister to treat young people with disabilities in this way, to be sitting on money and not go out there and allocate that money to ensure that young people, such as those that I have alluded to here today, have the opportunity to be in supported employment, if that is possible. If the minister needs to conduct a review—and I understand the need for departments to have reviews from time to time—then I feel that the review could be conducted while these young people are being put into productive areas where they can develop and enhance the skills that they have learnt at very good educational facilities like Burbridge.It is important to say that for young people with disabilities who have become skilled at educational facilities, who have had their expectations raised, and often with a great degree of application and family support, it is really a crime to then let those young people sit at home and to see those skills fall away. Above all, what these young people need is the opportunity to continue to practise the skills that they have learnt so they can retain them.The minister is sitting on the money and in my view she should release that money and ensure that the needs of these young people, young Mitchell and hundreds of other young kids with disabilities across Australia, are given the opportunities that they richly deserve. (Time expired)10:59:003672Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In speaking on these three appropriation bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , I would like to draw a direct link between the appropriation that is being set aside to fund the massive redundancies in Centrelink, which is the first port of call for our unemployed, and the government's general policy of reducing wage rates to overcome unemployment.I particularly refer to the government's attitude to junior wage rates as expressed in legislation that was gagged through this parliament in the first week of this sitting this year. That legislation, while not directly legislating for a reduction in the existing youth wages, does have the effect of encouraging the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to insert new junior wage rate clauses in awards where they are not presently in force. That particular bill, once again, shows the government is overlooking the major cause of youth unemployment and unemployment generally, which is that governments are not able to provide sufficient work for all Australians who want to work.The Labor Party will strongly oppose any move by this government to use the current high unemployment to reduce wage rates for Australian workers or to prevent workers receiving a fair wage for a fair day's work. Wages should be based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. They should also be based on the scale of competency, base classifications and pay scales. Setting of wage rates should be the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and not of this parliament. Junior wage rates are discriminatory. They result in many young people losing their employment once they reach a certain age, being replaced by a younger worker on a lower rate of pay.I will refer to a number of briefings obtained through the Bills Digest service, which I commend for their excellent work on our joint behalf. I do not agree with all the views expressed. For example, it is stated in the brief that the causes of youth unemployment are ascribed to three factors: inadequate levels of total demand in the economy, which I think we would all agree with; unsustainable levels of youth wages, which we do not agree with on this side of the House; and structural and technologically induced changes in the labour market, something which I think is generally accepted.In my view, there is a fallacy being promoted widely that youth wages are too high. I believe that many, if not the majority, of our young unprotected youth are being exploited by low wages and are either too intimidated to object or need the job too much to complain.It is clear that the statistical evidence presented does offer something of a mixed picture. Over time there appears to be a strong, positive relationship between the levels of total unemployment, economic activity and unemployment amongst the 15- to 19-year-olds. I have also seen evidence presented that leans towards an argument that rises in youth wages have a more pronounced effect on the employment prospects of young females than those of young males. However, I would suggest that changes to the structure of the work force and the nature of work are playing quite a larger part in the rates of youth unemployment than are youth wages. This is where the government has lost its thinking on this issue. It is not looking and zoning in on what the real problem is.In a report entitled Youth employment: a working solution of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, of which I know you, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, were a member, page 3 states:Changes in the composition of the labour market have seen the most severe declines occurring in entry level jobs once the domain of teenagers entering the labour market. Employment growth for teenagers in skilled trades has been strongly negative, falling more than 33 per cent in about ten years. Banking was once an industry which gave large numbers of teenagers their first job as a teller but technology has transformed the industry and entry level jobs have disappeared. In the insurance industry the proportion of employment for under 21 year olds has fallen from 18 per cent of the work force to about 5 per cent since 1987. Technology and policies favouring privatisation, corporatisation and outsourcing have also transformed the state and federal public sectors at the cost of large numbers of entry level jobs.We can all remember the clerical area, particularly within the federal and state governments, where thousands of young people were brought in at junior levels and some worked their way ultimately up the grades. Now there is nil or almost nil intake and unfortunately the same has happened to some extent in the apprenticeship area.Where are all the potential young employees? I expect many of them are performing part-time or casual employment on low wages, and others are being kept at school, and still others are now once again being supported by their hard-hit families. Again and again the theme keeps recurring and recurring about issues other than wages being the cause of unemployment amongst our youth.Why therefore do we keep hearing continual harping on and on by the government and some employers that cutting youth wages will solve all our problems? It is my firm belief that, when the penny drops with the government that cutting youth wages will not relieve unemployment, we will then see the government moving into the only solution that they have to unemployment—a general wage cut. We are seeing this almost on a daily basis and that is so close you can feel it breathing down your neck. I am surprised it has taken the members for Bennelong and Flinders so long to raise that issue in this House. They are both so stereotyped in their attitude to the workers of this country that it is almost breathtaking to see in our so-called enlightened 1990s.The issue of wages should be based not on gender, age or seniority but on competency skills. If the person can do the job, they should get the pay irrespective of age. A joint government submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which incidentally excluded New South Wales, Tasmania and Queensland, in fact supported the notion of a competency based regime, as it says, in part:As well as being non-discriminatory, the main advantage of skill-based classification structures is that they create incentives for skill formation by ensuring that employees capture the benefit of acquiring higher skills through higher wages.I would submit, as does the Labor Council of New South Wales, recognised as one of the most progressive employee or employer organisations in Australia, that the most practical and desirable means of replacing junior wage rates is with a non-discriminatory alternative which completes the process of developing a set of competency based classifications for each industry. I quote from page 8 of the Labor Council's submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into junior wage rates:With such a set of skill based classifications a young person may progress upwards as skills, knowledge and maturity advance under such a framework. Both the work value and equal pay for equal work of equal value principles may be satisfied. A young person's worth to an employer may be appropriately classified and remunerated according to the measures, skills and life experience. This would represent application of the structural efficiency principles to junior wage rates by establishing a set of consistent skill based rates of pay.These skills and life experience have been identified as key competencies in the Mayer committee report as being collecting, analysing and organising information; communicating ideas and information; planning and organising activities; working with others and in teams; using mathematical ideas and techniques; solving problems; and using technology.In the Labor Council submission, reference is made to a paper produced by Colin Ducker on key competencies, and I quote in part:Key competencies will provide a thread which is anchored in secondary schooling, runs through vocational education and training, and ties into work at adult life, and key competencies will be incorporated into national industry competency standards which in turn are forming a significant relationship with the development of vocational education and training curriculum.Key competencies assist in the school to work development of young people and are designed to be included into industry training packages, capturing characteristics of which age has been used as a substitute.Youth employment should be used to develop skills that will enable young people to develop into productive workers of the future. Junior wage rates are not designed to achieve this objective. They were initially based on the needs of young people being less than those of adults. Wage rates for young people should be based on a non-discriminatory, equal pay for equal work principle. That will provide a wage rate based on performance, productivity and work value, not on age alone. Under this government it has been proved time and time again that new technology and low wages have not resulted in increased employment opportunities for young workers. We can take the banking industry as an example.As a first step in moving away from junior wage rates, a strong case can be made out for an immediate move for 18-year-olds to be recognised as adults for the purpose of payment of wage rates, provided they have the skill and provided they are performing the work of an adult. An 18-year-old is now obliged to vote in Commonwealth and state elections, can hold a drivers licence, take out loans and access credit cards, and is able to marry, make a will and enter into legal contracts. So why should young people not be paid a wage rate based on the value of their work rather than their age?Many coalition members hold the sincere but old-fashioned view that low wage rates will increase employment opportunities for young people. This could be true if there were an increased number of jobs available for young people, but such is not the case. While there has been a fall in entry level jobs for young people, we have seen also a drop in earnings by young people, particularly young men.I refer to a report released by the Australian National University, Competing with Dad: changes to the inter-generational distribution of male labour market income. This report found that the full-time employment income of young men aged 15 to 19 had fallen by 60 per cent, or $96 per week, over the 1976-95 period. For young men aged 20 to 24, the fall in income is 32 per cent, or $147 per week. The fall in full-time employment income is not confined to the young. For men between 25 and 34 years, the income fall is $93 per week. For those between 35 and 54 years, the income fall is marginal. But for those aged 60 to 64, the weekly income fall is $128 per week. This report indicates that women have been subject to similar labour market changes but with somewhat slightly different outcomes. Labour market incomes for women under 25 have fallen, but, for all other female age groups, labour market incomes have increased.The interesting point to note in this debate is that these falls in income for young people and for males have not transferred into job growth. That is the lesson that this government must learn. The effect of this fall in income for young males could be the driving force for some of the social changes occurring amongst our young people. The ANU report states, in part:It is quite clear that the ability of young males to accumulate income from full work to finance household formation, for example, or to support children, has fallen to a very large degree. Their ability to separate themselves financially from parents has weakened. The insecurity generated by real wages and employment losses might be expected to be considerable. The reality approximated by this data explains the oft-heard remark that, on average, young men today cannot expect to be as well off as their father, at least in terms of their ability to earn their way from full time work.While Australia is experiencing this fall in income, there are job opportunities for young people. This is the problem. We are not matching people up with the jobs that are available. There appears to be a shortage of existing skills in some industries and occupations. The report Youth employment: a working solution suggested that there were unfilled jobs Australia wide in the hospitality and hotel industry and, certainly, in some sections of the metal industry.An interesting letter by Ben Power, published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 December 1998, highlights another problem. The letter, which relates to the fact that we are falling behind in training our young people for the skills of the future, reads, in part:Australia's information technology (IT) industry says it is short of 30,000 skilled people, and industry leaders warn that the nation could miss the bus on the information superhighway.. . . . . . . . . The chairman of the Australian Information Industry Association and managing director of DMR Consulting Group, Mr Alan Baxter, said yesterday that Australia needed to consider liberalising immigration rules and beefing up training programs or face a slowing economy. Mr Baxter said that 30,000 jobs were concentrated in service areas of the IT industry, with a shortage in areas such as Internet development and Y2K (Year 2000 bug) specialists, but the impact of the shortage would be economy-wide."It's affecting users of the IT and T industry, and organisations like banks, government departments, airlines and insurance companies," he said.Mr Baxter said the shortage would worsen, with American and European companies beginning to poach Australian IT workers."We need to get creative, putting in place courses to upgrade the skills of people, employing graduates in other disciplines and putting them on accelerated training programs," he said.Mr Baxter said the number of students undertaking IT courses in Australia was falling, with many school leavers, especially females, failing to realise what industry offers in terms of career opportunities and salaries.I believe that last paragraph is very important and one that we all should take on board. According to that particular gentleman, our education system certainly is not meeting the challenges of the future.One of the major issues relating to young people finding suitable employment is that they get the right advice as to what jobs are available, where these jobs are and what qualifications are required to obtain these jobs. