1999-03-113912REPS373101999-03-11Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills3731r6043731Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.373109:31:003731Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends three acts: the National Health Act 1953, the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1997 and the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973. The purpose of this bill is twofold. Firstly, it addresses concerns of the government, consumers and the private health industry about the prudential regulation of the private health insurance industry, which were identified in the 1997 Industry Commission report on private health insurance. Secondly, it will enhance the implementation of the federal government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.This bill will put private health insurance on a more commercial footing, by making prudential regulation of the private health insurance industry more market responsive and flexible. It will also allow more efficient regulation of health funds, no matter what their organisation, type or size. In addition, this bill will give private health funds greater opportunity to remain financially sound and therefore able to meet their obligation to contributors.In 1989, the Private Health Insurance Administrative Council, PHIAC, was established under the National Health Act 1953 to provide advice on the prudential regulation of the private health insurance industry. In line with the Industry Commission recommendations, the government amended the act so that PHIAC now has an independent board. However, up until now PHIAC's powers have been limited, in that it is essentially an advis ory and administrative body and as such may only make recommendations. This bill will make essential regulation of the private health industry more efficient. The transfer of the function of approving registration and mergers from my department to PHIAC and the strengthening of deregistration provisions will make PHIAC's role consistent with other insurance regulators. This move from the government to an independent regulator will take any politics out of the equation and put independent expert decision making in.The key to efficient regulation is maintaining flexibility, so that regulation can be adapted according to fluid market conditions. This bill allows PHIAC to set new, flexible, solvency and capital adequacy standards that will put private health funds on a more commercial footing and allow their regulation to be more market responsive.The bill will also ensure health funds are more accountable and operate their businesses more transparently. With the ability to determine meaningful prudential standards, monitor adherence to those standards, and respond quickly and effectively to enforce those standards, PHIAC will be the most appropriate and best placed body to undertake regulatory functions and respond to the prudential regulatory needs of consumers, industry and government. The industry will be regulated independently, without government intervention, and in a manner that seeks to promote the most optimal outcome for contributors.This government is committed to ensuring that the public health sector is complemented by a private sector that is affordable for health care consumers. On 1 January 1999 we demonstrated this commitment by introducing a 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance contributions. Despite the very short time frames, the Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, my department and the health funds have successfully implemented the 30 per cent rebate. As always with a new initiative, there are elements that can be improved. The amendments to the 30 per cent rebate legislation proposed in this bill recognise that some relatively minor changes are required to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998. Minor consequential changes are also required in the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953.This bill will assist all of those organisations administering the rebate to carry out their function better. This bill will implement changes that will ensure that there is greater consistency in eligibility requirements for the premium reduction scheme compared with other methods of claiming the rebate; that people wanting to claim the 30 per cent rebate as a premium reduction will not be required to register annually with the same health fund; that processes for health funds to claim the 30 per cent rebate for reduced premiums are streamlined and improved; and that people are paid the 30 per cent rebate for premiums when extending their cover into a future financial year. These amendments will provide those organisations involved with the day-to-day administration of the rebate with the means to continue a high level of service to those people participating in or seeking to take out private health insurance. I present the explanatory memorandum to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills3732r7393732Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.373209:37:003732Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is a bill that extends student choice. It creates two new choices for students at Australia's publicly funded universities. First, it gives students the right to choose whether or not they belong to an association. Second, it gives students greater choice over what goods and services they purchase.Freedom of association is a basic right that should be available to all Australians. The government has already extended protection of this right to workers through the Workplace Relations Act 1996. It is important now to extend this right to the higher education sector. Students should not have to fund organisations they do not support. These organisations should not be able to claim that they represent people who do not in fact support them. Students should enjoy on campus the same rights that they enjoy off campus, and this legislation will give them those rights.Choice about which goods and services they purchase is something expected by Australians. The compulsory general service fee charged on most Australian campuses requires students, as a condition of enrolment, to pay for services they may not want to use. On most campuses, in order to get a university degree you have to contribute to sporting facilities, whether or not you play sport. On most campuses, in order to get a university education you have to contribute to student entertainment, whether or not you have the time or inclination to attend. Students should enjoy the same consumer right to purchase only the services they want on and off campus, and this legislation will give them that right.This legislation will for the majority of Australian university students remove the last compulsory up-front charge imposed on university entry. Despite claims on the other side to have introduced `free' education, that was never so. There was always the compulsory student union fee.Indeed, Labor's misleading of the public on this matter continues. The 1998 ALP Election Platform stated that:Labor believes that up-front undergraduate fees are undesirable in Labor's Australia.But the same document said that:Labor also strongly opposes the government's plan to impose federal Voluntary Student Unionism legislation.The only compulsory up-front fee for most students is that supported by the Labor Party. There is no such confusion in the government's position, and this legislation will remove an anomaly in the current system which creates a financial obstacle to higher education for students on low incomes.This is not a minor problem for some students. The up-front charge on a number of major metropolitan campuses exceeds $300 a year. Costs to students in the larger cities are also higher than those faced by students in smaller cities and regional centres. So these students face a considerable financial burden.A much better system would be to allow students to manage their own financial affairs. Students themselves are best placed to know their own financial priorities. They are certainly better placed than the officials of student organisations.This legislation represents such a better system. It will let students choose how they spend their money. It will let them spread their expenditure over the year, better reflecting the fact that their income is also spread over the year.Those who in this debate have focused on the legislation's impact on student organisations are missing the point. This legislation will affect student organisations—that is an intention of the government. It wants student organisations to have to become more responsive to students. This inevitably means that they will have to alter their mix of services and change the way they deliver services.In Western Australia, which has had voluntary student unionism since 1995, we have already seen change in the services provided. At Curtin University, for example, the guild no longer offers aerobics, but it does now offer a casual employment register, assistance with resume writing and interview skills, and discounts at a range of on and off campus retailers. Two new cafes have opened at the University of Western Australia. All these examples show a focus by the guilds on the services most likely to be of value to students.Giving students choice will also improve the quality of services provided on campus. When campus organisations cannot take their customers for granted they will have to provide a better service or they will lose those customers. The introduction of competition to other parts of the economy has seen service levels improve significantly. We can expect the same on campus.Student organisations can play a worthwhile role on campus. However we should not take at face value student organisations' claims that the services they provide to students are the ones students want and need. We should put this claim to the test. The best way to see if student organisations really are supplying the services students need and want is to make payment voluntary. Student organisations will prosper when they provide goods and services which students want.To focus on this legislation's impact on student organisations is to miss the point. The legislation is about student choice, not student organisations. If student organisations change to meet student needs that is good. If students decide they would rather spend their money on other activities, that is their legitimate choice.Regional campuses are likely to do well under this legislation. Many of the student organisations at regional universities already have a reputation for serving their student bodies well, and this is likely to be rewarded with high membership levels under voluntary student unionism.Regional universities have a further strength in sharing some facilities with their local communities. This gives regional campuses the opportunity to spread costs in a way not available to many metropolitan campuses where the infrastructure of the surrounding community is already well developed. Local communities and student organisations can each make financial contributions to the provision of facilities, such as sports centres, which each can use, to the mutual benefit of both.The government does not, however, accept the argument that compulsory student service fees are justified because this enables provision of services to the local community. There is no reason why university students, people with below average incomes, should subsidise the rest of their community via their student organisation fees. It is legislation that defends the interests of students wherever they choose to study.This bill also repeals provisions of the previous government, which enshrined the practice of compulsory student unionism. The bill repeals sections 25A and 25B of the Higher Education Funding Act to remove the legislative base of the former Student Organisation Support (SOS) Program. Under this program taxpayers' money was used by the previous government to provide funding to certain student organisations in Western Australia and Victoria, which students themselves had decided not to fund at that level with voluntary fees.Further, the bill makes consequential amendments to the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 to repeal section 15(1) established by the former government which provided that funds paid under the SOS program could be recovered by the Treasurer from state grants. This provision would have diverted funds away from hospitals, schools and roads to pay for student services that students themselves were unwilling to fund. The former government wanted taxpayers to bear the cost of their policy of compulsory student unionism.The bill also includes a number of matters of an administrative nature. The bill builds on the streamlined arrangements for applications for remission of debt under the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), and the Open Learning Deferred Payment Scheme (OLDPS). This amendment further streamlines the administration of the remission arrangements by deeming applicants to have received notification of a decision on their application within a reasonable period. The amendment also places the onus on the applicant to advise the Secretary to the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs of a change of address. The amendment will streamline the remission process for students and simplify the administration process.The bill also amends the Higher Education Funding Act to reflect the name change of James Cook University of North Queensland to James Cook University. Following the passage by the Queensland government in September 1997 of the James Cook University Bill 1997, the institution is now known as James Cook University.Another provision in this bill relates to the University of the Sunshine Coast. In November 1998 the Queensland parliament passed legislation establishing the University of the Sunshine Coast as an independent institution from 1 January 1999. Previously, the institution had operated as a separate entity under the sponsorship of the Queensland University of Technology.Until now, the Commonwealth provided operating and other funding to the institution via the Queensland University of Technology. As the granting of independent status ends the sponsorship arrangement, the bill provides for the new university to be listed separately in table A of the Higher Education Funding Act, to receive Commonwealth funding directly.This bill reflects the government's commitment to keep striving to continually improve the already world-class higher education system in Australia. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Bills3734r7513734Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.373409:48:003734Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes miscellaneous amendments to superannuation legislation.Amendment of the Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995 Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995 to tighten the arrangements relating to the early release of moneys held in the Superannuation Holding Accounts Reserve (SHAR) in a manner consistent with arrangements already applying to superannuation funds and retirement savings accounts (RSAs).SHAR was set up to accept superannuation contributions from employers in circumstances where the employer's superannuation fund will not accept a particular contribution because of rules which require that fees and charges not exceed the interest earned on small amounts. SHAR is administered by the Commissioner of Taxation.The amendments contained in schedule 1 tighten the arrangements on the early release of moneys held in SHAR in a manner consistent with the arrangements that already apply to superannuation funds and RSAs by: reducing from $500 to $200 the amount that can be withdrawn from SHAR on the ground that the person has ceased employment; restricting access to moneys in SHAR on the ground that the individual is not an Australian resident, to cases where the person has reached preservation age (currently age 55); and replacing access to moneys in SHAR on the ground of severe financial hardship with a new objective test based on whether the person has received specified Commonwealth payments for a certain period.The amendments are expected to have a negligible financial impact and will take effect on royal assent of the bill.Non arms-length trust distributions to superannuation and similar fundsSchedule 2 of the bill gives effect to the Treasurer's announcement of 25 November 1997 to close a loophole in the current law allowing certain distributions of trust income to superannuation entities made under non arms-length arrangements to be taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent.The amendments will ensure that distributions of income from all trusts—other than where the superannuation entity has a fixed entitlement—are taxed at 47 per cent. The amendments will also ensure income distributions, where the superannuation entity has a fixed entitlement to income from the trust, are also taxed at 47 per cent where the distribution is made in connection with a non arms-length arrangement.The amendments are expected to result in a revenue saving of approximately $15 million per annum. Subject to a transitional arrangement, the amendments apply to income derived after 2.00 p.m. on 25 November 1997.Exemption of senior foreign executives from the superannuation guaranteeSchedule 3 of the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations, to continue from 1 August 1996 an exemption from the superannuation guarantee for employers in respect of certain senior foreign executives who meet the criteria for the former class 413 overseas executive visa. The class 413 visa, along with many other business visa classes, was replaced with effect from 1 August 1996 by several new visa classes.These amendments will help the internationalisation of the Australian economy by facilitating the movement of highly skilled business executives and specialists into Australia. Senior foreign executives are typically brought to Australia because of their specialist skills and experience and have equivalent or greater retirement income arrangements in place in their home countries. I might add that this helps to embolden our case and our cause for Australia to become a centre for global financial services.The amendments are expected to have a negligible financial impact and will take effect from 1 August 1996. Full details of the amendments in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills3735r7483735Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.373509:53:003735Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and the Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 to give effect to an announcement made in the 1998-99 budget.The bill will provide that various thresholds and rebate amounts in the taxation law that are currently indexed annually in line with movements in the consumer price index will not fall because of the decrease in the CPI for the 1998-99 income year. The indexation measure in the bill will apply to the 1998-99 income tax, fringe benefits tax and sales tax years and later years.The bill will prevent taxpayers being disadvantaged by a reduction in the level of the thresholds and rebate amounts arising from a fall in the CPI as occurred in the 12-month period ending 31 March 1998. The bill also makes two minor technical corrections to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. The cost to the revenue of the bill is estimated to be insignificant.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members, which I now present. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills3736r7443736Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.373609:55:003736Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the income tax law to give effect to the following measures:Firstly,GiftsThe bill amends the income tax law to give effect to announcements about gifts and related matters.The bill will amend the income tax law to allow deductions for gifts made to certain funds and organisations. Amendments are also being made to ensure grants paid from the Katherine District Business Re-establishment Fund to eligible businesses in the Katherine region are exempt from income tax. A number of minor amendments to the gift provisions will also be made.Secondly,Amendments to the capital gains tax provisionsThe bill proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 by inserting a rewrite of the capital gains tax rules about:. Small business rollover and retirement exemption (including an extension to those provisions for land and buildings);. Value shifts between companies under common ownership;. Assets register entries that eliminate the need for business taxpayers to keep source documents after five years; and. Exempting reimbursements or payments of expenses under the M4/M5 Cashback Scheme for tolls paid on the M4 and M5 toll roads.The bill will also correct unintended consequences made by the rewrite of the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 resulting from the Tax Laws Improvement Act (No. 1) 1998. In addition some minor amendments will be made to the readability of those rewritten provisions. The amendments will apply to assessments for the 1998-99 income year.Further, the bill will amend the capital gains tax provisions so as to provide that public entities—listed public companies, publicly traded unit trusts and mutual insurance organisations—with pre-capital gains tax assets, at 30 June 1999, and thereafter at five-yearly intervals or if there is abnormal trading, must satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation that they have maintained continuity of majority underlying ownership. If continuity is lost, any pre-capital gains tax assets are treated as post-capital gains tax assets.Thirdly, Extension of the Beneficiary Rebate to include CDEP participantsThe bill extends the beneficiary rebate to participants in the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme in respect of the income support component of their CDEP wages. This will ensure that unemployed members of indigenous communities who choose to forgo their entitlement to social security allowances to work on CDEP projects will not suffer any taxation disadvantage compared with recipients of unemployment allowances, such as the Newstart allowance.And lastly,Providing taxation information to State law enforcement agenciesThis bill also amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to provide information to the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission and the Queensland Crime Commission, where the commissioner is satisfied that the information is relevant to establishing whether a serious offence has been or is being committed, or is relevant to the making, or proposed or possible making, of a proceeds of crime order.Full details of the amendments in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills3737r7473737Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.373710:00:003737Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill makes amendments to the income tax law and sales tax law to give effect to the following measures:Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1992 The bill amends the sales tax law to correct a deficiency relating to the exemption for goods incorporated into property owned by, or leased to, always exempt persons or the government of a foreign country.Access to the exemption will now be available only where the property is occupied principally by an always exempt person or the government of a foreign country or where the property is used principally for the provision of services to an always exempt person or government of a foreign country. The amendment applies to dealings after 2 April 1998, unless the goods concerned were acquired on or before 2 April 1998.Arrangements treated as a sale and loan and limited recourse debtThese amendments were originally introduced as part of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) of 1998. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives and was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. The bill lapsed when parliament was prorogued. Since that time the government has consulted with professional and industry bodies. Consequently, several technical changes have been made to the legislation as originally introduced.The bill will implement a measure announced in the 1997-98 budget to prevent taxpayers obtaining deductions for capital expenditures in excess of their actual outlays. The measure will apply where the expenditure has been financed by hire purchase or limited recourse finance and the debtor does not fully pay out the capital amounts owing.In those circumstances, an amount will be included in the debtor's assessable income to compensate for excessive deductions that were allowed to the taxpayer based on the initial cost of the relevant capital asset or specified capital expenditure. The adjustment to taxable income will reflect amounts that remain unpaid when the hire purchase or limited recourse debt arrangement is terminated. The amendment applies to debts that are terminated after 27 February 1998.Two major technical changes to the original bill are concerned with limited recourse debt. First, where a debt is terminated and refinanced on arms-length terms, payments of the terminated debt that are funded by a replacement limited recourse debt will be counted in calculating any adjustment to be made. This will allow investors to refinance assets without adverse tax consequences.Secondly, debt will not be treated as limited recourse debt where the conditions of the debt and any associated security arrangements do not have a limiting effect, for example, where ordinary business debts are fully secured by a floating charge over the assets of a debtor—other than the financed asset.Another amendment will treat taxpayers who finance assets by hire purchase as the owners of those assets for purposes of applying the various capital allowance deductions. Hire purchase and instalment sale transactions will be treated as the equivalent of sale, loan and debt transactions in assessing the taxation liability of the financier and the hire purchaser respectively. The amendment applies to arrangements entered into after 27 February 1998.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills3738r7463738Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.Mr Melham interjecting—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the member for Banks to withdraw that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Banks.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I withdraw unconditionally.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. 373810:04:003738Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill will implement the government's response to the taxation related recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, following its inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election. The bill was introduced as the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998.This bill complements other legislation which implements the government's response to the other recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee—the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998, now before the parliament, and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998.Currently, the income tax law allows a non-corporate taxpayer to deduct a contribution—which includes a membership subscription as well as a gift—of $2 or more to political parties registered under part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. However, a taxpayer cannot claim a deduction for contributions in excess of $100 in any income year. Testamentary gifts or contributions are not deductible.The Joint Standing Committee recommended that the income tax law be changed so that the maximum annual tax deductibility threshold for political donations to political parties be increased from $100 to $1,500, and that companies be allowed to make tax deductible donations. The word `donation' is a general term which covers contributions as well as gifts. The government has accepted that recommendation.The Joint Standing Committee also recommended that the income tax law be changed to provide that donations to an independent candidate at a federal or State election are tax deductible at the same level as donations to registered political parties.The government has also accepted this recommendation. This will provide equivalent treatment for donations to independent candidates and members and political parties.To implement these recommendations, the bill repeals the existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that apply to contributions to political parties and inserts a new subdivision that applies to both contributions to political parties and gifts to independent members and candidates.The bill also allows taxpayers to make tax deductible contributions to political parties that are registered under state or territory electoral legislation. This expansion will complement the tax concession afforded to independent candidates and members.The amendments made by the bill will apply to contributions to political parties and gifts to independent candidates and members made on or after 1 July 1998. This was the basis on which the bill was first introduced.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills3739r7493739Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.373910:09:003739Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Treasurer announced in the 1998-99 budget the government's intention to introduce a generic taxation framework applying to demutualisations of mutual non-insurance organisations. This bill introduces that generic framework. The framework will apply to demutualisations completed on or after 12 May 1998.The government has consulted widely with interested parties on the implementation of the generic framework. The consultation period followed the release of an issues paper on 28 May 1997.The framework applies to a demutualisation that occurs under one of three specified methods. All of the methods of demutualisation broadly require that the interests of members in the mutual organisation be extinguished in exchange for ordinary shares.The framework will only apply to those demutualisations where broad continuity of beneficial interest is maintained. However, a small proportion of demutualisation shares can be issued to non-members.The framework provides that capital gains tax will not apply to the surrender by a member of membership interests in the demutualising entity. Any capital gains tax liability will therefore be deferred until the disposal of the demutualisation shares.The framework also establishes, for capital gains tax purposes, the date and cost of acquisition of shares acquired by former members as part of the demutualisation process. Broadly, the cost of acquisition for pre-capital gains tax members will be determined by reference to the member's share of the market value of the demutualising entity immediately before demutualisation. For post-capital gains tax GT members, the cost will be determined by reference to the costs incurred by the member in acquiring and maintaining membership to the extent that those costs are not tax deductible.In addition, the framework will allow demutualising entities to retain any franking account surpluses accumulated prior to demutualisation.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. Bills3740r7223740Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.10:13:003740Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 proposes to implement a number of changes in recognition of software expenses for businesses as announced in the 1998-99 budget and modified by subsequent announcements.The changes fall into three broad categories. First, expenses associated with developing year 2000 compliance systems, second, minor or redundant software expenses and, third, a new consistent regime for non-minor software expenses. These are sensible reforms, and the opposition is pleased to support those reforms, with one amendment.I have to say, though, that there are emerging signs that the business taxation reform process, of which this is one small example, appears to be unravelling, and it appears to be unravelling at the expense of the revenue base. Labor is committed to sensible business taxation reform, and by that I mean reform which equips Australian business for the competitive challenges of the new millennium but, at the same time, protects the revenue base. However, there is increasing evidence that the reform process now under way is as much about rent seeking as it is about genuine reform. The real danger is that the government will squib the task of repairing the business tax base while imposing an unfair $32 billion GST on ordinary Australians. More about that a little later.Turning to the first category of changes proposed in the bill, the legislation will allow an immediate deduction for expenditure in relation to new software or for substantially rebuilding current software to ensure year 2000 compliance for an existing computer system. The government is proposing to legislate to broaden the range of expenditures immediately deductible to also include expenditure on acquiring new software, includ ing upgrades, or on substantially rebuilding current software which has the predominant nature of ensuring year 2000 compliance, provided that it is incurred up to 31 December 1999.The proposal to encourage Australian business to become year 2000 compliant is a sensible one. But there appears to be a gap in the proposal. There is no scope for the immediate deductibility of expenditure incurred after 1 January 2000 according to the proposed subsection 46-75(1). This expenditure will therefore fall for consideration under the proposed new general rules and would generally be written off over 2½ years. To us, this treatment seems odd, because expenses relating to developing software to overcome the millennium bug incurred after 1 January 2000 will presumably be very urgent, as systems will not be functioning properly—indeed, they may not be functioning at all. We should therefore be encouraging business to remedy any problems and give them immediate deduction for remedial millennium bug expenses, at least until 30 June 2000. This is the amendment that is being put by the opposition.The second broad category of changes proposed in this bill relates to minor or redundant software expenses. All items of plant and equipment—that is, 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 only available where the total expenditure on identical software in an income year is $300 or less. That measure is supported by Labor. The third category of changes proposed in the legislation relates to a new depreciation regime for software. On 11 May 1998, the Commissioner for 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 to the withdrawal of IT26, that would mean that systems and applications software would generally not be subject to deduction or, at best, would be depreciated over the very long period of 25 years.The government therefore announced an intention to legislate with effect from 10 a.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time on 11 May 1998, which is when they withdrew IT26, to provide for systems and applications software to be depreciated at 40 per cent per year—that is, 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, and they will also apply to expenditures on specifically commissioned software and the in-house development of software commenced after that time. Expenditures on in-house development, on commissioned software commenced, or on contracts entered into up to that time, will continue to receive the previous treatment until 30 June 1999.The government claims that the write-off rate of 2½ years strikes an appropriate balance between considerations that software is a 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. Again, to us, this set of amendments seems sensible, so Labor is supporting the bill but with one amendment relating to year 2000 compliance measures.Finally, I return to the wider issue of business taxation reform—of which this is one sensible example—and its relationship with the current consideration of the goods and services tax. The government's agenda is to have the GST through the Senate before 30 June but to delay the outcome of the Ralph review until after 30 June. This approach that appears to have been adopted by the government will allow the government to renege on its commitment to genuine business taxation reform whilst slugging Australian pensioners and lower and middle income earners with a goods and services tax.The approach of expecting consideration of the goods and services tax before 30 June but not laying on the table the government's proposals in relation to business taxation reform, of which this is an example, until after 30 June naturally prevents any rational assessment of changes to the Australian taxation system as a whole. It is clearly a deliberate strategy of the government to prevent assessment of the changes as a whole, so that the Senate and the community at large cannot make a judgment about the integrity of the entire taxation system, including the personal income tax system, the goods and services tax and the company income tax arrangements.At this stage, it looks as though we simply will not know what the company income tax arrangements are going to be until after 30 June. The business community has already walked away from an agreement—or so it appears—that business tax changes should be revenue neutral; so I put it to the parliament that there is a lot of rent seeking behaviour going on, on the part of some business groups. Business taxation reform regrettably is taking on the look of many business organisations saying, `I am in favour of reform if it means less tax for me.'Unlike these business organisations, Australian pensioners, the unemployed and low-paid working families are not getting the benefit of secret meetings with the Treasurer to get modifications of the taxation system to suit them. The stage is being set by the government to impose the goods and services tax, while it is walking away from its responsibilities to repair the business tax base. The stage is also being set to shift the burden of taxation off the shoulders of business and onto the shoulders of Australian pensioners, the unemployed and low-paid working families.Those people with a genuine interest in taxation reform should be aware of the strat egy on the part of the government to get the GST through the Senate before there is any time for proper consideration of the other part of the taxation system: the business taxation review that is currently under way. This strategy would give the government the freedom to cut overall levels of business taxation while slugging ordinary Australians with a $32 billion goods and services tax. It is no wonder that Senator Harradine has effectively branded the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business as untrustworthy, because this is the tactic that is being employed by the government to divorce consideration of the goods and services tax from consideration of business tax. Those people who have a genuine commitment to taxation reform in this country need to be aware of these tactics.From the Prime Minister's renaming of his pre-election commitments before 1996 into `core' and `non-core' promises to his promise `never ever' to introduce a GST, Australians have every reason to be sceptical about the Prime Minister's latest promise that business tax changes will be revenue neutral. We need to be on guard against a redefining of the term `revenue neutrality' over a convenient period of time, with a dash of incentivation to bulk up the revenue figures from the business tax changes.In closing, I urge those with an interest in taxation reform to look at the government's tactics on this matter and to examine its motives, which are clearly to separate away the business tax reform proposals from the consideration of the goods and services tax, to expect the Senate to pass the goods and services tax, and to take the government on trust in relation to business taxation changes. There is no basis, unfortunately, for any trust in the government. We have seen that in relation to the youth wages issue that has been debated in this House and in the Senate, where the government has already reneged on one agreement.Unfortunately, we are seeing a repetition of that same approach of reneging on agreements in relation to taxation reform, whereby ordinary Australians are expected to bear the burden of a $32 billion goods and services tax and, at the same time, take on trust the government in its stated aim to genuinely reform the business taxation system. I put it to this House that there is no basis on which that trust can be expected from the government. I urge all of those people with an interest in taxation reform to be aware of the government's duplicitous tactics.10:26:003742Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—In summing up the debate on this taxation amendment bill, I would like to provide the member for Rankin with some advice. If he really does believe in trust—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Is this free advice?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—This is free advice on this occasion. If he really believes in trust, and if he really believes in a fairer taxation system, he should convince his union mates on the other side of the House to support the GST package before the Senate. We want it implemented in full. The Australian people want it implemented in full. The Labor Party, which is known for cherry picking every piece of legislation that goes before the Senate, especially in relation to tax, goes out and tells the world one thing, goes out and pretends to be the great negotiator and fair trader, and goes into the Senate and opposes and opposes every fair taxation measure that this government puts forward. Don't talk to us about transparency, and don't talk to us about fairness when it is the Labor Party that is denying the mandate of the Australian people in relation to the GST legislation.Apart from that, I would like to thank the member for Wills, the member for Herbert, the member for Forrest and the member for Rankin for their contributions to this debate. As has been indicated in the debate, this bill implements a 1998-99 budget announcement to allow a deduction, spread over 2½ years, for expenditure incurred in acquiring, commissioning or developing software, with an immediate write-off for small amounts of expenditure. An important feature of the deduction is the option to pool certain expenditure, which provides an avenue for compliance cost savings. This bill also contains a measure to allow an immediate deduc tion for expenditure on software or on the substantial rebuilding of software to ensure Y2K compliance, provided the expenditure is incurred prior to 1 January 2000.The government consulted widely on these measures, as it did on the GST package, which the member for Rankin wants to deny the Australian people. With the draft legislation, we went to the people as well for public comment prior to its introduction. I therefore, in the spirit of enforcing the mandate of the coalition in relation to taxation, commend this bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3743Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:29:003743Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, sub-section 46-75(1), page 11 (lines 10 to 12), omit `1 January 2000', substitute:`1 July 2000'This is the kind of amendment that the government may well wish to pick up, if not during the debate we are having in the House then when the matter reaches the Senate. Essentially it is a very straightforward amendment, which allows the immediate deduction for software expenses incurred in achieving Y2K compliance to be extended from what the government is proposing, which is 1 January 2000, to 30 June 2000. We are proposing to omit the words `1 January 2000' and to substitute 11 July 2000'. The reason for doing that is quite simple. If businesses discover on 1 January 2000 or thereabouts that they have Y2K problems of which they were hitherto unaware, then clearly there will be a need for them to address those problems forthwith. There could be quite serious consequences if they do not take that sort of action.While the government recognises that this is an issue business ought to be assisted with by allowing for the immediate deductions to apply up to 1 January, we think it needs to go further and to say that those immediate expenses ought to be supported by providing for immediate deductibility up to 30 June next year. So it is a very straightforward amendment.We would expect that this would be welcomed by the business community. We think it is something that the government ought to be prepared to support. We do not see it as being a cost to revenue in so far as what it involves is bringing forward the deductions. Therefore, while it might have a cost to revenue in the first year, these are expenses for which there would be deductibility in any event over subsequent years. Over the course of a couple of years, there would not be a cost to revenue. On that basis we think this is an appropriate amendment. It is something the government might like to give consideration to either now or between this place and the Senate.10:32:003743Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We will not be supporting this amendment. The measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999 are about encouraging taxpayers to incur the necessary expenditure to make their systems Y2K compliant before 31 December 1999. We want them to fix the Y2K problem before 1 January 2000. To achieve this result, the bill provides an expenditure on acquiring or developing new software to ensure that an existing computer system that attains Y2K compliance will be immediately deductible.This concession extends to the replacement of an existing system where the principal purpose of the expenditure is to ensure Y2K compliance. The explanatory memorandum also explains that, under the Commissioner of Taxation ruling TR98/13, the majority of expenditure incurred to make existing software Y2K compliant—for example fixing up errors and the like—is revenue in nature and immediately deductible.I reaffirm that what we are trying to do is to get business to spend on Y2K issues before 1 January 2000. That is not too difficult. We are trying to encourage business to do it and therefore we will not be accepting the opposition's amendment.10:33:003743Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—To respond to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, of course we support business taking action between now and 1 January 2000 to make their systems Y2K compliant. Obviously we are supporting the government's legislation in that regard. However, what the minister is assuming is a perfect world in which, on 1 January 2000, no businesses will experience some problem that requires immediate fixing.Our concern is that, in the real world in which we live, that will not be the case and that some businesses will experience Y2K type problems that will require immediate fixing. We do not think they should be penalised in circumstances where many of them will have been given assurances that everything is okay. We do not think they should be penalised if it turns out that they have problems that do require immediate fixing. That is the direction of our amendment and, on that basis, we will be pursuing it. We really think the government ought to rethink its position and pick it up.Question put:That the amendment (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [10.39 a.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.3744Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3744r6723744Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.10:45:003744Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Yesterday afternoon I was talking about the impact on legal aid of this legislation, the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I made the point about the way in which the application of this law and the changes to the way legal aid organisations around Australia are being treated has discriminated against a large number of Australians. I quoted from a letter from the Victorian Legal Aid Commission which outlined the concerns very succinctly. When we are contemplating this legislation, we should be thinking about the human rights impacts of changing the way in which legal aid is applied in this country.One of the issues which this legislation deals with is cuts to the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I want to talk about that issue briefly because it should be of concern to all of us. Without too much exaggeration, you could contemplate this Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill as an attack on the rights of the disadvantaged and those who suffer from discrimination within our society. As a result of the proposals, there will be major cuts to a wide range of justice related services. I discussed those last night in relation to the cuts to legal aid.From my point of view, just as important are the cuts to the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the impact of those cuts on the operations of the commission. What we learn is that a large number of positions will be cut from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as a result of the cuts which have been made by government decision. That affects the ability of the commission to be able to properly and in a considered way deal with the interests of all those who may have concerns about their human rights. I believe that as a community we should be extremely concerned about the direction in which this government is heading in relation to these human rights issues.I understand that another piece of legislation will come before the House shortly, and I will be addressing that, but I note in passing the way in which the government's position has changed in relation to a number of significant issues to do with human rights.My constituency is the Northern Territory, which has particular issues and problems in relation to human rights. Most recently that was highlighted by Commissioner Chris Sidoti, the Human Rights Commissioner and Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, in a report entitled Bush Talks from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.In this report Mr Sidoti looks at the fundamental services which should be provided to all Australians. In particular, he highlights service delivery in relation to health and in doing so he bases his inquiry on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 12, which says:The States parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.He undertook investigations in relation to that issue. He also looked at issues relating to access to education. He quoted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 26, which reads:Everyone has the right to education.He then looked at the issue of other essential needs and again quoted from the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, article 22, which says:Everyone, as a member of society, . . . is entitled to realization . . . of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.I apologise for the unreconstructed language of these United Nations covenants. He then addresses the issue of valuing children and young people, and that is a very important issue for all of us. He uses as the foundation for this inquiry the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 10, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 3, which states:States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being . . .It is not my intention to go through the detail of that document, but it highlights the range of issues which are properly the province of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. There is a particular issue that I want to contemplate for just a moment. It emerged in the Northern Territory only the day before yesterday and may well be the subject of an inquiry by HREOC.That relates to a proposal released by the Northern Territory government in a document entitled The Face of Alice Springs in Ten Years Project: Public Discussion Paper in which they propose a pilot program to modify management of social security payments to residents of bush communities. The purpose is twofold: to minimise some of the consequences of social issues arising from the drift to Alice Springs, and to maximise the potential for social development in bush communities.I do not want to be too crude about this, but this is a very divisive, I think very discriminatory, and ultimately quite racist proposal, because what they are seeking to do is remove the entitlement of individual social security income support recipients—whatever benefit they receive—and remove the right of Aboriginal people who are recipients of these benefits to receive these benefits in their home communities. I do not have to say what this has the potential to do.It is clear that this proposal is directly in contravention of section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act. It also contravenes the Social Security Act. Nevertheless, it is a proposal—a considered proposal, one would have thought—which is being put to the Northern Territory community in the first instance—I suggest, because of its gravity—and to the Australian community in relation to the exercise of individual rights and the receipt of benefits which individuals are properly entitled to under a piece of Commonwealth legislation, the Social Security Act.I raise this not because I want to go to the detail of this proposal necessarily, but to highlight the importance of ensuring that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is given sufficient resources to be able to undertake its very important and diverse task. I note that in relation to these sorts of issues there are numerous reports, apart from this report from Mr Sidoti, which relate to the rights of all Australians in relation to their human rights. In particular, one of the factors which commends Mr Sidoti's report to the reading of all parliamentarians is that it highlights an issue which I do not think really is in the front of the minds of most parliamentarians and is certainly not in the front of the minds of parliamentarians who do not live in or have experience of living in a remote and regional area.What it asserts—and I think properly asserts—and identifies quite properly is the lack of service provision and fundamental rights that most Australians take for granted in terms of the provision of health, housing, essential infrastructure and support systems. It seems to me that it should be acknowledged that this exercise by Mr Sidoti—although not supported by some governments—is a great service to us all, because he has been able to pinpoint major factors in terms of impediments to lifestyle for many Australians. Significantly, these Australians he is referring to live in the bush—thus, the title of the report, Bush Talks.There are many ways in which we need to be contemplating the role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, but we should not handicap its operation by significantly digging into the resources which are made available to it, to the point where it loses its capacity to be able to properly identify and search into these sorts of matters. I say to the government that whilst I understand and appreciate your assertion about the diligence of budgetary constraints, what you ought to be contemplating is the enormous impact that your budget decisions may have on the rights of Australians. Certainly, I think there is now a clear demonstration that the way in which you have nobbled the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is going to inhibit its capacity to undertake much of the work for which it has become, I think, well known and for which it has a great deal of public support.I know and I hope that the Attorney would concede that there are significant human rights issues which have yet to be revealed or addressed properly in terms of inquiries by this parliament or even the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but that what we ought to be doing is seeking every possible avenue to ensure that as individuals we Australians are able to express properly what our human rights ought to be and we ought to be able to critically appraise our own performance in relation to these issues. Unfortunately, one view of the way in which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has been treated is that the government may be trying to censor its operations so it does not reveal the enormity of some of these issues to the Australian community.10:58:003746Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the members who have spoken in this debate: the member for Barton, the member for Calwell, the members for Jagajaga, Gellibrand, Denison, Curtin, Fowler and, most recently, the member for the Northern Territory. As I outlined in my second reading speech, the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 implements a number of significant and important changes to the administration, functions and procedures of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. These reforms will enhance the promotion and protection of the human rights of all Australians and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission.The first major reform is the government's response to the High Court's decision in the Brandy case. The bill proposes to remove the unenforceable commission inquiry stage and will instead provide the parties with direct access to the Federal Court where they will be able to obtain an enforceable determination of their respective rights.The second major reform involves the consolidation of the three complaint handling schemes contained in the racial, sex, and disability discrimination acts into a single, uniform scheme contained in the one act. The new scheme will simplify the complaint handling process and incorporate best practice procedural provisions. In addition, the president will be responsible for complaint handling under the new scheme. Centralisation will overcome deficiencies in the existing complaint handling processes and improve the commission's capacity to utilise its resources and deliver services in a more efficient manner. It should also assist in promoting consistent and coordinated practices for all complaints.The third major reform made by this bill will be to clarify the lines of management responsibility in the commission. In this regard, the president is to assume responsibilities as the chief executive officer. This is designed to facilitate timely decision making and provide for the better administration of the commission.I thank the member for Barton for acknowledging that the measures in the bill are necessary to achieve the objects of the bill. I do not, however, accept the honourable member's reasons for the majority of the amendments that he has foreshadowed and we will be opposing those amendments at the consideration in detail stage.I cannot except the criticisms made by the members for Barton, Calwell, Jagajaga, Gellibrand, Fowler and the Northern Territory in relation to the reductions in the commission's budget. The government ultimately rejects any claims that it has used budget cuts to undermine the commission. The government remains strongly committed to maintaining a strong national human rights institution. However, in tough financial times that institution's funding cannot always be quarantined nor can that institution be freed from parliamentary scrutiny or attempts to ensure it utilises public finances as efficiently and effectively as possible. While it is true that the government has implemented a number of reductions to the commission's budget, they were nowhere near the magnitude that has been indicated. There have been sound reasons for reducing the commission's budget.The commission's budget grew by some 400 per cent between its establishment and the coalition government's coming to office, and at one stage it had in excess of 220 members on its staff. In addition, in order to address the High Court's decision in the Brandy case, the government has prepared legislation—which we are currently debat ing—which would transfer the commission's hearing function to the Federal Court. A reduction to the commission's funding base therefore accounts for part of the change, though the actual reduction will not take place until the transfer of function proceeds.The commission's 1997-98 annual report indicates an average 32 per cent decrease in complaints over the previous year. This follows the continued reduction in complaints since 1994-95. In addition, the government was forced to implement budget reductions across the Australian Public Service in order to address the financial problems which remained from the previous Labor government's mismanagement of the economy. The government makes no apology for taking the hard decisions that have put the country back into the black and have led to the first real budget surplus in nine years.A number of members have referred to the proposed restructure of the commission, which is dealt with in the No. 2 bill. I do not propose to address that since that will again be the subject of parliamentary debate. I note the member for Northern Territory's support for bush talks and I would add that this is consistent with the government's policy that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should devote more attention than it has in previous years to education of the community about human rights. In the process of conducting the bush talks the commissioners not only have been educating the community about human rights issues but have been learning that there is a dearth of action in particular areas in particular regions. I am not in a position to comment on the member for Northern Territory's reference to a paper which I have not seen.The member for Barton has foreshadowed amendments in the context of criticising the bill on the grounds that it may make it more difficult to pursue a complaint. This criticism appears to be based on factors such as the more formal nature of Federal Court proceedings and exposure to fees and costs. I note the member for Fowler's views that the fee structure in the bill will act as a disincentive for resolving cases at the Federal Court level.In response to these criticisms, a number of points can be made. First, the existing system is less than optimal. There are potentially three levels of dispute resolution, two of which are unenforceable. Under the proposed scheme, if conciliation is unsuccessful, the parties have direct access to the Federal Court where they will be able to obtain an enforceable determination of their respective rights. The scheme has the potential to address significant delays in the current system and reduce the costs associated with obtaining a binding determination in antidiscrimination matters.Second, it has always been the case that the usual rules for fees apply to antidiscrimination complaints in the Federal Court. However, in accordance with current practice, these fees are not payable where a person is receiving legal aid or certain educational allowances, is a minor, is a prisoner, has a card entitling him or her to Commonwealth health benefits or where a person would suffer financial hardship.Third, the bill contains a number of initiatives designed to reduce formality in Federal Court proceedings and lead to less reliance on legal representation. The court will be able to adopt informal procedures as it will not be bound by technicalities or legal forms. Special registry procedures will be established for human rights matters and the commission will be able to assist with the preparation of forms necessary to commence proceedings in the Federal Court. Where there is hardship either party to a proceeding will be able to apply to the Attorney-General for financial assistance for the proceedings.In this context I also note that it is planned that the proposed federal magistracy will have jurisdiction over human rights complaints which have not been satisfactorily conciliated in the commission. Legislation to establish the federal magistracy is due to be introduced into parliament late in the current sittings. One of the attractions of the magistracy is that it will keep costs down for litigants. The costs and fees regime has not yet been finalised, although some work has already been done. Application fees will be set having regard to those payable in state and territory magistrates courts and district courts, bearing in mind that much of the proposed jurisdiction will be more akin to that of a District Court.The filing fees have yet to be set but, in any event, will be lower than fees applicable in the Federal Court. Solicitors costs would be fixed, as distinct from the present situation in which costs are dependent on the work actually performed. This will have the advantage for litigants that they will know in advance the costs for which they will be liable. Although costs will be fixed, there will be different scales to recognise different complexities.Although the full details of the costs proposals are yet to be finalised, costs will be lower than those applicable in Federal Court proceedings. Procedures before federal magistrates will be simplified, which will also act as a factor to reduce costs. Many litigants in the human rights jurisdiction are expected to be unrepresented, and they will also be helped by simplified procedures.The member for Barton also foreshadowed that the opposition would be moving two additional amendments. One of these is an amendment to remove restrictions based on age on appointment as members of the commission. The opposition's proposal was to remove certain provisions relating to the age prohibition which are currently contained in the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and place them in this bill. The opposition's proposal, however, only sought to remove the prohibition in relation to some appointments to the commission, not to all.I foreshadow that I intend to move a government amendment that will cover the field in this area. Specifically, we are proposing to repeal those parts of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, Racial Discrimination Act and Sex Discrimination Act that impose age restrictions. The result would be that there would be no prohibition on the appointment as the president of the commission, the Human Rights Commissioner, Race Discrimination Commissioner or Sex Discrimination Commissioner of a person aged over 65, nor on the appointment of a person for a term which would extend beyond his or her 65th birthday.In relation to the second additional amendment foreshadowed by the opposition, which is to include a power in section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 for the minister to formulate standards under the act in relation to `the access to premises of persons with a disability', I advise that the government is still considering its position on this issue and does not presently accept this amendment.The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 implements important changes to the administration and functions of the commission. These reforms will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission and therefore enhance the promotion and protection of the human rights of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3749Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:10:003749McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 50, page 18 (lines 29 to 31), omit the item, substitute:50 Subsection 8(6)Omit "paragraphs 11(1)(f) and 31(b)", substitute "subparagraph 11(1)(f)(i), paragraphs 11(1)(aa) and 11(1)(ab) and subparagraph 31(b)(i)".(2) Schedule 1, item 55, page 19 (lines 18 to 30), omit subsections (2A) and (2B).(22) Schedule 1, item 58, page 32 (line 15), at the end of subsection 46PV(1), add:: provided that a special-purpose Commissioner must not assist the Court, as amicus curiae , in any proceedings on a matter in relation to which he or she has received a delegation from the President under section 19.The opposition, in response to the bill, accepts the need to overcome the decision in Brandy's case, but our amendments are being moved in a positive sense in areas where we think there can be improvements, particularly in respect to issues such as access to justice.The first opposition amendment is more of a technical issue, and it is designed to ensure that reports to parliament from the human rights commission are reports from the commission itself rather than from any member of the commission, whether it be the executive president or deputy president. We think it is inappropriate for any individual member of the commission to give a report on the endeavours they made to conciliate a dispute and then to report as to the outcome of that conciliation process. We think that any report should be subject to peer review and hence that the report itself should be the report of the commission as a whole.Amendments Nos 2 and 22 are designed to enable the specialist commissioners, or the deputy presidents as they will be, to conciliate disputes within their area of expertise. We are concerned that keeping that conciliation function to the executive president is too narrow and, in particular, the specialist commissioners have developed areas of expertise which we think will actually enhance their ability to effectively conciliate disputes and bring the parties to an agreement. In particular, they can bring on the growing body of expertise they are acquiring through their inquiry functions to resolve the particular disputes that come within their particular areas.We certainly appreciate that if the delegation of the conciliation function was made more broadly, it would be inappropriate for the particular commissioner who conciliated the dispute to subsequently appear in Federal Court proceedings as amicus curiae but, nonetheless, we think that can easily be overcome by another commissioner acting as substitute to assist the court in their deliberations. So that is the substance of our amendments Nos 1, 2 and 22.11:13:003749Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—As I intimated, the government does not support these amendments. The government does not believe there are persuasive arguments to support an amendment that would separate responsibility for the inquiry and reporting functions. The president, not the commission, should have the responsibility of reporting to the minister on complaints which could not be resolved through conciliation.Centralisation of responsibility for complaint handling processes will assist in promoting consistent and coordinated practices for all complaints. The government is also concerned that the recommendation is unwieldy. If accepted, it would effectively require that, first, the president and then the members of the commission would need to familiarise themselves with the intricacies of the complaint. This is likely to lead to greater delay in the processing of complaints.Our bill will also allow specialist commissioners to focus on their other functions in relation to education, dissemination of information and assistance to business and the community in the development of practical guidelines. As to the proposal that there should be a power to delegate to special purpose commissioners any powers in relation to complaint handling, the government strongly disagrees. One of the major objectives of this legislation has been to overcome deficiencies in the existing complaint handling processes where special purpose commissioners are involved in the complaint handling process. An important mechanism for overcoming these deficiencies has been to review the divergent complaint handling regimes in each act and, where possible, to consolidate them into one simplified act with common definitions and best practice procedural provisions.Amendments negatived.11:14:003750McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 1, after item 56, page 20 (after line 4), after item 56, insert:56A At the end of section 28Add:(2) The Commission must inform the parties to a conciliation or attempted conciliation of the following matters: (a) the right of the parties to settle the matter with a binding agreement; and (b) the right of the parties to apply to the Federal Court for an order enforcing the agreement.