1999-03-233912REPS401501999-03-23Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice401540154015Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasury assumption that the GST package will have no impact on wages. If this is so, won't future pension adjustments based on wages be the same with or without a GST?4015Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have learnt from long and bitter experience never to accept an interpretation of another document given to me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Let me say that the taxation package will make an enormously positive contribution to the Australian economy. It will add to the growth prospects of the Australian economy, and I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has mentioned wages growth, because one of the proud boasts of the government I lead is that real wages have risen in a non-inflationary fashion.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point on relevance. There is nothing in the question about that. It just said `the Treasury assumption that the GST package will have no impact on wages'. It was very specific in relation to the impact of the GST on pensions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Under my government, real wages have risen. Under the coalition government, Australian workers are better off, not worse off—as they were under 13 years of your government. They have had real wage rises.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There was only one question asked. This goes to relevance. The question was, `Won't future pension adjustments based on wages be the same with or without a GST?' That is what he has got to answer and he is refusing to do it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will link his comments about wages to the GST.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I pass from the real wage rises to the issue of compensation for pensioners, which was very germane to the honourable gentleman's question. I would remind him that under our arrangements everybody will be 1½ per cent ahead of the CPI impact—not 1½ per cent behind, not equal, not half a per cent ahead, but 1½ per cent ahead. I say that also for the benefit of the honourable member for Cowper, who reminded me of that this morning.40154015Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister outline to the House the range of drug treatment programs to be funded by the government's most recent disbursement from the Tough on Drugs strategy? In addition, is the Prime Minister aware of recent initiatives at a state level that complement the Commonwealth's initiative?4015Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Bradfield who, along with many members on both sides of the House, has displayed an interest in policies to fight the drug menace within the community. Last Thursday I had the chance in Melbourne to announce the details of $20 million of the $290 million allocated to the Tough on Drugs strategy. This $20 million went to community organisations providing treatment, rehabilitation services and support for people affected by drugs. It is money that will go to more than 50 voluntary and community agencies and it supplements about $30 million allocated in a similar fashion, details of which were announced several months ago by my colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care.The great key to the Tough on Drugs strategy lies in the partnership between voluntary and community agencies, churches, schools, parents, local communities, health professionals, law enforcement officials and governments. The government is committed to this partnership and to working harder than ever to tackle the drug problem on all fronts.It is important that what the federal government does in this area is supplemented and matched by state governments. I am pleased to note, on both sides of the political divide in Australia, recent initiatives at a state level that are extremely encouraging. The Queensland government and the Queensland Premier have taken a number of very positive initiatives. One of those is the establishment of a school drug education strategic plan to ensure that no student leaves school without understanding the dangers of illicit drugs. I congratulate the Queensland government and the Queensland Premier on that particular initiative. I also congratulate the Queensland government on boosting the methadone program in that state by some $1.3 million. Moving to New South Wales and on to the other side of the political divide, I was particularly pleased to note the announcement made yesterday by the Leader of the New South Wales Opposition, Mrs Kerry Chikarovski—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I see. Apparently it is all right to say something nice about a Labor Premier but it is not possible to say something complimentary about a New South Wales opposition leader. It shows how absolutely factional this mob really is.Let me go on to say that she made a commitment to provide around 4,000 extra rehabilitation bed places a year for non-government organisations at a cost of $34 million. Through the cacophony of negative reactions from Labor members opposite, let me remind those opposite that, if implemented, this proposal will overcome a very critical shortage of rehabilitation services in that state. I understand 4,000 is the largest offer of rehabilitation places made at any state level in relation to this particular problem. In the bipartisan spirit, I congratulate the Queensland Labor Premier and I congratulate the New South Wales Liberal opposition leader for their respective initiatives.40164016Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, in the Prime Minister's Tough on Drugs statement last Thursday, why were no funds granted to projects in Cabramatta in Sydney's south west? Why is it that, out of the total of $20 million in grants, my electorate—which includes Liverpool and Cabramatta—received no funds when you have approved funding in your own electorate in excess of $1 million?4016Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I would have thought the answer was self-evident: members of the Casey electorate have good representation.Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—My political future is fine, sport, unlike yours. I would worry about yours if I were you.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order I will call the minister.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—What the honourable member seems not to understand is that this was the second round of a two-round process. The first round was in August last year. The second round was in March this year. In fact, I specifically intervened in the first round of projects last year to ensure that one project in her electorate got funded that would not have been funded otherwise.40164016Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the benefits that structural changes to the economy bring for wage and salary earners?4016Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Longman for his question. As most members would know, this government has put in place a very profound series of structural changes to the Australian economy which are now reaping benefits for wage and salary earners. It was this government which took a budget deficit of $10 billion and put the Australian budget into surplus. This is the second year of surplus budgeting. It was this government that entered into a new monetary agreement with the Reserve Bank of Australia which has given Australia credibility in relation to monetary policy and has given us historically low margins on Australian 10-year bond rates. It is in a context of a productive economy with labour market changes and competition policy that we are now beginning to see benefits for Australians generally. Whereas the stock markets of Singapore and Hong Kong today are about 20 per cent or 25 per cent below their levels of January 1997, the stock market in Australia is about 20 per cent above its level in January 1997 with the Australian All Ordinaries going through the historic 3,000 mark earlier today.Australia is now becoming one of the great share owning democracies of the world: 32 per cent of adults in Australia have direct shareholdings—greater than Canada, greater than the UK and second only in the world to the United States. One of the big changes as a result of structural change in the Australian economy is the fact that under this government productivity has increased by a quantum step. Compared with Labor where productivity growth was about 1½ per cent per year, productivity growth under this government has been 2.8 per cent per annum. What this means is that this government has been able to sustain increases in real wages. I think this is a very important point particularly for the Labor Party to understand. Labor policy was to depress real wages. The essential object of the accords was to make real wages lower. That is where Labor differs from the coalition. We want to make wages higher. It is our policy to have higher real wages based on increased productivity. John Edwards, a Labor Party economist and biographer to Paul Keating—Labor Party icon and one time pig dealer—said:I think this expansion is going to be much more durable and it will be much more durable because productivity is three times as high over this expansion as it was in the eighties.In this financial year, 1998-99, the government forecast a growth rate of 3¼ per cent. I think I can say with some surety that we will exceed our forecast. To the end of calendar year 1998, the Australian economy grew at 4.7 per cent through the year. It has always been our belief that calendar year 1999 would be a trough with a resumption of growth in the year 2000. That is certainly still our thinking, but it will be a trough off a much higher base. We do not believe that we will be sustaining world record growth rates through calendar year 1999. But, if the Australian economy should slow in 1999-2000 to levels in the two per cent, we would be slowing to the maximum growth rate of the OECD and a growth rate in excess of the G7 average.It would be exceptional for Australia in the midst of an Asian downturn to slow its growth to the averages of the developed world and to an average in excess of the G7. For Australia, a slowing in growth will mean that we will only be exceeding average industrialised growth rates by a smaller margin than we currently are.There are no grounds for complacency. The government believes that it is important to keep the budget in surplus. The government wants to continue with its debt reduction program. With the privatisation of Telstra, this government can extinguish Labor's debt. We stand on the threshold of an opportunity to extinguish all of the debt that Labor ran up over its period of government. We could take Australia into the next century Commonwealth government debt free. What that would mean is that none of the taxes of tomorrow would have to go to servicing the Labor debt of yesterday. The kids of tomorrow would get an opportunity to have their taxes going on their schools and hospitals and roads rather than on the failures of the Beazley-Keating Labor years. What an opportunity for Australia. What an opportunity for us to grasp. What an opportunity for economic growth in the future. That is the benefit which good economic management brings.40174017Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it the case that wages are projected to grow faster than the CPI? With wages unchanged by the tax package according to the Treasury, won't this mean that the GST pension compensation will be clawed back over a number of years?4018Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The situation remains—and I know that the Leader of the Opposition does not like it—that there has been a spectacular growth in real wages under this government. That means that under this government wage and salary earners have been greatly enriched. Under this government wage and salary earners have had a double bonanza. Firstly, they have had real wage rises. In other words, their incomes have risen based on productivity improvements and not based on an unsustained wages blow-out. Secondly, and of equal importance, they have had the benefit of reductions in interest rates.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to relevance. This is the impact of the interrelationship between wages growth and the application of growth in pensions and the fact that it produces a clawback of the GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point on relevance. I will rule on relevance and he will resume his seat. The question was asked of wages and the CPI and the impact of the GST on that. I am listening to the Prime Minister. It strikes me that he is being relevant to it. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The man who knew so little about interrelationships that he left us with a $10½ billion deficit. A man who knew so much—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is the man who left us a $24 billion deficit when we came into office.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—This is completely irrelevant. It's about the clawback of the full pension compensation to the GST—and that's what's relevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Before I move further into the question of the CPI, let me just again remind the Leader of the Opposition that when you had control of the treasury bench Australian workers were made worse off. They were made worse off because you drove interest rates to a record high. You drove unemployment to a record high. You left us with a record high national debt.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, and it goes to relevance. The question dealt with pensions, and its link to the CPI and wage adjustments. He has not mentioned pensions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will respond to the question. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The comparison is very stark. I know it is very painful for those opposite that the professed champion of the worker left the worker worse off and you have had to watch the worker being made better off for three years by the policies of this government.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I can understand the evasion, but it is still an irrelevancy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point on relevance and will now resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The question relates to the effective clawback of the compensation because of that interaction of the adjustment to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that this series of points of order from the opposition are clearly frivolous. They have repeated the same point to you, Mr Speaker. A question was asked about wages which incorporated comments about wages and related matters. The Prime Minister, on any reasonable definition, has been entirely relevant from the first word. I ask you to rule out frivolous points of order from an opposition who simply want to disrupt question time.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: my first point of order is to say that you have not as yet ruled on the previous point of order from the Leader of the Opposition. I am not sure how you are accepting his. You would never accept one from us in those circumstances.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser, the Manager of Opposition Business, is very close to reflecting on the chair, as he knows.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—But, nevertheless, I am making a correct point of order that you allowed him to raise a point of order before you ruled on the Leader of the Opposition's point of order. That's true.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will come to his point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—That is one of my two points of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And the second one is?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—The second one is—I am speaking to his point of order, which is what I rose to do—that these have not been frivolous points of order, far from it, which the Leader of the Opposition has raised. That is his point of order which you allowed him to speak on. They are actually specifically germane to standing order 145 because the Leader of the Opposition's question went directly to the clawback of pensions and the Prime Minister has not referred to it once. We all know why, but that does not change the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. Let me deal with this repetitious number of points of order. I cannot respond favourably to the request made by the Leader of the House because the Speaker has an obligation to hear all points of order. That, of course, is what the Speaker does. In the case of relevance, however, there is no need for any additional material to be added to any point of order on relevance because the Speaker can easily gauge whether or not the response is relevant to the question. That is self-evident. I call the Prime Minister to complete the answer to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have almost forgotten what the question was, but I think it had something to do with the adequacy of compensation. Let me say that, if you have a compensation plan that leaves you always 1½ per cent ahead of CPI increases, it is not a bad compensation plan.40194019Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Could the minister inform the House of recent government actions to defend Australian exporters and export related jobs against threatened protectionism abroad, particularly for South Australian and New South Wales exporters?4019Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I thank the member for Grey for his question, and I note that he represents his exporters strongly. Next Friday, there will be the official opening by the Prime Minister of extensions to the magnificent Roxby Downs mines—a very big engineering feat and challenge. I congratulate all involved and wish them well with their export effort.Mr Beazley interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Hypocritically you did, because you had a three-mine uranium policy—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come back to the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—which you then closed a blind eye to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Backflip Beazley, out of your CEDA speech last week, if you are going to intervene. I was taunted by the Leader of the Opposition. I wanted to give his speech some currency—because it has had none—where he referred to trade liberalisation and rejected the Simon Crean line on tariffs.The government has taken a number of steps to withstand the move towards backsliding on trade liberalisation around the world. Bilaterally we have proceeded with a number of key meetings including, most recently, with US interlocutors and the Japanese minister for trade—the MITI Minister—Minister Yosano, who met with the Prime Minister and other ministers yesterday. At the regional level, we have proceeded through the APEC and CER groupings and, at the multilateral level, through the World Trade Organisation.I would emphasise that we have lodged an objection with regard to the proposed 390 per cent tariff which Japan is imposing in relation to certain rice imports into that country. I find it curious that the United States went missing in action on rice and decided not to proceed with the lodging of an objection, notwithstanding their attack on this proposal just a couple of months ago.I am also concerned about the ground swell of protectionist sentiment within the US and the US Congress, and I have been for several months. We have a number of key issues in this regard. The first is on rice: to prosecute that issue to a fair outcome, most notably with Japan. The second is with regard to prime lamb: to prosecute that issue in the United States where there are moves afoot to block a $100 million export trade of prime lamb from Australia to the USA. I have asked Ambassador Peacock to take additional steps in relation to both those issues, and in respect of the third issue, that of steel and the need to withstand the demands for anti-dumping measures being taken unfairly against BHP and other steel producers here in Australia.The federal government will stand up for our exporters at every turn. There will be no white flag brigade from this side of the House with regard to our trading efforts. We will continue to work through these issues to ensure that we get fair market access—because, clearly, there is no such thing as a level playing field, and we are doing all we can to withstand that circumstance.40204020Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the GST compensation adjustment to pensions will always be more than the wage based adjustment pensioners would receive without the GST?4020Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can assure the honourable member for Hotham—and, indeed, I am delighted that he gives me an opportunity to do so—that the income support guarantees contained in the tax plan will be maintained in full. The only threat to them is the behaviour of the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats.DT4CREANMr Crean—That is not the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister has completed his answer.DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, but he hasn't answered the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat.40204020Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. How does the government respond to claims that the government's tax reform compensation package for pensioners will be eroded?4020Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I notice that claims have been made by Mr Carmody on behalf of the Australian Food and Grocery Council in relation to compensation for pensioners and the application of GST. I note in passing that they were made in the context of Mr Carmody arguing that there was no argument for zero rating food and saying that taking food out of GST provided very inadequate compensation for low income earners. I note that he said that, for every dollar in compensation it provides to low income earners, it will provide a benefit of about $5—that is, five times as much—to the top 80 per cent of income earners.What the government has done is to engage in a much better targeted measure to ensure that pensioners in particular are better off under tax reform. At the moment, pensions are indexed to CPI in March and September. Under the government's proposal, from 1 July, in advance of any movement in prices as measured by the CPI—that is, before there is any movement in prices—pensions will be increased by four per cent. That is in advance. There has never been indexation in advance before. Indexation has always been done in arrears in March and September.Secondly, what the government says is that it will continue the indexations in March and September to ensure that there is a real increase—that is, that pensions are always 1½ per cent in advance of prices. On the forecasts which are in the ANTS package, it is that indexation which drives the increase factored into the ANTS package—ANTS being a new tax system—right across the forward estimates, because the CPI and the indexation, not to CPI but in above of CPI—DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, like MTAWE.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Hotham of the provisions of standing order 55. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He yells out MTAWE—which is an old Indian hunting call, I believe.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer nonetheless will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—MTAWE, MTAWE, MTAWE! So there is an indexation in advance, and it goes right across the forward estimates as in a new tax system. The Labor Party then says, `What about if wages run in advance of prices?' If wages run in advance of prices, this government has protected pensioners as well. This is the only government in Australian federal history which has legislated to fix pensions to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. Was this done by the Labor Party?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Was it done in 1983?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Was it done in 1984?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Was it done in 1985?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Was it done in 1986?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Was it done in 1987?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Was it done in 1988?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Yes.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Never. It was never legislated for one day. They were in office for 13 years and the legislation existed for not one day. If it were the case that wages increased in advance of prices, under this government's legislation pensioners would get another real increase. They get a real increase in advance of the CPI and a real increase if wages increase under the legislative guarantee. So you are protected not once, you are protected twice.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Let me ask this question. The members of the House will want to know the answer to this question.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is ignoring the chair. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—When indirect taxes were last increased in 1993, when the wholesale sales tax went from 10 per cent to 12 per cent and 20 per cent to 22 per cent and 30 per cent to 32 per cent, when leaded petrol was increased 5c and when unleaded petrol was increased 7c, when personal income tax cuts were abolished, how much compensation was paid to pensioners?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—None.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What increase did the Australian Labor Party put into pensions when wholesale sales tax was increased from 10 per cent to 12 per cent?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Nothing.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What increase did the Australian Labor Party put when wholesale sales tax was increased from 20 per cent to 22 per cent?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Nothing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What increase did the Australian Labor Party put when wholesale sales tax was increased from 30 per cent to 32 per cent?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Nothing.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What increase did the Australian Labor Party put when it increased petrol by 5c?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The decorum of the House is not aided when members of either side respond in chorus. I ask them to desist.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I finish by saying that not only is this the first time that pensions have been increased in advance of CPI, not only is there a double guarantee with a legislated 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, but this is the only time that a Commonwealth government has actually fully and overcompensated for tax changes. It was never done in the past. It was never done by the Australian Labor Party. Any attempt by the Australian Labor Party to oppose this tax reform package—let us call it for what it is—is to oppose a real increase in pensions.40224022Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Oh, give up!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Fisher! The member for Lilley has the call.2V5Mr SWAN—Minister, do you recall your statement in the House yesterday that rent rises due to the GST for residents of caravan and mobile parks will `be covered by the increased rent assistance that the government is offering'? Minister, are you aware that a pensioner couple paying $120 per week rent will be $9 per fortnight worse off, a family with two children paying $120 per week will be $3 per fortnight worse off and a single person paying $90 per week will be $6 per fortnight worse off—all because the increase in rent assistance does not cover the increase in rent with a GST?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will come to his question.2V5Mr SWAN—Certainly, Mr Speaker. Minister, did you not mislead the House yesterday when you asserted there would be no losers? Minister, did you not know or did you deliberately intend to mislead the 160,000 mobile home and caravan park residents Australia-wide that they are going to be stung by the ANTS package?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley's accusation of misleading the House requires a substantive motion. The member for Lilley has accused the Minister for Community Services of misleading the House.2V5Mr SWAN—I did not say that, Mr Speaker. What I said was, `Did you not mislead the House yesterday when you asserted there would be no losers?'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will allow the question to stand in the context that he is inviting the minister to respond to the statements made yesterday.4022Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—As usual when the question comes from the member for Lilley, there is barely a glimmer of truth in anything that he says. I take the advice of the Prime Minister not to rely on the figures quoted by the member for Lilley, because they are bound to be wrong. So the answer to your question is clearly no.40224022Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, you would know that costs are critical to business and particularly farm businesses. Are you aware of any recent developments affecting the cost of hiring workers on farms in New South Wales like those in my electorate of Page?4022Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question and acknowledge his interest in the competitive nature of our farm sector, particularly in New South Wales. A number of things have been happening recently that have a profound impact on the cost of hiring workers on farms in New South Wales. The first two relate to the refusal of the federal Labor Party to pass changes to our unfair dismissal laws in this place and also their refusal to support the youth wages bill in the other chamber in this place. They continue to oppose reforms in this place that will benefit the rural sector, particularly New South Wales.On top of that, the New South Wales Labor government refuses to do anything about the workers compensation arrangements in New South Wales. This financial year in New South Wales, workers compensation premiums on average are 2.8 per cent but, for the rural sector, they are 10.36 per cent—a disproportionate disadvantage to rural New South Wales. If the Labor Party in New South Wales and the Labor Party in the federal parliament were genuine about generating opportunities for work in the rural sector, particularly in New South Wales, they would do something about these things.If the New South Wales Labor government did something about the workers compensa tion arrangements in New South Wales, they would generate almost 6,000 new jobs in the rural sector in New South Wales. Just the same as if federal Labor stopped opposing every single measure that this government puts forward, we would generate a lot more jobs in rural New South Wales and rural Australia.You have the situation where you have a government here that has taken the tough decisions with economic reform—doing away with Labor's $10 billion deficit, providing a surplus and getting interest rates to the lowest they have been for 30 years—which are providing great benefits to rural Australia. We want to reform the industrial relations regime in this country to provide greater opportunity for jobs for rural workers in New South Wales. The state Labor government is doing exactly the same thing as federal Labor in opposing every benefit that could flow to rural New South Wales and rural Australia.40234023Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer and it is about rural jobs. Are you aware that on 23 June last year the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade said that Australia's rice industry was `an outstanding example of a well organised export oriented industry, successfully exporting to the world including Riverina rice into Japan?' Are you aware that recently Australia's rice industry released its first locally developed Japanese-style rice, the first time any rice variety had been accepted for plant breeders rights in Australia?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will come to his question.UU5Mr HORNE—I am at it now, Mr Speaker. Treasurer, why do you wish to place all this in jeopardy by forcing deregulation on Australia's rice industry and fining New South Wales $10 million per annum because it supports the rice growers of Australia and not big business interests?4023Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not aware whether the Deputy Prime Minister said that, but it was a fairly enlightened statement, so probably he did.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—He did.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He did, did he? I have no doubt that if he did say that—with his deep and abiding interest in and understanding of rural Australia—it would have been entirely correct. In relation to rice marketing, the government has put forward, after discussions with the rice growers and the New South Wales agreement, a proposal for a single export desk and for improvements to the domestic crop which will lead to better returns for rice growers. The honourable member then asked me why this activates competition payments. It does it for this reason: it activates it under a competition principles agreement signed by the Australian Labor Party in 1995.40234023Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, early last year Defence began an investigation into inappropriate disciplinary practices at the Defence Force correctional establishment at Holsworthy in my electorate of Hughes following allegations of abuse and improper behaviour. Can the minister inform the House of the progress of that investigation and the government's response towards such alleged practices?YK6WILTONMr Wilton—Old rigor mortis himself.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs is warned.4023Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question. In March last year the government did order a full investigation into the matter of the inappropriate disciplinary action taken at the Holsworthy Correctional Centre, which is in the member for Hughes's electorate. Some military personnel who had been taken on tours claimed that they had been physically assaulted and forcibly imprisoned. These attitude adjustment tours, as they had been known, had been happening since at least 1991 and were meant to deter potential offenders from becoming offenders under the Defence Force Discipline Act. Investigations found that the tours had become a short, structured form of punishment rather than anything else and that personnel were being treated more as inmates. This action was quite clearly outside of the checks and balances of the Defence Force Discipline Act.I want to advise the House and the member for Hughes that this practice has been stopped permanently. Our investigation in 1998 sent a very clear message that the government and Defence do not tolerate actions that are outside of the defence disciplinary system.Following this, other claims of inappropriate disciplinary action at another Army unit at Holsworthy have come to light. The military police have been examining these since September of last year. They include claims of assault and unfair and unlawful process. I have asked the Chief of Army to ensure all that these allegations are thoroughly assessed and any necessary action is taken. He expects that he will have a full report by the end of April to present to myself and the government.I do not want to prejudge the results of that investigation, but I do commend the Army for having the initiative to begin this investigation that flows from the initial investigation that commenced in March of last year. Where activities clearly fall outside the high standard that we require of our Defence Force, Defence will take prompt and appropriate action.Can I also say to the member for Hughes that members from 3 RAR from Holsworthy last week were in fact part of the Sandakan to Ranau pilgrimage. I must say that they put on an exemplary performance in parade and also with their catafalque party.40244024Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and it concerns his attack on services provided by student unions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come straight to his question.MG4Mr LEE—What was wrong with that?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—What was wrong with saying that it concerns his attack on services provided by student unions?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will either come to the question or resume his seat.MG4Mr LEE—Minister, have you being approached by the member for Ballarat on the damage your legislation will do by placing at risk the Year 2000 University Games, which will provide a $4 million boost to the economic viability of the city and region of Ballarat? Why is the minister undermining these games and services in regional Australia, such as the cinema in Armidale, the concert hall in Toowoomba and the swimming pool in Lismore?4024Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—One never gets a question from the other side without it being prompted by the relevant union. Of course, what we now have is the National Union of Students cranking up the defence of its own selfish, narrow interests.This government is strongly committed to voluntary student unionism and the right of students to decide whether or not they will fund certain services. When students are satisfied with those services, they will fund them, and the campaign which is currently being run on a number of campuses—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, the question was: has the member for Ballarat made representations to the minister?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the member for Dobell making a point of order?MG4LEEMr Lee—Yes, on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is responding to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—The campaign which is currently being run on some university campuses would suggest that certain services will be unfunded once voluntary student unionism comes in and implies that students do not value these services. That is simply not the case. We have found in Western Australia with voluntary student unionism that many students do value many of the services provided. There are, of course, students who do not feel that they are adequately serviced by the pattern of service provision on campuses at the present time. Unless university unions make an effort to provide services to those students, naturally they will not attract funding from those students. The university sector is now moving into an era of student choice.