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on career advisers in schools and TAFE colleges. This emphasis should be on a national basis, with career advisers being people with long industry experience and having available to them the employment vacancies across Australia.The federal government should be providing financial assistance to enable young people to obtain employment interstate or in remote areas. This financial assistance should be in the form of travel costs for interviews and travel accommodation and living expenses for young people who are required to travel and live away from home.Governments need to take note of the remark made in the report entitled Youth employment: a working solution that I quoted from earlier in this speech. It states:Technology and policies favouring privatisation, corporatisation and outsourcing have also transformed the state and federal public sector at the cost of a large number of entry level jobs.This gap left in the training of young people by these government policies has not been filled. There is a need, therefore, for governments to develop a group training company concept attached to those industries—if they still run—such as rail, transport, water and electricity, and to encourage private industry to do the same. I submit that this would be a more positive move to reduce youth unemployment than is simply reducing wage rates.11:18:003676Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—There is an old adage from northern European folklore which says:Woe to that child which when kissed on the forehead tastes salty. He is bewitched and soon must die.It is probably not all that fashionable to get up and speak in this place on the issue I want to raise again today, but I feel compelled to do so. I do it on behalf of the thousands of Australians touched by the menacing disease referred to above, namely, cystic fibrosis—not just for the sufferers of this life limiting condition but for their immediate families, relatives and friends who also have a daily struggle against this chronic illness. I am sad to say that they are now also fighting the system, a system that to them just does not seem to understand, a system which no longer recognises cystic fibrosis as a chronic medical condition.For those who do not know, cystic fibrosis—or CF—is a genetic disease which some textbooks still call a `fatal condition'. One out of every 2,500 Australian children is born with cystic fibrosis. They do not have a choice; nor do their families. It is the most common chronic genetic illness in Australia and, even with aggressive treatment, sufferers have only recently started to live beyond school age. Apart from the obvious physical pain, it causes social, emotional and psychological problems at any stage of childhood and adult development. It is often described as the invisible chronic illness, and few people are fully aware of its effects.That is no excuse for the anguish cystic fibrosis sufferers and their families are feeling right now. You see, with the stroke of a pen, cystic fibrosis is no longer considered a chronic medical condition. It has been wiped off the list of recognised disabilities that qualify for the full child disability allowance—or CDA. That means that families whose children are diagnosed with cystic fibrosis no longer automatically qualify for the allowance. Under the previous assessment system for CDA, a child had to have a disability and, as a result of that disability, require substantially more care and attention on a daily basis than a child of the same age without disability. Some disabilities, such as CF, were considered sufficient in themselves to automatically fulfil the care requirement. These were called `manifest disabilities', and eligibility was automatic.A new assessment tool for CDA was introduced on 1 July 1998. CF is now no longer deemed a recognised disability for CDA. It is considered neither a severe disability nor a chronic medical condition for the purposes of determining eligibility for CDA. It was, however, included as a recognised disability up until the final of three rounds of determining eligibility. This is grossly unfair and is placing a huge extra burden on families with children suffering from CF. It is not only families that are at a loss to understand why. Many members of the medical fraternity have openly questioned the decision. Take this comment from Dr Derek L. Mitchell from Lindisfarne, Tasmania:The disability allowance is essential in giving CF families some reeds against the cost of medication, food and the investment they must make in time spent on treatment every day of their collective lives.You may care to know that the amount of Allowance in fact only partly redresses the huge financial gap imposed by Cystic Fibrosis.This reversal of the existing disability assessment arrangement is ridiculously ill-considered and should be reviewed forthwith. The decision demonstrates gross ignorance and a lack of care and compassion wholly inconsistent with the values of a civilised society.And this quote is from the mother of a young girl in Burnie in my electorate who has cystic fibrosis:My eldest daughter lives daily with the burden of carrying the CF gene. She has just undergone her seventh operation. She is 12 years old. No one could describe our existence as being particularly normal but we do our best.I fear that the decision to remove CF was one of medical ignorance.I fear it was too. These families are not looking simply for a handout; they want recognition of the daily struggle of cystic fibrosis sufferers and their families and some help for the financial strain that it puts them under. The full CD allowance provides for a fortnightly payment of $75.10. Those sufferers and their families judged eligible for the allowance prior to 1 July last year will be cut from the financial support in 2003. That is wrong.I would like to examine now why cystic fibrosis has been removed from the list of chronic medical conditions. The new functional assessment tool—or FAT—has, according to Mr Andrew Herscovitch, the Assistant Secretary of the Disabilities and Carer Branch in the Department of Family and Community Services, been based on the premise that the impact on a family will vary according to the level of severity of the child's disability.The argument for taking cystic fibrosis off the list of chronic conditions is that, although CF is incurable and requires considerable care and attention from the parents, most children with a condition do not require significant levels of medical treatment or supervision. It has been acknowledged, though, by Mr Herscovitch that `to some extent these are matters of judgement and there are different opinions on the matter'. The major argument being put forward in defence of the decision to downgrade the seriousness of CF as a medical condition is that there have been improvements in the treatments for CF in recent years, resulting in a more favourable prognosis and a reduction in the disabling effects of the condition. But, remember, this is an incurable disease. It can only be treated, and only constant treatment will give a child with CF a reasonable chance at life.The noted US researchers Michael Welsh and Alan Smith, while noting the progress in detecting and understanding CF, have written:. . . prospective parents need to understand that a child born with CF today will still have to cope with the disease and may not be spared a premature death.Certainly CF sufferers are living longer, but why? It is because of the selfless devotion and love of families who are constantly providing treatment and care for their children. How can that be measured under the new functional assessment tool criteria? It cannot, because the FAT for CDA fails to provide any assessment item that will pick up a child who has CF. Essentially—and I stress this—unless a child qualifies and is waiting for a transplant or is on oxygen or fully dependent upon gastrostomy or PEG feeding, they cannot receive any financial support from CDA. It is a cruel irony that, because of the love and dedication of parents who have been able to prolong the lives of their children through their own efforts, they are to be penalised by the system in this way.At home, a CF child receives constant care and attention every day of his or her life. Without it their chances of anything like a normal life would be greatly diminished. Every day involves several rounds of home based physiotherapy and nebuliser treatment, dietary supplementation, exhaustive provision of enzymes and their monitoring. There are numerous prescribed treatments that are required just to keep the child reasonably well. However, the health care card only helps with prescribed medicine. The new system tends to put a premium on the ability of parents to explain the situation they are in.So let us look at the disease itself. As mentioned, it is the most common life-threatening genetic disease of childhood. It is manifested in childhood by thick, sticky mucous in the lungs, resulting in chest infections and ultimately in respiratory failure; and by the reduction in pancreatic enzymes available for digestion, leading to the failure of the body to grow if untreated. People with cystic fibrosis often have the following symptoms: persistent cough, particularly with physical effort; difficulty breathing, or wheezing with effort; tiredness, lethargy or an impaired exercise ability; frequent visits to the toilet; salt loss in hot weather which may produce muscle cramps or weakness; and poor appetite.The current FAT does not take into account the considerable financial burden of supporting the wellbeing of a sufferer. In reality, the daily treatment regime for cystic fibrosis is complex and time consuming. It involves inhalations via a compressed air pump or nebuliser; an intensive exercise program; chest therapy up to three times a day; administration of medications, including daily antibiotics, inhaled antibiotics and enzyme replacement therapy; and the preparation of a special diet and supervision with dietary intake.The new definition of chronic medical condition for the purposes of CDA states that the listed disabilities may not result in moderate, severe or profound disability that is permanent, but, regardless of the child's age, consistently require medical treatment and supervision for a continuous period of at least 12 months, result in significant restriction to the young person's normal activities, and require significant levels of skilled personal care by the parent or carer. Surely, by any medical and moral reasoning, cystic fibrosis meets the criteria for the full CDA. Specialists from the Paediatric Respiratory Clinic at the Department of Respiratory Medicine in Melbourne reinforce this view.As mentioned earlier, there are now two levels of assessment for sufferers to automatically receive the allowance. The lists, we are told, were developed in recognition of the fact that certain disabilities and chronic medical conditions were always severe enough to qualify the sufferer to receive the child disability allowance. Cystic fibrosis was not considered severe enough. Again, it is not considered severe enough now because of the efforts of parents to give their children the best possible care and attention they can afford. I have a real concern that, without the allowance, some of these parents will not be able to afford it. What happens then? I ask you to consider this: will the status of cystic fibrosis revert to a severe disability or chronic medical condition if the life expectancy of sufferers suddenly drops?The new FAT for the CDA measures the level of severity of the disability by looking at whether the child functions according to standards appropriate to his or her age. The child's actual ability is investigated through a series of functional categories comprising language skills, self-care skills, social and community skills, fine motor skills and gross motor skills. In addition, the child's behaviour is taken into account where it is significantly affected by the disability, along with any special care needs, for example, repeated hospitalisation and absences from school, persistent inability to play with other children due to the child's physical incapacity, or high risk of serious injury or infection.Children with what is determined as recognised disability do not have to be tested for the allowance and, provided all the other qualification criteria are satisfied, can be fast-tracked through the claim assessment process. One could only deduce from all this that to qualify for the child disability allowance nowadays, the child would virtually need to suffer complete mental and physical retardation. Is that the intention? It is interesting to note the conclusion from specialists from the Melbourne Paediatric Respiratory Clinic who say:Given that all children with cystic fibrosis would readily meet these criteria, it would streamline the processing of Child Disability Allowance by Centrelink if cystic fibrosis was added to the manifest list.Cystic fibrosis places not only physical but financial demands on families. Recipients of the Child Disability Allowance have often put these monies towards activities such as swimming lessons or gym subscriptions in an effort to encourage the health of their children.We are concerned about the impact the changes to the Child Disability Allowance will have on the cystic fibrosis community at large.I have to say that the rationale behind the changes to the child disability allowance is at times confusing and inconsistent in regard to cystic fibrosis. Mr Herscovitch from the Disabilities and Carer Branch, has said:While the list of recognised disabilities does not include cystic fibrosis, it does not follow that parents of children with the condition will be automatically excluded from the Child Disability entitlement. It seems pretty clear that under the new FAT criteria, they will be automatically excluded. The department also says that it intends to regularly review the guidelines to ensure it meets the objectives of the program and continues to identify significant levels of all types of disabilities. That, I would assume under the present criteria, will not affect the status of cystic fibrosis sufferers unless, of course, there is a miracle cure.I know there is concern on all sides of the parliament in regard to the status of cystic fibrosis under this new scheme. I am also aware of the added stress it is placing on families with children suffering cystic fibrosis, and of the concern out there in the wider community. In many cases it is a feeling of disbelief. I find it staggering that authorities given the responsibility for administering the new guidelines can honestly say:. . . every effort will be made to ensure families are not disadvantaged as a result of the changes.Many members of the medical profession and the general community share my scepticism.It is true that most of us have no idea of the anguish families with children with cystic fibrosis are dealing with every day. Shortly, on behalf of the cystic fibrosis sufferers and their families and carers in Australia, I will be asking the House to join with me to have cystic fibrosis added to the list of recognised disabilities contained in the Child Disability Assessment Determination 1998.I will leave you with the comments of a desperate parent of a CF sufferer:Under the present FAT criteria, until extensive lung damage is present and our child is going to die, they aren't considered `sick'.Surely, if a medical condition is considered serious enough that every new born child in Australia is automatically tested for it, then it is serious enough for families to be eligible for some assistanceI would like to conclude by commenting on another issue which is appropriate to budgetary considerations and appropriations. I would like to focus today on an issue of accountability. It follows concerns raised with me that federal government employment training funds under the new apprenticeships scheme are being misused by some employers under the guise of upskilling their work force. There is increasing evidence in my state, among federal and state departments, job agencies and the general community, that the scheme is open to rorting.I recognise the importance of financial incentives for employers to upskill their workers and that for many it is a worthwhile scheme, but I say again that there are serious concerns that money is being wasted. It is being wasted, I am informed, by some employers who are putting existing employees on traineeships but not using the money to upskill them, or only partially using those funds to do so. It is wasted also by some who are allegedly spending the money on office equipment, such as filing cabinets and fax machines, instead of upskilling their work force.I therefore seek a guarantee from the federal government, as we all should, that all the money is being used properly, not wasted on traineeships where no upskilling is taking place, or wasted on buying equipment. There should be strict rules of accountability applied under this scheme so that all the moneys are used as intended. Those using the traineeship funds legitimately have nothing to worry about. But, if there is a loophole in the system, as I am being constantly told there is, and it is being exploited, then the government should close it now. The government has a responsibility to ensure the scheme is run properly and not open to