(3) An agreement must be recorded in writing. (4) If requested to do so, the Commissioner must assist the parties to record an agreement in writing.(4) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 4), after item 56, insert:56B Paragraph 31(b)After "practice", insert, "including any systemic practices,".(5) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 4), after item 56, insert:56D At the end of section 34Add:(2) The Commission must inform the parties to a conciliation or attempted conciliation of the following matters: (a) the right of the parties to settle the matter with a binding agreement; and (b) the right of the parties to apply to the Federal Court for an order enforcing the agreement.(3) An agreement must be recorded in writing.(4) If requested to do so, the Commissioner must assist the parties to record an agreement in writing.(6) Schedule 1, item 58, page 22 (after lines 7 to 9), omit subsection 46PC(2), substitute:(2) The President may, on application by a class member, replace the complainant with another class member, where it appears to the President that the complainant is not able adequately to represent the interests of the class members.These amendments are in the nature of technical measures, I suppose. Amendments Nos 3 and 5 would enable the human rights commissioners to assist the parties to record a binding agreement as to the outcome of conciliation proceedings. We think that such a measure would be constructive in the sense that it would be a clear and, hopefully—with skilled drafting—unambiguous recording of the outcome between the parties. We think that could only be constructive, and the commissioners should be empowered and, indeed, adopt the practice of advising parties that that is one of their roles.Opposition amendment No. 4 is more substantial. We believe that the commissioners should be given power to investigate conduct that they believe is unlawful within the relevant discrimination acts. In particular, it is designed to confront a situation of sys temic discrimination. This is often more sinister than individual discrimination because it affects a wide class of persons. Quite frequently in their inquiry role, or in their educative role, the commission will come up against or be confronted with instances of systemic discrimination. We think they themselves should be empowered to embark upon investigations of these issues. Discrimination is an area where, quite frequently, it is the most deprived socially and economically who are the victims of discrimination. Hence it is appropriate in our view for the commission to have that investigative function. That is the purpose of opposition amendment No. 4.Opposition amendment No. 6 is again in the technical category, I suppose. That is designed to enable the replacement of an applicant in a class action where, because of the cost of the litigation, it is frequently the case that it is only viable if there is a class action—that is, a class of applicants with similar or related complaints coming together and bringing an action. We are concerned that should there be complainants who drop out of the proceedings, as it were, it could result in a discontinuation of those proceedings. Hence, to avoid the resources that have gone into a piece of litigation being wasted, we say that the bill should be amended to facilitate replacement complainants in class actions. That is the thrust of opposition amendment No. 6.11:18:003751Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not support these amendments. The government does not believe that complainants should have the right to settle a matter with a binding agreement, nor the right to apply to the Federal Court for an order enforcing the agreement, nor should it be mandatory for the agreement to be reduced to writing. There is, as such, no right to settle a matter with a binding agreement. It has always been the case that the courts have determined as a matter of law whether the terms of a purported agreement are binding on the parties to it.Conciliation is a process that seeks settlement through voluntary agreement. The government is of the belief that the parties to the dispute should maintain control of the process, and it is a matter for them whether an agreement reached in conciliation should be reduced to writing.It is unclear why the additional reference to authorising complaints into systemic practices is required. There is no suggestion that the legislation as currently drafted does not permit a complainant raising systemic discrimination practices. The commission currently has a range of functions which empowers it and the commissioners to address systemic discrimination.In addition, there is no need for a new provision on the replacement of a representative complainant as there is already an adequate provision in the bill. Our bill makes a similar amendment providing for the replacement of a complainant on the record. For those reasons, the government does not support the opposition's proposed amendments.Amendments negatived.11:19:003751McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(7) Schedule 1, item 58, page 26 (line 23), at the end of subsection (2), add "provided that the proceedings at a compulsory conference shall be confidential to the parties involved".(8) Schedule 1, item 58, page 27 (after line 4), after subsection 46PK(5), insert:(5A) Despite paragraph (4)(a), an individual who is unable to participate fully in a compulsory conference because the person has a disability is entitled to nominate another person to accompany the individual.(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 27 (after line 4), after subsection (8), insert:(6A) The person presiding at a compulsory conference must ensure that no person who is a party to the conference is at a disadvantage because of the representation of any other party to the conference by a legally-qualified person.(10) Schedule 1, item 58, page 28 (after line 9), after section 46PN, insert:46PNA Confidentiality of compulsory conferencesAny person who knowingly breaches the confidentiality of a compulsory conference, without reasonable excuse, is guilty of an offence.Penalty: 10 penalty units (11) Schedule 1, item 58, page 28 (after line 9), after Division 1, insert:Division 1A—Complaints against Commonwealth agencies46PNB Application of DivisionThis Division applies to a complaint lodged under section 46P if the respondent is a Commonwealth agency.46PNC InterpretationIn this Division, Commonwealth agency means an agency within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988 .46PND No appeal to Federal Court where Commonwealth agency is the respondentSection 46PE and Division 2 of this Part do not apply to a complaint to which this Division applies.46PNE Determination or other decision of the President(1) After holding an inquiry under section 46PD, the President may: (a) dismiss the complaint the subject of the inquiry; or (b) if the President finds the complaint substantiated—so find and make a determination which, if appropriate, may include any one or more of the following: (i) a declaration that the respondent had engaged in conduct, or committed an act, that is unlawful under a provision of (A) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ; or (B) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ; or (C) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ; and should not repeat or continue such unlawful conduct; (ii) a declaration that the respondent should perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant; (iii) a declaration that the respondent should employ or re-employ the complainant; (iv) a declaration that the respondent should pay to the complainant damages by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered because of the conduct of the respondent; (v) a declaration that the respondent should promote the complainant; (vi) a declaration that the termination of a contract or agreement should be varied to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant; (vii) a declaration that it would be inappropriate for any further action to be taken in the matter.(2) A determination of the President under subsection (1) is not binding or conclusive between any of the parties to the determination.(3) The President may, in the making of a determination under subsection (1), state any findings of fact upon which the determination is based.(4) The damage referred to in paragraph (1)(b) includes injury to the complainant's feelings or humiliation suffered by the complainant.(5) A determination by the President under subparagraph (1)(b)(iv) on a representative complaint: (a) may provide for payment of specified amounts or of amounts worked out in a manner specified by the President; and (b) if it provides for payment in accordance with paragraph (a), must make provision for the payment of the money to the complainants concerned.(6) If the President makes a determination under subparagraph (1)(b)(iv) on a representative complaint, the President may give such directions (if any) as it thinks just in relation to:- (a) the manner in which a class member is to establish his or her entitlement to the payment of an amount under the determination; and (b) the manner for determining any dispute regarding the entitlement of a class member to the payment.(7) In this section:- complainant in relation to a representative complaint, means the class members.46PNF Obligations of respondent agencyIf a Commonwealth agency is the respondent to a determination to which this Division applies that is made under section 46PNE: (a) the agency must not repeat or continue conduct that is covered by a declaration included in the determination under subparagraph 46PNE(1)(b)(i); and (b) the agency must perform the act or course of conduct that is covered by a declaration included in the determination under subparagraph 46PNE(1)(b)(ii), (iii), (v) or (vi).46PNG Obligations of principal executive of agencyIf the principal executive of a Commonwealth agency is the respondent to a determination to which this Division applies that is made under section 46PNE, the principal executive must take all such steps as are reasonably within his or her power to ensure: (a) that the terms of the determination are brought to the notice of all members, officers and employees of the agency whose duties are such that they may engage in conduct of the kind to which the determination relates; and (b) that no member, officer or employee of the agency repeats or continues conduct that is covered by a declaration included in the determination under subparagraph 46PNE(1)(b)(i); and (c) the performance of any act or course of conduct that is covered by a declaration included in the determination under subparagraph 46PNE(1)(b)(ii), (iii), (v) or (vi).6PNH Damages(1) If a determination to which this Division applies that is made under section 46PNE includes a declaration that the respondent should pay damages to the complainant, the complainant is entitled to be paid the amount specified in the declaration.(2) If the respondent is a Commonwealth agency that has the capacity to sue and be sued, the amount is recoverable as a debt due by the agency to the complainant. In any other case, the amount is recoverable as a debt due by the Commonwealth to the complainant.(3) In this section: complainant in relation to a representative complaint, means a class member.46PNI Review of determinations regarding damages(1) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of: (a) a declaration of the kind referred to in subparagraph 46PNE(1)(b)(iv) that is included in a determination to which this Division applies; or (b) a decision of the Commission refusing to include such a declaration in a determination to which this Division applies.(2) A Commonwealth agency, or the principal executive of a Commonwealth agency, may not apply for review without the permission of the Minister.(3) In exercising powers in relation to an application under subsection (1), the Tribunal must be constituted by a presidential member who is a Judge and 2 other members who are not Judges. This subsection has effect subject to subsection 21 (1A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. (4) Terms used in subsection (3) that are also used in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 have the same meanings as in that Act.46PNJ Enforcement of determination against Commonwealth agency(1) If a Commonwealth agency falls to comply with section 46, an application may be made to the Federal Court for an order directing the agency to comply.(2) If the principal executive of a Commonwealth agency fails to comply with section 46PNG, an application may be made to the Federal Court for an order directing the principal executive to comply.(3) The application may be made by the Commission or by the complainant. In the case of a representative complaint, complainant means a class member.(4) On an application under this section, the Federal Court may make such other orders as it thinks fit with a view to securing compliance by the respondent.(5) An application may not be made under this section in relation to a determination under section 46PNE until: (a) the time has expired for making an application under section 46PND for review of the determination; or (b) if such an application is made, the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the application has come into operation.(15) Schedule 1, item 58, page 28 (after line 25), after subsection (2), insert:(2A) A person who makes an application under subsection (1) must serve a copy of the application and any supporting documents on the relevant special-purpose Commissioner.(16) Schedule 1, item 58, page 29 (after line 3), after subsection (3), insert:(3A) An application under subsection (1) may not be amended unless the amendments arise out of the same (or substantially the same) acts, omissions or practices that were the subject of the terminated complaint.(17) Schedule 1, item 58, page 29 (after line 34), at the end of section 46PO, add: (9) In this section, special-purpose Commissioner has the same meaning as in section 46PV.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Opposition amendment No. 7 relates to compulsory conferences and the need for those conferences to be retained as confidential between the parties. This is an issue which could become significant in subsequent litigation. Litigation in the Federal Court these days is conducted by and large by the preparation of affidavit material before a court case, and it could indeed prejudice the fair adjudication of that subsequent trial if one or other of the parties were to attach details of what occurred at the conciliation stage. The conciliation stage is meant to be open and free so that the parties can voice their concerns with a view to genuinely resolving the matter as opposed to having an eye on what could happen down the track should a case go to a full-blown litigation in the Federal Court. So we say that confidentiality is important.Opposition amendment No. 8 goes to the ability of a complainant to be represented by a next friend if their disability prevents them from attending. We think it is simply a practical matter that these issues, particularly obviously affecting the disabled, will be such that it will be difficult for them to get around. In those circumstances, we think it is only fair and sensible that such a measure should be introduced.Opposition amendment No. 9 is to similar effect. We are concerned that if a complainant is in proceedings where a respondent is legally qualified, or represented by a legally qualified person, that they themselves are not disadvantaged by the fact that they are opposing someone who is perhaps more knowledgeable of the law and more knowledgeable of the procedure. So we are of the opinion that it is appropriate to specifically provide that, if a legally qualified person is appearing as a respondent, a complainant should be entitled to legal representation.Opposition amendment No. 10 relates to amendment No. 7 to which I have referred, regarding the confidentiality of compulsory conferences. So I will not further discuss that one. Opposition amendment No. 11 is import ant. It seeks to ensure that Commonwealth agencies who appear before the commission agree to be bound by the outcomes of the conciliation process. We think the Commonwealth, as a good citizen, could set that example.Opposition amendment No. 15 is a technical amendment whereby the commission, we say, should be notified of the fact of filing of a matter in the Federal Court so that they can get themselves organised as to whether they wish to appear to make representations to assist the court.Opposition amendment No. 16 is again in the nature of a technical amendment. It is an amendment to enable complainants to amend a complaint before the Federal Court proceedings, even though that particular issue may not have been dealt with in the commission. These matters of discrimination can be flexible in the sense that events can occur which are part of an ongoing process of discrimination but may not themselves have been pleaded or raised in the conciliation proceedings. So we say it is appropriate for a complainant to be able to amend the complaint after conciliation and before commencement in the Federal Court. That is the thrust of opposition amendment No. 16.Opposition amendment No. 17 relates to amendment No. 15. That is the amendment which we have advanced to require a complainant or the court to notify the commission if proceedings are commenced in the Federal Court.11:24:003754Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not support any of these amendments. As to those amendments relating to confidentiality of proceedings, confidentiality is already covered under other provisions and a specific provision is unnecessary. In proceedings in the Federal Court, a statement made at, or in connection with, conciliation would be covered by settlement negotiation privilege under section 131 of the Evidence Act 1995. In addition, common law without prejudice privilege would apply in certain circumstances. As such, the amendments are not required. The government also considers that provisions currently in the bill on representation are adequate and provide for appropriate discretion and flexibility. The government believes attendance and representation at conciliation conferences are matters best left to the discretion of the person presiding.There is also no justification for a special regime for complaints against Commonwealth agencies. The bill consolidates the divergent complaint handling regimes in order to utilise common definitions and to promote consistent and coordinated practices for all complaints. There are no compelling reasons to support this proposal. Such an amendment would lead to the commission hearing complaints against Commonwealth agencies only, with the Federal Court dealing with all other complaints. This would result in a duplication of function and a waste of resources.Service of documents is best dealt with by administrative arrangement between the Federal Court and the commission. I am informed that such an arrangement has been made. The government disagrees that there should be a power to add further allegations of discrimination after a matter has been determined in the commission and prior to applying to the Federal Court. This is consistent with the policy of requiring discrimination complaints to go through the HREOC conciliation processes.Amendments negatived.11:27:003755McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(12) Schedule 1, item 58, page 28 (after line 20), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) An application under subsection (1) may be made by a person or trade union on behalf of an affected person with the consent of the affected person.(13) Schedule 1, item 58, page 28 (after line 20), after subsection (1A), insert:(1B) Where 2 or more persons are affected persons in relation to a complaint terminated by the President under section 46PH, in respect of which the President has given a notice to any person under subsection 46PH(2) in relation to the termination, one or more of those persons as representing some or all of them may make an application to the Federal Court, alleging unlawful discrimination by one or more of the respondents to the terminated complaint.(1C) A representative proceeding may be commenced whether or not all the members of the representative group are seeking the same relief.(14) Schedule 1, item 58, page 28 (lines 21 and 22), omit the note.Opposition amendment No. 12 relates to representative complaints by a union or another organisation. Again, this focuses on the costs issue of these Federal Court proceedings in particular, where the costs can be prohibitive, with filing fees, transcript fees, and legal costs generally, and in circumstances where the amount recovered in these cases is traditionally quite modest. It is the case that, on a simple cost-benefit analysis, a complainant simply may not wish to incur the costs of pursuing the complaint.So in those circumstances, particularly where so much discrimination relates to allegations of workplace discrimination, it is appropriate in our view to enable a registered trade union or, indeed, another appropriate organisation, to represent a complainant to bring the matter of the alleged discrimination before the commission and in the Federal Court. That amendment, we say, is significant, and is a significant access to justice issue which may not otherwise occur.Opposition amendments Nos 13 and 14 relate to this concept of class actions. Again, class actions are very important in this area because of the cost to individual complainants. We say that, whereas the current provisions in the Federal Court of Australia Act require seven complainants before there is a legitimate class action, that should be reduced to the current provisions that apply in the commission, whereby two people can initiate a class action. They were concerns raised by the Human Rights and Discrimination Committee of the Combined Community Legal Centres Group of New South Wales. We think those concerns were legitimately raised by an organisation at the grass roots in trying to advance these issues and the amendments should appropriately be included as part of the bill.11:29:003756Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not support these amendments. The bill allows only a person directly affected by discrimination to apply to the Federal Court if the complaint cannot be dealt with in the commission. There is no justification for allowing applications by other persons or by trade unions. The provisions in the bill are also consistent with current Federal Court rules for representative complaints. The current Federal Court rule is that a representative complaint can be brought by a minimum of seven complainants. There is no reason why a separate regime should be established for representative discrimination complaints. The note that the opposition seeks to remove admittedly has no legal effect but it does make the legislation easier to understand and so should remain.Amendments negatived.11:30:003756McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(18) Schedule 1, item 58, page 29 (after line 34), at the end of section 46PL, add:(10) The Court may, if it thinks fit, award costs in relation to an application under this section if it is the view of the Court that the application is frivolous or vexatious. The Court may award party and party costs and solicitor and client costs.(21) Schedule 1, item 58, page 31 (after line 29), after section 46PU, insert:46PUA Federal Court feesA person who makes an application to the Federal Court under this Division is exempt from prescribed fees in relation to the matter but must pay a filing fee of $50.00 except where, in the opinion of the Registrar, payment of this fee would cause the person financial hardship.These amendments are more substantial because they come to that often repeated phrase `access to justice'. Access to justice is invariably about the cost of litigation. Cases involving discrimination are horrifically expensive when they come to the Federal Court. For instance, you do not get a competent counsel in one of the capital cities for much under $1,500 a day, your solicitor will cost in the vicinity of at least $1,000 a day, transcript fees are about $700 to $800 a day, together with your general oncosts in the preparation of cases. These cases can be horrifically expensive, particularly if they go over a couple of days. The fact that a complainant could, at the end of the day, be faced with paying not only their own costs but also similar costs for the respondent could be such that people simply cannot accept that risk, a risk which could literally prejudice their home, their assets and their solvency generally.We say that it is most inappropriate for there to be a standard costs-follow-the-event rule. For instance, in the Workplace Relations Act there is provision that each party pays their own costs, unless it is determined by the court or indeed the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that a party has commenced proceedings vexatiously or unreasonably. We say that protection should remain so that complaints without substance face a cost penalty, but not where there has been a bona fide grievance made. Our view is that it is inappropriate for costs to follow the event.The Democrats have flagged a potential amendment whereby they may be proposing that a complainant elects whether they want to be in that regime whereby costs follow the event, if they feel they have a particularly strong case, and we will consider that when the matter gets to the Senate.I note the Attorney-General referred to the possibility of a federal magistracy being established, but at the current time the filing fees for the Federal Court are really prohibitive. The filing and initiating process costs $500 and filing a notice of motion costs $246. The hearing fee for a notice of motion is $400. Issuing a subpoena costs $40, plus of course serving the subpoena. Setting down a proceeding for hearing costs $1,000 and a daily hearing fee after the first day is $400, coming on top of all the other legal fees. That is a total of $3,200 in court fees alone. We say, in the context where verdicts are seldom over $15,000 to $20,000, that those fees make access to the Federal Court theoretical rather than a possibility. We say that the regime should be replaced with a nominal fee.The issue of a federal magistracy involves some controversy. It is perhaps not the place to focus on it now, but I know the govern ment has been considering it for some 18 months. We are concerned, if it is not done properly and is not properly resourced, that it will be a token gesture. We trust that the government, if they are moving down that track, will properly resource it. If they are not going to properly resource it, then they should be looking at other alternatives, such as, for instance, giving dual commissions to state judges or state magistrates so that they can act in both jurisdictions. That is a separate topic, responding to matters raised by the Attorney.11:35:003757Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not support these amendments. The government remains of the view that there is nothing inherently different about human rights litigation that would justify variation of the normal costs regime in the Federal Court. Application of the usual rule as to costs is also consistent with the general principle for proceedings recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report Costs Shifting: Who Pays for Litigation .The government notes that the usual rule is that costs follow the event but that the court has a discretion in this regard. The potential for an award of costs will encourage legal practitioners to represent parties in Federal Court discrimination matters. Perhaps also on a speculative basis it should also be noted that the bill permits a person involved in the Federal Court proceedings to apply to the Attorney-General for provision of financial assistance in respect of the proceedings. The government believes that the usual rules in relation to fees should apply and discrimination proceedings commenced in the Federal Court.This mirrors the current scheme where a person seeking to enforce a determination of HREOC would be subject to the normal fees regime. It is considered that the existing provisions relating to waiver of or exemption from fees already provide a sufficient safety net to deal with people who would not otherwise be able to afford fees; that is, people holding cards entitling them to Commonwealth health benefits, people in prison, children, people in receipt of certain educational allowances or legal aid, or people who can demonstrate hardship. Such a regime exists in the Family Court where up to 40 per cent of fees are waived.In relation to costs, I also point out that in many human rights cases the respondent is not necessarily a person or a corporation of substance. Many respondents are in fact small business people or other employees. What is proposed would discriminate against them.As I noted in my concluding remarks in my second reading speech, it is planned that the proposed federal magistracy will have jurisdiction over human rights complaints which have not been satisfactorily conciliated in the commission. As I have already outlined, the fees and costs regime envisaged for the magistracy will keep costs down for litigants.Amendments negatived.11:37:003757McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(19) Schedule 1, item 58, page 29 (after line 34), after section 46PO, insert:46POA Application to Court by special-purpose Commissioner(1) If a special-purpose Commissioner becomes aware of a breach or attempted breach of: (a) this Act; or (b) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ; or (c) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ; or (d) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ;in respect of which a person has not made, and is unlikely to make, a complaint, the special-purpose Commissioner may make an application to the Federal Court, alleging unlawful discrimination by a person or persons.(2) The Court may appoint a conciliator to inquire into the allegation and attempt to conciliate the matter in accordance with the relevant Act.(3) The Court may not appoint a particular special-purpose Commissioner as a conciliator in a matter if that special-purpose Commissioner lodged the application in respect of that matter.(4) If the matter is not resolved by conciliation, the special-purpose Commissioner who made the application, or the conciliator appointed by the Court, may apply to the Court for a hearing of the matter.(5) If the Court is satisfied that there has been unlawful discrimination by any respondent, the Court may make such orders (including a declaration of right) as it thinks fit, including any of the orders mentioned in subsection 46PO(4) or any order to a similar effect.(6) In this section, special-purpose Commissioner has the same meaning as in section 46PV.(20) Schedule 1, item 58, page 30 (line 29), omit "or legal forms", substitute, "legal forms or the rules of evidence".(23) Schedule 1, item 58, page 34 (lines 10 to 13), omit the definition of discriminatory act under an award , substitute: discriminatory act under an award means an act that would be unlawful under Part II of: (a) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ; or (b) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ; or (c) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ;except for the fact that the act was done in direct compliance with an award.(24) Schedule 1, item 58, page 35 (lines 20 to 23), omit the definition of discriminatory act under a determination , substitute: discriminatory act under a determination means an act that would be unlawful under Part II of: (a) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ; or (b) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ; or (c) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ;except for the fact that the act was done in direct compliance with a determination.(25) Schedule 1, item 58, page 37 (lines 1 to 4), omit the definition of discriminatory act under a determination , substitute: discriminatory act under a determination means an act that would be unlawful under Part II of: (a) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ; or (b) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ; or (c) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 ;except for the fact that the act was done in direct compliance with a determination.Opposition amendment No. 19 deals with the ability of the commissioners to themselves commence proceedings in the Federal Court. Again, this is an issue which I touched on earlier. The nature of discrimination is that it is often the most profoundly disadvantaged in our community who are the victims of discrimination and simply do not have the knowledge, let alone the resources, to commence this sort of litigation.Bear in mind that it is frequently the outcome of court cases or findings by courts in particular that progress the boundaries of discrimination. They themselves perform an educative role in the community when the community outcome of court cases is the event which is most frequently published in the media to communicate to the general society what is, and what is not, an appropriate standard to judge the application of the discrimination legislation by. So it is important that allegations of substance are brought before the courts and, in that context, we say that it is appropriate that the commission itself, through individual commissioners, be empowered to commence proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia.As I mentioned in my reply to the minister's second reading speech, that power exists, for instance, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under section 80 of the Trade Practices Act. We have seen that more recently with the litigation that the ACCC commenced against the Maritime Union of Australia, and it has done so in a number of areas to establish boundaries regarding the application of legislation. We say that it is most appropriate that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission be given that power.Opposition amendment No. 20 relates to simplifying proceedings. We say that, in this area in particular, it is inappropriate for the court to be bound by the strict rules of evidence. There are a number of precedents in the Federal Court. One that I can recall is, for instance, when the Federal Court conducts an election inquiry into an industrial organisation. Whether it be a trade union or an employer organisation, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence. It literally acts as an inquiry. Those proceedings can be conducted much more freely and less technically as a result of the removal of that restriction. Associate Professor Tahminjis was of the view that clause 46PR of the bill would not prevent the operation of those rules of evidence, and we think that should be clarified by an appropriate amendment to the bill.Opposition amendments Nos 23, 24 and 25 all relate to the ability to refer matters of discrimination appearing in industrial awards and orders—whether they be in the private sector, the public sector or the defence forces—to the appropriate tribunal. Currently, only sex discrimination matters can be referred to those bodies. We say that it should be broadened to include not only sex discrimination but also allegations of race or disability discrimination. It should be specifically provided that matters involving those particular issues of discrimination could be referred to the appropriate tribunal—whether it is the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, whether it is the Remuneration Tribunal or whether it is the Defence Force Tribunal—to remove the offending provisions from the particular industrial award or employment prescription.11:42:003759Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not support these amendments. They are inconsistent with government policy that only persons affected by discrimination should be eligible to make an application to the Federal Court. Such an approach also fails to recognise that, in certain circumstances, an affected person will have legitimate reasons for not wishing to pursue a case. The amendment would also permit a backdoor form of legal aid, and appears to presume direct access to the Federal Court and an ongoing role in complaint handling for commissioners.The Evidence Act 1995 provides a proper framework for the reception of evidence with adequate capacity for the court to dispense with particular rules in appropriate circumstances. Additionally, the Federal Court rules also address many circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the court to exclude the operation of some of the rules of evidence of the current legislation. Only the Sex Discrimination Act includes a power to refer.References may be made of discriminatory awards and agreements to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and discriminatory determinations can be referred to the Remuneration Tribunal or the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. This arises under sections 50A to F of the Sex Discrimination Act. The bill maintains the referral power in relation to such complaints. It does not extend the power to complaints of racial or disability discrimination. The government has been advised that this mechanism has rarely been utilised in the existing regime and is not satisfied that there is a demonstrated need for the proposed extension to other areas.Amendments negatived.11:44:003759McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, after item 10, page 13 (after line 8) insert:10A Before paragraph 31(1)(c)Insert:(ca) the access to premises of persons with a disability;(2) Schedule 1, after item 56, page 20 (after line 4), insert:56C Subsections 37(2) and (3)Repeal the subsections.The Attorney-General, in responding to the debate, foreshadowed that the government will be giving further consideration to opposition additional amendment No. 1. That amendment seeks the implementation of standards regarding access to premises for disabled people. We certainly encourage the government to move down that track.When the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 was originally proposed, there was considerable disagreement in the community as to whether such standards were appropriate. In particular, the Property Council of Australia originally strongly opposed such measures. However, my understanding is that their opposition has now disappeared, and that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Australian Building Codes Board and, indeed, state and federal regulators are now submitting that such standards are appropriate. Certainly, those who represent the disabled in our community have been advocating such standards for a long time.The amendment proposed by the opposition would allow the Attorney-General to formulate disability standards relating to access to premises, pursuant to section 31 of the act. It is a relatively simple procedure and we would certainly encourage the government to accept our suggestion in that respect.Opposition additional amendment No. 2 is an amendment which the government will be taking up in their amendment, which I understand they will be moving forward on immediately after I conclude, and that move is to be encouraged. Accordingly, I will not focus on our opposition amendment, but it is designed to remove age restrictions on the appointment of commissioners under the applicable acts. I note that the government will be pursuing that issue, and we are pleased that the government has responded as it has on the removal of age discrimination.11:46:003760Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the opposition for its proposed amendment relating to disability standards. As I indicated, the government is currently considering the issue in the context of the development of disability standards more generally, and so on that basis the amendment is not supported at this time. In relation to the second additional opposition amendment, as the member for Barton indicated, the government amendment will actually cover what is proposed in it and will go further, and so on that basis it is not supported.Amendments negatived.11:47:003760Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as circulated, together:(1) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 4), after item 56, insert:56A Subsections 37(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections. [section 37—age limits for appointed members](2) Schedule 1, page 39 (after line 27), after item 78, insert:78A Subsection 30(2) Repeal the subsection. [section 30—age limit for Commissioner](3) Schedule 1, page 43 (after line 24), after item 111, insert:111A Subsection 97(2) Repeal the subsection. [section 97—age limit for Commissioner]As I foreshadowed in my concluding remarks, I am proposing these three amendments to the bill in order to remove age restrictions on appointments of members of the commission. Specifically, the amendments would repeal the provisions that impose these restrictions: namely, subsections 37(2) and 37(3) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, subsection 30(2) of the Racial Discrimination Act, and subsection 97(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act. The result will be that there will be no prohibition on the appointment of a person aged over 65 as president of a commission or as a human rights commissioner, a race discrimination commissioner or a sex discrimination commissioner, nor on the appointment of such a person for a term which would extend beyond his or her 65th birthday. There are presently no such restrictions in the case of other members of the commission, and these amendments will achieve consistency in the case of all members of the commission.11:48:003760McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition is prepared to accept the government amendments, as I foreshadowed. We see it as being a constructive step on the government's part and we trust that, between now and the conclusion of the debate in the Senate, a similar approach will be taken to some of the other amendments which we have advanced in a positive sense to refine or improve the government's bill. But, in respect of this amendment at least, we see it as being constructive and appropriate and hence we will support it.Amendments agreed to.11:49:003760Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I wish to correct an oversight and table a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the government amendments to the bill.Bill, as amended, agreed to.3760Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3761r7433761Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.376111:50:003761Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill contains amendments relating to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, some of which will be effective for the purposes of the 1999 referendum on the republic issue only.The Constitutional Convention met in February 1998 to consider whether Australia should become a republic, which republic model should be put to voters to consider against the present system of government, and in what time frame any change might take place. The convention supported the adoption of a republic based on a `bipartisan appointment of the president' model and recommended that the model, and other related changes supported by the convention, be put to the people at a constitutional referendum. The convention also recommended that, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the government undertake a public education program directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum on the republic.The government has confirmed that it will put the convention's preferred model to a referendum in 1999 and that it will support public information activities in relation to the referendum. The government has made it clear that the republic question is one for the Australian people to decide. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposal for change. The government believes that public funding should be made available to support a vigorous and engaging public presentation of the arguments for and against change. The public information activities associated with the referendum will involve three phases.The first phase, timed to coincide with the consideration of the referendum legislation in the parliament, is to consist of wide distribution of a `plain English' public education kit explaining the existing system of government, the convention's preferred republic model and the referendum process, together with an advertising campaign to publicise its availability. It is intended that the information be available in other formats tailored to particular audiences, including in translation—up to 16 languages—on the Internet and in alternative formats for the sight impaired. An expert group will be established to clear the information prior to publication to ensure balance, fairness and accuracy. The advertising campaign will provide a reminder of the forthcoming referendum and promote the availability of the information. The aim of this phase is to ensure that balanced, factual information is made widely available to assist electors to understand the issues before they vote in the referendum.The second, or `campaign' phase will occur in the three- to four-week period leading to the referendum voting day. The government will make available $15 million for national campaigns to promote the arguments for and against the republic model put at the referendum.Two committees have been appointed by the government to manage the campaigns, both drawn from delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention. One includes delegates who support change in line with the convention's preferred model and the other delegates who oppose it. The government is conscious that the republic issue should not be one for politicians alone. The convention delegates are a broadly representative group with a high public standing on the republic issue.Each committee will plan its own campaign and manage expenditure of up to $7.5 million. The committee will develop advertisements to be run through media outlets of their choice in the three to four weeks before the referendum, which is likely to be held in November. The advertisements will be placed through government processes, but the government's checks will be limited to ensuring that the proposed advertisements do not infringe statutory requirements or accepted standards for advertising.Public funding for the committees will allow robust public debate on the arguments for and against change. As with the provision of public funding in election campaigns, the purpose is to ensure that the alternative views can be presented directly to the voters.The Australian Electoral Commission will have responsibility for the conduct of the referendum process after the constitution alteration bills have been passed by the parliament, including any advertising associated with the process of voting—for example, to inform voters about enrolment deadlines and particular voting arrangements. The commission will be responsible for the third phase of public information activities, the physical distribution of the official `yes' and `no' cases to all voters as provided for by the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which I will refer to as the referendum act.Clause 4 of the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill would amend the operation of subsection 11(4) of the referendum act. Subsection 11(4) imposes restrictions on expenditure by the Commonwealth in relation to constitutional referenda. It provides that:(4) The Commonwealth shall not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law except in relation to: (a) the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlets referred to in this section, or the preparation and distribution of translations into other languages of material contained in those pamphlets; (aa) the preparation and distribution of presentations of that material in forms suitable for the visually impaired; (b) the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law or (c) the salaries and allowances of members of the parliament, of members of the staff of members of the parliament or of persons who are officers or employees within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922.Subsection (4) was inserted in what became section 11 of the referendum act by means of an amendment in the Senate at the time of the passage of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. The subsection arose out of a concern at the time to establish a statutory prohibition against the government of the day funding partisan involvement in campaigns surrounding a referendum proposal. Specifically, the concern was that a government might support one case only.Clause 4 of the bill is not an attempt on the part of the government to tip the balance in favour of either side of the debate on the republic.Clause 4 is intended to ensure simply that Commonwealth expenditure on the government's three-phase program of public information activities for the 1999 referendum does not result in a technical breach of subsection 11(4) of the referendum act.The government's intention is to give the Australian people who will be required to vote on a republic the best chance possible to understand the issues at stake and the arguments for and against change.The Attorney-General's Department has indicated that subsection 11(4) of the referendum act, as it stands, may prevent public funding for the campaign phase of the information activities. The department has also said that the subsection arguably prevents Commonwealth expenditure on educational material which may be said to include any argument for or against the proposed law. Many kinds of educational material could conceivably come within the scope of such a prohibition. The class of educational material that may be regarded—in one sense or another—as an argument for or against change is potentially too broad.Clause 4 of the bill would facilitate expenditure by the Commonwealth on public information activities by temporarily overriding the operation of subsection 11(4) of the referendum act.Clause 4 of the bill would override the operation of subsection 11(4) only in relation to expenditure in respect of things done in 1999 in connection with:(a) a referendum on a proposed law for the establishment of an Australian republic; or(b) a referendum on a proposed law to insert a preamble in the Constitution.The reference in clause 4 to a referendum on a proposed law to insert a preamble in the Constitution is necessary in order to ensure that `incidental' references to the preamble proposal cannot of themselves result in a breach of the act.The reference is intended to ensure that expenditure in connection with information activities relating to the republic issue, and particularly in connection with the phase 2 advertising campaigns, cannot breach the referendum act simply because it also incidentally touches on the preamble issue. The government's commitment is to undertake a public education program directed to the republic proposal and to fund campaigns on that proposal. That commitment does not extend to the preamble proposal.Clause 4 would have a very limited effect. Indeed, it would not alter the text of the Referendum Act. Clause 4 would operate as a provision of the Referendum Legislation Amendment Act 1999 and cover the 1999 referenda. Otherwise, clause 4 is not intended to affect existing statutory arrangements. It cannot affect later referenda, even if they relate to republic or preamble issues.Other amendments to the Referendum Act, which will apply to the republic referendum and all future referenda, will:. provide that where the minister gives a written notice to the Electoral Commissioner, identifying two or more proposed laws, and referendums on two or more of the proposed laws are to be held on the same day, and the notice is given to the Electoral Commissioner at least 28 days before the issue of the writ; then the ballot papers for each of the referendums specified in the notice are to be printed on separate pieces of paper. Further, for each of the referendums, the ballot papers are to be of different colours, to be chosen by the Electoral Commissioner.. allow for a wider distribution of the yes/no case pamphlets than is currently provided for in the legislation, including publication on the Internet.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills3763r6743763Consideration resumed from 10 March.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 23), after item 3, insert:3A Existing conditions of staffAn officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 transferred to the AGS under section 81C of that Act is to be employed on terms and conditions no less favourable than applied to the officer or employee immediately prior to his or her transfer.12:01:003763Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The government proposed this amendment in the Senate in the light of opposition concerns about the terms and conditions of staff who are to be transferred to the Australian Government Solicitor when it commences operation as a new statutory authority outside the Public Service Act. The amendment provides that officers and employees transferred to the AGS under section 81C of the Public Service Act 1922 are to be employed on terms and conditions no less favourable than applied immediately prior to their transfer.The government and the AGS have always envisaged that the current AGS staff who transferred to the new statutory AGS would not be prejudiced by their transfer. We expect this to occur under a combination of mechanisms, including a new certified agreement for AGS staff and regulations made under superannuation and maternity leave legislation. In this respect I can inform the House that the new Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Government Solicitor, Ms Rayne de Gruchy, has been travelling throughout the country to meet with staff and to get their input into what will be in the new AGS certified agreement.The government anticipates that staff will be able to vote on a new agreement some time in May this year. In these circumstances, the government has no difficulty in making express provision in the bill for the protection of AGS staff in the terms of the amendment now before the House. I commend the amendment to the House.12:03:003764McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will be agreeing to the amendment, as we indicated in the Senate. It is pleasing that, after many months of negotiation, the government has come around to the point of view we were putting, not only in respect of this particular issue but in respect of the government's commitment to ensuring a proper scrutiny of the standards of legal work conducted on behalf of the Commonwealth, whether that litigation be conducted through the Australian Government Solicitor or by private firms. This is an issue that is vitally important to us.The government has also undertaken to review the ability of government departments and agencies to fund litigation services should there be an increase in legal costs as a result of the contracting out of litigation services. That issue is vital because it is important to the Australian community as a whole that their representatives as government agencies be able to obtain such legal advice and such legal redress as they may require. Those things have been consistently pursued by the opposition and we are pleased that the government has responded to those concerns and hence enabled an agreement to be reached in respect of the passing of this legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3764r6493764Debate resumed from 25 November 1998, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.12:05:003764Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The rumour doing the rounds of Parliament House is that the government will attempt to gag this Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 . At the outset I want to express the opposition's outrage if that turns out to be the case. We have only seven members seeking to speak to this bill. It would be outrageous if our rural and regional members in particular were denied the opportunity to speak on a bill that has such serious ramifications particularly for those living in rural and regional Australia and such serious implications for thousands of small business people across the nation.The opposition opposes the bill and I move the following second reading amendment, which will be seconded by the member for Barton:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"The House calls for the bill to be withdrawn and condemns the Government for:-1. breaching a clear election promise by failing to finalise and adopt an agreed Oilcode prior to acting to repeal the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980;2. its failure to tackle the market issue in the industry the Acts were designed to address;3. its failure to provide an open terminal access regime in order to provide real competition at the wholesale level;4. its failure to protect the jobs of those who run and work in the 4,000 service stations likely to close as a result of the repeal of the Acts; and5. its failure to address the enormous price differentials between metropolitan and country fuel prices".The Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 seeks to repeal the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act. The repeal bill does not enjoy the support of the opposition, for a plethora of reasons, all of which are underpinned by two basic points. Firstly, the repeal of the franchise and sites acts prior to the adoption of an agreed oil code is a clear breach of a coalition pre-election promise. Secondly, while the proposed oil code deals with the relationships between the parties within the industry, it does nothing to address the market issues in the industry which flow from the oligopoly which exists in the industry and all the issues that flow from it, such as the vertical arrangements in the industry.In other words, the repeal of the acts will further enhance the power of the four sisters, Caltex, Shell, BP and Mobil, who will in turn take their economic rents in selected high throughput areas, forcing the closure of thousands of service stations, particularly in rural and regional Australia, and the loss of thousands of jobs, small business jobs, often family jobs. The closure of these usually family owned businesses will not, of course, result in greater competition at the retail level but, indeed, it will lead to less competition at the retail level and therefore higher prices, particularly for country motorists.Let me turn briefly now to the infamous pre-election commitment by the Howard government. I quote from the Liberal Party's Linton Crosby's pre-election response to the MTAA survey of the major political parties and their attitude on these issues. Mr Crosby said:Repeal of these Acts will not occur until agreement has been reached, between all parties, on the final implementation of the Oil Code.That leads me to what I believe is one of the greatest political farces I have seen in this place. On 16 February a media release issued by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources reaffirmed the government's commitment not to repeal the sites and franchise acts until an agreed oil code was in place. I emphasise the word `agreed'. To my astonishment and everyone's astonishment, the very next morning, having just reaffirmed the government's commitment to the position, the minister's office emailed every media outlet in this town rescinding the media release it had issued the day before, the aborted media release. What are we to assume from that action? Does this now mean that the government is no longer committed to its pre-election promise? One can only assume so.The sites act was a Fraser government initiative, and I cannot help recall the role the current Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources in the House, Mr Moore, played in the implementation of that act back in 1980. It was a Fraser government initiative to deal with the vertical arrangements of the oil majors. It currently restricts the number of retail outlets the oil majors can directly operate to 424. That is a number originally derived from five per cent of national volume back in 1980. In his second reading speech introducing the bills, the minister of the day spoke about the concentration and continued growth of vertical integration in the industry. He told the House:The Government believes that, in the particular and unique circumstances of the industry, the time has come to call a halt to vertical integration and reduce it.He went on to talk about the market share of the oil majors. There were about nine of them then and now there are four, making the issue more important than ever. He said:On June 1979 figures, their market share was about 17 per cent.He was talking about the retail market share of those then nine oil majors. The minister of the day and the person who played such an important role in implementation of the acts, the minister who I understand will be closing the debate on this bill, recognised the problems then. They are problems that are no less relevant in 1999 than they were back in 1980. Indeed, today the retail share by volume is around 15 per cent. More importantly, when you include the franchisees, now largely controlled by the oil majors in any case with respect to retail price, it is around 75 per cent.So the government wants us to believe that the world has moved on and it is no longer necessary to attempt to break up either the market dominance of the oil majors or their vertical arrangements. It is now more important than ever; the government is going the wrong way. The point here is this. The oil majors have continued to circumvent the sites act by use of the very innovative multisite franchise arrangements. In other words, they may have one franchisee only controlling up to 20 or more retail sites. In that situation it becomes very easy indeed to manipulate retail prices. But the growth of the multisite franchise is no reason to give up addressing vertical arrangements in the industry, to give up on our attempts to break the vertical chain. It simply means that we need to do more, not less.Over the recent Christmas period we saw once again a proliferation of newspaper reports highlighting the huge price differen tials between city and country. Rural and regional motorists are still paying up to 13c per litre more than their city counterparts. With the repeal of these two acts and with the introduction of the GST, that situation is about to grow worse. The oil majors claim the price differences are simply due to transport costs, higher volume throughputs enjoyed by metropolitan service stations and the additional retail products they are able to offer their customers on site. But, while there is no doubt these are issues, no-one in the industry that I have spoken to other than those representing the oil majors believes that those high differentials can be explained by volume throughput, transport costs and additional retail areas alone. There is much more to the story than that. I know that the member for Indi in particular and indeed the member for Murray would agree with me on that point.I need to look no further than my own electorate to become convinced that that claim is a load of rubbish. Along the national highway in my electorate are the townships of Singleton, Muswellbrook and Scone. All are about half an hour apart. Singleton is to the south, and then come Muswellbrook and Scone as you go north. Surprise, surprise: the prices in those towns are consistently different. They are all on the same national highway and, therefore, the market is the same. They are all similar distances away from the oil terminal, and yet we consistently have these differences.The even bigger surprise is that it is not Singleton, the town that is half an hour closer to the terminal, that has consistently cheaper fuel, nor is it Scone, which is the town farthest away from the terminal. It is Muswellbrook, which is in the middle, which has lower prices. Muswellbrook, sitting between Singleton and Scone, consistently has unleaded fuel prices which are around 3c lower than the prices in the towns of Singleton and Scone.Why is that? The answer is very simple: in Muswellbrook, Woolworths has a retail outlet. This phenomenon is being repeated right around the country. It is a demonstration that rural competition at the retail level can bring retail prices down.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—That is government policy too.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I thank the member for Indi, because the member for Indi will say, `Thank you, you make our point for us. Woolworths and the other independent operators are bringing their prices down.' The point I make is that what this proves is that competition at the retail level will bring prices down. Similarly, competition at the wholesale level will bring prices down. This is where the government fails so dismally.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—No, we agree with that too.