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the matter of Ballarat.BT4Dr KEMP—The question is about voluntary student unionism.Honourable members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—I do not intend to divulge conversations between myself and others members of the government, but I make the general point about voluntary student unionism that one should never assume that funding for student services will cease to flow once voluntary student unionism is in place. If those services are meeting the needs of students, they will be funded by students.40254025May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister inform the House of recent progress in the government's plan to save taxpayers $1 billion and boost regional employment through IT outsourcing?4025Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am pleased to inform the honourable member for McPherson that the government is on track to save $1 billion over the seven-year life of IT contracts in the government sector. Recently, I announced the IT outsourcing for the Australian Taxation Office and that represented a saving over a five-year contract of $100 million, or $55,000 each day of those five years. The government's policy in this area is that we recognise that this tool for delivering services to the community can be provided by the private sector, it can be done efficiently, it can be done cost effectively and it can be utilised by the government to develop this industry which is in a growth area.By way of example of that development of the IT industry, the contract that was let to the Australian Taxation Office brought with it a commitment in contract for strategic investment of some $27 million. It brought with it in the contract total exports which will exceed $65 million. It is a consortium which is headed by EDS Australia. Some $280 million worth of products and services will be sourced from within Australia in that contract. Over $100 million of work will flow to the Australian IT industry. Some 26.2 per cent of the contract will be subcontracted to small and medium Australian enterprises, and 138 new jobs will be created, 86 of which will be in regional Australia.This again demonstrates that the government takes a very simple approach to good management. That good management represents looking in the Yellow Pages and seeing if this tool in providing services can be provided by the private sector, doing proper market testing, going through competitive tendering, getting savings—which I am confident, when this particular program is finished, will actually equal $1 billion for the taxpayers of Australia—and giving the industry a chance to grow, as it is growing in this country. There is a huge future for the IT industry in Australia and the government is using its purchasing power to ensure that small and medium enterprises in Australia are given the opportunity to grow not just in providing services for government but in providing other services in Australia, exports and the regional development that is tied up with it.Each time we do this, we get complaints from the Labor Party. The Labor Party would do well to have a look at what Tony Blair is doing in England. Only recently, New Labour in England outsourced its national savings agency—a £1 billion operation for Siemens business services. That indicates a ringing endorsement of what is occurring in this country. Job creation, savings for taxpayers, growth of a growth industry and regional development are all of the ingredients that, providing good economic management, give benefits to all Australians. It is another success story for this government.40264026Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is again to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of recent comments by former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Sir Gerard Brennan criticising his proposed student union legislation because it would `emasculate the liberality of university education and quell decent' and would reduce our democracy to `a hollow incantation'? Does the minister claim to be a better arbitrator of arguments about free speech and freedom of association than former Chief Justice Brennan?4026Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Weren't you in the House yesterday? I referred in fact to the comments of the new chancellor of UTS yesterday. It would be valuable perhaps to hear his comments on the orientation handbook that was put out by the student association at his university this year providing directions for students on how to inject themselves with heroin.Many students on university campuses are disgusted at the way in which their compulsorily acquired fees are used to promote extremist causes and causes which border on advising students how to evade the law. We have seen that recently with student articles in relation to the avoidance of charges for drunken driving. We have seen articles which advise students on how to shoplift. Students on campuses are demanding the right to have a say in how their moneys are spent.Universities are supposed to be the bastions of freedom. They are supposed to stand for academic freedom. They are supposed to stand for freedom of speech. They are supposed to stand for freedom of thought. If the universities themselves will not implement the basic human right of freedom of association, this government will bring forward legislation, and has done so, to ensure that all students have the right to join or not to join the association of their choice.40264026Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. The minister will be aware of reports that Australia has a future as a major regional Asian financial centre. What advantages do we have in reaching such a position?4026Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Fadden for his erudite question.Mr Crean interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—You must be on performance enhancing drugs today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will direct his remarks through the chair.DK6Mr HOCKEY—We'll take a Fine Cotton swab on them after this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Hotham seek the call?Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I share the member for Hotham's concern, but he will note that I had already directed the minister to return to the question.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have not in fact finished my statement to the House. I share the member for Hotham's concern. I had, as he would have noted, already asked the minister to return to the question, indicating that I did share that concern. I ask him to withdraw any unfair inference that he made about the member for Hotham and return to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I am happy to withdraw it about the member for Hotham. International investors are looking for some key features in Australia when thinking about investing in our financial markets. The first quality they are looking for is depth and liquidity in our financial markets. As the Treasurer enunciated a little earlier in question time, the Australian Stock Exchange is now the second largest equities market in the Asian region after Tokyo.What the Treasurer did not mention in passing was that the daily turnover of the Australian Stock Exchange has more than doubled in the last five years. The Sydney Futures Exchange is the largest, the number one, exchange in Asia, with over 28 million contracts a day traded, compared with Tokyo, 26 million contracts a day, and Singapore, 24 million contracts a day.Secondly, international investors are looking for low cost infrastructure. When you look at the cost of rentals across the region, a CBD apartment in Sydney is around $2,000 a month; in Singapore, $2,500 a month; in Tokyo, over $5,000 a month; and in Hong Kong, over $7,500 a month. We are also internationally competitive in our provision of educational services and telecommunications and, in salaries, we are highly competitive with the major financial centres of the region.Thirdly, international investors are looking for a strong domestic economy. As the Treasurer enunciated, we have 4.7 per cent growth—the highest of the G7, higher than the OECD average and even faster than the United States. Also, we have low inflation and we have strong domestic demand.The fourth factor they are looking for is a determination to continue with the reform process. This is particularly important when it comes to taxation reform. The abolition of financial institutions duty, debits tax and the stamp duty on transfer of shares will abolish $3 billion a year on financial services activity. Professor Peter Swan, whose modelling was correct in relation to previous reductions in stamp duty on the transfer of shares, gave evidence to a Senate committee only last week that the abolition of stamp duty on the transfer of shares will deliver an increase in the Australian stock market value of $54 billion, a 10 per cent increase. That is the savings of ordinary, average Australians as well as international investors.The fundamental point is that we have to continue with our determination in taxation reform. We cannot continue to have an economy operating like a Ferrari running on a dirt road taxation system. This side of the parliament is determined to get the bitumen trucks out there and lay a good foundation for the future. If the opposition does not like it, it says more about the opposition than it does about our commitment to reform.40274027Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of the view that, and I quote:Since student unions do have a positive contribution to offer to student welfare and student education they should be supported by all those who profit from them. The funding, and therefore provision of services, would be impossible unless there was some requirement to pay a contribution.What is his response to this view?4027Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—You can see that the student unions—4G4DOWNERMr Downer—The old trade union question.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What did you say, Alex?5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—The old trade union bill.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Kingsford-Smith and the member for Batman will exercise a little more restraint, as will the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I call the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.BT4Dr KEMP—The argument that the member uses is nothing other than the same old argument the trade unions have always used to support the closed shop.Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Paterson.BT4Dr KEMP—The community argument that somehow or other student unions are in the same position as local governments and therefore entitled to tax all their members is not a valid argument and has never been accepted as a valid argument in relation to trade unions. It is not a valid argument in relation to private associations. Whoever puts forward this argument, wherever they may be and whoever they may be, is putting forward a mistaken argument. Student associations are not taxing agencies. This government is not going to allow them to tax. They can only obtain their finances as a result of voluntary contributions.40274027Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Burmese government has refused to issue a visa for Dr Michael Aris, husband of Aung San Suu Kyi. Could the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House what the Australian government's response is to this situation?4028Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for her question. I particularly have noted the honourable member's concern for Aung San Suu Kyi and her husband's bid to get a visa to visit Burma at a time when he is suffering from the greatest of ill health. The honourable member for Gilmore has gone out of her way to express the view that Dr Aris should be given a visa to visit Burma to be able to visit his wife in circumstances where his health has deteriorated very severely. The honourable member for Gilmore deserves to be congratulated for the effort she has made on this issue. I notice she made a very good speech yesterday in the parliament on this very matter.The Australian government has made representations to the so-called SPDC, the governing authority in Burma. Our ambassador spoke to the home affairs minister in Burma last month saying that we would like to see a visa issued to Dr Aris. The Burmese authorities have so far said that they would not be prepared to issue that visa and suggested that Aung San Suu Kyi should leave the country and go to another part of the world, presumably Britain, to see her ill husband. Understandably, Aung San Suu Kyi is concerned that, if she leaves the country, she will not be allowed back in, so that is obviously for her a very serious consideration.It remains the view of the Australian government that the SPDC in Burma should do the humanitarian thing and grant Dr Aris a visa. There is no downside for the Burmese government to do that. It would be a humanitarian and decent thing to do. The man is seriously ill. He wants to see his wife in the circumstances that he is in. She wants to see him and she should be able to see him and he her. The Australian government calls on Burma to take a much more humanitarian approach to this issue.40284028Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the education minister aware that the earlier question from the member for Bruce was based on comments penned by that old trade unionist, the Treasurer? In this article, he said:The fact that some people object to the way in which some public funds are spent does not mean that they are therefore exempted from paying taxes.He went on to say:The fact that there are some political donations made on behalf of SRCs . . . does not mean that we should create a situation whereby all activities, including those that are profitable, should be penalised by voluntary payments.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to the question.MG4Mr LEE—Minister, why are you ignoring the Treasurer's advice and placing at risk student services and jobs?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham. The member for Cunningham. When the member for Dobell—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You should sue him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Batman. I am loath to warn members of the frontbench, but the member for Batman has already caught my eye, as he is aware. I call the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.4028Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Let me repeat myself—MG4LEEMr Lee—Why are you ignoring his advice?Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell and the member for Grayndler will exercise some restraint. The minister has the call, and standing order 55 precludes them from that sort of persistent interjection. I call the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—I think everyone on this side of the House knows that—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—That you're an idiot.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn you, Member for Grayndler.BT4Dr KEMP—You do not just rely on the statements that are made out of context by those on the other side of the House. Let me repeat myself: student associations are not taxing agencies. The government does not allow them to tax. The government does not support that argument for compulsory student unionism. This government has therefore introduced legislation—Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler has been warned.BT4Dr KEMP—that will guarantee to all students the right of freedom of association and the right to choose the associations to which they will contribute their money.40294029Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of comments by the Chief Executive of the Australian Bankers Association supporting the Commonwealth government's initiatives to encourage farmers to increase their level of savings in good years and to be prepared for adverse times such as drought or depressed commodity prices?4029Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for his question and for the interest that he takes in the government's moves to try to help the rural communities better manage their risks. I am aware of the comments that have been made by the Australian Bankers Association chief executive, Tony Aveling, and I welcome his support for these important government initiatives.Recently we launched the Farm Management Deposit Scheme—which was the delivery of another election commitment of our government—which is a fully commercial tax linked deposit scheme that guarantees freedom of choice. The FMD Scheme is an exceptional risk management tool which allows farmers to set aside with their choice of financial institution pre-tax income earned during the good years. So there is complete flexibility as far as choice is concerned, and they can use whatever financial institution they like.There were interesting comments made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bankers Association. ABA chief executive Tony Aveling said:The scheme will allow farmers to set aside income in a tax effective manner in good years so that funds are available in downturns due to factors such as drought or depressed commodity prices.In another article in the media, the Commonwealth Bank yesterday launched its farm management deposit product, offering interest rates of up to 4.95 per cent on deposits between $100 and $300,000 and no transaction or account keeping fees—similar to an on-call investment account. The government is closing deposits to the old scheme early next month.It is good news for rural Australia. Our government is providing risk management tools to assist farmers to manage the difficult circumstances—whether they be climatic or commodity prices—through the difficult cycles that they face. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme, which has been introduced by the government, is yet another one of those tools that we are using to assist the farm community in times of difficulties.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice4029402915:13:004029Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The member for Fowler earlier asked me a detailed question on some grants in her electorate. I have been advised during question time that there were a number of applications from her electorate. They were knocked out by the New South Wales reference group. That reference group was chaired by the New South Wales state government Department of Health.The second point that I would make is that there were queries thrown across the table as to why in the first round the group in her electorate got only $75,000. The answer is that that is all they asked for. The third point that I would make is that if you do a quick calculation on the funding that the Prime Minister announced to New South Wales last week, because many drug and alcohol rehab services are in inner city areas, in fact over 90 per cent of the funding went to Labor seats.Questions to the Speaker403040304030O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Yesterday, during question time, in response to an interjection from me, you chose to invoke rule 304A against me. You seem to exhibit an extraordinary sensitivity to remarks from me, but that is not the point of my question. The point relates to the circumstances of the time. In reading today's Hansard of yesterday's events, I note that when the member for Shortland was asking the question that caused my interjection, in Hansard terms she was three centimetres into the question when you called her to a halt. The interjection that I made was, `Give her a go,' and that caused you to send me on my way. When she was then allowed to complete the question, it totalled in all four centimetres. I noticed that the next question asked by one of the members opposite, Dr Nelson, was 4½ centimetres long and was uninterrupted by you. I went on to look at some past performances of other speakers and I discovered that on 9 March 1995, Mr Howard asked a question that was nine centimetres long, uninterrupted by the Speaker. On 8 March the then shadow Treasurer—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am very happy to come to what I think is the point of the member's concern, but I do not need any more illustrations of past history.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—I think it is very relevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will come to his question to me.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—Mr Costello asked a question that was six centimetres long.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will allow this one illustration and then the member for Burke will come to his question to me.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—My point is this: I am asking you what it was about the question from the member for Shortland that caused you to intervene at such an early stage. Am I entitled to draw the conclusion that it was because—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, you are not entitled to draw any conclusions, but you have asked me a question—CE4Mr O'KEEFE—I am allowed to complete my question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat, because I have another member on his feet with a point of order!WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker. These questions to the Speaker after question time go to administrative matters and the like. It is true that, from time to time, you have generously allowed people to ask a question which ranged a bit broader, but it is clearly a breach of the conventions of this place for people to ask a question which is a disguised attack on a ruling that you made yesterday. That is quite clearly the case. It is not a question; it is a speech. It should simply be ruled out of order and I invite you to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the House. I do not propose, in fact, to rule the member for Burke's inquiry out of order. But I am quite happy to respond to it—as I was within seconds of him rising to his feet. The reason that I—CE4Mr O'KEEFE—I want to complete the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry, the member for Burke may then complete his question.CE4Mr O'KEEFE—The point of the question is: am I entitled to conclude that it was the fact that it was a question about country petrol prices which embarrasses the other side—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat and I will respond—CE4Mr O'KEEFE—that caused you to intervene?4030Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Burke will resume his seat. I have absolutely no qualms about indicating to the member for Burke, if he is unaware of it, precisely what he did wrong. The member for Burke did yesterday precisely what he is doing today. When I brought his attention to the reason why I had intervened on the member for Shortland's question, he then challenged the chair's decision and, as the Hansard record will show, I warned him. He further challenged the chair's decision instead of resum ing his seat. It was that persistent interruption of the chair that brought on the warning yesterday. It had nothing to do with the length of the member for Shortland's question.40314031Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Pursuant to standing order 150, I ask that you seek answers to questions 90 and 91 on the Notice Paper from the relevant ministers.4031Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take the appropriate action.40314031O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Mr Speaker, I would invite you to peruse the Hansard —10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke is rising on a point of order?Government members interjecting—CE4Mr O'KEEFE—I am asking your guidance then, Mr Speaker. How do I respond to something you say when it is clearly inaccurate? What are the forms of the House so I can do that?4031Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Burke will resume his seat. If he is unhappy with anything the Speaker has had to say, he is most welcome in the first instance, as all members are, to raise it with me outside the House, and I will ensure that if anything has happened that in any way unfairly impinges on his reputation that it is raised inside the House.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am on my feet.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—No, I was on my feet first.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke is warned!Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is warned. I am on my feet.Committees4031403140314031Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday, the honourable member for Cunningham raised, as a matter of privilege, the publication in certain media outlets of information concerning a report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration before the report had been presented to the House.I have to advise the House that, in accordance with the procedures applicable in such matters, the issues must be considered in the first instance by the committee itself. The committee should consider first whether, in its opinion, the matter has caused or is likely to cause substantial interference with its work, with the committee system or with the functioning of the House. The committee must also take whatever steps it can to ascertain the source or sources of any disclosure.The committee should inform the House of the results of its consideration of the matter. If it concludes that substantial interference has occurred, it must explain why it has reached this conclusion.Documents40314031Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Digital Broadcasting Industry—Action Agenda.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Miscellaneous40314031Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Tuesday, 23 March 1999, at 4.30 p.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Ministerial Statements4031403115:22:004031Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—by leave—Concerns about the safety of consumers in a large number of high occupancy buildings have led me to issue a notice of investigation and warning to the public under section 65B of the Trade Prac tices Act 1974. The notice advises that a particular type of fire door—that is, fire doors using a Pyrokor core—which were manufactured between 1993 and 3 September 1998 are under investigation to determine whether they will or may cause injury to any person. The notice was published in a special Commonwealth government Gazette on 19 March 1999.Allegations that these fire doors do not meet mandatory building safety standards were first brought to my attention on 22 February 1999. I then asked the Department of the Treasury to obtain urgent technical advice from state and territory building regulators and from the Australian Building Codes Board on this issue and advise me accordingly.Fire doors are required to satisfy the safety performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia 1996, which requires the doors to impede the passage of fire through a building. This means that fire doors must be manufactured and installed in accordance with part 1 of Australian Standard 1905. In accordance with the Australian standard, fire doors must be subjected to a standard fire test and be fire rated. For example, a fire door with a fire rating of one hour must impede the passage of fire through the door for at least one hour and a two hour fire rated door for at least two. Fire doors, therefore, provide more time to enable the occupants of a building to evacuate in the event of a fire.I have been provided with copies of fire door certification schedules which claim the Pyrokor fire doors meet the Building Code requirements. However, I have concerns about the validity of the certifications for two reasons. Firstly, a number of the fire test reports being referenced actually show that the Pyrokor fire doors did not obtain the minimum fire rating of one hour. Secondly, test reports on fire doors constructed of different materials were being referenced, and reliance on these test reports would be invalid. Thus the Pyrokor fire doors have been represented as complying with safety requirements when they may not comply.The ACCC is currently investigating the certificates of compliance for breaches of sections 52, 53A and 55 of the Trade Practices Act which deal with misleading and deceptive conduct and false representations. This may have serious implications for those with responsibility for the inspection and approval of building works. While enforcement of the Building Code of Australia is a state and territory responsibility, the relevant departments responsible for building regulation do not enforce the Building Code of Australia. This is done by local councils, which have the power to approve building construction and declare buildings fit for occupancy or unsafe as the case may be. If councils were led to believe that the doors met required standards they would naturally have approved the buildings. The department has now written to state and territory departments responsible for building regulation and asked that this matter be brought to the attention of local councils.Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 I have a range of powers to protect the public from unsafe goods. I can publish a notice stating that specified goods are under investigation and warn of the possible risk involved in their use. I can also order the compulsory recall of goods if it appears to me that the goods `will or may cause injury' to any person and the supplier has not taken satisfactory action to prevent the goods causing injury to any person. Fire doors that do not meet the relevant mandatory safety requirements of the Building Code of Australia may not provide the level of safety and protection expected by the community and government.I have also received expert technical advice from CSIRO that the installation of a Pyrokor door that does not meet the safety requirements represents a varying degree of life and property hazard. The hazard could be extreme in situations where the occupants are asleep or incapacitated—for example, in hospitals and nursing homes. In other occupancies which contain various combinations of smoke detection and fire control systems the risk to life would be considerably reduced, particularly if the buildings were only occupied for work purposes.I have been advised that Pyrokor fire doors manufactured between 1993 and 3 September 1998 are installed in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, major shopping centres, stores and supermarkets, high-rise home units, government buildings and private business premises. Before considering the need to order a compulsory recall under the Trade Practices Act I need to establish conclusively that the fire doors in question fail the Building Code safety requirements and that those failures actually pose a threat to the safety of occupants of buildings. Minor technical breaches of the safety requirements may not provide sufficient evidence that the Pyrokor fire doors `will or may cause injury' and, as a consequence, lead me to use my powers to order a compulsory recall under the Trade Practices Act.I have asked the Department of the Treasury, therefore, to commission urgent testing of the fire doors by the CSIRO, to establish conclusively whether or not the fire doors installed in buildings meet safety requirements and to assess the safety implications if the fire doors do not meet Building Code fire test requirements. These tests may provide conclusive evidence on which to base a compulsory recall under the Trade Practices Act. Although there are varying degrees of risk, I am not prepared to take any chances when there is a potential risk to the lives of consumers and have, therefore, issued the notice of investigation and warning to the public under section 65B of the Trade Practices Act 1974. On completion of the investigation and testing of the Pyrokor fire doors I will publish a further notice advising what action I intend to take. I present a copy of my ministerial statement.15:28:004033Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—by leave—On the basis of the information that has been provided to the opposition by the government and that has been outlined in the ministerial statement today the opposition supports the actions taken by the minister. We note that in his statement he indicates that this matter was first drawn to his attention on 22 February of this year. I am presuming from his statement that this can also be read as meaning that this is the first occasion on which the government became aware of the issue and that none of his predecessors have had this issue drawn to their attention. I am also assuming that the assessment that has been made by his departmental advisers that there is insufficient technical evidence at this stage to make a conclusive decision to order an immediate recall is, in fact, a fair and reasonable assessment of the state of that evidence.It is obviously important that the government of the country protects consumers from risks such as fire doors that are portrayed as being able to perform a particular task to a given standard but that are in fact not able to do so. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that such an investigation should be launched and conducted urgently. If the investigation does reveal, as the minister obviously suspects, that this particular category of fire door is not adequate for the purposes for which it is warranted, then clearly a recall should occur.I note also that these events do raise questions about the certification process which enabled these particular fire doors to be certified as appropriate for the task, when it may well be that they are not. Hopefully the inquiry by the ACCC will cast some light on that question as to whether any changes in procedures are required. It is also a good indication of the importance of rigorous procedures in matters such as these.I note the tangential reference in the statement to building inspectors. It is one of the concerns that I have that in some areas the processes of inspection and enforcement of some of these types of concerns has actually deteriorated in recent times through, for example, the privatisation or contracting out of things like building inspection.In conclusion, based on the information that we have at this stage, the opposition supports the actions that the minister is proposing to take. May I just in passing commend the minister for actually making a ministerial statement on this issue rather than using question time to do so. It would be good if some of his colleagues followed his example.Motion (by Mr Hockey) proposed:That the House take note of the paper.Debate adjourned.Matters of Public Importance4034403410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage being done to Australian tertiary education by the policies of the Howard government.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:32:004034Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—`Whoever puts forward this argument, wherever they may be, whoever they may be, is putting forward a mistaken argument.' Who said that? This man, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, said it. He made it quite clear that he believes that that is the view of the old trade unionists.Who made this statement? Was it Laurie Carmichael? No. Was it John Halfpenny? No. Was it John Coombs? No. Was it Joe de Bruin? No, it was the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia who made the remarks in this article—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Peter who?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—`Peter who?' the member for Banks may well ask. It was a comment written in this report by the current Treasurer of Australia, Peter Costello. Let me remind the minister exactly what the Treasurer said:The funding and therefore provision of . . . services would be impossible unless there was some requirement to pay a contribution. . . Peter Costello, Treasurer of Australia today, said that. Minister, you were the one who said that it was the old trade union view. You are the one who said:Whoever puts forward this argument, wherever they may be, whoever they may be, is putting forward a mistaken argument.Minister, let me remind you what Mr Costello also said:The fact that some people object to the way in which some public funds are spent does not mean that they are therefore exempted from paying taxes.That is the view of the man who collects the majority of our taxes in Australia today. You cannot make taxes optional; you have got to make sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. It is the same with local government rates. You cannot have local government rates being optional or people will not pay their fair share; there will be no revenue to provide the garbage collection services, to look after the services that local government provides. This minister cannot understand his own colleague's commonsense. If the minister wants to get his researchers working on this, the article is in Lot's Wife . There is a bit of a hint for you. See if you can get your researchers to find it in Lot's Wife . In this article the Treasurer goes on to say:The fact that there are some political donations made on behalf of S.R.C.s . . . does not mean that we should therefore create a situation where all activities including those that are profitable . . . should be penalised by voluntary payments.Peter Costello got this right when that article was written. The minister for education is getting this argument wrong today. The reason that we are going to oppose this government's vindictive and destructive legislation on student unionism is that we know what is really driving this.The real reason this minister is launching this attack on student unions is that this minister is fading in the top 30 of the ministerial hit parade. He was Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the last government and he made such a stuff up of the Job Network he lost half his job. Having lost half his job, he is desperate to try to find a way that he can win back the Prime Minister's love and affection. He wants to win back the Prime Minister's glowing support. We believe that the way you do not do this is to take the meat cleaver to education services in Australia. That is what this government and this minister have done to education services in Australia.The meat cleaver hacks off $840 million—slashed—from universities' operating advances. It slashes off 21,000 university places, taken away from the forward estimates. This government dramatically puts the blade into all of those students out there who are paying more in their HECS payments. This minister imposes on an arts student who is doing a three-year arts degree an increase of $2,500 in the cost of doing their degree through the higher HECS payments. If you are enthusiastic about maths or science or computing and you want to make a contribution to the future of the country, this Howard government has increased the cost of your three-year maths, science or computing course by $6,700. If you happen to watch one of those TV programs that encourages you to become a vet, this government actually penalises you over your five-year vet science degree by adding an extra cost of $15,290.They take $840 million from funding for universities. They take 21,000 places out of the forward estimates for universities. They force students to pay thousands and thousands of dollars more. They take half a billion dollars out of the student income support schemes by the unfair changes they have made there and they axe $240 million over four years from the future growth for TAFE. That is how this government demonstrate their concern about education. What they do not understand is that education is an investment in the nation's future. Education is an investment in giving young people more opportunity so that they can not only enrich their lives but also get more opportunities for employment. Every time this minister for education takes a dollar out of a university, takes a dollar out of TAFE, takes a dollar out of the pockets of students, he is denying those young people their opportunities. He is denying all Australians, whatever their age, a chance to retrain during their working life if they happen to lose their jobs. It is this minister for education in this government who is reducing the opportunities for young people right across the country.We know that this is driven by revenge. This is revenge because the student unions had the temerity to speak out against this government's cutbacks in funding for universities. The student unions, the student associations and the student guilds led the fight against the 1996 budget cuts to education. That is why they have paid the penalty. In the same way, this government axed federal funding for the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Federation because they had the temerity to oppose the government's cuts in funding for nursing homes. They had their funding cut in the same way as the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition had their funding cut because they had the temerity to oppose this government's cuts to student youth support programs. They had their funding cut because they opposed the changes to the youth allowance. In the same way, this minister, in a vindictive and destructive way, is setting out to silence the student unions, the student associations and the student guilds who oppose this government's short-sighted cuts to funding for education.I suspect that in some measure this has been driven by the fact that some of the student guilds and student associations many years ago made the mistake of including the word `union' in their name. Some of them are called student unions; others are called student associations and student guilds. But I bet that if there were no student organisation across the country called a student union we would not have this legislation before the parliament today.