rorting.Unfortunately, traineeship funding is seen by some as some sort of a legitimate rip-off of the system. If this practice is going on around Australia, and there are indications that it is, what of the money that is being wasted? Public perception is that traineeships in the main are designed to employ young and short- and long-term unemployed people. That is where the emphasis should be, and every dollar responsibly directed to this end. I call on this government to ensure that this occurs.11:37:003681Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise to participate in this cognate debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 and related bills. There would be little doubt that in recent months this government has passed one of the most offensive pieces of legislation seen in this nation. I am referring to the so-called health reform package, a package costing $1.7 billion to subsidise the private health sector, and the subsequent $21.5 million propaganda campaign to convince the public that this was not a waste of money.Since this government has been intent on expending millions of dollars of taxpayers money supporting inadequate measures, I believe that it is necessary to highlight a number of clearly identifiable problems in the health industry. Firstly, there is the inability of health funds to cover what specialists charge and the amount that consumers are currently forced to pay, commonly called `the gap'.Secondly, the medical fraternity overservices many clients thereby leading to budgetary blow-outs both for the individual concerned and for the health funds. Thirdly, many in the fraternity dramatically overcharge for these services. Fourthly, there is no real competition in the medical market. Therefore, to allow self-regulation when there are dubious competitive arrangements is lunacy.Fifthly, there is a distinct lack of accountability within the industry. Although there is often a code of practice which is supposed to be followed, it is only when complaints are made that any investigation is conducted to confirm bad practice. Sixthly, the AMA encourages all of these shady arrangements by turning a blind eye to unsavoury practices.Seventh, health funds are their own worst enemy. These organisations are equally to blame for falling memberships because they have been actively chasing a quick fix solution to the broader problem. This has included pursuing the current 30 per cent rebate and not dealing with the real reasons for declining membership, for example, the skyrocketing costs and the lack of competition, et cetera. Had health funds approached this from the perspective of seeking a more viable solution to their problems, then a more realistic long-term solution may have been forthcoming.Eighth, private hospitals are constantly crying out for specialists and so they have to offer more and more incentives to attract these practitioners. This further demonstrates the need for more service providers and greater competition. For example, in my electorate of Swan we have a small private hospital that has a great deal of difficulty because it cannot attract specialists to actually practise there. The larger hospitals are offering all sorts of incentives to get these specialists to come to their hospitals, but the smaller hospitals just cannot compete.Ninth, the public system is failing because money is being transferred from the public sector to prop up the private health sector. To highlight this, one only has to consider that over the last two years a total of $1.7 billion has been removed from the public health system and is now paid out in the form of private health subsidies. This has included $800 million from the public hospital system, $400 million from the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and $500 million slashed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.To give an example which highlights many of these concerns, I have only to refer to a case I have been made acutely aware of in my own electorate of Swan. A five-year-old boy recently went to the dentist to have a number of fillings taken care of. Following the consultation, the dentist suggested that, because the boy needed a number of fillings and he might be put off dentists if the fillings were performed in the chair, the parents should seek to have the work completed under general anaesthetic at a local hospital by a specialist in children's dental care.As the parents had always sought to do the best by their children, they had taken out private health insurance for the family at a cost of $3,000 per year. They believed that, as they were covered, the suggestion to seek professional assistance was reasonable. That was until they had their child examined by the specialist and were advised that, of the $5,000 required to conduct the procedure, they would need to pay between $1,200 and $1,400. Unfortunately, they did not have this pocket change lying around in their account and, after discussing this with the practitioner, they were told that the procedure was vital. The inference was that they were not good parents. It was implied that they did not care for their child's health if they could not raise the funds.Understandably, the parents were distressed. They looked for ways of reducing the bill and asked the specialist if he could reduce his fee. They were told no. They asked the anaesthetist, who was charging 3½ times the schedule fee, if the charge could be lowered. They were told no and, to add insult to injury, were told that the specialist had `a standard of living to maintain'. The parents then went back to the family dentist because they simply did not have the funds to pay the gap. At this point the dentist realised the child, who was enrolled in pre-primary school, was actually eligible for the state school dental program. The dentist suggested this service might be able to assist. The parents took the child to the clinic and, on looking at his teeth, the practitioner stunned the parents by advising them that the problem with the boy's teeth could be fixed in the chair at their facility in three visits and with little or no distress to the child. The procedure was then conducted at this facility, with no adverse reaction by the child. The fee charged by the clinic to the state was $65 per visit at a total cost of $195. This is a far cry from the $5,000 the specialists were wanting.What I find particularly galling about this example is the blatant greed before need being displayed here at the expense of ordinary Australians trying to do the best for their child's health. Not only was this an example of the worst kind of overservicing and overcharging; it is also an example of the attitude some specialists have of treating patients as commodities which need to be manipulated to maximise profit. It is also clearly an argument for regulations to set fees and control poor practice. If this had occurred in another industry, the business proprietor would have been charged and convicted of fraud. It would also mean that a child who may have had a genuine problem in a public hospital may have missed out on the required treatment. This case also demonstrates that the public health system can deliver a quality service at a realistic price.There are few disinterested observers of the health system. Governments, the medical professional, the health work force generally, private health insurance organisations, public and private hospitals, patients and the community in general each have their own stake in the health system. That there should be little consensus on different elements of the reforms proposed by the Minister for Health and Aged Care should come as no surprise because each participant's view about the reform proposals will be determined by the stake that the participant has in the health system.In his book A strife of interests, Dr Sidney Sax notes that health service planning has been described as `planning by decibels' because powerful vested interests dominate the policy making process. The title of his book is taken from a definition of politics as `a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles'. The role played by vested interests in the health system has been evident since this government outlined its rebate strategy.Australia is not alone in experiencing problems with financing its health system and delivering health care to its population. Health costs are increasing in all countries, while the ability of governments to meet the expectations of communities is declining. Populations are ageing and technological advances in diagnosis and treatment are adding ever increasing strain to health budgets.The question for governments everywhere is how to continue to deliver high-quality health care services in an equitable, timely and cost-efficient manner. There is no simple answer. The only reforms likely to make any real difference in the longer term will require difficult, even courageous, decisions by governments and an acceptance of change by the other vested interests in the health system.The failure of the federal government's health care policies has been aided and abetted by their incapacity to come to terms with the greed perpetrated on the community by members of the medical fraternity.As the earlier example demonstrates, it is unfortunate that many in positions of trust are directly responsible for the escalation of many costs in the industry. Remember that what we are now talking about is an industry. It is about a business venture conducted by professionals with the sole purpose of maximising profit. It is unfortunate that many still believe we are actually dealing with some wild notion of health care, where the main aim of the provider was the welfare of the patient. This is particularly evident when the government fails to offer a strategy to cap its unscheduled fees and allows so-called self regulation.This appalling practice of greed is further demonstrated in an interesting article from Mike Steketee in the Sydney Morning Herald some years ago. Quoting from the article:For a three-hour session in a New South Wales hospital, an ophthalmologist was paid $475 for treating patients.Not bad money if you can get it, but there is more.For the private patients, the scheduled fees for the two procedures involved a cataract operation totalling $855. There is no compulsion to hold charges to this level and many charge $900 or more for the operation. This meant that for the three private patients treated in a public hospital, the specialist would earn not $475, but $2,700.We have in this country a raft of general practitioners and other health care professionals who offer exceptional service to the community at realistic prices. They work long hours for their money and they have genuine concern for their patients. The reputation of these providers is being put at risk by the actions of some others. Unfortunately, the public is coming to the view that many in the business are there solely for the purpose of profiting from others' misfortune.In relation to public health, it should be noted that Australia has not always been able to hold its head high in the egalitarian stakes in health policy. Figures from the Department of Health in 1970, before the introduction of Medibank, indicated that almost two million in this nation did not have health cover. It took a concerted, yet popular, effort to introduce public health to this nation. It now appears that this government is attempting to destroy this system, whilst ignoring overseas experience which suggests we should be properly resourcing our public facilities and programs as the cost of the private system becomes prohibitive.For example in the United States, with by far the biggest private health sector in the world, total spending rose from 8.5 per cent of GDP in 1976 to 14.2 per cent 20 years later. In Australia during the corresponding period, it increased from 7.5 per cent to 8.5 per cent. Obviously with our strong public health system, we have been able to contain the cost. Despite this containment, the proportion of the total amount of population using private health care has decreased over the period, whilst the amount spent by health funds has actually increased.I have to ask myself a number of questions about the rationality of this government. The following are sobering indictments of the private health industry. Firstly, the administrative operations of the private health funds are highly inefficient when compared with the public health care system. The Industry Commission in its 1997 report highlighted that administrative overheads were four times that of the public system. The Industry Commission also highlighted that, between 1990 and 1996, the average increase for premiums was almost 10 per cent. This is most unfortunate when compared with the inflation rate of a little over 2.5 per cent.In its 1995 analysis, the OECD highlighted the problem behind cost increases to the community which was the growth in fee-for-service elements in the health care system. The OECD also highlighted that governments had considerable scope to both stem and reduce the cost explosion by establishing containment policies. It has not. It has simply thrown petrol on the fire. Australia was quoted as `one of the few countries in the world in which doctors can charge an unfettered fee for service'. Is it any wonder that the private health system is in decay.In conclusion: many may say that I am anti the private provider. This is not the case. I encourage the private sector but believe that the operation of this section of the industry must function with an effective and well-resourced state provider. This can be achieved, but it will mean that the private provider will have to organise its business sense in such a way as to survive because consumers want it to. That can be achieved by cutting medical overheads and reining in overservicing. This will require discipline, strategy and, above all, recognition that the cream can only be skimmed for so long.The solutions to the health industry problem are difficult and require a high degree of intestinal fortitude. Unfortunately, the current Minister for Health and Aged Care seems hell bent on abusing fellow members of the House rather than dealing with the real problems being faced by the industry.Tough decisions must be made, such as treating health as an industry. Fees must be capped and an appropriate regulatory and policing body established to oversee operations. Secondly, health insurers need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Thirdly, adequate resources need to be allocated to the public health system. Fourthly, more specialists need to be trained. They need to receive high quality training and to be based out in the wider community. We have a great shortage of specialists in rural areas, for example. I have been informed also that in some regions where only two specialists are operating one, in fact, works for the other. So the scope for competition is extremely limited and they tend to charge what they like.Finally, an inquiry needs to be established to investigate issues relating to overservicing and overcharging by specialists, with a view to preventing this practice. I believe we need to have that inquiry as a matter of urgency. We need to look at ways of controlling the people who are conducting these sorts of practices and deal with them.The message is that government and the private health system might have won the battle but the war looks like being long and costly. The casualty will be the Australian taxpayer.11:51:003685Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In speaking today on the appropriation legislation I focus again on a subject of great importance to my electorate, to me and, I believe, to all honourable members: our continuing struggle with the illegal drug trade and the effect it is having on our communities and the nation in general. I want to pay particular attention to what steps we can take in order to tackle this insidious problem.Over 18 months ago I stood in this chamber and called on the Prime Minister to convene a national drug summit in order to discuss new approaches to confronting illegal drugs and, in particular, to look at uniform national solutions to the heroin problem. It was and still is my belief that convening such a meeting between federal, state and territory political leaders, representatives from our local government, the judiciary and the various police services around the nation, and experts in the fields of health and of drug and law enforcement, along with, perhaps, reformed drugs addicts and the families of addicts, could be beneficial in the charting of new courses and raising of new ideas in regard to dealing with the ever-spiralling illegal drug problem we