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am pleased that the member for Indi agrees, and I look forward to him supporting some of the propositions I am putting forward, because that is the only way that he can hope to deliver fairer prices for the constituency he represents in this place.So the only way to give effect to fairer prices is to introduce competition at the wholesale level. And the only way to do that is to put an effective terminal access regime in place. That is something the government has failed to do. I know there will be some claims to the contrary later, but I will address those in time. It would give franchisees the ability to shop around for their fuel, giving them some separation and the ability to compete—particularly with those who are not franchisees or who are in some other arrangement and with independents like Burmah, who are buying the same fuel from the same oil major that the franchisee is tied to, at a lower price. What sort of crazy arrangement is that?The most effective way to ensure an effective terminal access regime would be to declare the terminals as essential services under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. The opposition is not necessarily advocating that course today. What we are suggesting is that the debate, the discussion and the research on that proposition should proceed, and it should proceed immediately, and it should reach a conclusion before these acts are repealed. Otherwise, we will have no arrangements in place whatsoever to curtail the dominance of the oil majors and no arrange ments in place whatsoever to deal with the vertical nature of the industry.One of the disadvantages of opposition is that you do not get the right of reply nor the opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised by those on the other side. You have to anticipate. And I anticipate that some members opposite will say that the part IIIA suggestion is not possible and that it is a terrible thing to do. They will say it cannot be implemented. They will say that it would be neither legal nor possible. I say, `Why not?' We have done it in telecommunications and in rail. Why can it not be achieved with respect to the oil majors' terminals. It is worth consideration.' I suspect what they will also say is that declaring the terminals under part IIIA is not possible. I have heard this before. The suggestion is that the terminals are in effect excluded by the definitions contained in section 44B of the act.There are two things to say about that. The first is that, arguably—and I think it can be very well argued—the terminals could fit as easily into the permissible service definition B of the act as into the non-permissible service definitions D or F. Definition B, the permissible provision, talks about the handling of transport of goods or people. The non-permissible definitions D and F refer to the supply of goods and the use of a production process.My second point is this: the debate about whether you can currently declare essential the terminals under the Trade Practices Act is frivolous. It is frivolous because, once we as a governing body—as a legislature—come to the conclusion that that sort of access is a healthy thing for the industry and, more importantly, for consumers, it is simply a matter of amending the act, if legal advice shows that it is not possible under current arrangements. A very simple amendment could be made to the Trade Practices Act, redefining the definitions and making it possible to include those terminals in that access regime.The other thing I anticipate we will hear today is that we already have an effective access regime. I have already heard the member for Indi, by way of interjection, suggest that this is already government policy, but let us examine the current access regime brought in with such fanfare by way of media release—and that is a good point because it is not much more than a lick and a promise. It is not underpinned by any legislation, no force of law; it is just a promise. They say they have an effective access regime. It is a promise from four large oil companies which have never shown a preparedness in the past or at present to address the problems at the retail end. It is a promise by them to open their terminals up. That promise has already been broken. I encourage the member for Indi, the member for Murray and all honourable members opposite to talk to organisations like Woolworths and ask them how they are getting on with respect to access to the terminals of the oil majors since the 1998 reforms. They will find that Woolworths, in particular, is having very little success indeed.I have a letter with me, which I do not intend to share in detail with the House, but I would be happy to show it to the member for Indi at any time. I say that because I do not think it is fair of me to disclose the contents of a private letter between an oil major and Woolworths. That letter clearly denies Woolworths any opportunity to access fuel where it counts. Of course, the oil majors are playing some games—they give some access in places where it suits them, where it is profitable for them to do so, where it does not represent any challenge or competition to their main markets, but not in the major capital cities, particularly on the eastern seaboard. I am happy to show that letter to the member for Indi at any time. I think it will be quite revealing for him.In any case, you have to look closely at Peter Costello's access regime agreement to find that it excludes any purchaser already in an agreement with an oil major. That immediately excludes 93 per cent of the market. Peter Costello's access regime excludes 93 per cent of the market. It is nothing more than a farce and the government knows that it is a farce. Franchisees remain tied to their masters and are forced to pay, as I said earlier, the highest price of the day and often pay higher prices than other independents accessing the same fuel from the same oil major. On that basis, retail manipulation on the part of oil majors is well and truly alive. The oil majors have some problems—we identify that—particularly at the retail end. But I say they have no-one to blame but themselves. You know the government are in trouble when the Prime Minister organises for himself a dorothy dixer on a bill currently on the Notice Paper and scheduled to be debated only two days later. You know they are really bleeding when the Prime Minister so carefully reads his answer to the dorothy dixer, as he did on Tuesday in this place.RH4KERRMr Kerr—In a slightly boring tone.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—It was slightly boring and very tedious, but it was very interesting that he so carefully read the answer to that Dorothy Dixer word for word.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—Why don't you read it now?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I am not going to take up my time reading it now. You can look it up in Hansard . The point is this: we know there is quite a deal of restlessness on the other side. We know that, in particular, the member for Richmond and the member for Hume have been having a bit to say in the party room on this issue. But where are they today? Where is the member for Richmond today? Indeed, where is the member for Parkes? Where is the member for Gilmore, the member for Page, the member for Riverina, the member for Barker? The member for Murray is here—I had her on my list. Well done, but I do note that she is on duty and did not have much choice. Where is the member for Grey, the member for Wannon, the member for McEwen? All of those members representing rural and regional seats should be in here today representing the interests of their constituents.I congratulate the member for Richmond and the member for Hume. I do not know what the member for Indi was saying in the party room, my sources are not quite that good. I congratulate the member for Richmond and the member for Hume for taking up the cause of their constituents in the party room, albeit that they unfortunately lost today, but they should be in here today. They should be in here today defending those people they represent who are going to be whacked for six by the repeal of these two very important acts of parliament.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—There are only two Labor members in the House.EM6STONEMrs Stone—That is right; where is the opposition spokesperson?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The honourable members opposite know full well that I am not talking about who is present in the House; I am talking about who is on the speakers list, who has been prepared to come in here today and stand up for their constituents. I do recognise the member for Indi—good on him; I congratulate him—and I look forward to his contribution and his sharing with the House his concern about the impact this bill will have on the people he represents, the service station closures, the job losses, the almost total removal—if not total removal—of competition in rural and regional Australia and the fact that the repeal of these acts and the introduction of the GST is going to hit the motorists he represents for six.Let me put that aside for a moment because I need to get on to the very thing the government is hanging its hat on with respect to this bill and that is the so-called draft oil code. Today we are debating in the House a bill which the government has promised not to put into effect until an agreed oil code—an agreement between all the parties—has been put in place. I emphasise again the word `agreed' because it is the key word. That was the government's promise before the election—no repeal of the acts until an agreed oil code is in place. We know very well that there is far from agreement between the parties in the industry. We know, for example, that there is still debate about who the code should cover, tenure for retailers, unilateral variation of contracts, alternative dispute resolution procedures and the issue of fuel losses. While ever these issues remain unresolved, the opposition cannot even contemplate supporting the repeal of these two acts.We do not have a completely closed mind on the issue. We recognise that the acts do not cover the new players—Woolworths in particular—and we recognise that does present some problems and that it is certainly putting some stress and some pressure upon the oil majors. But, in the absence of an agreed oil code in particular—indeed in the absence of some other mechanism of addressing the market issues—we cannot support the repeal of these acts. We will be watching the Senate inquiry very closely and keeping an open mind, but until the government shows some preparedness to get serious about the market issues and to sit down with all of the parties involved with respect to the oil code negotiations we cannot possibly support this bill.I want to turn very quickly to the GST; it is very relevant because we are going to have a cascading effect here. A 1998 survey by the Australian Automobile Association found that, over the previous five months, 81 per cent of petroleum retail sites around the country would have experienced a rise in the retail price if the GST had been in place. The government will claim that the impact of the GST on rural Australia is not exacerbated by things like transport costs—because the savings from the reductions in the diesel fuel cost, et cetera will be passed on to the consumer—but that is hogwash. There is no benefit to the consumer if the savings are not passed on.I was very interested to hear from the Road Transport Forum just prior to the last general election. There they were, holding forums right around the country advocating the GST because it was going to be good for their members—all their truckies were going to save all of this money because their prime mover was going to be cheaper, their tyres were going to be cheaper, their fuel was going to be cheaper—and I asked a very simple question. `Hang on a minute,' I said, `I understood that all these savings were going to be passed on to the consumer.' That is, the groceries at the other end will be cheaper, the retail goods, the clothes, at the other end will be cheaper and the fuel at the other end will be cheaper because all the savings to the transport industry were supposedly going to be passed on to the consumer. Yet here was the transport industry hailing the GST as their saviour because their profits were about to rise and because suddenly all their operators were going to save all this money because of the input credit attached to the GST. There you go, you could seek no more clear evidence than that: while it is true in theory that if the savings are passed on the consumer may benefit, in reality it is simply not the case.The opposition is very conscious of the need to facilitate investment in the industry. We see that as being very important, and we are certainly not about stifling that investment. But again I say you cannot expect us to support the repeal of these two acts while ever (1) that represents a broken pre-election promise on the part of the government and (2) while ever the government refuses to address the really important issues in the industry—that is, the dominance of the oil majors and the vertical and horizontal nature of the industry.In response to his dorothy dixer on Tuesday, the Prime Minister chose to say a fair bit about what he is doing for small business. We see the token stuff, we see them build the unfair dismissals issue from nothing and produce fanciful figures about the impact on jobs—we see all those tricks—and we see the token gestures to let people fill in a box to let the government know how long it took them to fill out a government form. But when there is an opportunity to really do something for small business—the thousands of small business people who operate petroleum retail sites around the country—the Prime Minister is prepared to do nothing. They will survive and they will grow when he gives them an access regime, wholesale competition and an opportunity to shop around for their fuel. The repeal of these acts in the absence of all that will do one very different thing: it will lead to their closure and it will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hunter seconded?N36EVANSMr Martyn Evans—I second the amendment. 12:35:003770Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Let me say at the outset, in this debate on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 , that the Howard-Fischer government has been in office in Australia since the 1996 election. It was re-elected in 1998, so it has had approximately three years in total in government. During those three years the Howard-Fischer government has had the courage and the tenacity—despite knocking and obstruction mainly from the Labor Party and others and from vested interests—to push ahead with courageous, long overdue reforms in the fuel industry in Australia.We knew when we started—when we were in opposition campaigning for election in 1996—and we knew when we got our first mandate in 1996 and when we had our mandate renewed in 1998 that long overdue reforms in this industry and in other areas in Australia would not be easy to achieve. We knew that we would strike obstruction and manipulation of the facts by vested interests, but we have stuck to our guns, as we intend to with youth wages—wrongly rejected by the Senate a couple of days ago, tragically, thus putting many people's job futures at risk. So it has not been a great surprise to me, although I am personally a bit disappointed, to hear the member for Hunter—on behalf of the opposition—indicate opposition to this long awaited legislation and indicate through his extraordinary proposed amendment a series of propositions which are just not sustainable by fact and are not in the interests of Australia.Let me tell you, also, that the government's approach to the reform of this industry is that there are a number of different people involved in Australia who are affected by the present totally unsatisfactory position in the industry due to inappropriate laws, changes in market conditions and other circumstances. The first of those, and they are not often mentioned by the opposition, are the consumers in Australia—the people throughout this vast country of ours who have to use fuel regularly for their jobs, for transport for their families, for holidays and for other reasons. In particular, the government has been focused on addressing the issues of inequity that have developed in this industry due, I might say, to a number of circumstances not within the total control of any government—Labor or Liberal-National—circumstances that have occurred in the world, in the marketplace and in the dynamics of retailing and wholesaling.But we have recognised that we have a duty as a government to serve without fear or favour the consumers—the motorists. We also have a duty to do our best to help small business, who are involved in this industry very heavily, and middle sized businesses as well, as we see the development of some of the businesses into larger outlets. We have a duty to do our best to help the oil industry itself, those who have invested millions of dollars and are very large employers of people in this nation, who also have the responsibility of providing a safe and reliable system of fuel supply for this great nation. It is a complex issue involving many different people, and our government has had the guts to look at this whole issue without fear or favour. And we will push on, regardless of the frustrations, delay and propaganda that are mounted against us on issues such as this.We are proud of what we have achieved so far in relation to the reform of this hydra-headed industry in this nation. I want to briefly recount some of the steps we have taken which we pledged to the Australian people in 1996 that led to our election in 1996 and again in 1998. The first thing we pledged to the Australian people was that we would not be like the previous Labor government which, for 13 years, failed to act at all in relation to the serious problems, deficiencies, inequities and unfair treatment in this industry, particularly of people in regional Australia who have had to put up with an unreal difference in price between the city and the country generally. We made that pledge, and we outlined a number of steps which we would take. Those steps on their own would not achieve all of the reforms but together, as a team, they would achieve a new dynamic, considerably more benefits for everybody involved in the industry and a sound future for those involved in working in the industry.The first thing we pledged to do, because the Labor government failed to do it in their 13 years in office, was to do away with the immoral, unholy agreement between the unions and between some of the oil companies and transport companies which prevented people from having access to the terminals in this country. It was a shocking situation, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I can testify to you that in my other life as a lawyer, before I entered parliament, I used to try to assist people in this industry. I was sad to witness that some of the people involved in the distribution of fuel in regional Australia who had their own small business were denied access to get supplies so that they could supply their customers. They went broke; they went out of business. That was because the unions and others entered into an agreement called the `Laidley agreement'. In effect, the Laidley agreement said, `If you don't part your hair right, you don't get in,' meaning that you have to have a closed shop, that you can't employ anyone unless they belong to a particular union and that you look after your mates. That is what the Labor government failed to address, to its eternal shame, and our government attacked this almost from day one when we were first elected.I am proud to say in this House that the Laidley agreement is now in the dustbin, where it was destined to belong right from the start. We have got rid of that and we have now, through our industrial law reform, outlawed people who go around this country saying, `Unless you join a particular association, you don't get work, mate. Unless you employ people who belong to our union or association, you don't get supplies, mate, you go out of business. Toe the line, mate.' That is what the Labor Party allowed to happen in this country whilst it was in government. As a government willing to tackle the reforms that are needed, we are proud today to say that we have passed laws now which give people the freedom of association that all Australian citizens should have in this democracy. Now, as a consequence of that, it is no longer possible to block people who have proper commercial arrangements, with vehicles that are properly licensed for safety and environmental reasons and with drivers who are properly trained, from gaining access to terminals. We finally got that through with the assistance of the Democrats when Cheryl Kernot was their leader.That is a great thing for Australia, but it took us, from memory, about 18 or 20 months before we achieved that in our first term, the Labor Party fighting it all the way, as they still do. As a result of that, we now have a position in the fuel industry where people can make commercial arrangements with terminals for supply. I will give you an example: the Victorian Farmers Federation is now part of an arrangement where they have a small business company collecting fuel from terminals and delivering it in bulk to farmers at a price difference of 6c to 10c per litre for wholesale which the distributor previously had to pay for those farmers' supplies.That is a wonderful thing. All round this country we find people grouping together now and the beginning of new arrangements between communities and individuals, setting out ideas for group purchasing and distribution outside of the traditional network which has been a closed shop, has not provided adequate competition and which has been part of the reason why the prices in the country have been too wide and different from the city. That is just a sign of what is happening, the good things that are happening, which we are responsible for.It is true that some people still do not have access to terminals to gain wholesale supplies. We have found that that is partly due to the fact that those people have entered into contracts to tie themselves to a particular oil company and that those contracts have not yet expired. There is a principle in our democracy called `sovereign risk', as is well known. No elected government in this country—heaven forbid—can turn around on election and say to people who have entered into commercial contracts that are still on foot, `You will tear them up and we will rewrite them for you.' I cannot believe that the member for Hunter is proposing on behalf of the Labor Party that they move down the path of abandoning the sovereign risk principle that applies. If they are, they had better come out and give more details of it because that will put all investment—and future investment—at risk in this country.So we just cannot walk in and tell the oil companies to rewrite the contracts. It is not as simple as that. That is why we have taken another initiative, that is, to get all the parties together—difficult as it has been and still is because of their various vested interests and motivations—with a view to trying to bring them all to an agreement on a new marketing system and arrangement.We passed an amendment to the Trade Practices Act to introduce provisions that can make voluntary codes of conduct enforceable at law. We have done that—opposed, I might say, by the Labor Party again—and, as a result, we have inserted a revolutionary new law in the Trade Practices Act which provides, for the first time ever in trade practice law in this country, protection for small business against unconscionable conduct.Members will know that the Trade Practices Act in Australia was developed mainly to protect consumers. Well and good; it was needed. But, strangely, the parliament of bygone days did not provide protection for small business in the Trade Practices Act. This government has had the guts to do that. Peter Reith and the Bruce Reid report, you will remember, brought about the policy that the government was finally able to get through this parliament—despite the opposition of the Labor Party—providing for unconscionable conduct. And so it is that today we have more teeth for small business. If small business believes that it is being treated unconscionably by the oil companies in Australia, it now has access to that provision. We have set aside an amount of money to assist with test cases because it is new law. It is breaking new ground in this country. That is another thing that we have done.The third thing we did was say that one of the problems in the oil industry was that there was not enough transparency and there was not enough monitoring. If we could crack the egg open and have the public and motorists better informed, we would get better behaviour by the players in the industry. So we introduced a monitoring system with the assistance of motoring organisations such as the RACV and the NRMA—and we thank them for that. By the way, they support very strongly the government's courageous reform policies in this industry—and so do many motorists who are better informed than the Labor Party.So now we have monitoring and the publication of prices that the community can see. A manifestation of that—which I have been delighted to see—is that, very frequently now, oil companies issue news releases before holidays and long weekends saying that they have put in place wholesale prices which will not involve an increase prior to the holiday. We all know what had been going on before; we have all seen those things happen. So now there will be no reason, because of the wholesale price, for an increase in retail price to take advantage of motorists on their holidays. That is as a result of the government's policy on monitoring and transparency, and it is a very welcome thing. I think it strange that the member for Hunter could not bring himself to remind us that those things were occurring.Also, because of the transparency and monitoring, we are now providing a database which will enable a prosecution, if evidence is available to the ACCC, for breaches of the Trade Practices Act in respect of price maintenance and other collusion. So for the first time we will have an authoritative database which will enable a prosecution for any wrong practices under the Trade Practices Act. I remind members that there is a penalty of $10 million for a breach, which is a fairly solid amount, and which no doubt will be the focus of many directors in the boardrooms of this industry who are involved in distribution and pricing policy making.We have also attacked the oil code. I want to quickly read part of the Prime Minister's answer to a question in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 9 March because it effectively disposes of the member for Hunter's waffle about the government's position on this legislation. The Prime Minister confirmed previous assurances that:. . . the repeal of the sites and franchise acts will not be proclaimed until the oil code is finalised between all parties in the industry.Further on in his answer:I repeat that we will not proclaim the petroleum retail legislation repeal bill until an acceptable agreement is reached on the final implementation of oil code.That is the Prime Minister's assurance on behalf of our government, and that is the context in which this debate is occurring—that is, that this legislation will not be proclaimed until those conditions are achieved.To add weight to that, we have arranged for a Senate committee to scrutinise the legislation and to report. The Senate committee is made up of members of all political parties. Their report will be available. I understand they commenced to take evidence last night. So the government, the community and all parliamentarians will be able to consider the position in the context of the Senate debate on these bills as a result of the report of the Senate. The Senate committee, I remind members, has been set up by the Prime Minister and this government in order that we can progress and achieve the necessary safeguards and, of course, agreement.We also appointed a former Supreme Court judge, Mr Rogers QC, to work with the parties as a mediator to assist in the development of a modern oil code which, if agreed, would become part of an enforceable oil code in the industry under our amended Trade Practices Act. As you would expect, the various vested interests in the oil industry—and Mr Latham knows them very well as well—were not able to reach agreement on everything, despite the great skill of Mr Rogers.We have, as a result of that, committed ourselves to further assisting the parties. There have been enormous numbers of committee meetings and discussions at all levels to assist the parties to reach agreement. It is my information that they are pretty close to doing that. Provided the politicians and the opportunists stay out of it and these people are left to their negotiations, I am confident that they will reach agreement. But you have the oil code undertaking by the Prime Minister, anyway, and that, of course, has the overall effect of protecting people.I want to make a couple of other comments in the few moments remaining to me. What we are debating is reform of an industry that should have been reformed years ago. The problems with respect to the pricing of petrol for country people—the huge, unfair gap between city and country prices, the closure of oil stations, and the loss of jobs, sadly, as a result of those—were occurring under the sites act and the franchise act, which we are now debating the repeal of.The sites act and the franchise act are empty vessel law. They have not prevented the things that the member for Hunter apparently wants to perpetuate. If his party is serious about opposing this legislation, as it has opposed other important reform legislation, what it is actually doing, foolishly—and I cannot imagine that Mr Latham and others in the opposition will allow it—is perpetuating the reasons why the prices for city and country people have been at such large disparity, along with all the other inefficiencies and reasons why businesses have had to close down and workers have had to lose their jobs. That has happened under the law that the Labor Party today in this House is saying should remain in force in this country.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It is bizarre.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—It is bizarre. There is no intellectual logic in their position. It is a politically stupid act, because they know, of all things, that one of the most sensitive things in election campaigns in Australia is the question of the consumers' view on petrol prices. All politicians know that. But the Labor Party today has foolishly put itself in a position where it is saying, `We will perpetuate the law that has brought about the injustice.' (Time expired)12:55:003773Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—It is instructive to compare the beginning of the speech by the member for Indi with its ending. He started his speech by saying, `This is a courageous government bravely acting to introduce sweeping petrol reforms through the parliament and into law,' and then he ended his speech by saying that the provisions now before the House will not be proclaimed until such time as the oil code is agreed to. So he started his speech as Captain Courageous and ended it as Captain Chicken.He started his speech by trying to tell the parliament the government has got some bold plan it is acting on after three years in office, and it is going to produce results in petrol reform. He ended his speech by exposing the abuse of parliamentary process by which this government will not proclaim this act until such time as the oil code is agreed to.So instead of living up to his rhetoric about a courageous government that was acting boldly, he has had to admit that, after three years, this government has done absolutely nothing in petrol reform. Not only that, it is now abusing the parliament by stating it will not proclaim this piece of legislation until such time as the oil code is agreed to.Mr Deputy Speaker, you are a parliamentarian of long standing and you would know full well the abuse involved; the abuse whereby the executive government is trying to play the parliament off a break. The proper process is for the executive government to put legislation to the parliament, for the parliament to consider that legislation in good faith, and if the parliament decides to pass the legislation in both houses, it should be proclaimed as a matter of course.Now we have the executive Howard government abusing that proper process, pretty well holding the parliament to ransom by saying, `No matter what you decide and what you debate, and the goodwill that you might exercise in consideration of this legislation, absolutely nothing will happen on the parliament's decision until such time as the oil code is agreed to.'I would submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the proper process would be for the government to withdraw this legislation, and only until such time as the oil code is concluded should it be reintroduced to the parliament, so that MPs would know where we stand on this matter.Are we debating something that will never, ever happen, no matter the deliberations of the parliament? We are told that we can pass this bill through the House of Representatives and the Senate and then the government may decide to take no action. Or is this bill going to be passed into law as soon as the government decides it is satisfied with the oil code? Or, even worse, will the Prime Minister renege on his commitment, as he has in so many other areas, and break his promise to the parliament of not proclaiming this legislation until the agreement of the oil code?To have such confusion reigning through the parliamentary debate is undesirable and it is an abuse of proper parliamentary processes. Why do we have this abuse? Why would the Prime Minister and the executive government go to the trouble of abusing parliamentary process? The answer lies in the divisions within the federal coalition.Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be fully aware of these divisions. We have the Liberal Party faction on petrol reform led by Collins Street Costello, the Treasurer. It is all signed up to the interests of the oil multinationals. They are too scared to offend those big oil companies, and they are willing to do their bidding in the parliament and the coalition party room.Then there is the faction of which you are a part, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I congratulate you on this—trying to represent some of the interests of small petrol retailers, franchise businesses and independents in non-metropolitan Australia. So this faction war has been raging within the coalition party room. Obviously, as a result of big disputes and disagreements on Tuesday morning, the Prime Minister was made to answer a dorothy dix question from the member for Mallee at question time on Tuesday afternoon.So here we have the Prime Minister of the country standing up in question time and meekly announcing, `We are not going to go ahead with any of this legislation we have put before the parliament until such time as the oil code is concluded.' And what was the Prime Minister's alibi? `It is very hard to juggle the competing interests of competition policy, on the one hand, and the interests of small retailers in this particular industry.'A juggling act is not required. The shadow minister, the member for Hunter, has demonstrated the answer. There is no juggle; there is no contradiction between competition policy and small petrol retailers, if you go down the path of downstream access to petrol terminals. It is possible to reconcile good competition policy with the interests of the small retailers. The member for Hunter has demonstrated how it can be done. He is not a juggler. He is not out there juggling all these competing interests. He has reconciled those interests with an outstanding amendment and proposed private member's bill. He is seeking to enact competition policy under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act, the downstream access regime.It is that piece of competition policy that give small petrol retailers their best chance to compete effectively in this industry. They would have fair terms and conditions of access to their wholesale product at the terminal gate, monitored by the ACCC. That is all they have been asking, not only for the three years of this government but previously. All that the small interests have been asking for is fair competition and fair access to wholesale product. How can it be done? It can be done quite simply by declaring petrol terminals as an essential facility, under the terms and conditions of part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act.I hear some speculation that the ACCC, the regulator, is concerned that petrol terminals might not comply with the definitions provided under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. Let me take the House through those definitions, quoting from the ACCC's own document, the Summaries of the Trade Practices Act and Prices Surveillance Act, issued in November 1995:The Council may recommend declaration of a service if it is satisfied that:and the first test is:. access to the service would promote competition;There is no doubt that, on that particular test, giving franchise and independent petrol retailers access to terminal product would be healthy for competition, because they do not have that access now. The lack of access threatens the existence of thousands of petrol stations around the country. So on the first test, we give a big tick for declaring access. The second test is:. that it would be uneconomical for anyone to develop another facility to provide the service;Members would know that it is not an economic proposition for an independent service station to go out and build its own petrol terminal. It just will not happen. They will not build oil refineries and petrol terminals and nor should they be expected to. So on the second test, we give another big tick. The third test is:. the facility is of national significance;I understand this might be the main obstacle that the ACCC talks about. I say that it is of national significance. One needs only to go to the statutes of the state and territory parliaments to see that they have declared petrol terminals as essential facilities. If there is a strike, then most of the state and territory governments move in and declare the petrol terminal as an essential facility and they try to break the petrol strike. What is good for industrial relations should be good for competition policy. So on the third test we give another big tick. The fourth test is:. access would not cause undue risk to health or safety;Access to the petrol terminals would be under proper health and safety regulations. They are well established in industry, so again that is not a problem: we give another big tick. The fifth and second-last test is:. access is not already the subject of an effective regime;Of course it is not the subject of an effective regime, and Collins Street Costello, the mate of the `four sisters'—the big oil multinationals —will not be providing an effective access regime because he is leaving it up to them.Look at the double standard involved. Nobody said to the government's electricity generators and distributors, `You can devise your own access regime. We'll just leave it up to you to work out the terms and con ditions on which you pass on electricity to retailers in your industry.' Nobody said, `Leave it to them,' because they are public organisations and vertically integrated. They had the provisions of this access regime applied to them. What is good for the public sector in this instance should be good for the private sector. It should not be left to the Big Four petrol companies to devise their own access regime and their own terms and conditions. Why should they not be monitored by the ACCC just like state government instrumentalities have been, where they are electricity generators and distributors?This is an amazing double standard, and it can be explained only by the fact that the federal Treasurer of this country is in the pocket of those petrol companies, doing their bidding in this parliament and willing to apply a double standard. The member for Corangamite laughs over there. Well he might laugh in the debate, but he knows it is a serious matter of competition policy. And as someone who comes into this place to uphold the good legacy of Bert Kelly he would know there is nothing worse in competition policy than a double standard—treating one organisation differently from another, rewarding the rent seekers and the special pleaders for their corruption of policy making processes. He would know those things, and I invite his contribution to point them out and to stand the Treasurer up and say that what is good for the public sector on the access regime should be good for the private sector. That might wipe the grin off his face. I look forward to his contribution.I have given the fifth test of the ACCC a big tick. Access is not already the subject of an effective regime. The final test is that access would not be against the public interest. Here we have an industry crying out for the government to act in the public interest to marry the two concerns of competition policy and small business interests by applying the provisions of part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. This is just commonsense. This is a commonsense proposition, and the only thing that could be holding the government up is the federal Treasurer and his big end of town Liberal Party mates, all in the pockets of the four multinational oil companies.There is this fight in the federal coalition. We saw it reflected in question time on Tuesday. We saw it reflected in the meek and indecisive answer of the Prime Minister. We see it in the abuse of parliamentary process with this legislation. I wish the National Party interests all the best in that fight, because they are standing up for small business interests. But they need to be more effective. They need to put forward what the member for Hunter is proposing: the access regime that ensures competition policy but also the protection of small business interests. This is a commonsense way to go. If the government were courageous and bold in its reform pattern, it would have happened years ago; in fact, they would have supported my private member's bill a few years ago when I was the shadow minister for competition policy.`So the Labor Party has been on about this for a long time. Our position is sound, and it is only the indecision and conflict within the coalition that holds up sensible reform. We are on about ownership neutrality. We think the access regime should apply to private sector interests like petrol terminals as much as it does to public sector interests in the electricity industry. These things are very good for competition policy. Why should a farm cooperative or a bunch of buyers in a country town not be able to hire a petrol tanker and go down to the terminal and get fair terms and conditions for the purchase of the wholesale product.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—They can.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—We have the member for Indi saying that they can. The government is promising that they will be able to, but on the terms and conditions of the petrol companies. Why do you not follow the Trade Practices Act and allow the ACCC to be the independent monitor of that process, the independent umpire by which the process proceeds? Why do you not enforce the provisions that apply to electricity in Australia and the ACCC can determine whether the conditions are fair and reasonable instead of the oil companies determining that? Why are you in the pockets of the oil companies and allowing them to determine their own terms and conditions instead of looking at the law and allowing it to happen under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act? The coalition is a divided sham on this issue and deserves to be exposed as such.I turn now to some of the longer-term history of the petrol industry in this country. For more than 20 years governments, federal and state, have been commissioning and receiving reports about petrol pricing. This has been in response to community concern about pricing volatility and the differential city and country pricing. These reports have not been successful because, by and large, they have failed to address the core anti-competitive structure of the petrol industry in Australia.This is a straightforward case of an oligopoly of multinational oil companies—the `four sisters': Texaco, trading in Australia as Ampol-Caltex, BP, Mobil and Shell—functioning within a vertically integrated industry structure to achieve anti-competitive market outcomes. The vertical integration is easy to see, because these big companies control the production stage in the refineries, they control the distribution stage through the terminals and their big corporate interests in the transport sector, and they control the retail stage through their ownership and control of service stations—either direct ownership and control or through restrictive franchise arrangements. So the vertical integration is clear. From production to distribution to retail, this is an industry dominated by the big four companies. The integration has been longstanding and can be busted up fairly only by the application of the downstream access rules.As petrol is predominantly an homogenous product, there is no prospect of serious market competition via product substitution. Historically and internationally the oil majors have been able to exercise market dominance. The Australian petroleum industry features the same type and degree of vertical integration as most Western nations. In fact, the first anti-trust law passed by a Western nation, the United States, was specifically designed to address the anti-competitive practices of what were then the `seven sisters', and in that time they have dwindled down to four and are running the market here in Australia.As most aspects of vertical integration were already in place in Australia prior to the introduction of the Trade Practices Act in 1974, the act does not include divestiture provisions and has only recently featured an access regime. So it was not possible prior to 1974 to do anything about this industry. Maybe it was not possible prior to the Hilmer reforms being enacted by this parliament in 1995, but it is possible now.With only four companies, the refining sector has been heavily concentrated, for both domestic and imported oil. Imports account for less than four percent of refined fuel in Australia. So you will never get a lot of competition out of importing the product, due to the fact that it makes up only four per cent of the market share.Given Australia's geography, small domestic demand and economies of scale needed for petrol production, market entry for refined oil is difficult. It is not possible for an average service station to build its own facilities. They need the access regime. This reflects the way in which the industry displays all the features of a natural oligopoly. It is reinforced by the horizontal agreements between the oil majors to share their refineries and terminal facilities. So they share among themselves but they are not willing to submit themselves to the access regime which would allow the independent and franchise service stations to get their fair access to wholesale product at reasonable terms and conditions.The `four sisters' have been able to maintain strong ownership and contractual links with the distribution and retail sectors. The majority of terminals and depots are owned by the four majors. Fuel is delivered to service stations in oil company owned tankers or contracted distributors.The oil majors also have contractual relationships, including exclusive supply agreements and restrictive contracts, which give them an influence over the operations of many resellers. This has led to a top-down pricing structure, giving the majors effective influence over both reseller prices and margins.Vertical integration is extended by the refiners owning and operating retail sites. The bulk of retail sales of petrol are through sites owned or head-leased by the oil majors. The two acts—the sites and the franchise acts—that the government seeks to abolish with this legislation of course have been a protection against that concentration of ownership. Now the government is seeking to wipe that protection out without also guaranteeing the proper access regime under the Trade Practices Act.The oil majors have used franchising and 100 per cent ties to achieve control at a retail level, even despite the provisions of the Sites Act. So imagine how bad it will be if that act is abolished under the current laws. This control is now being extended through the establishment of multi-site franchising. Shell is consolidating its independent franchises into company owned networks with about 35 service stations. So even if you had some competition at the margin between those 35 franchised service stations they are being aggregated into these company owned networks where certainly they will be charging the same price at the bowser and that retail competition at the margin is lost.Australia's competition laws, with an absence of divestment provisions, do not cope well with the effective horizontal concentration of an industry already displaying the features of vertical integration. So it is not just the vertical. The production, distribution and retail sectors of the oil majors are now getting into the act of these collusive horizontal arrangements through multi-site franchising. How can these things be dealt with? It requires divestment in this industry or the provisions of the access regime in the Trade Practices Act.The oil majors require service stations in which they have ownership or at which their brands are displayed to exclusively retail their product. They also offer price support to their franchised service stations to use discounting as a means of controlling the behaviour of the independents or squeezing them out of the industry. With strong vertical integration, accountancy practices along the industry structure make profit transparency problematic. It is my argument that the transfer pricing of this industry for a long time has hidden the true profitability of these companies, but even on declared profitability the four majors have performed above the Australian corporate average throughout the l990s.This is an industry that needs reform. This is a government that is divided and confused, a government that is not acting. Even the legislation before the parliament has no guarantee of going through until we see the oil code provisions. But in the first instance it should be defeated. The government should either withdraw this legislation or vote it down, then go away and bring back other laws that entrench access under the Trade Practices Act. (Time expired)13:15:003778McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I note that my colleague and philosophic friend the member for Werriwa, with his philosophic views as a free marketeer and market economist, is having some difficulty supporting the opposition's position. I will refute some of the things that he has put forward. He would fully understand that the power industry in Victoria is now competitive; there is competition between the generating companies and between the distribution companies. The Auditor-General is able to examine those competitive arrangements, which are transparent. As the member for Werriwa would understand, that is a very much improved position compared with the dominant position of the former SEC.The member for Werriwa and the member for Hunter are supporting the amendment that is before the House. I think we should firstly deal with the amendments that suggest there is a failure to finalise the oil code. Let me assure members that the oil code is in draft form. As the member for Indi indicated, it is a matter of reaching agreement between the main players. A lot of tax legislation has been drafted by the parliamentary draftsmen, so that there has been little time, but the oil code is in the stage of some negotiation. However, the government is determined to move forward with the legislation that is before the parliament to bring about a more competitive situation. The Prime Minister has given a clear undertaking that the oil code will be proclaimed only when it is agreed to as part of this legislation.In terms of amendment No. 3—open terminal access regime—how can the Labor Party suggest that we failed to tackle this issue? They were very much part of the Laidley agreement. Under trade union arrangements, the Laidley agreement ensured that anybody who did not have a union ticket could not go to an oil refinery. Everyone in Australia understood that. They knew that that was a practice that prevented open market arrangements and ensured there was limited access to those refineries. That was a trade union arrangement, and the legislation of the day was unable to change that.All I can say about the protection of the jobs of those service stations is that the consumers out there in all our electorates are very keen that we ensure lower petrol prices. That is the argument. Obviously, with changing conditions and rationalisation of the industry, no political party will be able to save those jobs. Uppermost in the minds of the member for Indi and other country members is the differential between metropolitan and country prices, and the government is making an attempt to bring about a solution to this fundamental difficulty facing us all.Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and other members of the House would know, this industry has been the subject of inquiries over the last 30 years by various governments of various colours where the players have tried to resolve the conflicts between the refiners and the distribution system. Previous governments have put in place legislation, rules and regulations to try to bring about what they thought was a fairer system of distributing and manufacturing oil products. Members of the House—and the public—should be aware that, currently, the maximum retail price is set on the daily assessment of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. That is a result of former arrangements where the price was being set in a transparent manner but, of course, that has not always worked out.The Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act, which other members have referred to, limits the number of sites an oil company can own and operate. Again, this was an attempt to look after the smaller retailers in a former age. Under the sites act, four of the major oil companies can only operate between 87 and 136 sites, which is a restriction of trade. I have some difficulty with the member for Werriwa saying that this is a good thing. The sites act means that companies which have sites beyond this quota have to be operated by a franchisee.The Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act regulates the relationship between the oil majors and the franchisees, franchisees agreement negotiations, the minimum terms and the prohibition on price discrimination. As the member for Indi and others of us would know, there have been long discussions about these franchisee arrangements, the argument between the oil majors and the individual retailers and their concern that they were not fairly and equitably treated. Again, this did not work out because there were ways around it. Access to buying directly at the oil terminal was not open historically. Under these new arrangements, it will be open. The removal of the Laidley agreement has transformed that situation.The shortcomings of the current system are fairly obvious to all of us, but the solutions are not always as easy as we would hope. The system of the ACCC setting the maximum price has not really worked. Some commentators are suggesting that by using the ACCC in this manner, the price is set without the operation of the marketplace. The maximum price in the capital cities becomes the target price at the end of the discount cycle, and all of us would be aware that the discounters operate in a competitive fashion in the capital cities but at the end of the discounting period they move back to the set price.In regional and country areas, the maximum price becomes the floor price because, out in country areas, as most regional members would know, there is less volume and there is less competition. The result is a significant gap between country and city prices. The tremendous gap is hard to explain and is of major concern to most of our constituents. In my electorate of Corangamite, the historical situation is that between the regional town of Colac and the city of Geelong—only 45 kilometres up the road—there is a price variation of between 5c and 10c.Members of this parliament cannot really explain to the constituents why this situation has arisen and what the background is. Hopefully this legislation will bring about a better set of circumstances where there will be more genuine competition, especially in country Victoria. The interests of franchisees and service station operators have not been protected by the franchise and sites acts. We can see, as always, that legislation and regulations—either state or federal—often do not achieve their objectives, especially when they interfere with the normal market process.The ACCC's 1996 report into the petrol industry found that the sites act had been bypassed. When they looked at it yet again, they found that vertical arrangements between the oil companies and the operators meant the oil companies basically had control of retailing, which was the very reason that the franchise act and the sites act were introduced in the first place. So the oil companies had brand marketing changed, which was considered to be an entity, instead of all the franchises being considered as separate entities. The oil companies were able to move past this piece of legislation and operate in a manner that the parliament back in the 1980s had tried to prevent. The fundamental problem is that regulations per the sites and franchise acts have not worked to protect the interests of the consumers or the industry players. The motorists are not getting lower prices and the industry players—the refiners and the retailers—are very unhappy.As other speakers from this side have said, this bill is a very positive and courageous attempt to address some of these longstanding problems and to bring about more competition in the industry and more genuine competition between the players. How will this be achieved? The maximum wholesale price currently set by the ACCC will be abolished so there will be a more market oriented price and there will be no scope for the maximum price set by the ACCC to act as a floor price. Hopefully the gap between the city and the country will decrease, and it will be easier for new players to enter the market. We see instances of this where Woolworths are now entering some of the country sites. There are Woolworths operations in the city of Colac and the city of Geelong, so there is a genuine possibility of that operation, where they import some fuel from overseas, to provide genuine competition.Historically, refiners seemed to have the same price. With this new set of arrangements, Woolworths, which uses some imported fuel, has provided the possibility of genuine competition—as operated in the cement industry—between the four majors and other importers because Professor Fels, in his recent judgment, made sure that the importers had the access to facilities to import the fuel. It will mean that there will be more genuine competition between the players in the country areas and the city operators and it will help to overcome the problem of different country prices. There will be some economies of scale flowing from the major operators because they will be able to operate in another manner and not be tied into certain franchise sets of arrangements.There will be open access for bulk customers to fuel terminals. As the member for Indi indicated in his address to the House, the farmer groups now have access to the terminals. They are able to buy at a price and distribute it. That again provides genuine competition and overcomes the Laidley agreement, which was a great thorn in the side of this whole argument over the last 20 years. We know that the ACCC prices surveillance did not work. That will be abolished so that pricing will now be more transparent. Motorists, retailers and wholesalers will know what the price is and they will not be able to blame everyone else.Historically, people have not been sure where the price was established and why it fluctuated so much. Was it the oil company? Was it the distributor or was it the retailer? Generally, I think they blamed members of parliament for the problem. We were unable to explain the intricacies of this particular market and, hopefully, this legislation will help.The oil companies will have to publish a list of prices to make the market more open to scrutiny—I understand that one of the companies is doing this religiously. So there will be a daily price. People will be able to see what the price is at the refinery, and the consumers—the motorists—will be in a position to make a judgment of where they can buy petrol, what the price will be like in the competitive city area and what the price will be like in the country if you add the transport to it. These government changes have been supported by the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, which has been very active in this whole argument about petrol pricing, as the member for Indi would be aware. It has been running campaigns for many years—the variation especially has been their main concern.The industry will become more efficient if some of these savings are passed on. We have eight refineries in Australia and they are under considerable pressure in terms of their return on capital. I have one in my home town of Geelong, where they are being subjected to efficiency pressures to make sure they remain world competitive. As we know, the margins are low in the refineries, so they are looking for ways to improve their efficiency and move that on to the distribution system. The economies of scale—of joining together in some of those bigger refineries—can assist.Looking at the oil code and at what we are really trying to establish with this set of arrangements between the operators in the petrol distribution chain, the oil code will go ahead when the parties have reached agreement and then the sites and franchise acts will be removed. Until such time as the code is agreed to, those acts will continue to apply.The oil code is a fair and simple method of addressing the concerns of smaller participants in the petroleum industry, especially regarding the bigger oil companies. The oil code protects all current franchise agreements—a very important aspect of it. Price fixing remains illegal under the Trade Practices Act—again, a very important aspect of the whole petroleum industry.Once a franchise agreement ends, a new cost-effective arrangement can be entered into so that the oil companies and all those involved can enter into a new set of more commercial arrangements in a new and freer market position. The oil companies can then shift to commission agents, if they so desire, to improve and make their operations more efficient.The emphasis in the oil code will be on improving the conciliation arrangements. As members will be aware, there has been conflict between the refiners, the big oil majors and those many retailers around Australia. Hopefully, under the oil code, when they get into an argument, they can resolve it without getting into a dispute in the courts. There will be some legally enforceable protection for the smaller operators against the bigger firms and the disputes will be dealt with more quickly. The government decided that the voluntary code that we considered in 1997 would be insufficient to give legal protection and that the oil code would have the backing of the Trade Practices Act underpinned by legislation.I draw to the attention of the House, in particular the shadow minister at the table, the unconscionable conduct provision that the government introduced which supported operators in the industry. I am sure that the honourable member at the table would agree that the unconscionable conduct of some operators is now being addressed by the trade practices legislation introduced by the honourable member for Flinders. The oil code will be mandatory; so people will have to obey the provisions of the oil code and the individual parties can opt out only if they have been given independent and legal advice that the provision is inapplicable or inappropriate for that business. We are saying that the oil code is a very genuine and positive attempt by the government to put a set of legally enforceable arrangements between the main players to bring about a more competitive operation. If we look at the conclusion of this set of arrangements—there has been a lot of debate among people living in the country, among people involved in the industry, the players, the consumers and the franchisees—everyone who has been involved has a different interpretation, and I have been listening very carefully over the last three or four days to those various points of view. What is clear is that the current set of arrangements has not stopped the oil companies dominating the retailers; that franchising has enabled the oil companies to vertically integrate, even though they were restricted by these legislative arrangements brought in by this parliament; that there has been a lack of open access, although that is improving at the refineries; that the maximum daily settings have become floor pricing for country people rather than a freer and open market; that there still remains a gap between the city and the country; and that there has been a lack of competition. We are suggesting that, under this set of reforms, there will be more players in the market, people will be able to access the refineries and we get rid of that Laidley agreement, which the member for Hunter cannot defend under any circumstances. I would invite him to make some comments on that. There will be the removal of restrictions on who can operate a retail site—which would again lead to less regulation of those people who wish to operate petrol retail sites—a transparency in pricing, which is not altogether the case now, so that all players know exactly where they are at and who is setting the price; and the ability of refineries to swap and share their facilities to reduce costs so that they can become internationally competitive and so that some of these cost savings can be passed on to the consumer. The oil code will protect existing franchise agreements and those people who have entered in good faith into franchise agreements. I accept that and I have been part of long discussions with some of those franchisees with major oil companies who have been unhappy with some of the termination arrangements of those agreements.Conciliation between the producers and the retailers will be encouraged under this set of arrangements. The oil code has taken some time to be put in place because we are trying to foreshadow some of these difficulties by having them in a legally enforceable document so that, in the longer term, the oil code will actually work. I am sure that the shadow minister at the table can understand that. There will be a more cost-effective arrangement between the agents and the non-franchisee retailer so that the whole industry continues to improve.We have a situation that the federal government is now enacting and, hopefully, the price will be reduced to consumers. That is our fundamental objective in this important fuel distribution which covers the whole nation—both in the country and the city—from major terminals. There are large transport costs and difficulties peculiar to Australia and the legislation might help in that. There will be more genuine competition within the whole industry, and these sets of arrangements that have been debated and argued for so long will fundamentally help all the players. My final delight is that there is more genuine competition in a market based arrangement for petrol retailing in Australia because of the introduction of this particular bill.13:35:003782Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I have listened with great interest to the member for Corangamite's contribution. I can only hope that his faith in the free market and economies of scale delivers the results he envisages, because the retail industry's giants are also enjoying economies of scale, and they hover over country towns and small grocery businesses like King Kong.One of the biggest issues that angers country people and never goes away is the high cost of petrol. For as long as anyone can remember, there has been a huge disparity between the prices paid in city areas and those paid in the bush. Nowhere is it more apparent than in areas like my electorate, located as it is, just west of Sydney.As soon as you enter Calare, heading west along the Great Western Highway, the price of petrol starts to climb. In Lithgow, as you first head into the electorate, it is 3c to 5c dearer than it is 20 kilometres up the road in Katoomba in the Blue Mountains. As you continue heading west to Bathurst, it is usually at least 10 cents a litre dearer and, as you head to Orange, it continues to climb even further.There are exceptions to the rule: mostly in smaller places like Molong, where rental costs are obviously not a factor; and places like Dubbo with cheaper supermarket petrol, and I will deal with that point in a moment.We are told that the freight cost is only about 3c to 4c extra a litre through to Orange. So the difference between city and country prices has a lot more to do with factors other than freight costs. For some time, it has been obvious to the long-suffering country motorists that they have been ripped off. They often ring my office to complain, and they obviously want to know what I can do about it. With this petroleum retail legislation bill, we see an `attempted' endeavour by the government to try to do something about it. I say an `attempt' because very many people in the industry who are familiar with what is contained in the bill really doubt that it will make the difference that has been mooted.The bill attempts to generate more competition by repealing the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act. Guarantees from the Prime Minister not to proclaim the bills until the oil code is in place really put the cart before the horse. I have grave reservations with this approach, particularly with the youth wages precedent set by this government.There is real concern within my electorate that this bill will result in a massive attack on small businesses as major fuel companies force out long-term franchisees. Already we are seeing respected local business people, who have operated service stations on behalf of the major oil companies for many years, being forced out. Not only are they being forced out in this so-called `rationalisation', but other operators are being put in.The major companies have taken over the sites and paid absolutely nothing for the goodwill the franchisees have established over many years of working very hard and long hours. One such franchisee is Tim Lamond who for 15 years operated the Mobil service station at Raglan, just outside Bathurst. Quoting from the Western Advocate in an interview he gave, he says:The oil company offered me a deal where as I could remain in the service station but the rent would be increased by 68 per cent . . . I told them I would accept the deal—much no doubt to the company's surprise—but asked if the rent hike could be phased in over a few months.Mr Lamond said they were considering this deal when he received the final call. There was no intention by the oil company to accept the increased rent that he had offered, and he called their bluff. At the end of November last year, Mr Lamond was given just 20 days to vacate the business which he had built up. He estimated the goodwill that he had established at this very popular Great Western Highway site and 24-hour restaurant to be worth about $300,000 but, of course, he did not get a cent from Mobil. He told the Western Advocate newspaper he was in the throes of negotiating that new lease when he got the news, and his staff of 28 were close to tears when they found out what had happened.He is not alone. Other respected service station operators in my electorate have also found themselves forced out as these big operators take over. Some of them have put in more than a decade of dedicated service and have walked away with almost nothing. In many cases, the companies have simply closed the stations down and ripped out the tanks. That is because they do