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Or if the universities charged amenities fees.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Or if the universities charged amenities fees, as the Leader of the Opposition interjects, we would not have this legislation here today. This government hate the word `union' as much as this government hate the word `Medicare'. Remember in the last parliament they went out of their way to delete the word `Medicare' from the lexicon of any legislation in the parliament. `Medicare' was deleted from the name of the health care agreements with the states and `Medicare' was deleted from the legislation governing the Medicare payments because they hate Medicare. In the same way as they hate the word `Medicare' they hate the word `union'. I worry about the future of organisations like credit unions and rugby union clubs and the European Union. You have to realise that this is being driven by this minister's ideological obsession. Having lost half of his job, he is determined to try to win back the favour of the Prime Minister.We on this side of the House believe that student associations and student unions have a legitimate role to play. They can speak out on behalf of students. They can speak out to the federal government if they are contemplating changes in the student allowance. They can speak out to the vice-chancellors on campus if they believe there are changes there that warrant a student point of view being put forward. They can also make sure that services are organised to meet the needs of students. That is the role of student associations. You need to have democratically elected student presidents and democratically elected student councils to make sure that they represent the views of their members.What this minister has never understood is that only five per cent of the funds raised by these fees goes towards that activity—a legitimate activity—while 95 per cent of the money actually goes towards providing services for students and also services to people in local communities like your own, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, right across the country in rural and regional Australia—services such as child care, housing assistance, legal advice and sexual counselling. They help run the cafeterias and the sporting facilities to help people train and become excellent in various sporting pursuits. They also do things that I am sure are important to many of my colleagues on this side of the House. They make sure that there are opportunities to hear bands. The first time some young people get to hear a band is when they are at their local TAFE or university campus. For new and emerging bands it is often their only chance to become well known, given the changes that have taken place in the licensing laws in pubs and clubs.The minister might look down his nose at those opportunities for Australia's young and emerging musicians, but we on this side of the House know that that is also a small but important part of the role that student unions and student associations play. That is what is at risk because of this minister's ideological obsession—child care, housing assistance, legal advice, cafeterias, sporting facilities, social activities through bands, and the 2,000 or more jobs that are generated in those cafeterias, in the gymnasiums and in looking after the sporting fields. All of those 2,000 jobs are at risk because of this minister's ideological obsession.We predicted at the start of this debate that members of the coalition backbench would revolt. They already have: the member for Kennedy—I'll read you the press releases if you like—the member for Gilmore, the member for Groom, and we have had the member for New England realise that the cinema in Armidale is run by the student association, while people like the member for Page are working out that the new swimming pool is one-third funded by the local student association. We have people like Steve Moneghetti making it clear that if it were not for competition in the University Games he would not have developed as well as he has as one of Australia's great sporting ambassadors. He realises that this minister, in undermining the sporting opportunities for young people at Australia's universities, is undermining the next generation of Steve Moneghettis, and he is undermining opportunities for young people wherever they may be.The minister argues and his colleagues argue, `Don't worry. We have implemented so-called voluntary student unionism in Western Australia and it is a great success.' He is over in Washington—he has disappeared on a junket somewhere—so he rolls out Senator Lightfoot. You know that you are really in trouble when you have to roll out Senator Lightfoot to defend you. Senator Lightfoot says, `It is such a success in Western Australia. I know of one university campus where they have closed down the child-care centre and opened a hairdressing salon.' That is how this minister defines success. He also claims there was an expansion of employment services at Curtin University, I think it was, but when you actually looked at the figures the minister had once again misled the Australian people. He had misled the Australian people because it was not a new, broader service; it was actually a more restrictive service. You used to be able to get your CV written for free at Curtin University but now you have to pay money. Employment advice was available to every student on campus before but it is now only available to the 10 to 20 per cent who are members of the student union. This minister misled the Australian people when he claimed that there was a new employment advice service at Curtin University when in fact voluntary student unionism meant that there had been a restriction in the ability of students at that campus to get the employment advice they needed.We believe very strongly that this minister should be held accountable for his attack on voluntary student unionism. We are also going to make it clear that when this minister attacks Australia's university system he is attacking the very thing that provides Australia's opportunities for the future. When young people get a chance to improve their skills, they get a chance to be part of the new discoveries and the new inventions that are coming along. When young people study maths and science, that gives them a better chance to be part of the future research and development that is there to provide jobs for the future. When young people make an effort to do maths, science and history and to learn about their country, they are not only enriching themselves but also giving themselves the best possible start in life and the widest possible choice of opportunities for their future.When this minister lops $840 million from university funding, he is cutting into those opportunities for young people. When he cannot make up his mind about the future of the Australian Research Council after months and months of dithering, he leaves at risk our future research effort. This minister cannot make up his mind and cannot convince his colleagues what is going to happen on the question of supplementation for universities. He raised their hopes towards the end of last year and then dashed them when he met with them this year. Is it any wonder that the universities do not know how much more pain and suffering students and staff will suffer under this minister's reign?On issues like Greenwich University on Norfolk Island the minister cannot even be bothered to talk to his colleague to stop Australia's international reputation being undermined. The problem with this government is that they do not understand that funding and education are an investment in the future. They are not a cost; they are an investment. They are an investment in the future of young Australians. They are an investment in the future of our fellow Australians in making sure that they have the opportunities they need in life and the opportunities Australia needs for a healthy future.15:47:004037Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The invisible man of the Australian education debate, the shadow minister, has finally dared to put up a topic in the House for debate. But when we look at the substance of what he has to say we find that, as you expect with the Labor Party, there is one overwhelming preoccupation, and that preoccupation is the defence of the union interests behind the Labor Party—in this case, the National Union of Students. There are many issues that the shadow minister might have addressed to tell us what the Labor Party is going to do. We know he is a shadow minister saddled with an empty, vacuous policy that the member for Werriwa was impelled to walk away from after the last election campaign.When we finally get this shadow minister to his feet in a matter of public importance debate, we are not at all surprised to find that the topic which preoccupies him is the compulsory funding of his mates on campus. He is not interested in the wider questions relating to higher education. He has never asked me a question about higher education on mainland Australia since the parliament returned this year. I think he attempted to ask a couple of questions about Norfolk Island—and he seems to have returned to the mainland—but he still has nothing whatever of substance to say about Australian higher education policy. That is because the Labor Party has no policy of any worth whatever to do with higher education.This was made quite clear by the member for Werriwa when he described the circumstances under which the Labor Party's higher education policy was drafted. Let me remind the House of what those circumstances were. The member for Werriwa said:Mike Pezzullo, chief policy adviser, and John Angley, who worked for Kim as finance minister and had no involvement in the education area, rewrote the bloody thing—That language is not mine; that is the language of the member for Werriwa, and that refers to the Labor Party's education policy—all under the approval of McMullan. So they stuffed it up.The member for Werriwa went on to say:I first read the final document in the car going from the Frankston launch to Melbourne airport to go home. That is the truth of it, the God's honest truth. Yes, you can quote me. I'm now dealing in the truth.That is the context within which the member for Dobell, who has responsibility for this massacred and butchered policy of the Labor Party, gets up to make his first speech this year on higher education in the matter of public importance debate.The topic refers to tertiary education. The great bulk of tertiary education that concerns most young people in Australia once again did not get a mention by the Labor Party. Some 70 per cent of young people do not go on to university. This government has worked to increase very substantially the opportunities for those 70 per cent who do not come out of school and go to university. But, as we know, the Labor Party has no interest in these matters. It has only been concerned with the interests of its union mates on university campuses, so it is not surprising that that preoccupies the member for Dobell.In relation to voluntary student unionism, the member for Dobell says that student services and student life have in some way declined in Western Australia. Western Australia is a state which has legislated voluntary student unionism and indeed has legislation which is very similar to the legislation the federal government has introduced into the House of Representatives and to the Senate. In relation to Western Australia, I was very interested to read the orientation handbook of the voluntarily funded student association on campus at the University of Western Australia. What that student association handbook said was that the association on that campus was one of the most vibrant in Australia. It offered students a great range of services, and indeed discounts, to encourage them to join the student association.Once students are given the choice of whether or not to pay a fee to student associations, we expect those associations to improve their services and offer discounts. Once students have that choice, it is incumbent on those associations to make their services responsive to what students are looking for.But the Labor Party has never supported choice: the Labor Party wants compulsion. Typical of the pathetic props upon which it seeks to rely, the Labor Party goes right back to pick up a student comment from one of the strongest proponents of voluntary student unionism in Australia, the federal Treasurer. The federal Treasurer has been one of the strongest supporters of the abolition of compulsory student unionism. But the member for Dobell seeks to drag out of the distant past a statement which has clearly been disowned by the Treasurer. I am sure that, on reflection, the Treasurer would agree with me that the dragging out of that statement is really characteristic of what we have come to expect from the Labor Party.Australian universities are outstandingly good institutions. Australia has an outstandingly good university sector, and overseas students are perhaps the best judges of its quality. It is very interesting that under this government we have seen increasing numbers of overseas students coming to Australian university campuses. In fact, last year the number of overseas students was 15 per cent up on the previous year. That reflects, of course, the entrepreneurial attitudes that Australian universities are now taking.The Australian higher education sector is a growing one. There were 26,000 more undergraduates on university campuses in Australia in 1998 than there were when the Labor Party was last in office in 1996. Total revenues of Australian universities this year, 1999, are the highest ever. They have been estimated to be $8.7 billion, some $700 million more than when the Labor Party was last in office. That reflects the fact that the government has opened the doors to increasing revenues for Australian universities. There have never been more students on campus. Universities have never had more revenue at their disposal than they have under the policies of this government.Because of the growth that is taking place in higher education, there are more opportunities for disadvantaged students on university campuses. In 1998 the number of indigenous students was up 12 per cent, the number of rural students on university campuses was up seven per cent and the number of disabled students was up 68 per cent from when the Labor Party was in office. So equity of admission to Australian universities is improving and the numbers of such admissions are increasing under this government.This growth and these expanding opportunities on Australian campuses are occurring because of the government policies underpinning them. In 1999 the operating grant per fully funded student on Australian campuses was $11,596—higher in constant dollar terms than it was when this government came to office. Not only is the funding per fully funded place higher, but also there are more fully funded places. Indeed, there are 13,000 more fully funded undergraduate places on Australian campuses this year than there were when the Labor Party was last in office.Research funding has also been expanded. The Labor Party made it clear—in that disastrous policy that I mentioned for which the member for Dobell is still responsible—that it did not intend to maintain funding for research on Australian university campuses. The coalition made it clear that it would maintain funding for high quality, basic research in Australian universities.The government has expanded universities; its policies are leading to an expansion of opportunities for young Australians. The government has supported significant new developments. The member for Fisher would be very interested in these developments because Australia now has a new independent university on the Sunshine Coast.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It's opening shortly.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Indeed, it is being opened shortly. The government has also expanded significantly, through improved funding arrangements, the higher education opportunities for indigenous students in the Kimberleys. A great deal that is exciting and innovative is now going on in the higher education sector.But the member for Dobell cannot see that. He is the member who has been prepared to shoulder the burden of carrying the Labor Party's butchered education policy. When he finally gets up to speak in the parliament, all he can do is talk at length about the interests of his union mates on campuses. He has no interest whatever in the substance of these issues.The higher education sector is facing significant challenges at the moment; there is no doubt about that. Like other sectors of Australian society, it has had to shoulder some of the burden of coping with the $10.3 billion black hole that was left by the Labor Party's mismanagement. There are students on campus today who very keenly advocate a shift away from the compulsory up-front fee which the Labor Party continues to support for these student unions. Students on Australian campuses, I believe, are looking forward to having freedom of choice over whether or not they will continue to devote that compulsory fee, which on some campuses is well in excess of $300—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How much?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Three hundred dollars—to these student unions that the Labor Party supports or whether, before coughing up that money, they will demand a better spread of services to meet their needs from these unions.The Labor Party supports the only compulsory up-front fee that most students face on university campuses today. Why is the Labor Party the supporter of that compulsory up-front fee? Because it is the union party. As we know, about 14 per cent of Australians belong to unions. But 100 per cent of Labor Party members belong to unions, and all they are ever interested in are the policies that they get from the ACTU and their union affiliates.That is why we have this extraordinary distortion in the nature of their interests in relation to tertiary education in Australia. The topic for today's matter of public importance is that of tertiary education. What has the member for Dobell said about the tertiary education opportunities for the 70 per cent of young people who do not go on to university? He said nothing whatsoever about that. He said nothing whatsoever about the way in which the Labor Party set out in office to destroy the post-school apprenticeship opportunities for young Australians. He has not taken any note of the fact that, since this government began its policy of growth through efficiencies, the number of places in Australian TAFEs has gone up by over 86,000.There are now many more students in post-school apprenticeships than there were when the Australian Labor Party was in office. There are many more students at TAFE. There are many more students on Australian university campuses. That is because this government believes that tertiary education is a key to the future of this country. We put in place policies designed to expand opportunities in Australian tertiary education for young Australians. We are ensuring that those opportunities are there for the most disadvantaged among those young Australians, those disadvantaged students neglected by the Labor Party when in office.This government has a vision for higher education in Australia. The Labor Party has no policy and no vision. When the Leader of the Opposition went to the CEDA organisations to deliver his visionary speech on Australia, I think he gained about half a dozen people who were not members of the Labor Party at that particular function. I noticed when the member for Dobell was giving his speech that about 20 out of the 60 members of the opposition were behind him on the back benches.MG4LEEMr Lee—Are they all on yours?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Well, they are not interested in your topic. You had very little support from your members during your speech when you initiated the topic. This government cares for higher education; the Labor Party does not. (Time expired)16:02:004040Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—It is interesting to hear the comments of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs today. One can understand why he would want to focus on any issue other than tertiary education—anything other than his performance in question time today. Just yesterday we had the Oscars. I was watching a bit of the Oscars last night, and I saw Roberto Benigni receive the Oscar for best actor. He jumped up, climbed on the seats and punched the air—very much like the minister when he received that first question on the VSU today. After about question 10 on our side, the minister was not looking quite so happy. He looked more like someone who had been nominated but who had missed out.MG4LEEMr Lee—He thinks he is a success.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—The shadow minister interjects that he feels that he did well. I do not know what he is feeling, but fantasy land might be the case. The minister does remind me sometimes of a character out of a Spielberg movie. Jurassic Park comes to mind.Mr Slipper interjecting—VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—As for the member for Fisher, we all know which movie he comes out of, and it did not even get nominated. The minister has raised a couple of issues here. Why are we talking about this today? It is very simple, Minister. You have legislation before the House this week. I thought if we have legislation before the House maybe we ought to talk about it. Maybe we ought to consider it. When it is far-reaching legislation, legislation that will have an impact on the operation of tertiary education in this country on an ongoing basis, maybe we ought to talk about it.The minister also said that the shadow minister has never asked him a question. He has, but he cannot get an answer. None of us can get an answer. One could argue that previous shadow ministers in this area have faced boredom and frustration when it comes to getting an answer out of this minister. We talked about the fact that he is fading in the context of the current ministry. For the amount of time he spends gazing into the Prime Minister's eyes, you would be surprised. Possibly it is the fact that the message has not changed over three years that even the Prime Minister is getting tired—tired and upset at looking into those cold eyes. Talking about movies, Count Yorga the vampire springs to mind.When the minister rose to speak in answer to our questions he basically caused himself a severe amount of problems. That relates to comments on the record historically by the Treasurer of this country. I am a trade unionist; I am proud to admit it. I am surprised that the Treasurer was so reticent to admit it. I thought the only sleeper we had on the other side of the House was the member for Bradfield, but we also have the member for Higgins. Higgins, as honourable members would know, is named after a distinguished judge and jurist who played an important role in the history of the labour movement in terms of fair wages in the Harvester case, but I always thought it was a seat held by the tories. In fact, it is not. It is held by one of the key unionists in this country—an old style unionist, to quote the minister. Obviously on that basis he was a good trade unionist. I would like to go to what that old trade unionist, Comrade Costello, said. Can I use that term? I probably had better not.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mate! Use the word `mate'.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—He is a mate. Before I go to his comments, I want to make a couple of points. The minister talks about the fact that this was some time ago. There is a time limit on truth, is there? If you say something some time ago, because of a change of position or a change of circumstances or a change of belief or a change of trousers, the man has changed his view. The interesting thing is that when he said this he was actually able to make a proper judgment on this issue. He was operating within the tertiary education sector. He was not cutting the guts out of it, but he was there as a student representative. I would have thought in those times he would have a better idea of, he would be in touch with, the concerns of the people he represented at that time. But, no, there is a time limit on truth with this minister and I suspect with the Treasurer.Let me quote the sorts of things that he said during that time. I will be selectively quoting, let me say that up-front. There are things here I will not say, because it is a long article. But I think you will find the whole thing very interesting. Here are a few titbits for you:Again on the issue of compulsory unionism the Council, in my opinion, took a reasonable attitude.It was not recommending the abolition of it, not at all. The article goes on:. . . since the various student unions do have a positive contribution to offer to student welfare and student education they should be supported by all those who profit from them. It seems reasonable that all those who do profit should make some contribution in return. The funding and therefore provision of the various student services would be impossible unless there was some requirements to pay a contribution towards them.The fact that some people object to the way in which some public funds are spent does not mean that they are therefore exempted from paying taxes. The fact that there are some political donations made on behalf of S.R.C.s and A.U.S. that may be abhorrent to some people who have contributed union fees does not mean we should therefore create a situation whereby all activities including those that are profitable to the people concerned are financially penalised by voluntary payments.. . . the facilities of student unions are only practical on the basis of compulsory contributions . . . UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—Who makes those contributions?VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—Those comments were made by that famous, well-known, old-style trade unionist, Peter Costello—Comrade Costello. I draw another comment from an earlier article, which shows a very fetching picture of the young Costello. It states:In some sort of recognition that education is wider than this academic brain-stretching, the University also provides the Union for "non-academic education"—for interaction between staff and students, and to cater for the physical requirements of academic aspirants.The Union is also a recognition that knowledge is integral and that separate academic disciplines are divided in an arbitrary way. The Union attempts to bring students of various faculties together, so there is an exchange of learning. What is proposed under this minister is a situation of severely restricting the capacity for that sort of exchange to occur. We go to the comments made today by the minister in his Roberto Benigni style performance. On the first question the minister said:. . . I make the general point about voluntary student unionism that one should never assume that funding for student services will cease to flow once voluntary student unionism is in place.Let us contrast that directly with comments by the Treasurer—that old trade unionist—on this point:. . . the facilities of student unions are only practical on the basis of compulsory contributions—So at that time in the circumstances of that old trade unionist, who is now the Treasurer of this country, operating in the tertiary education sector in a position of authority and responsibility, he knew very well that the impact of situations such as what is proposed in this legislation—the VSU—would severely hamper the provision of those sorts of services.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You are running out of steam.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—There is one thing for sure: the member for Fisher will never run out of steam, and we know what the steam is coming off. In answer to the next question, the minister states:Many students on university campuses are disgusted at the way in which their compulsorily acquired fees are used to promote extremist causes . . .To take another quote with respect to this issue:The answer is to get students involved and to stop these payments being made in the first place or to make some constitutional provision . . .and so on. What the Treasurer says and what the Treasurer did—and I do not agree with all that he did; that is for sure—was to take up the issues of what happens in student unions and basically seek to make changes, not sit back and endeavour to avoid it but to take up these issues. That is what people should be doing in a democratic context within the tertiary institutions of this country. But that is not what is happening here. We have a situation where the government intends to move on the issue themselves.When we look around that side of the chamber, we see, as the shadow minister has said, a range of members who are starting to raise concerns on these sorts of issues, because the truth of what this legislation means to them and their areas is now starting to dawn on them. A number of members, particularly in regional areas, have concerns about the services provided for their communities. They are starting to understand that, in their electorates, in the places where they live, the people that they say they care about are in danger of having services removed as a result of this legislation and the action by this government.We talked today about the VSU because it has wider implications than just this issue; we talked today about the VSU because it is an important part of what is happening to tertiary education in this country; we talked about the VSU today because it shows the situation of this minister—the Roberto Benigni of this government—in a situation where he is out of step. When it comes to an Oscar today, this minister will get no lifetime achievement award with respect to his performance in tertiary education. Maybe comedy and, from the way he speaks, maybe a foreign language award—but that would be about the extent of it.16:12:004042Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I find it quite interesting that the opposition should berate the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for daring to talk about something other than voluntary student unionism. This is the topic that you folks in the opposition chose to speak about today: was potential damage being done to Australian tertiary education by the policies of the Howard government? What are we supposed to think here—that we have one policy? I know you would like to think that we have only one policy, but you are getting our side mixed up with your side. The policy making on this side of government has to do with benefiting people in tertiary education—not just voluntary student unionism.The other side bring up the old local government argument. It is totally ludicrous. In my humble opinion I think we are overgoverned already. Should we perhaps legislate that all year 12 students should have to pay some sort of levies to their schools so they can provide bands for the school? Where does it end?UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—They do pay levies. What are you on about?834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—Year 12 students paying a compulsory levy to their schools to gets bands into their school? It is quite ludicrous.I find it amazing that a member of the opposition front bench would start taking pot shots at a minister on our side for actually working with their leader. It would seem that they are ready to shoot themselves in the feet because, when we look at the front bench over there, it is very hard to tell which leader they support. It is good to see that the ministers on our side do support their leader.We talk about democratic elections of union presidents at university. Surely democratic elections mean that when we vote for union presidents, union chairmen or union secretaries we have a choice. That is what this legislation is all about. It is democratic. If you want to avail yourselves of the services provided by the student unions then you pay the levy. If you want to participate in democratic elections of the union hierarchy then you do so by choice.We talk about the cost of HECS, but it appears to me that the Labor Party wants to charge people who have the potential to earn a higher income in their post-university days exactly the same fees as those people who only have the potential to earn a lower income in their post-university days. Perhaps the opposition would like to transfer this sort of thinking into the tax system. Wouldn't that be popular?I do not know why a member on our side would support such a view. I do not have a problem with anyone on this side of the House or anyone on that side of the House learning, evolving and perhaps changing their views over the years. I would encourage people to listen to argument, talk about and debate it, and evolve an opinion; not just come into this place with a blinkered way of thinking with no intention whatsoever of opening their minds to any other suggestions.Under the coalition government increased numbers of students have access to undergraduate university education. In 1999 there will be 13,000 more Commonwealth fully subsidised places than there were in the last year of the Labor government. This will increase to 15,000 more by the year 2001. In 1998 university enrolments reached a record high under coalition policies.In 1987 a green paper nominated 125,000 graduates per year as a target for the year 2000. I would like to congratulate those on the other side for actually achieving this target seven years earlier than anticipated. Since 1995 total university enrolments have increased from 604,000 to 671,000. We are moving ahead; we are not just satisfied with reaching a position and staying there.There is no doubt that many students do benefit from the services offered by student unions, whether through the use of sporting facilities or services such as the cafeteria, child care or advice on tax or accommodation. The argument is that, if you do not play sport or do not have children and you take a packed lunch to uni, should you have to pay for all these services? Part-time students who study at home and only attend uni for a few weeks of the year are even less likely to benefit from these amenities.Giving people who are less financially well-off the choice of whether or not to pay these fees of up to $350 per year will mean that they may choose to keep their money in their pockets. We are talking about people who are less financially well-off who may choose to keep their money in their pockets. Is this a bad thing?My belief is that many of these student unions underestimate themselves. If they were to focus on providing services that the majority of students find useful or appealing, then the students would pay for them. If the services offered are not useful, then they will not. It is quite simple.The coalition is examining voluntary tests for graduates so that employers, universities and students can have a common assessment of student abilities. During this MPI we are discussing the policies of the Howard government and its involvement in Australian ter tiary education. The coalition is pursuing a strategy of increasing total university resources by encouraging greater private funding of the universities. This will give universities access to larger amounts of revenue and increase their independence. The total annual income is up $550 million since 1995, which was Labor's last full year.Under the coalition government, as the universities become more deregulated, there will be greater pressure on universities to maintain and improve teaching standards. I point out that total research funding for higher education is up from $399 million in the last year of Labor to $460 million in 1998. This is Howard government policies influencing tertiary education.I wish to talk about one of the initiatives instituted by the Howard government to expand the role of universities in regional Australia. The construction of a permanent campus at the Charles Sturt University in Dubbo will become a reality in the new year, with the announcement of a $3 million capital development grant from the federal government. This new funding adds to the $1 million already allocated by the government for 1999, and a further $5 million commitment from the university for the project.The new campus will be built on the Yarrandale Road site. It is a state-of-the-art complex where new technology will be the main feature. The stage 1 plan includes an interactive learning centre which will feature large student work areas complete with computers, Internet and interactive video access. A microwave link already established at the existing Dubbo campus will be extended to the new site providing a high quality telecommunication link between CSU's main campuses in Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst and Wagga Wagga and into Sydney.This is an example of the Howard government's involvement in tertiary education. This is a very exciting year for the university in Dubbo, not only because of the construction of the campus but also because of the development of new courses from the faculties of health studies and education. This campus in Dubbo will have a new, super high school, a TAFE college and the university campus combined on the one site.This is the future of education. This is the tertiary advancement we are seeing under the Howard government. Also offered at the university Dubbo campus will be a Bachelor of Business in accounting for both full-time and part-time students, a Bachelor of Nursing, a Bachelor of Health Science, a graduate certificate in small and medium enterprise management and a graduate certificate of applied science. The graduate certificate of applied science includes a diploma in invertebrate management which links with the Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo. The potential for this university in Dubbo to be developed as an internationally recognised facility is boundless.This is the vision of the Howard government. I commend the Howard government and the Liberal-National coalition for pushing Australian tertiary education to the limit, using new technology, and questioning what we have done in the past and not blindly following it. We can look forward to a vibrant and exciting future across the whole of Australia.