have now in this country.A national drug summit could be a catalyst for reform—a catalyst for a nation committing itself wholeheartedly to new, long-term strategies aimed at fighting the effects of illegal drugs and their trade. It could also be a time for recognition—recognition of how some of the old strategies have failed and also recognition of the new strategies that are available to us.I was not the only person to raise the idea of a national drug summit. Within a very short space of time my call was followed by similar requests from such a diverse range of organisations and people as the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the directors of public prosecutions in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, the premiers of New South Wales and Western Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald, Age and Daily Telegraph newspapers, and members of the Liberal Party, including the honourable member for Bradfield, who happens to be in the chamber at this moment.However, to my disappointment and to the disappointment of so many others, both the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Health and Aged Care said that they considered such a summit `wasteful of resources' and `unnecessary'. A spokesman said that such a summit would mean `zilch' and would be nothing but a `talkfest'. The minister for health himself later said that a summit would just be a `cheap stunt' and would only amount to `window-dressing'.As pressure for that summit grew, the Prime Minister appeared to change his mind somewhat by saying:I have an open mind on the subject of a national drug summit if there could be public benefit in holding such a meeting.And that was where the subject was left until early February this year.It was in early February that the Premier of New South Wales displayed the leadership and the foresight necessary to call his own drug summit—to be held with the support of the Liberal opposition and away from the political heat of the New South Wales state election campaign— featuring the same experts and authorities that I have mentioned earlier. I congratulate him on his initiative; it is not a moment too soon.Despite the government's Tough on Drugs strategy, despite the record drug seizures in recent months, things in our area are getting worse, not better. I am not trying to take a swipe at the government by making that observation; I am stating what appears, from my research, to be an absolute fact. I am sure many of us opened our daily papers recently to read that the number of people dying from heroin overdoses has risen to its highest level ever in Australia, leaping 10 per cent in just one year to 600 deaths. In New South Wales—the state that accounts for over half of the nation's deaths from opiate overdoses—deaths rose by 13 per cent in 1997. In Victoria, the death toll from heroin overdoses in 1999 has so far outstripped the road toll there: 60 people died from heroin overdoses in the first 46 days of 1999—15 more than had died on that state's roads in that time.In my own area of Sydney, despite the successes of the New South Wales Police's Operation Puccini, we are still feeling the weight of the heroin trade on our shoulders. Large numbers of addicts, from both inside and outside our area, still congregate in Cabramatta and Fairfield in order to obtain their heroin. To a certain extent, the police have chased the dealers away from the main streets of Cabramatta, but they have simply regrouped in all our other areas.The Prime Minister, when answering a question on 9 February on the success of the Tough on Drugs campaign, unintentionally laid open for all of us to see just how serious a problem we now face in regard to illegal drugs in this country. As the Prime Minister said, federal agencies have seized 565 kilograms of heroin in the first seven months of 1998-1999. That is compared to 113 kilograms seized in the six years between 1990 and 1996. He said the same agencies have seized over 274 kilograms of cocaine over the same period, compared to 127 kilograms between 1990 and 1996.And yet, despite these massive, record seizures, the street price of heroin and cocaine has not increased. On the contrary, it is now even lower. So what does this suggest about the so-called success of our supposed `war on drugs'? Similarly, what does it suggest about the volume of drugs that we are missing out on that are still coming into this country? Certainly the sheer volume of drugs seized gives us cause to reflect on the size of the demand for heroin and cocaine that exists in Australia.As Professor David Penington wrote in the Age recently—and I know the shadow minister for justice and customs referred to this quote when he was speaking on this subject a few weeks ago:We hear just recently of huge hauls of heroin . . . and we have announcements made by politicians that obviously the system is working, and that will deal with the problem; but the reality of course is that the street price of heroin is probably less than it has ever been and the purity of the heroin higher than it has ever been.The Adelaide Advertiser made a similar observation in a recent editorial when it said:The Government boasts of drug busts; the street price remains obstinately low.Quite obviously, the recent record seizures of illegal drugs, while admirable, are having no effect at street level whatsoever.Many of us have heard the official estimations in regard to the volume of heroin that escapes detection when imported into Australia. However, for the benefit of this House, I will restate those figures. The National Crime Authority suggests that we only seize 17 per cent of heroin coming into the country, while the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence suggests that we only identify and seize 10 per cent of it. If the 565 kilograms of heroin that has come into Australia over the last seven months equals only 10 per cent of what actually makes it inside our borders, then all I can say is, `God help us.' Quite simply, whatever its arguable merits, the Howard government's Tough on Drugs campaign is basically defeated before it has hardly begun.The Premier of NSW has quite rightly seen the writing on the wall and he has seen the hopelessness of the current situation. He knows that the condition will continue to deteriorate unless some bold action is taken, hence his initiative in setting up the drug courts in New South Wales and hence his announcement of the New South Wales drugs summit. Unfortunately, the debate over tackling illegal drugs has degenerated into a war of attrition. Opposing sides have put forth their arguments with little or no respect for differing viewpoints. Our political leaders recognise this and they have commented upon it.The Prime Minister said recently that he was not interested in political division over the drugs issue and that there were many areas where he could work constructively with Labor towards tackling the problem. The Leader of the Opposition has recently said:Mindless devotion to positions will merely see the casualty list grow.In mid-February the Minister for Health and Aged Care said:I'll tell you what would help—if we took some of the politics out of it, if people had a little bit of respect for people who had different views and if everyone worked together rather than trying to score political points.I am all for that. I am all for taking politics out of this debate. I am all for people listening to other people's different points of view on tackling illegal drugs and I am certainly all for the people on the various sides of this debate looking for the merit in each other's argument.It seems to me that our political leaders want to find a level of consensus on this problem. They recognise that we need to break the deadlock that has developed between the different sides of this debate. The question is how we go about doing that. As the Prime Minister has recognised recently, no approach carries all of the answers—neither zero tolerance nor heroin trials, neither a war on drugs nor legalised shooting rooms for addicts.But perhaps there is an answer that combines all or some of these approaches. For example, one new approach has been advocated by a former adviser to US President Bill Clinton on drug enforcement and currently Professor of Policy Studies at UCLA, Mr Mark Kleiman. Mr Kleiman, while arguing for the maintenance of harm minimisation and education programs, advocates focused drug law enforcement or community policing, as distinct from a zero tolerance approach to illegal drugs.Rather than conducting a war on drugs with ideological and imprecise zeal, he says we should be focussing our approach as we do to solve the day-to-day practical problems that exist in our community. In a recent interview he gave on Australian TV, Mr Kleiman stated:The third way simply means . . . . we sit down and address the drug problem as if it were what it is—a serious practical problem like delivering health care or cleaning up a river or engineering a traffic pattern for a city.Examples of what a third way would be are: designing enforcement, to break up markets and to minimise violence and minimise neighbourhood disruption without flooding our courts and our prisons.It starts with analysing a local market; asking why is this market where it is; what are the key factors of production; and what can we do to make it impossible to do business the way that the dealers and the buyers are currently doing business in that market? You can rescue a neighbourhood from being a drug bazaar. That's enormous progress, but that requires a completely different approach. That's not the FBI. That's community policing.He went on to say:There is simply not evidence . . . that undifferentiated toughness in enforcement has benefits. I think well done drug law enforcement has enormous benefits but that's a different issue.We cannot arrest our way out of this problem.According to Kleiman, by all means the Prime Minister should look to the US for examples on tackling illegal drugs, but certainly not zero tolerance, not the anti-methadone posturing of the Mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani; the Prime Minister should look to those cities that have used effective community policing rather than zero tolerance to combat the local drug trade.Mark Kleiman offers Australian authorities just one alternative view that gives us food for thought. How many more are there that we have not even started to scratch the surface of or even read about, let alone examine? We need to bring all of these views together. We need to break the deadlock that separates the opposing views on tackling this problem and we need to seek some common ground. That is why I again resume my call today for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care to convene a national drug summit at the earliest possible convenience.I call on the Prime Minister to consult with the Premier of New South Wales and the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition and offer to take over the reins of that state's drug summit which is planned for after the state election on 27 March, and to hold his own national conference. The Prime Minister should offer the Premier of New South Wales the Commonwealth's resources and organisational clout in order to make the New South Wales drug summit a truly national affair.This is a national problem and it requires national solutions. New South Wales does not operate in a vacuum, and this is a problem that touches families and people across Australia. Let us have a look at the solutions available to us on a national level.I am well aware of what the critics have said, and will say, in relation to a national drug summit. There will be the usual comments about, `When in doubt, hold a summit.' There will also be those who say a summit will help to entrench the opposing views in this debate. But this does not have to happen. If, for once, we could approach such a meeting with humility, with open minds, if we can listen to the professionals and experts who are making progress with this problem and they can listen to each other, and if the Prime Minister and the minister for health can set some parameters and give the meeting direction, it need not be a failure at all.The Prime Minister and minister for health have said that such a meeting would be a stunt. I would counsel them not to make such similar criticisms today. According to my research, since the Howard government came to power it has convened 11 national summits on issues as diverse as small business, electronic commerce and rural affairs. Indeed, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services recently announced that he would convene a second national rural finance summit before the end of this year.Such summits are not a bad thing, they all concern important issues. I am sure the Prime Minister and the minister for health would agree that the issue of illegal drugs is an equally pressing issue, if not a more pressing issue, for this country. I suggest that what really concerns the Prime Minister and the minister for health about a national drug summit, what makes them reticent about holding one, is that they feel they will lose control of the debate and that the government will no longer be able to set the agenda.But has the government suffered in this respect with the previous national summits it has organised? Of course not. I would venture to say that in some cases it has been given some very valuable insights and ideas to pursue. The Prime Minister should also accept that on this issue, a national drug summit just might be the right thing to do for the good of the country, whether he finds the outcome unpalatable or not.The Minister for Transport and Regional Services said about his particular planned summit, `I want business and community leaders to sit down, to get focused, and to take a long hard look at the very real challenges faced by country people.' I merely want the same level of determination and concentration to be exercised by the relevant people at a national summit on illegal drugs. What is wrong with that? Why is that doomed to fail?In calling for a national drug summit I do not seek to belittle the contribution made by the Australian Federal Police, by the Australian Customs Service, or by any other federal or state and territory agency, in their job of regularly seizing illegally imported drugs into this country. And I do not seek to denigrate the contribution made by those experts and concerned individuals who make up the Prime Minister's National Council on Drugs.I do not seek to belittle the money the Commonwealth has injected into law enforcement or drug treatment programs in recent months. Nor do I seek to glorify or pillory the records of either the previous government or the current government's record on this issue. I do not seek to initiate another summit where hand wringing and political hyperbole take precedence over genuine debate and an exchange of ideas. I think that would be the last thing we need at the present time.What I do say is that the rot has set in. We are not even scratching the surface of really making inroads in regards to this problem. We can seize heroin coming into this country until the cows come home but as long as the demand for it exists within our borders it will find its way in, and in excess of 600 people will die each year—on the present figures—from overdosing on heroin and other illegal opiates. We can hire extra police; we can shout all we like about zero tolerance. In fact, we can get up on the rooftops and do it, but we will be here with the same, if not worse, death figures next year. I think, deep down, we all know that. Simply throwing more money at the old ways of tackling illegal drugs is not going to fix the problem, or even part of the problem as it now exists. A national drug summit would be a great start in providing us with a catalyst to find new ways to improve this situation and break the deadlock that we find ourselves in, both at community level and as a country as a whole.It is time now in 1999 to start finding solutions to our problems. We cannot use the concepts of the 1970s or the 1980s, or think we can put into practice what we did in the 1970s or the 1980s or at the beginning of the 1990s. We have to change. We have to look further afield on where we are going to find solutions to our problems. We have to get some commonsense prevailing in this debate and, more importantly, we have to make sure that we combine it not at a community level or local level or state level, but at a national level. We are not individual states; we are a Commonwealth. We are not one single identity; we are all Australians. We should be here defending the rights of all Australians and, more importantly, we can only do that with a problem that has seized our nation by doing it from a federal level.The Prime Minister has to get out of his 1970s thinking. He has to get out from behind his picket fence and out of his cushioned chair. He has to start facing reality. He has to start facing the problems that exist in Australia now in 1999. The solutions that he has to provide have to be solutions that are going to take us into the new millennium. We cannot afford to stand back anymore and see the young people of our nation, and the older people, continue to die or suffer because they have had available to them the illegal drug trade that is now so current within our communities.I know the honourable member for Bradfield has been out in my area. He expressed to me that he was concerned and shocked. I can tell him, `Come out again and I can take you on a tour that would send your hair white.' It is happening now. It has to be a solution now, not next year and not the year after that. It has to happen now and we have to call all of our people together at the appropriate level to make sure that implementation occurs.Mr ZAHRA (McMillan) 12.12 p.m.)