not want independents to come in and provide real competition, unless, of course, they invest millions establishing a new site. Hundreds of small service station operators are being forced out of business. Hundreds, if not thousands, of service stations are being closed and hundreds of jobs lost around the country.Fewer retail outlets, we are told, will result in higher volume sales and cheaper prices. I wonder if people really believe that long term. Does having fewer sites dominated by the oil majors through multisite franchises really constitute greater competition? Sure, there will be fewer service stations, fewer jobs and more inconvenience to motorists who have to go a bit further to fill up their cars. The real winners will be the majors. For them, these so-called reforms will mean bigger profits and higher margins.The Age newspaper reported the truth on 10 September last year, quoting none other than the member for Dawson. The member for Dawson has a reputation for being one of the more independent thinkers on the coalition backbench, and she does not blindly accept the `economic rationalist deregulation at all costs' mentality that some of her colleagues are prepared to swallow, although in this case this is re-regulation of the industry itself and not true deregulation of the industry. According to the Age, the member for Dawson said in a letter to a service station owner that she was not convinced these reforms would lead to lower fuel prices. She was quoted as saying:To my way of thinking, these promises of lower prices are more apparent than real. In any case, nobody in the government has been able to explain to me how consumers will honestly benefit if they have to drive longer distances to obtain fuel which may, or which may not, be marginally cheaper.I would say the member for Dawson is spot on. I would be interested to hear her contribution later in this debate. She could have added that the government has also failed to explain how country towns will benefit from the fewer semiskilled jobs that will no longer exist as small service stations close.The drop in crude prices in recent months has been a very convenient screen for the oil majors in selling a lower price story to the electorate. Let us see if prices stay down when this new industry re-regulation takes hold. I doubt it, and so does the motoring public. The vast majority of retail sites in country areas are supplied by the distributors. The distributors are supplied by the oil companies, and they are prohibited, under contractual agreements with their respective oil companies, from entering into supply arrangements from any competing oil company or fuel supplier.Energy cost analysts, NUS International, have already shown the average international price of a litre of unleaded petrol dropped 2.72c between August and 31 December last year, yet the average Australian pump price dropped only 2.65c per litre over the same period. What will less competition delivered by this bill do to prices if this is the result of deregulation so far?I notice that the Deputy Prime Minister is hanging his akubra on delivering lower prices to the bush, through reduced transport costs thanks to the GST. That is not lower prices delivered by more competition in the fuel market. Without stronger laws, there is no way I can see anything but less competition and, therefore, inevitably higher prices down the track by virtue of repealing these pieces of legislation, GST or no GST.As more services stations close and the fuel storage tanks are ripped up, as is already happening around the country, there will be less competition. The multinationals will be in a better position to collude on prices and charge what they like. It is absolutely pointless to suggest that price watchdogs will help keep that situation under control. Already, as you drive through the major regional centres, you will note that every service station retails its petrol for exactly the same price in each town. The only chance you have of getting discounted fuel is in small towns like Lucknow or Lyndhurst, where enterprising independents have shown some initiative in discounting or where overheads are obviously much lower. In major centres there is absolute price setting, and none of the consumer watchdogs like the ACCC seem to be able to do much about it.One of the key aspects of the legislation that was supposed to generate more competition was the provision of opening up access to terminals by independent buyers. It sounds great on paper, but in practice it is not happening. A Bathurst businessman who buys petrol in bulk has told me he has not been able to gain access to any of the major company terminals in Sydney. Every one of them has thrown up some sort of obstacle to prevent him from doing business, right down to the type of truck he drives. As a result he has had to drive all the way to Brisbane to buy his bulk fuel. Although in recent weeks the Burmah oil company, which imports its refined fuel from Singapore, has held talks with him to allow him to purchase directly from its bulk Sydney outlet, the major companies basically told him to go away.The so-called open access regime looks like it is a bit of a joke. We obviously cannot trust the big fuel companies on this aspect of the reform plan. One industry figure told me he expected only 10 per cent of service station operators to be able to gain open access to terminals, simply because of existing contractual arrangements, which will not change as a result of this bill, as far as I can ascertain.Quite simply, the oil majors cannot be trusted. The track record for deregulation of all basic commodities in this country is that, ultimately, consumers pay more. We have seen it with bread; we have seen it more recently with milk. Consumers are paying more, farmers are being paid less and the dominant retailers are making bigger profits. Now enter the dominant retailers into the petroleum industry. No wonder the Service Station Association has labelled these reforms a failure. According to the association, all these reforms will do is further squeeze the profit margins of the independents to force them out of business so the big oil companies can gain more control of the market.Multisite franchises are already squeezing out the family operators. The association says most operators have not received any benefits from wholesale price reductions. In fact, their margins have only been reduced further. Already, in a very regulated market, we see the fuel companies use their market powers to distort the market, charging different prices to different outlets according to their location and sale volume. If they cannot be trusted now, how on earth can we trust them when their industry is deregulated even further or, as I said, re-regulated by the industry itself, which is made up of the oil majors?If the existing regulations are not working, surely they need to be strengthened to do the job they were intended to do rather than be abandoned altogether. Already we are seeing moves by the multinational oil companies to merge their operations overseas. This could only lead to greater market dominance, less competition and price manipulation. I will quote from a submission I received from an experienced manager in the industry, who summarises the current industry situation. It says:1. Oil companies secure franchised sites by paying non-market rentals subsidized by their refinery margins. They treat franchisees as `captive' and charge the maximum price as allowed by the PSA.2. Oil companies secure branded independents by paying a `development allowance' which is subsidized by their refinery margins. This business is secure business as it is reasonably difficult for the branded independent to change supply—even then there are only three alternatives.3. Oil companies compete strongly with each other to gain the business with branded independents because this business can change supply readily.4. Oil companies treat their distributors as `captive' business and control the price distributors can supply country retail outlets.5. In the metropolitan areas oil companies grant price assistance to assist their captive franchisees and secure branded franchisees to meet competitive prices posted by unbranded independents.6. Country retail outlets are barred from lower prices due to oil company control over distributors and because of the geographical boundaries imposed under competitive price assistance.WHAT DOES A CLOSER LOOK TELL US?By using their excessive market power the oil companies have distorted the market due to:- their ability to use the refinery margin . . . - the wholesale pricing policy discriminating against different types of retail sites . . . - wholesale price setting to distributors, and- the imposing of geographical barriers . . . As a result the oil companies have built a market which is not driven by natural competitive forces.And this has been done by oil companies in a regulated industry—what will they do in an unregulated industry?He goes on to point out that the aim of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 is to: . . . restrict the number of sites the oil companies can operate so the oil companies do not have an unfair advantage in the market . . . the oil companies cleverly overcome this regulation simply by using their market power to head lease retail sites from investors at rents not capable in a free and open market . . . . . . . . . . . .The regulation should have been drafted to `restrict the number of retail sites the companies can operate or head lease or participate in'. This would have achieved what the act was meant to achieve.He asks again:Why repeal this act—surely a better option is to strengthen this act so that it can achieve what was originally intended?As for the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act, he says, amongst a lot of other good points:Instead of repealing the act the act should be strengthened to prevent oil company equity in franchisees and to prevent anti-competitive forces taking place by limiting the number of retail sites a franchisee can operate.The sort of vertical integration to which the member for Werriwa referred. In summary, he asks:6. What will removal of the Petroleum Retail Marketing and Sites Act do. to enhance competition by allowing oil companies to operate more sites?. to protect small business once their franchise term is complete?. . . . . . . . .8. Is it good policy to have three businesses who control 80% of the supermarket industry and then allow them a major share in the petroleum industry?If we are serious about this inquiry into the supermarket domination in this country, is it to include the unfair advantage that petrol retailing will give to that sector? Are we also going to allow pharmaceuticals and newspapers into that industry? Are we going to have one-stop shopping in the country? Are we going to have country towns?I think these points should be pondered as we genuinely look at that inquiry into the dominance of the supermarkets in this country. I think, while we are doing that, we should remember the final point that this gentleman makes:Why have seven states in the United States and the District of Columbia in the United States have laws restricting the operation of retail petrol facilities by refineries because of price manipulation and too many company-operated retail sites? Why were these laws upheld by the US Supreme Court?This bill gives too much power to the major oil companies and insufficient protection to consumers and small business operators. There are no convincing arguments to support reduced prices to rural and regional motorists. At the very least, this bill should not be debated until this parliament knows the detail of the final oil code. For that reason, I will not be supporting it, and I strongly endorse the opposition amendment.13:52:003786Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I suppose the one problem that has beset the Australian community for many generations has been the price of fuel. It is one thing that we cannot escape from. We are a country very much dependent on the motor trade to get around: cars, buses, trucks and the like. Our industry is dependent on fuel and our railways, to a large extent, are dependent on fuel.Members opposite have been quick to criticise the government's genuine attempts to reform petroleum marketing. Perhaps none of them has dared to look too closely at the state their own party left the industry in after 13 years of office. According to figures provided by the Australian Institute—UU5HORNEMr Horne—Tell us what you are offering.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Hinkler will ignore the interjection by the member for Paterson.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—According to figures provided by the Australian Institute of Petroleum—and I think this will answer the interjection more than adequately—in January 1995, not long before we got back into office, there were 9,000 retail outlets in Australia. If you go back a decade and a half to just before we left office the last time, as the AIP says in its publication, the Australian Oil Industry , the number of outlets in Australia dropped from 18,000 to 9,000 when the opposition was in power. So do not come to us and preach about your concerns for small business or your concerns for the oil industry. How much pain did Labor policies cause workers, owners and operators of those 9,000 service stations? The Keating government recognised the hurt. I have a very interesting quote here. It says:Given the importance of the oil industry to the Australian economy, I regard the successful introduction of this voluntary code of practice as a significant breakthrough. Firstly, it establishes a framework for the avoidance of disputes between oil companies and their resellers by the introduction of a system based on the principles of fairness and reasonableness. Secondly, where such disputes do eventuate, it provides a quick and inexpensive means for resolution.Who do you think the author was? The silence is deafening! It was no less than former Senator John Button. This is almost chapter and verse what the coalition is proposing in this legislation. Voluntary code of practice talks about the oil companies, the resellers and a quick and inexpensive means of resolution. This did not happen when the opposition was in power and people had to spend a fortune in the courts to get justice.I am not saying this is not a convoluted problem. I am not saying the previous government did not have its problems in trying to resolve the issue. I think we have all, in our electorate offices, had the problem of people coming and complaining, and more so in the previous 13 years. In my first three years in this place, I certainly had service stations complaining to me of how badly done by they were. It is because a framework was not put in place to deliver the `quick and inexpensive means for resolution' that John Button was talking about—the might of the oil companies pitted against the small country reseller, the small provincial city or the suburban reseller of fuel.On 20 July 1998, this government announced reforms based on the recommendations of a report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. These reforms were largely welcomed by consumers in my electorate, who hoped that this would lead to greater competition and, therefore, cheaper prices—not only at the bowser but also on the farm—or at the very least, to more equitable pricing between city and country. It is a never ending source of annoyance to people in the provincial cities—like Bundaberg and Gladstone—and country towns of my electorate. These are not cities that are hundreds of kilometres away from the ports. Bundaberg is a port city. Gladstone is a port city. To find them paying 7, 8 and even 9 cents per litre more than their capital city cousins is, by any measure of equity, unacceptable. We all know that the oil companies have had slick ways of circumventing this. When you pick them up on geography and say, `Heck. The port is only two, three or four kilometres from the service stations', the measure becomes their regional policy. When you find that, in a country town which happens to be on the Bruce Highway to the west of Bundaberg, the price of fuel is 4 or 5 cents a litre cheaper, they say it is a highway policy. It is a mercurial gain. It is like a bit of mercury on a saucer. Nowhere and at no time have the oil companies been able to be pinned down.What we are proposing in this legislation is precisely what John Button outlined. If it was a good policy, what did you do about it for 13 years? How could you possibly have allowed this to go on for 13 years?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 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.Miscellaneous37873787Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday I was asked about the standard of dress acceptable in the chamber. I do not think it is necessary for me to be inflexible or prescriptive on this matter. For many years, members have set their own standard. House of Representatives Practice comments that male members would normally wear a jacket and a tie. Perhaps it would be helpful if I commented on my perception of the standard.For almost 100 years, this House has initiated, debated, reviewed and passed laws directly affecting the lives of all Australians. Governments and oppositions of all political persuasions have taken their obligations in this regard very seriously and have served this country well. Electors have bequeathed to us the responsibility for directing the affairs of the nation. They expect us to maintain high standards. I believe we have a duty to conduct the affairs of this place and ourselves in a manner that reflects the significance and role of this unique institution. Our dress is one aspect of this conduct. I am confident that the vast majority of members, both past and present, share my views on this matter.Traditionally, both male and female members have chosen to dress in a formal manner similar to that generally accepted in business and professional circles. This is entirely appropriate. We are, if you like, the equivalent of the board room of the nation. Now that parliament is televised, the extent to which we meet the usual professional and business standards in dress is obvious to our constituents. It is widely accepted throughout the community that the standards should involve good trousers, a jacket, collar and tie for men and a similar standard of formality for women. In my view, most members would be uncomfortable with a lesser degree of formality.My comments on an acceptable standard of dress for members apply equally to officers and staff occupying the advisers boxes, members of the press gallery and guests in the distinguished visitors gallery.I do not propose to apply rigidly what I have described as the generally accepted standard. If, for example, the airconditioning failed on a hot day, I think it would be acceptable for members wearing jackets to remove them. It is the accepted practice that members hurrying to attend a division or quorum may perchance arrive without a jacket. However, they should leave the chamber at the conclusion of the count.I hope these comments are helpful and that the good sense and awareness of the dignity of this House will continue to guide members in the standard of their dress and conduct.Questions Without Notice378837883788Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, did Senator Murray tell the truth yesterday when he said you had not honoured your deal on youth wages?3788Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I have not seen those remarks of Senator Murray.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—He may have been, but we have been looking at the employment numbers that came out today, and what excellent numbers they are. They are a reflection of the sound economic policy put in place by this government.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister will resume his seat. On the matter of relevance—which I suspect I was about to be challenged over—the minister is not being relevant to the question. He is welcome to respond to the question if he wishes, or he may have concluded his answer.WI4Mr REITH—Let me conclude by saying that the senator is obviously mistaken. He is entitled to make a mistake. However, what he should be encouraged to do is read the discussion paper that the government put out in June 1998 before the election which spelt out our approach to this issue. Let me read it briefly because it puts an end to this silly argument about process. I can tell you that most parents are worried about whether their kids get a job. As far as agreements are concerned, this forms part of the agreement we had with the Australian people. We said this:The policy of the present Government has, since coming to office, been to continue this exemption on a permanent basis. The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill as originally introduced into the Parliament in 1996, reflected this position. However, following discussions with the Australian Democrats when the Bill was before the Senate, the Government agreed as a temporary measure to limit the extension to a further three years, and to put in place a mechanism for the . . . Commission to review the feasibility of abolishing junior wage rates. This reflected a compromise position only agreed to by the Government as a way of avoiding the immediate removal of the exemption. The Government's policy objective—DT4CREANMr Crean—Whatever it takes.WI4Mr REITH—The member for Hotham interjects `Whatever it takes'. I reckon it is about time that a government was prepared to walk the extra mile, to make the extra effort to give young people a chance of a job. I am proud that when it comes to giving young people the chance of job we are prepared to do whatever it takes to provide and preserve jobs for young people. I table the document. It shows you that this government's position has been crystal clear. Unlike you, we have a policy because we have the leadership, the determination and a sense of direction to look after the interests of young people.37893789Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the latest developments in the Australian labour market as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in this morning's paper?3789Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is yes, I can. I am delighted, as I would hope all members of this House are delighted, with the employment figures that were announced this morning by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In the past month, another 33,000 jobs were created and unemployment is now at 7.4 per cent, the lowest figure it has been since September 1990. Youth unemployment has fallen to 23½ per cent, and that is the lowest figure for youth unemployment since 1991. I am especially delighted to say that almost 80,000 jobs have been created over this summer. A total of 406,000 jobs have been created since the coalition came to power just three years ago. The number of unemployed has fallen below 700,000 for the first time since December 1990.That is the good news. The bad news is that the Labor Party has stopped it getting better. The bad news is that the Labor Party, faced with a historic opportunity to join us to drive home the advantage of a strengthening economy, has decided to stand against further reforms. When you are doing well is the last time to relax the reform effort. The Australian economy is in a very strong and healthy condition. So far from that being an occasion for this government to down tools on the reform process, we believe that is the time to accelerate the reform process. We intend to accelerate the reform process through our historic taxation reform program which will lay the foundation for continuing strength in the Australian economy.But, more specifically on the labour market, we do have the opportunity to go further. If we were to preserve youth wages as part of the system, if we were to sweep away the job destroying consequences of the existing unfair dismissal laws, if we were to further free the Australian labour market, we could look forward over the next three years to even lower levels of unemployment. It is within our grasp.You cannot have a better conjunction of circumstances. You have got a strong economy, you have got a government determined to undertake the necessary reforms and you have got growing public support for those reforms. But standing against that coalition for the future is the party of the past—the Australian Labor Party, a party which is hogtied to its trade union roots and which only looks at these things in terms of the institutional rigidities of a system that belongs to the 1960s or the 1970s and not to the 21st century.I appeal to those in the Australian Labor Party to put aside your outdated ideology and think of the employment future of young Australians. If you think of the employment future of young Australians you will withdraw your opposition to our unfair dismissal laws and you will join us in creating an even brighter future for young Australians into the 21st century.37893789Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, yesterday, in response to a question on your agreement with the Democrats about youth wages, you said: . . . there is also no doubt that this issue was unresolved at the time.Isn't it a fact that this matter was not included in the list of items specifically identified by you and the Democrats as unresolved and not agreed in which the government might take further action?Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned.3790Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The agreement with the Democrats specified the matters which were agreed. It also specified the matters which were not agreed and which would then subsequently be debated in the Senate and where we would vote separately. If the Leader of the Opposition cared to read the Senate Hansard —ET4BEVISMr Bevis—And junior wage rates wasn't one of them.WI4Mr REITH—It was not one of them because it was one of the agreed matters. This might be hard for you to understand, but our policy has always been that we are in favour of young people having jobs. This is truly pathetic. Mr Speaker, I have had two out of two. It might be another ten out of 10. You can be so lucky. Kerry Packer had an Alan Bond. I have got a Kim Beazley and a Martin Ferguson. What a combination! Roll on question time.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Batman!Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my right are denying the member for Parkes the call.37903790Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, can you advise the House what the major impediment is to achieving taxation reform in Australia? What is the solution to this situation?3790Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question. The major impediment to achieving taxation reform in Australia is the Australian Labor Party—just as the major impediment to private health insurance rebates was the Australian Labor Party; just as the major impediment to fixing the budget deficit was the Australian Labor Party; just as the major impediment to lower interest rates was the Australian Labor Party; and just as the major impediment to economic reform generally is the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party is now a totally negative political force. There is nothing it stands for, it only now stands against—and it stands against nearly everything.We welcome the fact that the Australian Labor Party now says that it is ready to vote on the government's tax bills before 30 June. The government is ready to vote on those tax bills before 30 June, which by my calculation means that 65 of the 76 senators are now ready to vote on those bills. Members of the House of Representatives will know that the House of Representatives passed those bills on 2 December last year. Four Senate committees have had them already for four months—16 months of inquiry, when the Australian Labor Party said that, regardless of the outcome of the inquiry, it would vote against the legislation and when the government is committed to putting it through. This has been an expensive matter for Australia and it has delayed the conduct of these bills.Mr Speaker, you do have to tie the Labor Party down when it makes these offers to vote. Members of the House of Representatives will recall that, as recently as August 1997, the Labor Party was saying that if the government won an election on tax it would pass the tax bills in the Senate. The ABC radio news of 25 August 1997 carried this story:The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley's office, says if the Coalition wins a mandate at the next election to introduce the tax Labor won't seek to block the passage of the GST—The Courier-Mail of 26 August 1997 said:If John Howard goes to the next election with a clearly and honestly described GST tax proposal and he wins the election, Labor will regard that as a mandate and not seek to block the introduction of a GST. Kim Beazley, in the Age of 24 September 1997, said:If people vote for a GST, then they will get a GST and that's the end of it.They were assurances that were given—and they were also given in this House to me and in the newspaper by the Australian Labor Party—that a fairly won election, if the government had received an election mandate on the basis of tax, would see it implemented.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—What about the mandates?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I see one of the princes royal is interjecting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his remarks through the chair, and the member for Reid will exercise some restraint.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The princes royal of Batman and Reid. John Brumby—one of Labor's leading thinkers!—at a press conference on 1 February 1999 said:What you are going to see from Labor, you are going to see no hidden agenda, no secret deals, no back room tricks, every single policy will be out there up front in the election campaign. If we are elected we obviously would have a mandate to implement that. Any opposition which defied that mandate would be grossly irresponsible, derelict in its responsibility to the parliament and the people.How humiliating to be condemned out of the mouth of John Brumby. This is also the view which was put by Bob Carr on the ABC's Stateline on 9 October 1998. For the new members of the Labor Party, this is what the Labor Party used to believe in when it had principles. Bob Carr said:My view is that a government with a majority in any lower house ought to be able to implement its program not subject to frustration by upper house, state or federal, and be judged by the people three or four years down the track.There you have Labor's present and Labor's future, Mr Brumby, all talking about mandates. You had Mr Beazley talking that way in 1997, but we all know that he can only hold his party together by negativitism, by opposition, by mindless obstructionism. I would recommend to the Leader of the Opposition that he remember his New Year's resolution. He put out a New Year's resolution on 31 December 1998 for this year. Do you know what his resolution was, Mr Speaker? To be interesting and constructive. We would recommend it to him.37913791Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, did you say that you intend to reintroduce your bill on junior pay rates in three months—that is, before the Industrial Relations Commission report is available? What is wrong with you honouring your agreement with the Democrats and waiting to consider the independent umpire's report?3791Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government has fully implemented the agreement that we had with the Democrats, which I must say was a pretty good agreement. I pay tribute to the member for Dickson who, as the leader of the Democrats, then was prepared to be reasonable, was prepared to deal with the government of the day and was prepared to acknowledge that the government had a mandate for the reforms which we had advocated before the 1996 election. We say to the Labor Party that the attitude that your sole frontbencher then adopted should be the same attitude that you now adopt.Not only did we have an agreement with the Democrats that we implement it in full but we went to the last election and said to the Australian people, `If you vote for us, then we will legislate to look after the jobs of young people.' We actually spelt out, in black and white on page 25 of this excellent policy, More Jobs, Better Pay. It is a very good description of what has been happing in the time that we have been in. We said this:A coalition government will legislate to permanently retain existing age-based youth wages and protect the jobs of the 420,000 young people currently employed on that basis and require the commission to ensure that all awards include junior wage rates where appropriate.That is the agreement we had with the Australian people. We believe in keeping our agreements. Not only that, but we had a clear policy. We had one policy. What did the Labor Party have at the same time? They had two policies in the space of seven days. On 4 September their policy—and I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald —was:In short, the spokesman said Labor opposes in principle wage rates determined by age.So on 4 September they were totally opposed—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question asked was about waiting to consider the independent umpire's report and what would be wrong with waiting to get the Industrial Relations Commission's report. The minister has not mentioned the word yet.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was presuming, frankly, that the minister was working his way through a time line to the point at which he was going to reach the question of what the commission report would mean to his decision. I call the minister.WI4Mr REITH—I certainly am, Mr Speaker. The following week they changed their policy and they said they would wait for the commission. That is interesting. When the matter was in the Senate this week the Democrats said that the government's legislation should not be considered by the Senate until it had been to the commission, and where did the Labor Party vote on the deferral? They voted with us. They didn't vote against our position, they voted with us, against the Democrats. What hypocrisy. Three positions—as many positions as there are trade union leaders sitting on the front bench.37923792Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, with the economy growing by 4.7 per cent, as shown by the latest national accounts, and the government having clawed back the rate of unemployment from 11 per cent, which it was under Labor's administration, what now are the impediments that prevent more being done to increase employment and reduce unemployment?3792Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The figures today are good figures. They are a great tribute to the Prime Minister, and the leadership that he has given. They are a great tribute to the expertise of the Treasurer. They are also a tribute to those people who won marginal seats, to see this government return and continue with the excellent economic management that it has put in place and which has seen some of the best figures that we have seen since 1990. I know members on this side will welcome that and, of course, we see the glum faces on the other side.One of the reasons why the numbers were pretty good is that we are doing better with younger people, and there is no doubt about that. We are doing better with younger people partly because we have in place a system where younger people can get a job on an age based junior rate. The consequences of Labor continually saying no to jobs for young people is that the gains that we have made are to be taken away in the middle of next year at the insistence of Mr Beazley who instructs his Labor colleagues in the Senate to vote no to every sensible measure to create jobs.On the opposition front bench we have a troika—the member for Hotham, the member for Brand and the member for Batman—against reform and against job prospects. As the Prime Minister said, things are going pretty well in the Australian economy and now is the time to take the opportunity to do better and make the structural reforms. We still have 70,000 young people unemployed. This is no time for opposition for the sake of opposition. Now is the time to drive ahead and give these people the opportunities that an economy like Australia really deserves.What is the response we get from the opposition? It is the old ploy in politics: when you're having a bad week, go on the attack. And what a bad week it has been—`Close ranks, please.' `A restless ALP.' `Beazley hits out at leadership jibes.' `Labor leaderless and rudderless.' `Brereton blamed for ALP disunity.'37923792McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, isn't it the case that your existing workplace relations legislation provides for a continuation of junior rates even beyond June 2000 on a case by case basis? Wasn't this part of the agreement with the Democrats which you said in the House on 28 October 1996 was `a fair response to our concerns'? Aren't your recent statements that junior pay rates end in June 2000 just another example of you slithering around your deal with the Australian Democrats and misleading the Australian public?3793Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—That measure which the member referred to in his question was added in the negotiations with the Democrats, and I am pleased that it was. The reason I am pleased that it was is that we are prepared to work very hard to ensure that we preserve junior wage rates.The issue at stake for the parliament is whether or not we provide an across-the-board blanket exemption. That is the issue. It is not a debate about the transition. The issue is whether or not you think the system now works. We believe it does; you are opposed to it. We are in favour of jobs; you are against it. We work hard on unfair dismissal to create jobs; you are opposed to it. We are trying to look after young people; you are opposed to it. We try to manage the economy better; you are opposed to it. The fact of the matter is that we are for jobs; you are against it. And a genuinely strong leader, who had a sense of the national interest, would stand up to the divisions on his own side and stand for something, stand for young people. How many questions is this?UNKNOWNGovernment MembersGovernment Members— Four.WI4Mr REITH—I have had four today, I had 10 yesterday. Fourteen out of 14; we will keep the tally going.37933793Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, have there been opportunities for Labor state governments to abolish junior wage rates? Have the junior wage rates been abolished in those states? If not, why not?3793Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It is an interesting question because some within the Labor Party would say this is a great article of faith for Labor MPs—that this is a matter going to the core of Labor philosophy. So you are entitled to ask: what are the state Labor governments doing? What they are doing is important because they are actually responsible for the issue, unlike a Labor opposition that has no responsibility and therefore, it seems, no sensitivity to the issue.If you look at New South Wales, for example, they have an anti-age discriminatory provision. They also have an exemption for it, but the minister can remove the exemption by proclamation. In other words, Jeff Shaw, the minister, could at any day remove junior wage rates. Why hasn't he? He has not because he has given an undertaking that he would not do so unless there was a satisfactory alternative. That is a perfectly reasonable position. There is no satisfactory alternative. He is not going into this election saying, `We are going to abolish junior wage rates.' Why would he when there is no alternative?Queensland is basically in the same sort of situation. They have an exemption. They have a Labor government. Has the Labor government there said, `This question of discrimination is so important that we are going to abolish young people's jobs as a result'? No, they have not—a state Labor government. I compliment two state Labor governments for at least having the commonsense to see that young people will lose their jobs if this measure goes through.Has there been a search for an alternative? This issue has been around for years. You can go all the way back to 1990, when the Labor minister's council—in other words, the state and federal ministers—discussed the issue, through to 1994. From 1994 to 1997 the Industrial Relations Commission conducted a working party to find an alternative—a non-discriminatory suitable alternative. They found no such alternative. There was no agreement to a practical alternative.The fact of the matter is that this is a failure of leadership, and the consequences of it are that young people will be Labor's victims as they join the unemployment queues. This is an important issue. We have had a consistent position. I compliment the state premiers. It is about time that the Leader of the Opposition took a cue from some of his state counterparts.37943794Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, does your government have plans to introduce the junior pay rates for Australian Defence Force personnel, just as your colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business wants to do for the rest of the work force? If not, why don't you think the government should introduce junior wages for the ADF?3794Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—Mr Speaker, the government's policy on defence pay rates is well known.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect, member for Banks, member for Brisbane. I have called the House to order. It should not be necessary for me to rise when there are basically good natured interchanges occurring.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Give him mouth to mouth!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks is warned.37943794Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Has the minister seen reports of continuing union opposition to the Work for the Dole Scheme? What role did the trade union movement have in previous labour market programs?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Minister for Employment Services, this question was canvassed yesterday in almost precisely the same terms. I will allow the question to stand, assuming that the minister has some comments to make on changes that have occurred within the last 24 hours.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will not tolerate this persistent level of interjection, as everyone knows. The Minister for Employment Services.3794Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Groom for his question. Yesterday on Sydney radio, Michael Costa, who is the head of the New South Wales Labor Council, described Work for the Dole as a mickey mouse program. Funnily enough, this is the same term that has been used against the Work for the Dole program by both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman. Mr Costa also called for a return to the labour market programs of the former government, which again is just like the union echoes opposite.The question then arises: why might the unions and their supporters be so intent on restoring these programs? Under the labour market programs of the former government, large amounts of money were given to employ training liaison officers—in other words, taxpayer funded jobs for the boys within the union movement.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This does not sound like the last 24 hours to me.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will be aware of the fact that I had put that condition on the minister's reply and he had indicated that he was responding to an interview that was held yesterday.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I was also asked: what role did the trade union movement have in previous labour market programs? Between 1992 and 1996, when the House of Lords opposite was in charge of the employment portfolio, $1.7 million was given to the unions to employ these liaison officers and $238,000 was given to the—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance to your ruling on the restrictions on this minister. I would argue that these details were well known prior to 24 hours ago and could have featured in his answer yesterday.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am allowing the minister to continue because he is responding to a statement that was made yesterday.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I was asked what role did the trade union movement have in previous labour market programs. $165,000 was given to the ACTU, and I wonder whether the former minister, the member for Hotham, declared a conflict of interest then.Opposition members interjecting—'EZ5Mr ABBOTT—$265,000 was given to the Australian Workers Union, which has just parachuted Ludwig Junior into the Senate to create another great Labor union dynasty.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am answering the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will continue, but I expect him to come back to the point of the interview that was heard on radio yesterday.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—So we can understand why Mr Costa called for a return of these labour market programs, because under them $140,000 was given to the Australian Metal Workers Union—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The union is currently employing Andrew Scott to urge the Leader of the Opposition of the imperative to go to the left.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister is now drawing too long a bow and will resume his seat.37953795Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is again directed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, now that you have had a briefing from your ministerial colleagues, what is the government's policy on junior pay rates for the ADF and how does it differ from the government's general policy on youth wages?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would have thought this question was remarkably similar to the last question asked.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows better than that. I will allow the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to respond.3795Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The policy for pay rates in the Defence Force is based on the duties, the rank and the location of where those duties are to be performed.37953795Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What is the government's attitude to the maintenance of the principles of freedom of association and freedom of speech on university campuses? How can the government act to protect the fundamental rights of students?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Another outburst like that will produce a general warning. I call the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under standing order 76. It seems that the member for Hunter is slipping back into bad habits.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wannon will come to his point of order.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—Again when the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs gets up, he makes an offensive reflection on the minister's integrity. I ask you to intervene.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have not heard any comments made by the member for Hunter, but I would ask him to exercise restraint.3795Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question. This is a government which supports young Australians. It supports their right to get a job, it supports their right to freedom of association and it supports their right to freedom of choice on university campuses. This government will continue to push strongly for voluntary student unionism. I see that the unrepresentative leaders of some student associations will be campaigning and demonstrating against the government's policy of freedom of association. In Melbourne today I understand they are planning a demonstration on the steps of the Victorian Parliament House.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—That will help John Brumby.BT4Dr KEMP—It will be very interesting to see what percentage, Prime Minister, of Victoria's 182,000 students actually support the continuation of the compulsory student fee. Universities are intended to be bastions of freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of association and academic freedom. But the member for Sturt has drawn my attention to a letter sent by the administrators of the Adelaide University Union to the President of the Adelaide University Liberal Club. The letter reads as follows:The administrators are concerned that the material supporting voluntary student unionism was against the interests of the organisation to which the Liberal Club is affiliated, namely, the University Union through the Clubs Association. As a former board member, you would understand that the administrators have a duty to protect the interests of the organisation for which they are acting as caretakers. On 2 March 1999 the Adelaide University Union administrators resolved "that distribution of pro-voluntary student unionism material will not be permitted within or around the union premises or at union sponsored events."I table this letter.The administrators of the university union at the University of Adelaide are not only determined to force students to pay this compulsory union fee; but they are going to prevent them complaining about this compulsion and advocating an alternative system. This is a Stalinist invasion of the rights of these students, and the government's legislation for voluntary student unionism will protect the right of students to freedom of choice on campus—to choice of the association to which they belong—and their right to freedom of speech.37963796Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. When the minister answered the member for Robertson's question on Tuesday, why did the minister not even mention the commitment which Kerry Chikarovski claims he made last week to:. . . widen the F3 to three lanes in each direction between Wahroonga and Kariong . . . John Anderson was supportive of the plan which will cost about $50 million.I quote from an article headed `Chika promises three lane freeway' in the Central Coast Advocate Express of 3 March. Minister, did you give a $50 million national highway commitment to the New South Wales Liberal opposition in March, after refusing to give the same commitment two months ago? If you have given a binding commitment for funding to widen the F3 freeway, will you today guarantee to make this funding available irrespective of the outcome of the New South Wales election?Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler has a very short memory.3796Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. My response is to indicate that of course the Commonwealth is always willing—MG4LEEMr Lee—Have you given a commitment?4K4Mr ANDERSON—to discuss in a constructive waywith the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell.MG4LEEMr Lee—Has he given a commitment?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell has asked his question. The member for Dobell is warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—with the relevant state authorities—in this case relevant ministers—their transport needs. In relation to the F3, I made the point very strongly yesterday that the great problem in New South Wales has been that, even when we have put forward resources to meet needs, they are not taken seriously enough in that state for the state government to get on and use the resources in a way that would help the people in that state.The simple fact of the matter is that, when the election in New South Wales is out of the way, I have no doubt that the government of that state will want to enter into meaningful dialogue about the future road needs—including the F3—in that state.37973797May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister outline to the House new regulations that facilitate the entry to this country of parents of Australian residents, without placing an onerous cost burden on taxpayers generally. Does the minister have any indication that the Democrats or the ALP propose to disallow these measures? What effect would such a disallowance have?3797Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for the question on this matter. The member is right to be interested in the issue, because I understand there is a motion of disallowance in the Senate relating to certain regulations that were designed to facilitate the entry to Australia of parents nominated by family members in Australia in circumstances where they were prepared to commit themselves to keeping their parents in Australia.I was interested in the remarks of some of the members opposite in relation to this matter, because my recollection is that for a long time the Labor Party supported the view that parents, if they were to be sponsored for entry into Australia, would not be accessing welfare benefits in this country to which they had not contributed through the tax system. There has been maintained over a long period of time a bipartisan approach to the 10-year preclusion period for eligibility to the pension. But what the Labor Party seems to be happy to acquiesce in, judging by the comments that have been made, is the notion that, even though they might be precluded from a pension, they should be able to access other benefits shortly after arrival in Australia.RH4KERRMr Kerr—No.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—They are saying, `No.' Let me come to this. The fact is that most parents who do come to Australia at the moment under the provisions which have been in place over a long period of time tend to come from countries where there are no social welfare systems in place. The review that was carried out in relation to parents last year demonstrated amply that access to special benefits—within six months when you were in office and, under the new preclusion periods, after two years—was obtained by a large proportion of parents entering Australia, simply because those people who had sponsored them and given assurances of support walked away from those commitments shortly after they arrived in Australia. And, if they weren't seeking access to special benefits, they were seeking access to unemployment benefits, because they were of working age.That is the reality. In response to that reality, we introduced a cap, simply because we could not afford to continue to have such a large proportion of the program, particularly for family reunion, dominated by older people. The Labor Party pretends that they are concerned about the aging of the Australian population and the cost that it is going to impose upon the Australian community as a whole. They put that out when they talk about population policy issues, and yet the fact is that what they want to do is to maximise the number of older people entering Australia who have paid no taxes to contribute to pensions in Australia, although they would have them claiming them. That is the end outcome.What we sought to do was to put in place a new visa class which had enhanced provisions for bonds and payment of medical charges. Interestingly, the cost of medical charges on average for older people entering the Australian community is $20,500, yet we are asking for a contribution of merely $5,000 towards those costs that would be undoubtedly required.These measures that we have been putting in place were in response to requests from family members who wanted to get access in Australia to their parents. In many cases this was, as I know, to help them with child minding and so on which would enable two people to go into the work force—in many cases a benefit for the families. That is what they were seeking. What we put in place was a visa class to enable that to happen and 2,000 people have applied for that visa class. The fact is you are seeking to disallow it on the spurious argument that that would be allowing them to jump the queue.Let me make it very clear, because I do not want you to be under any illusions in relation to this matter, that I will be proposing to the government that, if this measure is knocked off, we limit under the capping arrangements quite substantially the provisions for access through the category which involves very significant welfare dependence. The cap is likely to be around 500 and I will make it abundantly clear to those people who were anxious to look after their parents in Australia under these arrangements that the opportunity was lost because the Labor Party saw fit to vote with the Democrats on this measure.37983798Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, this week Senator Newman said that the reason why 81 per cent of callers to Centrelink could not get through is the popularity of the services offered. Why then, Minister, is the government cutting 5,000 staff and $150 million from its budget? Minister, as part of your 5,000 job cuts to Centrelink, why are you also cutting essential staff in review teams and compliance units who are primarily responsible for detecting fraud? Minister, isn't it true that the majority of the $46 million per week which you claimed was a result of welfare fraud is in fact a direct result of administrative error and the inability of people to advise Centrelink of a change in their circumstances?Government members interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—This is a speech.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will bring his question to a conclusion.2V5Mr SWAN—I certainly will, Mr Speaker. Minister, how can clients advise Centrelink of their changed circumstances when they face up to a three-week wait to get an appointment and they cannot get through on the phone?3798Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCommunity Services10—The honourable member for Lilley asks a score of questions, most of which are inaccurate. Let me first deal with his question on the number of overpayments as a result of administrative error. Only 1.6 per cent of debts recovered are as a result of administrative error. So what is this nonsense about errors because people are not able to get through on the phone system? The reality is that most people on most days are able to call the call centres and get through in a reasonable period. There are occasions when there are peak loads, as Senator Newman referred to in the Senate the other day, when it is difficult for people to get through. But that is nothing particularly new.The opposition was well aware of that fact when they wrote their policy document for the last election. I know they like to read quite a few books—or do not like to read one another's books—but I would have thought that the shadow minister would have read at least one book—the opposition's own policy on the issue of Centrelink and social security service delivery because it is made abundantly clear in that policy, which I just happen to have brought into the House, that they were well aware of the fact that there were delays in peak times when people were unable to get through to Centrelink call centres.At the last election Labor proposed a rescue plan for Centrelink. Labor was going to introduce a rescue plan for Centrelink because there were times when there were peak loads and the call centres were unable to deal with the number of people ringing. So I looked through what this rescue plan actually involved. You would think that, if there was a problem in Centrelink and a need for extra staff or extra resources, the Labor Party would have told us something about where this was all coming from. I looked at the costings for the Centrelink rescue plan. In the year 1998-1999, the total cost of this rescue plan was zero; in 1999-2000 the total cost was zero; in 2000-2001 the extra resources for this rescue plan—zero; and in 2001-2002—zero.The four-year total cost of these extra resources that Labor were going to pour into the call centres was a grand total of zero. Labor were going to do nothing. They were keeping in place the efficiency dividends which everyone expected would result from the amalgamation of the old DSS and CES. Everybody expected that there would be savings. Labor was going to keep them. They were complaining about the system but they intended to do absolutely nothing about it. So when the member for Lilley complains about delays in the call centres, he should talk to his constituents and tell them that Labor intended to do nothing about it.By contrast, we have doubled the number of employees in the call centres, opened seven new call centres and extended the hours of operation of the call centres by more than one hour every day. We do not close Centrelink offices for half a day a week as happened under the opposition. Indeed, the services provided by this government are a vast improvement on what was offered under Labor.When we talk about what is provided, let us remember that this is the government that is delivering real resources to the call centres, providing a massively increased capacity to deal with the many calls that come in because, as Senator Newman said in the other place, the centres are popular. People do like to call them because they provide a wonderful opportunity to transact business in the simplest possible way.37993799Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of comments by the National Farmers Federation expressing concern about various barriers to job creation in the rural and agricultural sector? Can the minister inform the House what actions the government is taking to improve job opportunities for job seekers in rural Australia?3799Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question and recognise his interest in this issue, particularly in the issue of employment opportunities for young Australians in rural Australia. On a day like today, when we see a record low level of unemployment at 7.4 per cent with 33,000 new jobs being created, it should be noted that, yes, the National Farmers Federation are concerned about the state of play as far as job opportunities for young people in rural Australia are concerned. They noted in a press release that the unfair dismissal laws in particular are holding back job creation. Farmers are reluctant to look beyond their families for labour when there is a risk that the employee might misuse the system after working with the farmer for a short period of time.We should also recognise, on the day when we see the lowest level of unemployment in over a decade, that it is the Labor Party that is opposed to the changes that we wanted to introduce to unfair dismissal; it is the Labor Party that is opposed to the youth employment bill that is going to provide the flexibility for young job seekers to gain employment in rural Australia. This week we have heard debated in this place the actions of the unions in New South Wales that have seen the torpedoing of Work for the Dole projects—and one of them just happened to be in my electorate—where 20 young people could not get access to a Work for the Dole program.These actions being taken by the Labor Party across Australia and in particular in New South Wales are seeing opportunities lost for young job seekers across Australia. It is time that the people of Australia recognised, as has been pointed out today, that the greatest impediment to jobs growth in Australia, particularly for young job seekers in rural Australia, is the Australian Labor Party.37993799Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct a question to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of claims that the NRMA will be adding a GST to insurance premiums from May this year to help pay for a $125 million Treasury error that you say does not exist? Is the Treasurer also aware of claims that this will increase the cost of NRMA insurance by close to 10 per cent because the tax package will do little to reduce industry costs?3799Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I did see something to that effect in one of the newspapers this morning. Of course, as I have already told the House, there is no error whatsoever in the costings of the government's package, nor has one been identified. I also made the point earlier—when I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked about this matter—that the Insurance Council of Australia wanted more beneficial treatment in relation to unearned premium reserve and in relation to payouts in respect of events before 1 July 2000. That is, they wanted to be able to claim input tax credits in relation to events before the application of the legislation. Why the Labor Party would support such a proposition I don't know, except to illustrate the point that the Labor Party stands for nothing but populist oppositionism.The NRMA will, like all other businesses, be subject to supervision from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. If the NRMA seeks to take price rises on the basis of a tax system that does not apply then it, as a corporation—if it were to say that is what it is doing—would be engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Trade Practices Act, and the remedies that lie under that act for misleading and deceptive conduct would lie against that company as long as they lie against any other company.38003800Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what the Australian government is doing to enhance Australia's national security through preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons? How will Australian industry be involved in this process?3800Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First of all, I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in this important issue. This government has a very proud record on arms control and disarmament ranging from our salvation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and our activities promoting disarmament in Iraq, through to the ratification by this government of the Ottawa Convention on Landmines.We are certainly not resting on our laurels and we are deeply concerned about biological weapons. Both the Prime Minister and I announced last year an initiative to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention by accelerating negotiations on a verification protocol. This is designed to ensure that countries do not cheat on their biological weapons convention obligations.The honourable member will be interested to know that today I convened the national consultative group on the Biological Weapons Convention, which represents the biotechnology industry, academia, and the scientific and defence communities. This is a forum to exchange information on the negotiations on a verification protocol on biological weapons, and it is just another example of the government's commitment to community consultations in the negotiation of treaties. In conclusion, let me say that we as a government are aware that 30 kilograms of anthrax could kill 100,000 people in a 10-kilometre square radius. We have to be active on this issue. We have to do what we can to ensure that the Biological Weapons Convention works.38003800Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Following the 1998 election, was the responsibility for the waterfront removed from your portfolio, with all staff and policy matters transferred to the transport portfolio? Why was the one matter of legal battles and associated costs of your failed plotting, at least according to the secretary of your department, retained under your control? Is it because you are concerned about the class action that has been taken out against you and others uncovering the documents your department refuses to release? Is this yet another matter that you want to hide because its disclosure would prove that the people of Australia should not believe or trust you?3800Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—After the election, with the cabinet reshuffle, as is obvious, I took up responsibilities for employment. The maritime section had previously been with Transport, and it was deemed by the Prime Minister to be appropriate for it to return to Transport. I believe it is true that we have in my office retained responsibility for those legal actions.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Why?WI4Mr REITH—The reason is obvious. It is fairly obvious that the action is against me, and people on my staff have been closely associated with the case. I think it does, however, provide me with the opportunity to say that, as a result of the dispute, not only has the share price of the Patricks organisation tripled but productivity is over 100 per cent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order in relation to relevance, Mr Speaker. We know why he would want to put up a smokescreen, but that is in no way related to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It is fair to say that the latter part of the minister's answer was not relevant to the question. It is also scarcely surprising that he answered it in the form he did. Does the minister have anything to add?WI4Mr REITH—No, enough's enough.38013801Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister outline what the government is doing about the long awaited Chinderah to Yelgun motorway in the Tweed in view of the spate of fatalities around the Burringbar range area which have claimed eight lives in recent times? Is the minister aware of any impediments to the rapid construction of this new road?3801Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I know it has been a matter of concern for quite a while for members in the North Coast region of New South Wales and in particular, of course, to the member for Richmond, the Hon. Larry Anthony. And well they might be concerned, because it has now been more than three years since the federal government made a commitment to jointly fund the upgrade of this piece of road. We made it because that upgrade is desperately needed. Tragically, there have been some eight deaths already on that stretch of road this year. By bypassing the Burringbar Range, the new motorway will provide a shorter and more direct route than the present notoriously dangerous section of road. It will improve safety and reduce travel times in northern New South Wales, and it will be particularly valuable at peak holiday seasons.The honourable member asked what impediments there are to the rapid construction of this road. I can think of two major impediments straight off. The first is that the current New South Wales Labor government has displayed a remarkable lack of commitment to this, and the second is the once federal Labor member for that area, Neville Newell. I note that he is particularly keen now to become a state member of parliament. He wants to become the member for Tweed. But at the time that he was a federal member, at the time that he was in this place, he was after a few green votes and was utterly opposed to the upgrading of this stretch of road. In those days he did not want to see it go ahead.The tragedy of this piece of upgrading is that it was due for completion by now. It should have been completed this year. Here we are in March 1999, and we have only just got the New South Wales government calling for preliminary tenders for this road. You have Premier Carr claiming that he is fast-tracking this upgrading. All that can be said is that he has been fast-tracking it to nowhere for the past three years.