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees4044404440444044Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 29 March 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reportsand private Members' business on Monday, 29 March 1999Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 29 March 1999. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on treaties tabled on 26 May and 11 November 1998.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on the loss of HMAS Sydney .The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 30 minutes.Speech time limits—First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes each.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 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.2Mr Barresi to move:That the House:(1) continues to support the staging of the Sydney Olympics as an opportunity to showcase Australia, its people, culture and above all our sporting traditions;(2) acknowledges the commitment, work and performance of Australia's athletes and sporting organisations as they prepare to participate in the 2000 Olympics;(3) deplores the disrepute caused to the Olympic ideals by the continuing bribery allegations;(4) notes the concerns expressed by the local and international community at the loss of integrity in the Olympic movement and its possible effect on the successful staging of Australia's 2000 Games; and(5) requests that SOCOG calls on the IOC to fund any shortfall in sponsorship finances which may result from inappropriate action by IOC members.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Zahra to move:That this House:(1) recognises the enormous pain, suffering and economic hardship which has been experienced, and which is still being experienced, by victims of asbestos exposure, and their families; and(2) calls on the Government to:(a) immediately ratify ILO Convention No. 162 regarding the prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos;(b) immediately legislate to: (i) preserve the right to claim general damages for relatives of victims of asbestos related diseases upon the death of the claimant in all States and Territories save New South Wales; (ii) remove time limits on claims for damages by those suffering claims for asbestos related disease; (iii) allow the reuse of evidence to minimise the cost of litigation and court time; and (iv) increase financial assistance for asbestos disease support groups; and(c) instigate a national inquiry into the occupational use of asbestos to determine the: (i) extent of knowledge held by government agencies on the lethal effects of asbestos; (ii) extent of knowledge held by private companies using asbestos in their operations as to the lethal effects of asbestos; (iii) nature of work practices which were employed in Australia in relation to the use of asbestos by both government agencies and private companies; and (iv) adequacy of the existing and ongoing arrangements for the payment of compensation to Latrobe Valley workers affected by asbestos exposure in light of the privatisation of the SECV, which for decades has been the region's largest employer as well as being an employer operating in an industry in which asbestos construction materials were extensively used.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each. The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Mr Cadman to move:That this House:(1) expresses its deep concern at the level of addictive drug taking in Australia;(2) calls on Australians and all Australian governments to enhance their attack on illegal drugs by all means at their disposal; and(3) encourages the development of preventive programs.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4046404616:22:004046Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's 19th report entitled The Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement of Trade in Services and five treaties tabled on 30 June 1998 , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills4046r7434046Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.16:24:004046McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I am pleased to say that the opposition is fully supportive of the amendments to the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . Essentially, the bill is to overcome a hurdle that exists in section 11(4) of the primary act which prevents the government from spending money on promoting anything other than a formal yes or no campaign in a referendum. In order to spend the amount of money which the government has indicated—some $15 million—for two committees to present arguments in favour of and opposed to the referendum questions that will take place later in the year, it is necessary to overcome that impediment. Similarly, the government has indicated its intention to spend some $4½ million to conduct an education campaign about our system of government generally to Australians. We think that expenditure is also appropriate and hence we support the bill.The other amendments are relatively minor but they are ones of which we approve. Currently, the act provides for the circulation of material only to voters. We think it is appropriate that there be a broader distribution of this historic material than that. Similarly, allowing the transmission through electronic technology brings the act into the 21st century. The other amendment is relatively minor and preserves the secrecy of votes by referring to a referendum question rather than to a voter. That also is supported.But in supporting the bill there are a number of points that I would like to make. In the second reading speech of the Attorney-General on 11 March, he gave some background to this bill and specifically why it is needed in the context of the referendum which will take place later this year. As the Attorney-General pointed out, the referendum later this year will consider proposed legislation to amend the Constitution to implement a republic system of government based on last year's Constitutional Convention's recommendation for a bipartisan appointment of a president. We in the opposition are entirely supportive of that. It will allow an Australian citizen of some notoriety, fame and respect to be appointed by a joint motion of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and with a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate.Mr Slipper interjecting—JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—My friend opposite said it will be a person of notoriety. It will indeed be a person of substance, a person who has cross-party respect. By definition, a person with cross-party respect will not be one of the political warriors for either of the parties. So Australians, through the Constitutional Convention model, will end up with an Australian as our head of state who will not be a politician and there will be no further changes to our system of government. That is the essential crux of what Australians should bear in mind when they are considering matters later in the year.The government also proposes a public education campaign. As I indicated in my opening, that, we say, is entirely appropriate. It is clear that Australians need to be educated about our system of government. Regrettably, there is remarkable ignorance on the part of many Australians, not only children. For instance, in 1993, a report by Quadrant Research showed that some 50 per cent of people questioned either did not know or gave an incorrect answer when asked how the Australian Governor-General is chosen. Indeed, when asked the meaning of the term `constitutional monarchy', 70 per cent of those interviewed did not know the answer or gave the wrong answer. I understand a survey was conducted more recently on behalf of the government which disclosed similar results.So there is a remarkable ignorance in our community about the structure of the Constitution, and I will briefly mention a couple of points that people commonly overlook. For instance, section 1 of our Constitution specifically says that our system of government is the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives. The Queen is very much a part of our system of government—that is, the Queen who is a citizen of Great Britain, not a citizen of Australia.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—She is not a citizen of anywhere.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—My friend says she is not a citizen anywhere. She is certainly not an Australian citizen. The fact is that the Queen may disallow any law under section 59 of the Constitution within one year of the Governor-General's consent. Section 61 of the Constitution provides that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen.These are all things that very much confirm that the Queen, who is not an Australian citizen, has a significant role in our system of government. It is important that people realise this. It is far more than a trivial issue; it is very much how we perceive ourselves, how we want to have ourselves governed and, in particular, whether we want a foreign citizen to be far more than merely a symbolic head of state for Australia. These are things that are worth while bringing out in an education campaign.Equally, there is remarkable ignorance about the rules of succession applying to the British monarchy. It is commonly overlooked that those rules of succession, for instance, provide that Roman Catholics and persons marrying Roman Catholics are excluded by statute from the throne and, further, that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England and declare himself or herself to be a Protestant and swear to maintain the established churches in England and Scotland.These things commonly are not appreciated. These are principles that I would go so far as to say are objectionable to Australians and contrary to section 116 of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be disqualified from any office or public trust under the Commonwealth by virtue of their religion. So it is important that Australians realise the historical basis to the rules of succession which do not have any relevance at all to how Australians perceive themselves and how Australians want to be governed.Further, Australians need to be educated about our system of government, which is based on a principle of responsible government whereby ministers who constitute the executive are responsible to the parliament rather than a head of state. For instance, in the United States of America, the President appoints the executive, but the executive in Australia must first be elected as members of parliament before they can be appointed as ministers. Their responsibility is demonstrated most graphically, I suppose, in circumstances when a minister misleads the parliament. Custom has it that such a minister has an obligation to resign his office. That is a manifestation of the principle of responsible democracy that we have in Australia. These things will not be changed by virtue of Australia becoming a republic, and it is important that the education campaign the government will be conducting makes that clear.As the Attorney-General indicated, the referendum bill which has now been put on the table for public comment—and we indicate our agreement that that is the appropriate course for the government to follow—proposes the Constitutional Convention model whereby, as I have said, there will be a bipartisan appointment of a president based on the recommendation of a nomination committee. That committee will be constituted by representatives of the federal parliament, representatives of the state parliaments, representatives of the Territory parliaments and 16 citizens who will be chosen from the community.We have some concerns with the fact that, under the bill which has been circulated, the Prime Minister will have the role of selecting those citizens. We say that is contrary to the bipartisan spirit that should apply to this whole process. Perhaps a preferable model would be one whereby each of the major political parties has the option of ruling out some of those persons proposed by the other side of the political fence—much the way a jury is selected, for instance. In that way, a core of 16 people who are more acceptable to both sides would be selected. These are things which we would like to discuss with the government in the coming months and through the processes that will be set in train.The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, spoke of the three phases of this referendum proposal. The first will be the education function, which I have already addressed. The second will be the campaign phase. The Attorney-General indicated that that will be a period of some three to four weeks immediately before the referendum, where two committees that have been chosen will expend their money in communicating their opinions to the Australian people.We are a little concerned that that period of three to four weeks may be too short. We are of the view that the committees should be given a broader discretion should they wish to commence an earlier campaign than that. However, we think the amount offered is appropriate and, equally, we think the independence given to the committees to choose the manner and mode of advertisement is appropriate, noting that the government will require them to comply with any statutory regulation or advertising code and, of course, we surmise some auditing and accounting obligation. So that procedure is appropriate.It is noteworthy that the government found it unnecessary to further amend section 11 of the principal act to provide a mechanism for preparation of the `no' case in each of the referendum questions that will take place later in the year, presumably on the assumption that a coalition member or coalition members will oppose the bill to provide for Australia to become a republic and also oppose the bill for a new preamble to the Constitution. That is something the government must consider, but presumably they have those methods worked out.The third point I note from the Attorney-General's address, which I have referred to, is why there is a need to amend section 11(4) of the principal act. As the Attorney-General said, that section was established as a statutory prohibition against the government of the day funding partisan involvement in campaigns surrounding a referendum proposal. We say that is a sound principle that should not lightly be departed from and, in supporting this bill, we note that the bypassing of the existing restriction will apply only to this referendum and only to this year.In our view, it is a fundamental principle that the government of the day should not be allowed to advance party political issues through the expenditure of taxpayers' funds. Indeed, the High Court has said that, while a minister has an extremely broad discretion in how they perform their duties, that discretion is not unfettered; they have an obligation to exercise their duty bona fide in the interests of the Australian people. That duty is akin to the fiduciary obligation owed by company directors to companies and trade union officials to trade unions, and it is a fundamental principle of that fiduciary obligation that such an officer is unable to use the resources of the company or the organisation to support their own candidature in an election or their own party political position.We say that it is appropriate for the Attorney-General to acknowledge the importance of that provision in section 11(4) of the principal act. However, in noting that in form, we would ask the government to have regard to it in substance. I note that the Courier-Mail published an article yesterday comparing the expenditure of major corporations in Australia to the government's expenditure prior to the last election—some $19 million on its GST campaign to promote a party political position. This expenditure rivalled any of the major corporations in Australia. The $8 million of that amount which the government spent in the two weeks before the election was in excess of that spent by Toyota, McDonald's and Coca-Cola combined. That was a massive amount of taxpayers' money spent. So it is somewhat hypocritical for the government to note the importance of section 11(4) in the context of this debate but depart entirely from those principles in the context of its overall conduct as a government. They are fundamental principles that the government should apply right across the board.The other noteworthy thing in the Attorney-General's speech was that the funding of the campaigns will not apply to the question as to whether Australia votes to have a new preamble. That, we anticipate, is on the assumption that there will be bipartisan support for a preamble which will be advanced in the government's bill. However, the conduct of the government to date has been more than disappointing. It is extremely concerning that there has been a lack of bipartisan input to the drafting of a preamble and, indeed, a lack of appropriate consultation with the community.In particular, the draft preamble, which the Prime Minister issued at about lunchtime today, departed from the Constitutional Convention's recommendation in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The Constitutional Convention recommended that the preamble be amended to specifically include acknowledgment of the prior occupation of Australia's shores by native Australians and the custodianship by those indigen ous Australians. The government has overlooked that very important and, one might say, fundamental principle that the Constitutional Convention recommended in attempting to have this preamble as an important step towards reconciliation with indigenous Australians. We hope the government has circulated its document very much as a draft and not as a fait accompli.In that context, we note that the Attorney-General, in a speech that was televised on 6 February, gave a commitment that there would be a parliamentary committee—probably a joint select committee—established to review the two bills which will contain the referenda questions to be submitted to the House. We hope that that committee process will be permitted to be one which is bona fide and open and that the government will have regard to the outcome. If that does not occur, it will be a farce. The proposal of a preamble that does not specifically recognise prior indigenous Australian occupation and custodianship of the Australian shores will be something, I am sure, which will be offensive to many Australians and certainly to indigenous Australians.The concluding points I would like to make are in the context of the purpose and nature of a referendum. It is commonly overlooked that section 128 of the Constitution, which prescribes how a referendum is conducted, provides that it is not the submitting of different options to the Australian people, it is actually the submission of a proposed law, passed by the parliament, to the Australian people. So those who suggest that there can be a canvassing of views of the Australian people as to what model of republic they want, are fundamentally mistaken. There will be a bill—which the government has put on the table—which will be passed by the parliament and that will be the question. That will be the only game in town, effectively, that voters should consider. So, with respect, some people are misleading the Australian public to say that they will have any broader options.At the same time, it is important that Australians realise, as I have indicated, the significance of the bipartisan model of selection of the president. They should be reluctant to vote against the proposal or to conduct a spoiling action if they favour Australia becoming a republic.Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—I am not sure that the minister at the table favours Australia becoming a republic, but those who intend to vote no—while still wanting Australia to become a republic—simply because they favour a direct election model, should think very carefully about those issues. They should think about what model they are proposing. Is it the United States model? Is it the Irish model? How do they intend to define the reserve powers that currently apply to the Attorney-General? All these things would have to be resolved before the Australian people could legitimately consider such a model. Such a model will not emanate from this House—the issues are too party political and it simply will not occur.So the only prospect of Australia becoming a republic is effectively this bipartisan model where there will be a non-politician selected by both houses of parliament. In other words, the referendum is not a dress rehearsal; there is no realistic opportunity to have another bite at the cherry in the foreseeable future.Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The minister says, `Of course there is.' I am not sure how much of the Australian taxpayers' money she wants to spend on going around the world again. Last year's Constitutional Convention cost somewhere in the vicinity of $28 million; this bill will facilitate the expenditure of $19½ million; the referendum itself, later on this year, will cost some $55 million. So, if the minister is suggesting that any responsible government will lightly commit $100 million for a re-run of a similar referendum proposal in the near future, she—with respect—is ignorant of what the Australian people will tolerate in respect of the allocation of their funds. We say the expenditure which has occurred and which will occur is appropriate and, indeed, must be expended for a very historically significant event. But it is something that a government of any political persuasion would not lightly do again. So any person who argues that there can simply be a re-run of this referendum is deluding themselves and, worse still, is deluding the Australian people. This is certainly not a trial run; this is very much the real thing.We are approaching this matter from the point of view of cooperating with the government. We hope they will display more cooperation towards us in this process than was given to us in the preparation of the draft preamble. There is still time for us to work together to come up with a form of words that the Australian people can genuinely feel ownership of. If the government is serious and fair dinkum about the overview parliamentary committee that will look into these issues, then there is a possibility for a sensible and unifying outcome to take place.Essentially, Australia has evolved from the time of Federation when we were still very much dependent on the United Kingdom. In this century, we have obtained our judicial and, indeed, our statutory independence—for instance, with the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act of 1986. All these things have been very significant in our becoming an independent and sovereign nation. But the final step in that process is to obtain our own head of state who is an Australian—a position that any child born in this nation can aspire to. There is an opportunity for Australians to engage in that process later in the year. We will have an opportunity to have an Australian citizen as our head of state—an Australian citizen who is a non-politician—without any other changes to our structure of government which we cherish so dearly.In summary, the opposition supports this bill and looks forward to a series of cooperative interchanges with the government on these very important and historically significant issues.16:49:004050Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is designed to enable the Commonwealth to provide funding for public education campaigns about the forthcoming referendum. The bill also allows for the printing, publication and distribution of material relating to the yes and no case in the referendum. I understand that amendments are being moved which will allow the printing of the two referenda questions on separate ballot papers to minimise any confusion between the republic question and the preamble question. The bill also enables the AEC to more broadly distribute material relating to the referendum, including via the Internet.This bill is a further stage in the process the coalition committed itself to prior to the 1996 election. Last year, in accordance with the government's commitment to enter into a process to resolve the issue of a republic, the Constitutional Convention was held. The convention agreed in principle that Australia should become a republic. It also supported the bipartisan appointment of the president model being put to a national referendum.Members of the House will recall that during last year's Constitutional Convention some delegates to the convention expressed concern, as did the member for Barton, about the level of understanding and awareness in the community about aspects of the constitutional reform process and our system of government. The government made a commitment that, prior to the referendum being put to the people, it would fund a public education campaign to assist the electorate in its understanding of the issues surrounding the referendum.The amendments contained in this bill are necessary to ensure that this education process does not breach the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 which limit expenditure on the presentation of material relating to a referendum to only the yes and no cases. These amendments will only apply to the November referendum. The government will provide some $4.5 million to be allocated to a public education program to be introduced soon after the referendum legislation enters parliament. The education program will predate the advertising campaign about the yes and no case, and it will seek to highlight general information about our system of government and the referendum.The program will seek to increase understanding and awareness about the issues surrounding the referendum, including the bipartisan appointment of the president model; the current system of government to set the model in context; and the referendum process itself. In order to assist in this public education program and to promote interest in the referendum, the Commonwealth will be embarking on a series of information initiatives, including the free distribution of a plain English information kit and advertising campaign translated into up to 16 languages, which will provide information about the referendum proposal and how to access further information about it. There will be an Internet site and alternative information formats for those who, like some of us, are sight-impaired.The purpose of this information program is not to promote either side of the referendum argument but instead to increase electorate awareness about the issues at hand. Research conducted by the Commonwealth indicates that whilst Australians have a significant level of knowledge about the Constitution and government there is room for improvement. In 1994 the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet commissioned ANOP research services to conduct research into the level of understanding and knowledge in the Australian community about government, constitutional and citizenship issues.The study drew some conclusions which, while now five years old, still provide some insight into levels of community awareness of, interest in, and knowledge of aspects of our system of government. The study argued that there was significant work to be done in increasing public education about the Australian Constitution. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the ANOP study found that `there was a high level of ignorance about Australia's government'. For instance, some 18 per cent of the 2,500 individuals interviewed showed some degree of understanding of the Constitution while 12 per cent held misconceptions about what the Constitution covered. These points were made by my colleague the member for Barton in his speech. The study also revealed that on the issue of the republic there was a relatively low level of community knowledge. But these figures would no doubt be significantly higher today after the years of intensive debate and last year's Constitutional Convention. But I also have to say—partly in response to the ANOP findings, partly in response to comments that are occasionally made by politicians and partly in response to the member for Barton's comments—that the conclusions about a high level of ignorance amongst the Australian public are, in my view, a little overstated. The ANOP survey, for instance, found:Most people are familiar with the mechanics of voting, and have a fair understanding of the roles of the Commonwealth, State and Local Government.And it was clear from the research that the community did have a quite strong knowledge of the election processes and the federal parliament. At least 40 per cent could name both houses of parliament, and 41 per cent of interviewees understood the process of changing the Constitution.And I have to say that, surprisingly, the study found it a deficiency in community knowledge that `only 24 per cent of people were aware that the Senate represented the states'. This is rather a curious conclusion given that, in fact, today the Senate is much more than simply a chamber representing the states. I have to say it is unusual in a survey which reflects the recognition that the Senate has moved well beyond what it was originally conceived of doing that it is somehow concluded that this reflects a lack of awareness amongst the community. I would have thought it reflected considerable perception. Of course, even a close student of politics can at times be forgiven for not knowing what the Senate stands for these days.But my bottom line on this is that, although the electorate may have some difficulty understanding some aspects of the governmental process, we should not underestimate the strong degree of commonsense and political understanding that the Australian electorate holds. Only yesterday I had the opportunity to talk with a group of year 12 students from Siena College, and their level of political awareness and astuteness about politics surpassed what I have on occasions seen coming from the other side of the House. But it is unfortunate that some of us repeatedly underestimate the commonsense and political sophistication of the electorate.However, it is correct that work remains to be done in terms of public education. Although an issue is in the news, it does not necessarily transfer into public awareness of the processes at hand. The public information campaign that will flow from these amendments will seek to assist in increasing awareness of the process without presenting the arguments for and against the proposed referendum options. This will, however, need a certain amount of judgment and sensitivity by the expert group that is appointed to prepare and vet the material for the campaign.I was interested, for instance, that the member for Barton said it was very important that the dispassionate information provided at this stage of the campaign should show that there would be no change to the system at all. Indeed, one of the objectives the public information campaign is supposed to address—and I quote the Attorney-General—is balanced material on `the bipartisan appointment of the president model and the issues it raises'. I am afraid this may well be a daunting task, contrary to the comments of the member for Barton.Let us for a moment take one of the issues raised by the `bipartisan appointment of the president' model. At first glance the proposal appears to simply be a replacement of the Queen's representative with an Australian president. But there is a real concern that the proposal could create a presidency combining the powers of the Governor-General with an unprecedented degree of parliamentary legitimacy and national authority. Elected by two-thirds of the Australian parliament, the president would have greater parliamentary endorsement than a Prime Minister, who needs only command majority support in the House of Representatives. The creation of a president with uncodified powers, parliamentary support and national authority could significantly alter the operation of our political system. Such a person could send the nation into constitutional crisis. David Solomon in his recent work Coming of age: charter for a new Australia graphically spells out the full extent of the problem. I quote:If moving to a republic is simply going to involve substituting the word `President' for the words `Governor-General', the potential would exist for a future president to take control of most of the organs of government.This is a rather different perspective from the perspective that the member for Barton is putting forward that the committee of experts should actively persuade people that there will be no real change. The difficulty for the expert committee lies in how far down the track they wish to pursue these issues in a public education campaign, and I have to say that I wish the expert committee well in their endeavours.The bill also provides for the introduction of separate ballot papers on different coloured paper for each referendum proposal. I believe that this is a worthwhile initiative and it will undoubtedly help differentiate between different referendum questions. In the previous vein, however, I do not think we should forget that, since Federation, Australians have been able to successfully vote on a number of referendums on the same day, with voters being able to differentiate between different issues, despite the fact that they were all on one piece of paper. In particular, I have in mind the May 1977 referendum, when we had four questions and a national song poll. On that occasion, three referendum questions were successfully carried while the fourth, on simultaneous elections for the House and Senate, was not supported.The bill also provides for the government's commitment to provide funds for a national advertising campaign that will accompany the yes and no cases for the referendum. The advertising campaigns are to be managed by government appointed committees, each of which will develop an advertising campaign for the yes and no case respectively. The committee for the yes case will include Malcolm Turnbull, Janet Holmes a Court, the Hon. Neville Wran, Jason Yat Sen Li and Chris Gallus, amongst others. The committee for the no case will include Kerry Jones, Senator Alan Ferguson, General `Digger' James, Senator Boswell, Dame Leonie Kramer and five others. This no case committee includes representatives of the position that stands for the direct election of the president, such as Clem Jones and Ted Mack. I have to say that the combination of monarchists and direct election proponents on the same committee should make the administration and decision making on the committee rather more interesting than usual.Each committee will be allocated $7.5 million to develop advertisements and media promotion that will appear in the month preceding the campaign. The funds will be utilised for the preparation of advertising campaigns, including the retention of consultants in market research and advertising. The government will make available the assistance of the government communications unit. The two committees will not be able to receive additional private donations and apply them to run additional publicly funded advertisements.The managers of the yes and no advertising campaigns do have substantial responsibilities. The government's vetting of these advertisements does not extend beyond ensuring the advertisements accord with acceptable levels of advertising, but a robust public debate still carries with it the responsibility for a full and frank airing of all the issues. I personally would encourage both the yes and no campaign managers and committees to remember that, whilst the issue of the republic is one of profound symbolic significance, it should not obscure the fact that substantial change will accompany movement from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.Proponents of a minimalist republic oppose calls for the direct election of a president because they claim it would involve too great a constitutional change. What they do not admit is that their own model will fundamentally change the realities of the Constitution in Australia. It also has to be said that the minimalist republicans are not the only group that have not fully spelt out the real consequences of their position. Monarchists would have us believe that a successful no vote will mean a retention of the status quo and political continuity. But in fact this will only happen if a no vote is a genuine endorsement of the current system, rather than a protest vote against an unacceptable republican alternative.I have already stated my view that it would have been desirable to hold an indicative poll, in conjunction with the referendum, to gauge what appears to be an overwhelming level of support in the community for the direct election proposal. The fact is that all the polls that have surfaced over the last five or six years, including the polls earlier this year, indicate that a majority of men and women, that live in country or city, whether they vote Liberal or Labor, have expressed a preference for directly electing a president. These sorts of things need to be thrashed out and the consequences of that do need looking at.I have said before—and it remains my view—that, as things stand, there is a strong prospect of the referendum settling nothing and leaving a residue of division and disappointment. I am concerned that a majority no vote will leave unanswered the issue of whether or not the vote is a genuine affirmation of a constitutional monarchy or a protest vote by a majority of Australians who support a directly elected president but do not have the option of expressing this view. However, like monarchists and the minimalist republicans, proponents of a directly elected president also need to address the serious constitutional concerns that exist over the role and division of powers between the office of president and prime minister under a directly elected prospect. There is the prospect of alternative sources of authority and legitimacy being created and a directly elected president emerging as a politicised extension of our political parties.Australia needs to deal with the issue of our head of state in a thoughtful and deliberate way. The advertisements and campaigns by both the yes and no cases should reflect this, rather than being negative attacks on one another's respective positions. I know that may sound pious coming from me, as someone who has conducted a number of campaigns that unkind people would have described as being negative—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Good to see you pleading guilty for a change.HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Mate, the guilty party is over that side.Mr Albanese interjecting—HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—You are all guilty. But what is important to emphasise is that this is not a partisan political campaign. The referendum debate is about the future of our Constitution. Since 1996 I have argued that it deserves a proper, open, free and honest hearing.