—In the last sitting I mentioned in this place the disgraceful conduct of Croft Health Care Vic Pty Ltd, a private for-profit company which runs the Narracan Gardens aged care facility in my electorate. I referred to the company's decision to reclassify existing residents, relocated from the old LaTrobe Valley Nursing Home to a new building only two streets away, as `new entrants' in order to charge them an additional fee of up to $12 per day. This was despite the Howard government's explicit promise that existing nursing home residents would be exempt from the new fees.It has been brought to my attention that the new fee of up to $12 per day introduced by Croft Health Care is asset tested and not income tested. I should have referred to a media release of 10 February 1997, issued by the then Minister for Aged Care, Ms Judi Moylan, which stated:Those who enter nursing homes after 1 July 1997, and can reasonably afford it, may be asked to pay an Accommodation Bond.For the information of the House, the accommodation charge replaced the accommodation bond in 1998.Ms Moylan's media release went on to state:Current residents of a nursing home will not be asked to pay a Bond.The Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 clearly states that:. . . the care recipient who resides in a nursing home, having entered the home after 6 November 1997, will be obliged to pay an accommodation charge . . . Clearly, those residents who entered care before 6 November 1997 are implicitly excluded from having to pay the accommodation charge.Graeme Croft's actions in reclassifying existing residents, moved from one building to another, as new entrants for the purpose of charging them the additional fee—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.15 p.m. to 12.26 p.m.84HCrosio, Janice, MPMr ZAHRA—As I was saying before the suspension, Graeme Croft's actions in reclassifying existing residents, moved from one building to another, as new entrants for the purpose of charging them the additional fee are clearly not consistent with the spirit of the legislation. Mr Croft responded to my raising this matter in the House by publicly accusing me of `bully tactics'. This from the man who sent an invoice to residents' families incorporating the new fee—in some cases an increase of over 50 per cent—and requested payment within seven days, that invoice being the very first indication given to those families as to how much extra they would be up for.This from the man who withdrew proper adult incontinence aids from the facility and substituted baby nappies, including old cloth nappies, resulting in residents' outer garments becoming soaked with urine. This decision was reversed following complaints to the Aged Care Complaints Hotline. This from the man who has tried to bully nursing home residents and their families into accepting his unilaterally appointed pharmacy provider against the wishes of the majority. He even stated in a letter to frail aged residents that if they wanted to use a different chemist—which they have every right to do—they are welcome to, `providing the nursing home staff are not involved in administering this medication'.This from the man who responded to concerns about the fee increases and the quality of care being provided at the facility by writing in a letter to the Latrobe Valley Express the highly offensive statement that `some families think that the government should supply all the funding while they seek the windfall from their parents' hard-earned assets'. And this from the man who, in response to concerns expressed at a meeting of the residents and relatives committee on Tuesday, 16 February, made the heartless pronouncement that, if families were not happy with the facility, they could `go somewhere else', knowing full well there was no other nursing home in Moe and that others in the Latrobe Valley had long waiting lists.Mr Croft must clean up his act. I am not going to sit by and watch while he treats the elderly in our community with contempt. Mr Croft must realise that in a decent society every one of us has a responsibility to ensure that the frail aged, who are at a most vulnerable time in their lives, are treated with the utmost respect and care. We must not allow private nursing home providers to place profit above people in the way that Mr Croft seems intent upon doing. Until Croft Health Care reverses its decision to levy that additional fee of $12 a day, and until Mr Croft starts to demonstrates that he is more interested in the quality of care provided at the nursing home than he is in monthly profit forecasts, he can look forward to a tough time from me and from the Latrobe Valley community as a whole.It is appropriate that I am making these remarks today because yesterday I received from the Aged Care Standards Accreditation Agency a copy of their report into the Narracan Gardens aged care facility conducted on 4 and 5 February of this year. This is a damning report. It is a damning report without question, and it really brings to light the management practices at the Narracan Garden aged care facility in Moe. This report vindicates the families of residents of the nursing home who have come to me with concerns about the financial resourcing and management of this facility.In remarks made to the Latrobe Valley Express on 25 February this year, the director of nursing of the Narracan Gardens aged care facility, Sandi Lord, said:Narracan Gardens had recently passed every section of a full standards inspection . . .This is just not true. The fact is that this assessment report detailed several areas where the management of the nursing home is below standard. They cover the areas of concern that have been expressed directly to me and which have also been contained in recent media reports about the Narracan Gardens aged care facility.In the area of health and personal care, one of the major areas of concern among relatives and residents, the report rates the performance of Narracan Gardens as `unacceptable'. The report identifies a number of deficiencies in the area of health and personal care, and I just want to mention them to the House for the House's information. The Aged Care Standards Agency report said:Management has recently introduced a new documentation system for all residents including comprehensive assessment of health and personal care. A number of these assessments were incomplete or not signed and dated. This practice does not ensure that the review and evaluation process is effective in meeting residents' ongoing needs . . .and again it said:The assessors observed deficiencies in the development of individual continence management programs. A number of residents were noted to have incomplete assessments . . . In addition a number of residents told the team that they often are required to wait for prolonged periods of time for staff to assist them with their continence needsand it continued:There is a lack of ongoing review and evaluation of residents experiencing acute changes to their health . . .and it went on:There is ineffective consultation between management, residents and their representatives regarding the supply and administration of medications. This deficiency, coupled with an unresolved dispute, does not ensure that residents' medication is always stored and managed safely.The assessment report also noted that the communication between management and residents and relatives is below standard, and that a recent dispute regarding Graeme Croft's unilateral decision to change the pharmacy provider from a Moe chemist to one in Traralgon has resulted in the `residents' right to choice being compromised'.Problems with the meals provided at the facility are also noted in the report. It said:. . . comments from residents [indicating] that their dissatisfaction was in particular with the variety and quantity of the evening meal.The report also highlights `deficiencies with the system in place to manage restraint'. The report stated:The deficiencies include lack of documented assessments that clearly identify the reason for restraint and detail that all reasonable alternatives to restraint have been trialed prior to its application.I want to make clear that the criticisms I have made of Croft Health Care are directly related to the management of the nursing home and not at all intended to reflect badly on the professionalism and dedication of the staff employed there. What has become apparent is that Narracan Gardens has not passed every section of a full standards inspection as has been falsely claimed by Sandi Lord in her media remarks. And the reason is quite simple: Graeme Croft is clearly more concerned about the bottom line than he is about the people living at that facility.Aged care accreditation is something which everyone in our community wants to feel more confident about. Everyone in our community wants to believe that the aged care accreditation process has integrity to it. What we have seen here is a very clear demonstration of a nursing home making a public pronouncement about an aged care standards review of their operations which is untrue.Unless the Aged Care Accreditation Agency is able to publicly state and clarify the true position of what actually happened in that review then, understandably, people in our community, especially in the Latrobe Valley where this issue has been very important for a long time, will lose confidence in that agency. It is imperative that the Aged Care Accreditation Agency actually comes out and makes a statement and clarifies its position.It is very apparent that this nursing home has not passed every section of a full standards inspection, as Ms Lord said it had, on behalf of her employer, Graeme Croft. As this is the case, I call upon the agency to come out and make a public statement so that people in our community understand that there still are problems at the Narracan Gardens aged care facility.The care of our elderly and the care of the most disadvantaged in our community define us as a civilised society. I urge the minister involved to seek an immediate review into the operations of Croft Health Care. I would also ask her to request that the Aged Care Accreditation Agency makes a public statement, released to all of the media in the Latrobe Valley, to clarify the fact that Narracan Gardens has not passed all of those guidelines which Ms Lord said they had and that in fact—according to the report which has been released—it failed in a number of areas.12:36:003693Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—In this cognate debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 and related bills, I wish to reflect at length on the appropriations provided to one instrument of the Commonwealth, namely, Airservices Australia. Airservices Australia, as we would all know, is that agency of the government which is responsible for the monitoring of air traffic and the impact of air traffic on surrounding communities across the country. This, in turn, causes me to reflect on the impact of the proposed master plan for Brisbane airport which has been developed recently by the Brisbane Airport Corporation.Airport master plans are a source of controversy across the nation. They become a basis of conflict between communities on the one hand and between airport corporations on the other. However, I believe there can be a rational way through these debates. They need not simply degenerate into the sort of polarisation that we see around the country.There can be a way through which takes into account, on the one hand, the legitimate interests and concerns of airport corporations trying to facilitate not only the interests of their shareholders but also the economic development of their region and their state, while on the other hand not simply regarding communities which are affected by those developments as some sort of minor afterthought which can bear the consequences of developments without recourse.In Brisbane, the process which we have been embarked upon for the last 12 months has been a difficult one. In March 1998 the Brisbane Airport Corporation, consistent with its requirements under the Airports Act, developed a draft Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan. It recommended a new runway, the so-called western parallel runway. There then was a three-month public consultation process. That, in turn, elicited some 4,000 formal written objections from the Brisbane community. As well, 10,000 people signed formal petitions of objection, which I have subsequently presented to the parliament. These facts of themselves demonstrate that there is a groundswell of community concern and opposition to the proposed runway which is incorporated in the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan.There then developed a process whereby, after the conclusion of the public consultation process, the Brisbane Airport Corporation submitted its draft master plan to the then transport minister, Mark Vaile, for approval. Minister Vaile, on the eve of the federal election last year, made a statement that, on technical grounds, he proposed to reject that master plan. I suspect, and many in my community suspect, that the reason for that technical rejection at that stage, just a month or so before the federal election, was to provide a political breathing space so that the then Liberal member for the seat of Griffith could hopefully be re-elected. That did not occur. The community had a different point of view.What then ensued, once the election was resolved and the Brisbane Airport Corporation undertook the technical revisions to their master plan required of them by Minister Vaile's letter, was a resubmission of their proposal to the current transport minister, Mr Anderson, in November of last year. Minister Anderson considered that report for some two months and then in February this year announced that he had approved the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan. He did so with a proviso that the Brisbane Airport Corporation undertake further analysis of alternative runway options and provide the flight path impact of each of those options to surrounding communities.The problem with that decision is that it puts the community of Brisbane just one step away from this runway being built. Furthermore, its inherent flaw is that it requires the Brisbane Airport Corporation, strong proponents of a particular runway option, to somehow honestly and objectively undertake an impartial analysis of alternative runway options. It is a classic Dracula in the blood bank situation whereby you have a strong proponent of a view being asked by government to go through the motions and look at some other alternatives as well as come up with some flight path impacts of those various alternatives before the minister makes his final decision. From the perspective of the community which I represent, this is not a credible process.Where it leaves us is that the final stage in the approval process for the Brisbane airport, and the proposed parallel runway, is one in which the major development plan must be developed by the Brisbane Airport Corporation on the basis of the minister's approval of the master plan. The major development plan, if approved, then becomes the final approval document for construction to commence.This raises the basic question: how long is that going to take? This is a concern which my community has legitimately expressed to me through many public forums and on many occasions. The Brisbane Airport Corporation's public response has constantly been, `Don't worry, it's off in the never-never,' the problem being