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . It has been a very good week for the government.Questions to the Speaker380138013801Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I would be appreciative if you could contact the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and ascertain why question No. 255 has been on the Notice Paper for some three months without an answer.3801Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will undertake to do as the member for Cowan has asked.Personal Explanations380115:13:003801Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Today, Labor Senators Forshaw, O'Brien and Murphy tabled a minority report arising from a Senate committee inquiring into the Regional Forest Agreements Bill. That report refers to me.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister knows that he must to come to a point of personal explanation. I am confident he will do so, and he is entitled to do so in silence. The minister.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Thank you. That report refers to me personally in two sections. In the first section it said:Finally, there is already potential for political interference and delay as is evident by the attitude of the Federal Minister, Mr Tuckey, to the agreements—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the minister is saying that he has been referred to in a Senate committee report, which is an official report of the Senate, he is reflecting on the Senate and that is not allowed in the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson has sat in this chair.Mr Downer interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs. The member for Watson has sat here when members have claimed to be misrepresented by statements made in this chamber or in other chambers. I will allow the minister to proceed.10000Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Mr Speaker, the minority report says:Finally, there is already potential for political interference and delay as is evident by the attitude of the Federal Minister, Mr Tuckey, to the agreements negotiated in NSW and given bi-partisan support by the NSW Parliament. The current dispute between the Federal Minister and members of the WA Government also demonstrates that ultimately politics will intrude into the issue of forest management. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is not indicating where he has been misrepresented.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I am reading the statement for the purpose of doing just that.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has not indicated where he has been personally misrepresented in any comments that he has made thus far. I have heard him out—with some difficulty above the hubbub on my left—but he has not thus far indicated where he has been personally misrepresented. If, in the second—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Mr Speaker, I just read you what was said.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, I am aware of that.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I cannot deny that to be the truth. I cannot do it until I tell you what it is.Opposition members interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You have to nominate the misrepresentation before you—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.Questions to the Speaker380238023802Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. I seek some clarification in relation to a procedure that occurred in parliament. I seek some clarification in terms of procedures. You will recall during question time that the Minister for Defence was asked a question by the member for Cunningham and he transferred it to his assistant minister. Mr Speaker, I refer you to House of Representatives Practice , page 505, halfway down the page:A Minister may refuse to answer a question. He or she may also transfer a question to another Minister and it is not in order to question the reason for doing so.It seems to me that the House of Representatives Practice suggests that the minister at least needs to come to the table and either refuse to answer the question or give a reason why he is transferring it. I repeat the second sentence: . . . it is not in order to question the reason for doing so.But, in terms of the protocol, it was a lightning pass—I concede that—or, indeed, a hospital pass from the Minister for Defence to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is that the procedure that will be adopted in future in terms of transferring questions, or is the House at least to be offered a reason that the junior minister knows the answer?3803Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the member for Banks is well aware, it is not an uncommon practice for the Prime Minister to indicate the appropriate person to respond to a question. I conferred with the Clerk and in this case the Prime Minister had indicated it was appropriate for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to respond to that question.38033803Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left. The member for Newcastle—who, at my last glance, was one of their group—is denied the call waiting for some silence. He is not being helped right now by the frontbench of the government, either.FI4Mr ALLAN MORRIS—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you seeking guidance. Early in your term you indicated that you hoped to reduce the level of scorn and derision in the chamber. On at least three occasions today I felt that was needed. I wish to ask whether or not you wish us to bring it to your attention, or do you intend to invoke it yourself? I am quite happy to raise points of order on scorn and derision when I consider that has happened, but I will be leaving it to you to apply your own standards.3803Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Newcastle has been in this chamber for precisely the same period of time as I. In that period of time he will have witnessed, regrettably, a great deal of scorn and derision. My observation is that the standards in this chamber are something of which we could all be tolerably proud. I have noticed that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition all exercise a great deal of understanding of the forms of the place and of the need to raise the standard, and I intend to be part of that.Honourable members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—I will not tolerate the nonsense that I am about to have exhibited by, it would seem to me, the member for Boothby, the member for Fairfax and members on my left. I have indicated that we want to raise the standard, and the sort of derision that just emerged—that has been further aggravated by the member for Melbourne—is the very thing that we need to resist. I am doing what I can and so, frankly, I notice, are most members. If anything, I am encouraged rather than discouraged by what is happening in the chamber.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is warned, and I point out to all members in the House the very comment we were making about standards was eroded by their reaction when I called the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, could you tell me what I was just warned for?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson will resume his seat. The member for Watson just had an interjection that was anything but appropriate under the circumstances.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—If you feel like apologising to me I will let you get away with it, because I said nothing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I said nothing.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! If the member for Watson as the Chief Opposition Whip cares to discover among those of his colleagues who was responsible for the statement which I alleged he made, then that is entirely his business. I have, however, made it perfectly clear that I genuinely believe he made the statement and, if he did not make the statement, then I regret the fact that I called him in error. But there would have been a number of occasions when he ought to have been called here.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I take it, Mr Speaker, that you are withdrawing your warning, then.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I most certainly am not withdrawing my warning. The member for Watson is well aware, as a former occupant of this chair, that his comments to the chair when he thought I had warned him unadvisedly were not the sort of comments he ought to have made to any occupant of the chair.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, by warning me, you have put me on notice that I will be named.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have indeed.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—And you have put me on notice that I will be named for something that I have not done.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, that is not so.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You know I have not done it, I know I have not done it, the House knows I have not done it, and in good faith you should withdraw the warning that you know is wrong.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will not enter any further into this conversation. The member for Watson was not warned for the remark he made.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—What!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He was warned for the way in which he reacted to the chair's ruling following that remark. 4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You're joking!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson will excuse himself from the service of the House under 304A.4I4McLEAYMr Leo Mcleay—With great pleasure.The honourable member for Watson thereupon withdrew from the chamber.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is named.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the member for Watson be suspended from the service of the House.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I ask you to use your—UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Sit down!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The Speaker is in control of this place.Mr Pyne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Sturt.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House would agree that your use of 304A was entirely appropriate at that point, given what was slung at you by the honourable member for Watson. However, that statement on leaving is of a piece with statements made from time to time by people who have been put out. I have heard them once or twice. The use of 304A was sufficient punishment, given the circumstances which provoked that outburst for which you suspended him for that brief period of time. In those circumstances, given that you made an error—albeit a genuine error; we understand that—about who it was who produced the original cause for your displeasure with the member for Watson, I ask that you consider withdrawing the naming.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his counsel but I am tired of members being discharged from the House under 304A and offering the chair advice as they leave. My ruling stands.Question put.The House divided. [3.30 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Watson is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.Documents38043804Reith, 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 .Adjournment3805Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 22 March 1999, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour for the meeting.Ministerial Statements3805380515:35:003805Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—by leave—I wish to inform the House of progress to date on implementation of the Defence Reform Program.One of the central priorities of the government since its election to office in 1996 has been to maintain the real value of the defence budget. Indeed, defence was the only area of the budget which was quarantined from expenditure cuts. That commitment continues, but the government has always realised that even more needs to be done. We believe we have an obligation to ensure that the resources allocated to defence are well managed and properly focused on the delivery of defence capability. It was for this reason that the government announced the defence efficiency review in October 1996. The review confirmed the pressing need for major structural reform to refocus the defence organisation onto its core obligation of providing combat capability.The government's view was that there was a real requirement to improve the readiness of the Australian Defence Force and its capacity to respond to more current needs. The Defence Reform Program, which was announced in April 1997, was designed to remedy the shortcomings identified by the defence efficiency review. The Defence Reform Program is an extensive and ambitious program of major cultural and management change across all parts of Defence. Its end objective is to improve the readiness of the ADF and to provide an increased range of options to respond to current and emerging developments.There is no doubt the need for these reforms is very real. The scale is very challenging. As the new Minister for Defence, I have been very pleased to see the strong and widespread commitment within Defence to meet this challenge.It is important to recall the key objectives of the Defence Reform Program. The objectives are:. Firstly, to maximise the focus of the Defence organisation and its resources on the achievement of the Defence Mission, that is `to prevent or defeat the use of armed force against Australia and its interests'.. Secondly, to have a Defence organisation organised for war and adapted for peace with a clear command and management structure and better long term planning and decision making.. Thirdly, to increase the efficiency of support and administrative functions.. Finally, and most importantly, to maximise the resources available to sustain and enhance the Defence Force's operational capabilities.At maturity, the Program will make available up to $1 billion per annum as well as some $500 million in one-off gains from asset sales and inventory reductions. Most importantly, all these funds are earmarked for re-investment in combat capability and operational readiness.As a result of the Program, a greater proportion of the Defence Force will be employed directly in combat and combat support roles. As we adjust the size and structure of our permanent forces, we expect the proportion of our full time personnel in combat and combat-related roles to rise to 65 per cent by early next century. This will mean that the ADF will have 32,500 personnel in combat and combat support units out of a total full time force of 50,000—an historically high proportion.A key objective of the Program has been to make substantial additional funds available for investment in important aspects of the Defence Force's operational capability and levels of preparedness. I am able to report to the House today significant progress in achieving this objective.By the end of this financial year, more than $280 million per annum in continuing efficiency gains will have been achieved. This is $30 million more than originally planned. In addition, one-off gains of $52 million have already been realised from asset sales.As a result of this success, an additional $271 million has been allocated this year for investment in capability and operational readiness improvements. The balance of the available funds has been used to meet one-off transition costs relating to personnel entitlements and commercial support programs.This year the Army has been allocated $43 million to fund an additional 1,000 regular personnel in infantry, special forces and combat support roles.Amphibious transport capability is being strengthened. This year, $39 million has been allocated to retain HMAS Tobruk in service and to provide funds for modifications to the large landing ships HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora.Other Naval capabilities are also being enhanced. Some $66 million is being spent on additional costs associated with the introduction into service and operation of the new ANZAC frigates and their helicopters as well as for the new coastal minehunters.Long standing shortfalls in logistic support for existing capabilities are being remedied. Some $104 million has been made available for ammunition for training purposes, combat clothing, new combat rations and increased funding for spares and maintenance for frigates, patrol boats and Air Force and Navy aircraft.I am pleased to announce that, as part of the initial benefits of the Defence Reform Program, we are now in a position where the resources already available to Defence can support an increase in the level of preparedness of a range of land force units and supporting air and naval elements.In line with the government's overall priorities for Defence, we have decided that additional force elements up to the equivalent of a second brigade sized group, with supporting air and naval units are to be brought to the same degree of readiness as the Ready Deployment Force in Townsville.Defence planning has commenced with the aim of achieving this objective by 30 June this year. This will mean that by June 1999 we will have forces of up to two brigade or task force size groups, with associated naval and air elements which can be ready to be deployed in 28 days. This is the first occasion in over two decades that Australia has had the equivalent of two brigades at this level of readiness.The government believes it is important to have the maximum flexibility and the options necessary to respond to contingencies at short notice. Such measures are both prudent and appropriate.Australia has recently faced a number of contingencies, including responding to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN requirements to destroy its chemical and biological weapons capability, peace-monitoring in Bougainville, disaster relief in Papua New Guinea and drought relief in Irian Jaya. Further contingencies could arise in our region, including in East Timor.In relation to East Timor, the government's position remains that the Indonesian Government and the East Timorese have the primary responsibility to agree on an orderly and peaceful transition, whether it be to autonomy or independence. Such an outcome would reduce potential peacekeeping needs.Let me make it clear that the government believes that it is premature to make any decision about ADF involvement in any peacekeeping role in East Timor at this stage. The government's responsibility, and our intention, is to be in a position to be able to respond effectively to a considerable range of possibilities.In the light of the range of contingencies facing us, it is only prudent to ensure that appropriate planning and readiness steps are put into place. The Defence Reform Program has strengthened our capacity to take such steps.The improvements in capability and readiness I have outlined are clear evidence of the effectiveness of the Defence Reform Program. The benefits of these reforms will increase further as the program matures. Our commitment is to build a sharper, more combat focused, better equipped and more mobile and operationally ready Defence Force—the precise priority we believe Australians expect.Central to all of this is the contribution of our service men and women. No-one who has seen our people in action, on operations or disaster relief, can fail to be proud of the professionalism and dedication of our young men and women.On my own visits to defence units around Australia and to our deployed forces on Bougainville and Malaysia, I have been impressed by the quality and commitment of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. I am conscious too of the special and important contribution made by the families of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Their ongoing support is vital.In conclusion, as Minister for Defence, I reaffirm this government's commitment to Defence reform and to the provision of a modern and responsive Defence Force capable of protecting Australia's interests.15:46:003807Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—by leave—As shadow minister for defence, I am pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the statement just made by the Minister for Defence. I also thank both the minister and his staff for providing us with a copy of the statement he proposed to make and for the additional information which his office provided in a briefing on this matter.I believe the issues of national security and defence are not ones that should be used as political footballs in the rough and tumble game of politics. But, that said, from time to time some decisions make it increasingly impossible to maintain a bipartisan approach on every aspect of defence.I note the minister's announcement on increased preparedness of the Australian Defence Force. Labor has always had a commitment to increasing operational capabilities and readiness. That has never been in question. I was also very much interested in the minister's comment in his statement about the introduction of a second brigade sized group, with supporting air and naval units, to be brought to the same degree of readiness as the Ready Deployment Force in Townsville. We believe that is a good initiative, but I also have to say it comes at a high price to the Defence Force.I also indicate to the House that the minister's statement indicates that contingencies could arise in relation to East Timor. Labor's position on this matter is that Australia should give an in-principle commitment to participate in a UN peacekeeping effort in East Timor. However, that said, the government must ensure that, if it is going to commit Australian troops to an operation, three clear criteria are met. Firstly, all combatant groups in East Timor agree to a ceasefire and agree to specific political goals and outcomes. Secondly, all combatant groups agree to the presence of ADF and other UN peacekeeping personnel. Thirdly, there are specific and fixed objectives for the operation and a fixed time limit to match the operational objectives.These are matters which Labor has been saying for a period of time now. I do not think they depart greatly from the government's position, but I thought it was worth restating them here today, particularly as the minister's statement went to the question of East Timor—which is a very significant matter at the moment—and as he made some comments in his statement about bringing a second brigade up to ready readiness.To return to the essence of the statement, the Labor Party does not view defence as a business, whereas it has become increasingly clear that the government views it as just like any other business. The minister has stated with pride that the ADF will have the highest proportion of personnel in combat and combat related roles in its history. However, in the 1996 election policy the government stated that 58,000 full-time uniformed personnel was a historically low number and that the Australian Defence Force was understaffed. Yet, within the first three years of the Howard government, more than 4,000 full-time military personnel were cut from the ranks. Furthermore, they are planning to cut an extra 4,000 to 5,000 full-time personnel in this term of the government. This will result in a full- time force of 50,000, the smallest full-time force in 35 years.This government seems to believe that this shrunken defence force will be capable of supporting its ambitious national and international security agendas. This is a champagne appetite on a beer income, unfortunately. As a result of world change and government policies, the current environment for the Australian Defence Force is charged with greater and more diverse challenges then perhaps at any other peacetime period in its history. It has recently been reported that the armed forces are in crisis, with ever increasing numbers of experienced soldiers, sailors and airmen and women leaving the ADF. It is a tough time for the Department of Defence and the three services. Morale amongst the ranks is reported to be at an all-time low, and this is reflected in a higher than usual separation rate. Perhaps the minister has to stop believing some of the rhetoric which is given him and start listening to the personnel for whom he is responsible.The Defence Efficiency Review and, following that, the Defence Reform Program, hold much of the responsibility for the morale problem. I am already on the public record as saying that the lack of defence knowledge and experience on the Defence Efficiency Review Main Committee invalidated many of its recommendations—recommendations that did not confine themselves to issues of management and financial processes. Equally concerning has been this Defence Reform Program. The way in which and speed at which it has implemented change is a great concern to me and, I know, to many in the forces.I should say, however, that I have no difficulty with the emphasis of the Defence Reform Program and the way it sought to eliminate duplication between the services. I have said this previously to the minister. I think we all agree defence must get the most bang for its buck. The difficulty is with the way reform is implemented and the whole change management process. The reform program has lead to major uncertainty for defence personnel about career paths and the loss of a great many experienced members of the ADF and, therefore, loss of important corporate knowledge. The result is substantial job insecurity for both civilian and uniformed personnel.The Defence Reform Program has simply slashed and burned all the support structures and resources for the sharp end operations of the ADF. What the minister must understand is that for the Australian Defence Force to have increased combat capabilities it must have strong support structures behind it. The minister must guarantee also that the upgraded brigade group he is announcing today can be brought to strength and sustained as outlined. It must not simply become a public relations exercise with under-strength, under-equipped and under-prepared campaign components.It was the previous Labor government that pioneered fiscal responsibility in the Defence portfolio, but it did it in a strategic and well-planned way and did not infringe upon critical and core functions of the defence forces. A member of the ADF recently gave me an example: the deep scheduled maintenance of the RAAF C-130 transport aircraft used to be done in house. It took four weeks for the routine service as well as for the fixing of any additional problems. Under the government's ideological addiction to contracting out, that function now takes a contractor four weeks for the routine service alone, with any other difficulties taking a further couple of weeks to be corrected by the RAAF themselves. This may be the government's idea of efficiency, but certainly it is not Labor's.The commercial support program has been perverted over the past few years to include a range of capabilities that go to the very heart of the defence forces. Having widened its application, the government has accelerated the pace of change in an already change-fatigued organisation, and this process has produced both a dislocation in thousands of careers and a reduction in defence capabilities. These issues highlight the very real difference between the two administrations. One sets strategic goals and achieves them in a fiscally responsible manner; the other simply sets fiscal goals.At the end of the day, the defence efficiency review and the Defence Reform Program need to be judged on whether they have strengthened Australia's armed forces. At this stage, there are very few people who would argue that they have. Indeed, I have argued that to some extent they have weakened them. The government has certainly cut the tail of defence, but there has been no major corresponding growth in the teeth.The most significant question to ask about this statement is why it should have been made at all. The minister appears to be re-announcing last year's budget, when the new budget is less than nine weeks away. In fact, a check of the library records indicates that most of the statements have been made in the past nine or so months. The only announcement that has not already been foreshadowed by the government prior to this statement is that of bringing a second brigade size group up to one month's readiness. We do not quibble with that. In fact, in terms of the way in which the minister has carefully couched his language in respect of that, we see absolutely no problems with it whatsoever.But I would certainly say that from Labor's perspective we would like to see, at a later stage perhaps, the minister come back in and talk to us about the way the Defence Reform Program has gone and about the way in which that change has perhaps been managed a little better. We have no objection to that change. We have no objection to the Defence Reform Program. We just think that it could have been managed a little better and massaged through, and then some of the real heartache caused to a number of personnel in defence could in fact have been lessened. I do look forward to further statements from the minister and, indeed, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, particularly in respect of East Timor—as it is an issue here—and of course I equally look forward to his answers in the House in question time.Matters of Public Importance3809380910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to deal in good faith on matters of employment and industrial relations, including in relation to the role of the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission.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—15:56:003809Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business reminds me not so much of anything other than the little Dutch boy with his hand in the dike. The difference is that the little Dutch boy with his hand in the dike saved his nation. As far as the minister is concerned, he is desperately concerned most with saving himself. What an extraordinary thing it was for that minister to admit from the last time we caught him out misleading this parliament and misleading the Australian public that he has to cover his tracks by this quite unprecedented carving out, from a portion of a portfolio that has been passed across to someone else, that element that directly relates to him.We are left with the extraordinary vision of this minister—and I have been in government for a long time myself and I cannot remember an equivalent case—purloining to himself the maintenance of authority over every conceivable element of investigation of his administration. It is not unusual, because many times are Commonwealth ministers challenged by citizens over the conduct of their portfolios, and many times has the minister joined in the action. This is not an unusual occurrence. What is unusual is that the minister quite clearly so feels that his actions may be open to reasonable attention by legal authorities that he feels constrained to keep everything under his own control and will trust no other minister with the handling of it—an extraordinary admission of the level of distrust that people are entitled to have, in so far as this minister's actions are concerned.Let me go through why it is that we are persisting in raising these issues here in question time about the minister. They go to process and they go to policy. We go first to the issue of process. Any government worth its salt will be concerned about the credibility of its ministers. This fellow has been wandering around the gallery saying, `This doesn't really matter, because nobody believes politicians anyway. I am not doing this government any damage, because nobody believes politicians anyway, and they just regard me as yet another dishonest politician.' That may be true about how we are regarded as a class, but some of us set benchmarks.WI4REITHMr Reith—Oh, yeah.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—You are the world's best practice disbelieved politician. There are no two ways about that at all. You remind me of that character in Platoon , the film on the Vietnam War: when his position was about to be overrun, he dragged a couple of bodies down on top of himself in the hope that he would not be noticed, and that is where he sat out the action. What the minister was attempting to do around the press gallery today was to drag us all down on top of him and hope that we would conceal proper public scrutiny of his particular actions as far as this matter is concerned. Ministers will always have to deal with hostile Senates: even after your efforts to rort them, you will not succeed. You will have to deal with hostile Senates.You are obliged in the course of your political arrangements—both with other political parties and with the community generally—to stick to your word. If you, as a senior minister, will not stick to your word others are entitled to ask whether the government will stick to its word on any matter. When a Prime Minister backs up a minister so fulsomely as the Prime Minister has backed you up, despite the fact that you have foreshadowed a breach of every understanding that your Prime Minister has with the Australian community on whether they are going to be worse off as a result of any policies in your area that are pursued by your government, we are entitled to be assured that you are a person whose integrity can be relied upon, as far as the community is concerned and as far as your arrangements are concerned.Let me quote a couple of people who deal with you, and they are not our people but others in this parliament. One of them is Senator Harradine. On Monday, he said:It was clear to me that one could not take at face value what this government has said. That is my experience now in respect of certain ministers of this government.There is no prize for guessing the ministers he was referring to, and they include you.I said that this government's credibility was in tatters and it was a serious matter when at least half of this Senate did not take at face value what the government says.After your performance in this chamber yesterday, Senator Murray said:I am finding the rising shrillness of Peter Reith's doctoring of the truth adds to my growing lack of faith in any agreement or assurance entered into by this government.These are the folk, by the way, which your competitor, the Treasurer of this country, is hoping will be accepting his assurances in relation to the goods and services tax legislation which will shortly be before the Senate. These are precisely the people upon whom you will have to rely for the carriage of that and on whose belief in your word their votes are going to be determined. So you have squandered a very important position for your government, as far as all of that is concerned.When you start to look at the press release of Senator Murray, you begin to come to a bit of an understanding of why it is that he is so annoyed. You had a list of agreements entered into with the Democrats, which included areas that you felt entitled to proceed with because you could not reach agreement, and this matter was not included in those. We understand that you will slither away from every commitment. You will find every conceivable twist and turn—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I am most reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but you have endlessly referred to the minister directly and I would be pleased if you could address your remarks through the chair.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The minister will use every conceivable sleight of hand and find every conceivable change in the meaning of the words that are there in the agreement with him. He overlooks every conceivable element that would tie him down. He is dotting every i and crossing every t to maintain that somehow or other he has not breached the agreements that he entered into. You cannot trust this man. The Australian people cannot trust this man, and they know it. This man was prepared to conspire with his colleagues, until we exposed it publicly, to breach a whole range of commitments made to the Australian people.Included among those commitments is the undertaking given by the government that the full value of the compensation package for the GST will be sustained. Understand that this is not just about commitments in his area: the government has said that the GST package will be fully compensated for via, among other things, the family allowances and social security supplements. It will be fully compensated for via that process.Sitting in the middle of that paper, proposed by this minister, and accepted by the Prime Minister as a reasonable basis on which to consider future legislation and initiatives by this government, lies an immediate action against the compensation package of the GST. So not only do we have a situation where no senator ought to believe the assurances of this minister, but also one where no senator voting on the GST can believe the assurances of this government. Any senator who votes on the basis that they believe the compensation package is voting on a basis on which they will ultimately have to explain to their electorate that they were prepared to accept the word of a government that has already been exposed on the issues on which they are voting.What is the issue that this minister seeks to evade his agreements on? Is it a situation that will come into force in the middle of this year which requires his action now, and for which the reporting date of the IRC would be too late for him to effectively legislate in the way in which he deems fit? No. That change to the discrimination laws will not come into place for at least another 15 months. That is plenty of time, even for this tardy government, to legislate, if they see fit, after they have had the benefit of the IRC's views.The IRC's views are sought on every conceivable aspect of youth wages. A serious process of inquiry has got under way to which some 63 people in organisations have made contributions. There has been plenty of opportunity for this government to consider those contributions and plenty of opportunity to consider anything that comes forward from the IRC regarding what it is that they choose to do. But what he has done instead is to go out and misrepresent what is at stake here—misrepresent it in terms of its immediacy and misrepresent what is at stake at the end of the day.Does he seriously maintain that, even at the end of that 12-month period, the removal of junior wages is going to cause the collapse, effectively, of junior wages when that occurs? As was revealed by Ian Henderson in the Australian today, that is an absolute nonsense. All that occurs at the end of that period is that, on a case by case basis, the IRC may choose to give some consideration to whether or not, in a particular award, the junior rates will be taken out of them, and they are not obliged to take those junior rates out.They are not obliged to discontinue their concerns with seniority. They are not obliged to discontinue their concerns with skills. They are entitled to make those judgments at that point of time and leave those junior awards in place. They are entitled to do that. That is what your law says. That is why the minister coming into this place, and elsewhere, and saying that there are 125,000 jobs at stake is totally mendacious.What is at stake here? What is going on? We are not going to see the collapse of junior wages as a result of this, so why is the government doing this? The government is doing this to confect an argument. This is why they do not care about their agreements. This is why they do not give a darn what the Democrats might think about an arrangement they have arrived at with them in the Senate. This is why they do not care whether or not this particular proposition is dealt with by the Senate on a second time of rejection. They are confecting a dispute for other purposes.The minister is in this place erecting a smokescreen over his intention—indicated in his letter to the Prime Minister and now exposed—that in the employment area we must seek opportunities to confront the Senate to pursue our Senate reform agenda. That is what you say in your correspondence, Minister. You can slip slide on the words around that one!He has another purpose as well. This goes beyond anyone currently receiving junior wages. He defends the proposition of people currently receiving junior wages, but that is not what their legislation is about. Their legislation is about expanding junior wages to adults. They have two purposes here: one to confect a dispute with the Senate and the second to turn young adults into juniors. So if you happen to be a young adult on a building site aged 20 with a kid, and you are currently receiving adult wages and doing an adult job, you can be deprived of your situation. Your wage can be cut by something like $80 a week.Do not kid yourselves that 19- and 20-year-olds in our community do not have family responsibilities, because there are plenty who do. There is no suggestion that, if they did have a couple of kids, there would be any exemption from the processes that the government is putting in place. If you are a young truck driver aged about 19 and with family responsibilities, you are likely to be deprived of $80 a week in your wages if you are then subject to an extension of junior awards or junior rates into the 18- to 21-year-old categories. Those aged 18 to 21 years vote, they marry, they have children, they enter into contracts, they have legal obligations and they are entitled to be worthy of their hire.If ever the hypocrisy of your position was exposed it was by your genial Minister for Defence and his straightened, dancing surrogate in the form of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who came up and said to our chamber, `Of course we are going to retain the Defence Forces paid fully by rank, no matter what their ages.' What is that about? It is about skills. Is it about age? No. So if you happen to be an 18-year-old private, you will continue to be paid what a 20-year-old private or a 22-year-old private is paid. If you happen to be a 19-year-old corporal, you will continue to be paid what a 23-year-old corporal is paid.Minister, you have those two purposes here, and none of us believe you when you get up in this place and say that you are motivated by jobs. You are not. What you are motivated by is the desire to destroy the living standards of ordinary young Australians. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the minister I would like to remind him and all members that in this place `you' is a four-letter word. We are all obligated to address our remarks through the chair.16:11:003812Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The extent to which this matter of public importance is about jobs is that it is not about jobs in the plural but job in the singular. It is all about the job of the Leader of the Opposition. You only have to look at the newspaper headings to know. Last year in October the headline read `Beazley pleads for unity'. Yesterday it was `Beazley pleads for discipline' and `Beazley battles to revive the party'. Today the headlines read `Close ranks plea to restless ALP', `Beazley hits out at leadership jibes', `Labor leaderless and rudderless', `Brereton blamed for ALP disunity' and, to cap it off, `Tanner heading in the right direction'.I can remember being a new member in an opposition where the government had just been returned for the second time. It happened to me in the election in December 1984. Andrew Peacock was the leader. We had lost the 1983 election. He ran not a bad campaign—better than people thought—in 1984, and some of us are grateful for the fact that we were elected as a result.In the period following, what was demonstrated was that the former government and then the second term opposition had not come to grips with the issues which confronted an opposition if they were to ever represent a viable and practical alternative to the Australian people in an election campaign. We went through this very same process in terms of leadership and disunity, as well as an 11-year search for a policy position that was credible and that was presentable to the Australian people.When you have problems with leadership, it is an old rule in politics that you adopt the tactic of offence as the best form of defence. As we have seen today, for an opposition to attack the government when they have no policies, all they can do is attack the personalities. Yesterday we had 15 minutes from the member for Batman, the shadow minister for employment. It took him 13 of the 15 minutes to get to the issue of employment. I give the Leader of the Opposition something: it took him two-thirds of his speech before he got to the critical issue.We know the game. We have been there, done that. This week has been a bit of a turning point for the opposition, because the question of leadership has been acknowledged by the deputy leader as being a problem. The disunity within their own ranks has been acknowledged as being a problem. The divisions within their own side have been revealed as being a bit of a problem for Labor.The consequence of Labor being unable to grapple with the substantial policy issues in front of the parliament is that, as we saw yesterday on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, young people in this country are victims of the policy of opposition for the sake of opposition. This is the consequence when you do not have strong leadership. You will see the party—the Labor Party in this case—thrashing around unable to find a respectable policy position, so they end up with a policy of opposition for the sake of opposition. It is a trap for new oppositions and it is a trap that you have fallen into, and it is a trap that is going to be confronting you all through this term and I suspect in the parliaments beyond that.There is a problem with youth unemployment, but we have seen today that, if you have good economic management and you are prepared to undertake major reforms, this parliament can do much to improve the job opportunities of young people. There is a lot of mud being thrown at me this week but, if you put aside the mud throwing and the petty point scoring, the fact is that on both sides of the parliament I would hope that people are genuinely concerned about the job prospects of young people. When you look at the employment figures today, you will see they reveal that, as we have had a much better economic management in the last three years, we have produced some of the best figures for eight years. The unemployment rate is down to 7.4 per cent. Over 32,900 jobs were created last month and the youth unemployment rate is down. That is good, but it is still at 23 per cent. There are still 73,000 young people who do not have a job.Our plea in the end to the opposition is that, whilst you will continue obviously the politics in this place, when you sit down and consider this issue you at least consider some of the merits of the issue, because this is a genuine national issue where many young people are deprived of job opportunities. One of your own younger backbenchers in the last few days, as it has been reported to me, made an obvious point that, where you have high levels of unemployment, particularly for young people, there are social consequences and there are family consequences as a result. So it is a serious issue, and it is a reflection on the Labor Party that when we are confronted with a serious issue you get the sort of nonsense that they have put up today.To answer some of the specifics of the allegations, the latest one is that we had an agreement with the Democrats and in the back of the agreement there was a list of matters where we had disagreed. That is true. The agreement we had with the Democrats specified the entirety of how we were going to handle the matter in the parliament.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will come to that in a moment. That was the entirety of the issues that would be voted on in the Senate. So they were voting with us. Cheryl Kernot, the member for Dickson, would not vote for these things now, but she voted for the vast majority of the initiatives that we had in the Workplace Relations Act. There were some things that she was not prepared to vote for, and they were listed. We abided by the agreement and she abided by the agreement.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—That is not what they say, and you know it.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Just read the Hansard . The claim is that we had not met an agreement. The fact is we met the agreement absolutely to the last letter of that agreement. It was fully and completely implemented, which I think reflects well on the Democrats in the same way as it reflects fairly well on the government that we were prepared to come to an agreement in the national interest and get ahead with significant reform.The latest attack is based on some words of Senator Murray. I actually get on quite well with Senator Murray. He is a Democrat, so I have my limited views of the Democrats, but I get on pretty well with him. In the contest between the political parties some things are said and sometimes people make allegations that are not right. Senator Murray made one yesterday. It is not the first time he has made an allegation against me, but he has not always got them right. He has been inclined to make a mistake.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will just give you an example. This sort of attack on my credibility started last year when we introduced the unfair dismissal regulations. You will remember that. This is what was reported on 29 December. I had made the point that I had discussed the particular regulation and the proposal to introduce the regulation prior to Christmas with Senator Harradine, Senator Colston and the Democrats. The press report said:Democrats Industrial Relations spokesman Andrew Murray denied yesterday he was given any warning. `He, Mr Reith, must have spoken to some Democrat I don't know.'That is what he said. In fact, that was wrong. That was an attack on my credibility. He was good enough to acknowledge that he was wrong, because in fact I had briefed them. He has acknowledged it in writing to me. Fair enough, we all make mistakes, and he has acknowledged it now. He ought to acknowledge it, because I had three public servants with me and we went to the trouble to ensure that we properly informed them of what we were doing. The attack on us is that we have not been straight with the Democrats. The fact is that we have been very straight with the Democrats, and that is why it has been a reasonable basis for us to discuss the merits of the issue.Not only have we been straight with the Democrats but we have been very straight with the Australian people about our position. Not only have we complied with the agreement we had with the Democrats but when we went into the last election we had not only a clear policy but we had also back in June—we did not know when the election was going to be held—put out a statement on this whole issue. I made the point in that statement that the government had a policy, we were going to stick to the policy and whenever the next election was on we were going to put that to the Australian people. I do not know what else you are supposed to do. We put it to the Australian people, they then voted for it, and we are being attacked by the Labor Party because we do not agree with their position. They did not have one position during the election; they had two positions. The first position was that they were opposed to junior wage rates. But, because they thought that the public reaction to that was not too good, which it wasn't during the election, they decided, `Oh well, what we will do is have a policy to wait for the Industrial Relations Commission.'Maybe there was some force to that argument, but it was blown away by the Labor Party in the Senate this week, when the Democrats said, `We believe the legislation should be deferred until the commission has heard the matter', and the Labor Party voted against the deferral. Here they are attacking me for not waiting for the commission's report, but they themselves did not wait for the commission: they voted against the deferral! And now they have the incredible cheek and hypocrisy to come in and criticise the government for having a policy and implementing it. That is a joke: 14 out of 14! Why didn't you ask me 20 out of 20? What have I done to deserve a few questions slipping off to others?This issue has been around for years. Back in 1990, the labour ministers' council—which included all ministers—looked at this issue. They came to this view. They included a principle about junior wage rates. They said:There should be no hasty movement away from youth age related wage rates in those areas where they now apply, unless a suitable skills and experience based replacement is available and suitable provision can be made for unskilled young workers.So it is not a new issue, and people have been arguing for years that we should move away from the existing system to another system.The question is: is there a viable alternative? That has also been pretty thoroughly examined. Before 1994 the matter had been up before the commission in various forms, but in 1994 the commission established a working party to identify and examine a range of issues associated with youth and training wage reform. In relation to junior rates, the object was to ensure that reforms were consistent with the age discrimination provisions of the act and that they would neither damage the youth labour market nor hinder skill formation.However, the working party was terminated in 1997, three years later. It was terminated because there was no agreed alternative position. There has never been an agreed alternative position.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—It's all too hard for you.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, Jeff Shaw, your state colleague in New South Wales—a Labor minister—has the same position. They have an age based system. They could do away with that system, but they will not do so unless they are satisfied that no young person will lose their job as a result. It is all very well for an opposition which created the problem by voting down age based junior rates when the Democrats put the proposal up all the way back in 1993-94—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The Queensland government said—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The Chair does not know what the Queensland government said, but it knows that the member for Brisbane is saying too much. Order!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is all very well for you as an opposition to say, `Go off and find an alternative.' What about the young people who are going to lose their jobs as a result? You have an ideological position pushed to you by the ACTU. You are a former Teachers' Union official—one of the 52 per cent of the opposition frontbench who are just trade union hacks—and you have absolutely no concern whatsoever for young people.What is the Labor Party's position now? They support the ACTU's position. The ACTU's position is that everybody over 18 is an adult and should get an adult wage. A couple of days ago in this place Kim Beazley said:. . . experience is going to come into it and at the end of the day competency based wages are going to produce something like a youth wages outcome.But that was not right. That is not his policy. His policy is that everybody over 18 should get an adult wage. If you are 18, you would get a wage increase of $130.55 a week. You would be mad to think that no-one would lose their job as a result of that. That is not affordable, and it is not right that, in a country where 23 per cent of young people are unemployed, the Labor Party is voting down the job prospects of those very people. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—We are just waiting for a little decorum to return, as Mr Speaker might say. I encourage the members sitting on the opposition frontbench to try to control their exuberance.16:27:003815Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased to speak on this matter of public importance. It is a matter that affects the young men and women of Australia. I have a great deal of admiration for the knowledge, talents, outlook and ability of the young people of Australia, and it seems to me to be such a pity that this government singles out young people for special treatment. This is but one instance of it.I would like to remind the House of the earlier two instances. Firstly, the government forced young unemployed people back to school. Otherwise they will not receive any government assistance. They do this irrespective of whether schools will provide the sort of training that they see as being appropriate for their ambitions to enter the world of work and irrespective of whether or not the school is able to provide vocational subjects that will lead somewhere in the world of work.More recently young unemployed people who are illiterate—and there are some in my electorate—have been forced to go and get that matter dealt with. I can give the House an example. At the Mount Druitt TAFE, there are 18 positions available for people who are illiterate. Seventy applied and, of course, the majority did not get a place. Two of them sought to go back to school. They were assessed as being required to re-enter at year 9, but because they were two years older than their cohorts, they didn't get anywhere. Now we have the issue of youth wages, and this government is trying to make sure that people don't get a fair share for a fair day's work.The credibility of this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is being put on the line, not by any particular Labor Party member but most certainly by the one senator they deal most with: Senator Harradine. I would like to repeat what he said:It was clear to me that one could not take at face value what this government has said, and that's my experience now in respect of certain Ministers of this government . . . He did not mention Peter Reith, but you can bet that is whom he was speaking of. He continued:I said that the government's credibility was in tatters and it was a serious matter when at least half of this Senate did not take at face value what the government says.We have been entertained by the minister about his good relations with Senator Murray. He said that Senator Murray apologised about an earlier matter. In his press release yesterday, Senator Murray said:I am finding the rising shrillness of Peter Reith's doctoring of the truth adds to my growing lack of faith in any agreement or assurance entered into by this government.I would have thought that that is fairly unambiguous, notwithstanding their alleged good relationship. Senator Murray suggests that he has some expertise in this because he spent 60 hours negotiating with this minister, who was at the table but has slunk out. He has also said that he retains a very old-fashioned attitude amongst Australians that `a deal is a deal and I expect him to abide by it'. What was that deal? It was:Junior rates will be exempted from anti-age discrimination requirements for the Industrial Relations Act for a further three years from 22 June 1997. The legislation will require a full bench of the Commission to report to the parliament—to report to the parliament!—on the feasibility of the replacement of junior rates with non-discriminatory alternatives.This is the agreement that Senator Murray has read into the record of the Senate and which he said this minister has signed up to and walked away from.And what a tragedy, because there is an inquiry into this issue. I do not think there is a member on either side of the House who would not like to see full employment or full youth employment. The Industrial Relations Commission has embarked on a very sensitive inquiry into that. It is true that the OECD have said that youth wages do not lead to rising youth employment. They have said that it does not do it. Notwithstanding that, we have the most expert body in Australia undertaking a public inquiry into it. Why won't the minister allow the parliament to have the evidence, the conclusion, of this body? What is he frightened of? Does he believe or does he already know that they reject the views that he is propounding? I have never seen it before where you commission an expert body held in high esteem by the majority of Australians and then pre-empt any outcome. It is certainly very unparliamentary, at the very least.Perhaps we have a clue in that notorious document, the cabinet-in-confidence document, where Minister Reith outlines his views on expert bodies. I read to the House from that document:We would need to consider very carefully how to advance such a Strategy. One option is to proceed down the path that we have used for financial market reform. That is we can set up a Wallis-type inquiry carefully managed through the selection of the chairman and giving it appropriate terms of reference. The object here would not be to find out any new and clever ways to solve the unemployment problem—obviously that is not high on the agenda—because I think there is a substantial body of evidence to show us how to do this. Instead we would be looking to such a high profile inquiry to be an important part of the plan to advance the case for reform.In other words, the inquiry this minister and this government believes in is a rorted inquiry—you get the chairman you want, you give them the terms of reference you want and you can guarantee you will be delivered the report you want. It is an absolute sham, an absolute disgrace.But the real tragedy is that we are not talking about one or two people in this country; we are talking about the young people of this country, the future of this country, and they want to play crass politics with them.I was pleased there was a ministerial statement on defence today—a very rare thing really. There was the commitment that personnel in the ADF will not be subject to junior rates of pay. I am very pleased to hear that. I am one of the few people in this parliament who have seen them in operation in Rwanda and Somalia and next week I will be in Bougainville. But here is the nub, here is the irony: the soldiers are not subject to junior rates of pay, and nor should they be, but if you are in a Bendigo workshop working on the production line on the new Bushranger—the latest equipment—and you happen to be less than 21 they want you to get a junior rate of pay. If you happen to work on the production line in Benalla that produces the bullet the soldiers had in Rwanda and Somalia and maybe will have in a future commitment, you will not be protected from having junior rates of pay. You will get a junior rate of pay. Where is the justice in that?Young Australians deserve better than this. We should be nurturing them, we should be investing in them and we should be making sure that they are job ready and that there are jobs there, not delivering them into sham politics like this, not trying to rort commitments that have been made to the Senate or Senate parties, not trying to play politics by proposing sham inquiries but trying to get down to the real nub of the issue and that is that every Australian—adult, young, male, female—is deserving of the opportunity for work. We should be creating the environment where we can do this rather than knocking them off on benefits, making them go back to school or giving them a less than a fair day's wage for the production they are involved in. The young people of Australia will be absolutely outraged when they understand what this government has in store for them.16:37:003817Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I want to thank the member for Chifley for a few words that he said in his speech. He said that there is not a member on either side of the House who does not want to see full employment. I think that in saying those words he gave the lie to most of the words uttered by the Leader of the Opposition in proposing this matter of public importance today. I would like to address this issue by juxtaposing this government's position and the activities of the opposition, because we are talking about whether or not members or governments `act in good faith'. Those are the words that have been used here. I think the ultimate measure of good faith, when it comes to employment creation in Australia today, is the figures released today and spoken about this morning by the Prime Minister.Employment increased by 32,900 in February. This seasonally adjusted increase takes the total number of people employed in this nation to 8,710,600. The great majority of those people are full time. These are full-time new jobs. That is something that the opposition long aspired to when they were in government: the creation of full-time jobs. It is something that they never really achieved. We are seeing it happen now, and that is what I am talking about when I say `acting in good faith'. This government is doing what it said it would do. It is doing it very efficiently and, I must say, with the support of the Australian people.I would like to juxtapose that with something that happened in Brisbane today. I would like to quote from the press release from the new State Director of the Liberal Party in Queensland, Graeme Jaeschke, who says: The protest today which damaged the doors and ceiling of the Liberal Party's Headquarters is a politically inspired act of vandalism.The sloppiness of the protest was evident when the protesters left two ALP election posters in our building. They had used the back of these ALP posters to paint messages.It is a very sad day in politics when another party is involved in an action that causes physical damage to another political office.Many ALP activists were identified in the protest crowd. Instead of resorting to acts of vandalism through the use of left-wing student protesters, the ALP should argue their case in Parliament, where this matter should be kept.That is what I am talking about when I am saying `act in good faith'. Breaking into people's political offices and causing damage—what are we talking about here: the Russian Revolution? What we should be talking about is employment, isn't it? We should be talking about acting in good faith in relation to employment, not acting in good faith in terms of vandalism, graffiti, causing damage and causing disruption to the community.Small business—business in general—is supporting the government in the activities it is taking and it is also supporting the very genuine efforts being taken by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. One of the measures of that was the recent release of the Yellow Pages Small Business Index. It found that small businesses have recorded the highest level of support for government policies since November 1996, with the introduction of the GST being the main reason for the increased support followed by changes to the unfair dismissal laws. We are acting in good faith in accordance with what the community wants and in accordance with the policies that have been put to the people.I would also like to refer to an address by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to the Australian Institute of Management in Melbourne in February. He was talking about disputation—and we are talking here about the minister's portfolio. The minister referred to the latest disputes figures which were out at the time. I do not recall this, but apparently before this coalition government was elected Bill Kelty addressed a huge audience down at the Melbourne Town Hall in 1996 and, as the minister said, `he said that if ever the Coalition gets in basically World War III is about to start'. Mr Kelty basically proposed that there were all kinds of doom and gloom which would rain down upon us.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—The full sonata.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—The full sonata, the whole works and jerks—it was going to be a disaster. In fact, as the minister said:In that year—the 1997 calendar year—we had the lowest level of industrial disputes since before World War I.So, instead of the World War III being proposed by Bill Kelty and his union mates, as the minister said:. . . we actually had the lowest level of disputes ever recorded way back to 1913.Acting in good faith—that is precisely what the minister has been doing. You will recall that the coalition government was so genuine that it actually set out to do something that the opposition had tried and failed to do when they were in government, and that is to address the very vexed question of waterfront reform.