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He is respectable, now.HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—I have always been respectable. It is not about winning at all costs. It is about what we set out to resolve—coming to a national consensus which reflects the informed wishes of the Australian people. Ultimately the Australian Constitution does belong to the Australian people and only they can—and only they should—decide what form of government we are to have. I think that this campaign and the education campaign should give them the opportunity to make a decision that is fully informed. I hope that the managers of both national advertising campaigns do take these views seriously in the coming public debate. I say once again that this process is as much about an honest, full and frank debate about Australia's future as it is about winning a vote. I commend the bill to the House.17:07:004054Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to speak in support of the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill and in doing so I wish to respond to some of the comments made by the members opposite. The Labor Party is supporting this bill and we take a lot of pride in the fact that we have been at the forefront of the push for Australia to come to maturity as a republic. I well remember sitting in the audience of the 1993 ALP campaign launch where Paul Keating announced that the Labor Party policy would be to support Australia becoming a republic. That was a great moment. Once again it was the Australian Labor Party pushing Australia forward, showing vision, under the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Your friend.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Indeed, my friend, with whom I am very proud to be associated. This bill today permits expenditure for both the yes and no campaign committees. These committees are to be drawn from a very broad cross-section of both supporters and opponents of the matter under decision in the upcoming referendum. Indeed, I will be making some comments later about the `no' campaign committee and the breadth of it.This bill also allows the AEC to spend money on wider than normal distribution of campaign material about exactly what this change means, which will be necessary for the education campaign to be conducted in the Australian electorate. I believe the education campaign will be particularly important, because the opponents of the republic rely upon fear and misinformation. Once people are made aware of exactly what the change means, then they will support it. Further, this bill contains provisions for some mechanical implementation of the referendum, such as allowing ballot papers to be different colours for two or more referenda on the same day, and corrects a provision which protects the secrecy of the voter's ballot.I want to comment on why we should move to a republic. In 1999 I believe that it is entirely appropriate, as we look towards the new millennium, that we speak about what sort of country we see Australia being and where we want to go in the future. We have a unique cultural identity. As of the last census in 1996, 3.9 million Australian residents were born overseas. Many of these people certainly do not identify with the British monarch.It is perhaps unfortunate that you have got to be over 18 to vote in this referendum, because it is very clear that the people who will be here longer than those of us in this chamber support moving to a republic. A Newspoll conducted from 29 to 31 January this year found that 60 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds and 65.7 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds are in favour of the model proposed by the Constitutional Convention.We live in a world which, with globalisation, is increasingly becoming international, in which national boundaries are being over taken by the breadth and pace of technological change and in which the days when we looked towards Britain as the motherland are long, long gone.I recall one of the first activities after I was elected was the visit of a statesman to this country, President Bill Clinton. I well remember the luncheon that was held in the Great Hall of Parliament House. I remember the groan from parliamentarians and civic leaders when, in response to the Prime Minister's toast to the President of the United States, President Clinton had to toast the Queen of Australia. I was sitting at a table with members of the coalition and they all groaned. They said, `Isn't it embarrassing?' Indeed it was embarrassing.The model adopted by the Constitutional Convention which will go before the Australian people later this year is one which is entirely appropriate. It allows for the president to be nominated by any Australian. These nominations would then be vetted by a committee of the parliament. A short list would be given to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister would move and the opposition leader second a single nomination to a joint sitting of both houses. It would require a two-thirds majority of both houses in order to get support. This model would ensure, more than any other model proposed, that a party political person or someone who is seen to be too partisan simply would not gain the support as envisaged in this model. So for those people who speak about politicians staying out of the debate and ensuring that we do not have a politician as our head of state, this is the model.If you have a situation where there is a direct election, there is nothing more certain than that a candidate backed by either Labor or the coalition will become the head of state, the president. That would create a potential disaster in terms of conflicting powers between a president who may well feel a lot of pressure—given the support that he or she would be given by a major political party—to act in a partisan manner, potentially in opposition to the elected government of the day. That would be an un-Australian move and something that I will not support.I want to make some comments about the direct election lobby. In his column in the Australian on 27 January, Ted Mack said, `The debate on an Australian republic has been too emotional and divisive.' This is typical of the patronising approach of those opposite who favour the direct election of a president. Why shouldn't the debate about a republic be emotional? The move to a republic is the most significant step in our history since Federation. Surely we should be pleased at the level of interest the debate has attracted. The greatest cause of divisiveness has been the prodirect election lobby. We now face a ludicrous situation where a group which claims to be in favour of a republic could well stop it ever happening. How disappointing this would be for many Australians who want a republic and who voted for candidates such as Ted Mack for the Constitutional Convention. Mack and his cronies were elected as a result of the groundswell of support for a republic. They were happy to attend the Constitutional Convention and participate in the debates, but once it became clear that they were not going to win majority support for their position they instantly set about undermining the whole process.To make things worse, the pro-direct election lobby cannot even agree on a model for direct election. They would not agree on a model at the convention and now a year later they are still arguing about how a president could be directly elected. Ted Mack favours a US style presidency. Clem Jones wants a president with executive powers, while Phil Cleary wants an Irish style presidency. Without even knowing what they want, these people are prepared to do whatever it takes to see the upcoming referendum defeated. They might argue that we will have another shot at a referendum. If they have not been able to agree on a model in the last 12 months—and we are talking about a fairly small group of people; there are not two of them who have the same position on the direct election model—you have to ask whether they will ever be able to agree on a referendum question, let alone get it carried. By opposing the model supported by the convention, Mack and his cronies are effec tively saying that it is better to have a foreign monarch as head of state than an Australian selected by the parliament. If they had been honest about this when standing for the Constitutional Convention, they would have had a lot of trouble finding support in the electorate.This referendum is not the last word on our political system. There is nothing to stop us changing our model of republic in the future, but this referendum is the last chance this generation has of seeing an Australian head of state. Mack would have us hold a plebiscite and then another convention. Assuming that this collection of the extreme Right, the Trots and other assorted rabble could actually reach a position then, he would have us hold another referendum. If the upcoming referendum does not succeed, I would not be holding my breath.This really exposes them with regard to their oppositionist politics. When people such as Phil Cleary and Ted Mack were here in parliament they were very good at saying what they were against; they are not so good at saying what they are for. The ultimate irony of this was the vision of Peter Reith going to see Ted Mack at his house on the North Shore of Sydney. There he was with his adviser going in. He did not take the balaclava. He tied up the dogs at the front doorstep of Ted Mack's substantial North Shore home. There we had Peter Reith slinking out trying to get a bit of publicity. All the TV cameras were there for this private meeting. He, of all people, said, `We want a directly elected president because I am the supporter of direct democracy.' This is the bloke who used mace, dogs and balaclavas, which will forever be associated with him after the Maritime Union dispute. If people like Ted Mack or Phil Cleary or others want to associate with him, then I say so be it. They expose the frauds that they are.I also want to raise today the Prime Minister's preferred preamble which, after a discussion in the coalition party room yesterday, has been released. It shows the confusion, the contradiction and the incompetence which run through the government's response to anything to do with the republic. The preamble is not about the future of the nation; it is about John Howard's past—the white picket fences, Anglo-Celtic suburbs, 2.2 children, the idea of a homogenous society in which all citizens are just like the current Prime Minister. This of course was never the reality, not in the 1950s and certainly not now. The proposed draft preamble states:. . . the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens.But it goes no further than recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as having `inhabited' the land before European invasion. Big deal! The Prime Minister acknowledges that there were people here before 1788. He does not go further than that because he is not capable of making that step forward. How can we have equal sovereignty if the oldest form of sovereignty in Australia, the sovereignty of indigenous peoples over the land, is denied? It also says:Australia's democratic and federal system of government exists under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology . . .What hypocrisy! The government, on the one hand, wants to deny the reality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and dispossession but, on the other hand, is quite happy to turn around and claim to believe in a system free of prejudice. This is typical of the arrogant approach of this government.Only several days after being found guilty of racial discrimination by the UN Committee on Racial Discrimination, the Prime Minister wants to take his agenda even further. It was not enough to eliminate the legal property rights of indigenous people. He wants to make doubly sure by enshrining a rose-coloured glasses view of history in the Constitution. There is nothing about the custodianship that indigenous people had over this country for some 40,000 years. As a country we have an unfortunate history of concealing and denying our past. It is only in the last few decades that school students have started to learn the truth about indigenous culture and history. But the Prime Minister wants to take a giant leap backwards by using the Constitution, the most important document in the Australian legal system, to entrench his own distorted view of our past.The preamble also reflects the plain old dullness and lack of vision of this Prime Minister. He says we should be free to be proud of our country. Who suggests we are not? That is one reason I am proud to be a republican, because I am proud to live in Australia and I do not believe that Australia should have to genuflect before a foreign power. It is one thing to live in the past. The problem with this Prime Minister is that he wants us all to stay back to keep him company. He just cannot make that leap forward. He is not content with being the leader of the only Western government ever to be found guilty of racial discrimination by the UN. He wants to build on this record. The Prime Minister then includes in the preamble to the Constitution a statement about mateship. It really is desperate. You can imagine him sitting around in the 1950s—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Andrew Peacock wrote that.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I am told by the member for Batman that Andrew Peacock wrote that, and we know that Andrew Peacock and John Howard were indeed great mates. If there is one thing that John Howard knows about, it is mateship. Given their different positions on the republic, perhaps it came out of a debate between Peter Costello and Peter Reith about mateship, because we can learn a lot from them. The draft of the preamble that has been put forward is simply not good enough. We believe that it must go to the joint select committee for reworking. There should be input from non-politicians drawn from the Constitutional Convention. If you want to look at which party stands for the future and which party stands for the past, the comparison with the proposed preamble circulated by the Leader of the Opposition really highlights that difference.The Olympics have also thrown the spotlight on the need for change. By rights, the games should be opened by our head of state—that is, the Queen. Despite the Prime Minister's open support for the monarchy, he wants to break with this tradition. Whether the games are opened by Mr Howard or the Queen, we are left in a pretty embarrassing position. If it is the Queen, we have to explain not only why we have the Union Jack on the corner of our flag but also why our head of state is a foreign monarch. If it is Mr Howard, we have to explain why we have to break with tradition and have the games opened by somebody other than our head of state. The former Prime Minister Paul Keating was criticised by the British press for placing his hand on the back of the Queen.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—They've got more to criticise him for now.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The minister at the table will remember that. I am sure that she was part of it. This Prime Minister has gone a substantial step forward. He has not put his hand on the back of the Queen; he has shoved her aside. He has pushed her aside in the rush so that he can open the Olympics.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—The member for Grayndler, I think we might just stick to the bill.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I am speaking about the republic, Madam Deputy Speaker, which this bill is certainly about. Perhaps if people stopped interjecting it would be a lot easier. The fact is that, in the year 2000, as the thoughts of the world are on the new millennium, the Australia the Prime Minister would have the world see is an Australia of the past, an Australia which is subservient to Britain, an Australia which is too immature for its own head of state, and an Australia which persists in denying the reality of indigenous history. The republic referendum is our one great chance to change all of this, and we should not let this opportunity pass.17:27:004058Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—While some people on the left will have enjoyed the speech of the member for Grayndler, unfortunately he did not really touch on the bill at hand, the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . He spent most of his contribution talking about the republic and the preamble and making loose personal attacks on the Prime Minister and others. But, in fact, this bill is not about the republic and the preamble; it is simply the machinery bill to set up the mechanisms for the referendum to be held in November this year.On the question of the preamble, I would have thought that the Labor Party would have been delighted with the wording of the preamble put forward by the Prime Minister and its inclusion of immigration and immigrants, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage as part of our Australian heritage and, indeed, the cultural heritage of people from all migrant backgrounds and indigenous backgrounds. It is a fair preamble. I hope it will get the support of the minor parties in the Senate and hopefully of the Labor Party by the time it gets to that point so it can be passed and put successfully in the referendum at the end of this year.It does surprise me that the member for Grayndler would be opposed to putting `mateship' in a preamble, given the egalitarian pretensions of the Labor Party in the last 100 years. I would have thought they would have been very supportive of mateship being included in the preamble. They do hold themselves out to be the great egalitarian party. We know that is not true. Any cursory look at the trade union movement will show that women have never been given the opportunity for promotion in the trade union movement.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Just look at the president, you dope!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Member for Grayndler, that sort of language is not acceptable in the House.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—What about the language he was using?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I would ask the member for Grayndler to withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I would ask you to withdraw your personal reference to the member for Sturt.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Yes, I am most offended, Madam Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I want you to withdraw your comment about the member for Sturt.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I was shocked by that epithet being flung across the chamber at me.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat, Member for Sturt. Member for Grayndler, I want you to withdraw your personal comment about the member for Sturt.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—I withdraw if I offended the member by calling him a dope.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If that is the best the member can do, you will have to resume, Member for Sturt.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Madam Deputy Speaker, I noted the unhappy means by which the member for Grayndler withdrew the nasty epithet he flung at me across the chamber. But I have come to expect this from the member for Grayndler, who does seem to run a business in personal attacks on members of this side. I refer to his speech last year that was a very vicious personal attack on the Prime Minister.I was also surprised to hear the member for Grayndler commenting about Paul Keating and his role. After the 60 Minutes show on Sunday night, I would have thought the Labor Party would have been running a mile from referring to Mr Keating and his role.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order, under standing order 145, on relevance to the bill.R36Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—No, that is for questions.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—With respect, the chair will decide that. There has been a wide-ranging discussion of which the member for Grayndler was part, with respect, and the member for Sturt is equally wide ranging in his address to the bill.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would point out to the member for Grayndler that, in fact, standing order 145 is about question time. There is a standing order that deals with relevance to the bill. But, given the member for Grayndler's contribution to this debate, he is in no position to be standing up and requiring people to refer to the purpose of this bill.I was surprised to see those opposite talking about the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, after the 60 Minutes show on Sunday night. I watched it, and I was shocked to see the allegations made against a former member of this House. I hope that in the course of time they will be properly tested.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to a question of relevance.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, we have discussed that.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—No, I will ask to be heard out. The 60 Minutes program is about as relevant as the Prime Minister's commissions from Clayton Utz, the details of which—as to who paid them and for what purposes they were paid—he has refused to fully disclose to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Batman, we have discussed the matter of relevance. The member for Grayndler has raised it. We have settled it. It has been a wide-ranging debate. There has been a lot of leniency from the chair towards members on the other side, and that will continue during this debate.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to prolong the discussion of Mr Keating and the 60 Minutes show. But, with respect to relevance, I would comment that the member for Grayndler was talking about shoving the Queen aside for the Olympics, which hardly had any bearing at all on this bill. I was disappointed that he did not bring himself to the bill at all. But I will now do so, because I think it is important that somebody in this debate actually talks about the bill at hand.The Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, presently before the House, provides for amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 for the purposes of holding a referendum on a republic and the preamble scheduled to be conducted later this year. This bill effectively delivers on another coalition election promise. Before the 1996 federal election, the coalition proposed to hold a Constitutional Convention to explore the constitutional options available to Australia and, in particular, to find out whether we as a nation wanted to embrace the important symbolism of a change to an Australian head of state.It has been clear for many years that a significant and increasing number of Australians from all walks of life support the idea of an Australian head of state. But it is also true that many Australians feel there is no compelling reason to abandon a system which has overseen one of the most stable democracies of the 21st century.Despite years of talk from a former Labor government, it fell to a coalition government to make the convention a reality and an Australian head of state a democratic possibility. The convention was established to consider three questions: whether or not Australia should become a republic; which republic model should be put to the voters to consider against the current system of government; and in what time frame and under what circumstances any change might be considered.The Constitutional Convention brought together a broad and representative cross-section of the Australian community. Opinions were regularly divided. But the debate was robust and constructive, this being due in no small part to the tireless efforts of the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair and the Hon. Barry Jones, who presided as chairman and deputy chairman respectively.Half of the convention's 152 delegates were appointed by the government and represented a broad cross-section of Australian society and a wide diversity of skills and experience. They also reflected the government's commitment to ensuring that women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, young Australians and local government were represented. The government resolved that the other 76 delegates should be elected by the Australian public. Just over 600 Australians offered themselves for candidature. The elected delegates made a profound contribution to the debate, which reflected very positively on the strength and character of Australia's democracy.From the early stages of the convention it was quite clear that, although there was a healthy representation of delegates who supported the status quo, there was an overwhelming level of support for an Australian head of state. The real debate was about what model Australia should adopt to achieve that end.The model which colloquially became known as `direct election' failed to achieve the same level of support at the convention as it has publicly. Indeed, the direct election model is the greatest danger the Constitution has faced. Although it enjoys considerable popular appeal, the flaws of the direct election model become plainly apparent under closer scrutiny.Under the direct election model, the position of president would be a political prize which is constitutionally more powerful than the office of the Prime Minister. It is inevitable that a political party would enter a candidate and use its resources and experience in a campaign for president. It also contains severe disadvantages for the smaller states taking account of their population sizes. New South Wales and Victoria, by sheer dint of population size, would naturally dominate the choice of person for president under a direct election model.Of all the models considered by the convention, the `bipartisan appointment of the president' model had the most support in the final ballot. The convention voted in favour of a motion that a referendum be held to test that model against the existing system. The convention further recommended that, if the 1999 referendum results in support for an Australian head of state, the republic should come into effect by 1 January 2001. Whatever the outcome, the result of the referendum will be a decision that will be owned by all Australians.The convention further recommended that, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the government should facilitate a public education program to address constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum. Governments have a duty to make material available to the electorate which involves any significant change which is either proposed or legislated for, whether it be announcing initiatives such as private health insurance rebates, tax reform or constitutional change. Accordingly, the coalition government has indicated that it will support public information activities in relation to the referendum.The government has made it clear that the question about Australia's head of state is one for the Australian people to decide. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposals for change. The public information activities associated with a referendum will involve three distinct stages. The first stage is expected to coincide with the consideration of the referendum legislation in the parliament and will consist of wide distribution of a `plain English' public education kit. The kit will principally explain in appropriate detail the existing system of government and the Constitutional Convention's preferred model for an Australian head of state. Information concerning the referendum process will also be included.The availability of the kit will be promoted by an advertising campaign. Acknowledging Australia's great cultural diversity, the information kit will be available in other formats tailored to meet the requirements of particular audiences, including translations in 16 languages on the Internet and in alternative formats for the sight impaired. I am sure the minister at the dispatch box, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, will be delighted that the government's public education campaign will be translated in 16 languages so that Australians of multicultural backgrounds will be able to access that information.The second stage, or the campaign phase, will occur in the three- to four-week period leading to the referendum ballot day. The government will make $15 million available for nationwide education campaigns to promote the arguments both for and against the model put forward in the referendum. The government has appointed two separate committees to manage the for and against campaigns. Recognising individual skills, demonstrated commitment and experience, the government has ensured that the membership of both committees are drawn from delegates to the Constitutional Convention.Consistent with the government's approach to the debate about Australia's head of state, membership of the committees include a broadly representative cross-section of the community and is not confined to politicians. Community participation is essential to give the debate and referendum legitimacy. As such, the government has resolved that each committee will be responsible for the planning of its own campaign and will manage a budget of up to $7½ million. The committees will also have the freedom to develop advertisements which can be run through advertising mediums of their choice in the three to four weeks before the referendum. The government's only involvement in this process will be to ensure that proposed advertisements do not breach statutory requirements or accepted standards of advertising.Public funding for the committees will lend itself to robust public debate on the arguments for and against change. As with the provision of public funding in election campaigns, the purpose is to ensure that alternative views can be presented directly to the voters. Once the legislation for altering the Constitution has been passed by both houses of parliament, the Australian Electoral Commission will have the responsibility for the conduct of the remainder of the referendum process. Therefore, the third stage of the process will be the responsibility of the AEC. This will include the public information activities, the actual distribution of the official yes and no campaign cases to all voters, as provided for by the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.There are various sections of the act which will be amended by this bill. These amendments are generally mechanical in nature. However, the operation of subsection 4 inserted in what became section 11 of the act by means of an amendment in the Senate at the time of the passage of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984 deserves special comment. The subsection arose out of a legitimate concern to create a statutory prohibition against any government funding partisan involvement in referendum campaigns. More specifically, the amendment was to avoid a situation where a government only supported one side of a question put to the electorate. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it does not automatically follow that freedom of speech has to be funded by taxpayers through the Commonwealth. However, in the case of referendums, there is a strong argument that in the interests of fairness and active democracy the Commonwealth should make equal funds available to both sides of the argument.The Australian public expects and demands this sort of fairness. Accordingly, clause 4 of the bill is not an attempt on the part of the government to tip the balance of the debate in favour of either side. Furthermore, clause 4 is intended to guarantee through legislative means that Commonwealth expenditure throughout the course of the government's three-stage program of public information activities for the 1999 referendum does not inadvertently result in a technical breach of subsection 11(4) of the relevant act. The amendments demonstrate that the coalition government is committed to presenting the Australian electorate with a fair and easy to follow account of the central issues surrounding the debate as well as a working knowledge and understanding of the arguments both for and against constitutional change.The importance of this referendum in terms of Australia's international identity in the 21st century cannot be underestimated. The debate about an Australian head of state deserves the collective and undivided attention of our national leaders and the public. But at the moment that is not possible. Before the nation can afford to turn its attention to the debate about Australia's head of state, we must complete the tax reform process, the other great national opportunity in 1999. Australians paid dearly for Paul Keating's dogmatic pursuit of big picture items at the expense of getting the economic fundamentals right. Whether it was a lacerating recession or a recession we had to have is barely the point. The important lesson from this unhappy era is that Australians want a strong, confident economy as a starting point for good social policy, including constitutional reform.The coalition government has returned the budget to a surplus from a $10 billion deficit and has cushioned the economy from the impact of the Asian financial crisis while delivering record low inflation and interest rates. The debate about an Australian head of state is important in terms of how we think about ourselves, but tax reform will have far more tangible benefits to ordinary Australians, and this process needs to be completed before we can legitimately move on. Tax reform will allow more families to enjoy high standards of living, will secure a revenue base to provide hospitals for the sick and benefits for the elderly and will gave salary and wage earners much needed tax relief. Tax reform will remove the shackles preventing small businesses and exporters from expanding and creating more jobs, and tax reform will improve Commonwealth-state financial relations.Tax reform and the chance to change important symbols in our Constitution are the two great opportunities for Australia before the next millennium. The Australian electorate voted in favour of the government's tax reform plan at the last election. The people have spoken and the debate is finished. It is time to complete the tax reform process and then turn our energies and attention to the debate about an Australian head of state. That process will happen in the second half of the year. I commend this bill to the House in terms of the machinery provisions contained in it that will allow that referendum to continue and will also allow the preamble to be put in that referendum in November.17:45:004062Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in support of the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . This bill exists because of one fact and one fact alone, and that is that one party in this parliament seven years ago put this proposal before the Australian nation—the proposal for an Australian republic. After years of sustained resistance by those opposite and by other groups in the Australian community, this government has finally yielded. We held a Constitutional Convention and we now have a decision based on the outcome of that Constitutional Convention to proceed to a referendum.The bill sets out a range of procedures and provisions. First, it establishes a process for the distribution by the Australian Electoral Commission of the yes/no cases to be put in association with the referendum—questions concerning that of an Australian republic and questions now also concerning that of an Australian preamble. Second, it deals with the provision of separate ballot papers for separate referendum questions. The bill also deals with other minor provisions concerning voting places. But the key provisions of this proposed legislation concern the question about an Australian republic, the funding of the yes/no case concerning that question as well as touching on, in part, the additional proposal for a new preamble to the Australian Constitution. The Attorney-General's second reading speech on this proposed legislation is quite instructive. He states:The government has made it clear that the republic question is one for the Australian people to decide. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposal for change. The government believes that public funding should be made available to support a vigorous and engaging public presentation of the arguments for and against change.Its essence is that there should be a free, fair and open debate on whether or not there should be an Australian republic. But that, in turn, assumes that there will be a debate. Here I refer to not only a debate between the Australian Republican Movement and Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy but also a debate between we the elected representatives of the people.What we have found, however, is that this debate is a one-sided one. In terms of the party opposite, we find there are no active participants by those who claim on the one hand to support the republican cause but on the other hand are strangely silent in the public discussion of that cause. The silence has become increasingly deafening.Our case—that of the parliamentary Labor Party—is very simple: we support an Australian republic; we support an Australian head of state; we support a new republic for a new century.But where is the case being advanced by those opposite? We turn first to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's view is locked in a different period. In his view of this nation, the Prime Minister is locked into the echoes of Land of Hope and Glory, Winston Churchill's portrait on the mantelpiece, Menzies still in the Lodge, cricket at Lords and chaps being chaps. It is a view of the future of Australia rooted firmly in 1954, the Royal Visit and `I did but see her passing by'. That is one view. It is a view which the Prime Minister is entitled to have. It is also the view of others within his party, including Senator Minchin, the great friend and colleague of the just now departed member for Sturt, not to mention the Minister for Employment Services, Mr Abbott, and the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bishop. When we turn to the Liberal Party and ask, `Where are the republican participants in this debate?' we find very few taking up the public cause. Most importantly, we ask the question: where still is the Treasurer of the Commonwealth on this question; where is Mr Costello? Mr Costello, the Treasurer, is the senior ranking republican on the other side of this chamber, but when it comes to the substantial public debate on this issue he is missing in action.The Treasurer was a participant in the Constitutional Convention last year. He emerged from that convention as a public advocate of the so-called McGarvie model for the republic—a puzzling model at best, but one which was far too patrician and elitist for most people supporting any form of republicanism in this country. After the Constitutional Convention the Treasurer, when asked whether he would be supporting the public debate and advocacy of a republic in the lead-up in any referendum, said, `Yes, but the model would have to be improved.' Well we might ask: how could a model which had been agreed upon by an exhaustive process of consultation involving a Constitutional Convention of many delegates across this country be improved? But that was his public position and the basis on which he justified a sustained silence in this debate over a long time.We then had a comment from the Treasurer, `Even if this republican referendum goes down, what's the difference between the year 2000 and the year 2010? There is always a second time.' I often wonder, if that logic was applied in the great Federation debates of the 1890s, what would have been the response then had Deakin turned to Griffith and Griffith turned to Forrest and said, `Well, you know, 1901 seems as though it's not going to work, why don't we aim for 1911?' The bottom line is that it would never have happened. It is a false, unfortunate and unhelpful line of logic.But, lo and behold, in the noble tradition of St Augustine, we had a conversion on 4 March, because the Australian of that day reports that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, the highest-ranking declared republican in the Howard Government, has warned Australians there will be no second chance for a republic if the November referendum fails. That sits at some point of contrast with his earlier remark, `What's 10 years between friends? We will get around to the republic at some stage.'The bottom line is that here we are months away from this seminal referendum on the future of this nation's constitutional arrangements, yet we still have at best one public utterance from the Treasurer of the Commonwealth—the senior ranking republican from the party of those opposite—and not a sustained participation in the public discussion. We do not have a sustained argument to bring the constituency represented by those opposite along in support of the overall rationale for an Australian republic. So much for Citizen Costello.We then turn to the other great republican on the other side—Citizen Reith. Citizen Reith's entry in this debate was dramatic to say the least. In January this year, as most of us were enjoying the summer slumber, Citizen Reith suddenly emerged on the doorstep of Ted Mack's house in Sydney, surprisingly with 15 television cameras in tow, to announce to all concerned that in fact he, Citizen Reith, had decided to become a direct election republican. I can only conclude that the reason for Mr Reith's sudden intervention in this debate and the dramatic way in which he did it was to so confuse the issue as to leave the entire Australian nation wondering where the conservative side of politics lay on this issue.After all, we had Citizen Costello, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, saying on the one hand that he was a McGarvieite, that he might get around to supporting the republic at some stage if his workload did not get in the road, and then we had the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, saying that in fact he is not an appointed presidency man at all, that he is not a McGarvieite but he is a direct election model person, siding with Mr Mack in that overall debate. The overall effect of that on the Australian community in this debate has been to leave an atmosphere of confusion and concern as to what precisely republicans on the benches opposite stand for.What do we make in overall terms of these dog in the manger type tactics? It is difficult to reach a conclusion. We have even had statements from the government whip suggesting that those opposite should remain publicly silent in the republican debate, but that is an injunction—or a warning, shall we say—issued by the government whip which seems to be regularly ignored by the constitutional monarchists opposite. It does not seem to have stopped Senator Minchin in his stride nor Mr Abbott or Mrs Bishop in their stride.We also had advice from Mr Robb, the former federal director of the Liberal Party, saying that he was concerned that voters would suffer from some form of fatigue if in fact we allowed politicians to participate in the public discussion on the republic too early. I would suggest that what we are facing at the moment is not voter fatigue but the absence of any form of debate at all. It is not fatigue. We have not even worked up a sweat yet. The reason we have not worked up a sweat yet is we do not have an engagement from those opposite who state they wish to see an Australian republic.I return to the theme outlined in the summary of the bill which is that, for Australians to make a decision about the future of their constitutional arrangements in this year's referendum, there must be a debate. But this requires engagement. To date there has been no engagement. We have, in effect, the sound of one hand clapping, and the hand that is missing from this clapping, the hand that is missing from this engagement, is that of the Liberal Party. They are missing entirely from the fray. I fear that, if this referendum goes down, history will record that considerable culpability lies with those opposite for having, frankly, wimped it. We all know the constitutional history of this country. Out of the 42 referenda since Federation, eight have passed. All those which have passed have passed only on the basis of some form of bipartisan support.The other matter of substance touched on in the bill before us concerns the preamble. I note in the minister's second reading speech that:The government's commitment is to undertake a public education program directed to the republic proposal and to fund campaigns on that proposal. That commitment does not extend to the preamble proposal.In essence, I fear that, in addition, we have a preamble designed to confuse. The preamble which has been circulated today by the Prime Minister has three fundamental flaws in it. The first is that its effect on those Australians who will vote in the referendum on the republic later this year is confusion. There will be two questions put, not one. Given the history of referenda in this country, when you complicate the referendum process, logic inevitably follows that the prospects of the case getting up are radically diminished. The second flaw relates to the substance of the preamble which has been advanced and the third relates to the style of that document.As to its capacity to confuse the Australian electorate, my fear is that, in the midst of being confronted with the inevitable hurly-burly of the arguments raised by the Australian Republican Movement on the one hand and by Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy on the other, we will have injected a further level of controversy concerning the contents of this proposed preamble. The impact of that, whether it is by design or by accident—and I fear it is, in part, by design—will be to confuse and to lead ultimately to the defeat of the republican question.I do not intend to dwell on the flaws of substance at any length other than to say that the single guiding document we have in this exercise on the republic is in fact the resolution which emerged from the Constitutional Convention of early last year. That convention outlined a range of specific provisions which were to be reflected in the future preamble to the Australian Constitution. The simple test which this document circulated by the Prime Minister must pass in terms of substance is whether it contains elements which reflect each of those agreed upon by the Constitutional Convention. I submit that they do not.When we turn to the style of this document which has been circulated by the Prime Minister or his office today, I fear again we have something which is very poorly drafted indeed. In terms of a document which is supposed to inspire our national political consciousness, I fear this is woefully inadequate drafting. I would submit that, if this document which has been put about today is poetry, the Australian Yellow Pages represents a high form of literature worthy of a Nobel Prize.This preamble does not flow. Its language is disjointed. It is entirely without rhythm. It is also without logic. It refers, for example, to the equal sovereignty of its citizens. In international law, sovereignty is a concept relating to the position of states, not of individuals. It refers to things like `arrivals' as persons who have come to this country from other countries. In my mind, `arrivals' refers to the thing which happens at a railway station. It is not a broader sweeping statement involving the millions of Australians—in fact, all of us who are non-indigenous—who have come here from other parts of the world.The preamble says we should be `free to be proud'. I find that language silly. We are proud of this country irrespective of whether we are free. These are in fact quite different concepts. It refers to `an equal dignity'. Again, I do not find that concept even alive in any form of English language. The last paragraph of the circulated draft I find completely unintelligible. There is a need, as the member for Holt has said, for brevity, for poetry and for a capacity readily to commit this seminal document to the Australian memory, which means to the memory of its citizens. What we have before us is a draft which fails each of those tests.Finally on this preamble question, we have flaws of process. I would simply make this point without dwelling on it further: to pull together a draft which actually summarises the past of this country and infuses us with a vision for its future must, by its definition, be done in a consultative fashion. Instead, what we have had is something dumped on the table in a draft that ignores that which has been circulated already by the Leader of the Opposition almost on every account.The ultimate question alive in this entire debate on the republic is: why are we doing it anyway? What are the arguments for an Australian republic as opposed to those for an Australian constitutional monarchy? I think it is important in this important year that we remind ourselves of what we are about and why. What we want simply is an Australian head of state. What we do not want is a representative of the House of Hanover, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the House of Windsor or whoever that House happens to be at any particular time. What we do not want as a head of state is a foreigner. What we do not want as a head of state is someone for whom it is already predetermined must be the oldest male member of a particular family. What we do not want for this country as a head of state is someone who it is already predetermined must be an adherent of a particular branch of the Christian faith. What we want very simply is for our head of state to be an Australian. What we want very simply is for our head of state to be one of us, a person chosen by this parliament on the basis of merit, irrespective of their gender, irrespective of their background, irrespective of their religion.Returning to the bill and concluding on this point, what we have had in this debate up until now is, I think, a confusion of process. What we have had is an absence of bipartisan support. What we have had in fact is a Liberal Party whose participation in support of the republican cause has at best been lukewarm and, frankly, I believe, cynical in the extreme. We have had the beginnings of the emergence of evidence of the same in relation to the proposed new preamble for the Constitution.If we were to reflect back on the debates which occurred 100 years ago as this nation and its six constituent colonies debated whether or not we should become an Australian Federation, for the statesmen of that time, the challenge would have seemed as large as the one which we confront today. It was no easy thing. These were difficult and hard questions of policy. They went to the heart of people's sense of identity and where they belonged. The participants in that debate actually seized the opportunity and went forward. As Alfred Deakin said in his 1898 lecture:The number actually against us is probably greater than ever: the timorous and passive will be induced to fall away; the forces against us are arrayed under capable chiefs. But few as we may be and weak by comparison, it will be greater glory, whether we succeed or fail. These are times that try men's souls.Deakin two years before Federation. Deakin leading an argument in support of the future of this nation, not the past. The challenge for those opposite is to seize hold of Deakin's spirit for a new century. Deakin was one of yours. He was a Liberal. He was a Melbourne Liberal. He was a Victorian Liberal. But he was a person who held in his mind and in his heart the future of this nation rather than clinging to its past.18:04:004066Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight on the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . There are a couple of things I would like to talk about tonight, and the first one is that we must not confuse this issue we are talking about—that is, the enabling legislation—with the case itself. Later this year, in eight months time, we are going to have to confront that.What we are doing here is looking at what the government promised in its 1996 election commitment. The first part of the promise was to give Australians a representative Constitutional Convention and, having fulfilled that promise in February 1998, the second part of the promise was that, if a clear view emerged from that convention, it would be put to the Australian people by way of a referendum to decide whether or not we would become a republic. Nothing could be clearer than that. I suppose tonight in this debate we will all allow our own prejudices to roll out in respect of the core issue and the preamble, but we should not lose sight of the fact that what we are debating tonight is the fulfilment of the Howard-Fischer government's promise to put this matter before the Australian people.What followed from the convention, and what is the third part of the commitment, is that the question we would put to the Australian people would mirror the intentions of the Constitutional Convention. Some of us are in favour of that and some of us are very clearly against it. Nevertheless, the legislation sets up the framework for this to happen. As a part of that, a seminal issue at the Constitutional Convention was the proposed method of electing a president. Most favoured the two-thirds model, that being a nomination by the Prime Minister which is seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and put to a joint sitting of both houses of parliament, requiring a two-thirds majority to elect the president. This then is the fulfilment of the consequence of those earlier pledges.As we are now well aware, a second issue emerged from the Constitutional Convention, and that was the need for a preamble to our Constitution. Perhaps it is appropriate that we are debating this issue today, on the day that the Prime Minister released the draft of that preamble. The Prime Minister put it very succinctly when he said this morning that the government's intention was to express in contemporary terms and essentially in an ageless language some of the historical realities of our country, our contemporary values and some of the things we hold dear.You cannot have a preamble that, like the litany of the saints, just goes on and on. Somewhere you have to say what your core values are, what things you hold dear and what the aspirations of your country are.We are talking today about the legislation which will allow this to happen and not where we stand on the yes or no cases on the issue. That will be put at the time of the referendum itself. I have a great concern about this because it has been traditional in the past in Australian referenda to place a number of issues before the public on one ballot paper. I have always thought that that was a grave mistake. I personally do not favour it because, in the past, there has been a tendency to vote yes if you are broadly in favour of the issues that the government is putting in the referendum or, if you are against them, to vote no.I cite as evidence of that the results of the 3 September 1988 referendum, which you will recall was in four parts. We talked about four constitutional alterations: one regarding parliamentary terms, one regarding fair elections, one regarding the status of local government and one regarding rights and freedoms. You might say, on the face of it, that at least two of those issues were fairly passive ones. Certainly, there has been a view around—and it has been mirrored in a number of the states—that we have probably reached a stage where four-year terms are appropriate. Yet, in the context of that referendum, the public almost exclusively—there may have been just one exception—voted no to every issue in every state and territory.It is remarkable, when you look at the figures, that the degree by which they voted down each issue roughly mirrors each issue itself in each state. For example, in New South Wales it was a bit over two to one against the parliamentary terms, not quite as much for fair elections, but back again to over two to one for the local government issue and more than two to one for the rights and freedoms. You can take any state at random and you will get this proportionality running through all the issues. That says to me that people's ambivalence with the government of the day or what they see as the government's intent has largely coloured the way they voted. And if you overlay that with the tendency generally to be cautious and vote no, it was quite remarkable that, in those four referenda, there was a majority of three million against on each issue in addition to all the states and territories voting the thing down.We are not talking this time about some tinkering at the edges or tidying up the Constitution; we are talking in this instance about a fundamental change to the way we are governed. Some might say it is not that big a change—I think it is. We are changing from a monarchical system to a republican system, if the referendum is carried, and you cannot escape the implications of that, whether you are for it or against it. It is a very clear issue.Then we have the issue of a preamble. As we go into the second millennium, as we go into our second century of the Commonwealth, a preamble might sit in front of the existing Constitution—even in its monarchist form—as well as it might sit in front of a republican form. So, to me, the issues are quite different and I thought it would be a great pity to put those on the one ballot paper. For that reason, I initiated a move within various forums of the coalition to consider two ballot papers, perhaps two slightly different coloured—a pink and a blue ballot paper.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Pink for the republic?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I hope not, Gareth. It is important not only that we have to vote yes or no on these issues but that we confront them separately. There are four possible results out of these two referendums. We could get two yeses, two noes, a no and a yes, or a yes and a no. If we got those in the wrong combination, that would be the worst of all worlds, would it not? It would be a tragedy if we were perhaps to vote down a statement of the character and aspirations of our country because the referendum issue itself was defeated in four of the states. So I put it to the government—and I am delighted that they have accepted my suggestion—that we should vote in this election on two different ballot papers.Having said that, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily support the republic. What I am supporting in this bill tonight is the right of people to vote on that issue, as I said earlier in my address, in the terms that the government promised back in 1996 and gave life to in the Constitutional Convention of 1998. My personal view is that we must look very seriously at this preamble issue. There will no doubt be a lot of criticism of particular issues, but I would appeal to people to look for the common ground in this pre amble rather than push the envelope to the extremities of various arguments, because—and I say this with the greatest sincerity—if we cannot agree on something as fundamental as the character and aspirations of this country in a simple preamble to our Constitution at this crucial time in our national development, be it in a monarchist or republican form—that is not important—then we are certainly ill-equipped to consider the issue of changing the form of government.I think this first draft is a very good attempt to try to take all the features of our character on board. I do not think you can take every single feature of our character and aspirations into a preamble. What I do like about it is that it is not an extremist document; it is not overcolourful. I think it reflects what most Australians tend to do in their own lives—understate our situation a little. I think that reflects our character. What I particularly like about it is that it does not pander to political correctness. Political correctness is a fad we are going through now. It may well be in great disfavour in a decade or two, and it would be a pity to see a preamble to our Constitution soured by it.I will consult widely in my own electorate because I think this has to be a very inclusive document. I think members of parliament from all parties have to listen and bring back any serious concerns about whether it has missed a particular point or whether it has set ablaze in Australia a real desire for something even more inclusive or poetic than we have got here. I think this will be the catalyst for something great if we approach it, as the previous speaker said, in an inclusive way which involves all Australians. Then and only then will I state my position on where I will vote in any referendum on the issue.On the republic issue, I have grave misgivings about the yes case, because I do not think that those who favour a republic are clear amongst themselves about what form of republic they would like. I do not think you change a system that has worked well for a hundred years unless you can replace it with something better. I do not think that you should subject Australians to something that would be totally divisive at a time when, probably more than at any other time in our recent history, we need a sense of unity.Having said that, while I have great respect for the Queen, both as a person and as the head of state, I do not have any fawning regard for the House of Windsor. I am more interested in the mechanisms of constitutional monarchy than I am in having some attachment to a past era. That is not where I am coming from at all. For that reason, I favour the model that the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair—a former Speaker of this House—suggested as a preliminary step to wherever else we go with this debate: to invoke an interim measure whereby, between the Governor-General and the Queen, we have a body, something like a council of state, made up of the Governor-General of the day and the six state Governors and they would take over, as it were, the powers of the Queen.This would address the argument that we do not have an Australian head of state or that decisions regarding our Governor-General or head of state—whichever role is not important—come from some foreign country. The role of that council of state would be to confirm state governors, on the recommendation of the Premier of the particular state, or the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Australian Prime Minister. As those governors would reflect different states of the Commonwealth and probably come from different political backgrounds, I think you would get a pretty fair assessment and we would probably end up with a continuation of the current system.That council would have only two functions. It would appoint governors and governors-general and, if one of them were to step out of line for some reason or become incompetent to hold the office, would dismiss them. It seems to me that that would be the first step because, once you establish something like that, whether you call the role `Governor-General' or `President' would not be that important and in time, if there is a sentiment in Australia to move to a republican model, there would be a greater unity of purpose in taking the first step that way than in confronting the Australian population with something which is quite foreign to them and which, it is my belief at least, at this time in the debate is likely to be voted down.So this is a very important bill that we have before us. It is the bill that sets up the mechanism to consider the preamble. As I said before, I hope in a most inclusive way that we do not let it become a divisive debate in itself. I think it would be regrettable if the Senate fiddled with it or blocked it. There is a mechanism under section 128 of the Constitution to bypass such a measure, but it would be regrettable if that happened. And, secondly, it sets up the mechanism fulfilling the pledge of this government that we would hold a Constitutional Convention and if there was broad unanimity of opinion from that Constitutional Convention we would put that to the Australian public at referendum. I compliment the minister on the work that has gone into this, and I hope it sets a clear format for Australia in the coming months.18:23:004069Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—The legislation before the House, the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , is expressly designed to facilitate the passage, among other things, of the referendum on the preamble later this year. And it is on the subject of the preamble that I want to confine my remarks here tonight. The task and the test facing a Prime Minister, a poet or anyone else trying to draft a new preamble for the Australian Constitution can be very simply expressed. How do you capture in a few memorable words the essence of this country's past, present and future? I think most people would agree that a new preamble needs to be short and taut, it needs to be learnable and quotable, and it needs to touch the chords that really matter—the basic ideas that are at the heart of the kind of country we want to be and which cry out for expression.The style in which it is all expressed really does matter. Any constitution is, in a sense, its country's autobiography. It is a nice expression that—`the constitution is the autobiography of a nation'. I could not find in the library who said it first. Cheryl Saunders was kind enough to suggest that it might have been me about 20 years ago—that is the penalty you pay when you have been interested in these issues as long as I have. But the point is if you think about the Constitution as an autobiography in which we all ought to be able to find something of ourselves mirrored it is crucial that it be well and appropriately written.As with any such work, it helps if the first lines are compelling and captivating. The present Australian Constitution is never going to make a good beach or fireside read. In literary terms what appears there—after any preamble—is already pretty much a lost cause. But that is no reason not to give a new flying start to the Constitution. In terms of content the starting point should continue to be the recommendations of last year's Constitutional Convention, which reached consensus, after all, around 10 core ideas. They included recognition of our cultural diversity, affirmation of the rule of law and representative democracy, respect for our unique land and environment and acknowledgment of the original occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. Those ideas—the whole list of 10, and I have only read a few—should be embraced one way or another in the new preamble. Unless that happens—it does not have to be in precisely the same words or in as many words—the preamble will not deserve wide community support and it will not win that wide community support.What kind of preamble have we got in mind? Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, put to the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago a draft which was the product of quite a wide degree of consultation by me in particular not only with people on our own side but with people on the opposite side of this chamber and in the other House, indigenous leaders, leadership of the republic movement and people from the Australian constitutional foundation, who have been doing a lot of work on this issue. So it is not simply, in any sense, a partisan document. It is the product of a lot of consultation. What we have in mind is something like this:Having come together in 1901 as a Federation under the Crown, relying on the blessing of Almighty God, andThe Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign democracy, our united people drawn from nations across the globe, We the people of AustraliaProud of our diversityLoving our unique and ancient landRecognising Indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of our landBelieving in freedom and equality, andEmbracing democracy and the rule of lawCommit ourselves to this our Constitution.Maybe we can do a lot better than that, and with further thought, consultation and ideas—which I am perfectly happy to engage in a debate about—I am sure we probably can. But I think probably we have made a better fist of it with this kind of document, unfortunately, than the Prime Minister seems to have with the preamble that was put into the public domain today. Unhappily—and I say `unhappily' very genuinely because we would have wished it were otherwise—the document that has come to public attention today really falls short on every one of the kinds of tests that I have mentioned. There are some good individual phrases—as you would expect from the involvement of a poet of Les Murray's stature—but I have to say the overall effect is like wading through porridge. Some of the text is simply unintelligible. The first sentence, for example, states:. . . the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens.The second sentence:The Australian nation is woven together of people from many . . . arrivals.You sort of get the drift of what is intended here, but this is no language known to man or woman, and it is certainly not the English language. Moreover, other parts of the preamble, not least the treatment of our indigenous heritage, are deeply flawed in ways that I will come to when this debate resumes. Many of the specific content recommendations of the Constitutional Convention are simply missing. It all has to go back to the drawing board with a much wider process of consultation this time around.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—Before the dinner break, I was making the point that as much as we might have hoped otherwise the preamble introduced today by the Prime Minister is a deeply disappointing and flawed document, simply not satisfying the criteria that any preamble really needs to of being short, learnable, quotable and really touching the chords that matter in terms of Australia's national aspirations, with a content that also reflects fully the kinds of recommendations that emerged from the Constitutional Convention last year.What needs to happen now is for this document to go back to the drawing board, the best available process being, we believe, a joint select parliamentary committee of the kind that was foreshadowed by the Attorney-General last month, with an appropriate additional input from the wider community—perhaps, highly desirably, through a group of delegates from the Constitutional Convention, the non-political members of which made a magnificent contribution to the public debate last year and whom it would be marvellous to tap again in this exercise.In any such exercise, what are the issues that have to be addressed? Let me in the time available talk about four of them. The first need—it was one that was really strongly endorsed by the 1998 convention—is to get a sense of historical continuity into the text of this preamble. The alternative draft—which I read out before and which is our attempt to, after a full consultative process, put some ideas into the public domain—tried to do this in a way that the Prime Minister's draft does not by summarising in its opening two lines not only the significance of our originally coming together in 1901 but the really fundamental changes that have happened since.One such change, which the Howard draft does appropriately acknowledge—if in slightly odd wording, occasionally—is in the composition of our people. What was overwhelmingly an Anglo-Irish Australia in 1901 is now obviously a very much more diverse community than that, drawn in fact from nearly every nation in the globe, and it is appropriate, we think, that the preamble reflects that.The other huge change, which the Prime Minister's draft does not refer to at all, and which the Constitutional Convention wanted referred to and which we believe ought to be referred to, is the reality that we are now, in a way that we were not for the first few decades of this century, a truly independent, sovereign nation. One only has to think back to Sir Robert Menzies' statement in 1939 to have an extraordinary concession of that non-independent, non-sovereign status when he said, you will all remember:. . . it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of the persistence of Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war on her, and that as a result, Australia is also at war.That is the kind of country we were—just following the British sovereign leader and not really being an independent decision maker of our own. That has all changed now. It is a crucially important element of our new identity and it is something that, desirably, ought to be reflected in a preamble which is designed to capture a little bit of our history as well as our aspirations for the future.The second important thing to get right is the reference to indigenous Australians—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We simply have to recognise, generously and warm-heartedly, the debt that we owe to indigenous Australians as the original occupants and the custodians of our land. We have to do more than simply acknowledge that, like our flora and fauna, they were here before we were. If you just do it and leave it at that, as the Howard draft basically does, this demeans and frankly trivialises what is at stake here.`Custodianship' is really a wonderful word, and it was the consensus choice of last year's Constitutional Convention. It does not open up matters of current divisive controversy to use a word like that. And it does capture at least some of that intensely spiritual and protective way in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have always related to the land. If he is serious about reconciliation—he says he is—the Prime Minister simply has to be prepared to revisit and rethink this issue.The third thing we have to do to win and deserve community support for this preamble is to find an appropriate way of referring to the belief in God held by a great many Aus tralians, bearing in mind also the intensity and the centrality of that belief for many people in our community. This issue is a very sensitive one not only for believers but also for unbelievers who point to the problem in principle, in a pluralist society like ours, of elevating one belief system above others. I also point, incidentally, to the complete absence of any reference to God in the Constitution of the United States, of all countries. I will read into the record the preamble of the United States Constitution, because it once again makes the point about how simple, stark language can be so much more effective than this turgid porridge that we have been bequeathed by the Prime Minister. The United States convention begins:We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Just a few stark words, which still ring out after 200 years. The language is a little archaic to modern ears, but the content is absolutely clear, very explicit, very attractive, and there is no mention of God. What do we do on this issue? There was a consensus reached at the 1998 convention that the preamble do contain a reference to Almighty God—not a recognition, not an affirmation, although those words were used in other contexts, but a reference.One possible way of making that reference is to pick up, as the Beazley alternative draft does, the language of the existing covering clauses in our parent United Kingdom act, which refer to those originally adopting our Constitution as `relying on the blessing of Almighty God'. If you do it that way, as a reference to what moved and stirred those who originally adopted our Constitution, I think you honour the necessity to have a reference to God—a necessity felt by the convention and certainly a necessity felt by a great many people in our community—but you do not do it in a way which a lot of other people in the community find difficult to accept. From the very wide range of discussions I have had on this issue I suspect that the kind of approach that we have adopted in this respect, and that I have just described, may be more broadly acceptable than that adopted by the Prime Minister. Just to put it again in context: what we are proposing for debate as an alternative way of doing this is in the first couple of parts of the preamble encapsulating, as it were, the whole history of the nation and doing it in this way:Having come together in 1901 as a Federation under the Crown, relying on the blessing of Almighty God, andThe Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign democracy, our united people drawn from nations across the globe,We the people of AustraliaProud of our diversity . . .You can put in an appropriate reference to God in a way that is dignified, that does meet that intense feeling that is out there in the community but also does not make life difficult in the kind of pluralist community we now live in for those who do not share that belief system.The fourth issue—and it is really a big one, but I will summarise a lot of things together—is to find the right words in which to express a whole series of other basic ideas, ideas about democracy, about the rule of law, about equality, about freedom, about respect for the environment and so on. There does not really seem to be a big issue here about these sorts of core ideas, although I have to note that the Prime Minister's draft in fact contains no explicit reference to the environment or even indirectly in terms of love or respect or affection for our land. That concept is simply missing. Let us give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt and say that there is no real issue apparent about a lot of his core ideas. The real issue is rather one about the degree of detail and the colour with which those ideas should be expressed.The approach that we took in the alternative draft, which was made available to the Prime Minister quite a while ago, was to keep things very short and very simple. We picked up in 83 words all the basic themes that were supported by the Constitutional Convention and added one or two as well. The Howard-Les Murray draft takes twice as many words to say the same, or in fact rather less. It is not helped, I have to say, by a whole bunch of idiosyncratic flourishes in the text, flourishes like being `free to be proud'. I do not feel the necessity to be `free to be proud' of my country. I am proud of my country, a point made by Kim Beazley this afternoon. It is very odd terminology—`free to be proud of their country and heritage'. There are flourishes like that.Then there are unintelligible flourishes like `equal dignity which may never be . . . invoked against achievement'. As I said earlier on, this is language known to no man or woman. What does it mean? It is peculiar. It is intended to be some sort of flick against political correctness. The Prime Minister conceded that outside. If he is going to have a flick against political correctness, one would hope that he and Les Murray between them would at least be capable of doing it in a form that is intelligible rather than turgid mud as this actually, unfortunately, is.There is a lot of bizarre language. There are a lot of things missing. You do not have that introductory language `We the people of Australia'. You have a little reference to `we, the Australian people' at the end of the document but none of that stuff at the beginning which sets the tone which the Constitutional Convention was keen to have set. As I said, you have no recognition of respect or affection let alone love for our unique