1999-03-223912REPS388501999-03-22Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees38853885388512:31:003885Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's final report on its inquiry into the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report which I have just tabled is about a very important issue for Australia. It deals with the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment—or MAI, as it is commonly known—which caused a great deal of concern in the Australian community a year or so ago. It is very much to the credit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he was prepared to refer an inquiry into this matter to the committee so that interested organisations and concerned citizens could have the opportunity to make their views known. This committee was set up to provide parliamentary scrutiny of treaty matters, so you could say that reports such as this vindicate its existence yet again.The committee tabled an interim report on the draft MAI on 1 June last year. That report dealt with a number of the issues raised in the nearly 800 submissions received to that time. It recommended that Australia should not sign the draft agreement unless and until a thorough assessment had been made of the national interest and a decision was made that it was in Australia's interest to do so. The interim report also recommended that the committee's inquiry continue with a view to providing a fuller report to the parliament at a later date. Report No. 18 honours that commitment.This is a significant report because, firstly, it is intimately connected with the subject of globalisation. Whether we like it or not, this country is part of the larger world. It is not possible to pretend that what occurs beyond our shores does not or will not have an impact on us. It is foolish to think that we can close our eyes to the fact or the consequences of globalisation.The financial crisis which hit a number of formerly prosperous Asian countries from the middle of 1997 has shown that no country can be protected from market forces. One of the things to emerge most clearly from this situation is the need to have agreed international rules for the movement of capital, at least to some extent. While the draft MAI sought to do this, it was the wrong agreement being negotiated by the wrong international body. The OECD is a group of 29 primarily wealthy Western nations. For example, no countries from the Middle East or Africa are members of the OECD nor, most importantly, are any developing countries. There are now some 200 nations of varying sizes in the world. During our inquiry, concerns were expressed about the likely impact of the draft MAI on developing countries. Some witnesses believed that one of the things that it sought to do was to open up developing countries to investment from OECD members on their terms.Secondly, this report is important because of the amount of interest it attracted here within Australia. We received more than 900 submissions from all over Australia, and a few from overseas. The committee held six public hearings to take evidence from a wide variety of organisations and individuals. Some people, unfortunately, accused us of conducting a secret process in the same way as they accused Treasury of planning to impose the draft agreement on Australia. Regardless of how the negotiations were handled, I am satisfied that the normal inquiry processes were followed to the letter.Following the suspension of negotiations for the draft MAI in October last year, and after the committee was re-formed for this parliament in December last year, we decided to finalise our report on this matter as soon as possible. This raises the third reason why this report is important. One of the issues which came out of the submissions, and to a lesser extent the public hearings, was a considerable amount of evidence about a lack of trust in the treaty making process and about the operation of our democracy generally.It is a fact that Australia was involved in the negotiations for a draft MAI. As a member of the OECD, this was reasonable. Australia had formulated a preliminary list of exceptions to the negotiating text, and discussions about the matters to be covered by such a list were continuing. No decision had been made by the government about Australia's ultimate attitude to the text. Some people believed that an absolute commitment had been made by the government to the draft MAI. It is very important to state for the record that this is not correct.It has also been said that Treasury acted as if the draft agreement was the last word in the regulation of international capital. It is easy to admire Treasury's dedication to this cause—it is very important for economic growth that capital be able to move freely—but it is difficult to ignore some of the deficiencies in the means that were used to advance this dedication. Too little information, it must be said, was provided about the draft agreement too late, and those with legitimate concerns were not given the hearing they probably deserved.Treasury emphasised the amount of `misinformation' which was being distributed about the text—and there was a good deal of such misinformation, especially being put around on the Internet—but Treasury began to hold effective discussions with reasonably minded and interested parties too late to be able to prevent some of the unnecessary concerns that were ultimately generated. In its interim report, the committee set out its concerns about a range of issues which had then arisen. The response to that report, tabled last week, was somewhat disappointing in that it seemed to say that negotiations on the text of the draft MAI have now finished and, therefore, there was no reason for the inquiry to continue.I suspect that my colleagues will have a bit more to say about Treasury's role in Australia's involvement with the draft MAI to date, so I will mention two other matters before passing to my final point. The quality of the evidence given by some of the Commonwealth agencies reflected perhaps a poor degree of preparation on the subject. It was clear that, had the draft agreement been adopted, little attention had been given to the likely overall impact it would have had on policies and programs.It was regrettable that some submissions—not necessarily from Commonwealth agencies—used extravagant language as part of an expression of legitimate concerns about this subject. Confronted by an absence of official information, I suppose you could say that it is not surprising that strong opinions were reflected in the submissions. But to accuse of treason anyone involved with the negotiations on such a draft agreement—as some misguided folk did—was a serious and unfortunate overreaction, to say the least.While negotiations on the text of the draft agreement have ceased, it is not yet clear what will be done about the work that has already been done within the OECD. Perhaps it will not be clear until the ministerial council of the OECD meets in April or May this year. Some people believe that those at the international level who want to advance this matter further will ensure that it is adopted by the World Trade Organisation, or WTO, at its meeting later in the year.The first recommendation in our report is that, if negotiations do resume on rules for the regulation of the movement of international capital, we believe that Australia has no alternative but to be involved. Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where such regulation is required, at least to some extent.Our second recommendation is that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should have responsibility for coordinating Australia's position in any continuing negotiations. This change away from Treasury will perhaps be controversial within government circles and will no doubt be resisted by Treasury. The committee believes that Treasury's performance to date has been such that it would be better if responsibility for coordinating any new negotiations did not remain there. We hope that those who contributed to this inquiry will feel that their involvement was worth while. While we have tried to reflect all the points of view in the material we received, it is unlikely that everyone who reads this report will agree with everything we have written. This inquiry process has been open and public, and we hope that those who read and use this report in the future will find it a useful document. I commend the report to the House.12:41:003887Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I welcome the tabling of the committee's final report on its inquiry into the Multilateral Agreement on Investment as it lays a number of concerns to rest. I had a number of fundamental concerns myself, and similar concerns have appeared in the hundreds of letters and emails that have been flooding in over the last year during the life of this inquiry.The report itself reflects the concern that was raised in the committee on the role of Treasury in their negotiations with the OECD. From a public perspective, there was very little known of the process and many believed that we, the politicians, were being hoodwinked by the bureaucrats. However, because of the concerns raised all over the community—from every side of the political fence—the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was alerted to the possible dangers that the signing of such a treaty might hold. This made the role of the treaties committee all the more important. It compelled the committee to take notice of the concerns of the public and allowed the negotiations to be exposed to questioning.The committee concluded that it was unhappy with the way that Treasury had conducted negotiations with the OECD. It was felt that very few people had any sort of access to the process, and that a lot of what was done was done with an air of secrecy. Although there was a view that there was a need to have some sort of agreement with international capital, it was believed that the current direction was not the way to go.There is required to be some regulation of the powers of the nation states but to suggest that unfettered entry of international capital was a way to assist Australia into the global economy was seen to be faulty. It does not help the Australian economy. In fact, it was pointed out that the owners of capital are contributing less and less to the financing of public expenditure. In terms of the tax debate, this could be quite significant for our own country.The debate showed that, in the role of the state, the capacity for Australia to look after the welfare of its citizens has been severely impaired by globalisation, which allows capital to escape taxation much more easily than labour could. This was brought up by someone who should understand all the loopholes of the tax system throughout the world, Mr Soros. He believes that:. . . while every society needed shared values to hold it together, market values could not do this on their own. They reduced everything to commodities, whereas society needed institutions to serve a variety of goals such as political freedom and social justice.That is a set of sentiments that has been expressed in various ways through some of the correspondence I received.A whole host of questions came up during the evidence put to the inquiry, not the least being that Treasury have not done any modelling of the potential impact on the balance of payments resulting from any increased flows of foreign investment. That concerns me, as there is no evidence that I can find that there will be any advantages in this treaty for Australia, apart from some vague statement about the benefits of liberalisation of trade and investment. On whose agenda are we working? Are we working for global capital or are we working in the interests of our business and our country? If anything, we should put some more conditions on global capital, not to prevent it from investing in a country but to make sure that whatever they gain out of the investment is not at the expense of local people. There must be some mutual obligations developed in treaties that can threaten a country's sovereignty over its own assets. I believe the MAI to be one such treaty.One good thing that came out of this discussion was that the committee's process has proved to be open and public. Hundreds of people have made submissions and yet more have had their voice heard by their local politician. It means that democracy in Australia is working, and working well. This is a joint house committee and the resulting report was unanimous from all political parties' points of view. They were not satisfied that the arguments would help Australia and they have recommended that the process is wrong and needs to be considered in a totally new light if any negotiations are to continue on this particular treaty in the future. I commend the report to the House.12:46:003888Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has tabled this, hopefully, final report on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. My colleagues have already referred to many of the community concerns about this draft MAI. I was as pleased as the member for Lyons was, in the previous parliament and also in this parliament, to be part of the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into this matter.As a committee, we saw the need for some regulation in international capital. We accepted, particularly in nations where democracy was developing and where economies were also developing, that there was therefore some doubt for those who wished to invest in those countries about how certain the security of their investment may be. Certainly, Treasury were trying to sell the MAI to us and others as providing that certainty. But the great irony is, of course, that the OECD—who were involved in this document being put together—do not represent developing countries; they represent the 29 richest nations in the world, nations that have a developed democracy, where investment is already certain. So, essentially, the MAI was based on a false premise from day one.It was the Treasury's spot in the international diplomacy sun. It was their frequent flyer points acquisition program. I base this conclusion on a number of matters. In particular, our now ambassador to the OECD, Tony Hinton, told the committee in a private briefing on 11 March last year, just over a year ago—and I wish Hansard had been there to record it—that someone had to fly to Paris every five or six weeks to negotiate this MAI, that he could not fly to Paris every five or six weeks and so he would make sure others would instead of just him fly over to Paris. By 21 December last year, Treasury said that this occurred for a short time, between February and December 1997. All of that underlines the pointlessness of this MAI and also Treasury's complicitous role in keeping it all to themselves and creating a situation where basically, through the Internet, people got a view of the world that was, at worst, based on conspiracy theory and, at best, based on a genuine concern that matters were being kept secret.Treasury kept it from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In fact, it was the Minister for Foreign Affairs who referred this whole matter to the committee—I suspect in part to make sure the committee could actually open up the books on the MAI. Negotiations in fact ceased on 21 October last year but, as late as the middle of last week, OECD policy brief No. 2 of December 1997 was still available on the Internet. So, if you look up the OECD on the Internet, you would think that the MAI is still a living, breathing thing. That is only matched by Treasury's own arrogant response to this committee's interim report tabled in June of last year. Treasury's response to the concerns we raised was basically, `Go away; we do not really think you need to continue this inquiry.' They saw no reason to continue the inquiry into this topic; all the concerns expressed by the community accounted for nothing. As the chairman of the committee, the member for Wentworth, implied today, over 900 submissions suggested there was a great breadth to the community concern that existed.The sad thing, especially in this era of accountability and openness we in this place all subscribe to, is that information on the text of this draft document was not available until early 1998 and, basically, as I said, things were kept all too secret. It is of great concern to all of us that these matters were not opened up earlier and that people were almost rescued from themselves by the committee's deliberations on this matter; that allegations of treachery based on conspiracy were made. It is a matter of great regret that people felt so passionate about this issue based purely on the fact that they were not in the know. We do not disagree that perhaps there is a need to regulate international capital, particularly to those nations that are developing their economies and their democracies, although philosophically I am sure many of us would say that the best nations who have the best rules will get the best investment. So, if there are going to be regulations on international capital, it is of course important that the breadth of nations in the world are included in the process, not the narrow band defined as the OECD, and it is important that no nations—particularly a nation like Australia which has good rules, which has an open approach to these matters—are disadvantaged. And the MAI was going to disadvantage Australia. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?FB6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.3889388912:52:003889Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories I present the committee's report entitled Island to islands: communications with Australia's external territories together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—The inquiry highlighted the importance and difficulties of communications to and within Australia's external territories— Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Antarctic territories. The external territories are very isolated and have very small populations. These are not unfamiliar problems for Australians. Many parts of Australia experience isolation, but for the external territories the distance is compounded by the intervening oceans. That so few people live in these communities creates additional problems in the delivery of services. Small distant markets are not often economic, and the provision of the latest rapidly changing and expensive technology can be problematic.The most significant new technology, and one that is difficult to access in the external territories, is the Internet. The availability and the cost of the Internet were raised repeatedly during the inquiry. The Internet has the potential to be most valuable for these territories in addressing their isolation. It offers a means to improve the delivery of health and education, to improve business opportunities and, thereby, provide much needed employment. The Internet can overcome the slowness of transport and mail services.The committee recommends the development of appropriate standards for satellite bandwidth capacity for people in the external territories so that these communities can reliably access quality broadcast and Internet services. Further, the committee endorses the government's policy to include the provision of an Internet data line capacity of at least 64 kbps as part of the universal service obligation to the external territories.The inquiry was not in a position to undertake any detailed analysis of the comparative costs of Internet provision versus the cost of `traditional' health and education services or of the impact of the Internet on business and employment. However, the committee believes that it is a matter that the government should investigate and that the government should draw up strategic plans for the development of Internet services in the territories.The issue of transport, especially into the Indian Ocean territories, was the second issue of importance raised with the committee. Transport services are inadequate and have had distressing effects on the inhabitants of the Islands. Poor transport links affect every area of life—mail, business, tourism, health and education. The committee recommends that the new contract to be negotiated in 1999 for airline services to the Indian Ocean territories accommodate the freight, postal and tourism needs of the territories by providing a sufficient increase in the present capacity.Many complaints were made about the mail services into all the territories. Primarily these related to the off-loading of vital mail and supplies which relate to the inadequate transport systems. The committee recommends that improved and more reliable airmail services be provided for Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.With the change from analog to digital broadcasting there is a requirement for new transmission and decoding equipment. Questions were raised over the adequacy—or inadequacy—of the footprint of the satellites serving the Indian Ocean territories where reception is highly affected by the weather. The committee recommends a review of the quality of broadcast services in the Indian Ocean territories in mid-1999 after the transition to digital satellites is completed.Complaints were received on the cost of telephone calls. On Norfolk Island this is a revenue raising exercise. In the Indian Ocean territories the highest STD rate applies. This affects the cost of data services and compounds the problem of slow speeds, which raises the cost of Internet and fax systems.None of the islands had solved the problem of the lack of a mobile phone service. Norfolk Island has deferred the decision about introducing mobile phones because of unexpected costs associated with the exchange. On Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands analog mobile phones operate but they have a limited life and there is no intention to replace the analog system with a digital one as, according to Telstra, the customer base is too small. The committee concluded that many of the problems for the external territories resulted from their isolation.The committee recommends a report be made by November 1999 on the progress of the Telstra upgrade of telecommunications facilities on the Indian Ocean territories with particular reference to telecommunications service accessibility, quality, reliability and cost. The committee also recommends that all the external territories have access to toll-free numbers, call-centre operator services and other such regular online mainland business services. The committee recommends the possible development of electronic banking, EFTPOS, facilities on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Further, the committee recommends that in 1999, the 20th year of operation of the Norfolk Island Act, the government initiate a review of the act with particular reference to the anomalies that arise as a result of the act for the citizens of Norfolk Island. (Time expired)12:57:003890Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It is my pleasure to be able to contribute to this discussion this morning. I would like to congratulate the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the work that it has done in the preparation of the report on Australia's external territories and to thank the secretariat. I have only been part of the committee since October and I must say that I neither was part of the formal inquiry process nor did I seek to intervene or interfere with the deliberations of the committee in terms of its recommendations. Having said that though, I have read the report with a great deal of interest and—as you would know, Mr Speaker—Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are in my electorate and I have travelled there many times over more than a decade. I would like to say that the comments of the previous speaker highlight the importance of telecommunications infrastructure to remote Australians and most particularly to people who live in the Indian Ocean territories. I know the same is true for Norfolk Island, but they have a very different legal relationship with the Australian government than do the people of Christmas and Cocos islands, and it is to those people and their communities that I want to address my remarks this morning.The previous speaker addressed the issue of telecommunications, Internet provision, mail services, transport services and broadcasting. He underlined the merits of this report in the comments he made. He prefaced his remarks by talking about the isolation which people in these communities suffer. I think it is fair to say that, in line with some other Australians who live in rural and remote Australia, people who live on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands go without. They go without because they do not have the same level of access to information services. They do not have a reliable mail service. They do not have a reliable transport service. At times I have been on planes when the mail has been left off the plane because there has been no room for it and it has not been a priority for the carrier. Frankly, that is not good enough.Mail not arriving creates all sorts of potential impediments. Most of us who live on mainland Australia, at least those who live on the eastern seaboard, expect daily access to mail services. The fact is that you may or may not get a mail service on Christmas Island or the Cocos Islands, depending upon flights and the availability of freight space. Your everyday activities are affected by this sort of thing. For example, you may be a student applying for a position at a university and find that because of mail delays your application arrives late or when transferring legal documents your application may arrive late. There are all sorts of impediments to the daily lives of people, whether in business or in their private lives, as a result of a mail service which is inadequate.The same sorts of handicaps prevail with telecommunications infrastructure and access to Internet. I think it is reasonable to assert that people who live in these sorts of isolated circumstances are information poor. Frankly, this report highlights the fact that to participate actively in our democracy you need to have access to the full range of information services. If you live in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide or even Darwin, you can get access online to the full range of services that are available to you here in Canberra but if you live on Christmas Island you cannot. This morning I was talking to Brian Hill, who is the Internet service provider on Christmas Island. The charge for him to have a 64-kilobit line on Christmas Island is around $60,000 a year. That cost is exorbitant and he cannot provide the same level of service available to people on the mainland at an efficient price with the cost demanded of him by Telstra.I note the report makes the very valid point about the community service obligations. The islands in the Indian Ocean territory have been declared net cost areas by the ACA. This means they are potentially loss making areas for universal service provider Telstra, who may lodge a claim for the loss incurred in supplying service to those areas as part of the USO scheme. There is absolutely no excuse for Telstra to not do more in these communities. They know already, by the way in which it has been described, that they can provide these services and charge them as a loss against the total universal service obligation. They need to do a great deal more.13:02:003891Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to support my colleagues the members for Cowper and the Northern Territory in speaking to this report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories entitled Island to islands . It is a particularly significant title because I think it highlights two things. When we talk about islands we talk about national responsibility. We have been very quick as a nation to condemn those who, through colonial structures of one sort or another, have not treated subservient communities appropriately. We have had plenty to say about Timor. We have had plenty to say about colonial powers that have walked away from their responsibilities. While I am not suggesting that Norfolk Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Antarctic territories are in the same category, I am making the point that a country as rich and prosperous as Australia is not in a position to abandon territories for which it has responsibility.We are also very quick in Australia to recognise the tyranny of distance for regional and rural communities, and so we should. When you come to talk about the territories, it is not just the physical distance that is important; it is the fact that we have to cross water to get to those particular places, and they are big distances. Effectively the only reliable, prompt service is provided by air traffic. Sea voyages are slow and are not the most adequate in supplying the sorts of services that the member for the Northern Territory has talked about.The two things that would improve the quality of life, from both a social and an economic point of view, in the territories are good telecommunications and good transport. I do not wish to go over the same territory covered by my two colleagues, but I would like to touch on a few issues. One is that for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Norfolk Island to participate adequately in the social fabric of Australia there must be a 64-kilobit per second service to those islands for Internet connection. If we do not do that, then we are failing those areas because it deprives them of participating in the very rapid advances that are occurring on the mainland.The other important matter is that transport to the islands needs be looked at. One thing that occurred to me personally on the inspection—although we do not deal with it in any detail in the report it is something I would like looked at in further inquiries—is the need for decent wharves and jetties at Norfolk Island. They would facilitate greater efficiency for the transport of things that have to come in by sea, particularly the larger items. As well, they would give the island a second string for tourism, which at the moment is almost totally dependent on air traffic. That is something I would like to see happen to improve communications.The other thing I noticed, and I would like to commend the communities for it, was that they were very friendly, innovative and focused communities that were quite able to carry out most of the functions of government adequately themselves. But with some of the big-ticket items where Australia is concerned, I hark back to Winston Churchill when he said to the Americans during the Second World War, `Give us the tools and we'll do the job': that sentiment should apply to the external territories. We should give them the tools to be able to run their affairs adequately. Telecommunications, jetties and the like are part of that.One other point I would like to touch on is about pathological specimens getting to and from the island. This is a very important matter. I call on Australia Post and our Customs Service to smarten up their act in respect of that. We found that a diabolical situation and one that affected the lives of the people on those islands. I would also like to thank the members of the staff who worked on this report.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired.AE4Neville, Paul, MPMr NEHL—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.3892389213:09:003892Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the report of the committee entitled Regional banking services: money too far away together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—The delivery of financial services has been transformed by two concurrent developments: changes in the regulatory environment together with moves towards globalisation have increased competition. Financial institutions are under pressure to reduce costs and this is leading them to seek cheaper ways of delivery. At the same time, technological developments are offering banks cheaper models such as ATMs, EFTPOS, telephone banking and Internet banking. Although the increased competition and introduction of self-service banking are improving the access many have to some financial services, they are also leading to the rationalisation of the bank branch networks. For others, particularly those in regional and remote areas, this process is resulting in reduced access or loss of access to banking and like services.This inquiry into alternative means of providing banking in regional and remote Australia was referred to the committee by the Treasurer in October 1997. The inquiry was born out of a concern about the impact of these developments and a determination to find ways of ensuring that communities maintain reasonable access to these services. The committee accepts that changes are inevitable. Financial institutions, along with other service providers, will always seek cheaper and more efficient ways of delivery. However, in the committee's view, technological developments and other changes should be leading to improved services and access rather than the reverse.It has been a most effective inquiry. At the start the committee was flooded with submissions from rural and regional communities describing forcefully the impact of branch closures. Communities have clearly been quite seriously hurt by the actions of the banks, with the closures affecting both the economic and social fabric of the towns. They feel, quite justifiably, let down by the banks whom they have supported for many years and, in some cases, for generations. Their disillusionment and feeling that the head offices are out of touch with their needs is understandable, particularly in light of some of their experiences.We have sought, and to some extent gained, the interests and cooperation of all parties in trying to resolve the problems being experienced by these communities as a result of the changes in the delivery of financial services. The committee has also been pragmatic in its approach to this inquiry. Services will continue to evolve as telecommunications infrastructure improves. Electronic methods of banking may indeed be the way of the future, but at the moment they are simply not an adequate substitute for a branch. Many regional and remote communities simply do not have access to ATMs, EFTPOS, telephone banking or Internet banking. Communities need cash and access to facilities to withdraw and deposit it. They also need access to business banking. They have a strong prefer ence, and in many cases a need, for a continuation of over-the-counter services.I am pleased that, as the inquiry progressed, and largely because of it, industry, governments and communities have turned their efforts, and in many instances cooperatively, to developing solutions to these problems. In July last year at its second appearance before the committee, the Australian Bankers Association made a number of commitments concerning regional banking services. Some individual banks, such as ANZ and Westpac, have gone further. The federal government has also announced its Rural Transaction Centres Program. This program draws on many of the alternatives that have been raised in the course of this inquiry. The committee considers that this is a significant development and it has urged the government to give high priority to its implementation.Local government has figured prominently in submissions and public hearings and has been active in searching for solutions to the problems that have been our focus. CreditCare has continued its efforts in assisting communities to establish credit unions or other alternatives. The Bendigo Bank has established its community bank concept. This has attracted strong interest around Australia. Non-financial institutions have also seen opportunities for expanding their interests in the delivery of banking services. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia announced just yesterday its new joint venture with Bank West. These developments will go some way towards ensuring regional and remote communities retain or regain access to financial services.However, in addition to these initiatives, the committee considers that the extension of the banking services provided by Australia Post will significantly improve financial services access for regional and remote communities. Australia Post is already involved with delivering banking services through its longstanding arrangements with the Commonwealth Bank. The introduction of giroPost in 1995 has meant that many communities now have personal banking services from a wide range of financial institutions.The committee has recommended that Australia Post's giroPost services be extended to include business banking. The addition of business banking will also solve problems associated with the transport of cash for businesses and other organisations in country towns.Although the committee understands Australia Post's requirement that its operations be commercially viable, it considers that the extension of the giroPost network or the installation of a cheaper electronic banking service, such as EFTPOB, is a very important and straightforward means of providing such access. The Rural Transaction Centres program should provide a means of developing this.Changes in the delivery of financial services are part of a process of structural adjustment in rural Australia. The committee has stressed the importance of a cooperative approach to finding solutions. The developments that appear to promise most in terms of being sustainable are those that are based on strategic alliances between a range of parties. The committee is convinced that an aggregated approach is the key to ensuring continued delivery, particularly in small towns. It is an approach that underpins the RTC policy and that recognises the imperatives to reduce costs of service delivery while at the same time ensuring that communities retain access.An excellent example of this approach is the arrangement between the Cairns based Electricity Credit Union and the Queensland Government Agents Program at Herberton, a small community in northern Queensland. Herberton's achievement demonstrates that community involvement is a powerful and critical ingredient in creating solutions to problems experienced after the closure of a bank branch. I think it is fair to say that the communities that have refused to accept the loss of banking services and that have supported an alternative have not only secured financial services but also strengthened the economic viability and the vitality of their towns and communities.While the committee has focused on finding solutions for immediate problems, it has also kept an eye to the future. Technological developments will continue to offer new ways of delivering services; in the long term, they should significantly enhance access. Governments have a role to play in progressing these developments, and the committee has recommended accordingly. The introduction of electronic banking must be accompanied by well constructed and properly targeted education programs, and the committee is pleased with progress in this area.Although, as suggested earlier, the treatment of communities by some banks has left much to be desired, the committee welcomes signals of a change of heart. However, it will be looking closely to see that the commitments are upheld. The committee has recommended that the relevant ministers collect comprehensive data on the access communities have to financial services and that the government monitors bank closures.I believe that, in addition to giving people across Australia an opportunity to express their concerns about what is happening and to have real and valuable input into the inquiry, the committee has demonstrated one of the most positive aspects of the federal parliament—namely, the effectiveness of the inquiry process and the House of Representatives committee system.Finally, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and all members of this committee in the last parliament for their hard work on the inquiry and the report. I would also like to thank all participants from right around Australia for their contribution to this inquiry. In conclusion, I would like to thank the whole committee secretariat, in particular Chris Paterson, and most particularly Jan Connaughton, who has put so much work into this inquiry.13:19:003894Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—If ever I had entertained thoughts about the impact of bank closures not being a serious issue to confront the Australian bush, any such thoughts were blown away with the wind which whistled down the deserted main street of the Victorian town of Minyip. As the members of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration stood outside the closed ANZ bank branch, which was gathering dust, and listened to townsfolk submit that this issue simply transcended matters relating to the accessing and depositing of cash and the preference of many to have access to over-the-counter services, I realised then for the first time that this issue went well and truly to the need to address the population decline in country towns by and large driven by employment considerations.Many of those who had been driven out of country towns had been bank employees and were also the treasurers of netball clubs or secretaries of football clubs and, indeed, towns suffered deeply from the loss of their expertise. As the report concludes, there is no doubt that solutions based on an aggregated service delivery approach and cooperation between a range of partners—including financial institutions, governments and businesses—appear to have the most potential of being viable in the long term.Indeed, that was the approach of those we met in Minyip's main street. They had dug in and were, indeed, committed to the partnership they had developed with the Bendigo Bank to establish a community bank not only to provide banking services but also to keep people and businesses in the town. As succinctly outlined by the member for Wannon, this in much the same way applied in Herberton where the townspeople were a critical ingredient to the development of a partnership based one-stop shop with local and state government to ensure that a banking facility be retained in that Far North Queensland town.Another important means of ensuring the retention of businesses in rural towns is to facilitate the extension of Australia Post's giroPost system to business banking. GiroPost is currently restricted to personal transaction services and, for that reason, its effectiveness as an alternative means of delivering the sorts of financial services that rural people need is limited.Australia Post did ultimately acknowledge that the current retail technology could support a business banking service, but the committee also acknowledges that there are problems associated with costs, risk, security and the need to implement queuing procedures to ensure that other customers are not disadvantaged by the extra time taken by business transactions. The committee considers that these problems are surmountable and encourages Australia Post and the banks to continue their discussions with a view to resolving these issues.The committee was also particularly impressed with the activities and technology developed by the Bank of South Australia, allowing for electronic banking services to be provided for in small country towns, such electronic agencies allowing for both the depositing and the withdrawal of cash, the depositing of cheques, the ordering of statements and balance of account inquiries. It is a very sophisticated arrangement. We observed a school on that occasion in a town in Adelaide Hills doing its banking very successfully while we were there. That agency was one of 190 scattered throughout South Australia and western Victoria operating with great success in small country towns where the last bank had moved out. We were very impressed when we realised these facilities cost about $2,000 each, averaging about 20c per transaction, but the fact that they extend to areas and facilities such as supermarkets and service stations where extended hours are operative means much greater convenience for the local people as well.I conclude by thanking most sincerely the committee secretariat. The chairman has made particular reference to Ms Jan Connaughton, who is in the chamber today. She has worked absolutely tirelessly on this report, and it is a credit to her that it is in this form. (Time expired)13:24:003895Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to add to the words of the chairman of the committee, the member for Wannon, and to the words of the member for Isaacs, who spoke previously. I am a recent member of the committee, and this report from the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration on banking services in regional and remote areas is a very important step to ensuring that all Australians have access to financial services, regardless of their geographical location. This was evident very early in the inquiry when two of Australia's major banks gave undertakings to the committee. The ANZ Bank has committed itself to a moratorium on bank closures, and Westpac has also guaranteed to maintain a face-to-face service in all of the communities in which it currently has a branch.This report has already been successful in the sense that its initiation has prompted a lot of the banks into action. The commitments given by Westpac and ANZ are evidence of the fact that banks are finally listening to the concerns of rural and regional Australia. The committee believes there are a number of issues that need to be addressed by the bank in relation to bank closures. The committee has taken the view, from the way in which banks have approached bank closures in recent times, that there needs to be a great deal of improvement and we need to amend the code of banking practice to include provisions and certain protocols for those bank closures to occur. Specifically, the committee believes that the banks should have to give local communities three months notice before a closure.One of the duties I had to perform when I first became an elected member of parliament was to attend the closure of the Commonwealth Bank in Scarborough in my electorate. I can tell you that it was a very heated meeting with a great deal of community unrest and insecurity, but the saddest moment of that meeting was seeing a 90-year-old man who was almost blind in two eyes and who had been a faithful customer of the Commonwealth Bank absolutely devastated by the fact that the bank was closing. That was not a pleasant thing to experience. The effect it has on communities was highlighted by some of the previous speakers. Banks have to consult with local communities in regard to delivering the best possible services to the community. The community should also be given the chance to improve the viability of the branch. If that fails, the bank needs to consult with the community further on providing alternative services, and it needs to provide training for those alternative services.Another issue that emerged during the inquiry related to allegations that banks engaged in improper conduct and that some banks had transferred customer accounts from a branch that was teetering on closure to a more profitable branch. With this in mind, the committee believes it should be incumbent on the bank to inform a customer in writing two months before the changing of the branch that manages a customer's account. What is more, if a bank is closed or downgraded below an agency level, the banks should waiver any fees or penalties that a customer would otherwise have to occur for the repayment of the loan or the closure of the account.The committee also believes there needs to be some sort of duty on the banks to provide counter service in a community so that small business people and personal customers can make cash deposits and withdrawals. The member for Wannon, the chairman of the committee, also highlighted the role of groups like giroPost, credit unions, building societies, rural transaction centres and the development of the Guild Bank, which was announced fairly recently.Many of the banks have trumpeted the benefits that technological change has brought in banking services, but I think few would doubt the effect that it has out there in the local community. Nevertheless, the committee recognises there is still a way to go in this. There is a gap between the reality of technological uptake and the need for traditional services that have led to this current situation. Small business people still need over-the-counter service to deposit their daily takings, and older people have still to grapple with these technological changes.In Petrie, we are addressing some of these issues. Recently one of my strip shopping centres met with the Bendigo Bank with a view to forming a community bank. I am also in the stages of organising a forum for older people in banking. The forum will hopefully result in the creation of an active group dedicated to helping older people in the Petrie electorate deal with these changes.As I said earlier, this report marks an important step towards ensuring that there is a framework for the delivery of financial services in rural and regional Australia. I am very proud to have been a member of the committee, and I would also like to add my congratulations to the secretariat for its fine work.13:29:003897Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased also to rise to speak on this report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration today. This is my second term as a member of this parliament, and I think this inquiry has been by far the most interesting committee deliberations with which I have been concerned. The implications of what we are talking about with regional banking services go to the heart of the dilemma which people in regional and rural areas are suffering due to the withdrawal of these services.This report makes a substantial contribution to the debate. It is a balanced report. It acknowledges that many of the difficulties are of a transitional nature and speaks about some of the positive developments such as those which have been previously mentioned—Guild Bank, Australia Post, giroPost, phone banking, the Internet and, hopefully, the development of smart cards—that will all make a contribution to giving people access. Nonetheless, we should not confuse the theory with what we witnessed in practice when we went to these communities and heard evidence. For example, we heard the following evidence from one witness on phone banking:In my own case, because of the type of phone cabling that we have, we cannot use a touch phone. So how do we use electronic banking with our phone, which incidentally is out of order for 30 per cent of the time anyway?They were the sorts of practical dilemmas that we heard about. We heard from a number of other organisations about some very positive developments, including the work that the Traditional Credit Union is doing with our indigenous communities in ensuring that they have access to finances, the development of community banks such as the Bendigo Bank and the expansion of credit unions in general that we are seeing as a response to the failure of banks to provide adequate service.On the one hand, we have some progress in what the banks are saying but, on the other hand, it does not go far enough, which is why the committee's recommendation No. 20 in the report indicates that a bank closure proto col should be mandatory and incorporated into the code of banking practice. In spite of the banks' rhetoric, we heard the following evidence from one witness:With relation to the notification of the closure, it was based soundly on rumour—there was no notification. Historically, without any significant notification at all, the services at Macarthur were reduced from five days to three days. The resident manager was moved to Hamilton, attending Macarthur one day a week for a short time until his facility was withdrawn, once again without any appropriate notification. Personal notification to customers by the bank of the proposed closure was nil in effect prior to the closure. I understand that there were some exceptions for selected clients who were contacted prior to the actual closure.What we heard from witness after witness was great dissatisfaction, which is leading into political dissatisfaction. For example, we held a meeting up at Herberton, which is in the state Queensland seat of Tablelands. That is a seat which the One Nation candidate, Shaun Nelson, won on primaries. It is simply not enough for the major political parties to say, `You're wrong,' because the people in that electorate who voted for One Nation were clearly expressing their frustration with the failure of governments and the private sector to incorporate their needs. Rhetoric about the need for globalisation will do little to satisfy them. It will also do little to satisfy them when they hear comments from people such as Don Argus, the head of the National Australia Bank, who said that walking into a bank was not meant to be a social experience. But for many people it is a part of their social experience. Surely, as human beings, we need to not be reduced down to people who operate simply with technology, and for elderly people that face-to-face contact is particularly important.We heard that banks are not closing because they are unprofitable; they are closing because they are not profitable enough. We see the banks endeavouring to keep their most profitable customers when they close a bank while ignoring the base of their customers who need that banking service. At the same time as we hear the need for those cutbacks, we see the head of the banks receiving obscene amounts of income for their work. It is little wonder there is such frustration out there when you compare over-the-counter fees with share profit ratios, et cetera. I might just conclude by saying that this is not just an issue for regional areas. In my area of the inner west, 27 branches have closed in the last three years. (Time expired)13:34:003898Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—It is a pleasure to comment today on this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled Regional banking services: money too far away . The information technology revolution has had a profound impact on the way we live and on the way we do business. The pace of change has been rapid and unstoppable. The rewards of changes have been great, but they have not come without some social cost. Rural communities, by their nature, are particularly susceptible to the social costs of rapid change.Despite the coalition's protests, the former Labor government failed to take action to ensure that rural communities were not unavoidably disadvantaged by these changes in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. The coalition government has worked hard to cushion the impact of further change in regional Australia while simultaneously repairing the decade of rural neglect by the former Labor government. But, more importantly, the coalition government is working to harness technological advances to result in a twofold effect of an improvement of services and a greater access to services for regional Australia.The coalition government's Rural Transaction Centres program, which was announced before the last election, is a case in point. This initiative will help communities achieve better access to basic financial transaction services. Australia Post has a key role to play within and alongside the Rural Transaction Centres program. Indeed, the nature of this relationship should be extended to include business banking services.Maintaining a satisfactory level of, and access to, financial transaction services has been a challenge for many regional communities over the last decade. According to the Reserve Bank, 506 bank branches were closed around Australia in the 1997-98 financial year. The arguments appear to be straightfor ward. Financial institutions need their branches to be viable to justify their operation to shareholders, and the community needs access to banking services, particularly business banking services. Both arguments are right. The challenge for government is to support a policy framework that will satisfy both arguments.In some instances, a rural community cannot sustain the viable operation of a branch of a financial institution under any circumstances. The business is simply not there. In such cases, it is not reasonable to expect financial institutions to provide a level of services which the market cannot support. But, on some occasions, rural customers have learnt of the impending closure of their local branch after the decision has been officially made. The opportunity for the community to achieve the necessary support for the institution has been lost. There is a strong argument that there are some instances where dialogue and cooperation between the institutions and the rural community can not only keep branches viable but also make them more viable. There is a reciprocal obligation on both the community and the financial institution.Financial institutions need to accept that they play an important role in a community and as such they are obliged to keep their rural branches sustainable. Alternatively, communities need to return this support. In some cases, closure of branches is inevitable. But too often the decision to close the branch is made without regard to the future needs of its customers. Wherever practically possible, financial institutions should give the community as much warning as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made by its customers with minimal disruption.In situations where community support cannot justify the continued operation of a rural branch of a financial institution, there should be an emphasis on the delivery of other forms of banking services. Automatic teller machines, Internet and telephone banking do not always meet the demands of the entire community.The recently announced partnership between BankWest and Guild Pharmacies aims to meet these challenges. It is anticipated that approximately 5,000 Pharmacy Guild of Australia banking agencies will operate throughout Australia from the middle of next year. The project appears to be both innovative and responsive to market needs.If it proves to be cost effective, this marriage will also be of enormous benefit to people in regional communities with disabilities who cannot avail themselves of automatic teller machines and Internet and telephone banking in some cases.The signs are encouraging but there is still much work to be done. Further reforms to the financial industry can only be legitimately considered when financial institutions are seen to be fulfilling their reasonable social obligations.In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate the secretariat, particularly Jan Connaughton, and the chairman, the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), for the excellent work that they have put into this report, and to the entire committee for the work that they also put into the report.13:39:003899Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I also rise today to welcome the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. As a new member to this parliament I have been most impressed by the workings of this committee and the bipartisan support for this report. I commend its adoption by all parties concerned and the work that went into this report. Too often the work done by both parties in producing good work in this House is not noted.The report provides a detailed and extensive overview of the current situation in the delivery of banking and like services. It will be a useful resource to many communities exploring how to maintain a vital service.Research undertaken by the Finance Sector Union as part of their submission to the inquiry found that: 71 per cent of people believe that banking services have declined since they started closing branches and retrenching staff; 80 per cent believe that electronic banking should not replace staff; 67 per cent believe that the government should prevent further bank branch closures; and 81 per cent believe that government should require the banks to have a social charter.The report tabled today goes some way towards meeting the community expectation. I trust it will not be used by the banks to further continue their short-term cost cutting agenda, which in some ways has resulted in the need for this inquiry.The focus of the industry on cost structure has come at the expensive of customer service; access to basic services through the loss of over 900 branches in five years and 40,000 jobs from the sector in the same time span. This has been driven by an obsession in the industry on cost reduction to maintain massive levels of profit, regardless of the effect.However, the report has had some positive effects—as my colleagues have mentioned—on the banking industry with ANZ announcing a moratorium on rural branch closures and the ABA proposing a package of measures to ensure the industry provides a commitment to customers about providing a face-to-face service even when they close branches. Again, recommendation 20 of the report goes a long way towards endorsing those proposals by the banks and their industry association.The report explores numerous options open to communities to ensure that a level of banking services is left in that community. It has not limited the options open to a local community to ensure that a service appropriate to their needs is provided. This a strength of the report's recommendations. This may be a credit union, post office, transaction service centre, new or existing forms of technology or a bank.One concern about offering alternatives is that it will not lead to traditional providers deserting the industry, for, as we all know, this has a devastating impact on jobs. I wish to quote an example from the FSU's submission to the inquiry:In Ivanhoe, NSW, a town located 160 kilometres from any other town with banking services, the Commonwealth Bank closed the only remaining branch. Six employees, including one part time employee, lost their livelihoods. Many of the community members had been employed at the branch as their initial entry to the work force. The Branch Manager was the Mayor and participated in over a dozen community committees in the town. Other staff also played prominent roles in community activities. The impact of the closure extended beyond the impact on the employees to the broader community. Typical impacts of closures in such towns include the loss of families, employment opportunities, withdrawal of children from schools, reduced business and shopping turnover and the elimination of banking services for the whole community.The essence of this report goes to those problems.The report's impact on employment should not be overlooked. Branch closures do entail significant job losses and this is particularly devastating in rural and remote communities, as the example I have outlined suggests. Banks have traditionally been entry point employers for junior staff and this has declined in line with branch closures and the movement of customers onto cheaper forms of delivery. We must hope that the development of multipurpose delivery services does not further concentrate employment in rural services.I would like to talk a little about technology. As other members have stated, it is not always the most appropriate form of service to say, `Technology will fill the void.' Obviously, the elderly, disabled and people from non-English speaking backgrounds often cannot access these services. Indeed, as the report points out, telephone services in many rural communities makes it almost impossible for telephone and Internet banking to be offered.Finally, I welcome the report and trust that many rural centres will have a level of service returned to their community that will ensure their ongoing viability.13:44:003900Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I thank all members of the committee for their contributions. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the time for committee and delegation business has expired.Statements by Members390039003900Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I speak this afternoon on the life of Ron McLean. Ron McLean was a Brisbane waterside worker, a state member of parliament for the seat of Bulimba and, latterly, a minister in the Goss government between 1989 and 1992. Ron McLean died last month of asbestos related lung problems. He began life as a carpenter, before moving to the Brisbane waterfront to work. He worked on the wharves at a time when industrial conditions and industrial protection were very thin. Workers at that time worked, rested and ate amongst piles of raw asbestos fibre. He subsequently contracted asbestos related lung disease and that stayed with him as an ailment throughout the rest of his working life. It did not, however, prevent his move into politics. In 1989, he became a minister in the Goss government and became probably one of the government's most successful ministers in the area and portfolio of administrative services. His job around the state was to fix schools, and he did that with great effect.If there are two messages to emerge from his life, they are probably these: one, this country should consider the full banning of all asbestos products and, two, there should be no weakening of the industrial conditions of this country that would permit workers in the future being exposed to these sorts of hazardous working conditions again. The Queensland Asbestos Related Disease Support Society, under its president, Shirley White, has stated that these matters need to be attended to.39003900Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and I would like to put on the record again my congratulations to the Pine Rivers Council for their very successful Business Expo which was held last week. I noticed a large number of businesses were represented from the manufacturing, retailing and tourism sectors. The Pine Rivers Council forms part of the Area Consultative Committee, which includes Redcliffe, Caboolture and Kilcoy. It is a very proactive council in relation to pushing forward and assisting its business enterprises achieve prosperity and growth.The Mayor, Yvonne Chapman, and her councillors must be congratulated for all their hard work and dedication in putting this expo together. As a growing part of the Petrie electorate, the Pine Rivers shire faces great challenges and huge population growth. It is estimated that, by the year 2010, some additional 30,000 people will populate the Mango Hill area. It is important that, as well as having the social structures in place, a community needs a viable business sector to service this area. I would like to put on the record that I will continue to work with the Pine Rivers Council well into the future, and I wish them well in their future activities and enterprises.39013901Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I was pleased to read in my local newspaper today that the Queensland state government has committed $3.7 million to fund a bypass for the Ipswich Motorway. The Ipswich Motorway is one of the most important vehicle carriageways in south-east Queensland. The road carries over 75,000 cars, trucks and motorbikes every day.The motorway is badly in need of major improvements. In its current state, the road is dangerously congested and under-repaired. The Beattie government is to be applauded for responding to the needs of our community and making road safety a priority. But the real problems on the motorway will not be solved until the federal government commits the funds needed to implement the state government safety audit. The 1997 safety audit recommended the following improvements: improving road geometry, improving interchanges, six-laning some sections, new overpasses, facilities for pedestrians and facilities for cyclists. Funding the motorway is a federal government responsibility. The federal government has a black spot program for funding improvements to trouble spots on major roads. It seems unbelievable that this program could overlook the urgent work required on the Ipswich Motorway.The state government audit was submitted to the federal government for the appropriate funding in January 1997. Since that time, John Howard and Peter Costello have had two years and two budgets to allocate the funding necessary to the Ipswich Motorway but have chosen instead to sit on their hands and do nothing. The constituents of Oxley and the people of Queensland deserve a safe and reliable motorway between Ipswich and Brisbane. I will continue to pursue this issue until the federal government provides the funding required to make our roads a safe place to travel.39013901Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—This morning I was arrested and thrown in the slammer—the Smith Family charity gaol, that is—and I was not to be released until I came up with bail to contribute to the Smith Family Winter Appeal. The Smith Family is raising money to help provide emergency welfare for families in crisis in Queanbeyan and Canberra who are combating hardship this coming winter.I would like to thank all those who helped provide my bail this morning so I could get back here for parliament. They included Bruce Morrison, from Morrison's Newsagency in Queanbeyan; Howard Charles, from the Monaro Recycling Centre; Bill Lilley, from Bill Lilley Mitsubishi in Queanbeyan; Brian Leonard, from QBNFM; Gary Mallon, from Raine and Horne in Queanbeyan; Steve Byron, from the Canberra Airport Group; David Madew, from Madew Wines; Brindabella Airlines; ACTEW; even my wife paid to get me out; Geoff McConnell, from the Cheesecake Shop in Queanbeyan; Peter Moran, a curtain manufacturer in Queanbeyan; Ian Marjason, the Liberal candidate for Monaro; and my colleagues here in the house. My colleagues who contributed included your good self, Mr Speaker, although I was perturbed to hear that you actually ticked the box to keep me in gaol; Michael Ronaldson, the Chief Government Whip; Joe Hockey, a government minister; Senator Grant Tambling; and Senator Bill Heffernan. I appreciated all that assistance for the Smith Family's coming appeal.39023902Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The New South Wales government recently passed and enacted landmark legislation that reformed conditions for residents in residential parks in New South Wales. One of the reforms included in the legislation was a requirement for park owners to install mail boxes in the parks. These mail boxes must meet the requirements of Australia Post and must be able to be locked and therefore not accessed by the park owners. Further, it will be an offence for park owners to handle mail without the permission of residents.This has created an anomaly—one which I wish to bring to the attention of the government and one which must be addressed. Australia Post currently refuses to redirect park residents' mail. Even if a resident completes a redirect form, Australia Post will not act on it. This is not good enough, particularly when the New South Wales reforms are taken into account. We all take for granted the fact that we have our mail delivered and that, if we move, it will follow us. Park residents are not second-class citizens and they should have the same expectations. I believe it is essential that the necessary changes are made to allow Australia Post to redirect residents' mail. I call on the government to act immediately to resolve the matter.39023902Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I might just say, before I raise my matter of concern, that it surprises me that so far no member of the Labor Party has leapt to the defence of the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, in these 90-second statements. I felt sure that members of the Labor Party would be very quick to leap to the former Prime Minister's defence, given the 60 Minutes program last night—but clearly not.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cunningham! 9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I thought the Labor Party stuck together, but unfortunately they have obviously abandoned Mr Keating.The reason I rise today is to remind the House that in the last parliament the government introduced landmark legislation to abolish the import monopoly over compact discs, which has led very successfully to the reduction in price of compact discs down to, in some cases, $20 and even less than that in some stores around Australia. But the work is not finished in the area of import monopolies. In the area of poisons and pharmaceuticals, computer software and other areas there are still import monopolies which still create an imbalance for the people who own those import monopolies.In one particular area, amusement machines, this is very stark. This is a small industry. However, the people who own the import monopoly over amusement machines are able to charge exorbitant prices, and in some cases they charge double the price that would otherwise be available if amusement machines shared an open market. (Time expired)39023902Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I want to congratulate the Older Women's Network Theatre Group for their two musical performances under the banner of `Zip goes the century' on Saturday night at the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre in Thornlie. Their overall performance was designed to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women being allowed to vote in Australia and to sing songs which raised some of the issues being experienced by seniors.I think that, while it was great to laugh at some of the reasons that were given as to why women should not vote, it also acted as a reminder for the younger women in the audience that previous generations of women are to be admired for their achievements and appreciated for the groundwork they laid for the rest of us to follow and to continue to build on.The second part of the performance was a number of songs written by the group highlighting the issues that are confronted by seniors on a regular basis. One of the most positive aspects of the performance was that the songs also highlighted the many contributions that our senior citizens make to society, such as being volunteers. It was a great night's entertainment and I congratulate the women on their efforts at song writing and on the script. The Older Women's Network Theatre Group hopes to be able to travel to Canberra in September to take part in the Older Women's Network National Conference. I look forward to seeing them here and support their aims. And I have better things to do than rake over the past!39033903Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise to speak as a loyal and committed, yet humble, member of this government who has defended unpopular decisions of this government and its agencies in the past. But, if you place a member of this place between the interests of his constituents and the immediate interests of his government and its agencies, I believe it is the sacred duty of the member to choose the interests of his constituents every time.Mr Speaker, it is a wonderful pleasure on this occasion for me to stand before my colleagues and announce that the people of Telopea have stood together as one voice and overturned the monolith of Australia Post, which has given a guarantee that the Telopea licensed post office will be reopened. Every pensioner in all the blocks of units and houses around Telopea post office are today celebrating, because with one voice the people of Telopea stood as one—David against Goliath; the power of the people, as in the Philippines overthrowing the Marcos regime—and we won.39033903Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—In June last year I began alerting the people of Logan to a funding shortage associated with implementing the government's Common Youth Allowance for 15- to 17-year-olds, who would be forced to return to school in order to continue receiving government support. We have been advised that the relevant department had sought $140 million from cabinet to implement this policy nationwide but was allocated only $42 million. The allocation for all of Queensland was only $4.1 million. Despite complaining vehemently about this meagre funding allocation and pointing out that the Howard government's policy would cost Queensland $7,000 per returning student, the Liberal state education minister at that time had his office advise the media that I was `scaremongering' when I raised this issue.My warnings about this ill-conceived policy went unheeded by the federal government. Just a fortnight ago, when I claimed no funds had been received by schools in the Logan-Beenleigh area, government members interjected, saying, `That's not true.' I can confirm to this House that it is true.As we approach the end of the first semester and as dozens of former students in the Logan-Beenleigh area have been required to return to school, not one cent of federal funding has reached these schools. As each week passes, more former students are returning as a result of Centrelink progressively contacting them and advising them that their Centrelink payments will be cancelled unless they return to school.I call on the Howard government to provide adequate funding for its Common Youth Allowance policy for 15- to 17-year-olds in the Logan-Beenleigh area as a matter of urgency to relieve the heavy pressure it is placing on high schools in the area.39033903Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I had the very good fortune yesterday to accept the invitation of the Mornington Peninsula Triathlon Club to get up very early on Sunday morning and start the 15th Frankston Half Ironman Triathlon event in Frankston.Mr Melham interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—My thanks to the member for Banks. It was only my attire that distinguished me from the athletes that were there. That is not entirely accurate because that would be disrespectful of the dedication, commitment and overall good health of the people that got up that early in the morning and not only had to start the event but finish it. There was a 1.9-kilometre swim, a 90-kilometre cycle and a 21-kilometre run around the best part of Australia; that is, the Mornington Peninsular.The really terrific thing about this event is that it has been run for 15 years by a volunteer group who put all of the sponsorship money, all of the entry fees and all of the support of the local community into a fantastic event. There were 500 competitors ranging from representatives from the United States to Japan, New Zealand and those from all around Australia. It was a terrific occasion. The Mornington Peninsula Triathlon Club deserves our support. Hans, Brian and Raeleigh do a fantastic job. The whole team is a great credit to the peninsula. But it is probably not the way I would like the competitors to look at the wonderful tourist destination in our region. Perhaps they can come back another time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements39043904Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is representing Australia at the funeral of the Hon. Tofilau Eti Alesana, the former Prime Minister of Samoa. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice390439043904Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the comments of Access Economics principal, Mr Geoff Carmody, and the Australian Food and Grocery Council on the GST pension increase that `there is a clear case for arguing that the compensation package is not adequate over time' and that `everyone who says the compensation package won't last is dead right'? Prime Minister, hasn't Mr Carmody shown that your GST pension increase is a confidence trick? Will you be amending the GST package to give real compensation? If not, why not?3904Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Carmody has shown no such thing. The package is adequate and retains the full support of the government.39043904Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to media reports regarding the business affairs of Mr Paul Keating? Is the Attorney-General in a position to advise the House whether the government intends to take any action?3904Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The allegations on the 60 Minutes program last night raised a range of issues. Those issues relate to the responsibility of several different authorities and regulatory agencies as well as the parliament. The government has asked that I, as Attorney-General, advise on how to deal with the matters raised. In doing so, I will, of course, act on the basis that the allegations in the program are just that and should not be taken as proven simply by reason of being broadcast. On the other hand, if the allegations were true, significant issues of public interest may be raised.Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Paterson!Mr Melham interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Banks!7V5Mr WILLIAMS—If only to put matters to rest, some examination may be called for. I intend to seek appropriate advice and I do not intend to comment further.39043904Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the proposal by Access Economics principal, Geoff Carmody, that GST compensation for pensioners will erode to zero unless it is linked to the wage index? Is it not the case that Mr Carmody's proposal would, according to some reports, cost up to $1 billion more than you have set aside for pensioners? Prime Minister, doesn't this show how woefully inadequate your GST compensation package is for pensioners?3905Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the question is, no, it does not.39053905McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of any recent comments made by former Labor Prime Minister and Treasurer Mr Keating on the economy of the early 1990s? What light do they shed on the performance of the Australian economy since those times?3905Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for his question. There was a lot said by Mr Keating at the weekend but one statement was unequivocally true. According to the Canberra Times , Mr Paul Keating expressed his deepest contrition for the infamous recession we had to have. For the first time, I think, in nine years, we had a senior Labor figure admit to the way in which the Labor Party ran the country into the recession and the damage that it did to ordinary Australians who were thrown out of work as a result. Mr Keating said:There was a lacerating recession which bore down heavily on people who deserved better, many of whom had accommodated the economic changes, seized the new economic opportunities, who had put their faith in us.After nine years it is appropriate that Mr Keating apologise on behalf of the Labor Party for putting Australia into recession. As I said in the House when we last met, it was a recession which cost Australia dearly. It is only now after nine years that we have got unemployment back to 7½ per cent after Labor took it to 11.3 per cent in that lacerating recession.I think it is appropriate that Mr Keating apologise, but I also think it appropriate that the minister responsible for employment at the time apologise. There was no show without a cabinet. It was not just Mr Keating who was in charge of the 1990 recession. His then employment minister was none other than the Leader of the Opposition, who was responsible for an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent. As Mr Keating said:There were a couple of moments of drift and some policy mistakes . . . I do not think the Leader of the Opposition can ever stand up and talk about an economic plan for Australia until he first apologises for the damage he did as employment minister. If Mr Keating has shown the way, it is time that Mr Beazley followed. In addition to that, members of the House would have seen Michael Warby in the Financial Review today make the point, quite rightly:Paul Keating PM was the worst fiscal manager of the Commonwealth budget since the Second World War, possibly since federation . . . The government is working on producing a surplus budget for 1999-2000. The record of Paul Keating PM and his defenders on the other side of the parliament was, in three budgets, a cumulative deficit of $40 billion—$40 billion.But, again, I say this: no Prime Minister failed the fiscal test without the active assistance of a finance minister. And the finance minister—who turns his back whenever he is embarrassed to face the music—responsible for a federal fiscal deficit of $40 billion in three years was none other than the Leader of the Opposition. What a record! An all time Australian record for unemployment, an all time Australian record on federal fiscal deficits, standing shoulder to shoulder with Paul Keating as he produced a lacerating recession, and the Labor Party wants to make him their leader.He gave a speech to CEDA last week to try to set out his economic policy. He posed 19 questions and gave no answers. We are reliably informed that there were six businessmen who paid to hear it, and the Labor frontbench was rolled out to fill out the audience at the CEDA speech, led by the glimmer twins who managed to get their photos on the TV news. No wonder there were only six; in fact, we might actually be surprised there were six. $40 billion deficit, 11.3 per cent—Mr Keating has apologised, why doesn't the Leader of the Opposition?39053905Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to the decision by the government to give caravan park and relocat able home park operators the choice of whether they can apply the GST to the site fees of long-term residents. Is the minister now aware that more than 160,000 Australians live in such accommodation, including 4,000 on the New South Wales Central Coast around Gosford and some 3,000 residents of the New South Wales electorate of Tweed? Minister, why are these residents the only renters who will be paying the GST? Why are the rights of residents being ignored?3906Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The honourable member for Lilley is out to get his picture on the television screens again I notice.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister will come to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—He is becoming somewhat famous for chasing the TV cameras around the countryside. I notice that he was even prepared to endure the Leader of the Opposition's speech to get his picture on the television cameras. This morning, he chased the TV cameras out to Tuggeranong just so that he could somehow or other get some kind of exposure. We read at the weekend how he comes into the House of Representatives three times every morning so that he can get more doorstops.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Minister will come to the question.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. The minister has not touched the points of the question raised by the member for Lilley.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will resume his seat. I have already called the minister to come back to the question, as the member for Lyons must be aware.GT4Mr TRUSS—The reality is that the government is proposing and has put before the House a tax reform package which provides real benefits to all Australians. It provides benefits to those who live in mobile home parks, those who live in caravan parks, those who live in other rented accommodation and those who live in houses, and the benefits that are being provided are comprehensive. There are real pension rises and there are real increases in other benefits, including rental assistance. Has the honourable member for Lilley yet got it through his head that amongst the many benefits that will increase will be rent assistance? So if there is to be an increase in rentals in some areas, that will be covered by the increased rent assistance that this government is offering as a part of its comprehensive package. The reality is that those who live in mobile home parks will share with other Australians in the visionary tax measures that this government is putting before the Australian people, which contrast remarkably with the vacant policy proposals put forward by the opposition at the last election and by the Leader of the Opposition in his 19 questions that he put to the people in Melbourne recently.39063906St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of statements which have recently been made which have included options to improve the employment outlook for those without jobs? What would be the impact of those proposals on employment and how have they been received?3906Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for New England for his question. There have been some proposals in recent times about unemployment. Of course, the only truly concrete and substantial proposals in respect of unemployment are the proposals that the government has had before this chamber. For example, our proposal to protect the jobs of young people—that is a real measure not only to protect jobs but also to create jobs; our measure for unfair dismissals, to give small business a fair go and encourage them to go out and employ more people—50,000 jobs as a result; the work we are doing to strengthen the Australian economy—tax reform, fiscal policy. These are the things that really count to provide people with real jobs.I was interested to see a statement in the last week by the Leader of the Opposition—his so-called proposal on unemployment—remembering that he is the person who has been orchestrating the opposition to all the real measures that really would help. But he had something to say about unemployment. It does not take long to read what he had to say about unemployment—it was in one sentence of 35 words. It was the so-called jobs bonus.We have obviously been having a look at that proposal. It was contained in a speech that had 17 questions. You would think that, when you have been Leader of the Opposition for three years, it is about time you actually have a few concrete proposals. Why was it that we saw this speech? He had had a bad week the week before, so the advisers said, `We'd better put a few ideas in the speech on Tuesday because it is being elevated as a test to his leadership.' Well, it was a test he failed.Take this jobs bonus proposal, for example. It is a bonus available after six months. So if you get a job within the six months you are penalised for the fact that you have done well to get a job. For many people who do not get a permanent job but get a part-time job, it is important that they get a foot in the door. If you have an opportunity for a job, I say: take it. It may not be a permanent job but, if you have been unemployed for a period of time, just getting a job and having the discipline of that work and experience gives you something for your CV; it gets you on the way.This was just an ill thought out proposal from the Leader of the Opposition, who has no policy positions and is pushed around by the ACTU. The 52 per cent of his frontbench who are trade union hacks control his position. So what was the outcome? According to the Courier-Mail: `Beazley skips hard choices in his vision'. The Financial Review: `Mr Beazley's narrow vision' and it describes it as `deeply unconvincing'. And the Financial Review comment piece: `A leader short on substance'. It is a long list.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is selective quoting. I am rising under standing order 145 on relevance. Of course, not only is it irrelevant but also it is skewed, because it ignored all the very good reports in the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will come back to the question.WI4Mr REITH—I thought I was asked how the proposal had been received. It was not received well because it was shallow, it was a gimmick and it was not directed to providing a real solution. I think most Australians are going to say that it is passing strange that here is Mr Beazley with an ill thought out proposal in respect of unemployment, yet it is the same Leader of the Opposition that has been opposing sensible measures that really would do something for the unemployed.39073907Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Is the minister aware of evidence given to the GST Senate inquiry that the compensation package for public and community housing tenants is hopelessly inadequate? Is the minister aware that, because tenants rent is tied to income, one-quarter of the proposed four per cent increase in pensions will immediately be swallowed up in increased rent? Further, is the minister aware that on 16 March all state and territory housing ministers wrote to Senator Newman indicating that the impact of the proposed GST on public housing for the term of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement would be more than $390 million and asking for compensation from the Commonwealth?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will come to his question.R36Mr ALBANESE—How do you propose to respond to the states?3907Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I have already answered that question in substance. The states have been made a very generous offer by the Commonwealth under the housing agreement which would give them secure funding for the next four years. That provides them with considerable capacity to provide for the public housing needs of people in their states.I would remind honourable members opposite that, under the government's proposal, the full revenue coming from the GST also goes to the states. So, if the states want to set a different rental level for the properties that they make available to low income earners, it is entirely within their capacity to do so. Do not come to us with stories about the effects of these matters. You talk to your Labor colleagues about what they are going to do about rent on their properties. You talk to them about what they are going to do with the GST revenue that is being given to them by the Commonwealth. And remind them also of the increased social security benefits that this government will be providing to pensioners and welfare beneficiaries to ensure that their standard of living is not only maintained but actually improved under the new taxation arrangements. The coalition were the only parties that went to the last federal election with a commitment to raise pensions in real terms.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, my point of order is under standing order 145. The minister was asked about the correspondence from the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister was being entirely relevant. Has the minister any more to add to his answer?GT4Mr TRUSS—The question has been fully and completely answered.39083908Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of allegations of political interference in the allocation of the Work for the Dole projects? What safeguards are in place to ensure the Work for the Dole evaluation process is concluded objectively and what reasons are there for the apparent lack of projects in certain federal electorates?3908Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Robertson for his question and also for his interest in Work for the Dole projects in his electorate. I am aware of an article in today's Age suggesting political interference in the allocation of Work for the Dole projects in Victoria. The article suggests that there have been too many projects in coalition seats. The article has an ALP frontbencher, Senator Faulkner, saying that Work for the Dole is being exploited for political purposes. This really is a bit rich. First, the ALP say that Work for the Dole is punishment, now they complain that they are not getting enough of it. Work for the Dole projects are not handed down from on high; community organisations must submit applications. In this area, the government has learned from the mistakes of members opposite. These applications are assessed by departmental officers, who evaluate the needs of local communities, local labour market conditions and the pool of potential participants. Ministers are informed of successful projects only after they have been recommended by an independent national selection committee and approved by a senior departmental officer.I have been asked about reasons for Labor electorates possibly missing out, and the obvious explanation is that local ALP members are not encouraging community groups in their electorates to apply. In particular, I am quoting now from a letter from ALP frontbencher the member for Barton, who has written to a potential Work for the Dole sponsor in his electorate. I quote:The Labor Party's opposition to the work for the dole project is that it does not provide accredited skills. Accordingly, what is happening is that 18 year old unemployable people are going into work for the dole programs and coming out 18½ year old unemployable people.This is an absolute smear against people who are doing the right thing by themselves and their community, and it is dead wrong because 42 per cent of participants in the pilot scheme have gone on to paid work or further education or training. This is a significantly better job outcome and it is a significantly better outcome for taxpayers than comparable Working Nation programs.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It's 32, not 42.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thirty-two went on to paid employment and 10 per cent went on to further education or training. The article in the Age suggests that the electorates of Batman and Scullin have unfairly missed out on Work for the Dole projects. I am advised by my department that in the labour market region covering these electorates insufficient applications were received to provide places for the number of eligible clients. I would suggest to the members for Batman and Scullin, whom I note are both members of the Miscellaneous Workers Union, that if they were more focused on local organisations and less focused on the unions they would get more Work for the Dole places, and job seekers in their electorates would be much better off.83UCOXMr Cox—I ask that the minister table the document from which he has read.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—They are confidential notes, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has indicated that the notes are confidential.JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—I raise a point of order. It was my was my letter that was read, and it was not confidential.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Barton wishes to make a personal explanation he can he can seek—JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—No, the minister read from my letter, which clearly was not a confidential document to the minister, and it could not have possibly been a confidential document.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I apologise to the member for Barton. I, in fact, did misunderstand his point of order. But the minister has indicated that the documents from which he was reading were confidential, and I take the minister's word for that.39093909Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, this morning you opened the Tuggeranong Centrelink office. Minister, will you deny that the opening was stage-managed with the bussing in of five extra staff to eliminate long queues which have been a permanent feature since 21 staff were cut from that office in the last 12 months alone? Were staff also told to clear their desks to give the false impression of no backlog when Centrelink itself admitted to a three-week appointment backlog? Minister, will you admit that the conversion of the Tuggeranong office into a film set for your one-hour flying visit was an insult to the clients and the hardworking staff?3909Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I was pleased to see the member for Canberra present at the opening of the Tuggeranong Centrelink office. She actually brought along a little bit of glimmer to perform in front of the TV cameras for the occasion. But it is perhaps a little unfortunate that the member for Canberra would so blindly follow the member for Lilley and mimic every phrase or press release that he suggested to members that they put out. Last week the member for Lilley tried to encourage backbench members behind him, who might be perhaps attracted to his deputy leadership challenge, to put out a media release about delays.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order. The question was specific. It asked about whether or not there were five extra staff to eliminate the long queues—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The leader of the opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—and whether or not they were ordered to withdraw their material from their desks—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister will come to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—Mr Speaker, the question was about delays at Tuggeranong Centrelink office, and the member for Canberra put out a media release last week in which she referred to this very issue.2V5SWANMr Swan—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about five extra staff being bussed in—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley has a point of order?2V5SWANMr Swan—and here is the memo that proves it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley—2V5SWANMr Swan—Here is the memo that proves it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—will resume his seat and consider himself warned.2V5SWANMr Swan—I seek leave to table the memo.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat as instructed. The minister has the call.GT4Mr TRUSS—The royal society for the protection of the CPSU has really been busy today. The honourable member for Lilley sent out a media release to alert all of the media to be there so that he could make some allegations about delays in the Tuggeranong office. So who was it that organised the media show? Actually, it was the member for Lilley. But the reality is that when the member for Canberra put out her media release last week—83UCOXMr Cox—I raise a point of order. Standing order 85—irrelevance and tedious repetition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston would be warned for that sort of action if it were not that he is a new member. I call the minister. The minister has the call.GT4Mr TRUSS—The member for Canberra quite foolishly just mimicked and duplicated the media release put out by the member for Lilley talking about delays in getting appointments at the Tuggeranong office. The reality is that the Tuggeranong office has a very good record at the present time. If anyone needs an appointment at the Tuggeranong Centrelink office they will get it tomorrow, and at other Canberra offices in some cases they can even get it the same day.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, under standing order 145 on relevance, if the minister does not know whether five staff were bussed in—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—With respect—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business will resume his seat.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—With respect, Mr Speaker, standing order 98—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business will resume his seat.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, with respect, standing order 98—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business is warned.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Can I not raise a point of order?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business will resume his seat.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I raise another point of order. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business will resume his seat and I will rule on his first point of order. The Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order under standing order 145—relevance. There is no way that the Speaker could rule that the minister is being other than relevant to the question.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I have another point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing order 98 makes it clear that any member can raise a point of order at any time and House of Representatives Practice at page 204 makes it clear that before you rule on it you should hear it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, you have consistently failed to do that and you fail to do so once again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of Opposition Business quite deliberately and appropriately raised a question of relevance, and it was on that that I ruled.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—You did not hear my point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of Opposition Business made the point that he was making the point of order under standing order 145, which is the matter of relevance. I determined whether or not the minister was being relevant, as indeed he was, and he has the call.GT4Mr TRUSS—The reality is that since this government has been in office there have been substantial advances in the quality of service being provided by Centrelink, and those advances will be improved as a result of new offices like the one at Tuggeranong. You complain about waiting periods. Under Labor, people stayed in queues, lined up day after day after day.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. A set of specific questions related to a memo to staff at Tuggeranong basically to create a Potemkin village of that office was the basis of that question, and we have had no answers as yet to any element of it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have already ruled that the minister is being entirely relevant. He is dealing with the question of Centrelink offices and I call him.GT4Mr TRUSS—There is now an appointment system in place which enables Centrelink customers to come to their office at a time suitable to them and to Centrelink, unlike under Labor when people queued up out in the street day after day. If they came on a Wednesday they did not get in at all because the offices were closed on Wednesday afternoons. This government has taken decisive steps to improve the service delivery and to cut the waiting times associated with it.At the end of the question the member for Canberra referred to insulting the Centrelink staff. The reality is that the member for Canberra is insulting Centrelink staff and in particular the hardworking staff at Tuggeranong who have gone to such lengths to improve the service in that centre when she is the very member who should be representing them. The member for Canberra is the one who is cultivating aggression and endeavouring to undermine the excellent work that Centrelink is doing. She should be ashamed of herself and not take her lead from the member for Lilley.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I seek leave to table the memo associated with the Tuggeranong official opening.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?WI4REITHMr Reith—No.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave not granted.39113911Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister inform the House of any recent developments relating to the ownership of the National Transmission Network?3911Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am pleased to advise the honourable member for Eden-Monaro that last Friday the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts and I announced the government's successful sale of the National Transmission Network for $650 million. I am sure all honourable members would know that the National Transmission Network transmits radio and television programs around Australia for the ABC and SBS for the various regional telecasters and broadcasters from some 560 sites. The price of $650 million was a remarkable outcome for taxpayers and, like all of such sales, it will serve to reduce government debt and to ensure that the interest payments are reduced as well. Every time interest payments are reduced it allows the government to focus on providing services in those core areas for government of education, social welfare and health, and other areas of importance.The new owner, NTL Australia, has guaranteed that there will be a continuation of all existing services at the current service levels. This means protection for community broadcasters, for emergency service operators and for self-help transmission groups and many of these, as all honourable members would know, are in regional and remote Australia. The new owner has also committed to provide some $5 million for a regional communications partnership to provide for and upgrade infrastructure outside the major cities. NTL has assured the government that it anticipates maintaining employment levels in both management and operation of the networks. Importantly, it recognises the need to maintain staff in regional Australia for maintenance and to quickly and efficiently fix any transmission problems.NTL is a world leader in managing communications infrastructure and as such it will embrace the challenge to managing the change from analog to digital networks. That means that NTL has an opportunity to deliver integrated television, Internet and data communications to all Australians, particularly those in rural and regional Australia. This sale by the government is a win for taxpayers and a win for regional Australia.39113911Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. It goes to the activities of himself today at the Tuggeranong Centrelink office where 21 staff have been cut in the last 12 months alone. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The leader will come to the question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Minister, are you aware of a memo that went out to the persons associated with your opening at Tuggeranong, which said in part:The office has to look professional. This means that all boxes are to be emptied and the clean desk policy will be enforced. You are also aware it will be business as usual on the day of the opening. We will have some help from other offices. They will be focused on keeping a reception line to a minimum.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The leader will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Minister, how arrogant and out of touch are you?3912Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Talk about being hit by a wet lettuce leaf.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Ha, ha!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—There is a total lack of any glimmer of hope for the future. There have been a number of new Centrelink offices now opened around Australia which reflect the new service model being provided by the organisation. Centrelink is proud of those offices and they are naturally keen to display them to the community as a part of the open door of Centrelink in encouraging the participation of people so they can appreciate the excellent work and service that is being provided by the government's one-stop shop model. So it is appropriate that people should be invited from the community to participate at the opening.I was pleased that there was an audience present. I might add that it included the member for Canberra who seems to not be pleased that she has a nice new Centrelink office in her electorate. I am sure there are many members behind me who would be happy to have that kind of facility in their electorate, and we are moving towards providing them as well. This opening helped to attract attention to the excellent work that Centrelink staff are doing and the excellent quality of service that is now being provided. It also helped to demonstrate the enormous improvement that there has been since the sad old days when Labor's Department of Social Security was administering these programs.39123912Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, how have the government's policies helped to improve the living standards of Australia's pensioners?3912Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for a question with some substance at last.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—Pensioners will receive in their next pay packet a pension increase, a direct result of this government's policies to improve the living standards of pensioners and other welfare beneficiaries. From the first payment after 20 March, single pensioners will receive an extra $4.10 and married couples an extra $3.50 each. Those are increases which would not have happened under Labor. That is the key thing. They would not have happened under Labor.Opposition members interjecting—GT4Mr TRUSS—Whilst Labor did provide for CPI rises, which we have continued, we have also given a second guarantee to pensioners that we will not allow the benefit to fall below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!GT4Mr TRUSS—A guarantee that Labor never provided. Pensioners will be grateful for that commitment because, were it not for that double commitment—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat. I am tired of having to struggle with the noise that is emanating principally from the opposition benches. I issue a general warning. The minister has the call.GT4Mr TRUSS—As a result of this commitment by the government to provide at least 25 per cent of average weekly earnings to pen sioners, this rise is much more substantial than it otherwise would have been. Pensioners know that it is the coalition government which is good for their incomes and which guarantees them real improvements in the standard of living. We are the only parties, that also made a commitment at the last election to provide a real increase to pensioners and to beneficiaries. It is the coalition parties that are committed to giving pensioners a fair go.Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton is a new member but might remember that a general warning has been issued. I do not intend to sit here simply issuing warnings.39133913Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Does the minister recall his statement last year that the GST package will not increase the city-country petrol price gap? Does he agree with the evidence of the Australian Automobile Association that the GST package will increase the gap by around 10 per cent in most towns including Armidale—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. The member for Shortland will come to her question.83NMs HALL—Bathurst, Coffs Harbour, Cooma, Grafton and Queanbeyan?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland will resume her seat. I call the minister.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—A point of order, Mr Speaker.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Burke.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Give her a go!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of 304A.The honourable member for Burke thereupon withdrew from the chamber.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I want to raise with you the question of your cutting short this member asking her question. It was in fact a very short question, half the size of many we have had asked from that side of the House. To make her sit down in those circumstances is most unreasonable.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It was indeed. The member for Fraser has raised his point and will resume his seat.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—To make her sit down in those circumstances is most unreasonable.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland.83NMs HALL—Mr Speaker, to the minister—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, no, I am sorry. The member for Shortland—83NMs HALL—Minister, can you guarantee that the GST package will not increase the city-country—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland will resume her seat because I have yet to rule on the point of order of the member for Fraser. I had called on the member for Shortland not to continue the process she was nominating in her question which was nominating places which were not immediately relevant to the question. When she continued to do so, I invited her to resume her seat. The member for Shortland has subsequently used my call on a point of order to complete her question, as I understand it. The member for Shortland.83NMs HALL—Mr Speaker, I believe that the completion of my question was cut off, and I ask your permission to finish it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will allow the member for Shortland to finish that question.83NMs HALL—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, can you guarantee that the GST package will not increase the city-country petrol gap?3913Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for her question, and I stand by the comments that I made last year during the election campaign. I remember quite clearly the radio debates that we were conducting with the member for Hotham at the time on this particular issue. In fact, already this government's policies have seen the price of petrol in regional Australia fall. In my electorate alone, I am aware that the retail price of petrol has fallen from 79c to 72c. Apply the equation under our tax reform package to that, and it will fall even further.39143914Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of a publication distributed at the University of Technology which includes a five-page article with step by step instructions telling students how to inject heroin, and other information about drugs? Can the minister advise who produced the publication and how that organisation is generally funded? What action has the minister taken to ensure that university students receive value for money for the services that they purchase and use on campus?3914Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Bradfield for his question. I know of his deep concern with the issue of drugs and how they are adversely affecting the lives of many young people.I am aware of the publication to which he refers. It is an article entitled `Notes on injecting drugs', with subheadings such as `Mixing up your drugs', `Tools you'll need' and `Getting started'. This article was funded and published by the student union of the University of Technology, Sydney. It appeared in an orientation guide which was funded by a compulsory student union fee of $222 per student. This article is an example of how students can be compelled, and are being compelled at present, by compulsory union fees to fund articles which must be very damaging in the guidance that they give to many young people.We are losing too many of our young Australians to illegal drugs at the present time. We should be advising young people on how to avoid drugs, not giving them advice on how to use them, how to find a vein, the best location for injection, how to mix up drugs and how much to pay for them. I want to say in this context that I am disappointed that the new chancellor at the University of Technology, Sydney, found fit in his inaugural speech the other day to endorse the system of funding which facilitates these irresponsible articles.The government believes that many students would dissociate themselves from this kind of publication and those students should have a choice whether or not to contribute to it. This government believes in voluntary student unionism; it believes that students should have a choice as to whether or not they fund publications such as this. The legislation that we have introduced into this parliament will be an important safeguard against irresponsible publications of this kind.Let me conclude by saying that this government is firmly opposed to the use of illicit drugs. We condemn the publication of this kind of material in an orientation handbook. And I challenge the Labor Party to withdraw its support for the compulsory fees which fund publications of this kind.39143914Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I ask him whether he recalls saying on radio 8DDD last year:What we will guarantee is that the price [of petrol] will not rise with the GST . . .and his statement today that the GST will cause the price to `fall even further'. Minister, have you seen the claim by the Australian Automobile Association that the only way to guarantee that pump prices do not rise in any country town is to cut the petrol excise by 8.9c per litre rather than the 7c per litre promised by this government? Minister, will you be making this adjustment? Also, doesn't this show once again that the GST package has failed to provide adequate compensation for country Australians?4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question has already been asked and answered.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I could have been confused, but my impression was that the member for Page was seeking my opinion. In my opinion, the question raises some other areas that have not as yet been answered, and I call the minister.3915Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—What I did say a while ago was that our government's policies have seen downward pressure on prices right now. We have continued to maintain that, as a result of the implementation of the tax reform package, there would be no net increase in the price of fuel.DT4CREANMr Crean—That is not what you said.SU5Mr VAILE—As a result of the tax reform package. We continue to argue that because you will not accept the reduction in the costs of transport that will be applied to that as well, and the other policy areas. You will not accept that.But what we are not hearing is: what is the Labor Party's policy on this? They have not got any policy at all on improving the taxation system in Australia. All they are doing is trying to undermine and block what this government is trying to do to improve the taxation system in Australia. The Labor Party have no policy to improve it at all.39153915Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, is there a need for Australia to have a comprehensive system to deal with unlawful arrivals to this country? Is the government receiving the support it needs to implement measures to support such a system?3915Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for the question. It gives me the opportunity to draw attention to the fact that some people have a rather narrow perspective of unauthorised arrivals in Australia and wish only to focus on one aspect: that is, the sometime clandestine arrivals that we see on our shores. I think it is important to recognise that the unauthorised arrivals that occur in Australia come in some respects by boat, but those numbers have been declining. More frequently, they are a result of people coming here on tourist visas or working while they are lawfully in Australia and becoming unlawful as a result.In relation to dealing with unauthorised arrivals by boat, it is important to focus on the objective of the people seeking to come here. We know that some people who come have protection visa claims in mind. We know that others who come have other purposes in mind. There was a boat arrival just before Christmas at Cobourg Peninsula, where 52 people arrived. One woman drowned, sadly, and numbers of others put their lives at risk. But they were led to believe by people smugglers that there were opportunities here to work on the Olympics site, and there were also suggestions that there may be a form of amnesty associated with political change here in Australia.If you are going to address these matters, you need to have a comprehensive approach in place. We have that in seeking to interdict vessels before they arrive in Australia, and we are remarkably successful in relation to that. I think we have had something like 102 arrivals over the last four years, of which only three have come without us formally interdicting them before they reached our shores. It is also important to have intelligence measures in place, which we have implemented in the last budget in relation to people who come by air. We have officers in overseas posts checking visa issuants and dealing with those matters in an appropriate way. We need to have in place measures to address the very significant people smuggling that is happening not only here but also abroad.We also need to have in place a system which ensures that if people have entered Australia they can be removed quickly and promptly if they have no bona fide claims to be here. The only way in which you can do that is with the sort of cooperation that we gave the former government when they were in office. We supported the changes they wanted to judicial review in the introduction of part 8 of the migration system. We supported other legislation to ensure that Vietnamese asylum seekers whose claims had been considered elsewhere were removed by legislation rather than by making further applications in Australia.The courts of the land have taken an expansive view of the refugee convention, and the convention itself is being abused by large numbers of asylum seekers. We have seen claims now approaching 700 during the course of a year, up very considerably from the sorts of claims that you were experiencing when you were in office when you thought these matters needed to be addressed. We would have thought that, rather than trying to make a cheap political shot over a weekend, you would be giving considered attention to the sorts of reforms that would maintain a comprehensive approach in place, and you would be giving support to our legislative changes to deal with the problems associated with judicial review.39163916Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying on the AM program on 8 March that you have full confidence in the Chairman of the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority, Mr Dick Smith? Prime Minister, do you still have full confidence in Mr Smith's remaining as chair of CASA?3916Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—When I made that statement, that represented a correct statement of my views. I retain a tremendous amount of confidence in and have a personal regard for Mr Smith. The question of whether he remains in that position as things stand at the present time is entirely a matter for him.39163916Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of progress of the two-year review of the Howard government's aged care reforms?Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for the Northern Territory of the general warning that has been issued.3916Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for her question, because I know of the concern that she has for older people in her electorate. I know that she is concerned that the reforms that this government brought in are being overseen by the department, this review and me. The fact is that the people are a bit smarter than the Labor Party ever gave them credit for. In 1997 when these reforms were brought in they were clearly needed. Despite the dishonest, rancorous, misleading campaign lodged by the Labor Party, this review has shown that the people saw there was a need for the reforms to be brought into place.Anecdotal evidence has been sought from the focus groups. Some 500 people have taken part in 17 locations in remote and rural Australia. I have had the first six-monthly report from these focus groups, which will give a very good lead to the next six-monthly report that Professor Gray will deliver to me in July. The bottom line is that these reforms were clearly seen to be needed by the people involved in aged care and we will continue to make sure that we deliver excellent care for older Australians.39163916Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Isn't it the case that the government's so-called social bonus—the Telstra privatisation bribe to the bush, effectively limited to $351 million over five years for telecommunications infrastructure—has been fingered by Western Australian Deputy Premier Hendy Cowan as hopelessly inadequate? Minister, isn't it also the case that, under the government's Telstra privatisation legislation, bankers and brokers would stand to receive between $800 million and $1.1 billion in commissions and fees? Why do you want to give three times more to Melbourne and Sydney bankers and brokers than to the people of rural and regional Australia?3916McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Labor's obstruction of the further privatisation of Telstra flies in the face of the opposition leader's own comments on the obstruction role of the Senate. I find it very hard to know how the member can oppose the privatisation of Telstra in light of his leader's recent comments on what is the proper role of the Senate in regard to key pieces of legislation.But, leaving that aside, the best thing that the Labor Party can do for rural and regional Australia is to pass the legislation presently before the Senate, because there is $671 million available for rural and regional Aus tralia on that privatisation. It will go to telecommunications and regional environmental repair work. In one hit, in a single overnight action, we can significantly upgrade and even revolutionise the infrastructure for regional Australia. That is what it boils down to. Of course, there is not going to be a significant privatisation without expert advice of a kind. But I can assure you—knowing the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Treasurer—it will be the absolute and barest minimum, as our record in government shows. Labor has the balance of power. It has abrogated its power, yet its leader pontificates about the responsible role of the Senate.39173917Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Can the minister inform the House of progress with the implementation of the government's fair trading reforms?3917Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. There is a lot to be said about what the government is doing in implementing its reforms, because small business is terribly important. The small business community have been creating more jobs. The more help you give them in a reasonable way, the more jobs you will see. I compliment the member for Dunkley. He is the member for all the people in Dunkley but he is a great advocate for small business in Dunkley and right across the Mornington Peninsula. It is very important that they have a strong voice in the parliament, and he has done that.It is a copybook classic case of good policy making: we had the Reid committee. We announced the results of the Reid committee. We introduced the legislation and we passed the legislation. We have set up a disputes mediation adviser and we have given more funds to the ACCC. The ACCC is taking complaints on the unconscionable conduct provisions. I believe there is a test case already under way. We also have small business ACCC specialists in each state to help small business. This is a classic case where we said we would look after small business, where we had a clear policy and where we have ploughed ahead with the implementation of that policy for the benefit of small business. This Prime Minister and this government are unashamedly pro small business.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Committees39173917391715:04:003917Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, I raise a matter of privilege with you under standing order 346. I wonder whether your attention has been drawn to a newspaper story this morning in the Australian Financial Review under the heading `Report demands banks lift game in the bush' and also to a program that went to air on the AM program this morning in respect of the pending tabling of an inquiry report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled Regional banking services: money too far away .My concern to raise with you is that the chairman of that committee tabled this report in the parliament some time after 1 o'clock today and other members then had the opportunity to speak on it. From my reading of the newspaper report today and also, as I understand, the AM program, they both gave fairly accurate and extensive coverage of the recommendations flowing from that report. Mr Speaker, under that particular standing order, standing order 346, I wonder whether you might look to see whether there is a prima facie case of privilege involved in this matter and whether you would therefore subsequently be prepared to entertain a motion to refer it to the Privileges Committee.3917Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Cunningham, not only in the former capacity he had in this chair but also as chairman of that committee. I, too, heard the AM report and I must say similar thoughts crossed my mind. I will take a look at the reports that he refers to and come back to him and the House with a comment as to how it should be appropriately dealt with.Questions to the Speaker391839183918Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I request that you write to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs over question No. 61 on the Notice Paper since 11 November 1998; over question No. 77 on the Notice Paper on 12 November 1998 to the Prime Minister; and over question No. 82 on the Notice Paper on 23 November 1998 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. More than 60 days certainly have passed since then.3918Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will undertake that action on behalf of the member for Prospect.Personal Explanations391815:07:003918Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Last Thursday I telephoned the Prime Minister's office to ask a simple question about his Tough on Drugs program.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter has been in the House long enough to know that he must proceed to where he has been misrepresented. I am happy to hear him out, providing he stays within the standing orders, obviously.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I expressed no view on the program during that telephone conversation. You will understand my surprise, Mr Speaker, when I read a transcript of an answer the Prime Minister gave the next day on radio station 3LO when he said:I don't think there is any whiteboard element, because one of the very supportive phone calls that my office got yesterday was from a Labor frontbencher representing a seat in the Hunter Valley. We made money available to a program in Cessnock which is in the federal Labor seat, and the federal member for that electorate rang my office and spoke to the adviser on my staff who deals with this issue, and wanted to express his gratitude for the fact that a group in his electorate had received a grant, and generally expressed support for yesterday's announcement, which I think is a good thing, because I am not seeking to politicise this issue in any way.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter has indicated that he was misrepresented in that statement.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I have not come to the key point. He said:He is a Labor member. He is a Labor frontbencher, a Labor federal member and he expressed a lot of satisfaction.Mr Speaker, this is a total misrepresentation of the conversation I had with the Prime Minister's office.Questions to the Speaker391839183918Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I refer to standing order No. 150 and questions placed by me on notice on 23 November. In accordance with that standing order, I request that you write to the following ministers with respect to the following questions: 109 to the Prime Minister; 110 to the Minister for Trade; 113 to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment and Heritage; 116 to the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services; 117 to the Minister for Foreign Affairs; 120 to the Minister for Finance and Administration; 122 to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources; 123 to the Attorney-General; 126 to the Minister for Veterans Affairs; and 128 to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.I then go to questions placed on the Notice Paper by me on 3 December. Again, in accordance with standing order 150, I request that you write to the Minister for Employment Services seeking an answer to question 303. I then go to questions placed by me on the Notice Paper on 9 December 1998. I request that you write to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with respect to question 325. It would be nice for ministers to treat this House with some respect.3919Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member has made his point under standing order 150, and I will act accordingly.391910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:39194283SBurke Anna MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members All Saints' Anglican Parish, Clayton, Victoria 3168 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.Ms Burke83SMs Burke(from 42 citizens)391940SD4Cadman Alan MPTo the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:(a) the Sudanese Government's policies of genocide against Sudanese groups are repugnant, and(b) the sustained and systematic attempt to enforce Sharia law on non-Islamic citizens is condemned.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives will persuade the Government and the international community, including the UN Security Council to:(i) impose an arms embargo on the Government of Sudan (ii) establish air exclusion zones in Sudan(iii) support the peace initiatives of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Drought and Desertification(iv) engage in discussion with all officially banned democratic opposition groups(v) ensure the immediate access by the United Nations Operation, Life-Line Sudan and other aid agencies into all areas; and(vi) provide teams to monitor human rights in the north, south and the Nuba Mountains of Sudan.Mr CadmanSD4Mr Cadman(from 40 citizens)391947FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the undersigned deplores the failure of the Government to appoint a judge, from the Newcastle legal profession, to replace Justice Renaud in the Family Court in Newcastle. We are deeply concerned about the delay in dealing with custody and access cases that this will cause.We believe that the profession in Newcastle has lawyers of the calibre required to fill this position and the inference, by the failure to appoint, is extremely insulting.Your petitioners request the House to strongly support the replacement of the judge at the Newcastle Family Court.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 47 citizens)39191399KV5Neville Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the citizens in Gladstone draws to the attention of the House our strongest support for the establishment of an aged nursing care facility in Gladstone.In Gladstone the number of elderly is ever increasing and it is unjust that they should be forced to leave their home town, family and friends in search of care in an adequate nursing facility which will meet their specific needs.We the undersigned respectfully ask the House of Representatives to urgently support the building of a nursing facility to cater to the Senior Citizens of Gladstone as a matter of urgency.Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville(from 1,399 citizens)391966UT4Nugent Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that: (1) the Government has proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, relying on the outcome of the recent elections, intends to introduce legislation for such a Tax;(2) the Government's proposals, as published, discriminate between the providers of orthodox and complementary medicines and services by making the former GST-free and the latter subject to a 10% GST; and(3) many Australians desire freedom of choice as to what medicines and services they use.Therefore, your Petitioners request that, in the design of a GST, the House ensures that complementary and orthodox medicines and practitioners are treated equally, so that:(1) all therapeutic goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all herbal remedies prepared extemporaneously by herbalists and other natural therapists from raw materials, are GST-free; and(2) all services provided by herbalists and other natural therapists are GST-free.Mr NugentUT4Mr Nugent(from 66 citizens)Petitions received.Bills3920r7533920Bill presented by Mrs Gallus.15:12:003920Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—This is the second time that the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill has been presented to this House. The first time was on 29 June 1998. In the short time between the passing of the bill through this House and the parliament moving into recess, the Senate did not have time to consider it and the bill therefore lapsed. This is my first opportunity to introduce it in the new parliament and I am very pleased to be introducing this bill today.The purpose of the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 is to give a legislative curfew to Adelaide airport. Once the legislation is enacted, there will be a designated curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., with shoulder hours from 11 p.m. to midnight and from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. Shoulder hours exist at all airports with a curfew. Their purpose is to provide a small window of opportunity for international flights to allow them to fit into international schedules. Only new quieter aircraft known as chapter 3 aircraft can access the shoulder periods, and during the hours planes must not use reverse thrust greater than idle on landing and, unless weather conditions are adverse, must land from over the sea.Currently, Qantas flies into Adelaide airport at five minutes past 5 a.m. during the winter months, five days a week, from Monday to Friday. There have been complaints that some of the early morning Qantas flights have been coming in over the city too often. This legislation requires that when shoulder hour flights do come in over the city, the pilot and airline will have to submit a report on the weather conditions. Neither pilots nor airlines like this additional paperwork. Once this legislation is enacted residents will know that, if these flights do come in over the city, there is a genuine safety need.Sixty-five per cent of South Australia's freighted exports are flown out of either Sydney or Melbourne. Fresh chilled tuna and fresh fruit and vegetables are currently trucked from Port Lincoln to either Melbourne or Sydney to be airfreighted to North-East Asia, and live crayfish are flown domestically to these cities for export. Clearly this is not in the interests of freshness or quality, and a weekly freighter direct to North-East Asia would be of great benefit to South Australia. While there are currently no plans for an international freighter to come into Adelaide during the curfew shoulder hours, it was the wish of the South Australian government that the legislation did not exclude the possibility of such a flight.The 1998 bill permitted all flights that were scheduled during curfew hours in June 1998 to continue. However, the present bill no longer permits DC9s access to the airport during curfew hours. The legislation has been strengthened to exclude any aircraft, such as the DC9, that do not meet the 90-95 rule. Under the 90-95 rule, aircraft cannot exceed 90 decibels on take off and 95 decibels on landing.The Adelaide airport curfew has always allowed freight planes in at night. This legislation ensures two things: firstly, that the only freight aircraft above 34,000 kilograms that can access the airport during curfew hours are those allowed through regulation by the minister; and, secondly, that the minister cannot regulate to allow in any freight flights during the curfew hours that do not meet the 90-95 rule.This restriction on noisy freight planes will be a great relief to Adelaide residents who have been woken up by the DC9 and other noisy aircraft. Currently National Jet moves jet planes in and out of Adelaide airport during the curfew on an infrequent basis to position them for overhaul and replace aircraft that have broken down elsewhere in Australia. So long as these aircraft meet the 90-95 rule, they will be able to continue this practice with the aeroplanes themselves being regarded as freight for the purpose of this legislation.There has been some criticism of the placing of the Adelaide airport curfew into legislation. It has been claimed that this will slow economic development in South Australia. I reject this argument. Twenty thousand residents live next to the airport. It is incumbent on any government to ensure that, if they have allowed airports and houses to exist next to each other, residents are protected from excessive noise. It is a fundamental right that people should be able to get a proper night's sleep. Residents living near an airport do not forfeit that right.Finally, I would like to thank Adelaide airport's corporation, the state government of South Australia—especially the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw—for their constructive input into this legislation. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for his support. I dedicate this bill to the residents surrounding Adelaide airport. I am pleased to be able to be of service to them and to make a material difference to their lives.I commend the bill to the House, and I table the explanatory memorandum.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business3921392115:18:003921Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I move:That this House calls on the Government to add cystic fibrosis to the list of recognised disabilities contained in the Child Disability Assessment Determination 1998.There is an old adage from northern European folklore which says:Woe to that child which when kissed on the forehead tastes salty. He is bewitched and soon must die.On behalf of sufferers of cystic fibrosis, I rise today to ask this House to call on the government to add cystic fibrosis to the list of recognised disabilities contained in the Child Disability Assessment Determination of 1998.For those who do not know, CF is a genetic disease which textbooks still call `a fatal condition'. One out of every 2,500 Australian children is born with cystic fibrosis. They do not have a choice and nor do their families. It is the commonest chronic genetic illness in Australia and, even with aggressive treatment, sufferers have only recently started to live beyond school age. Apart from the obvious physical pain, it causes social, emotional and psychological problems at any stage of childhood and adult development. It is also very costly to treat and impacts on all aspects of family life. It is often described as the invisible chronic illness and very few people are fully aware of its effects. But that is no excuse for the anguish cystic fibrosis sufferers and their families are feeling right now.With a stroke of a pen, cystic fibrosis is no longer considered a chronic medical condition. Since 1 July 1998, it has been wiped off the list of recognised disabilities that qualify for the full child disability allowance or CDA. That means families whose children are diagnosed with cystic fibrosis no longer automatically qualify for the allowance. Under the previous assessment system for CDA, a child had to have a disability and, as a result of that disability, require substantially more care and attention on a daily basis than a child of the same age without disability. Some disabilities, such as CF, were considered sufficient in themselves to automatically fulfil the care requirement. They were called `manifest disabilities' and eligibility was automatic.A new assessment tool for CDA has been introduced since 1 July 1998. CF is now no longer deemed a recognised disability for CDA. It is considered neither a severe disability nor a chronic medical condition for the purposes of determining eligibility for CDA. It was, however, included as a recognised disability up until the final of three rounds of determining that eligibility. This is grossly unfair and is placing a huge extra burden on families with children suffering from CF. And it is not only families at a loss to understand why. Many members of the medical fraternity have openly questioned the decision.Families of CF sufferers are not looking simply for a handout. They want recognition of the daily struggle of cystic fibrosis sufferers and their families and some help for the financial strain it puts them under. The full child disability allowance provides for a fortnightly payment of $75.10. Those sufferers and their families judged eligible for the allowance prior to 1 July last year will be reassessed for CDA in 2003 but, of course, this will be under the new assessment tool.I would now like to examine why cystic fibrosis has been removed from the list of chronic medical conditions. The new functional assessment tool criteria have been based on the premise that the impact on a family will vary according to the level of severity of the child's disability. Apparently, the argument for taking cystic fibrosis off the list of chronic conditions is that, although CF is incurable and requires considerable care and attention from the parents, most children with the condition do not require significant levels of medical treatment or supervision. A major argument being put forward in defence of this is that there have been improvements in the treatments for CF in recent years, resulting in a more favourable prognosis and a reduction in the disabling effects of the condition.But, remember, this is an incurable disease. It can only be treated, and only constant treatment will give a child with CF a reasonable chance at life. The noted US researchers Michael Welsh and Alan Smith, while noting the progress in detecting and understanding CF, have written:. . . prospective parents need to understand that a child born with CF today will still have to cope with the disease and may not be spared a premature death.Certainly, CF sufferers are living longer. Why? In the main it is because of the selfless dedication and love of families who are constantly providing treatment and care for their children.How can that be measured under the new functional assessment tool criteria? It cannot be because the FAT fails to provide any assessment item that will pick up a child who has CF. Essentially, unless a child qualifies and is waiting for a transplant or is on oxygen or is fully dependent upon gastrostomy or PEG feeding, they cannot receive any financial support from CDA. It is a cruel irony that, because of the love and dedication of parents who have been able to prolong the lives of their children through their own efforts, they are to be penalised by the system in this way. At home a CF child receives constant care and attention every day of his or her life. Without it their chances of anything like a normal life would be greatly diminished. There are numerous prescribed treatments that are required just to keep the child reasonably well. However, the health care card helps only with prescribed medication.Many of the treatments that are required are not covered at all by the health care card: for example, the purchase of pumps at $300 plus; the purchase of masks, tubing, filters and ventstreams; the purchase of gastrotomy equipment—connecting tubes $35, with lines replaced daily at a cost of $35 per month, sterilising equipment and solution at $6 per month—and the hire of kangaroo pumps through hospitals, $15 per month. Likewise there is the purchase of physiotherapy tables and wedges at something like $700 to $1,000; pep masks, $130; something like 50 per cent extra on food costs; and the costs associated with providing heating and cooling within the home. The current FAT does not take into account the considerable financial burden of supporting the wellbeing of the sufferer. In reality, the daily treatment regime for cystic fibrosis is complex and time consuming. It involves inhalations via a compressed air pump or nebuliser, an intensive exercise program and chest therapy up to three times a day. A couple were telling me at the weekend that each of these therapy sessions takes 20 minutes. The regime also involves the administration of medications—including daily antibiotics, inhaled antibiotics and enzyme replacement therapy—and the preparation of a special diet and supervision with dietary intake.The new definition of `chronic medical condition' for the purposes of CDA states that the listed disabilities may not result in moderate, severe or profound disability that is permanent but, regardless of the child's age:* consistently require medical treatment and supervision for a continuous period of at least 12 months, and* result in significant restriction to the young person's normal activities, and* require significant levels of skilled personal care by the parent/carer.Surely, by any medical or moral reasoning cystic fibrosis meets the criteria for the full CDA.As mentioned earlier, there are now two levels of assessment for sufferers to automatically receive the allowance. The new FAT for the CDA measures the level of severity of the disability by looking at whether the child functions according to standards appropriate to his or her age. The child's actual ability is investigated through a series of functional categories comprising language skills, self-care skills, social and community skills, fine motor skills and gross motor skills. In addition, the child's behaviour is taken into account where it is significantly affected by the disability, along with any special care needs—for example, repeated hospitalisation and absences from school, persistent inability to play with other children due to the child's physical incapacity or high risk of serious injury or infection.One could only deduce from this that, to qualify for the child disability allowance nowadays, the child would virtually need to suffer complete mental and physical retardation before qualifying for the allowance. Is that the intention? As a desperate parent of a CF sufferer puts it:Under the present FAT criteria, until extensive lung damage is present and our child is going to die, they aren't considered `sick'.Surely, if a medical condition is considered serious enough that every new born child in Australia is automatically tested for it, then it is serious enough for families to be eligible for some assistance.I call on all members of the House to support this motion and to support the sufferers of CF and their carers so that CF is added to the list of recognised disabilities for automatic inclusion in the Child Disability Assessment Determination 1998, just like it used to be.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.15:28:003923Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—In introducing my remarks and my contribution to the debate on this important motion concerning cystic fibrosis, I congratulate the member for Braddon for his obvious commitment to a better understanding and a better management of this disease and a better understanding of the situation of the families affected by it. I am reminded that a fortnight ago, as I was walking along the footpath of the Pacific Highway in Gordon in the middle of my electorate, I came to a combination of young and older people running a cake stall and selling raffle tickets. I approached the stall, bought a cake, said hello to them and bought $10 worth of raffle tickets. A woman said to me, `Don't you want to know what this is about?' I said, `No, not really, because if it weren't important you wouldn't be doing this.'My observation, from when I had a life outside of government to now being a member of it, is that frequently the most important things in our society are funded by cake stalls and raffles and the most important issues that we actually deal with in this parliament are dealt with in private members' motions. They are much more the sorts of real things that actually have an impact on people's lives.Cystic fibrosis was first recognised as a specific condition in the 1930s. It affects, as the member for Braddon said, about one in every 2½ thousand people amongst Caucasian races. About 80 children are born each year with cystic fibrosis in Australia, and we have about 750 adults currently living with the disease in this country. It is the most common disease caused by an autosomal recessive gene, and about one person in 25 carries the gene, which was first mapped by the University of Toronto research team in 1989. Although CF, as it is known, is the most common life-threatening condition affecting Australian children, the improved treatment and management of the disease, which I do not think anybody could really doubt, now sees the majority, but not all, of the children surviving to adulthood.The problem relates to the secretion of unusually thick mucus caused by poor transport of fluids across cell membranes or the packaging around cells. It presents clinically usually in newborn infants as intestinal obstruction or, if it is missed at that point, which is unusual these days, as failure to thrive and fatty diarrhoea in toddlers or as recurrent chest infections. Children who suffer from this disease increasingly experience cough and shortness of breath; repeated, if not constant, chest infections; and, of course, tiredness.Respiratory problems are, of course, the worst, and they are the things to which the member for Braddon referred in his address. These respiratory problems slowly progress to extensive bronchiectasis and cor pulmonale. Essentially, the lung tissue—the spongy part of the lung, if you like—breaks down, and with the increased thickness of secretions you get blockage of the airways through which a person is trying to breathe. As a consequence of that, over a period of time the right chamber of the heart starts to fail.Currently there is not any cure, although gene therapy holds hope for the future. At least with the genomics revolution, with all the ethical and social problems that were raised by our mapping of the nematode late last year, there is now some real prospect of hope for these families, the carriers of the genes and, hopefully, the children who are yet to be conceived if not born.As such, our objectives of treatment are to slow the progression of the disease and improve the quality of life of those who suffer from it. Physiotherapy, antibiotics, exercise, enzyme replacement treatment particularly for those who have pancreatic disease associated with it, dietary modifications and salt supplements might just give honourable members some little clues as to the kind of major disruption to life, family life in particular, that this disease brings. Pulmozyme is available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for certain sufferers of CF through section 100, `Highly specialised drugs arrangements'.A new assessment system for the child disability allowance, or CDA, came into effect on 1 July last year. It was the product of work by peak disability organisations and the health profession, in particular health professions and those who are experts in these fields. It relies heavily on questionnaires that are distributed to parents and also to the doctors who are responsible for treating those children who are suffering from it. It is an attempt to try to assess the functional ability or disability of the child in a range of areas, including special care needs, behavioural issues and emotional state issues. The very nature of this sort of assessment, which is very much of a functional nature, is complex and perhaps not as arbitrary as a simple diagnosis yes or no response might deliver.The new system also classifies certain conditions as recognised disabilities or chronic conditions known as manifest conditions which automatically provide eligibility for the allowance. This private member's motion seeks to have cystic fibrosis listed as a manifest condition, one which automatically attracts the child disability allowance.The child disability assessment tool, or the CDAT, was put together by medical and allied health professionals, people who work in the field of genetics, paediatrics and paediatric physiotherapy. The document went to 300 organisations representing people affected by disabilities right across the country and, amongst other things, was the product of consultation with them. Medical opinion, or expert medical opinion, provided to the government during the development of the assessment tool was that the variability in the severity of cystic fibrosis and advances in treatment make it a condition inappropriate for automatic eligibility for CDA.All children, once diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, are eligible for a health care card from the date of diagnosis. But, as we know, as appreciative as families are, that assists only with prescribed pharmaceuticals. Some children when diagnosed are severe enough to qualify for the allowance but for others eligibility will come with age as the condition deteriorates and the problems that families have associated with it increase.All children eligible for CDA at June last year are able to continue with their entitlement for five years without medical review, and the assessment tool is currently being reviewed by a reference group comprising health professionals and peak bodies. The scope for that review includes consideration of the operation and effectiveness of the child disability assessment tool, the inclusion of additional indicators for childhood behaviour, and a list of recognised disabilities conferring automatic entitlement.On a personal note, my experience of dealing with this disease as a paediatric registrar, as a general practitioner and as a human being is such that I believe this disease should be automatically listed for the child disability allowance. I have that view on the basis that, if we are denying families who have children suffering from CF the child disability allowance, we are basically penalising them for doing a little bit better than they might otherwise and will inevitably do.I also say to honourable members on the other side—coming back to my introductory remarks about the most important things in life being funded by cake stalls and raffles and having attended a dinner for autistic children and their parents on Saturday night— that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot come to the parliament and argue for something as legitimate as this and then on the other hand say, `No, we are not going to support things that help create wealth from which these things are inevitably funded.' We have to have a broader tax base and a simpler tax system. We have to have reforms in transport and communications and energy. We have to do those things that are necessary to enable people in business to create wealth from which these and other important things are funded.As much as we would like to, we cannot simply say that everything—as worthy as it might be on the face of it—can and should be funded by governments. Apart from reorganising the priorities of governments and the way in which we spend the taxes that people and businesses pay, we have a responsibility to these families and others who rely on government support to see that wealth can be created in an environment which is conducive to it.Whilst I personally support this motion and very much would recommend to the reviewing team that is reviewing CDAT that it be a manifest condition, I equally urge members of the House to do everything they can to see that we live in a country where wealth is created so that perhaps it is less necessary to have some of these kinds of debates. (Time expired)15:38:003925Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I would like to speak in support of the motion by the honourable member for Braddon. It is incredible that someone from the opposition needs to speak up on this extraordinary move by the Howard government. I congratulate the member for Braddon on his stand, and I congratulate the member for Bradfield for his support.Anyone who has any knowledge of cystic fibrosis feels immediate sympathy for the parents. It is diagnosed in babies. It is mortifying. It means the parents will have to devote superhuman effort to ensure their child leads a comfortable, if brief, life. The impact on the family is immense because any break in a physically and mentally demanding regime of care can be expected to result in permanent lung damage. A cold can mean hospitalisation, time off work, time off school—time lost in the life of the child who can expect, generally, to survive, with intensive parental attention, to late teens; today, some CF children survive into adulthood. It is a heartbreaking circumstance for those families who drew the one in 400 or so chance of both parents having the CF gene. Members would know that cystic fibrosis is incurable. It affects the lungs and digestive system.It is interesting that the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, apart from its assistance to research into this cruel shuffle of the deck, provides a home visiting support service, counselling services—covering general family and marital problems—and bereavement counselling. In other words, the impact is so severe that they will come out to your home, help you with your marriage problems and help you through losing your child. That is what experience tells them to expect is the common experience. The weight of emotional and financial strain falls on the family. The treatment falls on the family. The preventative work falls on the family. Homes need to be an all-night pharmacy, a physiotherapy practice, a 24-hour surveillance post and an emergency ambulance service. Children with CF also need comforting and a lot more reassurance than normal children. They cough, they vomit, they cannot breathe, they have stomach pains and they have problems with going to the toilet. They require all the love and attention a parent can muster—all day, every day.Intensive assistance, antibiotic drugs and physiotherapy and a better understanding of this fluky condition has improved the outlook for babies testing positive to this abnormality in the system which affects how salt and water is controlled in the body's cells. It is a genetic problem. The defective gene has been identified only recently. It is my understanding that every newborn is tested for the condition—it is that important.More and more children are reaching adulthood today but it is because of parental management. It is the hours of loosening mucus on the lungs, the vitamin supplements, the nebuliser, the creams and stewed apples, the special diet, the constant temperature at home, the ventolin, the kindy gym, the swimming, the trampoline—the relentless application of all the little things that have to be done because there is still no cure. These are not on the PBS. They are not medicines in the main. They relieve potentially fatal situations. They cost money. The health care card is simply not enough. Fifty or sixty tablets a day is not uncommon. They are not drugs; they are vitamins and calorie supplements.The treating doctor's report for the child disability allowance includes about 20 categories of recognised disabilities for which CDA is payable. Cystic fibrosis is not one of them. Those parents with children suffering the condition have seen the disability withdrawn from the list. They wonder if there has been a cure beyond their own intensive parenting. They wonder why the disorder has been downgraded. They wonder what they have done to lose this small recognition of $75 a fortnight towards the additional strain and financial burden placed squarely on affected families from the time of the birth of the child.They wonder if the Howard government has returned to the process driven approach in providing support through Centrelink. If that is the case, the perfect remedy is to grant automatic payment to families with CF and the child disability assessment tool—or CDAT as it is called—could be dispensed with. CF children would then be like the 24 subcategories to the 20 recognised categories of disability which require no further medical assessment. (Time expired)15:44:003926Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I would like to thank the member for Braddon for raising the issue of cystic fibrosis and the possibility of having it recognised as a disability under the Child Disability Assessment Determination 1998. Since 1 July 1998, based on reforms with extensive community consultation, two levels of child disability allowance, CDA, are recognised. One provides a fortnightly payment of $75.60 and the health care card for children with moderate to severe levels of functional disability. Qualification is determined either by using the child disability assessment tool—CDAT—which tests whether the child functions according to standards appropriate to his or her age or by using lists of severe disabilities and chronic medical conditions that permit automatic entry to the program.A second level of assistance provides a health care card for children with disabilities who require at least 14 hours per week of additional care and attention. Although cystic fibrosis is not a listed condition, children with CF can qualify under CDAT, which is used to assess most claims for CDA. Leading practitioners in the fields of genetics, paediatrics and paediatric physiotherapy form the consulting group that assists with CDAT. A proportion of CF children will not attract CDA, but many will. The lists have been developed in recognition of the fact that certain disabilities and chronic medical conditions are always severe enough to qualify the parent to receive CDA. Children with recognised disabilities do not have to be tested against the CDAT and, provided all other qualification criteria are satisfied, can be fast-tracked through the claim and assessment procedure for CDA. The principles for inclusion on the list of those with chronic medical conditions require identification of a significant level of severity of illness.So what is cystic fibrosis and where should it fit in these criteria? Cystic fibrosis is an inherited disease and usually manifests in early childhood. It is a genetic defect with a locus on the long arm of chromosome 7. This code is for a protein named cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator. In 70 per cent of patients with CF the 508th amino acid in the sequence of the protein is missing, resulting in an abnormal cell membrane function. This causes reduced apical chloride conductance and increased sodium absorption. All this simply means excessive dehydration of respiratory secretions making them thicker and more viscous. There are severe homozygous forms and less severe heterozygous forms of this disease.There are also a number of defects in the gene that result in much milder lung disease which can be difficult to diagnose. In the severe forms of the disease, blocking of airways with thick secretions and secondary bacterial infection leads to bronchiectasis. Chronic airways obstruction is seen in virtually all adult patients with the disease. Some people are initially misdiagnosed as having asthma.Western Australia is the only state that does not provide newborn screening for CF. This is important, because early diagnosis and appropriate treatment improves outcomes and reduces hospital stay. The tests can be done on the same sample as the Guthrie. Children with CF require nebulisation therapy for a minimum of twice a day prior to physiotherapy, and often four to six times a day if on Dnase or nebulised antibiotics. Dnase helps, as DNA released from the cells increases the viscosity of the mucous.The parent is involved in setting up for nebulisation, organising physiotherapy, administering medications, attending outpatient clinics, providing an increased level of care and attention during intercurrent infections, coping with prolonged hospital admissions, attending to special dietary needs and handling the social, emotional and educational demands for all seriously chronically ill children. On occasions, the parent will also be required to give home intravenous therapy treatment. In general, CF families are a dedicated, caring group who willingly sacrifice huge components of their lives in order to care for their affected child. In summary, these children, who are not CDA listed—and I feel they should be—should at least be fast-tracked into the system when their specialist applies to CDAT. Reviews can then be undertaken.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.39273927Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—Order! Before calling the honourable member for Sturt, I wish to make a short statement concerning the anticipation rule. Standing order 82 prohibits anticipation of the discus sion of matters appearing on the Notice Paper , but it gives the Speaker a discretion to have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.The subject matter of this notice is also dealt with in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 which is government business order of the day No. 14 on today's Notice Paper. That bill was introduced on 11 March, so when the Selection Committee met on 8 March and allocated time to the notice lodged by the honourable member for Sturt the bill had not been introduced. Obviously, when it met the committee could not have been aware of any issue concerning the anticipation rule and so the committee allocated time to the notice in accordance with its normal processes. Given that it appears that all sides support the debate taking place, I believe that the discussion should be allowed to proceed. However, I also think that the House should be given the background to the matter. I am confident that all members will recognise the very special circumstances surrounding it.15:50:003928Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I move:That the House:(1) condemns the inappropriate use of resources by some student unions;(2) opposes students being forced to fund student union political activity as a prerequisite for entry to university;(3) acknowledges that all citizens, including students, should be free to choose whether or not they want to belong to a union; and(4) notes the contribution that responsive and responsible student unions can make to university campuses.Opponents of the voluntary student unionism policy have accused the government of being anti-student union. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proponents of voluntary student unionism are in favour of freedom of association and are not opposed to student unions. In fact, student unions can perform a valuable part in university life. The question is: do they?Universities throughout Australia have had a notable role in fostering and developing individual creativity and the expression of ideas in extracurricular activities. Many of these activities and services can be provided by student unions. Student unions also have the ability to add to the unique culture of a university campus. Organising social events and activities and providing the infrastructure for a network of associations on campus are some of the contributions that student unions can make. Student unions are also in a unique position to coordinate services targeted specifically for student needs. The work of education welfare officers is a case in point. Student unions have been the political breeding ground for some of Australia's future leaders. Indeed, many members of parliament developed their political skills and instincts on the political battlegrounds of university campuses throughout Australia. Student unions can add another dimension to a student's education and life on campus. But, in too many cases, student unions have lost their way. Most student unions are unrepresentative and unresponsive to the needs of the students they purport to represent.The government is moving to improve this situation by ending the monopolistic and uncompetitive features of student unions. The structures that are currently in place force students to pay for services they may not need or wish to use. The current system of compulsory membership also fails to recognise that university campuses have changed dramatically since the Dawkins reforms. There is an increasing proportion of students who study part time or externally, yet they are forced to pay for services that they cannot or do not need to access. In some instances, external students can be paying approximately $300 for these inaccessible services.The failure of student unions generally to cater to the needs and interests of this particular increasing niche market is a perfect example of why we need to change the current arrangements. Voluntary student unionism does represent a better system. It gives students the right, denied to them by the current system, to choose how they spend their money. This will encourage student unions to be responsive and reflective of students' needs. Under the current system student unions decide what services and facilities students need. Under voluntary student unionism student unions will not make these decisions for students. Under voluntary student unionism students will tell the student unions what they want and what they need by the way in which they spend their consumer dollars.The challenge for student unions is to be responsive and representative of student needs. The status quo has not achieved this. The current system has left students bewildered and bemused while their unions too readily indulge themselves in partisan political activity using students' compulsorily acquired funds. The government also believes that the interests of students would be best served by allowing them to manage their own financial affairs. Voluntary student unionism also acknowledges that students should have the ability to spread their expenditure over an academic year. This best reflects the fact that their income is also spread over the year. This sort of financial flexibility is very important for the majority of university students who are not always flush with funds.By its very nature voluntary student unionism will make student unions more accountable and will lend itself to more transparent operations. Voluntary student unionism will allow student unions to fulfil their potential and add to the cultural dimensions of campus life, but it will prevent the profligate use of students' precious resources on causes or services that students neither want nor need. This government does support student unions. By introducing voluntary student unionism we will help student unions be more relevant, more responsive and, hence, more popular with their students. I commend the motion to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?OT4CHARLESMr Charles—I second the motion.15:54:003929Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise to speak to this item of private members business offered today by the member for Sturt. I note that points 1 and 4 are motherhood statements that all members of this House should subscribe to. However, it is at points 2 and 3 that the intention, like that of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill, becomes evident. This motion is all about destroying the work of student organisations and targeting a group that is from time to time critical of government policy. The bill, introduced into the House on 11 March of this year, and the comments by the member for Sturt today centre around the concept of stripping organisations of their funding, thereby leading to the nobbling of student organisations and, most dangerously, of the important services they provideToday I would like to focus on the worthiness to all students of the services provided, the need to fund this through a universal system and, finally, to outline the disastrous effects for students of the introduction of this anti-student legislation. In my electorate of Chisholm there are two rather large universities—Monash and Deakin—that this will seriously affect. The government appears to have only the most cursory understanding of the actual services provided by student organisations. Most people would be aware that student fees fund sporting events and clubs, orientation week, debates and the student diary. However, some of the lesser known services offered by student organisations include financial counselling, income support advice, employment services, legal advice, support for disadvantaged groups, help with accommodation, subsidies for food and advocacy for students.Student organisations have a proud history of representing students. This may be on behalf of students facing dire financial circumstances or making a complaint about a lecturer, or on behalf of the general student body on various university councils and faculty boards. But, unfortunately, like everything in life, these services cost money—not just for the raw provision of services but for all of the infrastructure that supports this.The drafting of proposals, research and liaising with university boards and staff necessitates the employment of staff and resources. The service fee levied on all students helps pay for these services. As with indirect taxation or local council rates, payment is universal. Whilst not every student will use every service there is an expectation that they will have access to all services whenever they may need them.Whilst students are not a homogeneous group, they do share common concerns. Most students want the services that are provided—whether it be the local sporting facility, financial counselling, subsidised food and stationery or just the knowledge that they can seek assistance in dealing with the university bureaucracy. What would happen if taxes were made voluntary? What if citizens were asked to contribute only to the services they believed were useful to them? This would be a recipe for social chaos.Often it is said that universities are a microcosm of society. I think in many respects this is true. Whilst the backgrounds of students may differ, they all come together to share a thirst for learning and they also share many other common goals and aspirations.Student organisations are not inflexible monoliths that do not move with the times. University student organisations are elected and run by students. Like all others, including members of this House, they must stand on their record, outline their plans for the future and ultimately be judged by a well-informed student body. In turn, student representatives must adhere to strict legal and financial guidelines and conduct open and accessible meetings. Students are able to directly influence policy via student general meetings and referenda.Student organisations are not alone in their attempt to stave off this regressive onslaught by the conservatives opposite. Professor John Niland, President of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, has said:National VSU legislation would be the beginning of an assault on our sense of the intergenerational responsibility for the quality and diversity of campus life. Currently enrolled students enjoy facilities paid for by previous generations of students and the imminent VSU legislation raises the issue of what Prime minister John Howard called mutual obligation. National VSU legislation would amount to `a right to a free ride' for students who chose to not pay student union fees on a voluntary basis.I have said previously that student organisations contribute to the fabric of university life. I believe it is a key tenet of a modern democ racy that all citizens be regarded as stakeholders. This is certainly true in an educational institution. However, students cannot be stakeholders if they are not able to act in a collective, cohesive fashion on behalf of their fellow students.15:59:003930Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I rise to support the motion by the honourable member for Sturt. I would like to address each of these issues in turn as the Notice Paper advises. The first point condemns the inappropriate use of resources by some student unions. That is an inescapable fact. The stories are legion, over many years, of student unions and unrepresentative small elites standing for and running the student unions, using the funds for all sorts of way-out causes, such as promoting the Libyans or the end of the nuclear holocaust—which did not exist—or promoting and supporting political campaigns in other countries. It is because of their unrepresentative nature and because the funds are prescribed by the university and the leaders of the unions do not have to go out and convince the students at all that the services they supply are appropriate and for their benefit that makes the whole issue of compulsory membership inappropriate.The second point raised by the member for Sturt opposes students being forced to fund student union political activity as a prerequisite for entry to university. Honourable members who have been here for some time will know that I rarely, if ever, mention my country of birth. But I will in this instance because when I went to university we had a student union and it was pretty good. It was totally voluntary and we did a heck of a lot of things. We had, for instance, a daily newspaper financed by advertisements. We actually made a profit. We had a student yearbook financed by the students who bought the yearbook. The student union itself, which ran voluntary activities, produced some tremendous programs, but only those students who wanted to belong to the union did and its political activities were extremely limited. It was a successful model and I suggest honourable members consider it when they consider this motion by the honourable member for Sturt. The third point he makes acknowledges that all citizens, including students, should be free to choose whether or not they want to belong to a union. Of course they should. If we believe in anything we must surely believe in freedom of association along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion and all the other basic freedoms that we enjoy in a truly democratic society. Why is it that students who sign up to go to a university must pay an up-front fee—the only up-front fee they pay—to belong to a union of students to which they may not want to belong? Compulsory unionism is an