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Hear, hear!84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—`Hear, hear,' the coalition members certainly say to that. In the wake of that decision, we went out there and we did something about it. Since that activity was taken on by the minister, there have been dramatic improvements on the Melbourne docks by Patrick Stevedores and these vindicate the coalition's insistence on waterfront reform. Improvements at the Melbourne docks include a 20 per cent improvement in the number of containers moved with a work force reduced by around 50 per cent, with some teams lifting more than 250 boxes a shift—well above the 200 originally thought to be the maximum. There are plenty more positive statistics in relation to that, but time is short so I will move on.Let us talk about the government's fair dinkum approach to dealing with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. I have here a release put out by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business when he was talking about a submission that had been made by the government to the AIRC. I will quote the first paragraph of that release:Unemployment is the biggest cause of poverty and disadvantage in Australia—it certainly is—a joint submission by the Commonwealth and the majority of state and territory governments will argue in a submission to the AIRC's Safety Net Review lodged today.. . . . . . . . .The submission supports an $8 per week pay rise for low paid employees on award rates up to and including the C10 ($465.20) level in the Metal Industry Award.The joint government submission—it wasn't just the Commonwealth; it was the majority of state governments as well—also demonstrated in detail that the ACTU's $26.60 or five per cent wage claim `is economically unsustainable'. So, on this side of the coin you have a government acting responsibly and getting together with the majority of the state governments to make a submission to the Industrial Relations Commission. On the other side of the coin, what have you got? You have got the ACTU making claims that are completely unsustainable.Let us move on. The government has tended to work cooperatively, not only with workers and with people in general but also in conjunction with those other state governments. I will also refer to a communique from the Labour Ministers Council which met in Melbourne in November. Ministers there noted the extensive use of junior wage rates in federal and state jurisdictions. It was also noted that a joint submission had been lodged by the federal government and the states of Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory on the issue. The joint submission agreed to support the retention of the current system of junior wage rates as being of key significance for protecting the jobs of young people.So why is the ALP out of step with the vast majority of Australians? We are talking about the need to act in good faith. I would like to quote the member for Melbourne. On the 7.30 Report he said:. . . we are—being the Labor Party—not democratic enough, we are not inclusive enough, our membership is too small and we can no longer afford that because our union base is shrinking and the loyal voter base, the people who always voted Labor no matter what is also shrinking so we have to change internally get more members who have more involvement, more fulfilment and ensure that people have got genuine democratic rights—Blah, blah, blah. That, I think, really sums it up. The Labor Party is far behind.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Yesterday's party.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Yesterday's party, indeed. It is instructive to look at some of the comments by Des Moore who reported in a paper that, for a large part of the period when the opposition was in power, if they had taken some decent steps and performed at least to the same level as New Zealand in that time, we would have half a million more people employed in this country. It is a shame—New Zealand out-performing Australia like that. Half a million more people; we could have done with that. As the minister for workplace relations said, `Imagine how Australia would really be cooking with gas if we had another half a million people employed today.' Indeed, they should apologise to the people of Australia and to the minister for questioning his very good sense and the good faith in which he has performed in this effort.(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees38193819381910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has referred the following matter to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: the adequacy and appropriateness of the existing legislative framework and procedures for the conduct of military boards of inquiry, military courts of inquiry and Defence Force discipline.Bills3820r7263820Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3820Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3820r6733820Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.3820Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills3820The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Bill 1998 Motor Vehicle Standards Amendment Bill 1998 National Measurement Amendment (Utility Meters) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 General Interest Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 Bills3820s2003820Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills3820s1913820Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills3820r7423820Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.382016:52:003820Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I rise today to introduce three bills that represent the culmination of the government's financial system reform efforts over the last few years. The reforms spelt out in these bills were initiated in response to the report of the financial system inquiry, chaired by Stan Wallis. They represent a further step along path of financial system regulatory enhancements.Such regulation should not stand in the way of economic and technological progress; nor should it promote the interests of one group over another. Instead, financial system regulation should provide a sound, stable and predictable environment to encourage the creation of wealth, and to facilitate trade.As we approach the end of this millennium, it is helpful to consider these changes in the wider perspective of both international financial system developments and changes to the Australian regulatory environment.And there have been massive changes. Twenty years ago, if you wanted to access your money, you had to go to your local branch between 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday to Friday. Back then, the automatic teller machine was just a distant idea, credit cards were virtually unknown, and no-one could spell `EFTPOS', let alone pronounce it.Now, two decades later, and as my colleague the Treasurer has stated, we have the lowest interest rates since man last walked on the moon. At least today you can borrow relatively easily, including over the phone and Internet. Back when Jack Schmitt ascended to the Apollo 17 lunar module on 14 December 1972—the last man on the moon—interest rates were at a similar level. But it was virtually impossible for the majority of people to borrow money. Going cap in hand to your local branch manager, you were lucky to get a small proportion of a housing loan at the reasonable interest rate. The balance of a housing loan was made up from an assortment of sources at considerably higher rates of interest, often up to five percentage points more.In 1981 the then Treasurer, now our Prime Minister, received a report on the performance of financial regulation completed by the Australian financial inquiry. This formed the basis of many of the regulatory changes of the 1980s, including the floating of the Australian dollar.In the years following that report, it became clear to many that further reform was not just desirable but essential.Honourable members will be aware that the Treasurer introduced into the House last year a package of legislation to complete the first stage of the government's financial sector reform program.That package of legislation instituted wide-ranging measures aimed at improving the efficiency, competitiveness and stability of Australia's financial system. Included among those measures were the creation of a single prudential regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the strengthening of Australia's payments system with the creation of a Payments System Board within the Reserve Bank, and a refocusing of disclosure and consumer protection through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).The purpose of this bill is to provide for the transfer of regulatory responsibility from the states and territories of Australia to the Commonwealth of building societies, credit unions and friendly societies. This bill will allow building societies and credit unions to better compete with banks and to operate outside their existing state and territory boundaries.As such, consumers will have a greater selection of financial service providers and a greater selection of financial products. In other words, Australian consumers will have greater choice. Providing consumers with greater choice is a further example of this government's commitment to consumer empowerment and its commitment to consumer sovereignty.The bill will also provide a single regulatory framework for life insurance companies and friendly societies, while recognising the special features of friendly societies. The amendments also strengthen regulation for life insurance and increase the flexibility of its application.All told, about 20 building societies, 237 credit unions and 85 friendly societies will be involved in the regulatory transfer. These organisations represent 1,326 branches nationally, with $38 billion in assets and 12,420 employees.To complement this package, state and territory governments will be signing with the Commonwealth a financial sector regulation transfer agreement and enacting legislation within their jurisdictions to effect this regulatory transfer.Then, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, there will be a single, consistent, regulatory regime for deposit taking institutions, life and general insurance, and superannuation.The bill also proposes to make sundry minor amendments to correct errors that have been detected in the relevant acts and to improve consistency.This bill highlights that, as Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, I am more than just the `minister for banking'. I am also the minister for building societies, credit unions, friendly societies, insurance companies, asset managers, custodians, trustees, financial advisers and superannuation funds, to name just a few.It is also an opportunity for me to represent one of the country's fastest growing sectors—a sector employing hundreds of thousands of Australians, a sector that is strongly contributing to our record economic growth, and a sector which is innovative and integral to our continued effort to secure Australia's place as a centre for global financial services.I will now turn to the bill in more detail.Amendment of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 (APRA Act)The bill will expand and clarify APRA's ability to take on functions as a result of an agreement with a state or territory. This will enable APRA to be contracted to provide prudential regulation and advisory services on a fee for service basis subject to the agreement of the minister. The Commonwealth, states and territories agreed that state and territory governments would remain responsible for the prudential regulation of housing cooperatives and trustee companies but they will be able to enter into an agreement with APRA to provide prudential regulation or advice services for those entities.Amendment of the Banking Act 1959 (Banking Act) and the Reserve Bank Act 1959 (Reserve Bank Act)The bill proposes to apply the Criminal Code—which is scheduled to come into force by March 2000—to the Banking Act and the Reserve Bank Act. There will be no change in the penalties associated with any of the offences. To ensure consistency between banks and other deposit-taking institutions, the bill proposes to extend the banking holiday and unclaimed moneys provisions to all authorised deposit-taking institutions.The bill also proposes to extend the scope of APRA's standards and directions powers and to facilitate the development of voluntary industry support arrangements.Amendment of the Corporations LawTo enable the transfer of regulatory responsibility of building societies, credit unions and friendly societies to the Commonwealth, a new schedule will be added to the Corporations Law that will provide for the registration of financial institutions and friendly societies as companies and the regulation of those companies under the Corporations Law by ASIC.Both the Ministerial Council for Corporations (MINCO) and the Ministerial Council for Financial Institutions (MINFIN) have unanimously approved the proposed amendments to the Corporations Law in the bill. Unanimous agreement of MINCO and MINFIN ministers is required under the Corporations Agreement, because the amendments will have the effect of extending coverage of the Corporations Law to various classes of financial institutions established under state and territory statutes.The objective of the new schedule is to facilitate the registration of the entities as companies with as little disturbance to operations, and as little conversion costs, as possible.In line with this objective, the bill is structured so that at the transfer date, the entities themselves need do little to give effect to the transfer. Entities will be deemed to be registered as a company type that most closely fits their current structure, unless they elect to be registered as a different category prior to transfer. The bill provides for a transitional period of 18 months following the transfer day. Entities will be given this period to make the necessary changes to their own rules to recognise their new status as a company.The change to a company form is not expected to present significant difficulties for the institutions concerned, since much of the Corporations Law regulatory framework already applies to them through the respective governing codes. However, there are some matters that will require exemptions and modifications to be made. Most of these are of a transitional nature, such as the publication of Australian company numbers on documents, but there are some matters that are likely to justify ongoing relief from ordinary Corporations Law provisions. There are facilities in the bill to make regulations with respect to such matters. Furthermore, there are powers on the part of ASIC to make exemption and modification orders to facilitate the transition.The existing conduct and disclosure obligations which apply to friendly society benefit fund products will, as far as possible, be maintained pending the current review of conduct and disclosure obligations applying to financial products under the Government's Corporate Law Economic Reform Program.Amendment of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (the Life Act)The transfer of friendly societies to the Commonwealth regime will increase contestability in the market for life insurance products. Until recently, multiple prudential regimes applied to life insurance business offered by financial institutions in different jurisdictions. In late 1997, a unified state scheme was created for state based friendly societies under the guardianship of the Australian Financial Institutions Commission (AFIC). As friendly societies are still in transition under those arrangements, it is appropriate to make their entry into the life insurance regime as seamless as possible in the first instance.To achieve this, it is proposed that for a transition period, the detailed requirements in respect of friendly societies—particularly in regard to actuarial standards—will be reinstated on the basis existing under the AFIC regime. However, this should not be taken to imply that friendly societies are subject to lower prudential standards during this transition period. The development of the AFIC standards was based significantly on the existing, relevant actuarial standards set by the Life Insurance Actuarial Standards Board under the Life Act. Differences between the two sets of standards are intended to reflect the structural and operational differences in the respective industries.In the longer term, it is proposed to harmonise the actuarial standards for all companies registered under the Life Insurance Act to the extent appropriate given these structural differences between friendly societies and other life companies.The arrangements will retain the distinct identity of friendly societies so that the industry differentiation can continue. This enhances choice to consumers. For example, the unique benefit fund structure and rules of friendly societies are to be recognised in legislation.Other changes open up opportunities for the development of new prudentially regulated products under the life insurance regime. In particular, companies will be able to have certain insurance, annuity or financial benefit business declared to be life insurance business so that it can be offered in a prudentially regulated environment alongside other life insurance business.Consistent with the thrust of the first stage of the financial sector reform, APRA's powers will be enhanced to facilitate early intervention in the life insurance market. Prudential requirements will be able to be set to better match the profile of the life insurer.Miscellaneous amendmentsThe bill proposes a number of minor miscellaneous amendments to several acts, correcting previous drafting errors and improving clarity within those acts. In addition:. states and territories will be able to confer powers and functions on ASIC which, prior to the regulatory transfer, were performed by state and territories in relation to transferring financial institutions.. Friendly societies that operate both life insurance business and health insurance business will be able to be jointly regulated under the two regimes.Consequential amendmentsThe bill proposes a number of consequential amendments to various acts to amend references to `friendly societies', `credit unions' and `building societies' where necessary and appropriate.The bill also provides transferring institutions 18 months in which to obtain necessary approvals under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998.Amendments to the taxation laws will ensure appropriate taxation treatment of transferring friendly societies, including for RSA business.Transitional, Saving and Application ProvisionsTo ensure the smooth transfer of institutions to the Commonwealth, the bill proposes a number of transitional, saving and application provisions. These provisions include the transfer of staff to APRA, the transfer of assets and liabilities from state and territory regulatory bodies to APRA and ASIC as appropriate, the granting of authorities and approvals for the use of business names, and transitional provisions relating to unclaimed moneys.The provisions include a number of transitional regulation-making powers which are intended to be of limited duration and which need to be developed in consultation with the states and territories and industry.I commend this historic bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills3824r7413824Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.382417:08:003824Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. In transferring responsibility from the states and territories to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth was aware that there were some parts of state and territory laws which were not allowed for under the Commonwealth regime.The state and territory regulated entities such as building societies, credit unions and friendly societies along with the Commonwealth, were keen to ensure that these groups were not disadvantaged by the transfer. In fact, the Commonwealth's view was that some of these provisions were very useful prudential regulation tools.Transfers of business was one such power. Under the state and territory legislation, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies were able to transfer their business amongst themselves with the approval of the regulator. The Commonwealth is keen to provide a similar mechanism as it will provide an efficient and effective prudential tool for protecting depositors or policy owner moneys where their institution is in severe financial hardship. It is also good to facilitate change in the industry.This bill contains that proposed mechanism. As a result, the Commonwealth has carried over this useful prudential tool and extended it to all authorised deposit taking institutions and also all life insurance companies.There are two types of transfer of business. The first is voluntary where two entities apply to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to transfer part or all of one entity's business to the other. If APRA is satisfied that the transfer is in the interests of depositors or policy owners, and other criteria are satisfied, then with the approval of the minister, APRA may approve the transfer.The second type of transfer of business is a compulsory transfer. These can only be done in limited circumstances, where the transfer is in the interests of policy owners or depositors. It is expected that in circumstances such as severe financial hardship, where an entity was no longer able to meet it's financial requirements, APRA may seek the agreement of a receiving body to accept the business of the transferring body, and thus protect the interests of depositors or policy owners.This is a proven effective and useful prudential tool that will complement APRA's other powers under the Banking Act 1959 and the Life Insurance Act 1995.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills3825r7453825Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.382517:12:003825Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The accompanying bill dealing with the transfer of financial institutions from the state to the Commonwealth regulatory regime provides for friendly societies that operate benefit fund business to become regulated as life insurance companies. By becoming life companies under Commonwealth legislation, friendly societies will be able to seek approval to be a retirement savings account (RSA) institution so as to provide RSA business.Therefore, the transfer of friendly societies into the Commonwealth regime opens up opportunities for the industry to conduct new business. This outcome will be achieved by having friendly societies enter a competitively neutral financial market. New entry into the RSA market increases competition for retirement savings products and expands the choice available to consumers.This also means that another Wallis report recommendation will be met—recommendation 43 that sought the extension of the right to offer RSAs to other APRA regulated institutions.A necessary consequence of this extension of RSA business is to provide appropriate tax treatment for RSA business of friendly societies and other registered organisations. The accompanying bill includes amendments to the taxation legislation to achieve this. This bill amends the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to specify the rates of tax that apply to the RSA business of friendly societies and other registered organisations. The RSA business of friendly societies and other registered organisations will be taxed at the same rate that applies to the RSA business of competing entities, including life insurance companies and banks.In particular, income credited by a friendly society to an RSA will be taxed at the 15 per cent rate applying to complying superannuation savings. Any profit generated by the friendly society will be taxed at the company tax rate.I commend this historic bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Parliamentary Zone38253825Motion (by Mr Hockey, for Mr Anderson)—agreed to: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.Committees38253825382517:16:003825Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the third report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—agreed to.Bills3825r6493825Debate resumed.17:17:003825Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I feel rather honoured that I am being allowed to speak on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 because, on the last four occasions that I have attempted to speak on any legislation, I have been guillotined. I must admit I also feel somewhat chastened and berated after listening to members opposite speak on this legislation. How could we of such little faith exist that we cannot trust a government that says it got a mandate at the last election but which races to get as much legislation as possible through the parliament before the Senate that was elected at that same election comes to power?Why should we trust a government that says to Senator Brian Harradine, `Trust us on tax reform, but let us sell the whole of Telstra', a government that says to the Democrats, `Trust us on youth wages. We'll do the right thing'? Now, because we question them when they say, `Let us repeal these acts before we put the promised oil code in place,' they say, `Trust us.' There is no doubt that the Howard government is predictable, if not trustworthy. This bill seeks to repeal the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act.Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) put:That the question be now put.The House divided. [5.22 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Fitzgibbon's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [5.29 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the bill be now read a second time.The House divided. [5.32 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Adjournment382610000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being past 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.Question resolved in the negative.Bills3826r6493826Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Adjournment3826Motion (by Ms Worth) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.382617:34:003826Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I would like to tell the House of the experiences of a growing number of people in the Fowler electorate whose overseas relatives have been denied visitor visas to Australia. The policy of rejecting visitor visas on the basis of the nationality of the applicant is felt most severely in the Fowler electorate. With the highest proportion of residents born outside Australia, it is not surprising that many families in Fowler are feeling the effects of having close relatives denied visitor visas.In addition, Fowler has a high concentration of people from Asia, the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia. Many are from areas which are not obviously on the list of countries for which stringent conditions apply. The tighter application of this policy has caused considerable uncertainty, anxiety and distress among many of my constituents. For many people who have contributed greatly to our community, and our nation, the denial of the request of a loved one to visit them in Australia is an affront and a reflection on their Australian citizenship. They feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of the country of origin.Let me mention just a few of the many cases brought to me to illustrate the impact of these policies. In the first case, an elderly man suffering from a terminal illness, and in hospital, requested his daughter, resident overseas, to visit him urgently. The visitor visa application was denied causing great distress to the dying man as well as to his family here in Australia. The application was approved on appeal, by which time the father's health had declined to the extent that the visit was of doubtful benefit.Family ties are a feature of most cultures. Where Australian families have ageing parents overseas, it is understandable that they wish to receive visits from them. It can be less costly and require less time away from the workplace and school where parents visit Australia rather than have the whole family travelling overseas. They will probably choose Qantas and bring some foreign exchange with them.In another case, the parents of a local family were denied a visa on health grounds, despite the family arranging health insurance for their parents. They had made provision for any unfortunate event which might happen to them. I point out to the House that these parents have visited Australia previously. I had one very sad case where a mother was refused a visa for a Christmas visit, despite having entered and departed Australia within the specified time on three previous occasions. The mother, widowed on Christmas Day 1995, had adopted a pattern of spending Christmas with her daughter in Australia. Unfortunately, this widowed lady did not spend Christmas 1998 with her beloved family in Australia.I am not in the business of criticising the decision makers, the senior migration officers at the Australian overseas post. I believe they have an awful job, despite the attractions of fulfilling a role in an Australian embassy. But it has become more prudent for their answer to be no. That carries with it the burden of a possible appeal. The field is narrowed, though, because an appeal can only be lodged by a close family member—not a cousin or a close friend or anyone else, and certainly not the applicant.The cultural suspicion in which migration officers work has risen in my experience over many years of dealing with such cases. Those families in my electorate who had no problems in the past in having loved ones visit them at special times or otherwise are now feeling that suspicion. They are feeling that they are unreliable, deceitful or plain dishonest. In many cases they are experiencing those uncomfortable feelings that made living unbearable in their countries of origin. This should not be happening to Australian families.In many instances where visitor applications are rejected, the applicants plainly have no intention of overstaying. Applicants with dependent families in their home countries are assumed to present a risk on the basis of their nationality alone. No account seems to be taken of their personal circumstances.With the Olympics to be held in Australia next year, many Australian families will no doubt offer their relatives overseas the opportunity to visit and attend Olympic events. This opportunity should be open to all Australians, regardless of their country of origin.382717:39:003827Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—In September 1950 Sir Robert Menzies, the then Prime Minister of Australia, released details of a national service training scheme for compulsory military service within the Navy, Army and Air Force for all men aged 18 years. The scheme lasted until 1959. In the Army the scheme was structured for three call-ups per year. Military training for 98 days duration was followed by three years—later two years—of compulsory training in the Citizens Military Forces. The initial training period for the Navy and the Air Force was six months, followed by five years of general service.Each state had its own special training unit. In Queensland it was Wacol; in Victoria it was Puckapunyal for the Army Nashos, it was Amberley and Point Cook for the Air Force, and it was HMAS Penguin for the Navy conscripts. It has been estimated that, during 1951 to 1959, up to 250,000 Nashos served their country across the three services. In Queensland approximately 40,000 Nashos passed through Wacol. Faced with the Cold War and the `domino theory', teenagers from all walks of life were called up: canecutters, university students, tradesmen and some fresh out of school. It was a time when many left home as boys and returned as men. Now known as Australia's forgotten forces, they were conscripted and trained to defend our northern shores against the `yellow peril'. Fortunately, this invasion never came.In the period 1965 to 1972, military conscription was reintroduced with the Vietnam conflict. A total of 761,854 men who turned 20 between 1965 and 1972 were potentially eligible for call-up into the Army. The scheme also differed by being a lottery rather than a universal for all age eligible males. Around 64,000 men served their time, which was two years, following on from the first intake on 30 June 1965. Various training centres were used. No recruit training battalions were in Queensland. Of these men, 23,000 served in Vietnam, making up 50 per cent of the Australian task force; 187 were killed in action and 1,479 were wounded. On 7 December 1972, national service was discontinued.The National Servicemen's Association was established by the late Barry Vicary in 1987 and was first based in Toowoomba, Queensland. In 1994 the organisation was incorporated under Queensland's Incorporation Act under the name National Servicemen's Association of Australia (Queensland) Inc. The association has a growing membership across all parts of Queensland and interstate. It also has links with the NSAA branches interstate for the national advancement of welfare of Nashos and their dependants. Other broad aims of the National Servicemen's Association include promoting the good name and community knowledge of the association and its aims.The membership focus is primarily on Australian Nashos in the period 1951 to 1972, but membership of the association is open to persons and organisations of good repute who support the association's aims and constitution. Members receive a regular newsletter, Nashos News, and access to association events and services, memorabilia and merchandise. Reciprocal arrangements with kindred associations also exist.The members of the Caboolture National Servicemen's Association, led by Eric Beutel, are concerned that, with Wacol now looking like it is going to pass out of Defence hands, the chapel that so many of them went to for prayer and for solace during their time in the defence forces will also go with it. I have made representations on their behalf to the Minister for Defence and I am sure this government will be mindful of the concerns of this group. They are a fine body of men who are now banding together to support each other and to offer ongoing connections which have been lost over many years.The interesting part is that, when I attended one of their functions not so long ago, all but one actually felt that it was necessary for us to continue with national service today. I wonder how these men would feel today when they see the actions of young people who, inspired by what I do not know, engage in vandalism in a political party's headquarters for no reason other than to be political opportunists acting in a disgraceful manner. It is probably for that reason that they feel things such as that the discipline imposed by the National Servicemen's Association would go a long way to addressing those problems.I feel sorry today that people have taken industrial action in such a manner, vandalising a political party's headquarters that has not the most remote or direct connection with the concerns that they hold. It is a sad day for Australia and I hope it is one that is not repeated in the future. (Time expired)382917:44:003829Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Tonight I want to continue some of the remarks I made on Monday, International Women's Day, about women. I applauded some of the women who have given so much to the cause of equality. Some of those women were members of the Union of Australian Women, which was formed in 1950. Australians, and in particular Australian women, have every right to be proud of the fact that Australia was one of the first countries to grant women the right to vote, beginning with South Australia in 1902. However, Australian women today despair at the Howard government's policies that have hurt them over the past three years.Before I detail just how unfair this government is to Australian women, I want to highlight some historic milestones for women since 1988. In 1988 the Labor government released the first national agenda for women. In 1989 Rosemary Follett was elected ACT Chief Minister, becoming the first female head of government. 1990 saw the election of two women state Premiers, Carmen Lawrence and Joan Kirner, and Lowitja O'Donoghue was appointed the first chair of ATSIC. 1991 saw the first female state Governor appointed. Another historic event occurred in 1995, when Jennie George became the first female president of the ACTU. 1996 was a great year for women, particularly Aboriginal women, when Nova Peris-Kneebone became Australia's first Aboriginal to win a gold medal as a member of the Australian women's hockey team. Margaret Reid became the first female President of the Senate. In 1997 Regina Graycar was appointed Australia's first professor of women and law at the University of Sydney and Judy Raper became the only current woman dean of an engineering faculty in Australia, again at the University of Sydney. In 1998 two women, Cathy Freeman and Tan Le, were named Australian and Young Australian of the Year.Of course, much has improved for women since the early days but the need for further reforms is undeniable. We still have a long way to go to achieve equality for women, not only in Australia but throughout the world. Women still remain underrepresented in decision making positions at all levels in our society. Under this government's policies, women are being systematically stripped of their hard-won gains. Savage cuts to child care have made it increasingly difficult for women to stay in the work force. There has been no progress made on the gender earnings gap, with women still earning only 83 per cent of men's wages. No progress has been made in women's participation in the labour market, with the proportion of women participating in the work force remaining stuck at about 53.7 per cent. Latest figures show that 13,000 women left the labour force in January 1999 alone. Compare this with the achievements of the Labor government in the 1980s, when the proportion of women participating in the work force rose by 7 per cent.The Howard government does not stop here. The GST will be an added burden for women as they fight to meet increased costs within the household budget. Over-the-counter medicines and health products such as cough mixtures, baby needs, pain relievers and sanitary items will all have a 10 per cent tax—these items are currently tax free. Child-care costs will go up even further under the GST, making it even more difficult for women to be able to afford to go to work. Minister Reith's plan to cut wages and social security for people on low incomes targets women because it is, once again, women who are concentrated in the lowest income groups and women who are in the majority when it comes to social security recipients.The Prime Minister should be made aware that his policies towards women are being watched by the world. The United Nations Committee on Eliminating Discrimination Against Women came to the conclusion that this government's policies had slowed down or reversed Australia's progress in achieving equality in areas of housing, child care and employment programs. They also expressed a real concern that programs that were of benefit to women, such as heath and access to legal aid, could be subject to further budget cuts. This government should also remember that one of the things they cannot take away from women is the vote.383017:48:003830Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I would like to thank my National Party colleagues and some Liberals who have fought very hard on the issue of the petrol bill which other people voted on earlier today. On this issue we have secured an undertaking that there will be no repeal of the sites act until the oil industry code is agreed to. I would like to single out John Forrest, who has shown in another place exceptional intellectual courage and integrity, and also De-Anne Kelly, without whose intellectual abilities and very public stand on this issue before the last election the service station owner-operators would not now be in the strong position they are in. Finally, the Motor Trades Association of Australia have fought intelligently and responsibly this difficult battle, and I have every confidence they will win.I abstained from voting, from crossing the floor, on the basis that this legislation will not be promulgated until the Motor Trades Association, the service station operators, agree to the petroleum industry code. If these protections are removed, we will not have 9,000 people selling fuel in Australia; we will have six people selling fuel in Australia.Mrs Irwin interjecting—HX4Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTER—The honourable member's government removed the 6c we had in country areas to help us compete with the city areas, which have much cheaper petrol. They also raised the taxation from 22.7c a litre to 37.3c a litre, which is 21c a litre imposed upon country people by the ALP. It would be an act of arch hypocrisy for them to come into this place and then talk about it.83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—Why didn't you vote?HX4Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTER—I have secured an agreement, which is more than you have secured. During the term of the ALP government in this place, all the efforts to restrain the oil companies which were undertaken by the Menzies-McEwen government when they introduced a price at the wellhead and all the actions undertaken by the Fraser-Anthony government were completely undermined by Mr Keating and his economic rationalist policies, which enabled the oil companies to take the price of petrol from 12.6c a litre to the oil companies when the ALP took office to 25c a litre to the oil companies. That is what they did under you people. In the same period of time the price of a barrel of oil dropped clean in half worldwide. Unless we restrain the oil companies, they will go in and compete against the small service stations and simply wipe them out.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—You should have been in here voting.HX4Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTER—I officially abstained, which is more than any person on that side of the House has done. The reason why under the ALP government the oil companies were able to take an extra 20c a litre in the marketplace that they were not entitled to was that we could not secure from the ALP government, as we are failing to secure from the present government, an agreement that a minimum price be put in. If a minimum price is put into the system then anyone can get petrol in from overseas. As Allan Fels said—it is the only time in my life I have ever agreed with Allan Fels—Woolworths will be of advantage and will do great things in the marketplace with respect to petrol. What he meant was that he, like me, is well aware of the fact that you cannot raise off anyone the $23 million to compete with the oil companies. Woolworths think they are big enough and strong enough to be able to do this, and good luck to them. But, if a minimum price was put in, let me say to you, Mr Speaker, that anybody could get petrol in from overseas because the petrol is so damn cheap overseas.A good friend of mine, Mr Neil Turner, a former Speaker of the parliament in Queensland, attempted to bring petrol in from Venezuela. The Venezuelans said they would put up the $23 million, except that every time they had done this before the oil companies indulged in predatory pricing, dropped the price on them, and they lost a lot of money. They were not prepared to do that again. But, if they were given minimum pricing protection, they would be prepared to do that.The answer is there in neon flashing lights. We wish Woolworths well in their endeavours. This is the only time I have ever spoken well about Woolworths, and it will be the last time, I can assure you. However, we need more than that. We need minimum price protection until we get proper anti-trust legislation such as the Americans have—and the Supreme Court in the United States has utilised that to ban vertical integration. The Supreme Court there stops this sort of thing from happening.I give great praise to the Fraser-Anthony government for introducing this legislation. I pray that the promises and undertakings that have been given to us are going to be honoured in the same way that the promises given to the motor trades before the last election are going to be honoured. (Time expired)383117:53:003831Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I rise tonight to speak about the future of community legal centres in Australia. They are under threat from both the federal and state governments, particularly in Victoria. There has recently been a review of Victoria's community legal centres and their funding, commissioned jointly by the federal and state governments. It proposed the establishment of an implementation advisory group to examine access to community legal centres.This was called a review, although it is really a report, a lengthy and detailed document, with some worrying directions mapped out in it. The report talks about improving access to legal services for the disadvantaged, but I fear that any action taken in this direction will actually have the opposite effect. There is uncertainty about the make-up and role of the implementation group and doubt about the government's intention to look critically at whether the recommendations are workable.The review discussed the possibility of amalgamating the 19 community legal centres in Victoria into just four regional areas, in line with the community and family services departmental areas in Victoria. It looked at the possibility of policy and advocacy matters being dealt with by only one central body. An attack is being made here on three clear levels. There is this first attack on regionalisation. There is a second attack on the access to justice—and, if time allows, I intend to go into some detail about that, using the Footscray Legal Service as an example of the important role that community legal centres play in providing services to our community and access to justice. The third area where the attack is very clear is in the policy and advocacy roles that these community centres play. We must ask why the various governments are so afraid of these community centres having the capacity to speak out on issues of law reform and police and other matters.Locally, in my electorate, the Federation of Community Legal Services has launched a strong campaign against these changes. In particular, Footscray Legal Service and the Western Suburbs Legal Service in Newport—both in my electorate—have organised meetings to deal with and discuss community response to the proposed changes.A meeting held on 3 March in Footscray was attended by 150 people. That meeting expressed its unanimous concern about the review process and where that process might lead, particularly in our region. I congratulate the centre in Footscray for its actions and for the care and concern it has shown for our community as a whole and for those who from time to time find themselves in desperate need of the legal advice and assistance that the community centres can provide.The western suburbs of Melbourne are going to be particularly hard hit by these proposals, if they are implemented. The seven legal centres currently in the area range from Werribee to Flemington through North Melbourne, Essendon and Deer Park. As anyone who is familiar with the geography of North Melbourne will know, this is a very broad region. There is massive diversity. For example, the specialised needs of the community in Footscray, with its very high demand for non-English speaking background skills, are different to the largely Anglo-Saxon community in, for example, Werribee.The statistics are quite staggering. The Footscray centre services people who have come to Australia from 72 different countries. Twenty-seven per cent of those are Vietnamese born; 22 per cent of the clientele of the Footscray legal service arrived in Australia only in the 1990s. This proposal may see the Footscray Legal Service moved to Werribee. As well as being a very different community, Werribee is a 45-minute drive away from Footscray Legal Service's current base. The majority of the clients of these legal centres are on government benefits—up to 62 per cent, with seven per cent or eight per cent having no income whatsoever. It is, therefore, clear that many will be relying on public transport. That means they would have to travel at least an hour by train, including one change of train, to attend the centre if it moved to Werribee.As well, a huge number of volunteers—approximately 700 in Victoria—work in the community legal centres. They volunteer for these community services because they want to participate in their local community and not in some distant area.We are concerned about access to justice. The proposal also deals with excluding people who do not have a health care card from the services of a legal service. This would mean, for example, that a migrant woman who was unfairly dismissed from her job but whose husband works only part time would not be entitled to this free legal advice. A young person who may be harassed by the police but has a single parent who works will also have nowhere to go.I am concerned that the real agenda of the government is to silence the community legal centres because of the very effective role they have played in advocacy and in pursuing policy and law reform. This argument is over what is a tiny budget of $5 million, shared between the state and Commonwealth governments. That budget services a huge number of people. In my state of Victoria, 50,000 people have used the services of the legal centres, with another 70,000 client contacts who have not needed ongoing legal advice in that state. I urge the government not to go down this path and to recognise the vital role that the community services play in our community. (Time expired)383217:58:003832Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—In Townsville we are currently building the Sun Metals Zinc Refinery, which is the largest Korean investment in the world outside Korea. Unfortunately, 10 days ago construction at the site was brought to a halt because of an inter-union dispute. Two unions came up from the south, and all the men have been pulled out. About 1,000 men are currently outside the gates of the refinery.As the days have gone by, I have been very disturbed to see the behaviour of these men. We have had sexual and racial slurs thrown at the people going through the gates of the refinery. We do not need terms such as `dog eaters' and `slit eye' expletives sent to our Korean friends. It sends the wrong message to people who are prepared to invest in Australia. It is a shame that, on the day that we have seen an increase of 32,900 in employment in February, we have this going on in Townsville. I urge the men to get back to work and to get this site working again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned.18:00:003832House adjourned at 6.00 p.m. until Monday, 22 March 1999, at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.Notices3832The following notice was given:Ms O'Byrne to move:That the House:(1) draws to the attention of the Government, the vital role that the Wheat Freight Subsidy plays in Tasmania in underpinning up to 1600 jobs in the baking, chicken, stockfeed and pork sectors; and(2) calls for the Government to extend the Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme for a further three years on a calendar year basis to provide essential industry security.1999-03-11Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members3833383309:40:003833Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I thank the Queensland state member for Clayfield, Mr Santo Santoro, for his most generous offer to refer to me again in the state parliament as repayment for any comments I care to make about him. I am thankful for his efforts and the further opportunity to highlight to the parliament the atrocious behaviour of the Liberal Party at the 1998 Queensland state election. Mr Santoro is quick to comment on others, but few carry the sort of political baggage that comes when you make a career of grubby political deals.No matter how hard Mr Santoro tries to hide from his decision, no-one will forget the results of the short-sighted and nasty agenda that brought shame to the state of Queensland, the Queensland Liberal Party, and Mr Santoro's own cultural heritage. Make no mistake, Mr Santo Santoro is more responsible than any other person for the 11 seats won by One Nation. It was his preference deal, his and a couple of his Canberra mates.Mr Santoro attacks me for my lack of achievement. He, on the other hand, is a major player in Queensland politics and, after all, only Santo can claim direct credit for the election of so many Queensland MPs. He can claim the credit for the One Nation Party wins of Jeff Knuth in Burdekin, Bill Feldman in Caboolture, Ken Turner in Thuringowa, Harry Black in Whitsunday, David Dalgliesh of Hervey Bay and John Kingston in Maryborough. And how can we forget Santo's inspired support of Mr Jack Paff in Ipswich West and the short political career of Charles Rappolt in Mulgrave? How proud Mr Santo Santoro must be of his fine recruits with so many of them being men. Without the help of Mr Santoro, the One Nation Party would have won only three seats in Queensland. Given the current state of One Nation drop-off, none of them would be left today.Mr Santo Santoro's flirtation with Pauline Hanson and One Nation will not be quickly forgotten by the people of Queensland. Apart from promoting destructive political forces into prominence, what has Mr Santoro really achieved? Everyone is well aware of his federal ambitions, yet he still languishes in a position he believes he has long outgrown. He remains a small fish in his own small pond. Having personally reduced the Queensland Liberal Party to only nine seats, Santo only needs about five friends and the would-be could be leader. However, his federal ambitions have not abated. He is looking around on, I think, Brisbane's north side right now and eyeing off a few potential federal seats.Mr Santo Santoro is out of touch. He scoffs as he describes my service in the RAAF as do-nothing. This view is not shared, I am sure, by thousands of Australians who have either served, or are currently serving, in the Australian defence forces. Perhaps if Mr Santo Santoro spent more time in Queensland listening to his constituents and less time in Canberra dreaming of a future missed, he would be better placed to comment.Mr Santo Santoro derides the achievement of Labor in assuring female representation in parliament. Yet the failings of the Queensland Libs is elementary according to Dr Watson, Leader of the Queensland Liberals, who said:The great wins of Cameron Thompson, Mal Brough, Ian Macfarlane, Warren Entsch and Peter Lindsay prove that a Liberal can gain support in a wide variety of areas.Mr Santo Santoro, where are the women?But still the issues remain. Mr Santoro and the Liberal executive made the decision to not put One Nation last. As Dr Watson also said:When they believe you are not holding firm to your principles, they will punish you and punish you they rightfully did.(Time expired)383409:43:003834Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—In contrast to the Labor Party who spent their time attacking an individual, this side of the House wants to praise an individual, namely, Mrs Evelyn Thompson who was named as the Sutherland Shire Citizen of the Year for 1999.If ever there was a person who well deserved the title, `salt of the earth', it is Evelyn Thompson, mother of two children, grandmother of two. She has been a resident of Sutherland Shire for 48 years. She established the Caring Centre in the shire some 25 years ago, has continued in her involvement since that time, and is the president. The centres have been established for the aged and their carers and there are 24 centres throughout Sutherland Shire.She also established and is now president of the Twilight Committee, the charity that raises funds for the rehabilitation unit for Sutherland Hospital. She has been involved for 29 years in the Twilight Committee group. They were involved in refurbishment of a ward and built a hydrotherapy pool at Sutherland Hospital.She is also the founding chairman of the Sutherland Shire Family Network and now works as a volunteer for that particular group, the Hope for the Children charity. She has been involved with that for six years. She was the president of the ladies auxiliary of Port Hacking High School and secretary of the P&C at the school. She was involved on the canteen committee and was the chairman of the Air League.Mrs Thompson is also a long-term member of the Liberal Party in our area. But it is her involvement in the community, serving the community in so many dimensions, that is really outstanding. I am delighted to say today that of the people I have met in the Sutherland Shire, she would be one of the most outstanding people in the community. She is a person of enormous merit and talent and dedication. I commend her to the House as someone who has served the community outstandingly for a long period of time, and particularly the electorate of Cook.383409:45:003834McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I want to speak this morning about Sydney airport, and it is a shame the member for Cook did not speak about it rather than firming up his preselection in his local Liberal Party branch.Recently, a new radar monitoring system has been trialled at Sydney airport, a precision radar monitoring system. Under this system planes can fly at levels 1,000 feet lower than current levels and descend in spiral patterns, and over the member for Cook's electorate, I might say. While trials have started over Botany Bay there is potential for them to be extended over the land to the north of the airport, and that is what the rumours coming out of Sydney airport are.Yesterday it was reported in the press that Airservices Australia had been accused of deliberately concealing the noise impact of the system. That noise impact was over the member for Cook's electorate, so it is a pity he did not think about that rather than firming up his support in the local Liberal Party branch. The noise impact is occurring despite the promises of the member for Cook's government that these noise levels would be reduced.I was not surprised to read that it had happened, given that already there have been complaints. I have received complaints from constituents, and I am sure that other members have received complaints as well. As has been the case before, lack of consultation and withholding of information has been the norm. Now that people have found out what is happening we are being told, `Don't worry, no permanent changes will be made without an EIS and without it being considered by the airport community,' et cetera, even though Airservices Australia is trying to shed responsibility for noise management.We are also being told that despite the capacity of this system to permit increased usage of runways, it is proposed only as a safety tool. Unfortunately, I am a bit more cynical about that, and the people who live around the airport are too. Unfortunately, the member for Cook does not care.How is it that noise levels are already increasing with lower flights and increased numbers of flights? Apparently it is because the PRM system allows more flights to land using parallel runways. You can imagine the pressure from the airlines to have a system like this installed permanently, because it will save them millions and millions of dollars, and it could also suit those who are loath to make the decision about the second Sydney airport.Increasing the potential for the existing airport's capacity to handle aircraft relieves the pressure for the construction of a new airport. Never mind the citizens of Sydney. Eventually their hearing, I suppose, will be so impaired they will not even hear the extra noise.It makes me angry that this whole airport issue is still unresolved after so many years. Twenty-eight years ago I was elected to local council on a `No extension of Sydney Airport' program, and yet it is still being extended. It is being extended by this rotten, uncaring Liberal government that will not make a decision about Badgerys Creek.The Badgerys Creek EIS has been put off once again by them because they are afraid of the effect it will have on the New South Wales election. I can only wait with interest to see what happens when the decision comes down in a few weeks time and it is considered by cabinet in June and July. In the meantime we will no doubt continue to see efforts made by the airlines, and by those with vested interests, to put off the hard decision about determining the location of a second Sydney airport. That will increase the noise levels and the capacity of Sydney airport to cause concern to the people who live around the airport.What concerns me, in particular, are safety issues. A crash at Sydney airport is—(Time expired)383509:49:003835Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I want to talk about a mental health program in the electorate of Boothby called Out of the Blues. This was a mood disorders unit for young people located at Flinders Medical Centre. The problem is that, despite the success of the unit, Out of the Blues has closed its doors.Youth depression, especially youth suicide, is probably the most tragic and distressing problem that confronts the community. Depression is a condition that affects the mind and the body. Severely depressed people are at a greater risk of self-harm and, at worst, suicide. Australia has one of the highest rates of youth suicide. Since 1991 there has been an alarming increase in the rate of young males aged 15 to 34 commiting suicide. It is a sad indictment on all levels of government that it took so long to take action on this issue. The Howard government acted immediately when it was elected in 1996.Out of the Blues was a program pilot funded by the Commonwealth government for two years under the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy. The unit was available to young people aged 18 to 24 and ensured a focus on the age and stage of development in which the first episode of mood disorders is known to occur. Out of the Blues was set up to try and bridge the gap between child and adult mental health services. It provided services to young people suffering from depression and at risk of suicide. Through the unit's marketing process and community acceptance, it attracted a significant number of young people. A significant number of those that attended the service had attempted suicide before attending the unit.The success of the Out of the Blues unit is highlighted with some statistics. I want to emphasise that statistics do not tell the whole story. Overall, 186 people were referred to the unit, and 104 of those received a psychiatric assessment. Of the 104 that received psychiatric assessment, six were assessed as not having a depressive disorder, 20 declined to return to ongoing treatment, and 78 received ongoing treatment. The average age of young people who attended the unit was 18 and 53 per cent of those treated by the unit were young males. This figure shows the community acceptance of the unit. It was able to receive the trust of a significant proportion of the community that does not normally access these services.I have no hesitation in saying that, from the information that I have been given, the unit clearly saved lives. It was a one-off grant from the Commonwealth government under the $31 million National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy. It was intended that the South Australian state government would keep all or part of the program once the pilot was completed. There was a large commitment to build a relationship between the team at Out of the Blues and their clients. The closure of the unit creates a huge breach of trust between people who have the power to do something about the closure of the program and people who are receiving treatment.The South Australian Minister for Human Services, Dean Brown, has stated:Out of the Blues . . . has made an outstanding contribution . . . helping young people with their mental health problems and in particular with depression.The local media in my electorate have reported that the state government is looking at ways to further develop the program and expand it into a statewide service. I encourage the South Australian Minister for Human Services to reopen the unit and help the young people who need it most. (Time expired)383609:52:003836Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope in the future you will be able to visit King Island which is in my electorate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank you for the invitation.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Of course, it is well known for its magnificent beef, cheese and dairy products, kelp industry, seafood and tourism. Under the leadership of Mayor Vernon Philbey and his council, it is entering into partnership agreements with the state government in order to create more effective and efficient services for the people of the island.Unfortunately, I would like to draw the attention of this group to the telecommunications problems being experienced on King Island and I have done so over some time. The residents often have poor TV reception to none at all. They have a reduced selection in terms of television coverage and no reception of SBS at all. Unfortunately, they would not meet the criteria of the guidelines for self-help at the moment and the amounts of money required by that community to get SBS are almost prohibitive.They have no mobile phone coverage on the island at all. This is inequitable. It is an impediment to doing business, both for those on the island and for those coming to the island to do business there and, of course, it affects safety and emergency services. The landline telephone system on the island is proving more and more unreliable and is subject to technical problems from, for example, electronic fencing alone. The dairy on the island had trouble for five weeks with its telephone system. When I went to visit the manager, he told me that he had spent 15 trips travelling to Currie to make phone calls to allow his business to keep operating. There is one technician on the island after several were removed. We were reliably informed, of course, that coverage from Melbourne and Hobart would be sufficient to fix these technical problems, and it is not. There is trouble with faxes, reception and transmitting of faxes, and Internet availability is very intermittent on the island.We have a Telstra regional telecommunications infrastructure funding. The government is telling us that, unless they can sell the remainder of Telstra, then regional centres like my own on the north-west coast and King Island, in particular, will not receive these upgraded services. That is rot. The $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion dividend a year is available to Telstra and to the government and the people of Australia in order to assist in regional telecommunications infrastructure funding. That is available. All we need is a government that is fair dinkum about helping regional Australia. And that does not mean just the bush. It also means areas a little bit closer to larger population areas. The government's definition and ours about regional and the bush are very different. Telstra can operate now. We do not need to sell any more, because if we do we will have no hope.(Time expired)383709:55:003837Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise today to make a plea about the Work for the Dole program: there are simply not enough places in my electorate of Hinkler. There is a high youth unemployment rate in Hinkler, the legacy of 13 years of Labor.Work for the Dole is a great tonic for young people. How do I know this? Because they tell me so. I am advised that 85 per cent of participants say that the program has helped them in their determination to get a job. The figures are quite conclusive. There has been a far better result than anything achieved under the previous labour market programs, which did nothing but churn young unemployed people in a cauldron of hopelessness.An analysis of 10,000 people in the pilot program found that 32 per cent of the Work for the Dole participants went on to unsubsidised work or further education and training, at a cost of $3,900 per success. This compares very favourably with the Working Nation program under Labor. For example, the LEAP program had a 26 per cent success rate, at a cost of $26,000 per outcome; the Jobskills program had a 30 per cent success rate, at a cost of $36,000 per outcome; and the New Work Opportunities program, Labor's last flagship, had a 21 per cent success rate, for $52,000 per outcome—an absolute disgrace.In my electorate, a pilot in Bundaberg for the Work for the Dole program has finished, having placed 67 out of 240 participants straight into work. I am expecting similar results from the round 1 program in my other provincial city, Gladstone. In fact, the Bundaberg pilot performed better than the national average of 34 per cent of participants either gaining work or going on to further education and training. Another 35 per cent completed six months with the program, when they were required to do only three months by mutual obligation. If you add the two figures together you get a success rate of 69 per cent. It is clear that Work for the Dole is getting results and that it is significantly better for job seekers themselves and far better for the taxpayer.However, I have a plea for the Wide Bay-Capricorn statistical regions, where youth unemployment is particularly high. To illustrate my concern: Bundaberg got 240 places in the original pilot program, then only 100 places in round 1 and 86 places in round 2, having tendered for 250. I sincerely hope the numbers pick up again when the results of the upcoming third round tendering are announced. We desperately need those numbers in the Wide Bay-Capricorn statistical regions of Queensland.