land and environment. You have no element, apart from the very important and helpful reference to our immigrant experience, to the history, constitutionally and otherwise, of our nation this century.You do have some good language in the Howard draft. One sentence in particular does stand out: `In every generation immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation's life.' I also quite like the sentence: `Our vast island continent has helped to shape the destiny of our Commonwealth and the spirit of its people,' although other people find it a bit irrelevant in the way it is expressed, more of a tyranny of distance statement than an affection for the land kind of statement. That is not bad language. We can find a way, if we work together, of incorporating the best in this particular draft with the best of the other ideas that are in circulation.Let me finish on this note. The Prime Minister's draft should not be seen as a government fait accompli, some kind of take it or leave it tablet bestowed upon us from the mount. Of course it is never easy—and I agree with the Prime Minister this afternoon—to reach absolute agreement when there are issues of substance and issues of presentation and language as sensitive as those involved here. But let me say to the Prime Minister that if he approaches the task of finding consensus in an open-minded and cooperative way he will have plenty of goodwill from us on this side of parliament and, indeed, the rest of the community.The intelligent way forward, as I indicated earlier on, would be for that draft to be referred to the joint select committee, which hopefully will be set up shortly to consider the referendum bills generally. It would also be possible—I think particularly helpful—to establish now a representative advisory group from the non-politician delegates to the Constitutional Convention to assist that parliamentary committee in its deliberations. We saw brought together at the convention a fabulously diverse and lively group of young and older Australians and their voices should be heard again as we work to get the text of this autobiography of the nation right.20:13:004073Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Labor welcomes the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 as the legislative framework for the campaign for an Australian republic. The education material provided for by the bill will be important in generating and retaining public interest in and support for the debate about the republic. The bill amends the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to provide for the funding and distribution of materials for the purposes of the referendum on the republic and the preamble. The amendments to this bill are necessary to see there is no breach of the Constitution in the partisan funding of one side of politics or one side of a referendum. The bill permits the expenditure on matters otherwise inconsistent with subsection 11(4) of the act for the duration of 1999 for the purposes of those two referenda only.I note that this bill allows for the yes/no case pamphlets to be translated into other languages. This will be greatly beneficial to tens of thousands of Australians across this country for whom English is a second language. It is of credit to the framers of this bill that they focused on this traditionally ignored section of our community. This provision will be greatly appreciated by numerous people in my electorate of Melbourne Ports. Five per cent of people in Melbourne Ports speak a language other than English, while more than 23 per cent speak a language other than English in their homes. To date, we have not catered for their needs in this debate. Melbourne Ports ironically had one of the lowest voter turnouts for the Constitutional Convention held in February 1998. Perhaps one explanation for this was that many in our community simply did not understand what the debate was about.The bill also acknowledges the growing importance of information technology and the Internet's major role in our lives. With the yes/no argument on the Internet, we can inform our younger people, those with disabilities and even those who may be temporarily travelling overseas about issues in the referendum they may wish to know about. The Internet is a vital source of information for so many across this country and this bill rightly does not underestimate its importance in our lives.An Australian republic will affirm what we already know to be true: that Australia is a proud and independent nation. I hope we decide to effect the next stage in the natural change of Australia—that is, from a former British colony to a dominion, and now an independent member of the Commonwealth to a republic.The effect of a successful passage of the referendum will not mean widespread constitutional change. Perhaps it should. We should, as the Leader of the Opposition has said recently, see that the Senate has no power to repeat the events of 1975. But the framers of the preferred model wanted to advance a simple but necessary change that would not be defeated in a referendum by the introduction of other, perhaps important, but distracting, options. I feel it is a misreading of the mood of Australia to suggest, as Dame Leonie Kramer and her monarchists do, that our affection for Britain and this country's origins would somehow be diminished by the passage of a referendum on an Australian head of state. Our Constitution will simply be updated to reflect the autonomous and self-reliant nature of modern Australia. Children love their parents, but every parent hopes that their child will grow up to be independent and self-reliant, with their own contribution to make.Importantly, as those who have argued for the minimalist position, from Paul Keating to Sir Zelman Cowen, himself a former Governor-General, we will retain respect for our current Westminster parliamentary and democratic traditions. Imported as they were from Great Britain, we shall always place these values of parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the impartiality of the civil service at the centre of the Australian republic. The bipartisan appointment of the president republican model adopted at the 1998 Constitutional Convention is the embodiment of years of hard work from republicans all over Australia.The model provides for the preservation of Australian parliamentary democracy whilst allowing for an Australian citizen to fill the highest office in the land. This is the central issue. It is the view of the large bulk of Australians. They should not allow themselves to be diverted by the siren calls of the irreconcilables, the heirs to the views of both Robespierre and Louis XIV—those who wish to wreck the move of Australians in choosing their own head of state. In particular, the inability of the republican irreconcilables to agree on any particular model, even amongst themselves, has been thoroughly canvassed earlier in this debate by the member for Grayndler.Perhaps we should also consider the incorporation of a nominations committee to generate a short list of appropriate candidates as central to the notion of public ownership of the presidency. Further, the appointment procedure itself is a significant democratisation. The current system of prime ministerial appointment of the Governor-General is a much more political system. In that sense, it is totally at the Prime Minister's discretion.I hope that, as my colleague the member for Barton indicated earlier, the Attorney-General will refer the wording of the referendum and the proposed preamble, as he promised, to this parliament and to an appropriate parliamentary committee for examination before it is brought forward to the public. The bipartisan model provides that the candidate must command the support of at least two-thirds of a joint sitting of parliament. Under these circumstances, the likelihood of a political appointment is, in my view, effectively nil.The direct election of a president, even if his or her powers were narrowly defined, might, some time in the future, lead to a conflict of power between an elected president trying to flex their power and our current democratically elected parliament. This has happened in other countries. Election by two-thirds majority of parliament will see that the views of the vast bulk of Australians are represented in the selection of a president. Election of a president by two-thirds of parliament will ensure that a person of high non-partisan standing is selected. Thus, those who do not want a politician as Australian head of state will support the referendum.It is an interesting reflection on those described as direct election advocates that they have been included and have agreed to be included in the no case. The appointment of direct election advocate Ted Mack to the committee to handle the no case campaign funds is significant. Perhaps this is a sop to the member for Flinders who wants to sink the 1999 referendum by encouraging the direct election irreconcilables.If the Cleary-Reith-Mack populist push results in a significant number of in-principle republicans voting no, those who wish the retention of the monarchy without inciting Liberal republicans by openly supporting the no case will have been successful. It is very instructive to contrast the irreconcilables' views with those of Moira Rayner, Tim Costello and the Australian Democrats who do not agree with Labor's views on the minimalist position but who as small `d' democrats accepted the view of the Constitutional Convention and supported Australia having our own head of state. They will work for further change once this has been achieved.Let me say something about the preamble. The member for Grayndler argued that the draft circulated by the Prime Minister was a reflection of his own 30 years in politics rather than an introduction to the Constitution which, as the member for Holt said, is the biography of our nation. From a literary and aesthetic point of view, I would draw the contrast between the draft circulated by the government—apparently thoughtlessly, immediately and unanimously agreed by the coalition party room—with the preamble written by the member for Holt. His preamble is spare. It is elegant. Just 83 words. It is more like a Gettysburg Address than the clumsy, defensive language of the government draft. But if one was to set aside political emphasis, simply from the point of view of language, it is clear that the Evans draft would be preferred. One cannot ignore the issue of the insufficient recognition given to indigenous people in the coalition draft.The referendum will, in my view, succeed or fail according to how it is framed. The Prime Minister has honoured his promise to allow Australians to vote on this issue. However, he should allow for an honest expression of the views of the Constitutional Convention to go ahead. If he does, Australians will welcome the new century, the new millennium, by voting for an Australian to be our own head of state. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.20:23:004075Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I understand that the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 amends the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to provide for the funding and distribution of materials for the purposes of referenda on the republic and the preamble. Therefore, I am sure that this debate allows me to speak on these two issues.First, I will address the issue of an Australian republic and an Australian head of state. I am pleased to join my colleagues in this debate and I applauded the Leader of the Opposition when, during his address to CEDA last week—that vision statement presenting Labor's policy position to lead us into the new millennium—he recognised the need for a progressive position in this area. He said:Among all our challenges, we must be able to address questions of our constitutional identity.The first opportunity arises before this year is out.I dispute utterly the argument that constitutional change must be separate from all our other political innovations.That view reflects a sad national immaturity. If Australians last century had had that vision, there would be no Australia.This republican debate must do two things: firstly, establish the nationalisation of the Australian Constitution by a successful referendum; but also be the first gesture of a genuinely modernising view of our Constitution and our democracy.I have to say that John Howard's approach is profoundly disappointing. We are not going to draw a positive balance from this year, if our whole agenda is constructed around a series of diversions from the central question of an Australian Head of State.Yet if we succeed with this referendum, then we finally have the chance to do something about the logjams in the Constitution.The Prime Minister committed his government to the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention held last year. The main resolutions from the convention were:That this Convention supports, in principle, Australia becoming a republic.That this Convention supports the adoption of a republican system of government on the "Bipartisan Appointment of the President Model" in preference to there being no change to the Constitution.That this Convention recommends to the Prime Minister and Parliament that the Bipartisan Appointment of the President Model, and other related changes to the Constitution, supported by this Convention, be put to the people in a constitutional referendum.The republic debate is one which, over the next eight months, will permeate right across the country in all our communities. It will be discussed in our homes, our workplaces and our shopping centres. This is a debate that all Australians will enter into: the question of whether Australians want an Australian head of state for the country—and that is clearly the position—as it goes into the next millennium.Any debate about the model to elect an Australian president should be secondary. Some of the monarchists are using this secondary debate to undermine the whole republic issue. We as members of parliament from both sides of the House, whether republicans or monarchists, have a social and political responsibility to promote the importance of logical, thoughtful debate within our communities—not the scaremongering that we have seen going on.Since Federation, there have been 20 referenda with 44 questions. Forty-two of these questions were for constitutional amendment. Of these 42 questions, only eight were passed and accepted by the electorate. History is not with us.This legislation is the first to be debated here in relation to the referenda on the republic and the preamble, and I am pleased to be contributing to such a debate. The government has also released draft legislation to establish an Australian republic. The draft Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 provides for constitutional changes necessary to make Australia a republic. The draft Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 provides for the process of public consultation leading to the nomination and selection of the president.Labor has welcomed these bills and considers that they represent a genuine attempt by the Howard government to give effect to the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. We are particularly pleased that the government has decided to seek public comment on the bills. Labor believes it is vital that the Australian people have an opportunity to comment on the legislation, both at the draft stage and via consideration before the parliamentary joint committee the government has promised to establish. The government has set a deadline of 16 April for comment on the draft legislation. I have encouraged all my constituents to read the bills; I also have advised them that I will be happy to pass on to the government any comments they wish to make.Second, as have speakers before me, I will address the issue of the preamble. The preamble will be the second question to be put to the electorate in November of this year. I mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister had previously committed himself to the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. However, on the question of the preamble, he unfortunately and shamefully has changed his mind.The convention resolved that `the preamble should contain the following elements', including:Acknowledgment of the original occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders . . .The Prime Minister has continued in his refusal to use the word `custodianship'. From the time of the Constitutional Convention's recommendations, through the discussion leading up to the preamble, to the decision that he, in his arrogant state, finally made to sit down and write the preamble himself, he has refused to use the word `custodianship'. And we have to ask ourselves why.Further to that, we have seen a report on the kind of preamble that the Australian people want from the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. There were nearly 400 public submissions to the foundation's preamble quest. The foundation concluded that Australians want a preamble that recognises that the authority for the Constitution and our system of government is drawn from the people. They want a preamble that provides for the appropriate recognition of the indigenous peoples in a way which furthers reconciliation. They want a preamble which reflects diversity as a country where people from many different places can live in peace and freedom. They want a preamble which refers to equality as a value overwhelmingly shared by all Australians. Further, Professor Cheryl Saunders, the Deputy Chair of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, found that above all it showed that Australians want their preamble written in a way that is clear, simple, inspirational and free from jargon.What has been proposed by the Prime Minister today fails on all counts. All these attributes were included in the draft preamble submitted by the Labor opposition to assist the Prime Minister in his deliberations. They have been referred to earlier in this debate. The draft was agreed to by the shadow ministry working group on the republic following extensive consultation with a range of people, including coalition members, indigenous leaders, representatives of the Australian Republican Movement, the Constitutional Centenary Foundation and delegates to the Constitutional Convention. I know that it has been discussed previously in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I seek leave to table that draft.Leave granted.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—If we take some time to compare this draft with what was released by the Prime Minister today—that preamble which he wrote along with his mate Les Murray, probably while sitting in his $10,000 leather lounge chair—there is just no comparison. The member for Holt previously and quite eloquently tore it apart. The preamble to the Constitution should be seen as a further step towards reconciliation. However, this draft proposed by Mr Howard today is a further insult to indigenous Australians. The Prime Minister's draft preamble includes no reference to prior custodianship and is completely out of sync with what many Australians would prefer to see, which was indicated in submissions to the Constitutional Centenary Foundation.The sentence referring to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders is nothing but a platitude with no substance and no meaning. The Prime Minister's draft preamble will be rejected by indigenous Australians and adds further to the indignities suffered by indigenous people through the decisions of this Prime Minister. Previous decisions which have been insulting to indigenous Australians include the Prime Minister's absolute and utter refusal to apologise for the stolen generation. They also include his outright rejection of the draft reconciliation document provided to him by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, which he appointed to develop such a docu ment. This preamble proposed by him must be seen as a further step backward in the process of reconciliation.I want to refer to some of the words of the preamble, as the member for Holt did. We should be aiming for a preamble which encompasses all that our society is about in simple terms that current generations and future generations will easily understand. The preamble of the Prime Minister states:Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.To value excellence and not to value mediocrity, I am afraid, would exclude most of us. I would have to agree with the comments of Senator Stott-Despoja from the Democrats on the word `mateship'. Clearly 50 per cent of the population would regard that word as exclusive. I commend the Labor Party's proposal to the Prime Minister, and I urge him to reconsider the proposal that he has put forward today.I would like to urge all republicans to convey the message. The debate is about creating an Australian republic. The debate is about creating an Australian president. It is about having one of our own as the Australian head of state, not having a head of state from a far-off country. The debate is also about furthering the steps towards reconciliation. It is also a debate about the preamble. If the republican debate fails—and it is clear that the majority of Australians want an Australian head of state—then the preamble which is put to the electorate in November next year cannot be what the Prime Minister has proposed. One could be cynical in thinking that the Prime Minister, being a monarchist and wanting to stay with the status quo, has introduced such a faulty piece of work in the hope that the preamble question fails and therefore the republic question fails. But, as I said, that would be the height of cynicism I am sure.I would encourage my fellow republicans, my fellow colleagues in the Labor Party and in the Australian Republican Movement and the republican colleagues on the opposite benches of this place to move out into our communities and ensure that there is a logical, intelligent debate so that the important message for the future of this country is out there in the community and the electorate is informed so that, come November 1999 in the referendum on whether Australia becomes a republic and has an Australian president as the head of state, the vote will be yes.20:37:004078Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 this evening. I would like to concentrate on one element of the bill and two elements of the debate. The first element of the bill I would like to address is the process which this bill provides. Whilst we support the intention of the government to support the referendum process by the provision of moneys, I note that in the second reading speech the Attorney-General said:In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposal for change. The government believes that public funding should be made available to support a vigorous and engaging public presentation of the arguments for and against change.I have no qualm with that assertion. However, what I am concerned about is the process that it will put in train. I note in reading through the provisions of the bill and the explanatory memorandum that the legislation charges the Commonwealth to expend particular moneys to ensure that this public information exercise can take place.I am worried that not enough thought has been given to the process of informing the public or educating the public, firstly, in the context of the public information exercise, on what constitutional change means and, secondly, in the context of the referendum questions, on what the implication of the referendum questions would be and how the two referendum questions might impact on one another. I say that not because I think there has been any ill-intent by the government in this regard—I hope not—although I will comment a little later about the cynical interpretation that the previous speaker made in relation to the government's intent in the preamble. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that last year in the Northern Territory a plebiscite question was put in conjunction with the federal election. That plebiscite question, a lot like the support for a republic in Australia, notionally had overwhelming support from within the community. When asked whether or not the Northern Territory should become a state, the overwhelming majority of the people of the Northern Territory when polled said that they thought yes—just as a vast majority of Australians believe that Australia should become a republic. Yet when this question was put to a vote it was not to be.It was not to be because the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory—a little like the Prime Minister in this case—decided that he would pose to the people of the Northern Territory a question which had a preamble attached to it. The preamble that was attached to it did not emanate from any constitutional convention, although an appointed constitutional convention was held. While that convention had major faults, even it did not recommend the sort of proposal which the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory decided to put to the people for a vote. As a result, there was mass confusion and mass concern about the question which was asked. The ultimate outcome was that the question was defeated when it was put to the people in conjunction with the federal election. The people who campaigned against the Northern Territory government—the CLP and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory—in relation to this matter were not Labor supporters necessarily, although I am sure a lot were, but were rank and file supporters of the government. They were people who would otherwise have said, `We want to see the Northern Territory become a state.' However, because of the presumptive approach of the Northern Territory Chief Minister and the arrogance of the CLP in putting a question to the Northern Territory people which had an element of confusion attached to it, it was rejected. The process which was entered into by the Northern Territory government through the Chief Minister was rejected. The Aboriginal people overwhelmingly rejected the whole notion of statehood as was being proposed by the then Northern Territory Chief Minister, although when the Aboriginal people were asked if they supported the idea of statehood they said, `Yes, we one day want to become a state.'The reason I am retailing this to you this evening is that I think we have here a prescription for a national disaster. I have two concerns. Firstly, I am concerned that the way in which this debate will unfold over the next few months leading up to the referendum will not provide adequate, clean air between the politics of this place and the concerns of the general community. Secondly, I am concerned that when the question of public education is addressed it will not properly come to terms with the needs of the various parts of our community in the demography and the geographic distribution of the population.I say that knowing that a significant proportion of the population in my own electorate are illiterate. For example, I see no plan to provide video presentations, although I notice it says that there can be presentations via the Internet—but they assert literacy. There is no proposal to educate that part of the community who are illiterate—who may have English as a second or third language, yet are Australian citizens and demand a right to participate in this process—to give them any valuable role in understanding what it is we as a nation want to do in putting the question or questions in this referendum.That, to me, is an invitation for many of the same people who voted no in the Northern Territory referendum on statehood to vote no for the referendum on whether we should become a republic. That is not because they do not think we should become a republic but because they will be confused by what has been put out to them. They will not necessarily understand all the nuances and implications of what a constitutional change means, although in their heart of hearts they would say that they do not want anything to do with the Queen and they want an Australian head of state. That simple question is easy, but that is not what is going to be expressed.The process of getting people's views and having that vote cast also demands closer examination. I say to this parliament that we have an obligation to all Australians, no matter where they are, who they are or whatever class of person they might be in terms of socioeconomic status, ethnic background or whatever. In this exercise, we as a parliament have an obligation to every person in Australia to try to get it right. Unfortunately, I do not think the processes will allow us to get it right. I say to the Attorney at the table that, if there is a way that we can address this issue, we ought to find it. I am not sure that this enables us to do it. I am not sure that this legislation is not too restrictive in terms of how we put out information in relation to the referendum and how we might approach people.If it is the case that we can provide multilingual services and visual presentations which are not on the Internet and are not in documents, that is what we should be doing. We should be getting appropriate expertise to develop them. That sort of high impact visual presentation, perhaps in video form or the form of TV advertising, is very important for us as a nation. I am not necessarily talking about how you might vote on the first question. I am talking about the responsibility of this parliament to ensure that the people of Australia understand the process that they are going to enter into and what the two questions mean. It seems to me that it is within our province to make sure that that is properly addressed.The other question which I said I wanted to address this evening relates to the preamble. Again, I return to the experience of the Northern Territory. This is not necessarily a political snipe at the Prime Minister. However, it is reasonable to make some assumptions about the intent behind this proposal which he put out today, apparently with the overwhelming endorsement of his party room, regarding a draft preamble. Someone I was talking with this afternoon said, `Are we sure it was Les Murray who helped the Prime Minister and not Les Patterson, because it has all the hallmarks of a Barry Humphreys leg pull'—there is no question about that—`and would be at home in a poem in one of his very interesting books?'I say that half mocking the Prime Minister but also with a very clear intention in mind. It is not up to the Prime Minister of this nation to impose his will in terms of what the preamble question should be. It should not be the narrow, blinkered view of one man's understanding of Australian history that makes up this question. It is very interesting. This afternoon I read the transcript of the Prime Minister's doorstop interview. It was very illuminating on a number of counts, not the least of which was his admission that this preamble represents `my own feeling about this country—the history, the contribution of the original Australians, the contribution of immigration, the sense of space that I feel about Australia and the impact that that has had and continues to have'.If this represents the Prime Minister's view of our history, it is not a view I support. I suggest that it is also not the view that many Australians would support. It is certainly not a view that would be supported by indigenous Australians. Changing the preamble, in my view, is a secondary issue. To me, the major issue in this referendum will be the question of whether we become a republic. Nevertheless, given that we have these two issues in tandem, that in itself is a particular issue which I think needs close examination. I think there is some merit in the view expressed by my colleague, the previous speaker. She expressed a cynical view about the possibilities involved in what the Prime Minister has done. I think what he is doing is inviting the defeat of the republic vote.Perhaps it is no accident that he has spoken regularly to Shane Stone, the former Northern Territory Chief Minister. This is the person—at least Shane Stone likes to think he says this—the Prime Minister thinks would make an acceptable president of the Australian Liberal Party.Opposition member interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Contest! Give me a break. Let us have people who are half reasonable in this debate.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—We are talking about the republic. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—We are. I am just saying to you that the Prime Minister may well take some advice on how to stuff up a referendum question from the previous Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I think it is entirely likely that what the previous speaker said is correct. If you want to confuse members of the population about the question of the republic, ask them two questions and then make sure that there is real division over one of those questions; that is, the question you want to support. In this case, it is about the preamble. I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect I am not. The view expressed by the Prime Minister today is an indictment of his narrow blinkered view. It does not represent the views of the sort of Australia that certainly people in my electorate would want to hear.I say that because 25 per cent of my electorate are indigenous Australians. I can tell you what they will say about this. They will say this is not acceptable. What the Prime Minister is doing—and he knows it—is inviting indigenous Australians to campaign against him on the question of the preamble. He knows that they will find this unacceptable. He knows that they want a better deal out of this government. I know that our leader, Kim Beazley, has spoken at length about the bottom line to the Australian Labor Party in terms of the question of the preamble.There is no doubt that, if you want to head down the path towards reconciliation, you do not do this. You do not insult the intelligence of people whose history is replete with prejudice and expect them to cop this sort of nonsense, the nonsense of the last paragraph of the Prime Minister's preamble. He may think it is poetic; I think it is rubbish. It states:Australia's democratic and federal system of government exists under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice—give me a break—or fashion or ideology nor invoked against achievement.He says this reflects his view of Australian history. What is he saying to us—that there has been no history of prejudice in this country? That there has been no racism in this country? What is he saying to the people of Australia? What is he saying to the Chinese Australians who were the subject of the White Australia policy this century, alienated from the goldfields in New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territory? What is he saying to indigenous Australians? What is he saying to those people from southern Europe who arrived here after the Second World War? What is he saying to those people who are subject to racism—that there was no prejudice in this country and it does not exist? He is blind. He is blind to his own prejudice about Australia's history, and it is reflected in this document.I say to the Prime Minister: if you are concerned about this nation, if you are concerned about the future of this great country of ours, you will treat us with some respect. I note the historian that he has consulted about his preamble is Geoffrey Blainey. Wouldn't you believe it! We will not say much more about Geoff Blainey apart from the fact that his performances in the past speak for themselves.This particular issue should have been sent back to those people who made up the Constitutional Convention. We should give them the responsibility of drafting the preamble which we then should put out to the people. We should not be blackmailed by the government, and I say this because I think that is the intention of the Prime Minister. In the transcript of this afternoon's doorstop, he says:The Government will consider comment. I'll consider comment not only from the Opposition and other parties and people in the Parliament but also from different sections from . . . Australians.Then he goes on to validate why he thinks his particular view, this preamble, is the one we should go by. He says:It talks of what happened which obviously was that this land was first occupied by people who were clearly, they were the only occupants, the custodians of it.He is not able to say custodianship, prior owners, prior inhabitants, nothing which might reflect on the true nature of Aboriginal indigenous possession of this country prior to the white invasion, as they would see it. That is what is happening here.We have to come to terms with these facts. We have the sight. God forbid, we have the sight! The Attorney, who is at the table, has instructed his people to say in the court in Darwin that, somehow or other, there was some goodness involved in the policies to steal children. That is what he has instructed his counsel to do.Mr Entsch interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—The truth. He says it is the truth. He said it was good policy. Is that what he is saying?Mr Entsch interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—It is not the truth. The Attorney knows that what he is doing is fuelling the opposition which will come from indigenous Australia to the question of the republic and the preamble by his very actions in the Federal Court in Darwin and the instructions he has given his counsel. He knows it, I know it and anybody who has been following that case knows it. Read the transcripts if you do not believe me.I say to members opposite: be very careful because I think you are being sold a pup. I do not think the Prime Minister has any intention of changing his view about what should go in this preamble, despite what he says. If he has an open mind to these questions and does not believe that it is his view of history which should prevail, he should expose this to a process which is independent to this parliament, in part. He should give it to the people who were involved in the Constitutional Convention and allow them to draft a preamble that we can then put to the Australian people.20:57:004082Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—The member for Barton stated that the Labor Party fully supports this bill. I have not often had the opportunity to thank the Labor Party for such action and I do. I thank the Labor Party for its support, and I thank the honourable member for Barton for his positive contribution to the debate. I also thank the members for Kooyong, Grayndler, Sturt, Griffith, Hinkler, Holt, Melbourne Ports, Charlton and the Northern Territory for their contribution to the debate.The member for Barton raised the issue of consultation on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of a Republic) Bill, the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill and the Constitutional Alteration (Preamble) Bill. These are not directly relevant. They are obviously indirectly relevant to the subject matter of this bill under debate, but the government is committed to widespread consultation on those bills. For this reason, each of them has been publicly released as an exposure draft. Interested parties have been invited to provide their comments on the bills to the referendum task force.The government will also consult with the states and territories on the legislation. The outcome of the consultations will be considered by the government prior to the introduction of the bills into parliament. The bills will be subject to further scrutiny and