that in the published documents of the Brisbane Airport Corporation they say that new runway capacity is required at Brisbane airport by the year 2006. Most engineers will tell you that to construct a runway from the beginning, the predesign phase through to completion, requires about four years. That brings us back to about 2002.If you look at the approval process yet to be gone through with the development and approval of the major development plan, and an associated environmental impact study, we are looking at a process of perhaps a year or two. Add those four years for construction to those two years of submitting and gaining approval for the major development plan and that brings us back about to where we are at the moment. In other words, the decision making process is an imminent one. It is not far removed. You can understand why the corporate interests of a corporation like the Brisbane Airport Corporation may wish, somewhat deceivingly, to tell a local community that this is so far removed that it is not worthy of current concern. That might make for a smart public relations strategy. However, it is not honest dealings with the local community.The Brisbane Airport Corporation have said that the parallel runway must proceed. Their chief executive, Mr Rooijmans, said publicly in a speech in Brisbane last week, having received a letter from Minister Anderson approving his master plan and requiring him to develop and look at alternative runway options, that the parallel runway must be built; otherwise there will be economic disaster for Brisbane and south-east Queensland.I simply ask the question: how could the public have faith in an organisation whose chief executive on the one hand receives a communication from the minister saying, `We are about to go out there and be required to look impartially at a range of alternative runway options,' and then leaps into the media and says, `Listen, unless this one happens, civilisation as we know it will collapse, the economy will fall in a heap and it is all over, Red Rover'? I would say that his comments on this matter fundamentally lack credibility in terms of the instruction or direction he has been given by the minister.The other line of defence used by the Brisbane Airport Corporation to the likes of me in this public debate is that opposition to the proposed parallel runway is entirely `politically generated'. Politics is about the business of representing your community, it is about the business of taking into account the views of your local residents in this place, and the decision of where to locate runways and how you develop airports is a federal matter. It is a power provided to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services under the Airports Act 1996, therefore it is necessarily and by definition a political debate.The fact that there are 4,000 people who have objected, the fact that there are 12,000 petitions presented to this parliament, the fact that only two to three weeks ago in Brisbane we had 4,000 mums and dads take to the streets in the suburb of Bulimba in a public protest saying that they did not want this thing, to me suggests that they represent a degree of community concern which transcends the political divide about the impact of this proposal way beyond the interests or the aspirations of any political candidate or member.On that point of politics and party politics, it is interesting to note in passing that it was revealed in the Courier-Mail last week that the General Manager of the Brisbane Airport Corporation is, shock and horror, a member of the Liberal Party and, on top of that, a member and delegate to the state conference of the Liberal Party.83NHALLMs Hall—What's that?83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—My colleague correctly asks the question, `What is that?' What does it mean? It means that on the one hand you have the Brisbane Airport Corporation saying to elected representatives such as me that we are egregiously participating in party politics on this matter, while on the other hand for the last 12 months not telling us that the general manager of the corporation is in fact a member of the supreme governing body of the Liberal Party of Queensland. I would think that was a matter in the public interest.The general manager concerned, Mr Cameron Spencer, has said that he has never hidden his politics. In the many public meetings that I have attended with Mr Spencer present and in private briefings that I have had with him, this matter of obvious public knowledge has not been imparted to the likes of me so that we could all have, shall we say, equal ground rules on which to prosecute this debate.No, politics from Mr Spencer's and from the Brisbane Airport Corporation's perspective is something that the Labor Party does but is, of course, nothing that the Liberal Party does. It begs the question as to what channels of communication the General Manager of the Brisbane Airport Corporation has used with the current Howard government in order to advance the interests of his corporation other than those channels which are prescribed in the Airports Act 1996.This brings us to the question of a proposal for a Senate inquiry into this whole saga. A week or two ago the Labor Party in the Senate of the Commonwealth placed on the Notice Paper its intention to establish a Senate inquiry into the Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan process. It seeks to examine all facets of the construction of this master plan, why it was approved and the methodologies underpinning the decision to go for the one runway option rather than to embrace or examine others.One would think if the government had nothing to hide on this particular matter it would have no problems with the transparent processes associated with a Senate inquiry. Regrettably, yesterday I learnt from colleagues in the Senate that the government indeed has some problems with this approach and does not wish this Senate inquiry to proceed. The matter will be determined in the Senate either later this week or in the next Senate sitting week. It will be interesting from the perspective of the community which I represent and the Brisbane communities which are represented by many members of the House as to whether this inquiry proceeds.Again, we are forced into this position of resorting to a Senate inquiry to get to the truth of what has actually transpired in this whole process. Why, for example, in the first place did the Brisbane Airport Corporation say, `We are going to have a western parallel runway,' and in one or two pages dismiss every other conceivable runway option with no arguments advanced? Why was it that the Brisbane Airport Corporation, despite repeated requests from the community, including from me, refused to provide people with flight path impacts of the proposed parallel runway or of alternative runways so that people living in the suburbs of Brisbane—tens of thousands of people—would know which suburbs, which streets, which communities, which schools and which nursing homes were going to be affected? I do not think this is the unreasonable request of a demagogue. It is a basic question if you are going to embark on a major development project of any description in any city or in any community of the country. Surely it is a basic right to know whether one is going to be affected and how and by how much.I looked with interest at the recent release of the draft environmental impact study done for Badgerys Creek. I take no particular position in terms of whether Badgerys Creek is a good thing or a bad thing. But, looking at the actual document, I would say this: it actually provides residents with a clear indication as to where the flight path impact of particular runway configurations for Badgerys Creek would occur. If it is good enough for Badgerys Creek—and I know we are different north of the Tweed—surely it is good enough for those of us in Brisbane as well, and I am sure my colleague sitting opposite would share exactly the same view, as he nods—if not articulates—a comment of endorsement.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Quite!83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—I thank the honourable member for his interjection of support. Therefore, when we are faced with a process which is simply ignored, with the effect on the community of the runway options that have been advocated, and with the refusal to tell us what methodology this decision has been based on, regrettably there is no alternative for us but to resort to the Senate option to find out why this has been done, what the alternatives were, on what basis the decision was made and which communities would be affected. On our side of politics it is our hope that the Senate inquiry can proceed so that we can get to the truth of this matter.This is not your classic nimby issue; this is not an intention to export a prospective noise problem from one part of a community to another. I know the community which I represent very well; I have lived there for at least 10 years. I know the suburbs; I know the streets; I know the schools; I know the houses; I know the nursing homes; and I know which parts of that community were going to be affected and likely to be affected most.What we simply ask for as a community is a fair process, one which says, `If there are five runway alternatives, let's look at the five. Let's look at the economic impact of each one; let's look at the social impact of each one; let's look at the environmental impact of each one; let's look at the public safety impact of each one; and let's look at the public health impact of each one and then, on an objective and comparative basis, say, "On the balance of the arguments, this seems to be the best way to go."' The community I represent does not oppose the expansion of Brisbane airport. It is not a collection of residential Luddites seeking to arrest development in south-east Queensland. That is not our position at all. Our position is that there should be a transparent and comparative process on which a fair decision can be based, and we do not think that is an unreasonable point of view.In the long term, what also needs to be considered as part of this overall debate on the future aviation requirements of south-east Queensland is to begin to reserve a second airport site. The reality is that, as we speak today, Brisbane airport is one half the size of Sydney airport in terms of annual aircraft movements. Brisbane airport today is larger than Melbourne airport in terms of annual aircraft movements. Based on growth projections provided by the Brisbane Airport Corporation, by the year 2006 when this proposed new parallel runway is to be built, Brisbane airport will have as much traffic volume as Sydney airport has today. So, if we think we have a problem with Sydney airport today, I would simply say, looking down the tunnel of time: why not ensure that we get our planning processes right for the future, rather than finding ourselves in six, seven or eight years time sitting in a forum such as this saying, `Would that they had done it differently; would that they had considered properly the alternatives; would that they had shown some foresight about the impacts on communities and schools.' That is why I believe we need to consider properly and at an early stage—not at a late stage, as I think has occurred in Sydney—a second airport site.This extends beyond my expertise in terms of where it should be, but I would canvass the possibility that, given the existing infrastructure which exists at Amberley, near Ipswich, that would provide one possibility which could be examined. It is my understanding that the local authorities in the area have a degree of interest in this proposal. There is already a degree of securing of associated land sites around Amberley because of the historical use of that site by the RAAF. Furthermore, given the RAAF's long-term interests, and also to defray some of its costs for the upkeep of significant infrastructure like purpose-built RAAF airstrips such as those needed at present to accommodate our F111 fleet, it would not be an unreasonable idea to begin to consider dual use of a facility such as that, as occurs currently in Townsville.Therefore, I would place that on the table for the parliament and for the community in south-east Queensland to consider. Beyond consideration, it would be worth while for the state government, the Commonwealth and the relevant local authorities to elevate this to a point of considered decision making whereby we have a task force with a time frame and an outcome in terms of whether this is an appropriate, long-term second airport site for south-east Queensland.South-east Queensland's long-term growth potential is huge. We all know—those of us who live in Queensland—that, simply through our redistribution process involved with state and federal seats, it is a state of enormous population growth. As a consequence, it is important to get these long-term planning decisions right.In conclusion, it is surely not beyond our wit and intelligence on the eve of the 21st century to not simply fall into the trap of believing that, whenever you need to build an airport or whenever you need to build a new runway, the people who should pay the cost of that are the poor mugs who live in the suburbs within 10, 15 or 20 kilometres of an existing airport site. I do not speak of just the odd person. We are speaking here of at least 30,000 residences—that is homes—and up to 100,000 individuals both on the north side and the south side of Brisbane. It is not beyond our wit surely to come up with airport and runway designs which minimise social impact while still delivering the necessary economic objectives for which airports exist.I conclude on this point: what will happen one day if and when an aircraft ditches into the suburbs of one of our cities? What will happen, in the case of Brisbane, if that occurs in the absence of a proper planning decision and procedure which may have been able to locate a runway in a direction where taking further aircraft over the suburbs would not have been necessary? (Time expired)12:56:003698Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Before getting into the substance of my contribution to this debate I would like to pay credit to the member for Griffith's insightful, thought provoking speech that he has just made. It is very important for us here in this place to look at all the long-term ramifications of issues that impact on our electorates and our society. I think that the planning for airports and planning generally are something that governments in the past have not committed to in the way that the member has outlined to us previously. It is a very important issue and I certainly hope that through his efforts—and I know that he is totally committed to this—there is some success for him and for the community that he represents. I encourage the government to consult with the people of Brisbane and south-east Queensland to make sure that they do get the airport that they need.The opportunity which these bills present to us is for the broad purpose to approve government spending which is to supplement the last budget. A number of these items contained the most offensive sections relating to government funding. Here I am referring to the $19 million that was spent to advertise a 10 per cent tax on everything campaign that the government conducted prior to the last election. This campaign was to sell the benefits of the GST and we know that 52 per cent of Australians voted against this tax. In Shortland, that was actually as high as nearly 63 per cent.We know that it was done at the same time as the services in a whole range of areas were slashed and when the queues for Centrelink were still growing. As I move around my electorate I am constantly reminded of the needs of people and the communities which make up the electorate of Shortland and how they think that the government could have better spent that $19 million which, after all, was just an advertising campaign by the coalition.Government members throughout this debate have patted themselves on the back for a steady-as-you-go approach. But any member who is across the inquiries which come into their offices or is meeting people in the street on a daily basis knows that there are many concerns out there in the community and that people feel very strongly that the government could better have spent that money on other things.I would like to place on record today my disgust at the abysmal record of this government since the election. It is a record that has seen a government with a very narrow, closed approach attack ordinary Australians on a daily basis whilst at the same time rewarding their friends in business. This is a government that has shown an extraordinary lack of vision. It is an inward looking government. We have only to look at a couple of things that have happened in more recent times.Recently we had Gerry Adams visit this country. I was very disappointed when the Prime Minister would not meet with him. He is a representative of people in another country and a person who has contributed a lot to the peace process in Northern Ireland. It is an issue that affects many Australians and I do not believe that a government can walk away from its responsibilities in such areas. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 1.02 p.m. Answers to Questions in Writing3700The following answers to questions were circulated:3700(Question No. 48)483700Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:What institutions other than those mentioned in the answer to question No. 2826 (Hansard , 30 June 1998, page 5535), have been approached to return Aboriginal human remains to Australia but have not agreed to return them.3700Ruddock, 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:The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) is responsible, on behalf of the Commonwealth, for matters to do with the repatriation of indigenous cultural property from overseas. As part of its responsibilities ATSIC may fund indigenous community projects directed at reclaiming ancestral remains.ATSIC is not actively engaged in approaching overseas collecting institutions seeking the return of Aboriginal human remains. Reclaiming material from the national institutions of other countries is a delicate issue, and Australia has encouraged its overseas postings to use their influence wherever possible to encourage overseas bodies to release human remains.A more active role has been played by Aboriginal organisations, notably by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) which, with minimal assistance from ATSIC, has utilised visits to institutions, and correspondence, to persuade overseas institutions to offer remains in return. Because of its independence, the TAC had not been obliged to account to the Commonwealth on its actions, and it is not possible, therefore, to report on its success with individual institutions. Proposed future funding of TAC by ATSIC will carry with it an obligation to report back against mandatory performance indicators requiring an account of research undertaken.The Queensland Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA) has been funded to maintain a researcher in the United Kingdom has over the last couple of years. This researcher has been involved in researching the provenance of known collections, such as that of the University of Edinburgh, rather than making overtures to further institutions. There was, however, some media reporting earlier this year of an alleged refusal by the Natural History Museum in London to make records relating to Indigenous remains in its collection available to FAIRA.Campaigns by Aboriginal groups to return ancestral remains have focused on the United Kingdom, and overtures to continental European institutions have to date been largely successful.3700(Question No. 111)1113700Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, 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.3700Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) and (b) I am advised that no appointments made by me or my Department have any affiliations of the nature mentioned in the question. The Hon Jim Short's appointment as Alternate Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, while recommended by me, was not made by me or the Department. 3701(Question No. 112)1123701Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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 in-volved, (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.3701Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Two appointments have been made as referred to in part (a) of the honourable member's question: the Hon Peter Nixon, Chairman of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES) Review and the Hon Anthony John Messner, Administrator of Norfolk Island.The table attached provides the answers to parts (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F).The Hon Peter Nixon, Chairman of the TFES ReviewThe Hon Anthony John Messner, Administrator, Norfolk Island. Note: Mr Messner was appointed by the Governor-General on recommendation of the Minister.(B)National Party of AustraliaLiberal Party of Australia(C)Under a Remuneration Tribunal determination the Chairman of the TFES Review Authority is paid a daily fee of $485. In order to attract the full daily fee, it is necessary that meetings and/or business of the Review Authority be of no less than three hours duration on any one day. Where the time attributable to meetings and/or business of the Authority is of less than three hours, but more than two hours duration on any one day, an amount of 3/5ths of the daily fee is payable. Where overnight accommodation is necessary to attend meetings or business of the Authority an allowance of $320 is payable in respect of capital cities and $165 for other cities. Where the Chairman is absent from his city of residence for 10 hours or more on any one day, but does not require overnight accommodation, an allowance of $50 is payable.In accordance with a Remuneration Tribunal determination, the sum of $71,670 plus $5,750 office holder's supplement and a district allowance of $2,690 is paid to the Administrator.(D)The appointment is on a casual basis. The Review Authority will convene upon an application by an interested party for a review of a decision made in the administration of the TFES. The Minister or Secretary may also request that the Review Authority provide an advisory opinion on any matter relating to the administration of the TFES.The appointment is full-time.(E)See (C) above.Not applicable(F) I(aa) The sum of $535 was claimable for travel allowance during the period.(aa) First class travel within Australia, travelling allowance of $245 per overnight stay in Sydney, $200 per overnight stay in any other capital city and $155 per overnight stay in other than a capital city.(ab) Entitlements were paid upon the making of intermittent claims by the Chairman.(ab) Entitlements are paid whenever Mr Messner travels in accordance with the determination.(ac) The sum of $535 was paid to the Chairman.(ac) The sum of $4,929 was paid during the period from the date Mr Messner took up his appointment (8 August 1997) until the end of the period in question.(F)IIVehicles: not applicable(aa) Fully maintained vehicles are provided at Norfolk Island for the use of the Administrator and spouse. The Senior Executive Service (SES) contribution for a four cylinder car is to be deducted from salary as adjusted from time to time in accordance with SES rates.(ab) No payment is made to Mr Messner, but the deduction is paid fortnightly. (ac) No payment is made to Mr Messner, but the current fortnightly deduction is $19.54.(F)IIITelephones: not applicable(aa) A telephone is provided free of charge.(ab) Not applicable as no payment is made to Mr Messner.(ac) Not applicable as no payment is made to Mr Messner.(F)IV(aa) The sum of $6,305 for attendance fees was claimable during the period.Attendance fees: not applicable(ab) Entitlements were paid upon the making of intermittent claims by the Chairman.(ac) The sum of $6,305 was paid to the Chairman.3702(Question No. 118)1183702Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, 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.3702Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Information in respect to the honourable member's question is not readily available. To provide a complete response would require considerable time and resources and in the interest of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort involved in obtaining the information.However, based on the information that is readily available to my Department there have been no appointments of this nature made.3702(Question No. 121)1213702Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or 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 statutory appointment, consultant or other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, to which political party was he or she affiliated, what remuneration was involved, was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, what fees were applicable and with respect to travel allowance, vehicles, telephones and attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.3702Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The former Senator, Peter Baume was appointed to the advising committee on higher education chaired by Mr Rod West from Jan 1997 to 17 April 1998. His appointment was on a part-time basis for which he received attendance fees and expenses. Records of individual payments have not been compiled by the Department.(b) The Department carries out no detailed checks of the background of candidates and therefore is not in a position to provide a response to the question about whether any members of secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens have been appointed to any statutory appointments, as consultants or to any government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998.3702(Question No. 149)1493702McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2615 (Hansard , 28 May 1998, page 4224), in the period since the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport was adopted on how many occasions have aircraft landed in cross winds in excess of 15 knots and what were the circumstances in which the landings occurred.3703Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia advises that comprehensive details are not readily available on how many occasions aircraft have landed in cross winds in excess of 15 knots since the Long Term Operating Plan at Sydney Airport was adopted and the circumstances in which those landings have occurred.3703(Question No. 150)1503703McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2615 (Hansard , 28 May 1998, page 4224), on how many occasions have aircraft taken off in cross winds in excess of 15 knots since the Long Term Operating Plan at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport was adopted and what were the circumstances in which the take-offs occurred.3703Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia advises that comprehensive details are not readily available on how many occasions aircraft have taken off in cross winds in excess of 15 knots since the Long Term Operating Plan at Sydney Airport was adopted and the circumstances in which those take-offs have occurred.3703(Question No. 151)1513703McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2616 (Hansard , 28 May 1998, page 4224), since the Long Term Operating Plan was adopted (a) on how many occasions have pilots nominated a runway to land their aircraft at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport which was other than that nominated by Airservices Australia and (b) what were the circumstances in each case. 3703Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has advised that comprehensive details are not readily available on the number of occasions or the circumstances when pilots have required a runway other than the runway nominated for landing since the Long Term Operating Plan was adopted.3703(Question No. 152)1523703McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2619 (Hansard , 24 June 1998, page 5280), how many failures to comply with air traffic control clearances occurred at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in the two-year period before 4 February 1997.(2) Have failures to comply with air traffic control clearances related to directions, requests or instructions made by air traffic controllers as part of their implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan occurred since 4 February 1997; if so, (a) how many and (b) in what circumstances.3703Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Airservices Australia has advised that in the two year period to 4 February 1997 there were 552 instances of pilots failing to comply with air traffic control clearances or requirements.(2) Airservices Australia has advised that their records on pilots' failure to comply with air traffic control clearances or requirements do not specifically identify whether the occurrence is related to the Long Term Operating Plan.3703(Question No. 157)1573703McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2617 (Hansard , 28 June 1998, page 4224), what steps must be taken for Airservices Australia to obtain the information which I requested about how many times pilots have refused Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) based landing directions and will he direct Airservices Australia to take the steps.(2) Have pilots refused LTOP based take-off directions since it was implemented; if so, (a) how many times, (b) what are the details of the circumstances in which the directions were refused and (c) what reasons did pilots provide for refusing the directions.3704Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Airservices Australia has advised that it is working with the airlines to introduce a system which will result in Airservices Australia being advised about the reasons that pilots have had an operational requirement for other than the nominated runway.(2) Airservices Australia has advised that comprehensive records are not available on the number of occasions or the circumstances when a pilot has required a runway other than the runway nominated for take-offs since the Long Term Operating Plan was adopted.3704(Question No. 158)1583704McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) What approximate quantity of fuel is carried by a Qantas Boeing 747 travelling from Sydney to Los Angeles when it takes off.(2) What is the average tonnage of reserve fuel carried by a Qantas Boeing 747 landing at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.(3) Is there a greater risk of ground fatalities in an accident which involves an aircraft heavily laden with fuel.3704Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following information:(1) 162 Tonnes(2) 10 Tonnes(3) A greater amount of fuel on board does not add to the chances of an aircraft becoming involved in an accident on take-off or landing. The take-off and landing performance of all heavy transport aircraft is governed by regulations which are designed to ensure that, in the event of an engine failure, aircraft can still out-climb all obstacles in the flight path. The total weight of the aircraft is restricted by these requirements.3704(Question No. 162)1623704McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Was a Qantas passenger jet forced to take evasive action to avoid a turboprop Metroliner freight plane about 10 p.m on 22 July 1998; if so (a) what were the circumstances and (b) will he review operating procedures for pilots crossing runways to ensure that pilots stop before crossing a runway and wait for permission to proceed from the control tower.3704Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes, there was an incident on 22 July 1998 involving a Qantas passenger jet and a turboprop freight plane.(a) According to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI), the circumstances surrounding the incident were as follows:* A Metro aircraft landed on runway 34R, with an instruction to exit on taxiway Tango 1 and taxi via taxiway Juliet (for identification purposes, runways are named in accordance with the international phonetic alphabet). When approaching a mandatory holding point on taxiway Juliet, the pilot contacted the surface movement controller (SMC) and was instructed to taxi via taxiway Bravo and hold short of runway 25. This instruction was read back correctly by the pilot.* Tower controllers subsequently observed the Metro taxiing along taxiway Juliet, past the entry to taxiway Bravo, towards runway 34L. At that time a Boeing 737 (B737) was touching down on runway 34L. The SMC instructed the pilot of the Metro to stop. As there was no reply the instruction was immediately repeated, and was subsequently acknowledged. The Metro came to a stop at the edge of runway 34L. The pilot of the B737 was also instructed to stop immediately, but the aircraft was too close to the intersection of the runway with taxiway Juliet to comply. The B737 was steered to the left of the runway centreline to increase its separation from the Metro, subsequently passing about 25 metres in front of that aircraft, at about 80 kts.