anathema to the democratic tradition, yet we continue to support it.Why do we support it? I do not know why we support it. I certainly do not. I do not know many of my colleagues who do. Evidently those on the opposition benches who oppose this measure or purport to oppose it do believe in compulsion in these matters. Perhaps then we should go back to compulsory membership of unions in the industrial sphere. I know that there are many in the ALP and on the Labor side of the House who would absolutely support that and did years ago when I brought to this place a private member's bill for voluntary membership of association. Many ALP members at the time opposed that concept. Yet we say to ourselves that we are a land of freedom, that we believe in freedom of expression and that we believe in freedom of association. I accept the honourable member for Sturt's proposition that all citizens, including students, should be free to choose whether or not they want to belong to a union.The fourth point he makes notes the contribution that responsive and responsible student unions can make to university campuses. That also is an uncontestable fact because those organisations which are voluntary and which students subscribe to with their own funds are obviously going to do a better job for the student membership than those where it is compulsory. Compulsory membership does not encourage the executive of the organisation—in this case the student union—to be responsive to the views of all its members. It encourages them to be responsive to their own view because they did not have to go out to seek the membership fee. They did not have to go out and seek the union due; they had it given to them on a platter by the university executive. (Time expired)16:04:003931Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The attack on student unions by members opposite has now reached a level of mania where all sense of reason and commonsense has been replaced with ideology and paranoia. The determination of the government to shut down student unions, guilds and organisations shows that they enjoy a one-dimensional view of university life. In their view of university life, socialising is inappropriate, participating with the community is inappropriate, assisting students in trouble is inappropriate, and speaking out and contributing opinions in a democratic society are also inappropriate. Most of all, criticising the government is inappropriate.What the zealots in the government do not understand is that student unions are not trade unions. The government's union bashing makes no sense with student organisations. Will we soon find the government attacking credit unions and rugby unions just because they have the dreaded `union' word? Student unions are service providers. Throughout the history of universities, students have played a significant part in the administration of their own affairs. It makes sense that these intelligent young adults should develop the skills and experiences that come from managing these services. After all, today's campuses are filled with tomorrow's leaders.To do this, student unions ask all students to contribute to the services provided. This is not a closed shop. It is a society, and no-one can opt out of society. Paying tax is compulsory and birth certificates are compulsory. Only the foolhardy would offer a freedom to choose argument on these issues and only the foolhardy would support VSU. How can the government preach mutual obligation and the concept of both rights and responsibilities in relation to one group in the community, that being the unemployed, but say to university students, `You can't have student services because we will take away the only fair method of contribution available'?Maybe the government is unaware of the vital importance of services provided by student unions—services such as employment offices, welfare offices, educational support, child-care facilities, catering facilities, sporting complexes, study facilities and counselling services, as well as support for the network of clubs and societies that, in turn, help students get all they can out of university life. Perhaps the most fortunate of students will not need all of these services, but for many the services offered by student unions make the difference between staying at university and dropping out.But, sadly, it is students in regional universities who stand to lose the most from VSU. This government has made it hard enough for country students to get a university degree, but VSU will make it even harder. Supporting students should be a primary objective of the government to ensure that courses are completed in order to repay the personal and national investment in their education. It does not make any sense to have students drop out of university because they have no support on issues such as employment, accommodation or child care. This is why there is such broad support for student unions.In Queensland, support for student organisations has come from National Party MLA Mick Vievers, the Liberal member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, along with a host of other state and federal coalition MPs who have expressed concern over the negative effects of VSU. Even more compelling is the joint statement by the vice-chancellors of every Queensland public university. The venerable professors believe that a universally applied fee is the fairest way to gather student contributions, a contribution they describe as vital—so vital in fact that money will have to be found elsewhere to pay for these services if not funded by the students themselves. Does the government honestly believe that a user-pays system will not leave students to struggle on their own, or will the universities be forced to fund the gaps? If so, where will the money come from?The fact is that universities will not be able to cope with a further strain on budgets already at breaking point. Student unions currently operate multimillion dollar facilities with commitments to creditors and financial institutions with long-term contracts in place. These facilities and services funded by student fees are now threatened. The resulting impact has the potential to seriously weaken the infrastructure of many universities. But what is vital to students and universities is not necessarily vital to this government. This government does not care about universities. It does not care about education funding. It does not care about equal access to higher education. It cares only about silencing organisations which criticise the government.VSU legislation is purely political. This government is tampering with the relationship between students, universities and state governments. But do not take our word on this. According to former Chief Justice of the High Court and Chancellor of the University of Technology in Sydney, Sir Gerard Brennan, this unprecedented move threatens the independence of universities and could threaten vital elements of tertiary education and turn democracy into hollow incantation. Voluntary student unionism is not in the interests of Australia or in the interests of the education system. Freedom of choice in this case is about having no freedom at all. If the government is interested in student services, it should properly fund universities. (Time expired)16:09:003932Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—This government is about providing choices, realistic opportunities to choose between viable options according to individual requirements and circumstances. Those options which best suit the majority of people or are the most responsive to the demonstrated requirements of the customers base will not only survive but also certainly thrive. Other options will have to change or identify and promote themselves to niche markets. This applies equally to goods on supermarket shelves, superannuation products, politicians seeking election or unions seeking members.One of the few places where there is still no choice is in the tertiary education institutions. Within those portals of idealism, individualism, freedom and self-expression, union rules apply and everyone must conform. How ironic! As students enrol in their courses they must pay a compulsory union membership and service fee. These moneys are applied to whatever is deemed suitable and appropriate by the student union. These union fees flow in each year and there is little accountability to the general body of students in how the funds are applied.The needs of students are as varied as the backgrounds and circumstances from which they emanate. In general, there are few places where the needs overlap or coincide. Younger full-time students require entertainment and activities. However, the more mature often want casual child care at discount rates. Part-time students need secure parking close to class so they can rush in, take the class and get back to work, the children or whatever without the car being stolen, damaged or booked. They may also need somewhere to grab decent food because it is teatime and they have not been home yet or they need short-term child care outside of school hours. Some need cheap stationery and travel and public transport into town while others need a recharging point for laptop computers. There are a myriad of needs but no reason for the student union to meet those needs as the money flows in anyway.I am not saying that student representative bodies do not try to assist the people they represent. Many do try. Those with good records in these fields will have no concerns. Their records will stand them in good stead and they will continue to be successful and attract the fees they need on a voluntary basis in the future. There is a fine example of this at the Wollongong University campus. Staff, students and the administration work closely together to assess the areas of need and then publicise their results and any subsequent plans.Students choose what they require and it is locked into the budget process through a servicing company which designs, constructs and manages the facilities on behalf of the students. It also provides discounted rates to students while achieving a revenue neutral or profit making status. While the budgeted construction of facilities and the repayment of the resultant loans depend on the payment of service fees, the university and the student representative body have demonstrated their responsiveness to the students' needs. They should have few concerns about the future under voluntary student unionism. They will be making a presentation to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Dr David Kemp, next week.Students should have the choices available to others in society. Students' academic careers should not be threatened by non-payment of union fees. Students should be allowed to manage their own financial affairs and priorities. Students should be able to decide how to spend their money, judging value as they perceive it. The legislation to be debated later in the week will impact on student organisations if they previously were not responsive to student needs. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for private members business has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104A. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate3933Question proposed:That grievances be noted.393316:13:003933Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I had intended to address the House today on the subject of the need for greater federal funding for drug detoxification facilities in the Fowler electorate. However, the statement of the Prime Minister on Thursday of last week announcing grants of $20 million for drug programs, none of which will go to the Fowler electorate, has caused me to address that issue before coming to the matter of detoxification facilities. Last Thursday with much fanfare the Prime Minister announced a new round of grants under the government's Tough on Drugs strategy. The grants were described as going to more than 50 voluntary and community agencies to provide treatment and support services for those affected by drugs.The Fowler electorate contains areas that are known for their high levels of drug use, including Cabramatta, which is widely described as `the drug capital of Australia'. When I looked down the list of grants, I was amazed to find that not one program in the Cabramatta area had been included. In fact, the whole of Western Sydney had received not one grant. The closest regions receiving grants were central Sydney, which received five grants, and the Wollongong-Macarthur area, which received three grants. But for Western Sydney, absolutely nothing—not a red cent. Here we have a Prime Minister and a government which say that they are tough on drugs but completely ignore the needs of an area with the worst drug problems in the country.In speaking to a number of agencies in the Fowler electorate in recent days, I have received reports that, if additional funding is not made available, they face the prospect of reducing staff in the next few months. In some cases staff are continuing to work full time, despite receiving only half-pay because of a shortfall in funding. Agencies face a growing demand for their services, yet they have fewer resources to meet even the present demand.So how did the Prime Minister decide where the grants were to go? Even if he used a whiteboard, he could have seen the need in Western Sydney. Clearly, he does not care about Western Sydney, because it is Labor heartland. The Prime Minister does not care about anything he cannot see from the steps of Kirribilli House.But the problem does exist. Dozens of young people are found dead from drug overdoses in Cabramatta each year. Hundreds of families are affected where a child or parent is drug dependent. Our community is suffering from high crime rates and the outward effects of high rates of drug abuse. But what does the Prime Minister offer for the area? Absolutely nothing.I would not suggest that the programs receiving funding are not worth while. What I do say, though, is that if no funds can be found for programs in Western Sydney this government is not serious when it talks about being tough on drugs. When a government ignores the needs of a region with more than 1½ million people, a region with a severe drug problem, you have to ask whether it is serious about reducing the level of drug abuse or whether it is just window dressing.As I said earlier, I had intended to use my time this afternoon in dealing with the issue of naltrexone treatment of drug users. I note in the Prime Minister's statement that the government is supporting research into finding new ways to treat addiction, including medical trials of naltrexone. I recently visited a clinic in the Fowler electorate which has been operating a naltrexone detoxification and support program for the past year. The rapid detox centre in Speed Street, Liverpool, provided me with a valuable insight into the plight of many drug users and their families. The centre, which is run by a Dr Siva Navaratnam, claims that 92 per cent of patients are drug free after being on naltrexone for three months, with 90 per cent remaining drug free for six months. While naltrexone may be regarded as being in the trial stage, the cases I saw at the clinic provide an encouraging picture for the successful use of naltrexone.The drug naltrexone acts as a block so that the brain switches off the craving for heroin. A dose of naltrexone is effective for 72 hours, which gives a person the chance to deal with the craving and decide whether or not to use heroin rather than experiencing an impulse return to heroin use. As well as using naltrexone for detoxification, naltrexone tablets may also be prescribed for people who have already detoxed from heroin. Support and counselling are essential during naltrexone treatment.The talks I have had with patients at the rapid detox centre, and comments written by other patients and members of their families, suggest that naltrexone detoxification has the potential to assist a high proportion of heroin users to become drug free. What this means to the lives of those who have lived with drug addiction for some years is often expressed as a miracle. As the mother of one patient put it:What a marvellous feeling it is to see our son relaxed and smiling once again and to be thinking positively about his future.We are talking about a young man who had the world at his feet after completing his higher school certificate, gaining a top mark and being placed in the top 1000 candidates in the state. After completing and passing one year of university studies our son was troubled by a drug problem which eventually led to heroin addiction.For the past three years we have been to hell and back and have tried many things to try to help him overcome his addiction to no avail.After rapid detox treatment, she exclaims:I am sure a miracle has taken place. We have our wonderful boy back again. He is living at home, is positive, happy and so very relieved to finally have lost the craving for heroin.She goes on to say:We know that the road ahead will not be a bed of roses, as our son rebuilds his life, gathers new friends and interests and looks to the future, but with your wonderful help and caring I know he will succeed.Those words of a relieved mother sum up the response of many of the now hundreds of patients treated at the rapid detox centre. All but a few have been fortunate in having caring family and friends to support them throughout the treatment—and, importantly, to raise the nearly $7,000 cost of the treatment in a private clinic.The rapid detox centre has in recent months offered free treatment in a number of special cases. One couple known to me, both with a 15-year heroin addiction, faced the prospect of having their children taken into care. Following a special request by Cabramatta state MP, Reba Meagher, the couple have received rapid detox treatment and are now being treated with naltrexone. They now have hope in their lives and another chance to establish the family.Unfortunately, naltrexone detoxification is limited to those who can afford the cost of the treatment in private clinics and a small number taking part in clinical trials at Westmead Hospital. Commonwealth funding could greatly assist in the success of this program and its extension to those in the community who are unable to afford its high cost. The cost of naltrexone can be between $200 and $300 per month and must be met at a time when patients are re-establishing themselves in work and the community.By making naltrexone available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the added burden of the cost of this treatment could be greatly reduced. In addition, the government should consider extending Medicare benefits to private clinics offering naltrexone detoxification and treatment.The cost in human and dollar terms of the use of illicit drugs warrants greater commitment by governments to programs such as naltrexone detoxification. The benefits in terms of the personal health of illicit drug users and improvements to the quality of life of family members and the community as a whole far outweigh the cost of providing these treatments; they are cheaper and more effective than law enforcement approaches to dealing with the drug problem.As I began by saying, the Prime Minister's recent announcement of grants under the Tough on Drugs policy is little more than a sham. In ignoring Western Sydney in its funding program, the government has shown little concern for areas severely affected by illicit drugs. The government must not overlook the potential of treatment such as naltrexone for helping a large proportion of heroin users to become drug free. The provision of assistance through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare can bring these treatments within the reach of all.393516:23:003935McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—In 1999 we see the harrowing images in newspaper and on television of teenage children injecting with heroin. It has triggered an outcry of emotional reaction that drugs are a scourge facing the nation in this century and that they are responsible for many health and psychological problems. Parents fear that their children may be hurt or killed if they use drugs. The rise in drug use, especially amongst young people, has been enormous over the last few years. However, I think we should see this whole drugs issue in a proper perspective. The focus in this House and from Australian commentators has been on the law and its enforcement. The assumption is that, if the law were enforced more, illegal drug use would decline. But has drug use gone up because of the lack of law enforcement?We must acknowledge in this place that economic factors are in play in the whole drug debate. Drugs are a huge industry, so much so that marijuana itself is worth $2 billion in Australia. Yet the annual marijuana seizures of only 3.6 per cent of that are worth $55 million. You can see in comparison what the industry is worth and what the legal enforcement authorities were able to collect.In 1994 the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission estimated that marijuana was Queensland's second largest cash crop after sugar. Queensland's annual value was about $654 million. What a remarkable position that in Queensland the second biggest crop after sugar is an illegal drug. The world drug industry is enormous. The United Nations drug control program estimates that the annual world turnover in drugs is $400 billion, almost one-tenth of the world trade. Over the years the accumulated profit of the world drug trade is estimated to be $500 billion in the hands of illegal drug traders and all those associated people. As an aside, the Australian GDP for 1997-98 was a mere $384 billion. So we have this stark comparison that the drug trade worldwide is bigger than the gross domestic product in Australia—bigger than the world industries of iron and steel or vehicle manufacture. I think that draws a very interesting comparison of the problem we are dealing with.Mr Phillip Knightley, a respected journalist and author, believes that the war against drugs has already been lost. Writing in the Australian on 6 March he states:Drugs are now too big a part of the global economy and the US and Australia have found, to their cost, that they cannot buck the market.No wonder: drugs are a brilliant investment proposition for the immoral gangsters in many parts of the Western world. Between production and street sale, the mark-up of cocaine and heroin is about 20,000 per cent. If that is not a very lucrative proposition, what is? The cost of enforcement is huge, and despite the efforts of enforcement agencies to curb the spread of drugs they continue to flourish in this very lucrative, profitable market.Increased resources for enforcement have coincided with increased use and trade. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 1920s and 1930s taught us that, where there is a demand, there will be a supply to meet that demand. That is an interesting historical perspective in the use of drugs. Consumers demand drugs whether their use and trade are legal or illegal. Demand is not decreased because of illegality, as we found in the prohibition era. Supply has decreased because of illegality, pumping up the price of the product. We see all these things on the streets of Sydney and the streets of Melbourne. Suppliers charge higher prices because illegality makes the product scarcer. Charging high prices for a scarce product means business is lucrative. Businesses that are lucrative grow, and demand shows no signs of abating.The issue facing this House and all Australians is what is the economic incentive for traffickers and producers to desist from providing the drugs. There is none obviously. The amount of money that can be made compares very favourably to the minor risk of being put out of business by the enforcement agencies. No matter how much we spend on enforcement—and we have spent a lot—it will only close down a minority of operations. The proof is that only 3.5 per cent of the Queensland marijuana supply is seized per annum. Of that massive trade, that was what the enforcement agencies were able to do.A significant question worth asking is: what is the cost to the community of both illicit and illegal drugs? In 1996 the estimate by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence is that the costs to the community of drugs generally was $18 billion and illicit drugs $1.6 billion. That is an interesting comparison. The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence noted in 1995 that 778 deaths were estimated to have been caused by illicit drugs. Legal drugs—cigarettes and alcohol—were responsible for more than 21,000 deaths during the same period of time. The question facing members of this House is whether we can justify the resources for dealing with illicit drugs. Drugs will be supplied regard less. It is better to reduce people's demand for drugs. What can we do to try to handle this massive national problem? By focusing on enforcement, are we ignoring the root cause?The big issue facing all Australians and all parents is why young people take drugs. There are various reasons which all the researchers and independent commentators have been arguing for a number of years. A significant reason in the 20th century might be a feeling of despair and hopelessness, that there is no reason for living. Some of our younger generation do not have a sense of belonging in their local community or in their family. Family breakdown and the cycle of abuse all add to the possibility and inevitability that drugs will be looked at as an option.Some find the altered reality of drugs is better than life as they find it on a day-to-day basis. For example, an alcoholic sometimes cannot face their day-to-day existence without the use of alcohol. As Oscar Wilde said in his famous quote:There are two great tragedies in life. The first is not getting what you want. The second is getting it.So life is not just getting what you want but, sadly, many people think it is. When they fail to get what they want, they despair. Often this is part of our new generation culture.We then have to wonder why the level of drug abuse is so high in this environment—the need for people, especially young people, to embrace a cause bigger than themselves. Governments across the nation, both state and federal governments, have been looking at this fundamental problem. The Kennett government, according to reports, is pushing for a commission of cause—something along the lines I am debating. I guess this is a step in the right direction.The issue is: what is leading to an increased demand for drugs and its subsequent misery? Why do young people have such feelings of hopelessness and despair? One reason is that they have no-one to talk to. The Victorian Centre for Adolescent Health found that 40 per cent of year 8 students felt they did not have anyone who knew them very well. What an indictment of society that is, if that statistic is true, where they felt they could not talk to their family or friends, so the only alternative was some form of drug taking. Parental conflict, separation and abuse adds to this problem. The disadvantaged in areas of high unemployment adds another dimension to the problem.The lack of social and spiritual values, hope, meaning, purpose and belonging to any social group adds to all the possibilities of drug taking. For some, drugs offer an escape from this lack of hope and purpose—where the altered reality of drugs is better than things as they really are. Old-fashioned as it may seem, there is a need to return to parental responsibility, putting others first, valuing people and communicating with people, especially young children and family members.These are the underlying issues that must be recognised before drug related problems will be reduced. In the meantime, we should pay tribute to those in the community who try to help our problems. In Geelong and in the electorate of Corangamite, we have the Clockwork Young People's Health Service run by Dr Leanne Rowe—I have previously mentioned Clockwork in this place—with some volunteer doctors. This service is doing a fantastic job looking after those young people at risk in the Geelong area who have sought to get some assistance from this group.Clockwork targets at-risk groups, including drug or substance abuse and other teenage problems. The aim of the group is to get young people who have health and homelessness problems to try to avoid the mainstream problems of drug taking and to encourage them to seek medical advice, which they generally avoid. Clockwork tries to treat this kind of abuse, especially through offering the emotional support which is so otherwise lacking in these people's lives. Clockwork's programs have been very successful and have been supported by the minister and the government.In conclusion, we have to face reality that drugs are a huge industry. Beating the market through law enforcement is very costly and, on the figures presented, does not seem to be working. Massive incentives to produce the drugs and trade in illicit drugs are there for everyone to see in every Western country. If it is so hard to stem the supply, what do we do about the demand? We should break the cycle of despair and hopelessness that lead to and result in drug addiction by so many of our young people and even some of our older people. Our cultural, spiritual and social values must give meaning to young people so they do not turn to drugs, constantly day after day supporting their habit by illegal activities to avoid life as it really is. (Time expired)393816:33:003938Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in this debate on the issue of nuclear proliferation and famine in North Korea and Australia's response. It has been the unofficial credo of Australian foreign policy for some time now that our foreign policy behaviour should be determined by two overriding sets of national interests: the maintenance of national security and the maximisation of national economic growth.There is nothing particularly remarkable in this. It helps to focus our international activities; most of our friends and neighbours do exactly the same; and, besides, in this world of international `realism' is there any credible alternative? But when we look at the genuinely brutal and bizarre regime that continues to rule North Korea, it does not quite seem to do the trick.Certainly we have significant security policy interests at stake on the Korean Peninsula, particularly when Pyongyang continues to dabble in the dark business of nuclear weapons proliferation.We also have legitimate anxieties on the implications for South Korea—still Australia's third largest export market—in the event of any renewed conflict with the North. But what seems to be left out of this national interest equation altogether, or at best treated as an afterthought, is what interests we also have at stake as a civilised member of the international community in responding to the massive humanitarian crisis represented by the ongoing North Korean famine.What the world is witnessing and, to date, for the most part ignoring is without doubt the greatest famine this region has seen since Mao's Great Leap Forward in 1959-60. The Economist Intelligence Unit has estimated that three million civilians have perished in the North Korean famine over the last three years. Normal hyperbole aside, it is a human disaster on a genuinely historic scale—three times the order of magnitude of the Cambodian genocide. According to the EIU, most deaths have not occurred through quick starvation but instead from immune systems weakened from years of hunger, causing common colds to degenerate into lethal pneumonia and normal bouts of diarrhoea proving fatal.A nutritional survey conducted by the World Food Program in 1998 suggests that severe food shortages have probably left an entire generation of North Korean children physically and mentally impaired. The study surveyed children between six months and seven years. It found 16 per cent suffering from moderate or severe wasting and a further 62 per cent affected by severe stunting and immune system deficiencies. As the World Food Program regional director, Judith Cheng-Hopkins, concluded:Now at least we have the facts. The situation is very grave. To me, this is famine in slow motion.Yet to the rest of the world it is almost as if this North Korean famine does not exist. We live in an age when unless and until CNN has declared that a disaster exists then that disaster does not exist—at least as a political as opposed to a physical phenomenon. The famine in Somalia and Ethiopia existed because Kate Adie and the BBC decreed—correctly—that it did. The humanitarian crisis in Kosovo exists because CNN tells us each day and, more importantly, shows us each day that it does. But, in the DPRK, it is largely a case of `no pictures, no story'. And with a brutal totalitarian regime still running the show in Pyongyang, pictures are always going to be very hard to come by.So what then is to be done? Both the World Food Program and the United Nations Development Program have developed immediate and medium-term programs to deal with the crisis. The World Food Program has calculated that, to avert further famine in 1999, North Korea will need $US376 million of emergen cy humanitarian aid. In 1998, $US383 million was required, of which only $US237 million was eventually committed by donor countries. As a result, food aid last year was concentrated on children under the age of six, with older children and lactating mothers missing out altogether. The same will happen this year unless targets are met. The US, which should be congratulated for its efforts, continues to contribute the lion's share—some $US171 million last year and, if press reports last week are accurate, $US200 million this year. Australia's average annual contribution over the last three years has been—wait for it—$US2 million.Beyond the immediate, the United Nations Development Program has drafted a $US300 million Agriculture Recovery and Environmental Protection Project designed to return the DPRK to agricultural self-sufficiency over three years. Funding commitments for this program from member states have been far from forthcoming. Australia has yet to announce a commitment. Australia could, and in my view should, be doing more both by way of a re-allocation of priorities within its existing aid budget as well as by applying some genuine diplomatic grunt to the task of encouraging others around the world also to put their shoulder to the wheel.The arguments against a greater international aid effort for North Korea are as familiar as they are refutable. The Republican Right in the United States argues against a renewal of US aid on the grounds that to do so is simply to prolong the longevity of the present regime and to assist the regime's financial capacity to continue its nuclear weapons and missile development program. This logic derives from Soviet and East European experience—that is, domestic economic privation will sooner or later result in the collapse of the regime. But if this were true, we should have seen the demise of the `dear leader', Kim Jong Il, and the `great leader' before him, Kim Il Sung, nearly a decade ago, not long after the plug was finally pulled on Soviet economic aid. Instead, Kim Jong Il seems more entrenched now than ever.As for nuclear weapons, short of a US military strike, which could have potentially catastrophic consequences for the civilian population of the peninsula—both north and south—the only effective strategy available to the United States has been one of hardline diplomatic engagement. It is this strategy, rather than one of somehow trying to allow North Korea to be starved into submission, that has produced the US-DPRK agreed framework for the replacement of plutonium producing heavy water reactors in the north with `proliferation friendly' light water reactors funded by the US, Japan and South Korea. It is a strategy that, under the agreed framework, has also brought into being the Korean Energy Development Organisation, or KEDO. This is the architecture through which the final replacement of one form of reactor with the other will be engineered. It is a program which, correctly, the current Australian government also funds to an appropriate tune of $A12.5 million each year.It is also this hard-headed strategy of engagement on the part of the United States that has produced the most recent breakthrough in negotiations with the DPRK in terms of the recent suspect site called Kumchang-ni, where a new nuclear development of threatening dimensions was suspected to be under way. As a result of that agreement, new site inspection rights have been granted to the US from May of this year to ensure that that site is not being used for those purposes.The truth, therefore, is that there is no alternative strategy to this one of hardline diplomatic engagement. We are dealing with a well armed and politically irrational regime that on matters nuclear needs to be eyeballed every step of the way. But to assume that it would be either politically persuasive for Pyongyang, let alone ethically sustainable for the rest of us, simply to stand idly by while another couple of million Korean civilians perish defies both logic and morality. It is difficult to confront starvation when it occurs around the world. It is doubly difficult to confront it when it occurs within our own region.Australia and the two Koreas by our definition—nobody else's—are part of the same region, a region in which we have claimed for more than a decade now to have a particular interest. We diminish ourselves as a nation if, on hard questions such as this, we simply turn a blind eye in some half-hearted belief that somebody else will take up the burden. Part of our challenge for the new century is to recapture just a little of the idealism, activism and internationalism that once characterised Australian foreign policy in the eyes of the world. It is a part of our foreign policy tradition that the acclaimed Australian scholar Hedley Bull used to call `purposes beyond ourselves'. The crisis in North Korea presents us with a pressing opportunity to apply these `purposes' to a practical problem in a region which, in good times and in bad, we must still call our own.394016:43:003940Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—Before I make the comments that I came in here to make, I might pick up on a couple of comments from the previous speaker, the member for Griffith. There are two points I will pick up initially. First, I had the opportunity to go to South Korea late last year, and certainly the issues and the problems in North Korea, as the honourable gentleman mentioned, are very real and quite horrendous.It is interesting that there is a quite notable difference in the South Korean approach to the North Korean `problem' there probably was a few years ago. Last year, when I went, it was my second visit. As I recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, you led that delegation. I had been there five years previously, and I think there was a very different view in the South Korean government this time to what I had seen previously. The previous view was reunification but on South Korean terms. My perception of the view last year was that they really were not pushing the reunification anywhere near as hard; they were looking for cooperation and ways to work together and, if reunification came at some stage in the future, that may be fine, but they were certainly not looking for the sort of situation that happened in Germany, where when West Germany took over East Germany, it brought incredible financial strains on the West German economy.There were one or two gleanings of initiative coming from people in South Korea to try to ease the problem in North Korea. There was the famous case of a very rich South Korean who originally came from North Korea and who took a convoy of lorries with, I think, 500 cattle up north to try to ease the problem. There were negotiations with the North Koreans to open up a very famous mountain scenic area—I must admit I do not recall the name—where a lot of those who originally came from the north but may live, and certainly have relations, in the south can start to open up the border and go to this particular area to start some economic activity. So although many of the original problems in North Korea clearly still exist and the hard line still exists—as the previous speaker mentioned—there are perhaps some glimmerings of a change of attitude going on in that part of the world.My second point is that only last week I was in Taiwan at an aid conference as a guest of World Vision. One of the points that came out there was—and the honourable gentleman mentioned this; I apologise for not hearing all of his speech, but as I came in, I think he was making this point—that, when there are tragedies on a national scale, one of the problems with the whole aid and relief area is that the public or government response is often conditioned by the amount of television coverage or newsworthiness.For example, when the tsunami hit Papua New Guinea last year, there was of course tremendous TV and newspaper coverage. This country obviously has a longstanding and close affinity with PNG, which goes right back to the assistance with our troops during the war. So there was an emotional attachment and the tragedy received huge publicity. In fact, most of the aid agencies that worked in PNG for the tsunami found that they were actually oversubscribed. They got more money and more gifts in kind than they were able to use. Effectively they still have a credit bank balance of money that was donated for PNG and that as yet has been unspent. You can spend it if you want to waste it, but realistically you want to spend money in a sensible way. There is only so much you can do in a confined area for a relatively limited number of people.If you get a huge amount of donations, you find you are in that almost embarrassing position of saying, `Do we send the money back to the donors or do we spend the money somewhere else, and then run the risk of the public complaining that the money was donated for purpose (a) but we have spent it on purpose (b)?' In World Vision's case, I understand it became apparent quite early in the piece that they were going to be oversubscribed. They put a rider on their advertising that, from then on, some of that money might in fact be spent in other areas of need rather than on that specific purpose.History has shown us on many occasions that the tragedy that has caught the media attention is the one that gets responses, both politically and privately. I will not say that those tragedies are undeserving, but there are others that are equally deserving that do not get the same exposure. I think that is most unfortunate. Certainly, all in this place would like to see an increase in aid.One of the sad things about our society is that, over the last 20 or so years and under governments of all complexions, there has been a gradual diminution of the percentage of GDP that has been allocated to overseas aid. If my memory serves me correctly, in the last 20 years we have come down from around 3.5 per cent or 3.6 per cent to 2.7 per cent. In fact, last year was the first time in about 10 or 15 years that we had a slight increase in real terms. It was not a huge increase and it was not perhaps as much as I would like to have seen. My point is that, as a westernised country, we—in common with most other Western countries—have gradually been reducing, in proportionate terms, the amount of money that we have allocated to aid. As a country, we still spend more proportionately than all the other OECD countries, but I do not believe it is enough. I would like to see us do more.I am not as knowledgeable on the North Korean situation as the previous speaker, but there are so many areas crying out for assist ance that that money could be put to good use. I see that I am fast running out of time and I am talking on a subject that I did not intend to come to talk about, but in this place it is sometimes opportune to respond to issues that are running.The other issue of aid that I would like to see us address as a nation is to try to take more advantage of the NGO community. It is interesting that we spend about seven per cent of our aid budget through NGOs. In America, they spend about 40 per cent. A number of other countries spend a lot more. It seems to me that NGOs do have a great deal to contribute in the aid area. They can often go into places that government agencies or commercial firms cannot. They often have the expertise, of course, and they are often quicker and lighter on their feet and more responsive in emergency situations. It seems to me there is the opportunity for us to spend more of our aid dollars through that particular outlet. I notice the government's intention to try to increase that seven per cent figure and I would hope that we would be able to increase it quite substantially.However we measure it, we are a very rich and affluent country. It is in our interests to make sure that we help particularly, but not exclusively, those in our region to overcome their problems, their incapacities, their difficulties and often their tragedies. It seems to me that, by increasing the living standards and therefore helping the political stability of those places, we are going to be good neighbours and bring more stability to our region. As a country, we are therefore going to benefit. It is going to be in our national interest. It is both a good political tactic and the right, humane thing to do.So aid is a very important subject for us as a country to address. I agree with the previous speaker that we need to look at doing more. Our aid has a three-part structure—both multilateral and bilateral as well as through the NGO community—but I would certainly support the suggestion that we need to do more in those areas. I think that in terms of North Korea, where its closed community is so isolated and such a huge-scale human tragedy is going on—probably on a par with Somalia and places of that sort—it would certainly be the political and the humanitarian thing to look at what we have given so far and perhaps see if there are ways of increasing our contribution in the future.394216:53:003942Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—On the night of 7 March, South Australia Police ran a drug operation at Adelaide airport that went spectacularly wrong. The consequence was that a large quantity of vegetable matter consistent with eight pounds of cannabis was detected in hand luggage by a scanner, with police present, but the suspects were allowed to pick it up, board an aircraft and go unapprehended. The police were acting on an anonymous tip-off that they had received at 1.45 p.m. that day. That gave them more than five hours to mount an effective operation. The failure of this operation would in all probability have gone unnoted if one of the several errors made had not been to incorrectly attach the names of two federal MPs to the descriptions of the suspects. Those MPs were the member for Bonython and me.The first we knew of the drug operation was when, on our arrival on Qantas flight 568 in Canberra, two uniformed and armed federal police boarded the aircraft and asked us by name, in front of a number of colleagues and a plane load of passengers, to accompany them to the manager's lounge. There we were told by Australian Federal Police detectives that they had received information suggesting we may be carrying a prohibited substance in our hand baggage. We readily agreed to our hand luggage being searched. The contents of Martyn Evans's bags consisted of a lap top computer and a small quantity of papers. My bag contained a large quantity of papers. While this search was being undertaken, the real drug couriers had disembarked from the aircraft with their eight pounds of cannabis and vanished into the Canberra night.The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police gave us an unreserved, written apology next day which in part said:. . . the actions taken by AFP officers in boarding the aircraft and asking you to accompany them was inappropriate and lacked complete sensitivity. I also confirm that following your complete cooperation with police the Australian Federal Police were able to establish the inaccuracy of the information which was conveyed by South Australia Police in relation to yourself and Mr Evans.I point out that neither Martyn Evans nor I mentioned to the investigating police that we were members of parliament until they had completed their search. We both believe the police should follow up any substantial information given to them relating to drug trafficking. However, the manner in which the AFP acted was inappropriate for any citizen. I am aware that we were in a better position to obtain redress than other innocent people who might have a similar experience when caught up in a police investigation, and that is an issue which needs to be addressed.I am grateful to the AFP police commissioner for his timely letter, which enabled us to preserve our reputations, which are important to us in public life. We initially assumed we had been the victims of politically motivated malice. I rang the South Australia police commissioner and asked him to investigate that possibility. He responded sometime later with the information that we had been caught up in a drug operation. The facts were that the South Australia Police had received an anonymous tip-off that two people would be carrying eight pounds of cannabis to Canberra that night. The informant gave descriptions of the drug couriers but no names. The descriptions were not consistent with either me or Mr Evans. I might add that to an untrained observer the description of one of us would be as good as the other.Police had set up surveillance at Adelaide airport and observed two people fitting the descriptions of their suspects check a bag similar to one of mine. They took a drug dog out to the luggage area and, instead of finding the suspects' bag, found mine. The dog did not react to my bag but police noted the name `Cox' on the luggage label. They asked Qantas whether anyone was travelling with Cox to Canberra, and were told Evans was. At the same time, a detective watching the hand luggage scanner saw the two suspects go through security screening, and the X-rays revealed a large amount of vegetable matter in each of their bags. That detective called for support to intercept the suspects, but by the time it had arrived they had boarded the plane.According to the South Australia police commissioner, there were a number of communications between his detectives and the Australian Federal Police while Qantas flight 568 was in the air. The South Australian version of events emphasises the description of the suspects. The AFP version emphasises the names. In fact, I have been told by the AFP that they were told in one call to forget the descriptions because they had the names. I do not expect to get to the bottom of that. The real point is that the suspects and the drugs never should have got as far as the plane. I have not received a satisfactory explanation for the suspects and the drugs not being apprehended before they boarded. I do not believe there is a satisfactory explanation. The whole point of having X-ray scanners at airports is to stop people taking a variety of things they are not supposed to onto aircraft—and remember that this was an operation which police had five hours to plan.No doubt there are always difficulties in any police operation, but I was left wondering whether this incident was not a pointer to a wider set of public interest issues. These include security issues at our airports, the coordination of drug operations across jurisdictions and the adequacy of police resources. I have asked the South Australia police commissioner to make a submission to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit for its public hearing on Audit Report No. 16: Aviation security in Australia.I am not in a position to judge whether the failure of this particular drug operation was caused by inadequate resources, but I have certainly found evidence that there are serious concerns about police resourcing. There have been complaints of slow or no responses to crime calls, reductions in the number of police patrols, understaffed police stations, and unanswered calls to police stations. In my own electorate we have seen the closure of the Willunga Police Station. There is a real frustration amongst South Australia police officers that they do not have resources to do their job properly. They have a public service ethos which the government has rejected in favour of more commercial objectives. As a consequence, they feel their role has been devalued. I have obtained some figures which the police association has taken from the commissioner's reports to parliament which back their concerns.Over the first five years of state Liberal government, the size of South Australia's police force has been progressively run down. We are looking at a force which is now less than 3,600 full-time equivalents. In 1993-94, it was much closer to 3,800. Over the five financial years from 1993-94 to 1997-98, there were a total of 449 cadets recruited, re-enlistments and appointments of specialists. In the same period, resignations, retirements—whether due to age or incapacity—plus the small number who died or were dismissed amounted to 628. That is a net reduction of 179. That is minus 20 in 1993-94, minus 69 in 1994-95, minus 133 in 1995-96, minus 42 in 1996-97 and plus 85 in 1997-98.I do not regard it as a coincidence that the only year in which numbers increased due to a more than doubled cadet intake was an election year. That is an average drop of 35.8 police a year. That is about one per cent of the full-time equivalent force. This is an attrition rate that over a number of years means a big reduction in the number of police. You can have smarter and more sophisticated policing methods but, like the failed drug operation at the airport, if there are not enough police in the right place when they are needed, those techniques will count for nothing. A high standard of policing is something we used to take for granted but, as with other critical community services like health and education, we have seen standards run down because governments, state and federal, say they cannot, or rather will not, commit the necessary resources.394317:02:003943Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise today not with a grievance but with a vision for my Gilmore electorate. This is only the second time that I have spoken on my vision for Gilmore, the most visually diverse and community minded electorate that I am so fortunate to represent. So where will we be by the year 2001 in my second term as federal member for Gilmore?Item 1—main road No. 92, or the Shoalhaven Highway, will be 70 per cent completed to Nerriga. Construction of the Shoalhaven Highway starts in August. The Shoalhaven City Council has already committed $1 million this year, and I understand that next financial year the council is set to spend a further $2 million, demonstrating the commitment, determination and proactive stance of Max Atkins the Mayor and councillors Graham Napper, the General Manager, Barry Russell, the City Services Manager, and Greg Pullen, the Economic Development Manager. They are all to be commended for their professionalism, foresight and untiring effort.Item 2—the eastern gas pipeline—gas will be flowing by September 2000, helping major industry particularly on the northern bank of the Shoalhaven River. Item 3—Wollongong University's Shoalhaven campus at Mundamia, West Nowra, will accept its second intake in the year 2001. The first intake will be welcomed in the year 2000. Wollongong University's Moss Vale campus will be under construction. Currently the feasibility study is almost complete.Item 4—work will be done with the Kiama council and the state MP to establish the Princes Highway as a road of national importance. Already we have committed funding of $570,000 to eliminate black spots on this most notorious, dangerous, killer road. All levels of government from Sydney to the Victorian border will need to unite to achieve a RONI status.Item 5—funding for a centre for research, possibly in the environmental management area, will be pursued and won. Item 6—the original campus site, Graham Park, at Berry will become a field studies centre annexed to the research centre. Item 7—in the year 2001 the three tiers of government will be working together to attract capital grants to extend the campus at the Shoalhaven Mundamia site.Item 8—stage 1 of HMAS Albatross will be complete, stage 2 will be approved and hopefully under way and stage 3 will be being developed to design stage. Item 9—the year 2001 will see me lobbying for more naval units to be moved to HMAS Albatross as other bases are wound back. Negotiations should be under way by the year 2001.Item 10—the Shoalhaven's regional effluent dispersal system, the largest and most innovative effluent reuse system of recent times, will be pumping treated and previously wasted water many kilometres to farms, forests and pine and tea-tree plantations throughout the region. Item 11—a major departmental call centre will be located in Gilmore at one of three sites already identified.Item 12—rail infrastructure—electrification of the railway to Kiama will be in place. To enhance industry viability further south in the electorate, I will be pushing for a spur line of the VFT and commencement on the construction of the tunnel through the escarpment from Thirroul to Waterfall. Some 22 kilometres of tunnel, costing some $50 million, would reduce current travel time from Bomaderry to Sydney by over an hour to two hours. Who knows what it would do for the VFT. By the year 2001 I would like to see a decision made by the state government and funding committed. Think of the jobs this project would provide.Item 13—in the area of training and education for our Aboriginals, there will be trials for a program to provide long-term opportunities for our people to own and manage their own training and facilities. This program will include management training, creation of mentoring programs, recognition of heroes, peer guidance and seeing people through to trades or other recognised qualifications. These programs will be constructed by a three tier of government approach.Item 14—the year 2001 will see the tax reform package through the Senate and applied to the economy, realising more benefits than sceptics ever believed. As a result, states will have more money to put into the major areas of need with advice from local government to ensure community needs are met. This will allow Gilmore to obtain more and better educational facilities and hospital places, to fulfil other health issues and to obtain better roads and other infrastructure. The rural fire service and other volunteer organisations will obtain the regional research and training facilities they so urgently require and richly deserve.Item 15—the unfair dismissal legislation will be passed and, once again, small business will take on thousands of young people for the first jobs of their careers in an atmosphere of cooperation with the employers rather than under the current siege conditions. Item 16—youth wages have also been allowed, further encouraging business to take the time, care and burden of employing young people and training them to greater careers. Allowing young people to discover hope and again have faith in their elders and society thereby reduces the unacceptable level of youth suicide.Item 17—there will be better measures to protect subcontractors from the domino effect of the project management companies or major contractors going under. Too often the tradesmen on whom we rely to employ our young people and to drive the small business economy are at the mercy of this situation. At all levels of government, we must stop taking the cheap quote and go for quality of outcome with a broad perspective. This does not mean spend money lavishly but ensure that the margins in the tender are not too narrow, the record and current financial status of the company are known and adequate insurance or provision for paying out subbies is guaranteed.Item 18—the year 2001 will also see the Naval Aviation Logistic Management Service moving from Sydney to Nowra. It comprises 250 staff, 50 of whom are already at Nowra. Item 19—communications infrastructure—a broadband network, owned and operated by a south coast consortium with a private carrier, will be constructed, creating opportunities for another range of industry access to leading edge technology in Gilmore. Item 20—a second business incubator will be established in the Shoalhaven or Kiama areas. The first one already has three tenants, with another two moving in next week, and it is proposed that Peter Reith will open this centre.I believe this program will provide enough work for the next 2½ years. Yes, there is a risk in outlining my goals and my vision with this clarity, as I could be leaving myself wide open for easy picking if the goals—most of which depend on the cooperation of other governments—are not realised. However, it is also a challenge—a challenge to succeed and a challenge to other members of all levels of government to clearly list their goals for all in our community to see and be judged when next they stand up for election.As I said earlier, the first time I spoke on the subject of vision was on the occasion of my maiden speech. At that time, the milestones of my vision for Gilmore were also to enhance and diversify our tourism opportunities without destroying by commercial overkill why people come in the first place. Currently we have quality and environmentally sensitive accommodation such as the Paperbark Lodge—which is known as `Tents and Trees'—and Barry's Guesthouse, with mud bricks and a fully recycled water system.Gilmore is an Australian icon, with its magical Jervis Bay. In my maiden and preselection speeches, I gave not only my vision but also my dream—that being to see Jervis Bay become a marine based centre of excellence and to include ocean medicine, aquaculture, shipbuilding, fish farming, marine transport and a defined role both for professional and recreational fishing. The year 2001 will see funding for identification and analysis of these opportunities. The expansion of HMAS Albatross has already seen $64 million spent on upgrading and extra Defence housing for personnel. Farm forestry will also be recognised as a continuation of numerous consultations that have taken place with stakeholders. Ethanol production received a $2 million boost in government funding to further trials of ethanol as the major environmental project.Every pollie has a wish list, and I am no exception. Leading that list is to see an arts and culture facility for our community, where many residents from the 49 villages in Gilmore come together in regular and diverse groupings to display their works, share their skills and illuminate their respective talents. Some of that history, art and culture have already been recognised with federation funding of $1.14 million for the Lady Denman Museum and $1.85 million for the Aviation History Museum.My second wish is to see our unemployment rate drop, as 12.3 per cent is still far too high, but it is a great improvement on the 16 per cent that it has been. This drop is certainly in part due to the $76.1 million in funding obtained by Gilmore to promote investment, infrastructure and jobs. The rest is courtesy of the federal coalition's sound economic management. There is great innovation in Gilmore, with our own SEAL project, Shoalhaven Earning a Living—leading the government to introduce work for the dole—and Robert Dane's Solar Sailor.In conclusion, I am totally committed to Gilmore. In fact, over my term to date, I have spent 240 days in Canberra, and the two vans I have used have clocked up over 155,000 kilometres visiting people in the 49 villages across the 6,500 square kilometres of Gilmore. While I have attended many functions and events in that time, I have helped to bring projects worth $88.8 million from this government to the electorate. To my constituents in Gilmore: I will continue to work with you and for you to help keep Gilmore on the move. (Quorum formed)394617:16:003946Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to make a couple of comments about the pending state election and the effect that the re-election of a Carr Labor government would have on the Illawarra. Many people would understand that there is an opportunity, taken by political parties from time to time, to renew, reinvigorate and, at the same time, say farewell and thank you to a number of long-serving members who have done their electorates proud; and that is exactly what is going to happen in the Illawarra next Saturday. On Saturday we will see the retirement of Bob Harrison, the long-serving member for Kiama, and also the retirement of Mr Terry Rumble, the long-serving member for Illawarra. Both these gentlemen served their constituencies extremely well over a long period of time.Bob Harrison came from a background of a waterside worker to local government, where he became one of the most outstanding mayors that I have ever come across. He was the mayor of Shellharbour for a long period, at a time when Shellharbour municipality—now the City of Shellharbour—was expanding and undergoing some extremely rapid growth in terms of urbanisation and industrialisation. It was through the far-sighted approaches engendered by Bob Harrison as mayor and, subsequently, as the member for Kiama that that part of the Illawarra has come to enjoy the prosperity that it currently does.In Terry Rumble we had a quiet achiever representing the electorate of Illawarra. Terry rose to be chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the Carr government and acquitted himself extremely well in that role. He was always available for his constituents—as was Bob Harrison—and was prepared to go out of his way to do the right thing by people in a quiet, measured manner.What we are seeing in the replacement of those individuals and, more generally, throughout the Illawarra is—as I have said—renewal, regeneration and also, I am sure, the election of some very talented and energetic people to take their places after next Saturday.In Kiama, Matthew Brown is standing for the Labor Party. Matthew is a lawyer by profession. He is only young and will bring to the state parliament, under the Carr government, a younger person's perspective on issues facing areas like the Illawarra and the state of New South Wales generally. Matthew is going to be an outstanding contributor who will go far within the Labor movement.In the seat of Illawarra, Marianne Saliba has been preselected to stand for the Labor Party. Once again, she is somebody who has dedicated a considerable amount of her time and effort to community organisations, and she will go on to ably represent the state seat of Illawarra. She can bring a woman's perspective to our area which, as most people would appreciate, is still a very heavily industrialised region and which I do not think, at the state and certainly at the national level, has ever returned a female candidate. So Marianne is going to be a progressive phase in Labor's representation of the Illawarra.In the seat of Wollongong, Colin Markham—formerly in the seat of Kiera—is contesting for Labor. Colin, of course, is a parliamentary secretary in the present Carr government and has been one of the most outstanding contributors to our region for some time. Colin is quite prepared to take on the interests of different groups. He and I share a number of similar interests. We both strongly and avidly supported the Illawarra Steelers once—which, of course, are no more—in the National Rugby League, but nevertheless we still continue to support the newly merged club. He will bring a sense of stability to those new people coming in.The person I wanted to spend some time commenting upon is our candidate in the seat of Kiera—the Lord Mayor of Wollongong, Councillor David Campbell. Without a doubt, David Campbell is one of the most outstanding candidates I have ever seen at state level for the Labor Party in the Illawarra region. David possesses a natural ability when it comes to dealing with people—right from the top end of town to those people who happen to be working on his council gangs. He brings an acute understanding of the problems facing the electorate of Kiera and, more generally, the area that is the Illawarra. He brings that understanding because this is a relatively young bloke who went through high school and left to work for Wollongong City Council, right through from a clerical position to becoming Lord Mayor of the City of Wollongong.This is somebody who has a unique ability to understand development issues but who also marries concern and consideration for environmental matters with that. One of the candidates that has been opposing him has been running around suggesting that he is too developmentally minded and that he does not consider environment issues. This, of course, is nonsense, and his record demonstrates that. It has been under David Campbell's leadership at Wollongong City Council that we have, in fact, seen specific bans placed on development of the Illawarra escarpment. We have seen under David Campbell's leadership the inclusion of much of the Illawarra escarpment into a national park and a heritage listed area. We have seen under the leadership of David Campbell careful consideration of job generation opportunities, but at the same time we have seen clear determinations about where the environment needs to be considered as part of those broader developmental aspects.David Campbell has not been afraid to stand up for Wollongong. David Campbell has been somebody who has been prepared to get out there and fight for jobs. He has been intimately involved with the University of Wollongong. He has been intimately involved in establishing a telecommunications task force under his leadership, on which I have the great pleasure to serve, as we try to develop new and exciting high-tech industries for the Illawarra.Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, I know you will appreciate the fact that in regions and subregions of Australia in some of our traditional industries—whether it be heavy manufacturing or whether it be wool growing or whatever—for one reason or another there has been an economic downturn and things are not going as well as perhaps they once were. Rather than look backwards, David Campbell is one of those people who have been extremely progressive—looking to the future, looking to ways in which new age technologies and new age industries might be developed in Wollongong.Tourism services industries, again, have seen his attention directed towards ensuring that jobs are generated and created. And I think, as I have said, in local government he has been one of the most outstanding lord mayors that we have had in the City of Wollongong, ever. I might also say, therefore, that a consequence of the ability that he has generated and developed in that position—his confidence, et cetera—will be that when he is in the position of being the member for Keira following next Saturday's election he will take that experience into the state parliament, and I would be most surprised if in a very short space of time he is not on the front bench of a Carr government.Some of his opponents next Saturday are running on one issue—interests—and, as a consequence, I think should not be supported. There is one particular fellow councillor that is running—regrettably with the same surname as mine—in the electorate. He is running around with a disingenuous campaign suggesting that he really is developmentally minded, that he really stands for jobs, yet his record as a councillor on Wollongong City Council will show that he has been anything but that. He has worked tirelessly to see that urban development, regional economic opportunities, are stopped at every turn, yet he is now out there purporting to represent job generation within the seat of Keira.I look forward on Saturday not only to handing out how-to-vote cards for David Campbell but also to wishing him well in his journey into Macquarie Street and into the Carr Labor government following the election on Saturday. I look forward to ensuring that all of my state colleagues, along with Colin Hollis and myself, work very, very closely together to continue a team approach to issues facing people in the Illawarra more generally but particularly within the electorates centred on Wollongong and Shellharbour. I think we will make a formidable team, and I simply urge all of those voters in the seats in Wollongong and in the Illawarra more generally to continue to support Labor. It is only through Labor representation that we can continue that progress forward.17:26:003948Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would also like to take this opportunity to note some of the interesting developments in the forthcoming state election and, in particular, in the hard-fought contest in the northern part of new South Wales in the now state electorate of Tweed. I think there are some very important points that the House should be aware of in this campaign that is unfolding.Firstly, I think it is important for the federal parliament and, indeed, all of the Australian public to realise that this is a state election and not a federal election. There is a certain degree of confusion, particularly in the issues being addressed by the Labor candidate who actually used to be a member of this federal parliament. These issues are, principally, flight paths, Coolangatta Airport—most of which comes under federal jurisdiction—and the GST. Most of his campaign has revolved around the GST, particularly playing on the unnecessary fears of mobile home tenants of which we have a very high proportion.It is important to note that for those people—whether they are pensioners, self-funded retirees or elderly people in mobile home parks—rent assistance will go up four per cent, pensions will go up four per cent. Indeed, there is a buffer of at least 1½ per cent. So the line that is being run in regard to a 10 per cent increase in rent for people in mobile home parks is really quite scurrilous. It is not true and, indeed, the previous member for Richmond, Mr Neville Newell, should recognise that he is running a state campaign and not a federal campaign.The other interesting point is his feigned concern regarding the airport. The New South Wales government—the Labor Carr government—have not appointed anybody to the New South Wales environment committee for the airport. There has been no representative from the EPA from the New South Wales Carr government regarding the extension of the airport. All the words that they are saying are rather hollow because they have not followed through with action in the last two to three years.The real issues in this campaign in the Tweed—which I note the state member Don Beck has been fighting incredibly hard on and will continue to do so—are roads, hospitals and education. In the area of hospitals I do recall, quite clearly, that back in the previous state campaign the Minister for Health, Refshauge, and Bob Carr would resign if they did not reduce hospital waiting queues. The interesting fact is, no matter what spin the Labor Party puts on up in the Tweed—and I quote from New South Wales Department of Health figures—that in Murwillumbah, at the very hospital where my children were born, the waiting list has risen from 178 to 545 patients. That is a 306 per cent increase. In Tweed Heads the hospital waiting list grew from 276 to 726—an increase of 263 per cent. That is an average of 280 per cent for the state seat of Tweed.So much for the Labor Party's pontification that they are actually helping health in the Tweed or in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. Indeed, the promised third extension to the Tweed Heads Hospital, a $31 million extension, which should have happened a number of years ago, and which was promised by Bob Carr, has not happened. Now at the 11th hour, just before midnight, there has been a rash of promises, a rash of visits by Minister Refshauge and a new found concern for the electors of Tweed. That is all very well, but they did not show that concern over the last four years, treating the electors with contempt.Other areas which are quite noticeable are the police and law and order. Labor have made claims that they have increased staffing levels quite considerably in Tweed and Byron. The facts are that the only real increase in police numbers has been around Byron Bay itself. In the Tweed—and these figures come from the Police Federation—the operational capacity of police is down by one-third, as people take sick leave and other operational requirements take them away from the actual duty of policing—a one-third reduction. What is even more alarming is that during that period, when they are allegedly showing so much concern, there has been a 37 per cent increase in break and enter in homes, a 31 per cent increase in the use and possession of drugs, a 30 per cent increase in property damage and a 28 per cent increase in assaults. These areas have been underresourced. It is said that there has been a sudden increase in policing numbers and a diminution in crime, but the facts do not speak for themselves.There has been new found concern about schools and education from the state ALP candidate during the period of the Labor government, which is great to see. No new school has been built in the new seat of Tweed. Under the previous coalition government, Wollumbin, Centaur and new TAFE colleges were built. I am very glad to see that the federal government will actually be building an extension of Southern Cross University at Tweed Heads. Yes, there was a school built pre planning in Pottsville. But aside from that, there has been no new school, even on the north coast, north of Evans Head. There is a crying need in the Ballina electorate for a new school at Ocean Shores or in the Brunswick area. There is also a crying need for improvement of facilities at Mullumbimby High School and at Byron Bay High School, but they have not received a cracker—even though there has been a 20 per cent increase in the population.The real issue that gets under my skin—and I have spoken many times in this parliament about this—is the deplorable state of the funding of our roads in the northern part of New South Wales. Tragically—and I quote from the Northern Star:The 60 kilometre section of the Pacific Highway from near Byron Bay to Chinderah has now claimed 13 lives of 30 people killed in a spate of horrific smashes on northern New South Wales roads this year.I witnessed another accident on Saturday night just near the Byron Bay turn-off in which another person was killed. Bob Carr has used tactics to delay the building of the Chinderah to Yelgun motorway, which should be halfway through completion by now.In the 1996 federal campaign, one of my major commitments was to ensure that federal funding would go to this project. The Prime Minister, John Howard, gave that commitment. It is a $230 million project of which $115 million would be supplied by the Commonwealth, with no conditions, to the building of that project. Regrettably, because of the constitutional divisions of responsibility between state and federal governments, the state government are responsible for planning issues, for the building of the road and other procedures. They have dragged the chain. They have not done much at all in building this road of national importance. It bypasses the Burringbar Range and sections of roads in the Tweed which are incapable of handling traffic.The Minister for Roads was quite adamant that they could never fast-track it. Yet at the beginning of this year they said, `We can fast-track it.' A report for the new route, which has been sitting on Craig Knowles's desk at the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, has only just been released literally 10 days out from the election with over 80 conditions on it. What type of commitment do they have? It has been four years and there has not been one bit of construction on that road. Now it is going to be 2003. They can build the Olympic stadium in about 20 months but they cannot build this road, which will save people's lives. Shame on them! The previous member was very ambivalent about supporting this project in the 1996 campaign.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous395010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 24 March 1999, at 10.00 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Committees39503950395017:35:003950Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Pubic Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 365—Annual Report 1997-98 .Ordered that the report be printed.3950395017:35:003950Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—by leave—I present the following Finance minutes on reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit: Finance minute on report 355—Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of Financial accountability requirements;Finance minute on report 357—The Jindalee Operational Radar Network Project;Finance minute on report 358—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—Third quarter;Finance minute on report 359—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—Fourth quarter;Finance minute on report 360—Internet commerce;Finance minute on report 361—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98—First quarter, and Finance minute on report 363—Asset Management by Commonwealth agencies. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report and minutes.Leave granted.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—This year has been of historic significance for the committee, reflected in changes to its act, its title and range of responsibility. Sweeping changes to the Commonwealth financial management and accountability legislation, much of which was foreshadowed by the Public Accounts Committee in a series of reports tabled since 1994, have resulted in the committee taking on an enhanced role as audit committee of the parliament.As the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the committee stands as a mediator between the Auditor-General and executive government and supports the independence of the Auditor-General on behalf of the parliament. In specific terms, the committee does this by reviewing the appointment of the Auditor-General and Independent Auditor by considering and reporting on the budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office. In its role as audit committee of the parliament, the committee invites and considers suggestions for performance audits from all parliamentary committees before advising the Auditor-General of the parliament's audit priorities for the coming financial year.The committee has pursued a number of important matters in inquiries during 1997-98. The report on the Jindalee operational radar network underlined the committee's concerns at the Department of Defence's continued failure to reform fundamental contract management and risk management issues arising from complex, long-term projects. The committee continued its work in support of the restructure and simplification of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, reviewing the third tranche of the legislation covering the capital gains tax provisions in the advisory report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 tabled on 12 March 1998. Taxation issues were also given thorough consideration by the committee in its groundbreaking exploration of the relevant issues arising from the burgeoning growth of Internet commerce. That was tabled in a report on 24 June 1998 as Internet commerce: to buy or not to buy?The committee's longstanding interests in the issue of public sector administration reform was reflected in the advisory report on the Public Service Bill 1997 tabled on 29 September 1997. The report was a unanimous one in the tradition of the committee and produced practical suggestions for the amendment of the legislation which were accepted by the government. In addition, the four quarterly reviews of Auditor-General's reports in which a range of matters related to aspects of project management and contract management across agencies were an indication of the committee's exercise of its scrutiny role with respect to executive government.I would like to take the opportunity to draw attention to the contribution of my predecessor, the member for Fairfax, Mr Somlyay, to the work of the committee. Under his stewardship, the committee carried out with distinction its scrutiny role both in respect of bills referred to it and also with regard to key departments of executive governments such as the Department of Defence.The first Finance minute refers to report 355, Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: review of financial accountability requirements. This report was the result of an inquiry conducted jointly by the JCPAA and the Queensland Public Accounts Committee. The committees made 19 recommendations of which 13 addressed cross jurisdictional issues and six related solely to Queensland agencies. The Queensland government responded on 22 May 1998 and a Finance minute providing the Commonwealth response to administrative issues was received on 12 August 1998. The Finance minute contains responses to 12 recommendations. The Commonwealth agencies of ATSIC and the Department of Health and Family Services provided positive responses which are comprehensive, practical and easily actioned and will streamline and improve grant administration and accountability.In relation to report 357, The Jindalee operational radar network project, the Finance minute not only indicates the directions of remedial action undertaken by the Department of Defence and Telstra with respect to significant shortcomings in risk management, the management of intellectual property rights and project management but also deals with Telstra's subcontracting of further technical work on the project to RLM. With respect to the specific responses to recommendations of The Jindalee operational radar network project report, the Department of Defence has agreed to all the committee's seven recommendations without qualification and has taken steps to address by means of administrative reforms all of the issues contained in them.Report 358, Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—third quarter, reviews four of the seven audit reports presented by the Auditor-General in the third quarter of 1996-97. The subjects of the four reports were client service in the Australian Taxation Office, customer service in the Department of Social Security, the recovery of the proceeds of crime and the army presence in the north. The JCPAA made three recommendations. The Finance minute indicated agreement or agreement in principal with all recommendations.In relation to report 359, Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—fourth quarter, the committee made six recommendations, five of which were directed to Defence and one of which was directed to the Department of Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The Finance minute providing the Commonwealth responses to the recommendations was received on 4 January 1999. Defence and the Department of Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry provided positive responses to five of the six recommendations. The committee is currently pursuing further details relating to the outstanding recommendation.In relation to report 360, Internet commerce: to buy or not to buy?, the report addressed the issues concerning the framing of an effective domestic and international regulatory environment which will encourage the growth of Internet commerce. The report focused on the effects of Internet commerce on Australian small and medium business enterprises, the operation of the customs screen free limit, the privacy regime, the administration of the tax system and the implications for the existing tax base of the rapid growth in Internet commerce. The JCPAA made 17 recommendations and the Finance minute addresses seven of these indicating agreement with all of them. The government response to policy matters raised in the remaining recommendations is being coordinated by Treasury.The committee's report 361, Review of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98—first quarter, examined Audit report No. 5 1997-98, Performance management of Defence inventory, Department of Defence and Audit report No. 10 1997-98: aspects of corporate governance—the Australian Tourist Commission. The report made eight recommendations, four directed to the Department of Defence and four to the Australian Tourist Commission. Both departments responded positively to all of the recommendations.Audit Report No. 10 into the Australian Tourist Commission canvassed the extent to which the ATC was meeting all of its statutory objectives as part of its corporate governance framework. The committee made three recommendations designed to improve the planning processes of the commission. The Australian Tourist Commission responses indicate that the commission has accepted the committee's recommendations and has proceeded to implement them. One of the recommendations made by the committee related to government policy and will be addressed by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources in a separate response.The committee's report into audit report 363, Asset Management by Commonwealth Agencies, was tabled on 15 July 1998 and contained three recommendations. A finance minute providing responses to these recommendations was received by the secretariat on 11 February 1999. The finance minute was prepared by the Department of Finance and Administration in consultation with the Australian National Audit Office, the Public Service, the Merit Protection Commissioner and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The committee's recommendations were, in general, supported by the agencies providing comment, including the recommendation for the establishment of an asset management forum. I thank the House.Bills3952r719Billsr721Bills3952Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.17:46:003952McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The introduction of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and the associated Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1), which we are discussing cognately, together mark a further stage in a decade of review and restructuring of industry policy in Australia—a decade in which review and policy responses with regard to the textile, clothing and footwear industry have been an important part of industry policy. I would add that this is an industry that has undergone a large amount of, sometimes painful, change.The matters here before us are not ones which the opposition will be opposing because, as was said on 10 September 1997 by the member for Hotham, the then Labor Party spokesman for industry, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, `The government has finally accepted Labor's plan.'Mr Lieberman interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Labor has campaigned for this series of measures over the strenuous resistance of our political opponents, the government. For those like the member for Indi who wish to interject that this is not the case, Hansard is replete with examples of the Treasurer and the former industry minister attacking the member for Hotham for advocating the policies that are in this bill. We therefore support the general thrust of the package.We do not think that the implementation regime is ideal. We find ourselves with what appears to be a very awkward compromise—a compromise between the pro-interventionist policy of the former Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, the now Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, and the dry economics of the Treasurer, Mr Costello, with the PM apparently being caught in the middle. This has led to some awkward elements of compromise in the nature of the package and its implementation in the detail of what is before us, and these are matters that I will deal with in some detail. But I reiterate: notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the reservations that I will outline and the second reading amendment which I will subsequently move, this is not a package which the opposition will oppose.The legislation before us is to implement the package of measures the government announced in September 1997 in response to the Industry Commission's report into the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. This package included a freeze on tariffs at their 1 July 2000 level until 1 January 2005, and an investment program to encourage TCF companies to become more internationally competitive and to better exploit Australia's natural advantage in raw materials such as wool and cotton. The government also committed itself to conducting a review of these policy arrangements in 2005 to take account of Australia's APEC commitments and progress on market access.Of the package of bills, the customs tariff bill implements the tariff pause while the TCF strategic investment program bill implements the investment program. The customs tariff bill operates by retaining the tariff rates reached on 1 July 2000 until 31 December 2004, and then by reducing them by what is said in the vernacular to be five per cent, although it is actually by a range of measures from between 2.5 per cent for footwear parts and 7.5 per cent for those with the highest tariff, clothing and finished textiles. This leaves us with a schedule of tariffs as at 1 January 2005 for clothing and finished textiles of 17.5 per cent; cotton sheeting and fabrics of 10 per cent; sleeping bags and table linen of 7.5 per cent; carpets of 10 per cent; footwear of 10 per cent; and footwear parts of 7.5 per cent. Other items in this category are already at five per cent.It is important to note, however, that there is no provision for any review before these reductions take effect. This seems to be a very bizarre bit of policy. We are to have a review, but before the review we will determine the outcome. This seems to be an increasing habit of the government: it announces an inquiry, the people who have been campaigning for that inquiry are pleased, but then we find that the policy about which the inquiry is being conducted has been concluded; and then we will have the report.Of course, no-one pretends that the 1 January 2005 measures are the end of the process. So the fact that there is a review at the end after that is welcome, and we support that review. But the good public policy position logic of why we are having the inquiry suggests that it should be done before the cuts take place.Broadly, we think the changes to tariffs are likely to be those which would be the outcome after a review. It is not that we are saying there should be some other outcome, else we would be making that clear in our views on the bill now. But the reason we are having the review, the reason Labor in opposition in the last term campaigned for the review to occur before the tariff pause—which we now all agree on—came to an end, is that there were significant questions about market access developments particularly in our region but not only in our region, particularly with regard to APEC but not only with regard to APEC.Within the Uruguay Round agreement signed in 1994 there is the multifibre agreement to which a number of states are significant markets for our customers—not so much significant markets for us but significant markets for the people to whom we sell textiles, particularly the United States and Europe. Their response in implementing the multifibre agreement is fundamental to a number of things. It is fundamental to our proper negotiating position in the so-called millennium round of the World Trade Organisation. It is fundamental to our approach—particularly as it relates to the United States, another APEC member—to the satisfactory implementation of APEC commitments. It is important for our capacity to continue to have effective access into the region where there might be growing markets if our customers can sell to the United States and Europe. Some of our own companies wish to sell to those countries as well.APEC implementation is very important. As we continue to open up our markets—I am an advocate for open markets; I have always been and I continue to be—it is important that we maintain the pressure on our trading partners to do the same. It is unequivocally in our interests for all the countries in this region to implement their APEC commitments, including us, but not only us. That is what the inquiry is about. The government says that is what the review is about. The review is to look at progress on market access. If it is not related to whether we are going to cut our tariffs, why was it part of the package? It was announced because everybody knows that now is the time for us, with our continuing commitment to ensuring an internationally competitive industry, competing open to the world and competing successfully in the world, to make sure that they have a chance to compete successfully in the world by assessing the market access regimes of those people with whom we trade and to whom we wish to sell.So it is a fundamental flaw in this bill, a product of that awkward compromise about which I spoke earlier, that we have the punishment first and then the trial. I think it is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. That is an issue to which we will return in the consideration in detail stage, but it is the most fundamental logical flaw. We have determined that policy in Australia should be based upon an objective review of market access outcomes in our region. That is good policy. We agree with that. But before we have the review we will proceed with the next stage of implementation of our policy. That is a fundamental irrationality.The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) also repeals the TCF import credit scheme from 30 June 2000, which is a necessary part of this package of measures. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill operates by requiring the minister to formulate, as soon as practicable, a TCF strategic investment scheme, in effect to replace the import credit scheme. It is not a direct correlation, but one is going out and the other is coming in.This is a scheme for the making of grants in connection with the design for manufacturing and for the manufacturing in Australia of eligible TCF products. This scheme is a disallowable instrument. I will come back to the question of its legislative form in a moment, but when it is tabled it will be a disallowable instrument. The bill requires the scheme to provide for five types of grants in respect of, firstly, new TCF plant and building expenditure; secondly, TCF research and development expenditure; thirdly, TCF value adding; fourthly, special grants for second-hand TCF plant and building expenditure; and, fifthly, special miscellaneous grants for TCF dependent communities. It also empowers the minister to appropriate moneys from the TCF SIP scheme to the Regional Assistance Program administered by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.The bill provides that the scheme is to run for five financial years beginning with 2000-01 but that grants may be made in respect of new TCF plants and building expenditure for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The total amount available for grants under the scheme and for supplementation to the Regional Assistance Program is to be $700 million. From the industry's point of view, it is the commitment to spend the $700 million without having to go back to the budget every year that is the most important part of the bill. It means not that they are exempt from the vagaries of the Department of Finance and Administration and the Expenditure Review Committee, of which I have fond memory, but that there is a likelihood of continuity of funding five years out, which is very important for any industry and for people seeking to make investment decisions based on an industry scheme.I come back to my earlier comments about the review. The lack of any legislative review mechanism is a serious flaw in the legislation. From the outset, we have argued the need for a review before the new 2005 tariff levels come into effect, not after as the government is proposing. It is therefore appropriate—and we will move an amendment in this regard—to bring some focus to the issue. I will come to that in the consideration in detail stage. I have said enough about that.I want to say something about the nature of the strategic investment program bill. It is an extraordinary proposition that is being put before the House. The scheme is not set up by the legislation. Rather, the legislation requires the minister to set it up subject only to legislated limitations in respect of the size of the funding envelope, the types of the grants and other minor matters. The remainder—for example, the size of the envelope for each type of grant, the amount of individual grants, the criteria for receiving grants—is left to the minister's discretion.The legislation does not even require the minister to act by a certain date. He need only formulate the scheme as soon as practicable. Also, to the extent that there are problems with the scheme when it is formulated, the parliament will not be able to amend it. Because the scheme will be in the form of a disallowable instrument, the parliament will have to either accept it completely or reject it completely. Given that the terms of the scheme are fundamental to the $700 million flowing to the industry, it is going to be almost impossible for the parliament to reject the scheme. It would have to be very seriously flawed for a reaction of that sort to be appropriate. It would need a very fundamental flaw. We hope that nothing like that emerges.Rather the key issue is: how do we get effective parliamentary scrutiny of a major program worth $700 million over five years? Notwithstanding the criticisms I have about the review mechanism and the timing, the parliament is broadly in agreement that this is the direction in which we should go—a pause, a review, a reduction. There is a bit of an argument about the sequence. I am not trying to make that point here. I am trying to say the parliament is broadly agreed that this level of support is appropriate.But the parliament is being denied the capacity effectively to scrutinise the nature of the legislation that will be introduced, because all this legislation does is authorise a scheme. The nature of the scheme will be determined by the minister and emerge as a disallowable instrument. It is so far removed from the normal course of legislation that would introduce a scheme like this that it is virtually impossible to amend this bill, because this is only a bill that authorises a scheme. We will look at one amendment which relates to the finalisation date. At the moment, there is not even a requirement for the minister to come in by any specified date with the program that the parliament has authorised.The industry appears to be confident that the development of the outline of the scheme envisaged is sufficiently well advanced that it will be released and implemented quite quickly. We hope that is the case; we intend to seek to legislate to make sure it is the case. We understand why the industry wants to have this bill passed—not because it is uncritical of it but because it needs the assistance and sees the time passing. I think the industry is correct.Although there are some concerns which need further examination, it may well be that the Senate will provide the opportunity for that. Today I will only flag briefly the particular concerns because I want to move on to some more general points.Some in the industry are concerned about the fact that the scheme extends to products designed in Australia for manufacture elsewhere. It is an issue that we need to consider. I hope that the Senate will give people the opportunity to air their concerns so they can be assessed. I am not automatically opposed to it because I think assistance to design is going to be one of the issues of increasing significance in industry policy generally—not just the TCF industry but industry policy generally. Design has been an issue to which insufficient attention has been paid in the development of policies of support, encouragement and incentive for industries. It is something that needs more attention. Nevertheless, the question that the industry asks is an intelligent question and needs examination.The second is a concern that a number of industry associations and companies have raised with me on the requirement for small businesses to provide business plans which may be too detailed and too onerous for some of the smaller operators in the TCF industry. We all know it is an industry with a small number of large participants and a large number of small participants. The requirements are perfectly reasonable on the bigger operators, but whether something more flexible is required for the smaller businesses in the industry requires some consideration.The nature of the bill in its detail causes us some concern. We will express our concern here, we will express it in the Senate, but it will not lead us to vote against the legislation because we want the scheme to proceed notwithstanding its flaws.The circumstances in which we find ourselves creates an opportunity for the debate on industry policy to move on. When we parallel this industry with the automobile industry, for which we await the much vaunted legislation, we now have a circumstance where we should have for six years, for the next two terms of the parliament, fundamentally agreed policy about the support arrangements for these two industries: TCF and autos. That is good for the industries; it is good for public debate about industry policy.These two industries have had too much focus in our industry policy debate. That is not to reflect on them because they are very important industries for the nation and particularly important industries for the regions in which they flourish. Changes to these industries are important for the national economy, for regional development, issues of fairness and equity, as well as being important for the future structure of our economy and our work force. However, there are many other industries which are not caught up in the protection debate but which are also industries of the future.These industries, TCF and autos, have a significant future in our country. Just as an example—I do not want to be exhaustive—you can see that in 10 years time our natural advantages in wool and cotton will still mean that there will be a thriving textile industry in this country. The industry may operate differently with the technology, with the demand, with the nature of the products and with the way it produces them; but it will be a strong industry.Similarly in automobiles, in 10 years time there will be an automobile production industry in this country. If you go to Geelong in 10 years time you will see people producing automobiles, although they may be different automobiles of different materials and produced by different processes. These two are industries of the future, but there are many other industries of the future. It is important to broaden our focus.Similarly, over these next few years, we have approaches to and important developments in APEC and the World Trade Organisation which are very important for the context in which all our industries will develop, including and not least these two industries. They will provide the liberalisation context for our continuing commitment to an open Australian economy and for the pressure on the rest of the world to open up to our products. It is very important that we maintain the momentum in APEC and the World Trade Organisation. I have been extremely disappointed with the lack of commitment and initiative shown by this government to APEC, and that has been a significant contributor to some of the shortcomings of recent times.This is an important opportunity for industry policy to move on, for trade policy to move on, for us to look at the new context and the new possibilities and for us to look at the issues that determine where public policy can contribute to the industries which will succeed in the first decade of the next century. Issues of public sector research and the related issue of private sector research and development, innovation, venture capital, design, enterprise improvement, education and training, infrastructure—including the legal infrastructure—export assistance and invest ment attraction are all matters to which the public policy debate around industry needs to turn. Once we get a satisfactory conclusion to the debate around these bills and we get development of the schemes which these bills authorise, the debate can move to those matters, including the application of those issues to the TCF industry.Accordingly, the opposition will be moving a second reading amendment as well as some amendments in the consideration in detail stage. Our second reading amendment does not stand in the way of this program of assistance being developed; it just defends the right of the House to know the detail of this scheme before it is implemented. I also wish to make it clear that, in the consideration in detail stage, which I hope we will get to later this evening, we will be moving amendments flowing from some of the matters I have raised in the course of these remarks.This is a very important matter with which we are dealing. It must be a source of frustration to other members—as it is to me—that, when we agree about something, nobody notices. In this place, you get a bit of publicity if you have a good old row. If you have a fight about something—the more unruly the better—you can probably get a bit of coverage. If we say, `We've given detailed consideration to this issue and we are substantially in agreement'—some of the disagreements in this matter are quite fundamental, but at the core we are in agreement—nobody notices. That frustrates us all, I am sure, but, having been in parliament about 11 years now, I am used to it. It does not lead one to change one's approach to good public policy, but sometimes it does lead you to worry about the nature of public debate in this country.In this circumstance, we have an agreed core approach. We would say that it is an agreed core approach because the successful campaign conducted by the industry, the unions and the opposition forced the government to agree to the propositions for which we were arguing, and substantially they did accept the propositions for which we were arguing. We welcomed that in September when they did it, and we welcome it now.We regret the elements of the awkward compromise that make the scheme less than it might be. In particular, we have a concern with the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) and the relationship between the inquiry and the next stage of the reduction of the tariff. With regard to the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill, we are particularly concerned about the lack of a fixed start date for that bill, about the open-ended nature of the scheme that is being authorised by this legislation.We have a second reading amendment and we have amendments to be moved in the consideration in detail stage. But it is very important that, once this legislation passes—and we hope the minister proceeds with alacrity to introduce the scheme which the legislation authorises—we do not sit back in the traces and relax about industry policy. We must use this as an opportunity to move on to the new issues in industry policy and the new roles for public policy in assisting Australians of all ages—but particularly young Australians—to look forward to opportunities in industries where the future and the opportunities are strong. We can use our public policy position here to maintain the pressure for market access in our region and for trade liberalisation around the world, so our customers can succeed and so we might sell more to them.There are some aspects of the future of this industry that cause everybody concern. Some of the aspects about incentives for investment in this legislation, in an industry which has surplus capacity, are causing ripples of apprehension in the industry, and anybody who has paid any attention to these matters knows that is the case. But that is not a case for doing nothing, it is not a case for failing to provide incentive; it is a case for making sure that we have targeted appropriately, that we monitor its evolution and that we continue the pressure to increase access for our companies to international markets so that some of the capacity which exists or which is created by the new investment this scheme envisages can be sold into a growing market around the world, particularly as the economies recover in our region.The opposition will not be opposing these bills, but we will be seeking to amend them, to improve them and to provide opportunities for them to be reviewed when the Senate consideration proceeds. We will be seeking support for the second reading amendment, which I now move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern about the nature of the bill, in particular:(1) the lack of legislated detail about the TCF (Strategic Investment Program) Scheme;(2) the wide discretion given to the Minister to determine details of the Scheme;(3) the failure to require the Minister to formulate the Scheme by a specified date;(4) the failure to specify the size of the funding envelope for each of the grants contemplated under the Scheme;(5) the failure to specify the range of amounts available for individual grants under the Scheme; and(6) the failure to legislate the criteria for receiving grants under the Scheme".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?HH4JENKINSMr Jenkins—I second the amendment, and reserve my right to speak.18:16:003958Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I have pleasure in supporting the Textile Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. Having heard the speech of the shadow minister, the honourable member for Fraser, I might add that it is also very pleasing to hear on this rare occasion the Labor opposition expressing support for a major piece of government legislation—particularly when we see the the youth wage legislation, the unfair dismissal legislation, the tax legislation and other important pieces of legislation being opposed by Labor for political reasons and not in the interests of the nation.I accept the member for Fraser's statements that he too is pleased, although he laments that the support of the Labor Party for the government's legislation has not been widely publicised. I think part of the reason might be cynicism because of the Labor Party's trench ant opposition to important changes to policy, which this country desperately needs, such as the tax reform and youth wages legislation that I just spoke of. To see the Labor Party suddenly emerge from the negative cocoon into a de facto positive mode is a rare occurrence. Perhaps the headlines tomorrow—and perhaps the shadow minister might earn one—might well be `Labor sees the light at last. Labor supports government policy at last.' Perhaps I am allowed to hope too, but I will probably not see that either.I begin by saying that this legislation and the policy behind it is widely supported throughout Australia by the industry and, I think, by members of the union—certainly by employees in the plants across Australia. As a member representing part of regional Australia, I point out that regional communities wholeheartedly support this legislation. I will just read a statement made by the president of the Council of Textile and Fashion Industries in Australia, Mr Hersham, after the government announced its decision following the Industry Commission report in September 1997, and outlined its proposals, now reflected in these two pieces of legislation. Mr Hersham said:The government has now provided a package of measures for the TCF industries which will enable them to position themselves for the future. It was important that the funding and the right mix of measures was made available to drive the change needed. The government has delivered on this promise. We recognise that the new programs will help the industry meet the challenges of the post-2005 free trade environment. All progressive companies in our sector with a strategic eye to the future understand and accept this. We realise that the programs will need to be directed at those firms that are striving to improve their prospects for future sustainability and growth.That was the end of the quote from the leading spokesman, Mr Hersham, of the Council of Textile and Fashion Industries in Australia.On a more personal level, I mention that representatives of regional communities in my electorate also loudly applaud and support the government's decision and look forward to the legislation going through without undue delay. I mention my thanks to the regional mayors who assisted me in bringing to the government, to the parliament in Canberra, the views of regional communities in Australia, who asked the government to make measured, carefully thought out decisions which would help the TCF industry to adjust, and which would assist in developing a vibrant and sustainable industry for our country and, in particular, assist regional areas to adjust to the changes which inevitably occur in industries such as the TCF industries.I wish to thank Councillor Geoff Dinning, the mayor of Wangaratta, Councillor Bill Hill, the mayor of Delatite Shire, which includes cities such as Benalla and Euroa, and the mayor of the Wodonga City, Councillor Graham Crapp, who, along with many other mayors from regional Australia representing, I think, more than 300,000 ratepayers, came to Canberra to put their views about what they thought the future of the industry should be. They were very helpful and their typically regional and pragmatic commonsense reflected the earthy approach of country people to challenges for the future, but also recognised the great optimism that we all have for our country and the fact that if we all work together we cannot miss. We cannot fail because we have so many good things happening in our country.I was also assisted during that time by the ready cooperation of the Prime Minister, John Howard, the then minister, John Moore, and many of my parliamentary colleagues from both city and regional Australia, who strongly supported the dialogue that the Prime Minister wanted to occur in this place before the government made its decision.The honourable member for Fraser has unfortunately claimed ownership of the policy and has said that the government was virtually dragged to the post to make this policy decision. I realise that politics is politics and that the honourable shadow minister is entitled to have his day in court and to make statements like that, but the reality is that, whilst his predecessor—the member for Hotham—was railing against the government across Australia, the process that his own previous government had set up was under way. The review by the Productivity Commission—previously known as the Industry Commission—the very review of the Labor Party TCF industry strategy, was under way at the same time as the member for Hotham was posturing throughout this place and Australia trying to foment discontent and trying to undermine the government's process to reach the policy decisions that it did make.So I thought it was a bit of a shame to see the debate deteriorating in the party political way that the member for Hotham wanted to occur, rather than having intelligent debate from both sides of parliament on what the Productivity Commission recommendations should be and on what the government should do with those industry recommendations. It is only right that I put on record that the member for Hotham was railing, trying to divide the community, and was causing uncertainty and discontent particularly in regional areas of Australia, where it is hard enough to maintain confidence with all the changes that go on.He should have been saying that the government was proceeding to review the tariff policy of the previous Labor government, because the tariffs are fixed to the year 2000 by law and it is important that the current government make a decision to be implemented from the year 2000. The process that we as a former government would have undertaken—that is, a review by the then Industry Commission—is actually what is going on now. So I just want to put that on record and say what a pity it was that the member for Hotham caused such discredit to his party.It was to their cost because we went to the election with the decision that the Prime Minister announced in September 1997, which is now reflected in this legislation and the subsequent announcements about industry assistance which we made the following year. We went to the election throughout Australia —metropolitan and regional Australia—with these policies and I can honestly tell you as the member for Indi that, among the many TCF industries and the many people in the unions who would not necessarily vote for me, there was not one real chord of discontent and no criticism was raised at all about the government's policies.I think it is fair to say that this legislation, which was put clearly to enable us to go to the electorate with a package of policies for industry, regional Australia, employment and the future, is widely supported by the Australian community. Therefore I hope that the honourable member's amendment, given the suggestion that he is putting other amendments and his reference to the Senate, does not mean that yet again we are going to see important legislation—which we have a mandate for, which we worked hard to consult people about so as to develop it, make decisions about it and implement it—is going to be delayed once again under the guise of Labor saying, `We support the core but'—and we have heard all the buts from the shadow minister.God help what is going to happen in the Senate. Are we going to see another series of unnecessary delays unfold again when I can tell you that the people I represent—the people that work in the industries, the regional population around these industries and, I am sure, the metropolitan population—want to see certainty, as industry does, and want to see this legislation go through so we can get on with the job?I want to pay tribute briefly, although it seems I will be talking on this bill after the dinner adjournment as well, to the wonderful examples in regional Australia of how this industry is addressing the change and making good progress. I would like to mention some of the industries in my electorate of Indi and tell the House something of their activities and contribution to employment, investment and export. In Wangaratta, we have a number of companies—Bruck Textiles, Australian Country Spinners and Yakka. Yakka also has a plant in Wodonga.I am proud say that Bruck Textiles currently employ 490 people in Wangaratta. They have three apprentices and 20 trainees. They are currently exporting, against competition, to Asia, the Pacific and New Zealand. Their products—furniture fabric, curtain material and the like—are beautifully designed. If you go into some of the furniture emporiums across the world and ask to see some of their best quality lounge suites, the chances are that you will see fabric on those lounge suites probably designed by young Australian artists and manufactured by Bruck Textiles, Wangaratta. So I am very proud of what they are doing and I am very proud of the export trade that they are building up from regional Australia for the good of our community.Australian Country Spinners employ 230 people and also another 60 to 70 people in the city of Shepparton in the adjoining electorate of Murray. They employ about 50 trainees. They do not have any export trade at the moment. Some of their products are knitting yarns. Their brands, Cleckheaton and Panda, are well known in the stores of Australia. Down the road there is Yakka, Wangaratta, employing 82 people. They have no export of their production. They manufacture the famous Yakka brand workwear and schoolwear. Also in my electorate at Wodonga they employ 110 people, have one apprentice at the moment, no exports, and also manufacture Yakka workwear and schoolwear. Down the road not far from Wangaratta in Benalla, Benalla Spinners currently employ 164 people. They export 60 per cent of their total production of good and high quality carpets. They are exporting in a very competitive market.