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The Main Committee will now consider government business.Bills3838r7263838Debate resumed from 10 February, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:003838Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition supports the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and I intend to speak only briefly on it. The legislation essentially does two things. It consolidates the four current principal accounts through which government funds are dealt with into a single account. The previous commercial activities fund, loan fund and reserve fund accounts will now become, in a sense, subsets of the consolidated revenue fund and will have, broadly, a single government account.Secondly, it amends the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to provide that the requirement for monthly financial statements by the government will be removed for the fiscal year 1999-2000, and for that year only, when there will be a requirement for quarterly statements. After that financial year, the monthly requirement will resume.The purpose of that latter change is to facilitate the introduction of accrual budgeting which was initiated by the former Labor government. It is something that has occurred or is occurring in all the states; is also occurring in Britain; and either has occurred or will be occurring in many other parts of the world where the traditional basis of budgeting in government which has been using cash transactions as the basis—and capital transactions are rather obscure and difficult to track—is being replaced by a much more logical and sensible approach to public accounting and budgeting.It will deal with these things on the basis of accruals—that is, when the actual liability or expenditure commitment accrues rather than when the money actually changes hands. Secondly, it will ensure that there is a proper incorporation of the cost of capital within the overall budget framework so that you can actually look at individual programs or agencies and determine both what the cost of capital is with respect to a particular program or agency and how efficiently or inefficiently they are actually using the assets that they have been allocated.The opposition strongly supports this change and, having kicked the ball off some time ago, we remain committed to the process. There is quite an amount of detail to absorb with this process, and I should add that I am grateful to the government for the briefings and access that they have made available to me and my staff and to opposition members generally to ensure that we are able to get across the detail and ask questions. Thus far I have no complaint about how the government are dealing with the matter.There is an array of transitional issues which we are seeking to come to terms with. We are in discussions with the government at the moment. I want to flag the core issue we are discussing, that is, the ability for both the opposition and the media to have as much information and understanding about the 1999 budget in the budget lockup on budget night as we were able to get in the 1998, 1997 and 1996 budgets.The reason this is an issue is that you are essentially changing languages and that makes it very difficult in many areas to make direct comparisons between the forthcoming budget and previous budgets. In some areas it will still be straightforward because you will be dealing with things where the translation from cash accounting to accrual accounting is fairly basic and where it is pretty obvious that, essentially, a direct comparison can be made. But in other areas that may not be the case.The government has initially suggested that it would provide—and I suspect that it will still do this—an accrual accounting basis assessment of the 1998-99 outcomes and that that will provide some basis for comparison with the 1999 budget. We appreciate that, but we would say that it really is necessary to have the new budget, the 1999 budget, in the old language as well as in the new as a one-off instance so that we—and the media—are able to check comparisons to ensure that when we make statements about what has happened to particular programs compared with what happened to them last year or the previous year we can actually compare apples with apples and that we will know that X program has been increased or reduced by 10 per cent or whatever.I think it is in everybody's interests that this is facilitated. I understand the government is considering this. There is a range of other associated questions about the level of information that is available and how we go about the budget revelation process which, as I said, the government has been entirely cooperative and helpful with so far. I urge the government to continue on this path, because ultimately this is something which is beneficial for the country and for the budget process irrespective of who happens to be in government, and a painless and controversy free introduction of this process is in everybody's best interests.10:04:003839Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I am also very pleased that the opposition supports this bill, and I thank the member for Melbourne for his comments.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And for his book, too.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—Absolutely. On 21 February 1996 the then finance minister, now Leader of the Opposition, declared that the budget was foreshadowed to be in surplus. Twelve days later the Department of the Treasury presented figures to the incoming government which showed that the nation was headed for a multibillion dollar deficit.To ensure that such a monstrous deception could never be practised upon the Australian people again, this government enacted the charter of budget honesty requiring that updated budget estimates be released before every federal election. At the same time, we established a Commission of Audit to look into the range of issues relating to the preparation of the national accounts and improving the efficiency of the public sector.The Commission of Audit, in its report of June 1996, recommended that moving to a full accrual accounting framework was essential in meeting the requirements of the charter of budget honesty. In other words, if the government is to keep faith with the Australian people in a way that the previous government did not, accrual accounting is an essential part of this.This bill seeks to amend the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to change the underlying basis of accounting from a cash to an accrual basis. The Financial Management and Accountability Act was initiated by the previous government and was predicated on a cash based accounting system. This must now be changed to bring it into line with the government's reforms in this area. Businesses—and certainly large businesses—do not manage their affairs on a cash basis. If they did, they would be likely to go broke fairly quickly. Managing their affairs on this basis, they would have no measure of future liabilities, no measure of the extent to which assets were depreciating and no proper measure of expenses which had been prepaid but not yet incurred. Yet this is how governments have been expected to manage until recently. In doing so, they experienced exactly the same sorts of problems. Drains on future funds were not accounted for, the practice of hollow logging, in which assets are starved of resources, could be carried on without being reflected in the financial statements, and assets could be sold with the proceeds going into the current year's revenue, a practice which was rife during the opposition leader's period as Minister for Finance.These practices will become a thing of the past with the adoption of accrual accounting in the preparation of our financial statements. No longer will governments be rewarded for bad economic management; no longer will it be possible for governments such as the previous Labor government to run down assets and run up liabilities while pretending—there is that word again—that they are managing the economy responsibly. Many times in the past an opposition has attacked the incumbent government for its failure to be transparent in the presentation of its accounts, only to indulge in the same practice when in government.We are the first party to make our concerns known when in opposition and then make good on our commitments on coming into government. Furthermore this legislation, combined with our charter of budget honesty, commits all future federal governments to the same level of honesty and accountability. Should there ever be another Labor government at some stage in the future—WN6MACFARLANEMr Ian Macfarlane—Oh, not for a long time.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—they would have nowhere to hide fudged budget figures. Indeed, it is a pity that Labor did not introduce accrual accounting when it came to office in 1983. It would then not have been able to hide so many of the asset sales that went straight to fund recurrent expenditure.Knowledge is power; by giving people knowledge about the true state of the government's finances this is a very empowering bill. Public sector departments will be much more able to plan expenditure, foresee difficulties and avoid them, and direct resources to where they will be needed in the future. This means that every sector of government will be more efficient and therefore better able to deliver the services that people need.It is important to note that this does not mean that departments cannot allocate—or hypothecate, to use the correct term—funds for particular programs or activities. It simply requires that this all be done in the context of accrual accounting. Without this bill, funds must be drawn from consolidated revenue and placed in outside funds so that they can be used for their purpose. This bill enables them to be allocated to specific funds within the accrual accounting framework. This bill is important not just for itself but for all of the activities and programs that it facilitates.I said before that, thanks to this bill, public sector departments will be much better equipped to plan expenditure and direct resources to where they will be needed in the future. This, of course, is the whole point of responsible financial management: it enables us to allocate resources to the social programs which need them most. I commend the bill to the House.10:09:003841Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—At the outset, I would like to thank the honourable members for Melbourne and Makin for their contributions and also the opposition for its support of this very important piece of legislation, which is part of our nation's move to accrual budgeting. I am thankful that the opposition supports what the government is proposing to do in this area. I think it really is a good sign being sent to the Australian community that, from both sides of politics, there is an appreciation that there are advantages to our nation and to accountability in making sure that we move to this new budgeting format.As we all know, the Commonwealth's first accrual budget is to be delivered in May this year. The transition to accrual budgeting will require certain amendments to various items of legislation, including the piece of legislation currently before the chamber. Thus, the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is a vital and important part of this move towards the Commonwealth's first accrual budget.Summarising the provisions of the bill, it should be noted that the principal amendment it contains is the merger of the loan fund, the reserved money fund, and the commercial activities fund into the consolidated revenue fund. This will enable the obsolete practice of fund accounting to be discontinued and avoid the inefficiency of maintaining dual systems for fund accounting and accrual accounting.Fund accounting is a relic of the last century. It is simplistic and totally inadequate for the financial management needs of the government and the nation. No longer will there be the requirement of daily transferring moneys back and forth among the funds to keep them in positive balance. Quite frankly, this is simply inefficient and does nothing to improve overall financial management.For the purpose of managing Commonwealth public debt, this bill will give the Treasurer the same powers of investment as are currently held by the Minister for Finance and Administration under section 39 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The bill will also widen the range of investments permitted to the Treasurer by adding a further category of investments, that is, securities or other debt interests issued by sovereign governments or international organisations.Historically, the proposed reforms outlined in the bill were recommended in two reports by a very important committee of this parliament, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Those reports were handed down in August 1995 and November 1995. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Melbourne, this was during the time of a Labor government. There is also further widespread support for these reforms as they relate to accrual budgeting. Following the election of the coalition government, the National Commission of Audit was set up, and that commission was referred to by my colleague the honourable member for Makin. It recommended that the government should formally adopt accrual principles as the basis for an integrated budgeting resource management and financial reporting framework.These reforms will place the government's financial management on a more business-like footing and provide greater transparency of government operations. This government is going about its business of ensuring accountability at every level. The member for Makin also highlighted the sound economic management of the coalition government since it was elected in 1996, and she mentioned the charter of budget honesty and other reforms. We are absolutely and resolutely determined to ensure that there is accountability and sound financial and economic management.The amendments before the chamber will enable the government to present a more comprehensive view of the budget and the Commonwealth's performance throughout the year by replacing the present cash basis of accounting with the accruals basis of accounting, as is used in the private sector. This means that the full cost of government activities will be transparent, as will all of its assets and liabilities. No longer will governments be able to hide behind off-budget spending or phoney accounting. The government's delivery of services will be enhanced by the reforms contained in this bill. The government will act as a purchaser of agency outputs, specifying the price, the quality and quantity for which it will pay. This will require a business-like approach to service delivery incorporating performance management systems.The honourable member for Melbourne, in his contribution, seemed to make a plea for the budget this year to be handed down both as a cash budget and also as an accrual budget. There will be a reconciliation this year between the cash result and the accrual result and there will also be included a statement of cash flows. Treasury may also, in the budget documents, make reference to the cash result. But I am advised that it is simply not possible to replicate the detail in the old budget, as the system for the budget this year will be set up in a new format.The member for Melbourne also referred to the opposition's support of this move to accrual accounting. He asked that members should be made aware of what is happening, of the need for the changes, and of the substance of the changes, so that economic performance this year can be compared with economic performance in earlier years. My colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration has asked me to assist in this educative process and I can guarantee that all members of this place and the Senate, both government and opposition, will have ample opportunity to be briefed on the significance of this very important economic reform, the move to accrual accounting, and they will also receive advice and assistance on how to read the new budget documents. We are not trying to hide anything. We are seeking to bring about a new means of handling the nation's accounts so that the activities of government are more transparent. I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for accepting that the government's motives in this very important reform are positive.In conclusion, passage of this bill will provide the government with a more complete picture of the performance of Commonwealth agencies and their delivery of services to the Australian community. We are very proud of this piece of legislation and of the move to an accrual budget this year. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3843r6733843Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.10:17:003843Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise today to speak on the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 and support its move towards flexibility and overall benefit for companies wishing to register to claim the research and development tax concession scheme. I certainly welcome the comments of the member for Fraser who has spoken previously on the bill and welcome the support that he has given this bill. I think it has, by and large, bipartisan support. It is a bill which not only streamlines but also encourages industry to invest further in R&D. We obviously have a great deal to offer in terms of a government in leadership in R&D. It is something which will ensure that our industries here in Australia continue to be at the cutting edge of commerciality and of competitiveness.This bill, as I say, will streamline the registration and lodgment requirements to the Industry Research and Development Board and it introduces other measures to ensure the integrity and efficient operation of the concession. It is, in fact, a direct response by government to measures identified in the government's December 1997 statement, `Investing for Growth'.The subject of R&D is one which I am very familiar with in a rural sense but also, since taking the position as the member for Groom, one which has been brought to the fore in its importance to industry right across Australia. Industry requires its future to be based on improving its competitiveness and the quality of its product and meeting the consumers' needs. In rural industry, of course, the challenges are far greater. We compete in an unfair world marketplace and we also face the challenges of feeding a growing population.In terms of R&D, Australia has been very quick in the past to take up the opportunities that have been introduced by it. Our people, both regional and city based, have a proud history of being innovators and of being prepared to take the commercial risks to ensure that we have a future here as a nation. Australian inventions and technological adaptations have included such great advances as the cochlear implant, gene shears, and the Interscan aircraft landing system. These advances have made us more than competitive with the rest of the world.However, of great concern—and this concern is also shared by the member for Fraser—is the fall in R&D. In fact, the latest ABS statistics show that in 1996-97, for the first time since the ABS surveys commenced, business expenditure on R&D has fallen. In the 1996-97 period, business expenditure on R&D was $4,124 billion, a decrease of five per cent on the previous year.I do not agree with the member for Fraser's comments that that is due to cuts in the taxation benefits to companies which this government has put in place. I think it has a far greater relationship to the economic uncertainty which industry faced after too many years of Labor government. I suspect that industry is now preparing itself for another major thrust into R&D. R&D is an area which involves long-term economic return. Companies can only afford to invest in R&D when (a), there are the right incentives; (b), when there are the right conditions; and (c), when there is economic certainty. The sort of economic certainty that we are seeing being delivered by the Howard coalition government is far and away the biggest incentive for industry to invest in R&D.Be that as it may, government has a responsibility to do whatever it can to smooth the way for those industries that wish to invest in R&D. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, recently said when announcing a large increase in the UK's R&D budget, that science and technology was the absolute bedrock for our future economy. I could not agree more. On that basis, this government and successive governments must do what they can to encourage industry to invest in R&D.Australia has a relatively small economy and it is essential that we focus our resources and invest now if we hope to become a significant player in the R&D global market. There are great advances to be made, and those advances will not only benefit our industry, our people and our general economy, but also bring a better standard of living to the whole world.This bill promotes this focus by allowing Australian companies greater flexibility in applying for registration under the R&D tax concession scheme for the 125 per cent tax concession. The key provisions of the bill will allow companies a longer period for the lodgment of the registration applications, and they allow the board the flexibility to require different levels of information from different classes of applicant. That allows it to reduce compliance costs for specific classes of companies, for example, small claimants, and it is small companies that have a major role to play in R&D in Australia, as well as the larger companies.The provisions will also allow the board limited discretion to accept late applications and to correct minor errors in registration. In particular, the bill directs the board to reconsider six specific cases where the past lack of any such discretion has prevented their application for registration from being validly considered by the board.Finally, the bill offers the opportunity to improve service to companies applying for certification of offshore research and development by making the effective date for certificates the date on which the application was received, rather than the date of the board decision.R&D and its commercialisation is widely acknowledged as a key engine of growth in industrial economies. The companies that will prosper in R&D are those committed to continuous renewal through innovation. Firms which are enterprising and skilled enough to differentiate their product and create a distinctive competitive edge are the ones which will succeed. They are the ones which our government wants to do more to encourage.The bill clarifies the power of the Industry Research and Development Board in relation to companies which fail to exploit the results of success in research and development activities. It goes without saying that, whilst the first step in any successful program is to establish the research and development and its outcomes, until they are applied and put into practice and produce the end result, they are of no benefit to anyone.I think this bill will be well received by the general industry. It is imperative that, in terms of the federal government's overall operation, not only do we not rest on our laurels following the passage of this bill but also investigate further future ways in which we can encourage industry in Australia to invest in R&D.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the next speaker, I would like to suggest to all members and their staff that it is inappropriate for staff people to intrude their persons onto the chamber by leaning right over the barriers. I would suggest that everybody take note of that.10:26:003845Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise to speak in support of the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998. I welcome the mainly administrative elements contained within the bill and would like to take the opportunity to make some comments more generally about the importance of research and development. Research and development, as we all know, is the way of the future for Australian job growth. Too often we hear of worthy Australian initiatives having to move offshore because they struggle to gain the initial support required to develop their innovative ideas. Whilst I rise in support of this amendment bill, it is a case of too little, too late for many Australian industries. The paltry commitment by this government to R&D and its narrow-minded decision to withdraw from the field of industry policy have resulted in a decline in the growth of many businesses.The government's decision to significantly water down Labor's 150 per cent R&D tax concession saw the government nationally abrogate responsibility for industry development and leave emerging industries to the mercy of market forces. On the other hand, Labor is the party that believes in genuine national development. We recognise that market forces alone cannot deliver the sort of results Australia demands in an era of unprecedented globalisation of capital. For Labor, intervention is necessary to make the most of our opportunities and talents.The notion of mutual or reciprocal obligation is a concept that has been canvassed by the House at length recently. The government is keen to extract reciprocal obligations from the unemployed, but it is not so keen about acknowledging its own reciprocal obligation to support Australian industry. Labor, on the other hand, sees the need for genuine reciprocal obligation to be shared by all parties. In relation to industry policy, Labor is committed to a partnership with industry to ensure business growth that in turn produces employment growth. The extension of a reciprocal obligation principle to industry would mean the government provides assistance to industries in return for firm commitments from industries on jobs, investment, exports and R&D.There are 6,778 registered businesses in my electorate of Chisholm. There are companies that manufacture construction steel, plastic, ducted heating, power tools, trucks and drilling equipment, just to name a few things. In addition to this, there are many companies within my electorate that are at the cutting edge of new growth industries—namely, modem products and infra-red optical links, scientific apparatuses and manufacturing chemicals. These industries would undoubtedly be supportive of the administrative changes set out in the bill before the committee today.However, I am sure that they would be assisted far more by a return to the level of R&D tax concessions they enjoyed under the Labor government. Even the Industry Commission recognised there was a net benefit to the Australian economy provided by the concessions. The ABS industrial figures for 1996-97 demonstrate that this government's small government mentality has resulted in a significant downturn in R&D expenditure across the board.The figures show a seven per cent fall in spending by businesses on R&D in average 1989-90 prices with $275 million shaved from business R&D spending in 1996-97. This is compared to an average annual increase of 17 per cent over the five years from 1993 to 1998. There are 850 fewer people working on industrial R&D and it is anticipated there will be further falls in 1997-98. These are the most current and up-to-date figures we have.This was the first drop in industrial R&D spending in the more than two decades that records have been kept. It is no coincidence that it happened in the first full year after the government's massive cuts to R&D incentives—some $2 billion over four years.As I mentioned, my electorate contains a wide range of traditional manufacturing companies and new niche industries. Together with the south-eastern region of metropolitan Melbourne the area has suffered the loss of large employers in recent times with the closing of the Lovelock Luke company and other manufacturers. These closures have resulted in significant job losses and have seen several of these industries being relocated overseas. Many of these industries would have benefited greatly from a more interventionist approach to industry policy and a strong commitment to progressive approaches such as Labor's 150 per cent R&D tax concession.At recent Australia Day celebrations in my electorate of Chisholm, Whitehorse City Council awarded their young citizen of the year to Simone Schoenwaelder for her endeavours in the field of medical research. On collection of her certificate Dr Schoenwaelder made the observation that science is often overlooked when achievements are being recognised. Dr Schoenwaelder completed her doctorate of medicine at Box Hill Hospital in the department of medicine which is undertaking world breaking research into blood borne diseases.The centre for blood disease is leading research into areas of understanding how blood clotting is triggered—and the relevance this has to diseases such as heart attacks and strokes—the discovery of new genes that may protect against the development of blood cancer and an understanding of how blood clotting dissolves. The centre has established an alliance with a newly established biotechnology company to develop a new class of antithrombotic drugs. Such dynamic research facilities need ongoing support and funding for without proper assistance for the new concepts and products that emerge from research and development there can be no long-term benefit for the community.One of the worries for this type of facility and others like it is the potential loss of talented researchers overseas and the resultant brain drain. This situation is more likely to occur in a climate when sufficient substance is not given to emerging research facilities and their associated industries.The centre of blood borne disease's recent alliance with the business community is a recognition of the need for research endeavours to be linked with business. This example demonstrates that innovation is occurring throughout the country, including in my seat of Chisholm, and illustrates the potential benefits that can be wrought when government, universities and business work in partnership with R&D endeavours.Whilst welcoming the amendment to the principal act contained within this bill I also note that we need further reform which encourages the following: investment in infrastructure; assistance in turning good ideas into commercial ventures; a successful venture capital market; and making the most of our natural resources, skills, motivation, education and creative strengths. Again, I say that I rise to support the bill before the committee today, but believe it is too little too late.10:34:003846Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I will be summing up, Mr Deputy Speaker, at this stage. I understand that one speaker has not arrived so I am more than happy to wind up the debate and give the Main Committee additional time to carry out its very important role.I listened very carefully to the contributions made this morning by the members for Groom and Chisholm, and I have read the contribution made by the shadow minister. It ought to be recognised that the provisions of this bill amend the Industry Research and Development Act 1996, as identified in the government's industry statement `Investing for Growth', which was delivered in December 1997. This bill represents the delivery of another important commitment to business by this government, and is designed to encourage increased private sector R&D and to help reduce the compliance costs involved in administering the scheme.The member for Fraser indicated that, while the opposition—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.35 a.m. to 10.47 a.m.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Before I was so rudely interrupted by the division which was called in the main chamber, I was referring to the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 which is the bill currently before the chamber. I was mentioning the fact that the honourable member for Fraser, while indicating that the government was supported by the opposition in this legislation, said that the opposition was critical of some aspects of the government's policies, claiming that they did not position Australia to maximise the opportunities from the growing knowledge intensity of industry.The member for Fraser also falsely suggested that the government's policies have weakened the infrastructure for innovation, especially through the impact on business research and development, traditional industries, and the university sector. He also claimed, incorrectly, that possible changes to the tax and intellectual property environments would undermine the incentives for innovation in Australia, as would the lack of venture capital.The government, as you would expect, does reject those allegations by the member for Fraser because, as a government, we are very much focused on the need for research and development. Our policy sees innovation as a key driver of economic growth and that it will be a major factor in Australia's international competitiveness.The member for Fraser has wrongly suggested that our policies are a vacuum. Our policies have, in fact, been developed after comprehensive reviews of the business programs we inherited from the former Labor government, a Labor government, I might add, which built the budget deficit up to $10.3 billion. Right through the 1996 election campaign the Labor government claimed that the budget was in surplus, yet on the Monday after the poll we found out that was not the case. So the member for Fraser and his colleagues are very much the last people who should ever criticise the policies of this particular government.The economic and industry policies that the government has pursued since 1996 have been targeted towards achieving stronger growth. In industrialised countries such as Australia, innovation is a key source of economic growth. The government's policies are aimed at strengthening the national innovation system through supporting business innovation and enhancing the linkages between the science base and industry. The government's support for innovation is unequivocal and we are committing close to $1 billion over four years in support of business innovation, and a total of $3.7 billion on science and technology alone. Those figures speak for themselves and illustrate that we are clearly serious about innovation.The government has also deliberately shifted the focus of support towards R&D which has the potential for high commercial returns. That is, targeted projects are supported on a competitive basis through the greatly expanded R&D START program. The government has already moved to improve the commercialisation prospects of innovative firms.Let me outline to the chamber some of the things that we have done to improve those commercialisation prospects. We have provided an extra $100 million for the second round of the innovation investment fund. We have provided an extra $108 million to the technology diffusion program and international collaboration initiatives. We have also provided loans through the START program, and we are addressing one of the critical needs of new and emerging firms, patient venture capital.Honourable members would be aware of the fact that the government is working with the private sector to increase the availability of venture capital for technology based firms. In the innovation investment funds, government and private sector funding is pooled and made available for early stage venture capital investments. This will create an investment pool of $345 million to provide the type of capital investment that early stage firms need. I might add that this is more than 10 times bigger than the $30 million provided under the former government. So the member for Fraser can come in here and huff and puff and criticise the government all he likes, but we have put the runs on the board, and we are continuing to.It ought to be noted also that a number of improvements to the pooled development funds are being implemented. In addition, the government will introduce new programs to enhance the ability of small firms to gain access to capital and meet the requirements of potential investors. This can be very important given the fact, as was pointed out by my colleague the honourable member for Groom that Australians are a nation which has a capacity to innovate. We are imaginative, and the government's policies are designed to bring about financial advantages to the nation from such innovation and from such initiative. The government is also reviewing business taxation measures to facilitate venture capital flows.It is interesting to be aware of the fact, and honourable members might be interested to know, that the Treasurer recently agreed to a proposal from Minister Minchin to conduct a workshop this year on research, development and innovation aspects of the Ralph review of business taxation. The workshop will canvass options in relation to the capital gains tax treatment of venture capital and the future of the R&D tax concession in relation to their effects on innovation.If Australia is to continue to set the agenda for the future and maintain our competitive advantage, a closer partnership among industry, research and the government is necessary. With this in mind the government, in conjunction with the Business Council of Australia, is going to stage the National Innovation Summit this year. The purpose of the summit is to develop a consensus on strategies to be pursued by government, industry and the research community to strengthen innovation overall and improve the level of commercialisation of Australian R&D.The provisions of this item of legislation, as I said prior to the division being called in the main chamber, do represent the delivery of an important commitment to business and to the Australian community. The original bill lapsed with the calling of the election last year and was reintroduced in an identical form in December after the election.The provisions of the bill are designed mainly to streamline the administration of the research and development tax concession scheme. The aim is to make tax concession more readily accessible to business, thereby enhancing the role of the concession as a central element in the government's strategy to encourage stronger private sector research and development. The key improvements from the perspective of companies accessing the concession are to make the registration process easier for companies applying for the R&D tax deduction by providing extended times for lodging applications, moving to a lodgment deadline for most companies away from the busy Christmas and New Year period, and giving the Industry Research and Development Board a range of discretions to facilitate the registration process.The provisions of the bill seek to make the R&D tax concession more user friendly to the business community, consistent with the government's commonsense commitment to reducing compliance costs and eliminating unnecessary regulation for business. At the same time, the bill retains its protection against exploitation and will not weaken the provisions of the act that prevent retrospective access to the concessionary tax treatment. The bill also covers a range of other measures aimed at streamlining and improving the administration of the R&D tax concession scheme consistent with improving its integrity and efficacy, and some measures to improve the effectiveness of the IR&D board activities.At the outset, I referred to the contributions made by the honourable members for Fraser, Chisholm and Groom. I was particularly impressed by the erudite and thought provoking speech made by the honourable member for Groom. He rejected the false allegations brought forward by the shadow minister. He pointed out that, in his view, the reason that there has been some decrease in R&D funding is all about the economic uncertainty brought about under the former Labor government. We all agree—the country agrees, the government agrees—that we do need to continue to encourage R&D. That is what this bill is all about. This bill seeks to encourage research and development.It is obvious, as the member for Groom has said, that research and development are key engines in the growth of economies. We cannot rest on our laurels. As the member for Groom said, we need to do more, and this legislation is a very important tool towards achieving even more in this area. The member for Chisholm sort of crawled into the chamber and made the same old tired ideological arguments that one expects from certain sections of the Labor Party.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—That is okay. I thought you were impugning—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—You ought not to interject, my friend, because you were part of a government that brought the budget deficit into a situation where it was $10.3 billion in the red.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—We had four surpluses and we had to get over Howard's—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The thing is that Labor has failed to stop the exploitation of the R&D tax concession. That is why the legislation before the chamber is targeted and focused. The member for Corio is someone who usually hides with his tail between his legs. The member for Corio ought to be aware that the Labor government of which he was part and of which you were part, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, was a government which really offered no future to our children and grandchildren. It took this government, which was prepared to bring in sound economic management, to guarantee a real future for this nation. The bill before the chamber is a further step forward in relation to the boosting of the importance of research and development.The honourable member for Chisholm may have also expressed a concern about the possibility that some companies may go overseas. If the Labor Party were in any way, shape or form, even remotely concerned about keeping companies in Australia and about boosting the economy, they would be respecting the mandate given to us by the Australian people at the last election and voting for tax reform. But the Labor Party refuse to accept that, once again, they were comprehensively rejected at the poll last year, and they refuse to accept that we have a mandate.Having said that, Labor does support the particular legislation before the chamber although it has made some false criticisms of our approach to this subject. To that end I thank the opposition for supporting this legislation and I would encourage it to support the tax reform bills when they are voted on in the Senate. I am very pleased to be able to commend this bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.UNKNOWNSlipper, Peter, MPMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G. Adams)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3850r687Cognate bills:Bills3850r688Billsr683Billsr6813850Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.11:01:003850O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The opposition is going to support this primary industries legislation which is before the Main Committee today. We congratulate the government for introducing a Labor initiative and legislating a Labor initiative which it rejected in 1995. We always fancied ourselves as good legislators who are interested in the effective operations of the parliament and we proposed this particular piece of legislation when we were in government. We are very pleased today that the government has finally jettisoned its longstanding opposition to what we proposed to do in 1995 and put this legislation before the Main Committee today.The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998 effectively amalgamate some 50 pieces of legislation in the agriculture portfolio into five discrete bills. We are discussing here this morning the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 . The original rationale for this particular piece of legislation was that to make amendments to the various acts governing the imposition of levies and charges on the rural industries was a particularly onerous task. It consumed an enormous amount of time in the parliament and in 1995 we sought to streamline that particular process and amalgamate those particular pieces of legislation relating to levies and charges into a more manageable legislative form that would reduce the demands on the parliament's debating time.The legislation that is being proposed mirrors very much the original legislation that Labor brought into the House many years ago. I would like to reiterate some of the points that were made at the time that Labor made this initiative and the coalition rejected it. In the debate on the original bill, back in 1995, the point was made that the proposal was going to allow amendments to the legislation to be undertaken by regulation, not by a legislative process that would bring it onto the floor of the House. Where such a procedure takes place there is a requirement that certain criteria are met in proposing changes to any levy and charge arrangements and that a report be provided to the parliament. That particular feature is incorporated in the legislation that the government has presented to the House and of course we support that.Without going into the nitty-gritty detail of the bill, I will say that what has happened this morning with regard to the amendments that are being proposed to this legislation really gives an indication of how this government operates and, indeed, what disarray the minister's office is in. I accept the bona fides of the minister in making available to me his staffer and some briefing materials on the amendments that are being proposed. But I ought to put it on the public record that these amendments were given to me about half an hour before I came into the Main Committee. I happened to be at a very important meeting and I have not been able to properly scrutinise the amendments that have been put before the Main Committee.So I put on the public record my disappointment in the minister and the government. Although this legislation—their own—has for quite a while been on the books for debate, they gave me, only half an hour before the debate was to take place in the Main Committee, a raft of nine pages of amendments which we in the opposition have not had an opportunity to go through with a fine toothcomb. So I have to accept on face value the integrity of the minister in this regard, that there is nothing untoward in the amendments that he has given us at such short notice.I understand that these amendments relate to the maximum amounts that can be charged under the levy arrangements. The amendments pick up some very basic typing errors and some name changes that have taken place to some of the industry bodies while this piece of legislation has been in the drafting. Essentially, according to the minister's brief, these are fairly perfunctory amendments that really do not go to the substance of the legislation. On that basis, I am not going to oppose the amendments that the government has put forward. I understand that an arrangement has been made for consideration of the amendments to be held over to the next sitting, and I would be in agreement with that. That would certainly give us an opportunity to fine toothcomb the amendments and to raise any particular points in debate so that they can be considered by the minister.But this incident is fairly typical of the arrogance of this government in its approach to issues and debate on the floor of this parliament and, in a small way, in the agriculture portfolio we see the same arrogance appearing. I just warn the minister. We know that, unfortunately, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are arrogant men and that the former primary industries minister was an arrogant man too. That is why One Nation was polling some eight to 15 per cent in the bush and stealing the constituency of the honourable member for Hinkler, who is here in this debate and who, as we know, represents the social conscience of the National Party—if it has one. He represents the left wing, being one of those old traditional rural socialists that we like to do business with, because really, I guess—and he will probably trot this out at me in the next election—deep in his heart of hearts he does have a feel for his constituency and for the farming community.We have had an arrogant Prime Minister. We have had an arrogant Treasurer. We have had an arrogant former primary industries minister that rode roughshod over the rural constituency. My plea goes out to the current minister: there is no need for you to follow in the footsteps of those sorts of people. Out in the bush one thing they will not tolerate is the sort of arrogance that they had in the last term from the coalition on a whole raft of issues and the whole heap of arrogance from the former minister, who drove the boot into the bush at every opportunity that he could. This is just a gentle suggestion to the minister, just a gentle warning that these sorts of things do not go down in the bush.I would appreciate getting amendments a little bit earlier than half an hour before the debate, when I have to be dragged out of another important meeting to run my eyes over the amendments and neither my adviser nor I are able to get to the detail of these particular amendments. We understand that the consideration of these amendments will be held over to the next sitting and we are quite happy to go along with that particular proposition.I wonder what changes over five years. I wonder what changes over a period of seven years in the attitude of a political party to a particular bill or an issue. I wonder what is the root of those changes—because this particular legislation we have here today exactly mirrors what the Australian Labor Party put to this parliament in 1995. That was a reasonable set of propositions that would streamline the consideration of legislation in this place and a very tight piece of legislation that did give legislative guarantees that changes by regulation would not go without parliamentary scrutiny. That was an entirely reasonable bill that was put to the Australian parliament by a reasonable government of the day. And, of course, it was done by a reasonable minister who had the confidence of the rural sector in putting that particular legislation before the parliament. In the great Labor tradition of agriculture ministers, going from Kerin to Crean to Collins, it was a piece of legislation that was sensible, was done in consultation with the industry and had widespread acceptance by the industry. But what did we have from the coalition of the day?KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Brilliance!WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I almost choked when the honourable member for Hinkler said `brilliance' because it certainly was not brilliance by the member for Gwydir, who is the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia and a former primary industries minister, who opposed that legislation at that time. Nothing has changed with regard to this issue since 1995—KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—You said there were nine pages of changes.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Let me say to the honourable member for Hinkler: I am just reminding you of the position that your deputy leader took when this legislation was introduced to the parliament in 1995. He opposed it. And he was not the only one who opposed it. Here I have a speech from a portfolio minister in this particular area, the member for O'Connor. At the time he was a most vociferous opponent of exactly what the government is doing today.I'll tell you what: there is some humbug in this place. When the Treasurer and the Prime Minister get up day after day in the parliament, they look over at the opposition benches and they accuse us of opposition for opposition sake: `Oh, you are only opposing this. Let our industrial relations legislation go through'—the legislation that will rip the heart out of the wages and salaries of young people and workers in this country—`because, if you oppose it, then you are just being obstructionist.'And then we come to the GST—the GST that they are claiming a great mandate for and that they cannot even get a majority of the popular vote for. If you wanted a referendum on it, you got it at the last election: you could not even—JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—What has this got to do with this?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I will tell you what it has got to do with this. You have been over there talking to the adviser. If you had been here listening to what I have been saying you would know what the debate is about. So just have a listen for a little bit, honourable member for McEwen, because I am telling you about this legislation. I am telling you that here you are introducing a Labor piece of legislation into this parliament which we agree with; we are very happy that you have done this. But the sanctimonious hypocrisy of this is absolutely breathtaking—not brilliant, breathtaking. And the honourable member for McEwen sits there trying to defend the indefensible.You have prompted me to read out a few excerpts from past debates on this very piece of legislation—and once again I have got to congratulate you for introducing a good piece of Labor legislation. The only problem is that it has taken you—I will do the Treasurer; you know how he does it in the pubs and to the gallery with all of his theatrics—`1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and then 1999'. It has taken you that long to come to the conclusion that what Labor put up was reasonable legislation; you are now catching up some eight years later.Ms Bailey interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—We lead you by the nose in the republican debate. We lead you by the nose in the economic debate. Now we have got to lead you by the nose in the consideration of a set of bills that amalgamate 50 pieces of legislation into five—something that Labor put before the parliament in 1995, that should have been done in 1995 but was not because of coalition obstruction and opposition. And now you have the gall to come into this parliament and tell us that you are really doing the rural industry a favour by introducing it.Ms Bailey interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for McEwen has interjected. I would like to entertain her and make her day because I think she is going to enjoy what I am going to read to her on this very important piece of primary industries legislation.Ms Bailey interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Back in 1995 the towering intellects of the National Party decided that they were going to oppose this legislation. Let me tell you who the giants were. Oh, it was not only the National Party but also the Liberal Party—that is, the honourable member for McEwen's mob. So here we had both of them.Let us have a look at what they said at the time—and the question that you have got to keep in your mind in the background here is: has anything changed in the meantime? Let us go through it. Mr Anderson, the member for Gwydir and Deputy Leader of the National Party, was one of the young guns making his way in the portfolio at the time, and he said:The coalition will not be supporting this package of primary industries bills. We will in fact be opposing them.Bring him into the House today. Perhaps when we present these bills to the parliament we ought to invite the honourable member for Gwydir to declare his intent in this regard and ask him why he has changed his mind, because he had a few things to say about the Labor proposal. He said:. . . we have serious reservations about what is proposed.It gets worse than this. He went on to say:The nub of our concern is that those bills will allow levies and charges to be imposed by regulation—By regulation—instead of having the present system which requires legislation to establish levies and to vary them.What does this bill do? What does the National Party minister do? We all know that the honourable member for Gwydir and Deputy Leader of the National Party wants to knock over the Leader of the National Party and put himself in. I think the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is such a good bloke that I am going to keep going on this because I think the parliament needs to know exactly what the member for Gwydir has had to say about this legislation in the past—and I will keep going here, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it gets better. He said:But, so far as the coalition is concerned, this allows the government to fulfil an objective: it seems to want to remove one of the few opportunities afforded this parliament to debate the circumstances of industries whose efforts are fundamental to the economic health and prosperity of all Australians.I could come into this chamber and mount the same argument: that amalgamating these 50 bills into four is going to curtail my opportunity to get up in debate on the floor of the parliament. I could go out into the bush tomorrow and say, `Here they are again. The National Party is driving the boot into rural producers. They do not even want these matters relating to rural industry discussed on the floor of the parliament.' I could very well go out and use the very words of the member for Gwydir, the Deputy Leader of the National Party. But it gets worse. He said:This is not our principal reason for opposing the legislation.I thought that would be enough. I know, honourable member for Hinkler, that this is tough stuff, because he said that it is not the `principal reason'—important as it is. He said:Our primary objection is to be found in the problems identified by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills—so it actually went through a process and a problem has been identified—which has clearly identified the problems that primarily concern the coalition. The committee found that both the Primary Industries Charges Bill 1995 and Primary Industries Levies Bill 1995 effectively delegate power to the minister to impose a tax. Quite simply, they remove from the primary legislation the power to establish a tax. The coalition believes that this is inappropriate.There you have it from the honourable member for Gwydir. He went on to say:The coalition is also concerned that switching from legislation to regulation will significantly reduce the amount of time available for the parliament to consider the imposition of levies and charges. I note the second reading speech says that we need to make a better use of parliamentary time. Perhaps that reflects one of the problems in this place: there is an unfortunate lack of awareness, in general terms, of the very important nature of primary industry to the national economy . . .I was just about to rest my case, but I could not remind the House of the sins of the National Party in this regard without canvassing a few of the Liberal Party's, of which the honourable member for McEwen is a member.The current Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the honourable member for O'Connor, got up in the same debate and took a different tack. He was concerned, as he always has been, about insidious taxation of primary producers: here it is, a Labor proposal in the current bills. His hand will go up—hypocrisy personified. But I ought to put on the public record what the honourable member had to say. He said:I am concerned that we are gradually streamlining this parliament out of existence.If the honourable member for O'Connor went out in the wave, I guess we would all put our hands up to that. Clearly legislation that imposes what is technically, at least, a tax should have exposure in this parliament, and there should be opportunities for members to discuss the issues and possibly represent the arguments of their constituents which might be in conflict—and I want to go further on this subject—with those of their so-called farmer representatives.So there you have it: the sanctimonious approach of the coalition to this sort of legislation is evident in what we are debating here today—what we considered in 1995 was a reasonable and rational piece of legislation. It has taken the coalition years to catch up with Labor.As I said in the debate just a while ago, and I will say it again for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, as he has now entered this chamber: we have really had to lead you by the nose on so many issues—on industry restructuring, on the republic and the list goes on. Here, in a small way, I am very pleased indeed that you have finally adopted this Labor initiative. It is a sensible piece of legislation. It is a sensible measure to streamline the process of government and the consideration of legislation in the agriculture portfolio and, I have to say—and this is a bit of a tick to the minister—that it is this minister, not the previous one, who has actually had the stomach to bring the legislation onto the floor of the parliament in the face of the opposition his deputy leader gave to the legislation when it was first introduced by Labor.I am not one to speculate on these things, but it must be an exquisite moment for the minister to come in here and present this legislation, given what I have just read out about the attitude of the honourable member for Gwydir about this. If ever you are going to stick the Doc Martens into your opponent in your own party, this is a good way of doing it. This is exquisite. I commend the minister for the manner in which he has upped the leadership stakes in the National Party in preparing the ground.I am quite happy to assist him in doing over the deputy leader, the previous minister, because we did not think he was much chop; nor did rural Australia—and the bush confirmed it, you know, when 15 per cent of the electorate of the honourable member for Hinkler turned the old cheek to the One Nation win. So we are quite happy to come in here today and really heap it on the Deputy Leader of the National Party because, really, we think at the end of the day you need to get rid of those people out of those positions and get some reasonable people into the leadership positions. Tim will go. The honourable member for Gwydir really does not have a future; his bolt is shot. There is really only one left standing. Of course, honourable member for Hinkler, I know you are so concerned about your constituency that you would not even dream of running for the leadership of the National Party, but we know that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has ambition. So this legislation really fits in fairly well, I guess, with driving the boot into the member for Gwydir, because—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Is the member for Corio referring to the bill or are we going to vary widely around our—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry that you have not been here to hear the debate because it might interest you, being a member of the National Party, to hear what I have said. I suggest that you read the Hansard .10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I would suggest that the member for Corio refer to the bill in question.