* At the time of the occurrence the weather was fine, there were no works taking place in the vicinity of the runway/taxiway intersection, and all relevant taxiway lights, runway holding point lights and movement area guidance signs were reported to have been functioning normally.The investigation is continuing. BASI will send a copy of the final report if requested to do so.(b) According to Airservices Australia, aerodrome procedures were reviewed as a result of this incident. Procedures for pilots requiring to cross a runway are detailed in the Aeronautical Information Publication. The runway crossing point is marked by holding lights and illuminated signs identifying the runway. Communications between air traffic controllers and pilots have been amended to further clarify the need for pilots to obtain a specific clearance to cross a runway.3705(Question No. 164)1643705McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) What infrastructure developments relating to ground or air movement of aircraft are under way at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.(2) What further developments are anticipated.(3) What is the cost of the developments which are (a) under way and (b) anticipated.(4) Have developments which are under way or anticipated been treated as major development proposals under the Airports Act 1996; if not, why not.3705Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Taxiways enhancements to improve the efficiency of Long Term Operating Plan operations, relocation of the runway 25 threshold to improve usage of that runway, and the construction of aprons that will increase the capacity of the International Terminal by 10 gates suitable for wide-bodied aircraft and expansion and refurbishment of the International Terminal Building to manage these additional 10 gates.(2) Further developments planned for Sydney Airport are an Instrument Landing System (ILS) for runway 25 and runway lighting enhancements.(3) The costs of the developments which are under way are $44.7m for the taxiway enhancements, $700,000 for the relocation of the runway 25 threshold and of the order of $88m for the apronworks. The costs of the developments which are planned are yet to be fully determined.(4) Under Division 4, Part 5 of the Airports Act 1996, a major development plan is required to be submitted for Ministerial approval for works including taxiways, passenger terminals and buildings where the cost of construction exceeds $10 million or where the works meet other prescribed triggers.The Airport Regulations (Regulation 5.03(1) and (2)) do, however, provide transitional provisions. Regulation 5.03(1) states that: a major airport development that is the subject of written permission or approval (however described) of the Federal Airports Corporation when it was the operator of the airport concerned, is exempt from Division 4 of Part 5 of the Act.I am advised that the developments under way were approved by the Federal Airports Corporation prior to 1 July 1998 when Sydney Airport became subject to the Act.3705(Question No. 254)2543705Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 2 December 12998:How many sworn Australian Federal Police officers served in Western Australia in each (a) calender and (b) financial year since 1993.3705Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The following chart identifies the number of Australian Federal Police personnel in Western Australia at the start of each calendar year and the end of each financial year. Sworn and unsworn personnel are accounted for in this table as both are involved in operational teams and reflect the operational capacity of the AFP.DatePersonnel numbers in WA30/6/931151/1/9411530/6/941141/1/9511530/6/951201/1/9611030/6/961091/1/97107 30/6/971121/1/9810530/6/981003706(Question No. 264)2643706McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) How many case managers were employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in the electoral division of Barton on (a) 1 July 1998, (b) 1 July 1997 and (c) 1 July 1996.(2) How many clients were managed by each case manager employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in the electoral division of Barton on (a) 1 July 1998, (b) 1 July 1997 and (c) 1 July 1996.(3) Under the new service delivery model announced by the Minister on 9 November 1998, how many (a) case managers will be employed and (b) clients will be managed by each case manager in the Centrelink customer service centres in the electoral division of Barton.3706Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2) None. Centrelink does not employ case managers.(3) (a) and (b) The number of customers in any officer's pool will vary, depending on the intensity of assistance required by different customer groups.3706(Question No. 275)2753706Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the recent Sydney water quality crisis, which highlighted the vulnerability of Sydney's water storage and distribution systems.(2) Will he ensure that there will be no impact on the drinking water quality for the residents of Sydney as a result of airport activities if the Badgerys Creek proposal is allowed to proceed. 3706Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The recent debate on the quality of Sydney's water is a matter for the Honourable Member's State Labor colleagues.(2) It is clearly not possible to ensure that aviation activity in a major city will have absolutely no impact on the environment. All reasonable steps will be taken to minimise the impacts of a second Sydney airport on the Sydney population and the natural environment.3706(Question No. 277)2773706Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) When planning the construction of an airport, what period of historical meteorological data is considered sufficient to reach well informed and reliable conclusions regarding operational factors, noise impacts, and air quality effects.(2) What is the accepted practice in the USA and internationally with respect to meteorological data and the construction of airports.(3) What period of meteorological data was used in respect of Badgerys Creek.3706Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) See my answer to Question no 272.3706(Question No. 327)3273706Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:(1) In each region administered by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, (a) what work-for-the-dole programs have been (i) initiated and (ii) completed since the program started; (b) who was the sponsor of each project, (c) what sum did the Commonwealth provide for each project, (d) was funding obtained from other sources; if so, in each case (i) what sum and (ii) from what source, and (e) how many persons (i) were employed on each project, (ii) participated (A) voluntary and (B) compulsorily on each project and (iii) went on to employment or training after each project.(2) Will there be a formal and public assessment of the successes and failures of the work-for-the-dole program to ensure public accountability for Commonwealth funds; if so, when.(3) Did he state in the House on 7 December 1998 in answer to a question without notice that the pilot program suggested that 30 per cent of participants were going on to employment or training; if so, was the statement based on information provided by the Department from a formal procedure and assessment and, if so, when will the results be made public.3707Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Since the Work for the Dole program commenced: 179 Pilot Projects were approved in October 1997, 174 commenced and as at 29 January 1999 135 of these had been completed; 301 Round 1 Projects were approved in August 1998 and as at 29 January 1999 258 had commenced.(b) and (c) Details about each Work for the Dole project is contained in a Table which has been provided to the Table Office. This table contains information about the sponsor, project name, participant numbers and funding for each project for each Labour Market Region. A further 388 Round 2 projects were announced on 18 December 1998—these are planned to commence from February 1999.(d) Work for the Dole project funding comprises a Commonwealth contribution and funding provided by the sponsor and/or other sources. Most of the funding provided by the sponsor and other sources for Work for the Dole projects is in the form of `in kind' support which is not quantified and in many cases is not specified by the sponsor. In addition, information about other funding which is provided by the sponsor is unreliable as there is no formal process by which the sponsor is required to declare or acquit funding/support from sources other than the Commonwealth.(e) The Table provided to the Table Office indicates the number of participants who were undertaking work experience on each project. Data on compulsory and voluntary participants for the Work for the Dole Pilot projects indicated that there was a reasonably even split nationally between voluntary and compulsory participants. With the introduction of expanded Mutual Obligation requirements to include a variety of choices in activities from 1 July 1998, voluntary/compulsory data was not required to be maintained. Departmental data from post program monitoring surveys indicate that of those who left or completed the Pilot Work for the Dole projects and did not proceed to further employment assistance, around 32 percent had found unsubsidised employment three months after leaving their project, with a further 10 percent proceeding to education or training. Reliable outcomes estimates at the project or regional level are not currently available.(2) The Department's Evaluation and Monitoring Branch, Labour Market Policy Group is currently undertaking a formal evaluation of the Work for the Dole pilot program. A report on the evaluation is expected to be provided to Government in March 1999.A further assessment of Work for the Dole is planned as part of an evaluation of the broader Mutual Obligation Package for young people which included the expansion of Work for the Dole beyond the Pilot phase. The timing of this evaluation is yet to be determined.(3) Outcome data for the Work for the Dole Pilot program was based on information supplied to the Department from program sponsors. This information was used as a guide until the Department's Post Program Monitoring surveys could provide reliable data.3707(Question No. 349)3493707Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, 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.3707Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (c) 17137 civilian employees have their principal conditions of employment set by a certified agreement in conjunction with an award.(b) None.(d) 96 civilian employees have their principal conditions of employment set by an Australian workplace agreement.(2) The classification of the 96 people employed under an Australian workplace agreement are: Senior Executive Service Band 1:—61; Senior Executive Service Band 2:—15; Senior Executive Service Band 3:—5; Chief of Division Band 2:— 12; Chief of Division Band 3:—2; and Medical Officer Class 6:—1.3708(Question No. 362)3623708Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many area consultative committees (a) were operating before 2 March 1996 and (b) are operating in February 1999.(2) What is the (a) name, (b) contact address and (c) telephone number of the (i) chairperson and (ii) executive officer of each area consultative committee.(3) What levels of financial and other support (a) does his Department provide and (b) did the Department's predecessor provide before 2 March 1996 to each area consultative committee.(4) What are the terms of each area consultative committee's charter for operation and responsibilities.(5) Have the terms of the charters varied since 2 March 1996; if so, how.(6) Have area consultative committees been given responsibility to collect data on regional skills shortages and job vacancies; if so, (a) what responsibility, (b) how successful has been the data collection, (c) how is the data made available to the public and (d) how is the data incorporated in a national information system.3708Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)(a) 61 and (b) 58.(2) Detailed list has been provided to the Table Office.(3)(a) An allocation this financial year of $7 million has been provided for Area Consultative Committee (ACC) operations. Actual funding of individual ACCs varies based on consideration of the particular needs of each ACC, for example allowance is made for the additional meeting and travel costs incurred in the more remote and larger ACC regions.In addition, $1.2 million has also been provided nationally to allow ACCs to promote themselves within their local communities and to assist them to disseminate information to the local community and employers about the operation of the Job Network.The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business obviously also has close working relationships with ACCs. ACCs are thereby provided with ongoing support from departmental officers with, for example, advice on departmental and government programs and policies, assistance with a variety of administrative, operational and planning matters and information on labour market trends. A national ACC Web Site is also maintained by the department with developments currently being undertaken to enhance the site to improve inter ACC communication.(3) (b) For the 1995/96 financial year national operational expenditure on ACCs was $1.8 million. A further $7.7 million was provided for the employment of officers to the ACC to assist in the conduct of ACC Jobs Drives. In the main these officers were outposted from the then department through a Memorandum of Understanding with the ACC. At that time a number of ACCs operated from Commonwealth premises free of charge. Departmental officers also assisted and operated closely with ACCs in conducting Jobs Drives.(4) Copy of the charter for Area Consultative Committees has been provided to the Table office.(5) The current charter was developed in April 1998. The terms of the charter outline the role of area consultative committees for the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001. The charter calls for a three year regional strategic plan for ACCs to enable the development of more effective job market and employment training strategies for their regions. The charter reflects ACCs' role in providing a mechanism for regional consultation, identifying appropriate project activity under the Government's Regional Assistance Program, promoting a range of Government-wide initiatives and in providing feedback and advice to Government on these programs and policies.(6) No formal role has been assigned to ACCs to collect data on regional skill shortages and job vacancies. ACCs report broadly on the impact of Job Network in an advisory function. Individual ACCs may undertake data collection for use at the regional level to facilitate their role in supporting Job Network on a regional basis.3708(Question No. 405)4053708Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 February 1999:On 20 January 1999, did an F-111 aircraft perform a low-level fly-past around Point Danger on the Queensland-New South Wales border and then past the surf beaches to the north before climbing steeply as it approached high-rise buildings further north; if so, (a) was the manoeuvre performed at very low altitudes a few hundred metres from the shore-line, (b) how many similar fly-pasts were performed, (c) how many aircraft were involved, (d) who authorised each flight, (e) what military purpose did each flight meet, (f) what safety precautions were taken and (g) how close to Coolangatta Airport were the flights.3709Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No.(a) The aircraft did not perform a low-level fly past. It was flying between 100 feet and 200 feet above sea level and two miles off the coast, when, abeam Coolangatta, it was required to climb to 6000 feet and track West.None.(c) One.(d) Executive Officer No 1 Squadron, RAAF Amberley.(e) The aircraft, one of five F111s flying a standard flight route from Evans Head Air Weapons Range to RAAF Amberley, via Brisbane Airport to conduct Instrument Landing System approach training, encountered a higher fuel usage than planned and requested an amended Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearance direct to Amberley, from a position abeam Coolangatta. ATC approval was given, with the proviso that the aircraft be at 6000 feet altitude before crossing the coast. The crew then conducted a rapid climb before returning by the shortest route to Amberley.(f) The flight was conducted strictly in accordance with approved and authorised operational requirements and safety precautions. All RAAF and ATC instructions were adhered to.(g) Two miles.