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—This legislation, which sets up the investment program, aims to foster the development of sustainable, internationally competitive TCF industries in Australia such as those I mentioned in the electorate of Indi. It also aims to assist the industries to compete as they increasingly play their part in winning trade for Australia in the overseas trade environment. The legislation will have the effect of encouraging TCF industries in this country to be proactive in determining their long-term viability. It will support the industry and its workers and facilitate innovation and self-sufficiency.The legislation establishing the scheme, which involves an expenditure of $700 million, will cover five categories of grants. Grants under the mainstream will be for new TCF plant and building expenditure, for TCF research and development expenditure and for TCF value adding. There will also be special grants for communities heavily dependent on TCF manufacturing, for second-hand TCF plant expenditure and for assistance with industry reconfiguration. Of particular interest to members like me and I am sure to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the legislation will also enshrine the supplementation assistance by the government for regional assistance programs. Many employees in TCF in Australia are employed in regional Australia. There will undoubtedly be a clear need to provide support to employees in regions of Australia as they cope with change and adjust to changing circumstances in the industry.Without doubt, there will be increased investment in new technology in this industry. That will have regional employment implications. It has in the past decade, and it will continue to do so. The government, in consultation with the industry and employees, has anticipated what will occur as a result of these changes and made provision within the scheme in this legislation to assist both firms and their employees, particularly in regional Australia, to cope with those changes. There is very high economic dependence. In fact, in the city of Wangaratta, if I remember correctly, 15 per cent of total employment of about 15,000 is in TCF. So you can see the importance of that legislation to those people, whom I have the pleasure of representing in this parliament.The provisions in the legislation will enable the minister to address those issues through the local communities and the municipalities that I mentioned earlier in my speech. The government will form strong partnerships and alliances with the communities. It will consult with them and develop assistance programs designed to achieve the objectives that we all want.The legislation is very timely. As I said before, it was endorsed resoundingly by the people of Australia during the election because I and other members of this government made a point of reiterating to our electorates the policies of the government in the TCF industry and our proposal to bring this legislation forward if we were re-elected. I am very pleased to say that I did not receive any criticism from any of my constituents during a hard-fought political campaign on this issue. The community came together very strongly, despite the threat of the union to spend $500,000 to campaign against me. The community was not put in the position of having to deal with that nonsense because the union did not come forward with the money anyway.It is interesting to note that that was the extent to which the union wanted to oppose me, yet I was working with union members and the local community to achieve a good outcome and a good policy, which has been embraced. So it does show that if you ignore the sideshow and stick to your guns you can be associated with your colleagues. I might say that members from the other side of the House also encouraged me to achieve a good outcome for Australia. I think there will be a very exciting future for the TCF industry, with change and innovation. I particularly like the fact that it is an industry that can attract young, talented people, particularly in the design area, where we can do better than anyone else in the world. Our design capabilities in textile, clothing and fashion are such that we can continue to win markets in the high fashion areas of the world, particularly by encouraging our young people to continue innovation. I have pleasure in recommending this legislation to the House. (Time expired)20:06:003961Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise tonight to speak on the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . The textile, clothing and footwear industry has over the years been the subject of many reports and restructures, particularly since the mid-1980s when Labor commenced its review of the assistance provided to this industry. We in the Labor Party welcome any genuine measures to improve working conditions, job opportunities and export capacity in this area.The strategic investment program, on balance, is a necessary measure and we agree with the intent of this legislation. Unfortunately, its implementation leaves much to be desired. Labor has serious concerns about the lack of legislative detail about the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program scheme; about the wide discretion given to the minister to determine the details of the scheme; about the failure to require the minister to formulate the scheme by a specified date; about the failure to specify the size of the funding envelope for each of the grants contemplated under the scheme; about the failure to specify the range of amounts available for individual grants under the scheme; and about the failure to legislate the criteria for receiving grants under the scheme.Overall, this lack of detail is unfortunate for a bill which will prove critical in determining the lives of a large number of Australian workers. Australia has a competitive advantage in some areas of the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. However, we are losing employment in the area and imports are increasing. There may not be much we can do or wish to do about the increase of imports of cheap, simple items which rely on low wage labour for their production, but any consideration of restructuring in this industry must give careful consideration to the lives of those currently employed in this area.Formal employment within the textiles, clothing and footwear sector is estimated to be about 77,000 workers. Another 30,000 or so are employed as outworkers. The sector provides jobs critical to the wellbeing of these skilled Australian workers, many of whom are migrant women with high levels of skills in this particular industry—skills which are not transferable to other employment sectors. Their bargaining power is not great and they are vulnerable to exploitation.Jobs within the industry need to be retained and developed, but the pay and conditions of these workers are a central consideration when it comes to the sustainability of the industry. We need to make a distinction between the old textiles, clothing and footwear industry and the industry that this will become in the future. We need to look at ways of working within the textiles, clothing and footwear industry and, in this sense, the legislation does look beyond the superexploitation of outworkers as a means of ensuring the ongoing profitability of this sector.The Senate Economics References Committee, in its inquiry into outworking in this industry, took evidence from Ms Annie Delaney, the Outwork Coordinator for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union. She gave the example of typical conditions of outworkers, including Mrs Mi and Mrs Nguyen. Ms Delaney said:They inform me that they never receive rates equivalent to the award and that they have relied on their daughters to assist them to perform the work over the last five years. They estimate that the children work on average three to four hours a night and from 10 to 12 hours each day of the weekend. They estimate that their children are involved in production for approximately 35 hours a week in total. They themselves are involved in production for an approximate total of 98 hours a week each.I raise this because this is an example of the textiles, clothing and footwear industry of the past. She went on to say:They state that they have no choice but to get their children involved to assist them. They state that without their children's help they could not get enough to get by on. They inform me also that they have been subject to intense pressure and intimidation to complete work in less than the originally allocated time. They state that they have no choice but to complete orders in the time the contract requires or they risk not getting paid and the discontinuation of work from the contractor. There have been times when they have had to get their children to assist them and work through the night to finish an order. They state also that they know many families are in the same situation as themselves. They state they are often not paid for one, two or three lots of work at a time and that this is used by contractors as a form of intimidation and harassment. They state it makes them worried all the time about whether they will receive the money they are owed. They report that there have been many instances where they have been told that if they do not finish the work early they will not receive any payment. They state they have often been threatened with fines from the company for not completing an order early. They state that they have worked for companies who pay cash only. They state that it is their experience that these companies hold over a percentage of the first six month's work. This could be a figure amounting to $2,000 or $3,000.Ms Delaney went on to detail a number of the unfortunate aspects of the outworking indus try, which I draw to the attention of honourable members. It is an example of the unfortunate aspects of the industry that we need to address when considering its future. These are not the industrial practices of an industry looking to the future, preparing to compete in a global market.We need to acknowledge that reaching for the lowest common denominator in wages is neither possible nor desirable. We cannot compete with low wage countries for the production of these products without high tariff barriers which increase costs for consumers with questionable benefit for Australian industry or workers but guaranteed profits for some manufacturers. We need to balance our international obligations with a sensible long-term approach to tariffs.An emphasis on value adding and high wage, high productivity manufacturing must shape our response to increasing global competition. The strategic investment program approach of encouraging investment in new plant and building expenditure, research and development expenditure, value adding, grants for state-of-the-art second-hand plant and equipment and employment creation in areas which traditionally depend on textiles, clothing and footwear industry employment is not in itself bad, but it is a matter of ensuring that the desired outcomes eventuate.The lack of detail in this bill leaves many questions unanswered, and the government owes Australian workers a more detailed explanation of what it is it plans to do. The task is clear, if not simple: we need to develop new products and competitive advantages even to retain the market share we currently have, and technological innovation is critical to this project. Keith Smith argues in his work `Interactions in knowledge systems: foundations, policy implications and empirical methods' that there is widespread understanding of the significance of technology in understanding economic progress or otherwise. He states:It has . . . become widely accepted that structural change, changing trade shares, and inter-country growth differences have strong technology components. Italy is often portrayed as the home of the innovative, value adding textiles, clothing and footwear industry. It is also the seminal case study in the development of theories of flexible production and `Post Fordism'. While the value of these theories as a general explanation for economic success is questionable, particularly in the services sector, the studies of the successes of the `Third Italy' are worth noting—because they relate directly to the industry we are discussing this evening.Italy's textile manufacturing sector experienced high productivity and dramatic increase in market share in the eighties. According to post-Fordist analysis, this is attributed to their application of flexible production strategies which utilise skilled labour in the creation of high value added goods. The post-Fordist approach to manufacturing is also characterised by high levels of information about market demand complemented by a capacity to respond quickly to that demand. This flexibility is enhanced by clustering of suppliers in the production process—defined by close communicative relationships and cooperation between firms rather than competition.In Italy's northern provinces, textiles manufacturing is characterised by small firms with strong relationships—which are often based on family or historical ties—with a capacity to tailor production to market requirements. This capacity extends beyond questions of quantity to encompass qualitative changes to production processes. Notably, the model does not stress `labour market flexibility'—that euphemism for low wages and conditions and precarious employment. Rather, the model stresses the importance of a skilled work force capable of adapting to rapidly changing technologies.The model stresses also the importance of the transference of technological knowledge between firms, consistent with Smith's model of innovation. Smith argues for a `systems' approach to scientific and technological change:. . . the overall innovation performance of an economy depends not so much on how specific formal institutions (firms, research institutes, universities etc) perform, but on how they interact with each other as elements of a collective system of knowledge creation and use, and on their interplay with social institutions (such as values, norms, legal frameworks and so on).In this view, cooperation within a sector is critical to the process of innovation. Jon Stanford, in his article `Industrial Policy in Australia and Europe' observes that the level of intra-industry trade in Australia has been very low. He notes that the significance of intra-industry trade is encouraging firms to specialise in one or two sectors of the market and source other components or products from firms in the same industry. According to Stanford:. . . the process promotes specialisation, reduces costs and facilitates market access.Similarly, in their 1997 report on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, the Industry Commission recommended the establishment of mechanisms to promote clustering in the Australian textiles, clothing and footwear industries. While the bill provides for research and development grants, it is not stated how these will be administered. Furthermore, the bill does not indicate that intra-industry interaction will be prioritised.The development of an integrated textiles, clothing and footwear industry ranging from primary production of materials to high value added fashion garments must be a goal of Australian textiles, clothing and footwear policy. And yet the fundamental requirement—cooperation—is not noted in this bill. I think it is a matter of some regret, and a criticism that we often hear in the community, that we have so many natural advantages in the cotton and wool we produce and yet so many of these raw products are shifted overseas for elaborate transformation.The flip side of intra-industry cooperation is the impetus that domestic competition can provide. Michael Porter's work indicates that, to breed innovation, competitiveness must be anchored in the domestic market. It is not sufficient to compete with international imports. The innovative benefits of competition are dependent on firms engaging in interaction in the home market. In this light, it is disappointing that the bulk of the benefits, especially initially, will go to the 300 or so largest firms. There is no guarantee that these firms are the most innovative or the most able to compete in a post-2005 environment. Indeed, some of the success stories of the last few years in the textiles and clothing area in particular, and certainly in the fashion industry, have been small and medium enterprises. In narrowing the range of firms able to compete in the market, the scope of competition and innovation is also limited.The lack of any legislation review mechanism is another serious flaw in this legislation. The government refers to a review of measures to be undertaken in 2005. In reality, this review needs to occur before the 2005 tariff regime comes into effect, not after as is proposed by the government. Change in international trade and production occurs quickly and circumstances in 2005 may well differ dramatically from what we can predict now. Our trading partners may be operating under a vastly different industry regime. To assume that the program can continue to be effective without review seems foolhardy, to say the least. Promising to review the industry after these changes must seem to those in the industry like shutting the gate well after the horse has bolted. Indeed, I know that many people involved in the industry have made this very comment.The other issue of concern relates to the discretion of the minister in this bill. It leaves so much of the detail of the legislation to the discretion of the minister. The legislation does not contain details about the amount of funding for each different type of grant, the amount of individual grants or the criteria for receiving grants—all of these are left to the minister's discretion. The provisions for second-hand purchases of equipment are also only roughly sketched. I think it is important to ensure that there is careful monitoring of this provision to ensure that the subsidisation of the purchase of second-hand equipment is not abused, either by the seller setting an artificially high price for the equipment, or by buyers disposing of equipment soon after its subsidised purchase.And, last but not least, the scheme is to be set up by the minister `as soon as practicable'. There is no commitment on the part of the government to a deadline for implementation, and I see this as a major weakness in the proposed legislation. The legislation should clearly define the date the scheme is to become operational. Without a formal deadline, or even an approximate deadline, the government may need to work that little bit harder to convince Australian workers that its commitments in this area will be kept.Building up a strong, competitive Australian industry is a critical and ongoing task. While this bill goes some of the way towards establishing certainty for communities affected by changes to the textile, clothing and footwear industry, its lack of detail leaves little room for enthusiasm. Labor has committed not to vote against this legislation. We will be suggesting a number of amendments and improvements. The member for Indi suggested that this is a delaying tactic. Indeed it is not. If the legislation had been drafted in a more detailed and appropriate way in the first place we would have been happy to support it.In this area our commitment has always been and always will be to improve working conditions for textile, clothing and footwear workers, who are amongst the most vulnerable and often exploited workers in our community; to increase job opportunities in this area where job opportunities have, in fact, been declining over the last number of years; and to increase export capacity in this industry where we do have a natural competitive advantage due to the manufacture of raw materials in this country and to the skilled level of our work force.20:24:003965McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I have listened with some interest to the member for Sydney's remarks, and I thought her well-researched and thoughtful remarks worthy of comment. I just wonder what side of the fence she is coming down on—whether she is in favour of a competitive low tariff position in the TCF industry. I particularly noted her discussions about Professor Porter—`The Competition Advantage of Nations' I think was his work—and those activities in the northern part of Italy. I commend her for those thoughts on the development of a competitive situation in the textile industry—the Italian nation competing with Australia at world's best practice. It is interesting that a member of the Labor Party representing Sydney would express those views. Hopefully in the longer term all of us will express this type of attitude that the TCF industry can compete internationally with new technology, with a better work force.I notice that the member for Sydney always reverted to the outworker argument—that they have been exploited. Obviously in the long run if we are to retain this industry their conditions will improve—if the industry becomes competitive, if the industry has a quality product. As her thesis demonstrated, in northern Italy as those smaller units competed one against another without the interference of tariff barriers, they were able to develop a world competitive industry. I thought they were interesting remarks coming from the opposition.I remind the House that in the tariff debates over the last 10 years when the government members were in opposition we tended to support the Button plan because we knew that in the longer term it would be a good thing for Australia. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , as other members have said, really end the TCF and automobile debate on tariffs. The government has put in position a set of arrangements to bring us closer to being globally and sustainably internationally competitive by the year 2004. It has bipartisan support, and I note the member for Sydney was clear that they would not vote against the bill. That is unlike some of the statements issued by the members of the opposition during the recent campaign—and, in particular, from the member for Hotham, who supported the Keating government on lowering the tariff regime and yet has reverted to his former trade union position of maintaining a high tariff barrier.Australia's international action plan as submitted to APEC commits to universal tariff reductions through to the year 2000. The former Labor government were committed to the APEC general reduction of tariff regimes. Each APEC member has committed to reporting annually on the initiatives to achieve these goals, and Australia must play its part in this gradual reduction of the tariff wall. If we have a look at the 1997 TCF report of the Industry Commission, where this whole debate was looked at very carefully—industry people were interviewed; there were on-site discussions—we would see that yet again the argument about high tariffs, middle tariffs and low tariffs was debated by all the players.By the mid-1980s assistance had peaked to some 250 per cent—and the member for Sydney would appreciate the significance of that in view of her philosophic statements in her speech to the House. This was a very high level of protection, and yet that was defended by some members on the other side of the parliament. Over many years people had said that that was the way to go. It was out of step with other countries around the world.Why did we need the reform of the TCF industries? That debate has been on both sides of the parliament. Even though the TCF industry did get some restructuring under both governments, it still remained the most highly assisted sector. The farmers and the exporters—as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, would understand—certainly paid the price for this very high protection regime and the wages and salaries that were paid to this sector. It was imperative to get the tariffs down in the longer term to ensure that the industry survived and continued to make a genuine economic contribution to the economy. This legislation helps to bring about a modernisation of the TCF sector and many of those factories that some of us have visited needed this injection of capital. The bill is part of this ongoing reform process that was initiated by former Senator Button in the 1980s and 1990s.Basically, the world will be moving to a free trade environment by the year 2010. Most of those advocates of a restricted trade arrangement should be very aware of that. Australia must play its part in moving all its industries to a free trade environment. APEC's Bogor declaration of November 1994 commits APEC economies to `free and open trade investment' no later than 2020. Our near trading neighbours will be moving towards a better and freer trading arrangement, which is a benefit to both parties. I think we should make that clear at this stage of the debate.As some members in this House would be aware, in the electorate of Corangamite in the Geelong region there was a great debate about the automobile industry and the level of tariff in that industry. Likewise, there were some TCF industries. The question is often asked: why would you eliminate tariffs? Tariff protection, as the late Bert Kelly, the modest former honourable member for Wakefield, said on numerous occasions—no relation to the Minister for Sport and Tourism at the table but of a similar quality—leads to lack of innovation and efficiency. The industries are protected from international competition and they tend to remain static. They do not improve. They do not grow. Eventually products—be they TCF products, be they automobiles, be they trucks—become so inferior or expensive that people, even in Australia, do not want to buy them to the extent that some of these industries can no longer survive. So if you have less production, inevitably you lose jobs.The fundamental argument you hear in the pubs and around these protected industries is that we did not want to have unfair competition from low wage countries. All I can say is that in the longer run these countries will build up their wage levels. We need to maintain our technology and we need to maintain our quality so we can keep our industries here in Australia, be they the automobile industry or TCF industries. What the tariffs have done and what has been demonstrated quite clearly is that they entrench uncompetitive practices, lack of investment and lack of technical change. As the honourable member for Sydney indicated, you get these difficulties without proper work practices.The Industry Commission report of 1997 was comprehensive, setting out the state of the industry and the types of activities that were being undertaken. The commissioners on that inquiry were John Cosgrove, an economist with the World Bank with treasury experience, Professor Richard Snape, who has an academic background, and Philip Brass, who was the industry representative. I want to put on the public record that in my assess ment these commissioners did an outstanding job. They talked to members of the industry. They understood it. They provided a total report. There were no dissenting statements, as was the case in the auto commission report. They made recommendations to government, backed up by the experience they had. I note that Philip Brass was an industry participant. He was in the textile industry in his own right, yet was prepared to understand the arguments and to put his name to the recommendations of that particular report.They made it clear that there were inconsistent and often exceptionally high tariff levels across the board—some had high, some had low. For instance, in 1996 cotton fabric had 23 per cent tariff, men's pullovers had 37 per cent tariff, and leather footwear had 27 per cent tariff—more than double the European and US tariff levels on those items. What was the rationale for maintaining those tariffs? Why were they so varied? Their total report indicated the difficulties of maintaining these tariff walls in an international, globally competitive position.If we look at this finale to the whole debate we see that the trend has been for tariff reduction since Senator Button, within the Hawke government, initiated some commendable changes. The Button car plan suggested that the tariff would be reduced within the range of 60 per cent to 15 per cent, which I think is running at this moment. The opposition at that time acted very responsibly in supporting this gradual reduction of the tariff regime both in the TCF and car industries. This legislation puts the final touch to it. We notice that members of the opposition are not going to vote against it. Again I reiterate my concern that the member for Hotham did revert to his high tariff regime attitude when most of his colleagues in government advocated quite strongly that tariffs needed to come down in the long term.Senator Button, who remains a force for interesting thinking amongst the Labor Party and, as I say, should be given considerable credit for bringing about a change in attitude in a traditionally protectionist party, was recently on the public record saying that he hoped Labor would get out of its `quiescent mindlessness' that it found itself in in this whole debate. On the one hand, Labor wanted to revert to its protectionist stance. On the other hand, the more sensible members of the opposition know that the world has moved on, that tariffs can no longer protect jobs.Even the member for Melbourne, who is close to the textile industry, has written a book indicating our globalisation. My philosophical friend on the other side of the parliament the member for Werriwa is clearly on the public record saying that tariffs have not protected jobs, that we need to make the changes and that we need to bring down the tariff barrier which does affect a lot of other industries because of the benchmark standards that have been set historically by the engineering component of the automobile industry and, in the case of the big number of textile workers who used to be employed, they set basic wage benchmarks that were unhelpful to those other export industries.As former Senator Button said publicly, most of us realise that the Labor Party have lost the stomach for real economic reform. They proved that during the debate in the recent election. In 1985 they advocated tax reform and yet in the last election they were against the very proposals that former Treasurer Paul Keating put forward in reforming the tax system. The argument that we should not reduce tariffs because there is no level playing field is absolutely not true. We know the playing field is not level out there, but we know that Australia needs to compete in the best way it can. We are seeing some wonderful results with the car industry now being world competitive in quality, price and profitability.We are seeing wonderful results in all of those key indicators so that, in the longer run, those industries will remain in Australia; likewise the TCF industry. There are those industries which remain and which made the investment because they saw that with new technology they could compete in some areas with other nations around the world. The other key feature of the tariff reduction means that those industries which have invested capital become export focused. They start to concentrate on those markets overseas where they can make a dollar.If we look at this legislation and the rationale behind it, we see that it gives time for the TCF industries to adjust. That has always been the catchcry. The government did make that concession with the downward movement of the tariff regime. This bill allows the minister to formulate a TCF Strategic Investment Program to enable it to design and manufacture grants that would help in a number of areas. These areas include new plant and building, research and development, which is a key area, value adding, second-hand plant and assistance with industry reconfiguration. The bill also allows the minister to make supplementation to the Regional Assistance Program for strategic investment where there is a clear need for employee assistance in regional areas and where productivity and efficiency gains can be made. The government is giving the minister a chance to make some of these investments in the R&D area in regional Australia where those companies have shown some initiative, have brought in new programs and are showing the potential to export and be profitable.By the year 2000 there will be a 25 per cent tariff on clothing and a 15 per cent tariff on footwear and many intermediate textiles. Those levels will be frozen until the year 2004. The investment program will assist the levels of protection by giving the participants in the industry time to adjust so that they can develop some of these exports. By 2004 the exchange rate will be the key determinant of the protection level of some of these industries rather than the tariff itself. I know that members of this House would be aware of that argument, but that will be the key determinant. The pause until 2005 will allow another reappraisal by the government of the day to further examine the tariff position, but it will be at a lower base. The argument will not have the heat it has had on this particular occasion.Restructuring will hopefully take place during the implementation of this bill. The government is spending $700 million to help with the plants and buildings and, as I say, the R&D. There are a number of technical details of where and how the money is being spent, as set out in the bill. There is a cap on the TCF value adding grants which ensures that no particular company gets more than it should and that the minister has the discretion. There is a requirement in the bill that strategic business plans must be prepared. The companies need to have that onward export outlook so that they can participate in the assistance from the government in the rearrangement of the way in which the TCF industries are run.Importantly, this bill requires the industries involved to put up a case to show that they are sustainable and that they need some assistance from the government. I am quite confident that the process will work out because Minister Minchin understands these arguments very clearly. He will be there to assist the industries to make good rather than continue to prop up those that are there for historical purposes. Between 1988-89 and 1995-96 TCF exports grew by 44 per cent. That is an interesting figure. As the tariff reduction reduced, the TCF industries exported more. That is quite a surprising result. I have no doubt that some of my friends on the other side would argue with that, but there are the facts. These industries have developed some niche markets and have done a pretty good job.This legislation will help to make the TCF industries more viable. It will help some of those factories, which a number of us have visited over the years, to put in new machinery and to bring about some new practices. They know that they are in a world competitive market, that they have to get a good product, that they have to sell and that they have to meet the standards of the Australian market, which is not easy because Australians can now import some of these quality products from overseas. This bill, in a philosophical sense, is a very important milestone in that we have moved this tariff protected industry into the global market.The member for Sydney is really conceding that point. The TCF and motor car industries are moving away from their base in the industrial suburbs of Melbourne. I notice that the next speaker for the opposition comes from that part of the world and has been involved in those debates. I can fully understand the political pressures put on members of parliament on both sides to maintain the jobs of those large work forces under one roof, come hell or high water. That has all changed. The attitude of mind in Australia from the policy makers and both sides of this parliament is that these industries need to be internationally competitive. With a bit of assistance from the government, I am sure they can complete the task and bring about this dramatic sea change so that all industries in Australia will meet the world market on a competitive price basis and on a quality basis and return money to their shareholders.20:44:003969Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The member for Corangamite is always consistent on these issues, and for that you have to give him due credit. Essentially being opposed to any support for industry, he is a genuine ideologue on the issue of protection and industry policy. Holding the views he does, I think he gives poor representation of the interests of his constituents who, I believe, would benefit from having a representative with different views; nevertheless, these are the views that the member for Corangamite holds.Indeed, in a sense, I think the member for Corangamite would be very disappointed with the legislation we have before the House—the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 —and with the government's decision to reject the Productivity Commission's recommendations concerning tariff levels for textiles, clothing and footwear. Given what he has said on this and other occasions, I think he would have much preferred the government to have adopted the Productivity Commission's recommendations for tariff reductions in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. That the government has not adopted these recommendations and instead gone down the path we are debating tonight is because of a very concerted campaign from those involved in the textile, clothing and footwear industries and a very concerted campaign from the Labor opposition on this issue.I want to take the House back to the time of the initial recommendations being made in 1997. At that time, the Productivity Commission proposed that TCF tariffs be cut to 11 per cent and 8.5 per cent by the year 2005, and then to five per cent by the year 2008, regardless of what our competitors might do—and I think that was a most naive recommendation on the commission's part, but that was its suggestion.The Productivity Commission also suggested that the highly successful import credits scheme be abandoned in the year 2000, without any replacement—and I note that, since 1991-92 when that scheme was introduced, Australia's exports of textiles, clothing and footwear have more than doubled to around $1 billion. Incredibly, in my view, the commission recommended no review of assistance arrangements at any time in the future. So, from the commission's point of view, it would seal the fate of the TCF industries—and I am sure that, had its recommendations been adopted, it most certainly would have sealed the fate of those industries.The commission itself conceded that its recommendations would directly lead to job losses of 5,000 in those industries. I thought that figure was bad enough, but I have to say that others working in these industries, familiar with their structure and employment patterns, believed that the job losses would be much greater than that.As was mentioned by the member for Corangamite, I represent an electorate in Melbourne's northern suburbs, the electorate of Wills, which has many industries, workplaces and workers who depend on the existence of these industries. It was my view that, if these recommendations were adopted, they would represent a disaster for Melbourne's northern suburbs. This being a region with serious unemployment problems, as shown by Bureau of Statistics data, and with our having been told there would be the loss of some 5,000 jobs for certain, it was my view that our employment base in this area could not cope with a further blow of this scale.Also, these recommendations came at a time back in June 1997 when effectively we were having a manufacturing recession with output having fallen for three successive quarters. We also knew something about the impact of tariff reductions on employment levels. So the 1991 round of tariff cuts saw protection cut from 51 per cent to the 25 per cent scheduled for next year. We saw that it did have a significant serious impact on employment with a reduction of over 20,000 jobs nation wide. In addition, those changes resulted in a rise in imports of about 50 per cent.I took the view that the Industry Commission had been out of touch with the views of ordinary people and their best interests. I believed that the government, having rejected the Industry Commission's recommendations in the area of the motor vehicle industry, also should reject other recommendations on that occasion. I thought it was incredibly naive in pushing for free trade at a rate which was well ahead of our near neighbours, who were not delivering similar reductions in their tariff levels. I also believed that the commission's earlier assurances about the state of our industry, after the previous tariff cuts, had not been realised; that the sorts of things we were told would happen in terms of support for retraining of workers, the development of alternative industries, and the like, had not come to pass. We had simply ended up with greater unemployment in regions such as Melbourne's northern suburbs.So I took that view to the Industry Commission. I appeared before it and criticised its recommendations on a couple of different grounds. First, in relation to employment, the commission had said that TCF employment was important for some regions but remained largely confined to Melbourne and Sydney. I pointed out to the commission that a lot of TCF employment was based in Melbourne—indeed, in its northern suburbs—and that, when the Labor government established regional development bodies, it did not confine them to non-metropolitan Australia.I also pointed out that the terms of reference provided to the commission by the Treasurer required it to have regard to the economic, social, environmental and regional development objectives of the government, and that the commission needed to recognise that any recommendations which further reduced TCF employment in the northern suburbs of Melbourne would have a substantial regional impact. We had seen substantial media coverage of the increasing likelihood of TCF firms in that region moving away and converting from manufacturing to straight importing if the tariff levels were to drop to five per cent.The City of Moreland had done a lot of excellent research work. I am pleased to say that, on the weekend, Labor stood nine candidates in the City of Moreland and all nine were re-elected—and I guess that was, in part, because they were seen to have represented the best interests of this city. Moreland estimated that 91 per cent of existing TCF manufacturers would either downsize or close altogether if the commission's recommended tariff reduction proceeded—this, in an area with substantial unemployment problems, higher than national rate unemployment, higher than national rate long-term unemployment and where TCF industries played a major employment role accounting for over 10 per cent of all jobs in the City of Moreland. As I said before, if the adoption of these recommendations did occur, we knew from previous experience that it would have a directly measurable impact on job levels in our area.In 1986 the ABS data recorded that in Victoria there were 66,800 employees directly employed in the TCF industries. Following the tariff reductions in the last decade, the ABS data for 1996 found there were 44,800 such employees. That is a drop of the order of 33 per cent. So we knew what happened if you went down the path that the Productivity Commission was proposing. We knew that those jobs were at risk. I put the view that there should be no further unilateral industry restructuring and that industry should be given the certainty of no further reductions for the next five years. In the meantime, we should be reviewing the practices of other countries and having appropriate discussions with them. You have absolutely no leverage at all if you want to engage in unilateral reductions of the kind which the member for Corangamite is so fond of.Secondly, I talked about the area of industry adjustment. The commission took the view that existing Commonwealth programs could help to improve the re-employment prospects of displaced TCF workers, particularly those judged to be at risk of long-term unemployment. It contended that the framework of general labour market assistance is sufficient not to warrant special TCF labour adjustment measures. That was a most naive view, because the belief that the federal government was capable of a genuine long-term commitment to retraining was simply untrue. In its 1996 budget, the government had announced the scrapping of the textiles, clothing and footwear labour adjustment program from 31 August. So all forms of assistance under the textiles, clothing and footwear labour adjustment program ended by 31 December, and that was justified as part of a broader rationalisation of labour market programs.For those people who had been retrenched as a result of the previous tariff reductions, that retraining simply ceased. There was nowhere they could go. I did not have any confidence that this government was prepared to support labour market programs which would deliver the training necessary to complement the employment fallout of a further round of restructuring. I drew the commission's attention to that.The commission's conclusion that no special assistance was necessary for displaced workers was simply a recipe for those workers to join the ranks of the indefinitely unemployed. The idea that tourist jobs were going to open up in Cairns or something like that did not work out in practice. Those people were simply added to the numbers of the unemployed in Melbourne. We had that kind of experience. We know that a lot of those workers were performing low skilled jobs and did not have training. They were the people most in need of retraining when their jobs finished.We also had the benefit of a University of Melbourne study of retrenched workers which found that some 47 per cent had failed to find re-employment two years following their retrenchment. The rate for non-English speaking background workers was even poorer. Only 27 per cent of those workers managed to find alternative employment even two years after losing the jobs they had in the textiles, clothing and footwear areas. It was simply not good enough for the commission to hope that there was going to be some kind of increase in federal government funding for general labour market assistance.I received a lot of correspondence from people in my electorate. They talked about the way in which the rest of the world employs a basket of techniques to support their industries, such as the level of activity quotas, government purchasing policies, tax relief, special economic zones, production bounties, export incentives—all those sorts of things. By contrast, the argument that the Industry Commission were coming forward with was one-dimensional and overlooked the idea of having a vibrant, interdependent and vigorous economic environment. They needed to take into account not only the impact on jobs but also things like the current account deficit, exchange rates, investment, the regional employment patterns, the ability of the government to collect corporate taxes, and the development of interdependent technologies and industries—computer software and all those sorts of things.I mentioned my concern about practices in other countries. I put a question on notice to the Minister for Trade about some of the US tariff rates. I do not really have time to go through them in detail, but we found, for example, that the US had a tariff of 32.8 per cent on woven fabrics of combed wool. They had a tariff of 65.7c per kilogram on imports of men's wool suits plus 17 per cent. When you looked at what was going on not just in Third World countries but also in countries like the US, you could see that problem of naivety or unilateral disarmament to which I was referring.There was a concerted campaign by the industry, by the textiles, clothing and footwear union, by local governments such as the city of Moreland, by the educational and training institutions which were associated with the TCF industries, a very successful campaign in which the Labor Party played a critical role. In the Senate we moved a motion proposing that there be a freeze on TCF tariffs from 2000 to at least 2005, consistent with our international obligations. We proposed that the import credit scheme not be removed without putting into place a program of equivalent value consistent with our international obligations, and we proposed a review of future assistance arrangements to be undertaken in 2004 in consultation with the industry parties taking into account progress on textile, clothing and footwear liberalisation among our trading partners and competitors.Essentially, the proposition that we put forward in the Senate which was supported by senators at the time but not by the coalition senators in August 1997 was subsequently adopted by the government. Labor led the way on industry policy. It led the way in support for the textile, clothing and footwear industries and was able to persuade—some might think bully and browbeat—the Howard government into agreeing to adopt the policies that we proposed for this area. It was at a time when there was considerable concern about offshoring and the prospect of industries. There were cuts by Gloweave and Diamond Cut. We had Florsheim and others talking about what their future might be if the Productivity Commission's recommendations had prevailed. Fortunately, in my view, they did not.In the few minutes remaining to me, I want to make mention of a body that is located adjacent to my electorate which has provided essential training in this area. I refer to the Melbourne Institute of Textiles located in Dawson Street, Brunswick. This institute has had a very close association with these industries for many years and has been an excellent source of first-class training and career paths.In the past few months we have seen some most unfortunate developments at that institute. The Victorian government took the decision about a year ago that the Institute of Textiles ought to be amalgamated with the RMIT. What has happened in the wake of that decision is that, from the time the RMIT took over on 1 January this year, the RMIT has simply stopped paying the salaries of five senior executives who headed the Institute of Textiles. Those executives include the well-known former college director, Chris Cookson, who was president three times of the National Association of TAFE Senior Managers and more recently Victorian representative on the new TAFE Directors Australia.This case has recently gone to the Industrial Relations Commission. It is noteworthy that one of the requirements of the merger, expressed in a Governor-in-Council executive order, was that all 170 Melbourne Institute of Textiles staff were to become employees of the RMIT from that date and on salaries and conditions no less favourable than those they previously held.Those five people also say that they received personal assurances from the RMIT vice-chancellor, Professor David Beanland, that they would be found positions. Until just before Christmas, they all believed that they would be working for the RMIT this year. They have not been formally sacked or made redundant. On 18 December last year each of the five received a letter welcoming them to the RMIT. That was followed the next day by letters delivered to their homes inviting them to an induction program. Yet two days later they received letters from Professor Beanland stating that there were no positions for them. Ms Cookson said:In initial discussions early last year, Professor Beanland made me a wealth of promises which he followed up in writing suggesting that terrific opportunities lay ahead for me . . .I've worked at senior management level in the TAFE system for 17 years and I've never seen anything like this.Frankly, I think that is contemptible and disgusting conduct from the RMIT, and it reflects poorly on Professor Beanland. I believe that the Kennett government ought to intervene and do the right thing in this matter and make sure that those senior people from the Institute of Textiles—as someone who has represented this area, I know for a fact that they have been doing an excellent job for many years in the textiles and fashion areas—are able to continue working in senior positions within the RMIT umbrella.To conclude, we have here a plan for support of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries which the opposition supports. Indeed, we were critical in ensuring that the government picked up and adopted this plan. When the Prime Minister announced the plan back in September 1997 he said that it would support jobs. He said, `It is a decision that will promote job security and it is designed to assist in securing jobs in the TCF industries.' We hope that it will have that effect, because it is most important for this country's future that we continue to have industries of this kind and that we continue to have a strong manufacturing base. So we are supportive of what has been put forward here in this legislation. We hope that it will have the kind of effect which the Prime Minister indicated that it would have back in September 1997.21:04:003973Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise in support of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 , which is a very important bill for the future of our textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Under increasing pressure from overseas imports, this vital sector needs encouragement from government so it is able to survive and thrive into the next century. It is a source of great pride that the Howard government has achieved so much in producing an economy that is beginning to pay dividends for the Australian people—an economy in which the TCF industries have much to contribute, and this plan will help them to do so.The very fact that this government has a plan is a sharp departure from the shameful lack of industry policy that was the hallmark of Labor in office. On this side of politics, ministers and backbenchers engage in consultation and discussion, air ideas and formulate policy which in time becomes legislation designed to promote jobs, economic growth and the general welfare of Australia and our people. That consultative approach was evident throughout the TCF debate and culminated in industry leaders coming to Canberra and sitting down to talk with the Prime Minister—a meeting which was organised by coalition backbenchers who recognised the importance of the TCF industries to their local communities.The TCF industries are close to the hearts of very many Australians. As employment in the sector has declined, there has understandably been a deal of public sentiment about its future. Many Australians had their first start in these types of industries, some when they first left school and others when they first arrived in Australia. Both my parents worked in the industry, particularly my mother who spent a good deal of her time in one of those northern suburban companies which the member for Wills referred to.But Australian TCF industries in the year 2000 will bear little resemblance to those of the 1960s and 1970s in which my parents were involved. The world is moving, even though the opposition seems not to recognise it. It is more competitive, and the marketplace is no longer merely local but universal. For years, Australian industry relied on protectionist measures to shield their local marketplace from enterprising and more productive competition offshore.In the 1980s, even the Labor Party realised that the days of tariffs were numbered. However, as with their stance on so many issues, they only produced half of the equation. They grudgingly admitted we had to join the worldwide push for free trade. But what did they do to provide our industries with assistance through this difficult transition? As with their stance on so many issues, they acted on whims without regard to consequences.The textiles, clothing and footwear industries in Australia have traditionally been among our highly protected industries. With protectionism as out of vogue as socialism, we needed a plan, and we did not get it from the ALP, despite their rhetoric. The now Leader of the Opposition said in 1995 when Labor was still in office:The government did not have to deregulate the economy and open it up to international competition in response to globalisation of the world economy and the collapse of prices.Labor could have turned its back on these challenges, raised tariffs, restricted competition in the financial sector, increased subsidies and isolated the country further.He continued:In doing so, Labor could have let Australians' living standards fall.Labor did deregulate, but they did so in the fashion of setting the wounded bird free by dropping it off a cliff without first checking to see if it could fly. Now we have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition calling for a return to protectionism. But I do not know whether or not we can count on that latest statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, given the history of Labor Party backflips on so many industry issues.This bill presents a plan to the TCF industries so that they can restructure and move toward greater competitiveness. It gives industry the breathing space with a five-year pause in tariffs due next year and provides incentives for them to do so. The import credit scheme, which expires on 30 June next year, will be replaced by this plan. The bill allows for a strategic investment program that offers grants in five different areas. There are three mainstream grants and two categories of special grants for communities heavily dependent on TCF industries which should apply mainly in regional areas. This strategic investment program was arrived at after much consultation by this government. For my own part, I have spoken at length with many of the TCF players in Deakin, and I know that they have shown support for the government its efforts to bring some real stability to the industry.The electorate of Deakin is home to the Fibremakers factory in Bayswater North now run by Godfrey Hirst Australia, a firm owned by the McKendrick family. It is also home to Holeproof, which is based in Nunawading. The Fibremakers factory is not a small place, with around 18 acres under cover. In its heyday, back in the 1960s, when the plant was owned by British Nylon Spinners, there were 3,000 employees working at the site, producing fibres for apparel and carpet. Today, there are approximately 14 employees.Among the employees back then were mechanics who worked full time on the motorbikes they used to get around the plant. If you have been through the factory, you would come to realise that those motorbikes did indeed come in very handy. Parliament House has long corridors, but they are nothing in comparison to what we see at the Fibremakers plant in Bayswater North.The Lieberman family took over from BNS, but they too are long gone, as is the motor transportation that was used in those days. DuPont took over in 1990 and, in the middle of that year, did a deal with the Labor government and its then Minister for Science and Technology, Simon Crean. That deal involved DuPont operating its fibremakers business without the benefit of tariff protection or bounties. DuPont promised to spend $148 million to upgrade its plant, boost employee skills and introduce new technology. In return, the Labor government did what it did best: namely, hand over taxpayers' money—$59.34 million in cold hard taxpayers' cash. At that time, the member for Hotham said in a media release:Australia can play a central role in DuPont's aggressive strategy to increase its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. In summary, DuPont will make a considerable new investment yielding a much larger, more export-oriented business which will operate in a zero-tariff, zero-bounty environment.Since then, we have seen the true nature of what Crean referred to as an `aggressive strategy'. DuPont moved offshore. They exported the entire business and all of the jobs. In 1997, DuPont announced the closure of their apparel fibre business. They shifted elsewhere, along with 160 jobs. They blamed uncertainty over tariffs, despite the fact they were operating outside the tariff barrier. After the event, DuPont claimed it was purely a commercial decision: their Australian site could produce only 5,000 tonnes compared with the capacity for 50,000 tonnes in Taiwan. It certainly was not a problem of space, rather a problem of a failure to invest in new technology as they had in Taiwan.The member for Hotham's fistful of dollars created an illusion of job security for 160 people in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The member for Hotham let them down, as did Labor's half-baked industry policy of the 1990s. The Crean-DuPont debacle illustrates the foolishness of throwing money at anything merely hoping things will improve.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not normally pick up the member, but he is not referring to a member of the House by his correct title. I ask him to follow the standing orders.