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, I would like to say—and I will say this in the presence of the minister because I did say it before when he was not in the chamber, and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have just come into the chair—that there is a whole raft of amendments to this legislation that have been presented to us barely half an hour before this debate. I do thank the minister for the attempt he made to give us a proper briefing, but half an hour was just not long enough for me, because I was in another meeting and I have not been able to really go through the amendments.The minister has proposed what apparently are reasonably minor amendments to the government's own legislation. I have got to make that point. We are debating legislation but we have not really had the chance to do so properly because these amendments to the legislation have been put in at the last moment. So you can appreciate that, in the interests of good parliamentary practice, we ought to roll over the vote on these amendments to another sitting day and allow everybody a chance to have a look at what is being proposed.But we do support the legislation, because it is essentially Labor legislation. It streamlines the processes of the parliament, it amalgamates 50 bills into five—two primary bills and three minor bills—and it is in line with the principles that we enunciated in 1995 when we originally proposed the legislation. We will not be opposing the legislation.11:29:003856Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—We have just listened to the member for Corio, the shadow minister, for almost 20 minutes—and I would have to say that it was almost 20 minutes of posturing and of attempting to give a theatrical presentation. My only advice to the member for Corio, seeing that he seems so intent on handing out advice to everyone else, is: do not give up your day job because as a Thespian you do not qualify at all!The shadow minister spent most of that 20 minutes talking about how he had received notice of the amendments within only the last half-hour. I have been advised in fact that the Clerk circulated those amendments yesterday, that an adviser from the parliamentary secretary's office went through those amendments with an adviser in the shadow minister's office, that the shadow minister knows in fact that the amendments are being held over until the next sitting and that none of those amendments changes the intent of this legislation whatsoever. So we really had 20 minutes of the shadow minister standing up and taking the opportunity to try to score political points with a piece of legislation that, at the end of the day, he supports.In stark contrast to that, I want to go through this legislation with great care. I have to say that I support this primary industries levies amalgamation package of five bills which includes the two main bills, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998 . As well, this package of bills includes the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 , the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 and the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 .The amalgamation of primary industries levies will introduce administrative efficiencies and make the law more accessible to those involved in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. This will be achieved by the amalgamation of 40 primary industry levy and charge acts, providing a framework for the imposition of future levies and charges, and making minor technical amendments to improve levies and charges legislation. These bills will simplify the levy and excise system for our primary industries.I remind this Main Committee that these are industries that provided $28 billion towards the Australian economy, domestically and through exports, in the 1997-98 financial year, that these are industries that in the last two years alone have created 20,000 new jobs, and are industries that has been proactive in developing world-class research and development facilities.With continuing urban encroachment and reduced land availability, our primary producers are constantly looking for measures to produce more from less land and how to best utilise available resources such as water, whilst minimising the use of chemical, pest and weed controls. It is an industry that is committed to and understands the value of ongoing research and development.This legislation is primarily an amalgamation of existing levy and charge acts. It does not involve any fundamental changes to the levies or charges imposed by those acts. The amalgamation process has focused industry attention on the levy and charge legislation and a number of industry peak bodies have taken the opportunity to seek amendments to improve the effectiveness of the legislation as it relates to their industries.Additionally, some minor technical amendments have been required to ensure consistency between the various bills. The government's willingness to move these amendments is an example of its commitment to helping industries to take greater control of their own destinies and being responsive to industry needs. That, of course, stands in stark contrast to the performance that we just had from the shadow minister.With these bills, it is the government's intention to reflect changes in industry and respond to specific requests from the honey industry to increase the maximum charge rate on the export of honey, and requests from the cattle industry to clearly and separately identify the grass fed and lot fed components on the national residue survey cattle transaction levy.The effect of these bills will be to simplify parliamentary processes without reducing the normal opportunities for consideration of substantive issues. The current schemes for imposing levies will be retained. These bills will not create any new administrative burdens for industry and transitional provisions are included to ensure the continued application of any charge processes in train at the time of the commencement of the new acts.The purpose of these bills is to set guidelines under which the imposition of levies may be made on the produce of primary industry. The schedules to this bill will replace provisions for the imposition of the levy contained in previous acts and will not impose any new or additional levy on those products. These bills allow for the operative levy rate to be increased or decreased by the Governor-General by regulation on advice from the minister. The minister must consider the recommendation on rates of levy made by the relevant organisation for each industry. The operative levy rate cannot be increased beyond the maximum levy rates specified in the bill and the maximum levy rates can only be changed by amending the legislation in the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 . The power to specify a levy rate is intended to include a power to specify a zero rate. It is intended that the bill will provide more efficient charging processes for primary industry levies. Because the bill will provide a framework for future levies to be imposed by regulation, it is likely that there will be savings for the Commonwealth when changes need to be made.There are also minor amendments to this legislation which are either technical or consequential in nature. These amendments are purely for administrative reasons, and do not change the original policy intentions of the legislation, nor do they affect existing levy rates. The technical amendments involve changes required as a result of removing references to repealed legislation and the consequential amendments involve changes required in one or more of the bills as a result of amendments made to one of the bills, to ensure that all references across the bills are consistent.A minor, but important, technical amendment will correct the unforeseen consequences of legislative amendments in 1996 and 1997 to the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act 1986 which, in redefining the imposition of a corporation, promotion, research and Australian Animal Health Council levies, inadvertently removed the provision for the collection of these levies beyond 30 June 2000. There was no basis for ceasing the collection of dairy levies on 1 July 2000. Therefore, this amendment is needed to ensure the legislation reflects the government's and industry's current policies with respect to the continued collection of dairy levies.Other minor amendments include providing a threshold exempting growers from paying coarse grain levies where their total liability is less than $50 in a levy year, bringing the provisions of the coarse grain levy into line with other grain levies, placing a limit on the delegated authority for the determination of declared value of deer velvet to senior officer level within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and, in the case of the levy on rice, providing for consultation with state marketing authorities in any state in which they exist.The coalition believes innovation is one of the keys to the future of Australia's primary industries. The farm sector's tremendous capacity for innovation has seen it achieve annual productivity gains that have consistently outstripped those achieved by most other industry sectors in Australia over many decades. This has helped many producers effectively manage the changing nature of international trade. The coalition government's priorities for rural research and development are improved industry productivity, trade and market access, and the development of value adding and export oriented industries. We are strongly committed to research and development and strongly support the existing rural R&D corporation model, which has delivered excellent on-ground results and has been pivotal in securing ongoing industry support for R&D.These levies and charges that support vital R&D are not unilaterally imposed by government but rather are sought by representative industry bodies on behalf of the industry. As well as R&D, their purpose is also to fund activities such as marketing, which would otherwise be beyond the scope of individual farmers.The framework set up in these bills will allow new industries or new products to be quickly included on the request of the industry concerned. At the same time, this streamlining of legislation will not change the practical application of the current laws, but only the way the levies are established or amended. The only discernible difference in the way that the levies and charges processes operate from an industry point of view will be the time frame for any necessary changes. The times will be much shorter, because industry will no longer have to wait five or six months to meet legal and administrative requirements and to have legislation drafted. Primary industries levies and charges are imposed and administered by the Commonwealth at the request of, and on behalf of, industry organisations.They are generally only introduced or increased at the request of the industry peak bodies. However, in urgent cases, the government can also impose a new levy on an industry, where it considers it in the public interest to do so, for example, at the time of the bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis outbreak. In such an event, the government would take the emergency action, but continue to liaise with industry and review the imposed levy as required.Many rural producers lack the size to individually undertake the promotion, research and development which is necessary for the longer term development of their industries. The government recognises this and has provided a mechanism in the form of primary industries levies and charges to enable the collection of industry moneys to fund research and development, marketing promotion, residue testing and animal health programs. These activities play a valuable role in contributing to the international competitiveness of Australia's agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries and underpinning the exports of these sectors.The major delivery system for rural research and development, the R&D corporation model, is financed by industry levies and matching government contributions. The national residue survey program and the various animal health programs funded by levies play a crucial part in guaranteeing the integrity of our products in export markets. The marketing and promotion programs funded by primary industries levies and charges have established the Australian identity of so many of our products overseas and helped to build consumer awareness and loyalty.There are many tangible benefits from the R&D and promotional activities funded by levies, both to individual producers and their industries as a whole. I have talked to producers and industry representatives in the Yarra Valley region of my electorate. They all agree that the levy system with well-targeted R&D and promotion is of enormous benefit—for example, the work that has been undertaken by the Australian Fodder Industry Association's research, development and education committee on annual rye-grass toxicity. While annual rye-grass toxicity is only known to occur in South Australia and Western Australia, in times of fodder shortages it can pose a threat nationally and for our export markets.In the past, this problem has caused the death of perhaps millions of sheep and cattle, contaminated other produce and has had serious implications for the dairy, grain and red and white meat industries. The good news is that, because there are serious implications for both the grain and meat industries, research funding has come from both industries to develop a new strain of rye-grass that is free from toxicity.Overall, a survey in 1996-97 showed that 64 per cent of grain growers believed their farm business turnover had increased by an average of 11.2 per cent over the previous five years as a result of grains research. Promotion and marketing levies allow industry to undertake promotion and marketing activities on both the domestic and international markets. An example of this is the Australia Fresh program which promoted fresh fruit and vegetables in more than 12 major export markets.Levy moneys are also being well used for R&D in the Yarra Valley wine grape industry. One of the major projects currently being undertaken is looking at the presence of damage by rust mite in the region. The project is identifying the timing and presence of rust mite and setting up strategies for managing the pest. As well, irrigation methods are being studied to enable better water management, which will hopefully mean better pest management, leading to better crops.Another initiative being funded by levy moneys is the establishment of a register of all grape growers in the Yarra Valley region. This is an important tool in identifying what varieties of grapes are being planted throughout the region, allowing better planning and management and preventing unnecessary excesses. When linked in with information from remote weather stations, it will also assist in identifying areas of possible disease pressure resulting from climatic conditions.Perhaps, in the few minutes that are left, the best way to explain the excise and levy process is to dwell on Australia's grape and wine industries, which are valuable contributors to the domestic economy and are of increasing significance in the export sector. These groups are represented by the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation, which was established as a statutory body in 1991 under the provisions of the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989.The corporation was developed as a means to achieve greater independence, flexibility, responsiveness and accountability to the grape and wine industries as well as to the minister, with respect to the identification of needs and priorities and, through making more effective use of resources, increasing returns to industry. The corporation undertakes close consultation with industry to ensure continuing relevance of programs and to enable a regular review of priorities.Exports during the 1997-98 year approached $812.7 million and are anticipated to reach $896 million during the 1998-99 period. The industry now comprises over 5,000 independent grape growers and more than 900 wineries ranging from some of the very small boutique operations of the Yarra Valley to a few very large multinationals.Generally, even in the larger operations there is simply not the capacity to self-fund anything more than straightforward, problem solving R&D. Addressing difficult or protracted problems and strategic R&D is more effectively undertaken by specialist R&D providers. That is why the industry believes in the importance of levies. All members of the grape and wine industries pay the statutory levy on the tonnage grown and delivered to wineries, and on the tonnage converted to wine. These are collected and used, importantly, in those areas that I was just mentioning.The support by all of the various industries for this legislation is overwhelming. In speaking to a number of producers throughout my electorate, the only criticism that I have been able to find is that producers at times want greater feedback on where the levy money is being spent. I would draw the attention of this chamber to a very simple brochure, Levies explained, which was produced recently by the minister. I congratulate the minister on this brochure, which not only details some of the reasons, which I have included today, why we have levies, together with how the levies are implemented, but most importantly actually gives examples of how the levies have been used. I commend the information contained in this brochure to the chamber and I support this legislation. (Time expired)11:49:003860Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—In speaking on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 and cognate bills, and particularly in view of the comments of the previous speaker, I would like to deal with the wine industry and the levy that affects it. In my electorate I have come across a little problem with that levy, in the sense that the smaller growers are finding some difficulties in working out how the levy assists them.In this country we seem to be getting to a position where there is a large wine industry based mainly in South Australia, with a lot of small industry centres in many other parts of the country. The wine industry plays a very important role in regional development as well, especially in my electorate. There is a widening gap, however, between small and large wineries, which I think is going to cause some sort of conflict when we start talking about the GST taxes and how the government proposes to sort that out.It is also a difficulty for how small wineries actually gain, and that they see that they are gaining, from these levies. There is also the debate about how much wine we now import from countries like Chile, Spain and many other places and whether we should be concentrating on our own industry, and making sure that we assist that in some areas and that high quality wine is given good consideration as opposed to some of the imported wine that goes into some casks in this country. That is one criticism.The honourable member for McEwen, who had a pamphlet which I would hope to see at some time in the future, mentioned accountability. I think it is very important that there is some accountability for these levies back to the growers and the producers who pay them. We do have more accountability than maybe we had in the past in showing exactly what the levy money is spent on and in a simpler way.The five related bills are designed to consolidate 40 levy or charge imposition acts into two main acts and to provide a framework for imposing future levies by legislation. These bills are imposed and administered by the Commonwealth at the request and on behalf of the industry organisations. They provide funds for promotion, research and development, and generally are only increased or introduced at the request of those industry peak bodies.Industries affected by the bills include buffalo meat; cattle, both export and local, and the cattle producers; dairy produce; deer export and deer velvet; forest industries, research, export and import; honey export; horticulture export; livestock export and import in general; and wine. Other industries are involved in these levies as well.I find this bill really intriguing, not because of its content or intent—that is fairly straightforward—but because my side of the parliament tried to introduce it in 1995. We tried to get this bill through four to five years ago. I want to read an abstract from a speech made back then by a member of the then opposition. That member said:The nub of our concern is that these bills would allow levies and charges to be imposed by regulation instead of having the present system, which requires legislation to establish levies and then to vary them. We know that the levies and charges in question are not imposed by the government but are sought by industry in order to undertake research and development and other activities beyond the scope of small scattered enterprises to organise and put in place their own.Levies and charges, I guess he was referring to. He went on:The government's rationale in changing the process is to reduce the amount of time parliament spends amending levy and charge acts by introducing a standard framework that streamlines the process. But, so far as the coalition is concerned, this allows the government to fulfil its objective: it seems to want to remove one of the few opportunities afforded this parliament to debate the circumstances of industries whose efforts are fundamental to the economic health and prosperity of all Australians.The member's speech went on:This is not our principal reason for opposing the legislation, important as it is. Our primary objection is to be found in the problems identified by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which has clearly identified the problems that primarily concern the coalition. The committee found that both the Primary Industries Charges Bill 1995 and the Primary Industries Levies Bill 1995 effectively delegate power to the minister to impose a tax. Quite simply, they remove from the primary legislation the power to establish a tax. The coalition believes that this is inappropriate.The member also said:The coalition is also concerned that switching from legislation to regulation will significantly reduce the amount of time available for the parliament to consider the imposition of levies and charges. I note the second reading speech says that we need to make better use of parliamentary time. Perhaps that reflects one of the problems of this place: there is an unfortunate lack of awareness, in general terms, of the very important nature of primary industry to the national economy and, in specific terms, of the critical role of research and development and promotion in securing our future in economic terms, given that the future is very heavily dependent upon our primary industries and their export performance. I suggest that we will be more dependent, rather than less dependent, in the future.My position has not changed since 1995, but those are the words of the member who was the shadow minister for primary industry at that time and the minister for primary industry in the last parliament, and who is still a senior minister and Deputy Leader of the National Party. They were his words when the Labor government tried to bring into the parliament these very bills and have them passed. I support him totally in what he says about the importance of the primary industries and the importance of those industries to our national wellbeing.What is the difference now? The new minister for primary industry has got his act together. He has brought them forward. We are now going forward with these bills. But we have wasted four to five years in getting this piece of legislation through the parliament. That probably sums up the present government—that they are well behind the eight ball in their understanding of that dependence on primary industries and their export performance. We have got to enhance that performance, and that is about innovation, encouraging R&D with a levy and whatever we raise from that, being in front of the rest of the world, having good products, and getting those products and labels from our primary industries and out there onto the world market. That takes innovation and effort.My shadow minister suggested that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry might be putting the boot into the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I do not know whether he is doing that, but the honourable member did suggest that it was his Doc Martens that he might be putting in. I would have to suggest that they are made in England. I would think it more likely that it would be the Blundstone boots of Tasmania that the minister would be wearing. If he was going to put them into his deputy leader by bringing these bills back in, it would be likely to be a pair of Blunnies that he would be putting into him. I do not know whether he is doing that, or whether he is just a good minister and he knows that these bills are sensible bills that should have been introduced and supported in 1995.We are striving to improve and develop everything we produce on the land and in the water. We have had the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 in the parliament. We are looking in that area to improve what we do with wood products, and that industry has a levy on it.In some industries it was not until we got government involvement and assistance, especially to our primary producers over the years, that we actually did something about research and development. That was in the beginning and we have come a long way since then. We have to look back at the history to see how we got that going. It was by government intervention that we did do it. I remember the CSIRO programs over the years that were designed to improve the position of our primary producers by providing them with opportunities. We are continuing to do that with levies and charges, and this legislation will assist that.I want to suggest here that new products are what it is going to be about. The dairy industry has gone through some changes in Tasmania, and it will go through further changes. There has been some bringing together of the dairy industry in my state. Eighty per cent of the milk that we produce goes into export products. We need to be on the move to make sure that we are up with where the new products are, and where innovation is, if we are going to grow the Tasmanian industry.We had a new dairy officially opened in my electorate only a few weeks ago. It is milking 1,000 cows a milking. Seventeen jobs are provided in a valley where the coal mine is declining, where the forest industry does not employ as many people as it used to, and neither do the 20 big properties that exist in the area. There were jobs created there by the dairy industry, and I am sure there are going to be more created as well.The milk has to be turned into something that the world needs and wants. Therefore, there has to be a certain amount of R&D at the other end of the dairy process to ensure that the product going out there is going to be bought. The people who work in that new dairy and the people who own the company understand that it is about finding market share, and that it is a world market that we have to be targeting. These bills are bringing that together.Concerning innovation, I want to mention that we must continue the quest for better and more productive methods of growing, processing, exporting and marketing our primary produce. Historically, it has been the backbone of our economy, and that has not changed. We might have some problems, especially in the wool industry at the moment. This government has not assisted the wool industry very much as it plays its political processes to satisfy its needs. But we will need to continue to look at this very fine product in the future.In my electorate last week at the Bothwell Spin-in, a wonderful woman named Isabella Shorrock, an expatriate Scot currently living in that lovely little town of Bothwell—one of our historical towns and a very worthwhile spot to visit—developed a tartan and has had it registered in Scotland. It has now been presented to the Premier of Tasmania as the tartan for Tasmania. One day I might even get a waistcoat and be able to wear it in the parliament.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—What about a kilt?BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—I do not know if I would go as far as wearing a kilt. Mrs Shorrock is the holder of the copyright, but she is not able to fulfil all the orders. She is already filling up an order book. We will be seeking to have that wool woven and developed and marketed in Tasmania. If we can get that going it is something that could encourage the rebirth of wool processing in Tasmania. We used to do it, but because it was cheaper and easier to mass produce general materials elsewhere the wool was shipped offshore and woven into cloth somewhere else. Through this niche market we perhaps can get some of that back, and we will certainly be trying to do it. I am very hopeful that with a little help from a number of interested players this could occur and that another idea will be put into operation and be something positive for us.I often wonder how many other ideas never see the light of day because there have been no funds available to get them off the ground. Perhaps no funds were available to have a look at them in a deeper way, or to help someone get something going, or to solve a small problem that may exist within it.Our primary producers are coming more and more into the front line of testing of ideas and, in particular, well beyond the farm gate. Of course, they can no longer just sit back and produce. They have to be aware of where the product goes, how it goes, and what it is finally sold for. They have to be more involved than these levies allow, for research to be done, at their instigation, to address their needs and they have to continue to seek new ideas and new processes.There is little financial impact on government—merely a guiding hand in the bringing together of often very independently minded and sometimes difficult groups of people to help develop their industries. I am sure the minister would agree with that.I just wanted to mention the amendments. As the shadow minister said, we were given short notice. We basically got the amendments in the chamber 1½ hours ago. There are some recommendations from the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council as the new peak body. I have not had an opportunity to talk to the industry in Tasmania where, as everybody in this chamber would know, the best honey in the world is produced. The industry has made a recommendation and I am sure that the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, which is a new body, has done that. I certainly hope that the honey industry of Tasmania has some affiliation to that, but I do not know because I have not had an opportunity to check it. There is also mention of laying chickens, and other stuff, where there have been some changes.I certainly hope that when I go back to my electorate I do not have a lot of representations that these amendments are terrible and that nobody was consulted about them. I take it on board that that is not going to happen. But it has been difficult to look at these amendments as they have been dropped on us so late, as the shadow minister has said.We are certainly not going to oppose this legislation. We are going to support it. It is long overdue. We congratulate the minister on finally getting the government to do something that the previous Labor government was going to do four or five years ago.12:03:003864Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I would like to thank all speakers who have participated in the debate on the primary industries legislation in the chamber this morning. Some have been quite colourful contributions and have been quite animated. As is always the case, I thank them for their spirit of cooperation in what we believe is a very important piece of legislation for primary industries in Australia.When I introduced this package of bills to parliament, I noted that it would make the law more accessible to those involved in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The singular achievement of the PILA legislation is the amalgamation of 40 primary industry levy and charge acts into two main bills. This will reduce the call on the time of parliament and the public sector for the often involved process of making changes to levies and charges by reducing the number of imposition acts that will have to be amended to effect changes in the future.The other important aspect of the PILA legislation is that it provides a framework for future levies and charges to be imposed by regulation. This will enable the government to better service industry by simplifying the processes and reducing the long lead times surrounding changes to levies and charges and by being more flexible and responsive to industry requests for such changes as well as for new or additional levies. This streamlining of the administration of levies and charges legislation will also introduce new efficiencies to the public sector.It is important to note that the government intends that the regulation introducing new levies will be required to be accompanied by a report setting out the extent to which the proposed levy or charge complies with the government's general principles for new primary industry levies and charges when tabled in parliament and will be subject to disallowance by parliament. In addition, the Office of Regulation Review examines new levies through its regulation impact process and a regulation impact statement is required for each new levy or charge.Industry is supportive of the PILA legislation because it will streamline the process of amending levy rates and introducing new levies. Many sectors have taken the opportunity to request minor amendments to the legislation while it is before the parliament.Essentially, these amendments have involved minor tidying up and reflecting changes within industry sectors which have occurred since their legislation was last before parliament. There have been some substantive changes, however. At the request of industry, the national residue survey cattle transaction levy has been changed so that the grass-fed and lot-fed components can be separately and clearly identified. The maximum levy rates for the dried fruit industry and the levy and charge rates for the honey industries have been increased at the request of those industries.I must stress that these changes do not affect the current amount of levy or charge presently paid by those industries and that, if and when the industries do seek to change their operative rates at some stage in the future, they will have to ensure that the government's levy principles and the regulation impact statement requirements are met.I would point out though that the government has been pleased to show that it is responsive to industry requests by moving these amendments. In addition, the government has introduced some minor technical amendments to correct deficiencies and improve the legislation.In conclusion, the government's initiative in introducing the PILA legislation represents a major step forward in administration of primary industries levies and charges. I underline again that the shadow minister, during his contribution, was complaining about the brevity of notice on the amendments—amendments that have all been proposed by industry. The industry has asked us to introduce these amendments on their behalf to improve the legislation. In the spirit of getting the right effect and benefit from this legislation for those industries, we are quite happy for the opposition to have a bit more time to consider the amendments that we propose to introduce to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Vaile) adjourned.Bills3865s195Consideration resumed from 18 February.386512:13:003865Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.One of the greatest threats to the survival of many of the world's critically endangered species is the illegal hunting of these animals for use in a range of products, particularly traditional medicines. Australia is one of the 144 countries which have ratified the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES. Under CITES, parties are required to control international trade in species that are threatened with extinction, or that may become threatened with extinction if trade is not controlled. Continued and uncontrolled use of endangered species in products such as traditional medicine threatens many species with extinction, and has been the subject of particular concern among the signatory nations to CITES, including countries that have practised in traditional medicine for thousands of years, such as China and Japan.CITES parties have acted on this concern in recent years by agreeing unanimously to a number of resolutions which urge parties to strengthen controls on products containing endangered species. The government is committed to fulfilling its obligations under these resolutions.Two species commonly used in traditional medicines, tiger and rhinoceros, survive in wild populations in numbers of less than 5,000 and 14,000 respectively. In the case of tigers, this represents a decline rate of 95 per cent since the turn of the century. Out of the five species of rhinoceros in the world, four have numbers of less than 3,000 in the wild with the Javan rhinoceros surviving in numbers of less than 100.The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, which is administered by Environment Australia, implements Australia's international obligations under CITES. The act prohibits the import and export without a permit and, in some cases, the possession of products that contain endangered species.However, in its current form the act does not enable the government successfully to prosecute offenders for the illegal import into Australia of many products that contain material from endangered species. This is because forensic science is not currently able to provide the required level of certainty. Thus, despite the prohibition, imported traditional medicines containing material from endangered species remain available in Australia and there have been no prosecutions, under the act, for their illegal import.The amendment will rectify this by extending the controls to products that are represented to contain material from endangered species and will enable prosecutions on this basis. Implementation costs for the amendment will be funded from within existing departmental budgets.I would now like to explain the amendment in more detail. For a prosecution to be successful under the current legislation, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a product does contain material from an endangered species. In some products, particularly traditional medicines, material from endangered species may be mixed with other ingredients and heated to high temperatures. In such cases, current technology is unable to distinguish individual species or to prove conclusively that material from any particular species is contained with the product.The proposed amendment will allow prosecution to be successful on the basis that a product is represented to contain material from an endangered species. If the packaging, markings or labelling of a product, or any accompanying documentation or other circumstances, represent that product as containing material from endangered species, it will be legally regarded as doing so. In this way the amendment will overcome the forensic problems associated with conclusively proving the presence of a particular species in the product.The amendment will act as an effective deterrent to the trade in traditional medicines that contain material from endangered species, and will encourage the use of alternative ingredients, many of which are already recognised by traditional medicine practitioners. It is not the intention of the amendment to prohibit the general use of images of wildlife as a marketing tool, for example, where a product obviously does not contain material from endangered species.In making successful prosecutions possible, this amendment will play a vital part in protecting endangered species from poaching for use in the traditional medicine trade. In conjunction with the implementation of this amendment, the government will continue to work closely with groups of traditional medicine practitioners and consumers to highlight the plight of endangered species and to promote the use of alternative substances in traditional medicines.The government is providing leadership and support for the community in meeting our national and international obligations to preserve the world's endangered species. This amendment will contribute legislative force to the fight to protect them against extinction. I present a copy of the explanatory memorandum to this bill.12:18:003867Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] is intended to strengthen controls on the illegal import, export and possession of products that contain material from endangered species in their ingredients, by amending the relevant evidentiary provisions. Let me say at the outset that I acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Library, whose Bills Digest concerning this piece of legislation I intend to draw on in some detail.What the bill does in changing the evidentiary provisions for a prosecution under this act is to say that, in addition to the current criminal offence of a product containing, without a permit, material from an endangered species, it will also be a criminal offence to import, export or possess a product that is represented to contain material from an endangered species. That is a potentially significant change. It is designed to more fully implement this nation's obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which is the primary international instrument for the protection of species which are or may be endangered by international trade. The convention was established in 1973 and was ratified by Australia in July 1976.At the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties to this convention, which was held in Zimbabwe in June 1997, it was acknowledged that the uncontrolled use of wild species in traditional medicine can threaten not only the survival of the species but the continuation of those medical practices. The consideration of traditional medicine as an issue in its own right, rather than attached to any particular species, is considered by people to be an advance in holistic conservation. The conference went on to call on each of the parties to the convention to eliminate illegal use of endangered species as medicinal substances, to ensure that national laws control the use of these species, to encourage the promotion of substitutes for threatened medicinal wildlife and to consider artificial propagation and captive breeding techniques.If we look at the Australian situation for the regulation of exports and imports, we have our own act of 1982 which gives effect to Australia's obligations under this convention. It is the legislative basis for conservation related controls on the export and import of wildlife and wildlife products. The broad aim of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act is to ensure that all trade in wildlife is carried out in a sustainable manner that is not detrimental to the survival of the species or the ecosystems in which they occur.The extent of use of threatened species in traditional medicines within Australia is not certain. There is a view that plasters and pills containing tiger bone and rhino horn are readily available. The World Wide Fund for Nature has expressed that view. Others, however, consider that those medicines only purport to contain tiger and rhino and that there have long since been substitutes for these endangered species due to their lack of availability and their high cost.There are also developing export markets in the medicinal use of the internal organs of crocodiles bred in farms in northern Australia and of the pipefish family, which includes seahorses, for example, which are caught as bycatch by Queensland prawn trawlers. Australian species of crocodiles are listed in the convention and also in schedule 2 of the wildlife protection act. The pipefish, leafy sea dragons and seahorses are not listed in the convention but, in recognition of their vulnerability to depletion, they are not exempt from the export regulations under the act, unlike most other marine fish.It probably ought to be pointed out that there have not been any prosecutions for breaches of the wildlife protection act that involve illegally imported traditional medicine products containing material from endangered species. By way of comparison, if we look at 1997-98, there were over 4,500 seizures by the Australian Customs Service of illegally imported and exported wildlife specimens and seven successful prosecutions under the act.The major impediment to a successful prosecution is that current forensic technology is simply not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that traditional medicines do contain material from endangered species. For example, the existing DNA testing technologies cannot identify a particular species within a product once material from that species is co-mingled with other elements, heated at high temperatures and so on. Clearly what the government is endeavouring to do with this amendment is to get around that evidentiary problem by saying that, if products are represented to contain materials from wildlife in breach of the wildlife protection legislation, in breach of the international convention to which we are a signatory, then that, too—that is, making that representation—will be an offence.The Commonwealth is proposing some substantial changes to the federal environmental legislative framework. The public consultation paper which was released prior to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] had proposed that the act we are talking about, the wildlife protection act, be incorporated into a proposed biodiversity conservation bill. However, that has not happened as yet. Given that the wildlife protection act was originally intended to be part of the package of environmental law reforms in that bill, one issue that the government may wish to review in the future may be the incorporation of the wildlife protection act into the proposed regime.The opposition is supportive of this legislation and will not be opposing it. There are two or three matters that ought to be mentioned in relation to the bill. The explanatory memorandum states that the wildlife protection act is administered by Environment Australia. We were advised that is not strictly correct and that the wildlife protection act is administered by the designated authority, in this case the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Environmental Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 proposes to abolish the position of Director of National Parks and Wildlife and replace it with the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Heritage. It is suggested there may be advantages in retaining an arrangement whereby the wildlife protection act is administered by an independent designated authority, particularly given the scientific and technical nature of many of the decisions needed.Secondly, it ought to be noted that the bill does not extend the protection of the new evidentiary provisions to cover anything which is not listed in the convention. The non-listed Australian plant and animal specimens which are covered by the current offences regime and which may be in danger of depletion—the example I mentioned earlier was the pipefish family, the seahorses and so on—are not listed on the convention.Thirdly, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has recognised the need for educating Chinese medical practitioners and Chinese medicine manufacturers in improving the general manufacture practices or standards of traditional Chinese medicines destined for the export market. There may be problems with traditional medicines such as batch-to-batch variability, variations in purity, accidental contaminants and different subspecies of plants. This raises broader issues of labelling than those which are covered in the present bill. It is disappointing that these things were not addressed.Some of the specific provisions within the bill involve new definitions. We have a definition of a convention listed animal and a convention listed plant. The second item in the legislation proposes that if a thing is represented by an accompanying document, a package, a mark, a label, or from any other circumstances we can see that it is being represented as a convention listed animal or plant, or it is produced by or derived from a convention listed animal or plant with or without other material, then it is going to be taken to be a specimen from a convention listed plant. The explanatory memorandum notes that the phrase `is represented to be' is not open-ended so it is not intended, for example, to cover a product such as Tiger Balm with a tiger on the lid or something of that character. It is designed to expressly cover products where there is a representation that it contains, for example, tiger products.The other point that I want to make some reference to is proposed subsection 4(2C). There is some concern being expressed that because that is a tortuously drafted provision it may not actually operate in the way intended. So this is something that, from the opposition's point of view, we would like to see the government consider.The wildlife protection community in Australia welcomed the government's commitment to amend this legislation. The response from the traditional medicine community has also been supportive. For example, the President of the New South Wales Association of Chinese Medicine has indicated that most practitioners are happy to abide by the changes. So on that basis, as I indicated earlier, the opposition will not be opposing the legislation.Adjournment386910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—It being 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the committee do now adjourn.386912:30:003869Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to inform you that last night the Australian Army placed an order for 341 Bushmaster armoured personnel carriers with the Australian Defence Industries plant in Bendigo. This vehicle was designed and built in Bendigo and this contract, which is worth $200 million, will create 40 new jobs initially with the potential for further positions, not only with ADI but with the many contractors from central Victoria that will participate in this project.Mr Price interjecting—83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—The Army recently completed testing the Bushmaster and a South African designed vehicle, with the Bendigo designed machine showing its superiority in every aspect of the tests. This follows on from the successful Flyer vehicle, also designed and built in Bendigo, which is already in production. They also have a high-speed engineering vehicle which is being dubbed `the tractor on steroids', 27 of which are already in service.The Bushmaster high-tech vehicle can comfortably transport nine personnel in a high degree of comfort and safety in almost any conditions. It has a range of over 1,000 kilometres and travels at speeds in excess of 110 kilometres per hour. ADI informed me that the vehicle is manufactured from specially developed Australian steel using ADI specialist welding process. Its monocoque hull provides both ballistic and mine blast protection.Its fuel and hydraulic oil tanks are located outside the crew compartment to protect the occupants from possible fires due to rupturing in the event of a mine blast. The fuel tank is also fitted with fire retardant elements that prevent the explosion or deterioration of the fuel. The Bushmaster has a 270-litre drinking water tank located under the crew compartment which also contributes to the occupants' safety in the event of a landmine explosion.The potential of this vehicle is staggering, having both military and civilian applications. ADI Bendigo already has a firefighting appliance version of this vehicle on the drawing board, as well as a cash carry vehicle and several other commercial and military applications.Winning this contract is the most exciting news for Bendigo in decades and it has been achieved in spite of the Howard government's ideology, rather than because of it. We saw one of the most blatant pieces of political dishonesty ever on Thursday, 15 February 1996, a few short weeks before the federal election of that year, when John Howard said in Bendigo, `No, no, and no, we have no plans to privatise ADI.' This pre-election commitment was broken halfway through the Howard government's first term, thereby betraying the people of Bendigo in the most callous and dishonest manner and no doubt was a major factor in Labor's win at the last election. I congratulate Mr Koos de Wet, the head of the ADI Bendigo design team, and all personnel involved in the design and manufacture of the prototype vehicles.Winning this contract is a powerful endorsement of the generations of Bendigo people who have built up ADI and made it the first-class facility that it is today. This is great news for Bendigo and for Australian heavy vehicle manufacturing and proves that Australian defence manufacturing can provide substantial economic benefits to regional Australia.387012:33:003870Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise on a matter of grave concern to some 15,000 constituents in my electorate, and I rise in the very unusual situation of expressing some concerns about the administration of a federal government agency. I refer to Australia Post and to the closure of the Telopea Licensed Post Office—a matter on which I addressed this place on 12 October last year. I now want to report back on a number of aspects of this closure which ought to concern all members in this place.You will recall that I informed the House that I was called immediately after the last election to be told that the licensed post office in Telopea was to be closed, that it was closed because of problems with the then licensee, but that it was a temporary closure. I then received a letter on 23 October which explained:The post office was closed recently and after thoroughly reviewing its operations I have decided it will remain closed.I want the House to be aware of the terrible problems we have had in communicating with Australia Post over the rationale for this closure and whether or not it can be justified. I have a deep suspicion that there is a corporate plan somewhere in the head office of Australia Post which says, `To make our fewer more profitable licensees even more profitable, we will shut down those less profitable centres that are in difficult areas or which do not generate such fat revenues.'The Telopea Licensed Post Office services about 15,000 of my constituents. The biggest problem is the many pensioners who are gathered in the housing commission homes and apartment blocks immediately behind the centre. Many of them are frail and elderly and it is simply not a solution for them to get on a bus and go some kilometres to some other centre.The argument that Australia Post have been running—and it is an ingenious piece of bureaucratic sort of dissembling—is that Australia Post are prohibited by the provisions of this government's franchising code of conduct from reissuing the licence. Australia Post say they have conducted a secret internal review about the profitability of the operations and that, following that review, they have decided that the operation is not efficient or profitable. Therefore, they have told me and the minister that they are prohibited by the franchising code of conduct from reissuing a licence. To quote the local area manager, `The ACCC is just looking for someone to string up for breach of the franchising code and Australia Post is not going to be their bunny.'I have in front of me a copy of the franchising code and I have taken the trouble to read the relevant provisions. I want the House to be aware that the franchising code is an excellent document and a good piece of legislation. Its key concept is disclosure. It imposes on a franchisor an obligation to disclose to a prospective franchisee matters which are material to the operation of the business. The opening sentence says:This disclosure document contains some of the information you need in order to make an informed decision about whether to enter into a franchise agreement.That information includes, for example, if there are legal proceedings taking place, as there may be in this instance, and that must be included in the disclosure document. But Australia Post's intimation that, because they are sceptical about the profitability of the business they will be in breach of the code if they reissue the licence, is absolute rubbish. In relation to the question of earnings, the document does not even require compulsory publication of the previous turnover of the business. It simply says:Earnings information for the franchise, if it is given, must be based on reasonable grounds.Likewise, Australia Post are relying on provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Again, the operating concept in that act is deceptive and misleading conduct. All Australia Post have to do is fully disclose the position. I have half a dozen local qualified business people who are chafing at the bit to take on a licence but they cannot get any information because of this sort of rubbish.I have taken the trouble to consult the minister responsible for the franchising code and put the facts of this case to him. The advice that I have received back from the minister's department is this:The code does not prohibit Australia Post from granting a franchise where Post is uncertain about its viability.(Time expired)387112:38:003871Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I do have some sympathy for the honourable member for Parramatta. I have been trying to have a licensed post office reopened at the Tregear Shopping Centre. I have written to the minister. I have had meetings with Australia Post. Here you have a businessman who wants to conduct a business at Tregear Shopping Centre. There are aged pensioners all around it. There is nowhere for them to do any money transactions at all, other than travelling to Mount Druitt, and the government says no.Let me say to the honourable member for Parramatta that I really do think that the government needs to have another look at Australia Post because I believe they deliver an essential service. It is an area where the deprivation of it is harmful to some people, as he says. We ought to not only have processes that allow these things to open or re-open, in his case and in mine, but also examine possible closures from a community interest basis. I do not think market forces are the best determinant of those.I do not want to get sidetracked, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I want to mention a couple of things. Firstly, of course, the Howard government is really attacking young people. Right throughout Australia if you are eligible to go into year 11 and 12 and are unemployed, you do not get unemployment benefits unless you go back to school. In my electorate that has forced a number of people back to school. I do not know with what motivation and I do not know at what disruptive cost. The thing that really hurt me was this initiative about people who are illiterate. The Prime Minister said that you will not get social security benefits if you do not fix your literacy problems, suggesting that there are people in Australia who have actually made a conscious decision to be illiterate. I have not met one of them. I have a high proportion of people who are either illiterate, or functionally illiterate, in my electorate, as you would have in yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, but I have never heard of one who has chosen to be.This is the point that I want to make. At Mount Druitt TAFE there are 18 positions available for people to have their literacy problems dealt with. Seventy people applied. I know of a couple who were not able to be successful at Mount Druitt TAFE, so they went back to the school system and the school system assessed them as being year 9. Because they are two years older than the year 9 cohorts, they were refused entry into the school.A government that wants to tackle illiteracy I think needs to be applauded. But we also need to have the programs to deal with it. Let me give you this warning; I have given it before in the House. Usually you only get one opportunity to deal with illiteracy; that is, if you get people up to the mark, but fail to get them literate, it is almost impossible on subsequent occasions. We certainly need to have decent programs.The other thing is that you are often dealing with a whole range of other problems with people who are illiterate. The idea that you can create, in a marketplace, literacy providers that deal with literacy and solve the problem I think is very wrong. In my own state, there are very few re-entry centres. For example, other states like Western Australia and South Australia have re-entry centres where young people who have dropped out—in my electorate they drop out from grade 6—can go and catch up on what they have missed out on. I certainly would like to think that, if the government is genuine about literacy, we could see some national or federal government initiative that develops a role for re-entry centres in schools. I think it is really tragic that we are dealing with this problem of illiteracy amongst young people in a very partisan way.I guess the other point that I would make is that it costs you $2,000 a day if they end up in juvenile justice and we are happy to pay that and build more centres. I just wish some of that money would be paid to actually help them overcome their existing problems, certainly getting them literate and certainly getting them a full and decent education. Whilst I applaud tackling literacy, the methodology I object to strongly. (Time expired)387212:43:003872Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—It gives me pleasure to stand here today. This week we have witnessed in Canberra the National Youth Round Table discussions and young people from all over Australia and its territories have contributed enormously to many discussions, bringing forward their ideas on how they would like to see their future shaped.The reason why I stand up here today is, firstly, to congratulate them for the contribution they have made in Canberra this week. I have had the opportunity to attend a few of their discussions. I have found that I have great faith in our young people and I know that my future has been well looked after when I see young people like that in Australia making great contributions.I also stand here today to talk about another young gentleman in my electorate and that is Ben Hall. He is only 13 years old and he won the Queensland Headstart's Youth Ambassador Competition last year with a poem praising the many faces of Queensland. I would have loved to have recited that poem in here today, but it actually takes a bit longer than the time allocated to me.When I read that poem it brought tears to my eyes to think that someone so young had such a great perception about Australia and its future. Ben has had the opportunity this week to see, a year down the track, whether his perceptions of Australia have improved or decreased, and it gave me great pleasure to see what he wrote in the Courier-Mail on Tuesday. I would like to read a little bit of that out—if I could be indulged. He wrote in the paper, 12 months after winning this award:As we enter a new year, decade, century and millennium we have asked ourselves the questions: What are we going to make of our lives? How do we want to be remembered by our friends and families?I look up to the hard workers of Australia, the people who get up every morning and go to work—for money for sure, but also for the satisfaction of knowing that they are helping to make Queensland a better state.He went on to say:I admire the people who worked on the railways of western Queensland. They build hundreds of kilometres of railway line, sometimes in 40-plus degrees.I admire the selectors and farmers who lived in close to unbearable conditions so they could get the money to live and feed their families and to make the state a better one for our future generations—us.All the entertainers, both in sport and theatre, are to be thanked for what they do every day to make people happy, to make every day a bit more enjoyable. We are all thankful for the people who design zoos and theme parks. I know a lot of them do it for enormous profit in mind, but the odd few actually design a leisure park to make people happy.I admire people like . . . Pat Rafter who make it big in the sporting world, win millions of dollars and instead of selfishly going back home with it and buying new cars, actually give some of their wealth to people who need it, in hospitals and orphanages.Queensland already has a great tourism industry with the Great Barrier Reef, rainforests and beaches and if we keep encouraging overseas visitors the money will keep pouring in and we can use this money to fix up our environmental problems and maybe help other countries.Ben also stated:This state is verging on being perfect, with relatively low traffic, low crime and high life expectancy. Every person in Queensland so do their bit to contribute towards a better state, country and world—simple things you've heard a million times before like putting your rubbish in the bin and travelling by public transport when you can, not using too much electricity, not using too much of anything. It's just common sense.Young people today have a big problem to face, and that is to find a job. It will be easy for some, but those who don't do well at school will find it a lot harder. Every young Queenslander should be considerate in the environment at all times and do well at school. But above all, they should enjoy themselves—for their own good and to help the Sunshine State an even better place to live.I am proud to have Ben living in my electorate. I feel very secure in the knowledge that he will be making decisions for me and other Australians when I am in my elderly years. I sincerely congratulate him for the wonderful contribution that he has given to our young people in Queensland.387412:48:003874Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise today in the Main Committee to speak about the problem of Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease, as honourable members would be aware, is a degenerative neurological condition. It afflicts some 40,000 Australians. It is a major disease by any person's measure in this country.There are a number of treatments available for this disease; none of them, however, constitute a cure. One of those treatments involves the drug tolcopone, and its pharmaceutical name is Tasmar. What does this drug Tasmar do for Parkinson's sufferers? The principal drug treatment for Parkinson's disease is a drug called levodopa. Levodopa, in its palliative effect, works with both peaks and troughs of effectiveness. What Tasmar does is smooth out the peaks and troughs into a continuing therapeutic effect and benefit to the sufferer.Parkinson's Australia Inc. says that so great has been the improvement through the use of the drug Tasmar that in some cases it has been like rolling back the patient's clock 10 years. So effective is Tasmar that in 1997 Parkinson's Australia began a campaign to list it on the pharmaceutical benefits list. But Parkinson's Australia have not only had their aspirations to have this drug listed with the pharmaceutical benefits dashed; what has now occurred is that this drug Tasmar has been banned altogether. It has been banned by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It was banned by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as of 9 December 1998, but in a great act of magnanimity they extended its use until 25 January 1999—a date now passed—to allow patients who have been using Tasmar for some time to get off it.We might ask ourselves why this has occurred. Why has a decision been taken to remove Tasmar from commercial availability in Australia? The FDA in the United States has detected that, out of a total of 90,000 users, three people have died as a consequence of using this drug. As a consequence of that finding, the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia, based on advice from the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, decided unilaterally to ban this drug from availability altogether in Australia. This is craziness writ large. In the United States, where these findings by the FDA were made, the drug is still available. It is simply available with new labelling and new requirements for its use so that a greater degree of informed consent occurs between the practitioner and the user of Tasmar.The decision to ban this drug also flies in the face of the Australian Association of Neurologists, whose professional view in written documents is that the benefits of Tasmar exceed any risk to the patient many times over. The Australian Association of Neurologists is not a cowboy outfit; these are professional individuals whose function it is to professionally evaluate the impact of various drugs on the therapeutic wellbeing of their patients.In correspondence, however, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, said that the drug will not be entirely banned in Australia. It will not be restricted from import, but if patients are dead keen on it they might be able to arrange for its personal importation from countries like the United States, so long as the quantity does not exceed three months supply per importation or 15 months supply per annum. As Tasmar is a prescription medicine in Australia, the importer would also need to hold a valid prescription. All that is very fine if you have the wit, the intelligence, the information, the connections and the money to organise your own personal importation all the way from the USA or elsewhere of this highly effective drug to treat Parkinson's disease .I would ask this question: if we have already witnessed the death of somewhat more than three people worldwide from a drug such as Viagra, why is it that Viagra is readily available in this country but that Tasmar is not, when it is a treatment for what I would describe as a more serious condition?This matter is now the subject of appeal to the relevant body. The view of Parkinson's Australia Inc. is that the benefits of this drug are such that commonsense must prevail, that the decision to ban it must be repealed, and that the health minister should intervene to ensure that the 40,000 who suffer from this terrible disease have access to this drug again. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the member for Hughes, I would like to draw her attention to standing order 56.387512:53:003875Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I bring to the attention of the House an important local event in my electorate of Hughes by which we celebrated the spirit of nationhood, commemorated on Australia Day. We all know that great nations are made up of hundreds, even thousands, of local communities which create the heartland of a nation's state. The event in my electorate was the presentation of the Hughes community awards. This was a special ceremony which recognised and applauded some 30 community-minded local citizens who have made a magnificent personal contribution to the social enrichment of the neighbourhoods of the electorate.Nominations for the Hughes community awards are sought early in the year from the community at large and are received and considered by the Hughes Community Award Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Donald MacEwan Gregg Morrison of Engadine. Don Morrison is highly regarded in the electorate, especially for his work for many years as a welfare officer with the New South Wales RSL association. He is an exemplary citizen and a remarkable man, and his commitment to his local community over 50 years is unimpeachable. He has served on many community committees of one sort or another since 1938. Unknown to Mr Morrison, the committee had nominated him as a recipient on the basis of his record of 50 years of community care and commitment.Other members of the committee come from the length and breadth of the electorate: Mrs Mary Smith from Sutherland; Mrs Dorothy Edwards and Mr Ben Maiorana from Engadine; Mrs Fay Davies and Mr Mike Paris from Heathcote; Mrs Denise Krause from Chipping Norton; Mr Alan Collins from Bangor; and Dr Frank Moore from Helensburgh.As worthy recipients of the 1998 Hughes Community Awards the committee selected 30 community spirited citizens, whose names I would like to record in Hansard:Mr Herbert John Akers, for service to the aged at John Paul Village, Heathcote;Mr Robert James Brown, for 20 years service to youth at the St John Bosco Gymnastics, Engadine;Mrs Amanda Norma Cook, for service to youth and Scouting at the 1st Menai Scouts;Mrs Mary Hamilton Crane, for her 35 years of service at the Heathcote Fire Control Centre;Mr David Brandon Dansie, for 10 years service to the Bundeena Primary School;Mr James Napoleon Everingham, for service to Engadine Senior Citizens Club and Probus clubs at Sutherland and Engadine;Mrs Thelma Lorna Gillett, for service to the aged at the Bundeena-Maianbar Community Aid;Mrs Cathy Gail Goggi, for service to youth at the Chipping Norton Public School;Mr Evan Lloyd Griffiths, for 31 years service to surf lifesaving and the Helensburgh and Stanwell Park community;Mrs Lillian Pearl Harris, for 45 years of fundraising for children with special needs, supporting the New South Wales Society for Crippled Children and Northcott Society for Crippled Children;Mrs Shirley Elaine Innes, for service to the frail aged;Mrs June Mary Jenkins, for service to intellectually handicapped children;Mrs Nola Anne Lawrence, for service in the Royal Australian Army Nursing Corps, and to the community in Neighbourhood Watch, 15 years for the Como Public School, 12 years on the Keep Australia Beautiful Committee and 12 years on the Sutherland Police Customers Council, and as president of the Sutherland branch of the Women's Justices Association;Mr Anthony John Laws, for service to youth in the John Bosco Engadine Scouts and Cub Group as leader since 1982;Mr David Marston, for service to youth as regional Scouting commissioner for Woronora River and Illawong and Scout Air Base at Camden;Mr John William McCuaig, for service to youth with the Engadine Eagles Soccer Club, Engadine RSL, Engadine and Districts Scottish Association, and Legacy;Mr James McDonald, for service to youth with the Como-Jannali Junior Baseball Club and Cronulla Sutherland Junior Baseball League;Mrs Shonagh Moore, for service to new mothers and babies and early child care with the Northern Illawarra Family Support Service Management Committee and foundation member of the Helensburgh `Bushland Singers';Mr Jack Wallace Pendlebury, for service to children, with 40 years as Santa to the children of Loftus;Mr Robert Proudfoot, for service to Helensburgh and Stanwell Park, with the Helensburgh Cricket Club, Tigers Rugby Leagues Club, Touch Football Association, Helensburgh Township Entrance Subcommittee, Stanwell Park Surf Club, South Coast Winter Swimming and Stanwell Park Sea-Eels Winter Swimming, establishing the Helensburgh Youth Centre, the footpath to the station, landscaping at the shopping centre, car parking and the beautification of a park at Bald Hill;Mrs Elaine Pugh, for 46 years service to women in the Stanwell Park branch of the Country Women's Association and member of the Friends of Stanwell Park conservation group;Mrs Sylvia Quinnell, for 20 years service to the Girl Guides, Sutherland region;Mrs Lovise Gwendolin Richardson, for service as World President of Inner Wheel and member of Inner Wheel for 14 years;Mr Harry Edward Robbins, for service to youth through Heathcote Cricket Club, Engadine Dragons Rugby League, 18 years Sutherland Shire Boys Cricket Club and 18 years Cronulla Sutherland District Junior Rugby League;Mr Arthur Francis Rowe, for 30 years service to youth at the Sutherland Police Citizens Youth Club;Mrs Wendy Patricia Sorby, for service to the aged at Jannali Caring Centre;Mrs Kathryn Louise Stait, for 13 years service to Sutherland Shire Learning Difficulties Support Group;Mr Colin Desmond Warn, for 35 years service to the Helensburgh Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade and 37 years service to the Helensburgh Scouts, community service in the restoration of Helensburgh World War I honour rolls, and restoration of a lifeboat for the Coalcliff Surf Club;Mrs Viola Nancy Waters, for community service to the Bundeena Gardening Club, Bundeena Art and Living Festival, Bundeena Art and Craft Club, and Kidstart, an art exhibition for children, and long-time supporter of Boystown Engadine; andMrs Marjorie Brenda Wood, for 17 years service to Meals on Wheels, Miranda RSL, Captain Cook Caring Centre for the Frail Aged and Miranda Youth Club.The unselfish personal commitment of these wonderful people deserves to be recorded in the book of the nation.Main Committee adjourned at 12.59 p.m.