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The honourable member for Deakin has been referring to him properly but he has been skipping occasionally.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—I too would be embarrassed to have that name associated with my party. That is where the scheme is different.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Deakin attempts to be smart but is very unsuccessful, and he misleads the House in the process.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.ZJ6Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESI—That is where the scheme is different. It will reward those who have done the hard yards, those who have shown a commitment to the future of their companies in Australia. Having met with the McKendricks at Godfrey Hirst, I know that they are extremely positive people with a drive to succeed and an excellent track record on business. They are committed through Godfrey Hirst and Fibremakers to building their business through innovation and technological advance. Some might say they are overly optimistic people, but it is this drive and willingness to succeed that our plan seeks to reward. Fibremakers knows that it cannot compete on price alone but it can carve a big niche in the quality market, despite intense competition.Manufacturing industries are now very aware that their future is very much tied to marketing and product development abilities. These sentiments have been backed by companies such as Holeproof, which is looking forward to consolidating much of its clothing activities in Nunawading. Currently, Holeproof makes in the region of 19 million pairs of socks and nine million undergarments a year. However, it is a somewhat stagnant industry and one that has competition from overseas. The industry as a whole needs to do things a little differently and perhaps a little better than in the past. One can ask: can the industry survive? I am sure it can, given the ingenuity of our manufacturers and some of the success stories in other industries.In my initial consultations with industry, I met with Robert Hershan, Managing Director of Pacific Brands, the parent company of Holeproof. Mr Hershan has been a very strong advocate for the TCF industries and I am pleased that he supported the government's initiative. In fact, he said:The Government has now provided a package of measures for the TCF industries which will enable them to position themselves for the future. It was important that the funding and the right mix of measures was made available to drive the change needed. The Government has delivered on this promise.We recognise the new programs will help the industry meet the challenges of the post 2005, free trade environment. All progressive companies in our sector, with a strategic eye to the future, understand and accept this. We realise that the programs will need to be directed at those firms that are striving to improve their prospects for future sustainability and growth.Those are the words of the man who represents the industry at the peak level.We need not be shy about our export potential, and certainly in the Deputy Prime Minister there is no shortage of energy and can-do attitude. I was very pleased to see in yesterday's Sunday Herald Sun a glowing editorial about the achievements of the trade minister, who has taken our product to the world—a minister who is often ridiculed by those on the other side, but they cannot lay a finger on the achievements, drive and energy of the man. The products that the Minister for Trade is taking overseas are reaching customers in foreign markets and very much include those from our textiles, clothing and footwear segment.Despite the criticism that we sell a lot of raw material only to buy it back as finished goods, we are now exporting more shoes, hosiery and clothing in general and the profits from these value added enterprises are coming back here to stay. New Zealand and Fiji account for nearly half of our total TCF exports, while the UK, USA, Japan and Italy are also excellent customers. Of course, we have some way to go. The leaders of the Asia-Pacific nations have vowed to press ahead with efforts to cut trade barriers. Policies that promote the free trade of goods and services around the world are now recognised and implemented as a key to economic growth and wealth creation.Australian companies are already seeing the benefits of these agreements. As an example of some of the drive and energy that is taking place even in a non-TCF industry, let me refer to an industry in Kilsyth, just down the road from the Fibremakers factory, where there is a plant which has recently been upgraded at a cost of nearly $1 million. Here is a success story just waiting to happen. The plant manufactures a non-ozone-depleting refrigeration gas, ER12, developed by Esanty Refrigeration, a fledgling division of the powerful Boral Group.As Esanty has its office in the same building as my electorate office, I have watched the progress of this product with keen interest. As with many new products, particularly those that push the envelope, the road has not been easy. Various vested interests have sought to discredit ER12, all to no avail. Mr Colin Spencer and his team are outward looking entrepreneurs. They know their product and they are already finding markets, not just here in Australia but in foreign markets. Esanty is ready to produce enough ER12 to satisfy the multimillion dollar thirst of Asian and American markets. The orders are flooding in and, figuratively speaking, Esanty will be selling coals to Newcastle because its major competitor, ironically in the context of my electorate, is the DuPont Corporation.I am pleased that the measure that the government is introducing today provides suitable groundwork to develop sustainable TCF industries. It encourages industries to think longer term to a time when there are no barriers and economic globalism is taken for granted. As we have seen in the electorate generally, and in some cases in my own constituency of Deakin, there is somewhat of a recoil against this change. I think it is a natural inclination to lament the passing of a bygone era. With TCF and Australia's other manufacturing industries, that passage has meant a decline in employment opportunities. People often ask why Australia has moved so far and so fast. The answer is simple: we had to move quickly in order to survive and, of course, we must keep on moving.The challenge for and responsibility of members of parliament is to continue to explain the benefits of trade liberalisation and our involvement in organisations such as APEC. We must also strive to create and sustain the best possible platform for our businesses to be competitive, to export and to employ Australians. That will not be achieved in this one bill alone. We know all too well there are matters of taxation, junior wage rates and unfair dismissal that must be dealt with in a realistic fashion. Sadly for the Australian people, those opposite do not share our vision.Worse still is the determination of union bosses to fight Australia's progress at every turn. We heard as recently as this month the National Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, Doug Cameron, say, `We're about reregulating the deregulated system,' as he prepares for a sustained industry campaign to address globalisation, casualisation and contracting out. If the union bosses remain locked firmly in the 1930s, what does that say about the Labor Party, which is merely the parliamentary wing under their control? The Labor Party bickers about leadership, trots out its backward looking ideology and says no to all those proposals.Let us not be taken in by the Leader of the Opposition's `l have a dream' speech last week. He can dream all he likes, but his frontbench colleagues are just plain asleep. Labor's new backbenchers must wonder what they are supposed to be doing here in Canberra. I ask them to stand up and support this bill. I know that, if they do that, they will certainly be ensuring the survival of the TCF industries in this country. I commend the bill to this House.21:22:003976Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The opposition supports the thrust of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and has, by way of contributions to the debate and by way of the second reading amendment, made suggestions about how we believe the process can be made even better. The honourable member for Deakin widened the thrust of the debate to make some form of party partisan points about general areas of other policy. He felt obliged to use his contribution to this piece of legislation to take a swipe at the union movement, but I think he picked the wrong mark to do it with the bill we have before us today—because if there is one industry sector that can be characterised by the way in which all parties to the industry have tried to cooperate, it is the textile, clothing and footwear sector.I believe the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia has played an admirable part in trying to sit down with employers, the community and other interested groups to create the united front that is required to ensure that TCF industries in Australia survive. Earlier this year, I had to touch upon that because there was an industrial dispute in Clifton Hill to do with the Australian Dyeing Company in which the employers took on the TCFUA. I felt that was quite disappointing, given the overall cooperation that had existed within the industry. I was proud to be able to make a contribution on the day in which the first workers went back into the workplace, 67 days after they were originally locked out. I hope that what does happen in the case of ADC—as an example of a company that is trying to take on the responsible attitudes that will see businesses like it survive in Australia—happens through the cooperation of employers, employees and other parties.The opposition made it clear during 1997, when we were having the debate about what was proposed by the Productivity Commission, that the type of advice the government was getting out of the commission was not good enough. There can be some debate about whether we believe we arrived at the right decision earlier than the government or whatever. But at the end of the day, the basis of the decision which this legislation is implementing has the agreement of both sides of this chamber.There is one major difference, and that major difference was something that we outlined back in June 1997—that is, if we were going to have a review, it would have made sense to have it before the tariff arrangements that are implemented here go out of action. We should actually use the experience up to 2004 to see where we are at and, more importantly, to see the behaviour of other countries in the way in which they are moving to tariff reductions.Often I am a little frustrated that we use the term `free trade'. That is a technical term. If we go to zero tariffs, it is seen in the market sense that it is free trade. But in all these matters of protection of industry and the reduction of tariffs, all I call for is that we have fair trade and that Australian companies are able to compete on a fair basis. I think this is the essence of the arrangements that we see with the TCF sector. What we are saying in Australia is that we want to ensure that our companies are given a fair chance to compete against companies that operate overseas.The major point of this legislation is to put in place the so-called TCF Strategic Investment Program. The funding of the program is equal to what we would have seen if we had continued with the arrangements that preceded it, and this move is something that the opposition is quite happy with and that we fully support. One of the things we highlight in our second reading amendment is that this legislation leaves it in the hands of the minister to outline what the program will be about and for him to do so as soon as practicable. We would prefer to see the parliament give the minister at least a deadline to do the things required by the legislation that is directly before us.The bill indicates that the scheme will provide for five types of grants. They will be in respect of, firstly, new TCF plant and building expenditure; secondly, TCF research and development expenditure; thirdly, TCF value adding; fourthly, special grants for second-hand TCF plant and building expenditure; and, fifthly, special miscellaneous grants for TCF dependent communities. Again, our second reading amendment, in the quaint way that these are sometimes put, says that this piece of legislation actually fails to specify the size of the funding envelope. This is important, because it is something that perhaps should be in the legislation so we really know what quantums are available. The piece of legislation merely sets upper limits on the basis of the turnover of the companies that might be eligible.Another aspect I would like to highlight is that all the attempts to put in place a proper strategy for textiles, clothing and footwear are based on a recognition that this is an industry sector that operates in certain regions. It is fairly clear by the approach of both the opposition and the government that that should be the case. I would like to underscore something that is sometimes overlooked, and that refers in particular to urban regions such as those I represent. Because we are part of the larger Melbourne metropolitan area, sometimes we are not defined as a region for the purposes of these type of debates. I hope that I have on this occasion misread that point.I have often lamented when we talk of regions, including rural regions, that we find a definition which ensures that we focus on a geographic area. Take the northern suburbs of Melbourne and electorates such as mine, Calwell, Wills and Batman. They form the most direct urban fringe in the north of Melbourne. These areas are very dependent upon employment in this sector. I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for McEwen. To the extent that her electorate has contiguous boundaries to that northern urban fringe, I am sure she is aware of that just as much as she is aware of the regional rural implications in her electorate. As I say, I hope that I have misread the way to define a region affected by the impact of the TCF and that suburban areas, such the northern suburbs of Melbourne, can get that sort of regional relief.I listened very briefly to the honourable member for Corangamite. He acknowledged that much of the work involved in making the proper adjustments in the TCF industries started at the time when former Senator Button was the minister for industry. We have seen a progressive move towards making those adjustments. We made adjustments which did not mean that we were uncompetitive because we were moving at a pace that was too fast. That point was lost on the majority of the Productivity Commission when it made its reports. We also did it at a speed that enabled the individuals employed in the sector to make the proper adjustment as well. We have to recognise that sometimes it may be easier for the companies and the employers to make the decisions and to be assisted by government to make the adjustments. But, if those adjustments require that they reduce the number of employees or, in that very harsh sounding terminology, downsize, the government should recognise the impact on individuals who find that they cannot be carried along in the process of adjustment.There is great potential—look at some of the success stories of companies within the TCF—for using the skills of the pool of employment and using the types of things that Australia can produce through, first, research and, then, development. We can provide product that is of very high quality, is innovative and fulfils important niches in markets both domestically and overseas.Of particular interest in my electorate is the success of Howe Leather. Howe Leather last year consolidated on a site in Thomastown. It was a consolidation of another site that it had in another part of Thomastown with its Preston building, which was a former turn of the century tannery. The building was quite an interesting relic of an industrial period that has long gone. A business such as Howe requires confidence in the previous measures that were put in place and in the type of measures which will continue under the proposed scheme that is the point of this legislation. It will give companies such as Howe the confidence to proceed.In turn, we have seen that the very organised lobby groups that surround certain sectors of industry in America have not made it easy for Howe, as an Australian competitor of predominantly automotive leather, to preserve its part of the market. We have had a lot of contests about the way in which Howe has been supplied assistance to ensure that it has been able to compete. This, of course, gets back to the notion that we really need to argue about not only free trade but also the definition of fair trade. As such, what we put in place can have a stamp showing that, whilst we oblige as good global corporate citizens, we do so without impinging upon the rights of Australian companies. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade was mentioned earlier in this debate. As the Minister for Trade, he was acutely aware of what was really required to ensure that the proper thing was seen to be done for Australian companies operating in overseas markets.This is an industry sector that is quite diverse. When we look at the raw materials, whether it be wool, cotton or leather, we can see that it is an industry sector in which Australia has great potential for value adding—and that again is highlighted by the background of the present position before us. These are the things that need to be emphasised.When we have more general debates about the levels of protection and the realisation that we are operating in a global economy, we really need to explain to the community what we are really on about. In this period of transition, it is difficult for members of this parliament to ensure that there is an understanding of what is being attempted. The potential is there for us to protect and build on our market share by the innovative way in which we value add raw material, use design and are able to use technology that is developed here.It has been highlighted that there is some argument about the aspect of this piece of legislation which suggests that we would extend the assistance to products designed in Australia for manufacture elsewhere. When we look at these types of things, we should take a deep breath and understand that that is the way of the future. We should be ensuring that we have a work force that is skilled so that we can confidently look at the way in which our product is designed and stamp it as being Australian designed. For some sectors under the TCF umbrella, that could be the way in which we go forward. These are the types of things that Australia needs to be associated with in international trade. The commitment of about $700 million—which is equivalent to the aggregate cost of the import credit scheme had it continued past July 2000 up to June 2005—is the level of assistance during this period that we would like to make available to Australian industries.Another buzz phrase that is used quite often around this place about a different sector of policy is the notion of mutual obligation. If we are going to have notions of mutual obligation that go to the way in which individuals might get allowances or benefits from government, then there ought to be that notion in the corporate sector. If the government is fair dinkum about mutual obligation, there should be an understanding, an expectation from government that, in return for assistance, companies will do the right thing. I have no great problem with that type of notion as long as we understand that it is a two-way street.That is the point I tried to make about the notion of mutual obligation for social security beneficiaries. It is not only the government that should be saying to the beneficiary that there is a mutual obligation; the individual deserves to know that there is a mutual obligation from government. This again is an area where we can truly see that. I am not having a go at companies within the TCF. I believe the only reason we have what continues to be a viable industry is that there has been a great deal of cooperation, and that cooperation has to continue to be supported. It is the type of cooperation that will mean that the types of things that have been suggested in this debate can be achieved by companies within the TCF industries.In fairness, no matter how many times we say that the honourable member for Hotham actually did this and said that and criticised the then minister for industry and now Minister for Defence, the point is that, in the debate that was carried out in 1997, there was an acknowledgment that there was general community action—community action that was supported by the TCF industries themselves and by the union involved. That gives me hope that, if we can iron out some of these minor points of disagreement, this will be a successful scheme and our competitors will acknowledge that we are trying to abide by international obligations, and that would give us some hope of seeing that that future employment is protected and garnished. (Time expired)21:42:003980Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I support the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 . I do so because it is vital that we maintain the critical mass of our TCF industries, especially in our regional areas, if we are to ensure that those industries remain internationally competitive. Without viable local industries, there can be no export industry and, most importantly, no jobs. That is why I publicly supported so strongly a pause in the tariff for TCF industries about 18 months or two years ago. This is a very important bill because it is all about protecting and creating jobs. It is about enabling investment, risk taking and incentives so that business can progress and grow. This bill provides a helping hand to our TCF industries, especially those TCF industries located in regional areas.The pause in tariff reduction in conjunction with a hastened pace of micro-economic reform is vital to their survival. To do otherwise would see not only a loss of employment in our TCF industries, especially in regional areas like those in my own electorate of McEwen—for example, the Can't Tear Em factory, Maloufs clothing manufacturing, the Seymour Dyeworks and Hamag, to name just a few—but also the destruction of those regional industries with flow-on effects into the local communities. Once a job is lost in a regional area, it is much harder to find a replacement job in that same area than in the metropolitan areas. The outcome of loss of rural employment is usually a loss for the whole rural community, as the family that is affected moves to another area, typically the city, to find work to support the family. The infrastructure of that regional community loses vital members of its community.The government recognised this back in September 1997 and agreed not only to the pause in tariffs for TCF industries but also to provide a program of incentives to assist TCF industries to restructure and achieve efficiency gains by 2005. The government reached this position after the Prime Minister met with and listened to many of the mayors representing regional Victoria and industry representatives. Tonight, I want to place on record my thanks to Mr Sam De Gabrielle, at the time Mayor of Mitchell Shire, and Mrs Judy Baker, Manager of the Can't Tear `Em factory in Seymour, for putting the case for regional industry so well. The government believes that this initiative will create the necessary environment which will lead to the development of sustainable and internationally competitive TCF industries in Australia under a liberalised global trade network.This bill provides the framework for the implementation of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program. It will require the minister to formulate a scheme—the TCF(SIP) as it has become known—for making grants in connection with the design and manufacture, in Australia, of eligible TCF products. The total of the grants paid under the TCF(SIP) scheme must not exceed $700 million and reduce by any Regional Assistance Program supplementation payments. The TCF(SIP) scheme will provide for five types of grants: firstly, for plant-building expenditure; secondly, for research and development expenditure; thirdly, for value adding; fourthly, special grants in respect of second-hand TCF plant expenditure; and, fifthly, special miscellaneous grants in respect of TCF dependent communities.The TCF scheme will run for five financial years, beginning with the 2000-01 year. However, grants in respect of new TCF plant-building expenditure may be made for the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 years. Grants under the TCF(SIP) scheme must register under the scheme and may be required to submit strategic business plans and audited accounts.When the former industry minister, Mr John Moore, announced that the government would be introducing this legislation, he said the key features would be: the current schedule for TCF tariff phasing to continue through to the year 2000 and the TCF tariffs will be maintained at the same level from 1 July 2000 until 1 January 2005; the development of forward looking action agendas for wool, cotton, leather and fashion to identify what could be done to make more use of Australia's natural advantages; the establishment of a TCF investment program designed to build globally competitive capacity in the industry; the establishment of a $10 million TCF technology development fund and the provision of $10 million for a national centre of excellence for TCF training; the establishment of a new market development program with funding of $2.5 million per year to develop and implement firm based strategies to increase export capabilities; an expanded Overseas Assembly Program to enable increased use of Australian textiles; to examine the removal of anomalies in TCF by-laws and tariff concessions; and a review in 2005 which will take account of our APEC commitments and progress on market access.This program we have before us today aims to foster the development of sustainable, internationally competitive TCF industries in Australia during the transition to a proposed free trade environment under the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. It aims to do that by providing incentives which will promote investment, innovation and value adding in the Australian TCF industries and better exploit Australia's natural advantages in raw materials such as wool, hides and cotton.Australia's TCF industries are facing a decline in the domestic market, with increased import competition. This, along with the rapid reduction in the effective rate of protection since the 1980s, has emphasised the need for radical reform of the TCF industries if they are to maintain and improve their competitiveness. The Industry Commission report of September 1997 acknowledged that a package of policy changes would provide incentives for the development of a sustainable, prosperous and internationally competitive TCF industry in Australia.There are clear opportunities for Australia to build on its comparative advantage in the production of natural fibres and other products. We need to develop initiatives and incentives which can provide opportunities for TCF industries. This bill will provide those opportunities with a range of new industry initiatives and reforms that include the tariff pause, which will keep tariff levels at the scheduled rate for the year 2000 until 2005 when they will be reviewed. These initiatives include: an investment support fund with an aggregate cost that is equivalent to the existing Import Credit Scheme, a technology development fund, a market development program, extension to the overseas assembly provisions, a framework for excellence in TCF training, a program for regions and employees and an examination of tariff anomalies. This is an integrated approach which will assist our TCF industries as a whole to become sustainable and internationally competitive in a highly competitive global market and as we move towards 2005 where the tariff level will be reviewed in line with APEC.Australian TCF industries are an important part of Australia's economic and social landscape. They are a major employer of Australians in both city and regional locations and provide nine per cent of manufacturing employment nationally. They are a growing industry and a significant exporter. TCF industries are involved in all stages of the value adding chain of production, from raw materials processing through intermediate and finished goods in retail.Large and small businesses are represented, and they use a range of production strategies. Seymour Dyeworks, for instance, now uses state-of-the-art dyeing and finishing equipment which value adds to their product, while some smaller operations remain labour intensive in their production. Products developed in Australia for local and international markets include processed wool, cotton and hides, fine yarns, woven and knitted fabrics, bed and bath products, carpets, domestic furniture and automotive leather, high fashion designer clothing and shoes. As well, there is a growing market for woven and non-woven industrial textiles.Like all OECD countries, for the past decade the Australian TCF industry share of manufacturing output and total economic activity has been declining. While exports are down, imports from countries such as China-Hong Kong, Korea and ASEAN have increased by 23.5 per cent. Under the previous Labor government the 1987 TCF industry plan began the process of reducing tariff protection and set the current phase-down to the year 2000.While members on both sides of this House acknowledge that high tariffs have caused inefficiencies in industry and had to be reduced, the result of this process has been a loss of jobs in the industry. My concern is not just about the decline of jobs but about the overall impact on communities, particularly those in regional Australia.In December 1996 this government announced an Industry Commission inquiry into the post-2000 policy arrangements for TCF industries. That report was handed down in September 1997. In response to that report the government agreed to a package of strategically directed measures aimed at encouraging increased value adding activity in natural materials processing, design, research and development, marketing and product assembly. These included a freeze on tariffs at their 1 July 2000 level until 1 January 2005 and an investment program to encourage TCF companies to become more internationally competitive and, as I have already said, to enable those companies to better exploit Australia's natural advantage in raw materials such as wool and cotton. There was also agreement to examine any anomalies in TCF by-laws and tariff concessions and to conduct a review of policy arrangements in 2005.This strategic investment program is a partnership. It provides a framework of cooperation between government and industries to achieve outcomes. It sets the framework for the TCF post-2000 policy environment. The government in partnership with industry is developing forward looking agendas for wool, cotton, leather and fashion. The action agenda aims to identify what can be done to make more use of Australia's competitive advantages and skills; to attempt to define the necessary shape and structure of TCF industries to promote sustainability in an increasingly open trading environment; and to determine the specific measures that can be taken to promote stronger investment and innovation and to improve our access to international markets. Importantly, the regional assistance measures provided under this program will help secure long-term employment for the current full-time TCF work force by encouraging retention and development of jobs—particularly those located in the regions but with a flow-on effect on thousands of other jobs dependent on viable TCF industries.So what has been industry's response to this strategic investment program? They have welcomed and praised the package as a major step forward for their industries. When the former Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism announced the proposed package, the President of the Council of Textile and Fashion Industries of Australia, TFIA, Mr Robert Hershan, said that he strongly welcomed and endorsed the details of the new TCF programs. He said that it followed the Prime Minister's commitment to the industry after the Industry Commission review:It was vital that the Government fulfilled its commitment as the environment confronting our industries now is much more challenging . . . The new programs give us the opportunity to challenge our competitors on their own ground.He further went on to say:The Government has now provided a package of measures for the TCF industries which will enable them to position themselves for the future.He further went on to say:It was important that the funding and the right mix of measures was made available to drive the change needed. The Government has delivered on this promise.. . . . . . . . .We recognise that the new programs will help the industry meet the challenges post the 2005 free trade environment. All progressive companies in our sector—he said—with a strategic eye to the future understand and accept this. We recognise that the programs will need to be directed at those firms that are striving to improve their prospects for future sustainability and growth.Mr Hershan pointed out that he represented a $9.5 billion industry directly employing 100,000 Australian workers and that they had worked hand in hand with government in a cooperative partnership to work out the detail of this program. I might add that those 100,000 people are employed by about 3,000 firms in Australia—small, medium and large—in both metropolitan and regional Australia and all of them and their communities are set to benefit from this strategic investment program.To point out the benefits for some of the small businesses, let me give you the example of the Can't Tear`Em factory at Seymour. They are already investigating the possibility of purchasing second-hand equipment and the Seymour Dyeworks are also looking at ways that they can benefit from this legislation. Seymour Dyeworks CEO, Mr Ian Fayman, strongly believes that this strategic investment program should `assist companies that have long-term viability in a tariff free environment, those companies with a global market vision that are value adding, particularly in cotton and wool'. He further believes for those companies with multi plant facilities that this funding for state-of-the-art second-hand equipment is essential. He points out that this support for the industry is particularly vital for the employment prospects and economic health of regional centres such as Seymour where Seymour Dyeworks has a plant that employs 62 people.This program is a commitment by the government to promote job security with a sensible, practical approach to the needs of the TCF industries—a commitment to a practical transition which will promote investment and innovation in the TCF industries and encourage the development of long-term sustainable real jobs. The period of consultation between 2000 and 2005 will enable Australian TCF firms to strengthen their competitive position after a period of significant change. As a result of this plan, these industries expect to see $400 million per year in new investment. The government's program will encourage more value added activity in natural materials processing, design, research and development, market and product assembly. It will encourage strategic alliances, joint ventures and effective value chain management as well as investment in skills development.In conclusion, this Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program is good news for all Australians but especially those in regional areas. We need this legislation and regional communities want this legislation passed as quickly as possible. I commend this legislation to the House.22:02:003983O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 give legislative effect to announcements made by the Howard government on the future of assistance to Australia's TCF industries back in 1997. The TCF Strategic Investment Program Bill requires the scheme to provide for five basic types of grants in respect of new TCF plant and building expenditure, TCF research and development expenditure, special miscellaneous grants for TCF dependent communities, special grants for second-hand TCF plant and building expenditure and TCF value adding activities.As has been indicated by the shadow minister, the member for Canberra, Labor will not be opposing this legislation in the House. The shadow minister has detailed some very real concerns we, as an opposition, have with aspects of the legislation and the way it has been formulated and presented to this House. He has referred to the lack of any legislative review mechanism, which I think is a glaring omission in this bill. He has also alluded to the very nature of this Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill in that the legislation does not set up the SIP; it merely requires the minister to set it up `as soon as practicable'.We all know the delays that have occurred in bringing this legislation on to the floor of the House and we really do not have a lot of confidence in the term `as soon as practicable' as far as this government is concerned. The third matter referred to by the shadow minister relates to this legislation being a disallowable instrument. As far as the opposition is concerned, we will have to completely reject or accept the legislation; we will not be able to amend it. So we do have some real concerns about it.In this debate here tonight I echo the concerns of the Geelong community in relation to these particular industries. My com munity is appalled at the time it has taken to bring this legislation into the parliament. It really demonstrates the sheer incompetence of the Howard government in dealing with significant pieces of legislation that relate to key industries in rural and regional communities, such as the electorate I represent—the great manufacturing city of Geelong. It demonstrates a lack of real commitment to those industries and the communities that sustain them.I need to ask the question of the government here tonight: why is it that in 1997 the Productivity Commission delivered its report to you after lengthy consultations with rural and regional communities throughout Australia, and it has taken you till March 1999 to get this very important piece of legislation on to your legislative program? That is not good enough. That is certainly not good enough for the community of Geelong. We do not accept this delay as being the mark of a government that is both competent and expert in dealing with these matters. We in the Geelong community are also concerned that there is no provision by the government for further review of the position of these industries before further tariff reductions take place in 2005. We think this is a very important omission on the part of the government.The position of the Labor Party was articulated a long time ago in response to the Productivity Commission's report, and it is contained in a joint statement that was made by the Leader of the Opposition and the then shadow minister for industry and regional development, the member for Hotham. Labor, in responding to the Productivity Commission report, rejected many of the major recommendations that were made. We set out before the Australian people, before the regional communities that depend on these industries and before the workers and the management of the great enterprises in our textile, clothing and footwear industries, the position that Labor would take in relation to this particular issue and in response to this report.The Leader of the Opposition announced a pause in TCF tariff reductions from 2000 to 2005 when the international agreement on textile, clothing and multifibre arrangements liberalisation was scheduled to be completed. We said there would be a review of future assistance arrangements in 2004, taking account of progress on TCF trade liberalisation among our trading partners, the industry's progress in meeting its commitments and the effect of changes in the TCF industries on regional Australia. We made it quite clear at the time that Labor's response to the Productivity Commission was based on our desire to not only secure the existing 100,000 jobs of Australian workers in TCF industries throughout the length and breath of Australia, but also extract from the industry a commitment to create new jobs with new investments and a renewed focus on export.It was that plan that we put to the Australian people at the time that was largely accepted by the government when it structured its response to the Productivity Commission report. Once again, as we have seen on great issues such as the republic, constitutional reform and matters relating to restructuring of industry, we have had to lead the Howard government in both opposition and in government by the nose into accepting a basic set of policy propositions that are generally accepted by the Australian community. I note the presence in the House tonight, as he always is when I rise to speak on these matters, of the member for Corangamite who shares those great TCF industries with me in the Geelong region.We spelt out very clearly in our policy on industry development before the last election what we intended to do as far as the industries were concerned. Labor said it would establish a textiles, clothing and footwear industry adjustment package worth $770 million and that would be structured to the year 2005, it would be allocated to back industry development in the areas of investment in improved R&D performance of TCF industries, the funding would be direct grants to encourage major new investments, and tax concessions aimed at lifting the industry's R&D effort, would freeze tariffs, as I indicated, from 2000 to 2005 and would review future assistance needs for the industry before the scheduled tariff reduction in 2005. That was a very sensible position that we put to the Australian people at the last election. It mirrored the commitment that Labor gave in response to the Productivity Commission's report whose major recommendations the government eventually rejected in favour of the position that Labor had put and articulated in response to that report.My electorate and the great manufacturing city of Geelong has had a long history associated with textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Some 20 years ago the region had a large percentage of its manufacturing work force employed in this sector. The restructuring that took place in these industries was not just the result of the lowering of tariff barriers; the introduction of new manufacturing technologies reduced the demand for labour in these industries as it did in others, a process which was not unique to these industries but which was occurring at a breathtaking pace in other key manufacturing industries throughout the Australian economy. While that process of restructuring has reduced the labour force employed in TCF industries in the Geelong region, it nevertheless represents a key source of employment in the region today.I mentioned that Geelong's past association with TCF industries was by no means confined to the value adding processes in the great factories that lined the Barwon River. Geelong wool made its early name in the markets of the world and was produced efficiently in the rich Western District hinterland surrounding Geelong. The city became a major wool storage area with great warehouses of which, regrettably, very few remain in Geelong today. One of the remaining landmarks of the city from that great postwar era of wool prosperity is the old Dalghety's Woolstore, now occupied by Deakin University.On Geelong's spectacular bay foreshore, the conversion of the woolstores for use by Deakin University has been the catalyst for the whole Steampacket Place development on Corio Bay. I am proud to say that it was Labor's Building Better Cities program that provided the catalytic funding for the Deakin Woolstores project to proceed. It was the vision and will from local Labor politicians and leading academics—and I mention the former vice-chancellor of Deakin University, John Hay—and the cooperation of the visionary Cain and Kirner governments at the state level and local governments in the Geelong area that got the Deakin Woolstores refurbishment off the ground.But we had to fight tooth and nail against the conservative opposition from the member for Corangamite who was here in this chamber tonight. His breathtaking vision for Geelong did not indicate the allocation of Building Better Cities money to the Deakin Woolstores project. He fought it tooth and nail. I can recall him calling the Building Better Cities funding a waste of the community's money. I suggest that the honourable member for Corangamite revisit the Deakin Woolstores.We have the university there. It has a hall with seating for over 1,000 and some of the best acoustics of any performing arts centre in the state. The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra comes to Geelong regularly to play in that hall—and it is a world-class venue.We now have, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment lined up on the Geelong foreshore, all as a result of a piece of catalytic funding by a visionary Labor government investing in Geelong's great physical assets which in the past were used by the wool industry. The honourable member for Corangamite opposed this development, and I have never quite understood why. But I will say this one thing about the honourable member for Corangamite: he never attempted to hide his lack of vision on this particular project or to subsequently claim credit for it.The honourable member for Corangamite is not like the current Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, who on a recent visit to Geelong sought to claim credit for a project that was initiated by a federal Labor government and a state Labor government, in cooperation with the local community. I will say this about the honourable member for Corangamite: he never had the gall to claim credit for a project that he never initiated. He at least remained true and honest to his belief that to spend funds on this Geelong community project was a waste of money. But not Jeff Kennett: he has no shame. He will claim anything. Any initiative that Labor has put on the deck in regional Geelong, the Victorian Premier has tried to tag his name to.That is not where Geelong's association with the wool industry ends. Stationed in Geelong, we have the CSIRO with its wool research facility which, through its research, has made an enormous contribution to increasing the output and fortunes of this industry. In addition to the storage facilities that I have mentioned, the port of Geelong has been the nation's number one bulk handling port and has prospered through the export of wool out of its berths. Last but not least, the National Wool Museum is located in the city, and that has proved to be a great attraction.Also, from the region's early history, the Gordon Technical College has been a major trainer of labour for the textiles industry; and now there is the natural fibres institute—and, yes, that is another Labor initiative which the Victorian Premier is funding and for which he can claim credit, I guess. I will let him claim credit for that, but I ought to put on the public record that, like many others, that was a Labor initiative in the early stages.The community of Geelong was at the forefront of the campaign to secure the industry package we are debating here tonight. I pay tribute to the City of Greater Geelong, the Geelong Trades and Labour Council, the Geelong business groups and the Geelong community generally who rallied, petitioned and demonstrated their strong support for this particular industry.The TCF industry is very important to Geelong today. It employs over 3,000 people. It has over 50 firms operating in the sector. It has a wages and salaries bill in excess of $100 million, and an annual turnover of $440 million. It is very export focused and as a direct result, with a multiplier effect, some 4,000 other people are employed.I want to pay tribute here tonight to one of Geelong's great success stories—Godfrey Hirst Australia, the biggest carpet manufacturer in the Southern Hemisphere. The expansion that has taken place there has been achieved through the company registering product improvements, making heavy investment in new technology, making efficiencies in the productive task, the efforts of a dedicated and skilled work force and, of course, an innovative and adventurous management. And I should not fail to mention Mr George McKendrick and his son and his management team who have done much to build this enterprise to the great one it is today.Godfrey Hirst Australia now has an annual sales turnover of $200 million, with annual export sales of $26 million. It exports to 19 countries, including the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, mainland China, Taiwan, southern Asia and New Zealand. It has 100 per cent owned subsidiaries in overseas countries. It is the world's largest spinner of wool and carpet yarn, using 8,000 tonnes of wool per annum. It has spinning factories in regional Victoria especially, in Benalla and one in Geelong. It employs around 1,200 people principally in the great regional centres of Geelong and Benalla. Looking at its investment program, I am informed by the company that in the year 1999 it will be spending some $22 million, with a further capital commitment in the years 2000 and 2001 of around $50 million.This is a company that has done what the government has asked: restructured its operations, invested heavily in capital equipment and redirected its efforts to the export arena. It is now beating its competitors in very, very competitive overseas markets. I pay tribute to the skills and commitment of the work force and, as I said, the adventurous management of the company. Along with others in the Geelong region, it is a very important employer. It is one that we hope, with the assistance of this package, will go from strength to strength.Let me conclude by offering some comment on the future of these industries. There are several things that have to be understood. These industries are major employers in regional areas. Labour displaced in them will not easily find employment in other areas of activity. And we need to have regard to this when we look at the future of these industries in regional Australia.We have seen this government abandon its commitment to regional Australia through its attack on the Regional Development Program, massive reductions in expenditure on labour market programs, contraction of services, a reduction in research and development concessions, and its sale of Telstra. This package is a commitment to TCF industries. It is a commitment borne out of Labor's announced initiatives in response to the Productivity Commission report on these industries. These industries can only work hard to survive, but they can only do it with the security of the package that is provided here tonight. (Time expired)22:23:003987Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The previous speaker, the member for Corio, referred to the gall of a member of parliament. Quite frankly, the contribution of the member for Indi tonight was certainly unparalleled in that sense. We heard him attempt to claim credit for the government getting to the position it is in today. I notice that he was not too keen to quote the direction, the policy or the emphasis of the Prime Minister. Statements by the Prime Minister include the comment that:We remain committed to a resolute program of tariff reform. This should be seen as a decision which maintains the pressure for and the process of tariff reform.He also commented:We are saying to the manufacturers of Australia, `Yes, you will have negligible tariff levels by the year 2000.'On 26 May 1988 he stated:I suppose I've done more than anybody over the last 10 years to take the Liberal Party in the direction of economic rationalism.He further commented:I remain very strongly committed to maintaining the thrust of tariff reform policies.Quite frankly, while we can understand that the member for Indi has a local constituency to please, that he has to come in here and present himself as a campaigner for their interests, that he has to pat a few mayors on the back in his local region, he certainly has great temerity to come here and basically deny that the government was pulled struggling to the position it has taken today. Quite frankly, if you recall the media coverage at the time in regard to this debate inside the government, it was perceived as a very major win for Minister Moore. All of the media coverage strongly emphasised the fact that this was a matter of division in the government.To say that the government did not really want to go down the way of the Productivity Commission's recommendation is absolute twaddle. They were pressed here by the results of surveys which showed, for instance, that 91 per cent of respondents to a survey by Neilsen-McNair believe tariff reductions in the TCF industry would result in significant job losses. A further job survey showed 85 per cent of people felt that tariffs in the TCF industry should be maintained rather than lowered. That was the reality that led us here today, not any overwhelming view by the government that this is policy, because quite frankly they reject that concept.The other problem we face is this government's laissez faire attitudes to the question of industrial relations practicalities around the world and internally in this country. I refer, for instance, to an article in the British newspaper the Guardian which deals with the British corporations' investments in Sri Lanka in this particular industry. The article states:They are dealing with an industry where unions are banned by administrative fiat and where women routinely work 14-hour days, seven days a week because they can not survive on the basic wage. Mr Wijaysinghe says 350,000 people—almost all of them women—employed in Sri Lanka's garment industry, which is concentrated in heavily gartered Free Trade Zones where entry is restricted to pass holders.The article further comments:Since 1979, foreign investment in Sri Lanka's garment industry has reached about $150 million and a board of investment spokeswoman said as much as a quarter of those funds would be of British origin.. . . . . . . . .Studies of garment workers have found more than half are underweight and undernourished. That is the reality of this government's total fixation with tariff reductions as the be-all and end-all, the solution for job creation in this country. This is the kind of competition that we face and which this government is essentially implicated in.We have seen on the international front their total abhorrence of the International Labour Organisation, their total refusal to try to participate in getting minimum conditions to accompany the free trade thrust. They are saying that the total solution in this country is that we compete on a low wage economy, that we do not skill up the work force. Despite the fact that they have been dragged to this commitment of $700 million, despite the fact that they have been dragged to a pause in tariff reductions, their essential thrust is that everything will be happy and merry after they get zero tariffs. They are facing that kind of competition in Sri Lanka. Their policies strongly contrast with that of the United States administration which, unlike this government, is trying to ensure that there are some minimum labour conditions. On 19 June 1998 the Deputy Under Secretary, Andrew Samet, commented:. . . those parties who fought to keep worker rights and trade liberalization separate are the ones posing the threat of protectionism . . . the objectives of liberalizing trade and implementing fundamental labor standards are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.He commented further:. . . a clear political and moral recommitment to the fundamental rights and principles enshrined in the ILO and . . . the accountability of all member states through the new reporting mechanisms. We believe—that is, the American government—it is essential that this must be a dynamic and serious process with a real and credible follow-up—holding us all up to scrutiny for these fundamental rights—or it will prove a short-lived result. And we will fall short of the legacy of those that have gone before us.Furthermore, he commented:To us—that is, the United States administration—we always believed that those most in opposition to the Declaration— that is, the declaration of the ILO conference—and Follow-up posed the far larger threat of protectionism—as they sought to impose a completely unreal wall between the imperatives of worker rights and trade liberalization.For our part, we will also oppose that form of protectionism that might seek to shield from view the denial of the basic rights of workers that are the subject of the Declaration and Follow-up.The larger issues in this debate are this government's complete laissez faire attitudes that essentially there is no need to accompany trade liberalisation with any kind of minimum labour conditions around the world. Essentially, we can afford to compete with the kinds of conditions that I have specified in regard to Sri Lanka which are found in many other underdeveloped countries.In Australia, we have had the same attitude towards the outworkers industry by this government that we have seen internationally. Both sides of this parliament praise those employers that are gearing up in their industries, spending money on research, increasing machinery and improving their design, but they face competition from the outworkers. This was articulated in one of the Melbourne papers last week—not seven years ago, not seven weeks ago, but last week—with these comments:These companies—and they are talking about Adidas, Portmans, Australian Defence Apparel and Motto—have refused to sign a code of conduct which requires outworkers to be treated fairly. Outworkers—mainly women recently arrived in Australia—work at home and are paid wages as low as $2 per shirt, which are then sold for more than $40.There are 100,000 outworkers in Victoria and at least 300,000 in Australia. In the past 18 months, the TCFUA—that is the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia—has prosecuted 68 companies for approximately 300 breaches of the award. Once companies have been prosecuted the TCFUA and Fairwear—which is a lobby group on this issue—will campaign for them to sign the code.(Extension of time granted) Very briefly in conclusion, the government—rather than this being as a major result of their policy—have been forced to this position by public opinion and by the opposition's activity on these matters.Adjournment398910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.31 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.398922:31:003989Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise tonight to express my great concern for the Prime Minister's blinkered and short-sighted views on the problem of drug abuse in our community. In particular, I wish to speak in favour of the proposed heroin trials and against the policy of zero tolerance.I do not pretend to have the answer to the problem of drug addiction. We are a society that is full of contradictions. Some drugs are legally sanctioned and others are outlawed. To say that the reason for this is to do with public health and safety is a nonsense. The drugs responsible for the most deaths and diseases in this country are not heroin, cannabis, ecstasy or cocaine—they are alcohol and tobacco.In 1996 in Australia, there were an estimated 18,580 tobacco related deaths and 3,656 alcohol related deaths, while 526 people in Australia died from heroin use. It is significant to note that a large proportion of these deaths could have been avoided. As Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald recently pointed out:The deaths associated with heroin, for instance, arise not so much from the drug itself, as from overdoses caused by its uncertain purity and from dangerous substances used to dilute it. As well, there's the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C from the use of dirty needles.It is simplistic to say that decriminalising illicit drugs, sanctioning safe injecting rooms or undertaking heroin trials send youth the wrong message. To my mind, the sort of message it sends out is that drug dependence is a medical not a criminal problem and that the community is prepared to explore as many ways as it can to deal with this problem. If the Prime Minister really believes that such measures are sending the wrong message, then he should at least be consistent—prohibit all drugs including tobacco and alcohol.Reverend Bill Crews runs the Exodus Foundation in Ashfield in my electorate of Grayndler. Every day he deals with the desperation and destitution wreaked by heroin dependence. Heroin is a bad problem. But it is not the heroin per se that causes all these problems, it is often the criminalisation of the supply and use of heroin. Because heroin is illegal, addicts are criminalised. Most addicts do not start as criminals, but their habit makes them criminals. And then, in order to support their habit, a vast proportion of addicts engage in far more serious crimes.Ask Bill Crews about the parents of heroin addicts, and he will tell you the one thing they have in common is an overwhelming desire for their children to stay alive. As he said on the 7.30 Report recently:I think society at large thinks it is a hopeless cause, but parents want their kids to stay alive and I think that is the difference. I think, from what I can see, most families today are vulnerable. Our children are all vulnerable to getting caught up in drugs, and the least they want is for their children to be kept alive, and we are failing them.The system we have in place at present is clearly not working. I do not believe that there is a magic formula out there to solve this problem. However, I do believe that, as a society, we should be exploring every possible avenue open to us. This is the last issue for which we should develop tunnel vision.For this reason, I believe that it is the government's responsibility to give this a go. It is true that there have been mixed results in trials conducted overseas. But what is very clear is that, at the end of the trial, the participants were by and large healthier, able to find and hold down employment and had stopped being involved in criminal activity. A heroin trial has support across our community, from all sides of politics and at all levels of government. I am sure there is very little I could say I had in common with the Premier of Victoria, but on this issue he has been courageous. The AMA supports the heroin trial, as does Dr Alex Wodak, President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation. Quite rightly, Dr Wodak has said:. . . any doctor who is trying to . . . treat people with a very complex difficult condition like heroin dependence, really wants the maximum range of options available.Unfortunately, however, the Prime Minister prefers to look to the US and the policy of zero tolerance. In effect, this means arresting everyone who has anything to do with heroin, whether they are supplying or simply using. This achieves two things: it puts addicts in gaol for longer periods; and it makes the drug more expensive.There is abundant evidence that zero tolerance in the US is not working. The US has increasing rates of overdose deaths and drug related emergency room incidents. It has produced a much higher rate of HIV infection. Roughly half the 40,000 HIV infections a year in the US come from drug use, and more than 2½ million people are in gaol on drug related offences. As a policy, zero tolerance is self-defeating and totally lacking in compassion or understanding of what is essentially a medical problem.I conclude by quoting Tony Trimingham, a man who lost his son to heroin and someone who now devotes his life to finding a solution to the scourge of heroin dependence in our society: Two years ago on Wednesday . . . my son died of a heroin overdose.It's estimated that 1,500 Australians have died from heroin since his death—it sickens me to think that these deaths are still devalued in the eyes of our community and our politicians . . .If the major parties are unable to take unpalatable and brave steps in trialling heroin or safe injecting rooms, how about some money for treatment and prevention as well as support for affected families?As long as drugs remain in the domain of law and order or the bottom priority of health budgets, thousands more people are going to die.These deaths are needless. Please listen to the pleas of those who have lost loved ones and do something effective.I can think of nothing better than his statement. (Time expired)399022:37:003990Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Much has been said in recent weeks about unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and the impact of the decision on youth wages and other issues such as unfair dismissal laws and problems facing small business and how they relate to the problems of youth unemployment. I received on Friday a letter from a small businessman in my electorate who runs a nursery. He highlighted in this letter a number of these issues that, in the context of the current debate, I thought were worth reading because they shed light on the way that small business is responding to the question of youth wages and to these other problems that impact on small business. I will just quote some slabs from this letter from this businessman who runs a small nursery. Firstly, he said:We have also found that juniors are in this day and age harder to train . . . they need a work ethic, they must learn to respect their fellow employees and their employers, they need to be part of a team and even though they are not opening the batting they still have to score a few 50's and even an odd 100 . . . For these reasons, we very much admire MacDonalds and companies like them. Any junior having worked at MacDonalds has been taught the above. We find that someone who has worked for many years and taken an early retirement gives us far, far better value in a permanent part-time position of 3 or 4 days per week than a fulltime junior . . . Junior wages must not be abolished.I repeat: junior wages must not be abolished. He goes on:The crying shame . . . is that over many years a lot of young people have gone onto bigger and better things after having worked for us. Some with Horticultural Certificates, others just having learnt how to work.I would ask you . . . to please give Mr. Reith our support—this is in the letter; you can read it—ask him to tell Labor that hard working families like us hold them responsible for their high and mighty attitude of stuff everyone who wants a future for this country well into the next millennium and not just their selfish attitude to perhaps get them elected for a term or two.This small businessman says youth wages must not be abolished or they will not be able to afford to put on young people. The second point he makes is this:We . . . need a tax system that allows our employees to get real benefits in their pay packets. The fairest way is for a tax on spending and reduced on earnings.He goes on to give this illustration:The nursery industry as with other lower paid industries, had 3 wage rises in a 12 month period to bring these employees more in line with other industries. This was followed by a $14 a week rise. These rises cost us approx. 60% more i.e. $14 per week cost us $22-70 per week of actual working time. This figure was arrived at by taking into account sick pay, holiday pay with the 17.5% loading, public holidays, 6% superannuation and 5% workers compensation. We did not go so far as to cost in such things as long service leave, public risk insurance and other minor matters geared to wages.The average increase in our staff's wages was $9 after tax.The point is that we need to tax spending, not income, otherwise employees are not getting real value for wage rises or real value in accordance with what it costs to employ them. The third point he makes is this:Another great problem for us in N.S.W. is workers compensation. [Our nursery] has operated and employed people for over 45 years. We—that is, he and his wife—for 30 years . . . Very few claims have been made during this time and never a major claim . . . since 1980 we have had only 3 claims . . . While our wages were less over this period than before our premium has gone from $12000-00 to $15000-00 . . . The N.S.W. Government needs to help as well.This employer hits the nail on the head with these three issues, very much affecting small business. Talking about youth wages, the other thing I found interesting last week was a discussion I had with the proprietor of Richmond McDonald's, one of my local McDonald's. He said:I am staggered at the effect the removal of the youth wage will have on McDonald's Richmond! Approximately 90% of my staff are under the age of 21. If the youth wage is abolished, though I am reticent to do it, I will have to halve my staff numbers. Our payroll just cannot support paying senior staff wages to junior staff . . . The bottom line is that 14, 15 and 16 year old people will no longer find a job at McDonald's . . . Around 10% of our payroll goes into training young staff members. A junior staffer generally takes 6 months to fully get their bearings on how the workplace operates. The time and resources we pour into training would be completely done away with if the youth wage were removed.(Time expired)399122:42:003991Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—Tonight I want to draw attention to the extraordinary increase in take-offs over Sydney's residential suburbs under the Howard government's so-called noise sharing arrangements for Sydney airport. It is appropriate to take special note as these movements most often involve jet engines operating at maximum power driving fully fuel laden aeroplanes. Departing aircraft are, of course, far noisier than incoming planes approaching down their landing glide paths. Departing aircraft are responsible for the overwhelming majority of Sydney's aircraft noise problem and pose the greatest risk to residents on the ground in Sydney.No-one should be alarmist, but it is a simple fact that a fully laden 747 jet aircraft weighs almost 400 tonnes. It carries more than 216,000 litres of highly explosive fuel. In order to give the House the full dimension of this amount of fuel, it is worth noting that this is the equivalent of more than five road tanker loads. These fully fuel laden planes involve a much greater safety risk than that posed by aircraft about to land.Official figures are now available for the first 48 months of operation of the parallel runways at Sydney airport. The first third of that period—16 months—involved the flight paths of the former Labor administration. The subsequent 32 months involved the Howard government's flight paths. During Labor's last 16 months, departures totalled 172,272, of which 49,023 were over houses. The large majority of take-offs—some 72 per cent—were over the waters of Botany Bay. While total departures rose by 4.5 per cent during the Howard government's first 16 months to September 1997, there was a dramatic increase in departures over houses to 76,338— an increase of 27,315 flights. That is an increase of 55.7 per cent.The figures for the last 16 months confirm that the Howard government's direction of take-offs over people has continued to increase dramatically. For the period from October 1997 to January 1999, while total departures decreased slightly by 2.9 per cent, departures over Sydney houses increased again, this time by a further 13.6 per cent to 86,694.This represents an extraordinary increase of 76.8 per cent when compared with the last 16 months of Labor administration. The Howard government boasts about its noise sharing arrangements—it does so often, it does so loudly—but, with airport departures over housing up by 76.8 per cent, this government is in fact sharing around a great increase in noise. The potential tragedy is that, if one of these departing aircraft comes down—heaven forbid—there is a much greater likelihood, indeed a 76 per cent greater chance, that it will come down on top of a house, hospital, school or preschool rather than over the waters of Botany Bay. It is vitally important that the government stops playing its airport games and ensures that take-offs over water are maximised, as proposed by my colleague Lindsay Tanner on behalf of the Labor Party at the last election.399222:45:003992Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Yesterday was the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It was also National Harmony Day, promoting this government's Living in Harmony initiative. Australians are lucky but they have also worked hard to live in an accepting and harmonious society. The concepts of `fair go' and `helping a mate' are strong in the Australian culture. Others are not so lucky. I would like to say a few words about the refusal of the Burmese authorities to grant a visa to Dr Aris, the sick husband of Aung San Suu Kyi. As one who has been deeply involved in the movement for democracy in Burma, at times I have focused on the political and social wellbeing of the Burmese people as a nation.Today, however, I am reminded that there is a human fact to politics—the relationship of husband and wife. Let me take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House recent developments in Burma. I speak of the reluctance of the military authorities of that country to carry into effect the wishes of a desperately sick husband pleading to visit his wife at her home in Rangoon. Reports from Burma indicate that the Burmese government is assessing the application for entry by Dr Aris and has floated an alternative solution—a visit by Aung San Suu Kyi to her sick husband in London. However, the leaders of the National League of Democracy have advised against such a move. They are concerned that the military junta might prevent Suu Kyi from re-entering the country to continue the struggle to which she has committed herself, a non-violent fight for peace and a return to the democratic union of the people of Burma.I am aware that our Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Alexander Downer, and our ambassador in Rangoon, Ms Lyndel Maclean, have made representations on behalf of the Aris family to the authorities in the government of Burma to seek a relaxation of the travel restrictions placed upon the family. In fact, the substance of the representations made to the Burmese government was that the Australian government believes a visa should immediately be issued to Dr Aris, on compassionate grounds, so that he might see his wife, Aung San Suu Kyi, before he dies. I would like to add my voice of concern and I invite fellow members to join in my appeal to the military leaders, a plea to display some compassion and, in the spirit of Metta, to remove the barrier that separates a sick husband from his wife.Burma is predominantly a Buddhist country and I am informed that there are some among the leaders who hold a strong attachment to the Buddhist faith, a faith that is unique for its tolerance, rationality and universality. I appeal to those members to exercise a loving kindness and a warm and forgiving spirit to embrace the pain of the Aris family as if it were their own. I would like to remind the authorities in Burma of the words of the `Great Teacher' on which the traditions of the Burmese people are built:We should not forget that man has a heartWe should not forget that if man treats the world kindlyThe world will treat him kindlyI would like to place on record my thanks and those of others in my electorate to our foreign affairs minister for the work he is doing on behalf of the Burmese people and for his humanitarian approach to this grave concern of Aung San Suu Kyi and her fight for the freedom of Burma's people.399322:49:003993Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I think that almost all Australians would agree that there is no more important function for a national government than the protection of its citizens and that, if those citizens are the victims overseas of horrific crime, every effort be brought to bear to bring justice to the situation. Just before Christmas, I spoke in this House of the death in Greece of a constituent of mine, Mr George Karalis. He was found dead with his cousin in a boat off the coast of Greece in quite horrific circumstances.I called at that stage—and I repeat my call—for the Australian government to pursue this matter most vigorously with the Greek authorities. There is no suggestion that the Australian government ought to be trespassing on matters that are appropriately those of the Greek authorities, but where inadequate efforts are appearing to be made to ensure justice there is a real requirement for the Australian government to vigorously pursue matters.Since that time some new material has come to light. The Senior Pathologist of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine produced a report on 12 March this year in which he says:On the 10th day of March 1999 I was given photographs to examine . . . The photographs illustrate the position of the two deceased young men, Mr George Karalis and Mr George Loizos. Mr Loizos is seen within the water adjacent to the outboard motor of the boat. Mr Karalis is seen hanging by a blood stained rope also at the back of the boat. The rope is attached to a "cross strut". The rope has come into contact with the skin of the neck over the anterior and lateral aspects of the neck. The back of the neck and the occipital region of the scalp are clearly not in contact with the rope.The photographs taken from the scene of death show at least two distinct traverse abrasions over the posterior aspect of the neck. Clearly these abrasions have not been caused by suspension from the "strut". It is my opinion that Mr George Karalis has died as a consequence of neck compression. In my opinion, the death of Mr George Karalis is a case of homicide.That is a very clear indication from a world-class pathologist in a world-class institution that here is a case of murder. We are dealing, however, with a situation where it would appear that the Greek authorities are not treating that murder with the degree of energy with which one would expect them to be pursuing these matters.The solicitors acting for the families of the deceased wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a letter dated 28 January. In it a number of very serious allegations are made by the families of the deceased about a miscarriage of justice in relation to the whole matter. The circumstances have already been raised by me, amongst others, of the outrageous rumours that were circulated that this may in fact be a case of murder-suicide. That is clearly not supported by the findings of the Victorian pathologist.We also have a situation where a coronial court order has been issued by the coroner's court in Victoria. That order was in part, I am sure, issued on the basis of advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that an Australian order would be valid in Greece under a reciprocal arrangement scheme. Nonetheless, the information is not forthcoming from Greece.What we have, in response to the representations made to the foreign minister, is a letter back to the solicitor dated 19 February. Quite appropriately, the officer of the department who has written on the minister's behalf sympathises with the family's distress over the tragedy but essentially makes the point that nothing really further can be done at this stage other than have the department simply act as a postbox for any correspondence from the coroner with the Greek authorities.This is simply not good enough. Justice requires that, where an Australian citizen is a victim of the sorts of horrific circumstances that have occurred here, very energetic representations are made. Australia does enjoy good, cordial relations with Greece. That ought to be a basis for us very vigorously pursuing this matter with the Greek authorities and indicating that Australia intends to ensure that its citizens who are the victims of crime overseas have an opportunity for justice. It is not good enough that, some nine months after a request from a Victorian court has gone, that matter is simply not responded to. It is not good enough to get a very wimpy reply from the foreign minister's department suggesting that nothing much more can be done. I suggest that the government has to vigorously pursue this matter. It has to take it up vigorously with the Greeks and ensure that justice is done in this case. (Time expired)399422:54:003994Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—As the member for Gilmore quite rightly suggested in her speech tonight, yesterday was Australia's first National Harmony Day. I am pleased to tell the House that National Harmony Day was celebrated two days earlier last Friday in Townsville at the Migrant Resource Centre. It was on the occasion of the announcement and presentation of the living in harmony grant that the centre received from the government last week.A number of high schools celebrating National Harmony Day were present at that ceremony. One of those students present was Anushka Bandarenaike from Pimlico State High School. I thought when I heard her speech that it bore repeating here in the parliament tonight so that the Australian nation could hear it and have an opportunity to read it and to understand. It is wonderful to see that the young people of our nation who are coming forward have these thoughts. I would like to share them with the parliament tonight. Anushka said at that meeting:Today, we proudly celebrate a great achievement in our cultural diversity, in our multicultural society—A Day of National Harmony. The cultural diversity of the Australian people is a strength and an asset.Mahatma Ghandi said—"No culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive."Our culture is inclusive of some 140-odd different ethic backgrounds, making us one of the most ethnically diverse societies in the world.In my opinion, multiculturalism is the ability to live harmoniously and to interact with and learn from other cultures.Cultural diversity is an outcome of multiculturalism.What are the benefits of multiculturalism?Anushka went on to say:* At primary school my friends often asked me about the "funny dress" my mother wore.Anushka's family were Sri Lankan. She continued:None of them had ever witnessed a woman wearing a sari! They felt it was different to the norm.Today, the Queensland social science curriculum has included a section on "cultural diversity" right from year 1. Schools encourage students to listen to stories of other countries, eat their food, and carry out research projects. In this way they are made to appreciate cultural diversity and also gain knowledge of other cultures.* We are also exposed to cultural practices like dance, customs and traditions by living in a culturally diverse society. At the age of 3, I learnt the Polish mazurka and danced together with Polish, Greek, Italian, Australian and children of other cultures. I would not have had this opportunity if I lived in Sri Lanka! It was only possible because I live in multicultural Australia.* We don't have to spend vast sums of money travelling the world to see other cultures and experience their lifestyle. We have it right here at our doorstep.* It was only last week most of us were able to participate in the first Greek festival held in Townsville. We were able to eat Greek food and drink their wine, see their traditional dancing, games and so on. The two mayors of Townsville and Thuringowa had an enjoyable time crushing the grapes and seeing the wine ooze through their toes. I am certain they had a great time and without the expense of visiting Greece!* Another example of our rich culture is seen during the annual Cultural Fest organised by the Migrant Resource Centre where Australians and other cultures work in harmony to make the event a success.Anushka concluded by saying:* What is most significant in our culturally diverse society is that we have a shared identity: our national identity, that we all belong to Australia. Australia that gives everyone "a fair go". And this is what each one of us here has achieved and is celebrating today—the recognition of national harmony.That was Anushka Bandarenaike's speech at the first National Harmony Day in Townsville, which was held two days before it was officially launched in Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.22:59:003995House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices3995The following notices were given:Mr Bevis to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law, in order to help protect the entitlements of employees.Mr McLeay to move:That this House deplores the complete disregard of mobile phone carriers for the rights and health of 500 000 hearing-impaired people shown by the failure of the carriers, particularly Telstra, to address the problem of GSM interference with hearing aids.Answers to Questions in Writing3996The following answers to questions were circulated:3996(Question No. 83)833996Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:(1) Has he monitored the actions the Swiss Government is taking to fight opiate addiction and the trade in illicit drugs following the completion of its three year, state-provided heroin trial; if not why not.(2) Is it a fact that the trial's results concluded that giving prescribed amounts of heroin to addicts (a) improved their health, (b) cut crime rates and (c) saved society money.(3) Is it also a fact that following the trial's completion, the Swiss Government has committed itself to operating a permanent program that prescribes heroin to certain addicts under medical supervision; if so does he support the Swiss Government's actions.(4) Is it also a fact that the Netherlands Government is carrying out an organised trial of prescribing heroin to addicts; if so, (a) when did it start, (b) when will it finish, (c) is he able to provide preliminary results from the trial and (d) will he monitor its results; if not why not.(5) Is he able to provide information on other national governments (a) involved in or (b) having completed a trial that prescribes heroin to addicts as a means of controlling drug addiction and limiting the illegal drug trade's impact on society.3996Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the actions taken by the Swiss Government following the completion of the studies into medically prescribed opioids (including heroin) for the treatment of heroin dependence.(2) I am aware that the internal evaluation of the studies by the Swiss Government indicates some positive results in the areas of improved health, reduction in crime rates and in saving society money. However given the care that needs to be taken in interpreting the results of such complex studies, the International Narcotics Control Board has asked the World Health Organisation to provide an external and independent evaluation of the series of Swiss studies. It would be premature to place too much faith in the preliminary results of the efficacy of the trial until the results of the independent WHO evaluation are available.(3) As far as my Department is aware any move to formalise heroin as a treatment option in Switzerland requires legislative change. No change has yet been made and the use of heroin as a treatment option is restricted to the ongoing formal studies. It is inappropriate for me to comment on the domestic policies of other nations.(4) (a)I am aware that the Netherlands initiated a preliminary trial of medically prescribed heroin to approximately 50 dependent heroin users on 1 July 1998.(b) The trial will run for two years.(c) Preliminary results of the trial are not available.(d) My Department monitors national and international illicit drug research.(5) I am not aware of other national governments being involved in or completing a trial that prescribes heroin to addicts, although I am aware the NSW Labor government and the Federal Labor opposition are not supportive of such trials.3996(Question No. 115)1153996Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia; National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment, (ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, (E) what fees were applic able and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.3997Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:According to information provided by appointees in curricula vitae and/or details held on appointments made or consultants employed between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998:(a) Yes.(b) No.(i) Yes.(ii) No.(iii) No.The details are as follows:(A) The Hon Michael MacKellar, Chair of the Franchising Policy Council;(B) Mr MacKellar was a member of the House of Representatives from 1969 to 1994. He was a member of the Liberal Party of Australia;(C) Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 5 of 1998 set the Chair's rate of fee at $502 per day plus travelling allowance at $320 per overnight stay for a capital city and $165 for a non-capital city;(D) Part-time;(E) Franchising Policy Council (FPC) Sitting Fees, Reading and Research Fees, Presentation at National Small Business Forum, 3 July 1998;(F) (I) Travel Allowance(aa) $320 per day for a capital city and $165 for a non capital city (not payable when the FPC met in Melbourne where Mr MacKellar is based);(ab) 15 April, 24 April, 18 May, 21 August and 23-24 November 1998;(ac) 15 April: $320; 24 April: $320; 18 May: $320; 21 August: $320; 23-24 November: $640. Total: $1600;(II) VehiclesNot applicable;(III) TelephonesNot applicable;(IV) Attendance fees(aa) $502 per day chair's fee when the FPC met or for attendance at events relevant to the FPC, $502 per day for reading and research;(ab) Since it was established in February 1998, Mr MacKellar has chaired the FPC on 15 occasions for a total of 20 days. The relevant dates for 1998 are 18-19 March, 27 March, 9 April, 15 April, 17 April, 24 April, 5-6 May, 11-12 May, 18 May, 21- 22 May, 29 May, 2 June, 21 August and 23-24 November,Mr MacKellar also attended the National Small Business Forum on 3 July 1998 where he spoke about the work of the FPC;(ac) 18-19 March: $1506 (3 days sitting fee, as it involved extensive out of normal hours activity) 27 March: $502; 9 April: $502; 15 April: $502; 17 April: $502; 24 April: $502; 5-6 May: $1004; 11-12 May: $1004; 18 May: $502; 21-22 May: $502 (1 day sitting fee); 29 May: $502; 2 June: $502; 21 August: $320; 23-24 November: $640.Reading and Research Fees $2977.91(45.5 hours or 5.93 days @ $502 per day)National Small Business Forum $8223 July 1998(Attendance: $502, Travel: $320)Total: $13599.91.I am advised that, as far as can be ascertained, no records relating to appointments are held which indicate whether any other appointees or consultants come within the categories specified in the question. I note that appointees and consultants are not required to disclose this specific information, although there is a general requirement that they advise the Commonwealth of any possible conflicts of interest.3997(Question No. 248)2483997Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) Does the Government support the maintenance of a secure framework of finance regulation to ensure the confidence of local and international investors.(2) Did he state on the ABC radio program `The world today' on 27 November 1998 that all financial regulation policy was under review; if so, what is the effect of the uncertainty of Australia's financial regulation framework on the confidence of local and international investors.3997Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I would like to draw your attention to the financial system reforms and Corporate Law Economic Reform Program in response to your question on whether the Government supports the maintenance of a secure framework of finance regulation to ensure the confidence of local and international investors.The financial system reforms have given us a world class system of financial regulation that is efficient and flexible, and has the capacity to accommodate changes as the financial sector evolves and develops. Similarly, the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program seeks to ensure that our business regulation is consistent with international best practice and provides an appropriately secure environment for investment in Australia.My comments that you allude to from 27 November 1998 were made in the context of a question on major bank mergers policy, or the so-called `four pillars' policy. The Government is committed to this policy, and the Treasurer and Prime Minister have recently made comments that reaffirm this.I do not believe that there is any uncertainty regarding Australia's financial regulation framework that will effect the confidence of investors. In fact, the changes that are being made to enhance the framework can only bolster the confidence of local and international investors.3998(Question No. 332)3323998Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 December 1998:(1) Under the proposed new tax system, what are the transitional arrangements, in detail, for businesses holding goods in stock for which they have paid wholesale sales tax.(2) How will the proposed GST apply, in detail, to (a) motor vehicle registrations, (b) compulsory and non-compulsory motor vehicle insurance, (c) workers compensation insurance premiums and (d) shares and other like intangible assets.(3) How will the proposed GST apply, in detail, to all sectors of the housing industry and what impact will its introduction have on the construction of new buildings.(4) What will constitute non-commercial activity for community organisations operating under the proposed new system.(5) Under the proposed new system, will (a) State and Commonwealth grants, (b) donations, (c) fees from services received by not-for-profit community organisations be (i) subject to the GST and (ii) included in the $100000 threshold above which an organisation must register and remit GST.(6) What measures will be implemented to help the not-for-profit community organisations deal with the added administration costs likely under the proposed new system.(7) Is it a fact that increases in motor vehicle leasing prices attributed to the impact of the proposed GST on used vehicle prices, are compromising the viability of some Government-funded community transport organisations. (8) Will the Government ask the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate the GST-related practices of vehicle leasing companies to ensure profiteering is not occurring; if not, why not.(9) Is the Government taking steps to compensate affected community transport providers like the Bathurst Community Transport group for transitional increases in leasing costs on motor vehicles; if so, what steps.(10) What measures will the Government implement to provide businesses and community organisations in rural and regional Australia with detailed information about how the proposed GST system will operate.3998Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Registered businesses holding WST-paid stock for resale will be allowed a special credit (equal to the WST paid on their stock) to be offset against their GST liability. This will ensure that only one tax (the GST) applies to such stock. The special credit will be treated as an input tax credit, to be identified on a GST return lodged before 22 January 2001.The credit will apply only to WST paid on trading stock, that is, goods held for the purpose of sale or exchange in the ordinary course of business.(2) (a) Motor vehicle registration will not be subject to GST.(b)&(c) Motor vehicle insurance (including compulsory motor vehicle insurance) and workers compensation insurance will be subject to GST. GST will be charged on insurance premiums for which registered entities will be entitled to claim an input tax credit. Insurance companies will be able to claim input tax credits on payouts to policy holders.(d) Financial supplies, including shares, futures and unit trusts, will be input taxed. Financial service providers generally will not charge GST on their services but will not be eligible to claim input tax credits on the inputs of such services.GST will only apply to a limited number of financial services such as financial advice. The precise range where GST will apply will be determined in consultation with industry.(3) The GST will not apply to the sale of an owner-occupied family home. The sale of new houses by registered businesses (such as builders and developers) will be taxed.Real estate agents fees will be taxable as will other service costs such as solicitors' fees.The GST will not apply to local council rates or water and sewerage rates and charges. Commercial rents will be subject to GST but businesses will claim input tax credits.Land sold by a registered person will be subject to the GST. Registered businesses can sell land under the usual tax rules or under the GST's margin system. Where land is purchased under the margin system, input tax credits cannot be claimed by a business purchasing the land. Under the usual tax rules, GST is calculated on the full value of the land. Under the margin system, GST is calculated on the registered business' gross margin on the sale of the land. The gross margin is the business' sale price less the original purchase price. For registered businesses holding land when the GST is introduced, the gross margin is the sale price minus the value of the land at 1 July 2000.Under the GST, the net cost of residential construction (new homes and home renovations) may rise by around 4.7 per cent. However, to ensure that the new tax system package maintains affordability for first home buyers a new First Home Owners' Scheme will provide eligible first home buyers from 1 July 2000 with a lump sum of $7,000 to help with the purchase of their first home.(4) Non-commercial activities will be:. a supply that is less than 50 per cent of the market value; or. a supply that is less than 50 per cent of the cost; or. a supply of donated second-hand goods - sales of donated new goods or reprocessed second-hand goods will be subject to GST.(5) (i) (a) Government grants to these organisations will be GST-free where they are not payments for goods and services. Where the grants are in fact payments for providing specified services these payments will be subject to GST. Where GST is charged the government agency will generally be eligible for an input tax credit.(b) Donations will not be subject to GST. Donations are not payments in return for goods or services.(c) Fees for services provided by not-for-profit organisations with annual turnover of more than $100,000 will be subject to GST. They will be able to claim back the GST paid on all their inputs as input tax credits. Community organisations with annual turnover of less than $100,000 will be able to choose whether to register for GST.(ii) (a), (b) Transactions not subject to GST, such as Government grants and donations, will not be included in calculating the $100,000 turnover threshold. (c) Fees for services provided by not-for-profit organisations will be included in calculating the $100,000 turnover threshold.(6) The Government has set aside $500 million to assist small enterprises with the additional startup costs of the GST.(7) The overall impact of the tax reforms on motor vehicle users will be beneficial. In particular, lessees entering into new contracts from 1 July 2000 can expect to pay substantially lower lease payments.(8) To counter excessive profiteering the Government will legislate to provide the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) with special transitional powers to formally monitor retail prices. The transitional price oversight regime will begin 12 months prior to the implementation of the GST and will continue for a further two years after the date of introduction. The ACCC will be required to monitor retail prices in order to identify instances where consumers have not fully benefited from reductions in the tax rate, or have been exposed to greater than necessary price rises.(9) See answer to part 7 of this question.(10) The ATO will be conducting an extensive public education program closer to the introduction date to inform individuals, businesses and other organisations about how the GST will apply to them.3999(Question No. 351)3513999Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principle conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) An Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.3999Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (as at 31 December 1998); (a) 121; (b) nil; (c) 750; (d) 211.(2) (as at 31 December 1998); DOFA B and A (SES equivalent) 34; DOFA Band B (SOG A&B) 51; DOFA Band C (ASO 6 and SOG C) 65; DOFA Band D (ASO 1 to 5) 61. 4000(Question No. 358)3584000Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Is the Minister able to say whether the position of ABC (Qld) Radio and Television News Editor is, or will soon be vacant; if so, (a) what circumstances led to the vacancy, (b) how will the vacancy be advertised, (c) what procedures and criteria will apply in determining a replacement and (d) when will the replacement be announced.4000McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) The position of Head News and Current Affairs Queensland became vacant in January 1999 when the former Head successfully applied for a similar position in Melbourne.(b) The Queensland vacancy was advertised throughout the ABC in the Corporation's weekly employment bulletin "OB" and the internal computer news system BASYS.(c) A selection committee of the National Head of News and Current Affairs, the State Manager Queensland, the Head of Current Affairs, and the Head of News interviewed shortlisted candidates prior to selecting a replacement based on the following selection criteria; i. Relevant tertiary qualifications preferred ii. Wide experience and professional training in broadcast journalism iii. Substantial knowledge of radio and/or television news and current affairs production iv. Demonstrated managerial, planning and organisational abilities v. Ability to devise relevant quality news and current affairs program formats vi. Excellent leadership, communication and negotiation skills vii. Understanding of, and commitment to, Corporate EEO, OH&S and cultural diversity policies.(d) Following interviews, the Committee appointed Mr Richard Lower as Head of News & Current Affairs, Queensland. Mr Lower took up the position in early March. Mr Lower was formerly the ABC's Head of News & Current Affairs in Tasmania and has been employed by the ABC for 25 years. 4000(Question No. 360)3604000O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'ConnorWU5CorioALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) What total core funding did his Department allocate to the Geelong Migrant Resource Centre in (a) 1994-95, (b) 1995-96, (c) 1996-97 and (d) 1997-98.(2) What positions and programs at the centre were resourced by his Department in 1995-96.(3) What funding was allocated for positions and programs at the centre in (a) 1996-97 and (b) 1997-98.4000Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) $223,130;(b) $275,748;(c) $322,217; and(d) $323,266.(2) In 1995-96 the centre was provided core funding to assist with operational expenses, including employment of a co-ordinator, an administrative/ finance officer, a secretary/ receptionist and a community project officer. The funding was for the centre to provide a regional focal point for the planning and delivery of services by community organisations and other government agencies, so as to facilitate the settlement of migrants and their participation in the political, economic and social life of Australia.The centre was also funded under the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) scheme for employment of a social/welfare worker to provide settlement services for new arrivals, unemployed, families, and elderly people from non-English speaking backgrounds in the Greater Geelong area.(3) (a) In 1996-97 the centre was allocated $322,217 core funding. This supported a new community worker position, in addition to the four core staff positions funded during the previous year. The centre was also allocated $45,692 towards employment of a social/welfare worker under the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) scheme to carry out a similar work program to that of the previous year.(b) Apart from the $323,266 core funding allocated to the centre in 1997-98, it was also allocated $46,423 for employment of a social/welfare worker under the Community Settlement Services (CSS) Scheme to provide welfare services to communities from diverse cultural backgrounds in the Geelong region. 4001(Question No. 390)3904001Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) For the latest year for which statistics are available, how many recruitment applications for full-time service in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) (a) were received, (b) were rejected on medical grounds, (c) were accepted and (d) culminated in the applicant enlisting.(2) What was the total cost to the ADF of the recruitment process referred to in part (1).(3) During the period referred to in part (1), how many full-time ADF personnel in each service (a) retired, (b) resigned, (c) were made redundant or (d) departed for another reason.(4) What was the total cost of redundancy benefits for those referred to in part (3)(c).4001Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) For FY97/98:(a) 18542(b) 1265(c) not recorded(d) 3409(2) $31.063m(3) (a) to (d)FY 97/98RETIREDRESIGNEDREDUNDANTOTHERTOTALNAVY71163173381525ARMY1417011608232698RAAF541427501851716Jun-Dec 98RETIREDRESIGNEDREDUNDANTOTHERTOTALNAVY657683145810ARMY7129067022005RAAF19796081896(4) 1997-98; NAVY:$2.995m; ARMY:$24.695m; RAAF:$9.705mJun-Dec 98 NAVY:$8.939m; ARMY:$1.550m; RAAF:$1.438m.4001(Question No. 392)3924001Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Under the Defence Reform Program, what is the target number of (a) full-time personnel and (b) reservists for the (i) RAN, (ii), Army and (iii) RAAF.(2) How many positions in each category referred to in part (1) are to be designated as (a) combat-related and (b) non-combat related.4001Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i) 14,000; (ii) 23,000; (iii) 13,000.(b) (i) 1,500; (ii) 27,000; (iii) 1,500.(2) (a) 65%; (b) 35%. 4001(Question No. 393)3934001Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Have middle-ranking full-time Australian Defence Force officers been compulsorily redeployed into the Reserves in order to free up promotional opportunities for junior officers; if so, how many officers have been moved to the Reserves in 1998-99.(2) Have longstanding officers serving in the Reserves had their services dispensed with as a result of the action referred to in part (1); if so (a) how many officers and (b) what redundancy benefits did they receive. 4002Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Australian Defence Force is unaware of any instances of this occurring.4002(Question No. 395)3954002Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Does the Government's State of the Forests Report 1998 include a statement on page 5 that Australia is a net exporter by volume of wood-based forest products while stating on page 157 that it is a net importer of these products; if so, which statement is correct.(2) For each year since 1989-90, what was Australia's actual balance of trade (a) by value and (b) by volume for (i) timber and wood products, (ii) pulpwood (woodchips) and (iii) paper, paperboard, wastepaper and pulp.4002Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The statement on page 5 of the State of the Forests Report correctly notes Australia is a net importer of wood-based forest products in terms of value, but is a net exporter in terms of volume. Page 137 (not 157) of the State of the Forests Report includes an incorrect statement that Australia is a net importer of forest-based products, both in volume and value. [National Forest Inventory, BRS, 19 February 1999](2) Please see Attachments A and B.Balance of Trade in Forest ProductsUnit1989 -901990 -911991 -921992 -931993 -941994 -951995 -961996 -971997 -98Timber and wood products '000 m3a-1511-1310-1208-1271-1043-1060-680-680-762$mb-729-625-639-773-867-845-615-608-726Paper, paperboard,kt-881-644-859-839-874-1087-945-879-802wastepaper and pulp$mc-1375-1134-1294-1343-1411-1741-1846-1405-1418Pulpwood (woodchips)ktd259728042771284330333728335133234314$m378412418422448559543518645Roundwood ekt107986240415285349614385$m01411234128375236Total$m-1724-1331-1505-1671-1789-1999-1882-1443-1463Source: Australian Forest Products Statistics, derived from Table 3 and 4a Includes sawnwood, sleepers, veneer, miscellaneous forest products and woodbased panels.b Includes value of miscellaneous forest products for which volumes are not available.c Includes value of paper manufactures for which volumes are not available.d Volume in bone dry tonnes, which is approximately half the green tonne weight.e Roundwood includes sawlogs and pulplogs.ForestrySummary of Australian statistics for roundwood aRemovals of roundwoodBroadleavedConiferousTotalImportsExportsConsumptionConsumption per personDerived Balance of Trade'000m3'000m3'000m3'000m3'000m3'000m3m3000m31955-568 8801 51610 3962 88522013 0611.40-26651956-578 9581 48110 4392 79725312 9831.36-25441957-588 7281 45510 1832 75032412 6091.29-2426 1958-598 9021 67110 5732 90432113 1561.32- 25831959-609 3551 75111 1063 53529814 3431.41- 32371960-619 1351 66410 7994 10127114 6291.41- 38301961-628 3761 67810 0542 96934812 6751.19- 26211962-638 7841 86910 6533 42327613 8001.27- 31471963-649 3411 93411 2753 77431514 7341.33- 34591964-659 5552 05411 6094 13830815 4391.37- 38301965-669 5832 16911 7524 00224315 5111.35- 37591966-679 1442 18311 3274 11041415 0231.28- 36961967-689 1872 23811 4254 39630115 5201.29- 40951968-698 9872 34411 3314 62434215 6131.28- 42821969-709 1062 41511 5214 90440616 0191.29- 44981970-719 2562 55511 8114 99943516 3751.29- 45641971-728 9882 67311 6614 60346515 7991.23- 41381972-739 7782 80812 5865 9372 11016 4131.25- 38271973-7411 0632 63613 6994 8962 86015 7351.19- 20361974-7510 9212 85013 7715 4043 14516 0301.15- 22591975-769 9952 87712 8724 7522 79814 8261.06- 19541976-7711 3313 07814 4095 5583 83116 1361.15- 17271977-7811 2593 28214 5414 6903 67015 5611.09- 10201978-7910 5953 38113 9765 4784 15615 2981.07- 13221979-8011 7203 86615 5865 6675 18516 0681.11- 4821980-8111 4644 44715 9116 0194 56817 3621.17- 14511981-8210 3484 52414 8726 4034 24517 0301.13- 21581982-839 2174 44213 6594 6944 20614 1470.93- 4881983-8410 5374 68915 2265 8564 58616 4961.07- 12701984-8510 9195 76816 6877 1954 62619 2561.23- 25691985-8610 9495 95816 9076 9434 83619 0141.20- 21071986-8711 2225 5166 7386 3335 84517 2261.07- 4881987-8811 1625 68616 8487 8945 65419 0881.16- 22401988-8911 4756 15317 6288 0695 09320 6041.24- 29761989-9010 5347 03017 5647 7195 24420 0391.18- 24751990-9110 0376 55316 5906 7765 51317 8531.04- 12631991-929 5127 14116 6537 2375 67818 2121.05- 15591992-939 8017 86617 6677 4546 07119 0501.08- 13831993-949 7938 96918 7627 6666 68819 7401.10- 9781994-9510 8578 70319 5608 8407 97420 4261.13- 8661995-9610 1919 15119 3426 9157 41718 8401.045021996-979 72110 43520 1567 1567 75619 5561.066001997-98 p10 27212 04222 3147 2649 24320 3351.091979a Gross roundwood equipalent.p PreliminarySources: ABARE forestry database; Forestry and Timber Bureau, Department of National Development, Compendium of Australian Forest Products Statistics: 1935-36 to 1967, Canberra4004(Question No. 397)3974004Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) How many companies have been granted a wood chip export licence that is currently in force and what is the maximum annual export volume applicable to the licences.(2) How many timber companies are able to export wood chips without a licence and what is the estimated annual export volume applicable to these companies.(3) Does a minimum sale price apply to wood chip exports; if so, under what circumstances can an exemption be obtained.(4) Has he approved applications for the exemption referred to in part (3); if so, what are the details.4004Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Please see Attachment A.(2) Regulations are now in place to progressively remove controls on the export of plantation material and wood sourced from native forests in regions covered by a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA). In relation to plantation-sourced material, to date the Victorian, Tasmanian, South Australian, Western Australian, New South Wales and ACT codes have been approved, thereby removing licensing requirements.In relation to RFAs, to date the East Gippsland and Central Highlands regions in Victoria and the Tasmania region have been covered by an RFA. Therefore, these are currently the only regions exempt from licensing requirements for native forest material.As licences are no longer required in these circumstances, it is not possible to ascertain which companies are exporting or what volumes these companies are exporting.(3) A minimum sales price condition applies to all current wood export licences issued by myself or the Department. All exporters must have a minimum price approved before export is allowed. Licence holders have, on occasion, found it necessary to apply for a reduction to the minimum price approved under their licence. This is not an exemption as such as a lower minimum price still must be agreed upon and approved.(4) Applications for minimum price reductions are considered on a case by case basis. Such applications must identify clear reasons for the reduction. Most reflect a drop in international prices, trial shipments for prospective new markets or the use of lesser quality materials.Under current licences there have been five applications to export wood at a reduced minimum price:North Forest Products Ltd (Norths) have had two price reductions approved under their transitional licence MEP/005/WOOD/462A (formerly MEPWOOD 1462). In August 1997, the then Minister, the Hon John Anderson MP, approved two reductions for one-off shipments, the reasons being:. the export of lower grade material to trial a new market; and. the provision of an additional volume of material to "top up" a shipment of another exporter whose price was lower than that allowed under North's licence.In November 1998, I approved a reduction in the minimum price for two shipments by Western Australia Chip and Pulp Company Pty Ltd (WACAP) under their transitional licence MEP/008/WOOD/465R (formerly MEPWOOD 1465). The reduced price was to enable the shipment of stockpiled low quality wood chips to trial a prospective market. In June 1997 WACAP also had a price reduction for the same licence approved by Minister Anderson for a trial shipment of 10,000 tonnes only.The Department approved a reduction in the minimum price for exports under the licence held by Canterwood Pty Ltd in February 1999. The lower price reflected a drop in prices obtained by Canterwood following completion of negotiations with international buyers in January 1999.Attachment ACURRENT EXPORT LICENCESName of CompanyLicence NumberExport Vol. (up to)Wood TypeWood FormExpiry Date of LicenceLicence TypeMidwayMEP/001/WOOD/457N10,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalMidway *MEP/001/WOOD/573B90,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalMidwayMEP/001/WOOD/574W113,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalMidwayMEP/001/WOOD/575R7,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalMidwayMEP/001/WOOD/576A30,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99Transitional Harris-DaishowaMEP/002/WOOD/458K490,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalHarris-Daishowa *MEPWOOD 1459440,000 t p/aH'wood W'chips31/12/99TransitionalBoral *MEP/003/WOOD/460F950,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalGunns Ltd *MEP/004/WOOD/461C400,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalNorth Forest Products *MEP/005/WOOD/462A1,931,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalSawmillers Exports Pty Ltd (SEPL)MEP/006/WOD/463X500,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalSouthern Plantations Chip Co. (SPCC)MEP/007/WOOD/534E110,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalWestern Australian Chip and Pulp (WACAP)MEP/008/WOOD/465R900,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/99TransitionalAuspine #MEP/032/WOOD/469G1,000,000 tS'WoodW'chips31/12/99UnprocessedWestern Timber Co-Op #MEP/016/WOOD/507W250,000 t p/aH'woodW'chips31/12/03UnprocessedMidway MEPWOOD 1516300,000 t p/aS'WoodLogs & W'chips31/12/99UnprocessedSpenta-Trade LinksMEPWOOD 152224,000 tS'Wood & H'woodLogs31/3/99UnprocessedZhen Quan ChenMEP/021/WOOD/592T5,000 t (500 p/a)S'WoodLogs31/12/07UnprocessedSawmillers Exports Pty Ltd #MEPWOOD 1521200,000 tH'woodW'chips31/12/02UnprocessedAusticks #MEP/035/WOOD/626A5,000 cbmS'WoodLogs31/12/99UnprocessedRadiata Exports #MEP/036/WOOD/664O7,000 tS'WoodLogs31/10/99UnprocessedDallas GlenMEP/037/WOOD/667U30,000tH'woodW'chips31/3/99TrialCanterwood #MEP/033/WOOD/668N400,000 tS'WoodW'chips31/12/99UnprocessedQld Commodity Exports #MEP/012/WOOD/670A400,000 tS'WoodW'chips31/12/99UnprocessedNB: There are also several companies that export Sandalwood which have not been included in the above table. Sandalwood is exported in very small quantities from Qld and WA.* There are now RFAs in place for regions covered by these licences. While export licences are therefore not required, these transitional licences have technically not ceased to have effect.# Export controls have now been removed for plantation sourced-material from States to which these licences apply. While export licences are therefore not required, these unprocessed wood licences, have technically not ceased to have effect.4005(Question No. 418)4184005Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 15 February 1999:(1) How many Centrelink customer service officers were employed in the Centrelink customer service centres in (a) Tuggeranong, ACT, and (b) Woden ACT, on (i) 1 January 1999, (ii) 1 January 1998 and (iii) 1 January 1997.(2) How many of the Centrelink customer service officers referred to in part (1) were involved in "point-of-contact" service to clients in (a) Tuggeranong, ACT, and (b) Woden ACT, on (i) 1 January 1999, (ii) 1 January 1998 and (iii) 1 January 1997.4005Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows:(1) Staff employed in Centrelink's Customer Service Centres will vary over time in line with customer numbers and other workload variations. Also, over the periods requested, the relationships of the offices has changed with Tuggeranong being a parent office of Woden at 1 January 1997 and 1 January 1999, while Woden was a separate office at 1 January 1998. This impacts on the staff distribution between the two offices. Centrelink was established on 1 July 1997.(a) Tuggeranong; (i) 1 January 1999—51; (ii) 1 January 1998—72; (iii) 1 January 1997—not applicable.Note: the 1 January 1999 figure is affected by the transfer of 14 positions as follows:7 Compliance staff to Queanbeyan; 4 customer service staff to newly opened Cooma; 3 Assurance of Support staff to Sydney.(b) Woden; (i) 1 January 1999—36; (ii) 1 January 1998—47; (iii) 1 January 1997—not applicable.(2) (a) Tuggeranong; (i) January 1999—48; (ii) January 1998—69; (iii) January 1997—not applicable.(b) Woden; (i) January 1999—36; (ii) January 1998—45; (iii) January 1997—not applicable. 4006(Question No. 428)4284006Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 1999:Has his attention been drawn to criticisms from Australian industry leaders and others in the community who have argued that the level of immigration has reached an unacceptably low level and that economic growth and social considerations require a substantial increase in the level of immigration and a commitment to a longer program over 5 years of increases in immigration; if so what is his response.4006Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am aware of the range of views on immigration, including the views of industry. I am currently conducting extensive public consultations on the Migration and Humanitarian Programs for the coming financial year. I have invited written submissions from a very wide range of individuals and organisations, including all the peak industry and business bodies. I met with these organisations on 1 March 1999.My response to calls for a substantial increase in the level of immigration and for a five year planning horizon is to consider these matters carefully in the context of my submission to Cabinet on the size and composition of the 1999-2000 Migration and Humanitarian Programs. The views of industry will be thoroughly analysed and considered alongside other views that emphasise the environmental and infrastructure costs of higher immigration. However, it should be noted that a substantially larger intake focused on skilled migration would involve diluting the selection standards, particularly in relation to age and skill, and that this in turn would dilute the economic benefits that Australia would gain.4006(Question No. 429)4294006Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 February 1999:How many Australian Defence Force personnel were discharged in (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 after medical officers had determined that their work-related injuries were temporary or probably temporary.4006Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Personnel suffering from temporary, or probably temporary, injuries are not discharged medically but are deemed to be Medical Class 3. Those suffering from permanent injuries may be downgraded to Medical Class 4 and discharged medically. Personnel discharged while Medical Class 3 are discharged for administrative reasons totally unrelated to their medical status.The only way to determine those with a temporary work-related injury would be to examine manually the medical files of all those discharged from the ADF in the years in question. These medical files would then need to be cross-checked with DefCare and Veterans' Affairs.To provide a complete response therefore, to the honourable member's question would require considerable time and resources and, in the interests of efficient use of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort required to provide the information.4007(Question No. 433)4334007Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 February 1999:(1) Did his predecessor's answer to question No. 1372 (Hansard , 10 October 1994, page 1614) indicate that Prime Minister Menzies never visited Portugal.(2) Which Prime Ministers of Australia have visited Portugal.(3) On what dates have Australian Prime Ministers visited Indonesia.4007Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The answer to question No. 1372 indicated that Prime Minister Menzies visited Europe in 1952, 1955 and 1959. None of these visits included a visit to Portugal.(2) Departmental records since 1950 indicate that no Australian Prime Minister has visited Portugal. Departmental records are not available for the period prior to 1950.(3) The following can be added to the answer given to Question No. 1372:13-16 November 1994 (Prime Minister Keating)16-18 September 1995 (Prime Minister Keating)17-19 December 1995 (Prime Minister Keating)16-18 September 1996 (Prime Minister Howard)28-29 October 1997 (Prime Minister Howard)