debate in, no doubt, both houses. They will also receive close consideration by a parliamentary committee prior to their passage. Supplementing this whole process of consultation will be the public education program, which will be facilitated by the bill we are debating tonight.The bill before the House is the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill. However, the debate tonight has ranged far more widely than this particular bill. Members have also discussed in detail such matters in particular as the proposed preamble and the proposed republic model. These matters will be the subject of intense public and political debate in the coming months and it is not really intended that these be the subject of consideration tonight. But, since so many issues have been raised, let me briefly refer to the program for the processing of the referendum bill, the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill and the preamble bill.It is contemplated that after the public consultation the bills will be introduced into the House about the end of May or perhaps at the beginning of June. At or before that time a joint select committee of both houses will be constituted to consider the bills. There will be some debate at that time—that is, prior to the conclusion of the winter sittings— and no doubt following that conclusion the joint select committee will have a more open opportunity to deal with the bills by way of a public inquiry.When the parliament resumes in August it will be necessary, in order to meet a timetable for conducting the referendum in November, that the bills be debated and that the debate be concluded expeditiously. Once the bills have been passed, processes under the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act and the Constitution impose time limits on what may be done. It will be necessary to allow appropriate time for the Australian Electoral Commission to ensure that the yes case authorised by members who vote for the referendum bills be settled and that the no case authorised by those who vote against those bills be settled, printed and distributed with other relevant material. That will take some considerable time, given the number of electors on the electoral roll. We are talking about what is tantamount to a general election.The question might be asked: what are the reasons why we need to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act for purposes related to the referendum? In broad terms these amendments are necessary to allow the Commonwealth to spend money. The Constitutional Convention was of the view that it was important to have a broad public education program on the republic referendum issues. There are complex issues involved in the republic referendum. We know from recent surveys and surveys some time ago that many Australians do not understand the Constitution and do not understand what is involved in the issues to be put at the referendum. Without the amendments there is a risk that even a carefully balanced public information process would breach the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The relevant amendments are quite limited. They allow expenditure only in relation to the 1999 referendum and they make no lasting changes.The public information activities that the government is undertaking are contemplated as being in three phases. The first will be a public education program. Neutral information material explaining the existing constitutional arrangements, the republic model and the referendum process will be made available in a variety of means. In particular the public will be informed as to where they may access further information. This will be both on the Internet and in hard copy.The second phase is the national advertising campaign, which it is contemplated will be managed by government appointed committees drawn from convention delegates. The names of those intended to constitute those committees have already been published by the government. Each of the national advertising campaign committees—the yes committee and the no committee—will develop an advertising campaign for or against the republic model and each will have available to it an amount of up to $7.5 million. This should allow robust public debate on the arguments for and against the republic proposal.Exactly how the advertising campaign will be done is a matter for the yes committee and the no committee respectively, but it is contemplated that the advertising will be subject to the scrutiny of guidelines limited to ensuring compliance with standard government requirements and that the actual advertisements will be placed through a government agency for each of the two campaigns.The third phase of the information activities will be the official written yes and no cases approved by parliamentarians and distributed to voters by the Australian Electoral Commission two weeks before the referendum. This process is already set out in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The member for the Northern Territory raised the question of whether it would be feasible to have a multimedia approach to the campaigns on the yes and no cases, and whether it is contemplated that multilingual material will be available.In relation to the second phase—that is, the national advertising campaigns overseen by the yes campaign committee and the no campaign committee—there is no relevant restriction and it is within the contemplation of the government that there would be a possibility of utilisation of a variety of media, including the Internet, and that the campaign committees may seek to do it in multiple languages.In relation to the official yes/no case distributed through the Australian Electoral Commission, an amendment in the bill would insert new provisions in section 11(4) of the act to provide that the Electoral Commission may expend money on a wider distribution of the yes/no case pamphlets than is currently provided for. The amendment would allow for distribution of the yes/no case pamphlets by post or by other means—so they may be distributed over the counter in divisional and pre-poll voting offices and at overseas posts—and it is contemplated that the pamphlets may be distributed to persons other than electors, such as students or other interested parties who may not necessarily be electors. The amendment would also allow for the publication of the yes/no case pamphlet on the Internet. So I think the concerns of the member for the Northern Territory are met in that respect.In relation to the phase 2 advertising campaign, it is proposed that that apply to the republic question and, on that basis, if it is to be relevant at all to the preamble question it is only incidentally relevant. The amendments, however, are broad enough to ensure that incidental references to the preamble would not result in a breach of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.One of the amendments contemplated by the bill is that there will be separate ballot papers for the two distinct questions in the referendum—the republic question and the preamble question. The government proposes two distinct questions because there is a strong public call for a new preamble independent of the republic issue. Separate ballot papers in different colours should prevent confusion between the two distinct issues. It is intended that this change apply not only to the forthcoming referendum but also to subsequent referendums, and it will enable the government of the day to decide whether referendum issues are separate and deserving of separate ballot papers. I again thank the members who participated in the debate and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4084Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Bills4084The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Bills4084r719Billsr721Bills4084Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McMullan moved by way of amendment: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".21:11:004084Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—First of all, I would like to thank the members for Fraser, Indi, Sydney, Corangamite, Wills, Deakin, Scullin, McEwen and Reid for their contributions. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program is a five-year, $700 million package aimed at encouraging additional investment in the TCF industries to add value to the products of early stage processing. The program aims to help in the development of sustainable, internationally competitive TCF industries in Australia during the transition to a freer global trade environment. It provides incentives which will promote investment, innovation and value adding in these industries. The program will also provide incentives in areas which are heavily dependent on TCF manufacturing industries—primarily regional areas in Australia. The package of measures announced by the Prime Minister for the TCF industries also included a tariff pause at levels scheduled for the year 2001 until 31 December 2004. The adjustment initiative is designed to promote sustainable and internationally competitive TCF industries into the next century.These bills will commence on 1 July 2000 after the cessation of the import credits scheme on 30 June 2000. The commencement of the bills is necessary as soon as possible as TCF firms will be entitled to apply for benefits relating to eligible investment expenditure on TCF plant and equipment with effect from 1 July 1998. This action was taken to ensure firms do not defer investment until July 2000, and early commencement of the bills will provide the TCF industry with the certainty it requires to undertake the investment during the pre-program years. It will assist the industry to continue to improve its international competitiveness. The bills satisfy the key element of the government's response to the Industry Commission's review of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries announced by the Prime Minister in September 1997.Traditionally, investment in the TCF industries in Australia has been quite low. Over the last five years it has represented only about three or four per cent of the total manufacturing investment levels. This program will encourage the necessary further investment in the TCF industries, particularly in research and development, innovation and product development. This will assist these firms with a commitment to retain manufacturing activities in Australia.By 1 July 1999, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources will formulate the TCF(SIP) scheme, which will set out the detailed rules of the grants. The technical rules were not included in the bill to provide the degree of timely flexibility required to take account of changing industry circumstances. If any changes are required, these will be facilitated through the amendment to the TCF(SIP) scheme as a disallowable instrument. The bill provides for a standing appropriation provision of $700 million over the five years of the program. This provides certainty to the TCF industries regarding the funding of the program. The annual profile of benefits is to be agreed with the Minister for Finance and Administration on the basis of an estimate of benefits payable each year. TCF employees who may be affected by industry reconstructing may receive assistance to facilitate alternative employment through supplementation from the SIP scheme to the government's Regional Assistance Program administered by the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. A review of the TCF industries and tariffs will be undertaken by 2005, having regard to our international commitments and developments on tariff and other measures affecting the TCF industries.To reiterate, while the bill sets the broad framework for the program, the TCF(SIP) scheme will contain all relevant details and rules on the program. It is important that the bill is passed as soon as possible to provide the certainty to the industry to plan investment with confidence. Investment expenditure for plant and equipment is also eligible under the program from 1 July 1998 as further reason to ensure the bill is passed as soon as possible. The main reason for not including any details in the bill is to allow ongoing review of the program to take place and to make adjustments as and when desirable by having the technical details of the program prescribed in this scheme. This provides the flexibility which is important to make the program effective and which would be difficult to achieve if technical details were prescribed in the bill.I would like to emphasise that this program will be reviewed as may be required during the life of the program to make it more effective and responsive to industry trends. In terms of formulating the guidelines, discussion with the industry is at an advanced stage and the industry is given active support in undertaking further consultations with the department to finalise the guidelines. The partnership between the government and the industry on this important initiative will ensure the growth and sustainability of the TCF industries in Australia to 2005 and beyond.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4086Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:18:004086McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—by leave—I move amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Clause 8, page 5 (line 5), omit"As soon as practicable after the commencement of this section,"substitute"By 1 July 1999".(2) Clause 30, page 18 (after line 19), after subclause (2), insert (3) To avoid doubt, the TCF (SIP) scheme may be varied on or after 1 July 1999.Amendment No. 2, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources is aware, is actually consequential on amendment No. 1. I understand we have agreement on this matter, but I have an important point to make which flows from my remarks in the second reading debate. We did have some concerns overall with the nature of the legislation in terms of creating a framework within the bill, the details of which are filled by a disallowable instrument. That is a matter which we debated and was dealt with in the second reading debate. The second reading amendment having been moved and defeated, I will not air it, but this flows from that.One of the consequences was that there was no specific date by which the minister had to bring down that document which becomes the disallowable instrument—in effect, the program. While this is stated to be `as soon as practicable' and the advice from the department generally was the expectation was that it will be about the middle of the year, the opposition collectively felt that it would be better, in protecting the position of the House and the Senate as legislatures, that we at least go so far as to specify the operative date and make sure that this matter does not just drift. It gives a bit of certainty.I understand the government is going to accept it and I appreciate that. Therefore, I will only comment briefly on amendment No. 2. There was a concern that, having moved amendment No. 1 without what I will call the `belt and braces' amendment, which is No. 2, there might have been an interpretation problem about some subsequent aspects of the legislation. I have to say I read it several ways. I do not quite see that those problems would have arisen. But, of course, it would be folly for us to proceed against Parliamentary Counsel's advice that we should make this amendment for the avoidance of doubt, as the amendment says. I commend the amendments to the House.21:21:004086Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—As the member for Fraser has indicated, the government has no problems whatsoever. What are proposed are reasonable and practical amendments and will in fact give further clarification to the bill.Amendments agreed to.21:22:004086McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I move:(3) Page 32 (after line 29), after clause 50, insert50A Independent inquiry concerning textiles, clothing and footwear industries (1) Before 1 July 2003 the Minister must cause to be established an independent inquiry into the future of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. The inquiry must address, in particular, the most appropriate rates of customs duty to apply from 1 January 2005 to the categories of textile, clothing or footwear products specified in the Customs Tariff Act 1995. (2) After the Minister receives the report of the inquiry established under this section the Minister may issue a written certificate stating that the Minister has received the report and is satisfied rates of customs should be amended from the inquiry certificate day as provided in the Customs Tariff Act 1995 . (3) The Minister must arrange for a copy of the certificate under subsection (2) to be published in the Gazette. (4) Subject to subsection (5) the day on which the certificate under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette is the inquiry certificate day for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 . (5) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 if the copy of the certificate issued under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette before 1 January 2005, the inquiry certificate day is taken to be 1 January 2005. (6) The Minister must cause copies of the report of the inquiry established under this section to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving the report.The splendid harmony which has just been displayed may break down at this point, but I should say in response to the quiet interjection from the member for Banks, who said that we need more of that, that I do appreciate the minister's and the parliamentary secretary's response to amendments Nos 1 and 2. They are not exactly earth-shattering amendments, but the House works better when modest proposals come forward. I think that it was our responsibility to show courtesy to the minister by giving him advance notice of them, which we did, and he responded positively, and I welcome that. There is no way that he could respond in that way to this amendment because this is a policy disagreement between the opposition and the government, and so of course the government cannot accept this amendment. But it is important to us, and we want to make the contrast clear.I spoke on the substance of the third amendment during the second reading debate. I will not reiterate that, but I will make clear the form of the amendment and why we are moving it. It goes to the fundamental policy disagreement which we think is the flaw in the package which the government announced in 1997 which this legislation is implementing—that is, they have the two elements that we felt should be in the policy, but they have got them in the wrong sequence. They have said, `The desirable outcome is for every country in the region to move to meet its APEC obligations by reducing tariffs and, as one of those countries, Australia should continue to meet our obligations.' That is reflected in the schedule of amendments in the other bill—the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 —which changed the tariff schedule. And they have a proposal for an inquiry on the way in which market access arrangements are proceeding in other markets—most particularly, but not exclusively, in APEC.Those two things are sensible. But I would have thought most Australians—and common logic—would suggest that you would have the review first, look at the outcome and then decide whether you are going to proceed. This legislation says, `We're going to proceed, and then we will have a review to see if it was a good idea.' That is a flaw. That it is a logical flaw does not matter all that much; that just annoys people like me. But it is a logical flaw with consequences—with consequences for Australian businesses, with consequences for Australian workers, with consequences for Australian jobs and with consequences for the Australian economy.Before the government came to its position in 1997 we were advocating that there should be a pause of the circumstance that is in this legislation, and we accept that at the end of that pause, subject to a review, the sorts of tariff changes that are reflected in this bill are appropriate. That was our policy. The government has advocated it. We are not going to change now and say, `We thought it was a good idea before the government said it, and now they have said it we disagree.' Of course that would be absurd. So there is a lot of similarity in position. But this is an important difference—a difference that the industry cares about, that the union cares about, that the workers in the industry care about, that the opposition cares about.We are not seeking to interfere with the timetable that the government has set down. We are simply saying, `Bring the inquiry forward before the decision instead of after it.' It is really Alice in Wonderland stuff to say, `We will make the decision, then we will have an inquiry.' What if the inquiry says, `This is not a good idea, Minister.' You certainly are not going to legislate to put the tariffs back up again. We all know that that will not happen.So we should be proceeding in the way that this amendment reflects. We will be dividing on this amendment. But, more importantly, we will be persisting with it in the Senate and seeking the support of the minor parties for it. We think it is consistent with the policy thrust that has been broadly bipartisan in Australia with regard to industry restructuring for the last decade or so—to which we remain committed—but it proceeds in a more logical sequence and it protects the interests of workers and business in the industry without putting in jeopardy Australia's ongoing commitments to APEC or Australia's ongoing bipartisan view that we need to continue to have internationally competitive industries. So I recommend this important amendment to the House.21:27:004088Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—Again, I appreciate the member for Fraser's contribution. But he is right in saying that the amendment is not acceptable to the government. The proposal by the member for Fraser for an independent inquiry for the TCF industry before 1 July 2003 we believe is not warranted. The government has already given an undertaking to carry out a review of the TCF industry in the context of further tariff reductions, and we certainly have the flexibility in the bill to do just that. This review is proposed to take place in 2005, at which stage the international regulatory climate for the TCF industry would become clearer following the abolition of all TCF quotas scheduled to occur by the end of 2004. However, depending on developments in the international trade in TCF, the government may, if necessary, consider the option of bringing forward the review to before that date.Question put:That the amendment (Mr McMullan's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [9.32 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Question so resolved in the negative.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4088Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4088r7214088Consideration resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4088Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:40:004088McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 3, before item 1 (before line 6), insert:1A Subsection 3(1)Insert:inquiry certificate day has the meaning given by section 50A of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Act 1999 .(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day". (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 3), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 7), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (line 3), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 8 (line 1), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 4), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".These eight amendments are consequential upon the amendment which was just defeated. The substantial matter was the matter upon which the House just divided. There is no point in debating them. Debate was had on the last set of amendments. These are merely consequential.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.4089Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4089r618Billsr605Bills4089Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.21:41:004089McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—These two customs tariff bills are about an important matter. Anti-dumping arrangements are fundamentally important to the industrial structure of every trading nation. It is not a matter that captures the imagination of the general public. It does not tend to receive the publicity that controversy about matters to do with tariff schedules or matters we dealt with in the last bill receive, but it is nevertheless very important. These are bills that Australia should never have needed to have had but, in the circumstances which this government has created, we now do need something of this sort and therefore we will not be opposing the bills. When these bills were last before the House of Representatives in November 1997 we did not oppose the bills. We certainly expressed very strong views about the circumstances that created the need for the bills and I will do so again. I noticed the Minister for Trade was in here a moment ago. Unfortunately he has left because I would have enjoyed reminding him of the circumstances which he created by his errors and follies that have been rectified by these bills.We regard the final form of these bills as a victory for us. The government only amended the original bills following sustained pressure from the opposition and from industry about inadequacies in the original bills—a similar outcome to the TCF legislation which we just debated. We had an inadequate government response on this occasion. In the TCF circumstance we had no government response. A sustained campaign led by the opposition—led by my colleague the member for Hotham, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition but then holding the position which I now have the privilege to hold as shadow minister for industry—created an irresistible momentum which in the case of the last package led to those TCF measures, which occurred similarly in the automobile industry, which led to a package of measures the legislative framework for which we continue to await with interest. In this circumstance it led to amendment of the original bills.As I indicated in my opening remarks, we recognise that we now need these bills given the mess that presently exists, a mess which has now been unaddressed for almost two years. We believe the most constructive thing we can do now is pass these bills so that the industry gets certainty now, not the lingering uncertainty it has endured for so long until now. We do not believe these bills are perfect. They fail to address some of the reasonable concerns which industry has addressed, even after all this time. Even after the govern ment has had a second chance to introduce the legislation and even after it has accepted some of the proposals for change, the bills still fail to address some of those reasonable concerns. But it is time to move on. The government will have to bear the blame for any inadequacies in the legislation and any consequences which flow from it.Let us turn to the background. What are the circumstances that led to this package of bills coming before the parliament? Previously, until late 1996, when goods from China were subject to anti-dumping complaints, the domestic price—that is, the price taken as the comparable Chinese price for domestic purposes, which is the price used as the comparator for assessing whether the price at which goods are being sold in Australia is a fair price or a dumped price—was determined by reference to a surrogate country. This is an unusual practice. It does not apply to very many countries, but it is not unusual to Australia. It was the common practice universally. It is the way World Trade Organisation members traded with China.This was because China was considered a command economy with the consequent ability artificially to suppress domestic prices. Therefore, the price at which goods were selling in the domestic market was not considered a fair market price and was not considered an appropriate basis as a comparator for export prices so that one could determine whether dumping was taking place. This is an accepted, established international practice for dealing with the circumstances of countries which are, in this instance, not WTO members and not considered to operate market economies.This was the universal practice to which Australia adhered. It operated not perfectly, because it was not a simple matter, but it worked satisfactorily. People understood how it worked and the international practice was operating here. But members will remember that in 1996 the Australian government got into a terrible mess with regard to its relationship with China. The catalyst for that was principally the abolition of the DIFF scheme. That is not a matter for this debate; it is a separate issue. But it was a disastrous deci sion and disastrously implemented. It did significant damage to our relationship with China.That was compounded by other decisions, including that by the then Minister for Defence. There was a serious problem in Australia's relations with China, a very important trading partner for this country and a very important regional country with whom we must have the best possible relations. It is also a very important member of APEC. During 1996 we found the then reasonably newly elected—although it was not immediately after the election—Minister for Trade, Mr Fischer, on a visit to China. He was embarrassed by the fiasco the government had created by scrapping DIFF and was anxious to create an environment of cooperation in trade.He fell for the oldest Chinese government demand in the book. Any of us who have been to China representing the government of Australia, particularly those who have been as not only trade ministers but also industry ministers, prime ministers, deputy prime ministers and foreign ministers, had all received representations for decades wanting to see this question of the way Chinese products were assessed for anti-dumping cases changed. The Chinese government were mounting very powerful arguments. It was true that domestic circumstances in China were changing and that the basis for the previous operation was at some stage in the future going to need to be reviewed, certainly if China came into the World Trade Organisation.No other country had made any move in that direction. There was no objective evidence to suggest that the domestic market situation in China was such that that change was appropriate in these circumstances. But what did we find? In a private meeting with the Chinese government—I suspect with the very persuasive then Chinese trade minister with whom I had years of dealing, Madam Wu, and other representatives of the Chinese government—Mr Fischer agreed to treat one particular Chinese product as coming from a free market in future anti-dumping cases. We really do not know what Mr Fischer said to the Chinese or why he said it because he refused to make any explanation about it.What we do know is that, as a consequence, Australia would be treating China in a way that no other country in the world was willing to do. The position was overwhelmingly that only when China was accepted in the WTO would it be treated as a free market. When the implications of Mr Fischer's botch-up were realised, the government attempted to back-pedal by introducing a case by case arrangement. But this was not the end of the mess. Further problems arose, and this is how they arose. The new arrangements were first exercised in the case of glyphosate, a product that is used in herbicides like Round-up and Zero. The overwhelming evidence was that the export and domestic pricing of glyphosate from China was government controlled. Yet, despite this evidence, the government determined that China was a free market and therefore glyphosate was allowed to be dumped into this country from China.The Australians who were buying it, of course, were very happy. This is always the case with dumping: for it to be bought at that reduced price, someone in the country must like it; if they did not like it, they would not be buying it at that reduced price. There would be no dumping if no-one in the country were buying it, therefore some people were happy. But the whole international trading arrangements based on solid anti-dumping criteria—which are not unique to Australia; every country has such arrangements—were being undermined.This had the inevitable consequence: a potential investment by Monsanto in manufacturing glyphosate in Australia worth $80 million was lost to Argentina, along with hundreds of jobs. Glyphosate is a product that was manufactured in Australia but is no longer manufactured in Australia.To add insult to injury, once this product was allowed into Australia from China, Chinese importers pointed out what the government should always have known; it was common knowledge: the government had no legal capacity to apply the case by case approach it envisaged. That is, once one product had been treated as coming from a free market, all products needed to be treated in the same manner. Folly compounded by folly; error compounded by error.This is the mess that must be addressed by this legislation. It is a pretty sorry story. But, given the seriousness of the mess that the government itself created, the extensive delay there has been in addressing it is truly extraordinary. The original bills were introduced in June 1997; that was more than six months after the Tim Fischer botch-up. Even then, the legislation was not brought on for debate until November—a very leisurely approach to a problem that was causing serious difficulties for Australian industry. So that legislation sat in the House of Representatives for about six months.During that time the government did more work on its bills as industry took it to task over their inadequacies. As a result of industry lobbying and pressure being applied by the opposition—in particular, as I have said, by my colleague the member for Hotham—the government introduced amendments to the original bills to rectify some, but not all, of the inadequacies of those bills.The then opposition recognised that it was now becoming urgent to pass the bills and deliver to industry some certainty after such a prolonged period of delay. So we did not oppose the bills, even though we believed there were inadequacies. Even then, the government could not take the hint. The amended bills went across to the Senate, where they lingered on the Notice Paper. They were never considered by the Senate prior to the October election, so the bills lapsed.This is not a case of Senate obstruction. The government never introduced the legislation. The Senate did not have a chance to obstruct it. We would have voted for it. All the government had to do was introduce it. We had said that we would vote for it. I do not know whether the government has worked this out yet: if we vote for it, it does not matter what the minor parties and Senator Harradine do as we comprise 65 votes out of 76.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—We do?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Even at the New South Wales ALP conference, you get things carried with 65 votes out of 76. I say that for the benefit of my good friend the member for Banks, who has not yet worked out how to get things carried at the New South Wales conference, so I thought I would advise him.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I am sure that the honourable member for Fraser will come back to the bill.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—That was very relevant to a very important point but—you are right, Madam Deputy Speaker—a different point. We had the situation where, two years after the initial problem, the government had still not addressed the issue. Now, nearly 2½ years after the initial problem, the government is introducing this legislation which is virtually identical to that which sat in the Senate for so long.It would be an understatement bordering on the absurd to say that the government has an unhappy record in this matter. I only hope that, once these bills have been dealt with by the House, the government in the Senate will move quickly. But I have to say that the sequencing of these bills does not give us much confidence that the government will get them into the Senate in time for consideration before Easter. Then the Senate will be up. We will be back in April, but we will be caught up in the GST bills. When is the government going to get this package through?However, we are offering our less than enthusiastic support for this legislation. The extraordinary thing is that, although the government has had all this time, it still has not got the legislation right. As I have said before, we are strongly of the view, as I believe are most of industry, that this legislation is still inadequate in several important aspects. I do not want anyone to be under the misapprehension that, because we are not opposing these bills, we think the government has it right. We do not think the government has it right. We have said time and again that the government has not got it right. Industry does not think the government has it right.We are not opposing these bills simply because we accept that industry deserves an outcome now. It has had to put up with lingering uncertainty for long enough, and we are not going to be the cause of more uncertainty. We were not the cause of the delay and uncertainty last year, we were not the cause of the problem in 1996 and we will not be the cause of a delay now. In so far as there are inadequacies in the legislation, the government should bear the responsibility. It has had the time and opportunity to fix the inadequacies; it has failed to do so and we are not going to clean up after it.It is interesting to note that, when the government first introduced these bills in 1997, industry raised four concerns with the proposed special approach for determining the normal value of goods imported, for example, from China. The government has failed effectively to address these concerns.The first industry concern in 1997 was that a price control situation, which is one of the features of the bill, was not taken to exist where government controlled or substantially controlled or influenced more than 10 per cent of the costs of inputs to production. Industry wanted this to be included. This bill has at least dealt with this issue in part by defining a price control situation to include cases where a raw material input to the good which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the good is supplied by a state owned enterprise. But that is so inadequate that anybody could get around it, and they will.This is a very narrow definition on two counts. First, it is confined to raw material inputs only. Therefore, it does not include processed inputs, like steel or componentry. So, if a government owned coalmine supplies more than 10 per cent of input costs, this is treated as a price control situation. But, if a government owned component manufacturer provides more than 10 per cent of input costs, this is not treated as a price control situation. It would be obvious to anybody that this is an anomalous situation which should have been addressed. Let me explain its significance for the House.What we have is a circumstance where sometimes at least it is very difficult in non-market economies to determine a fair market price for a product for the purpose of com parison with export prices. Because of the circumstance the government has put us in, we have to try to establish an objective set of criteria that will enable us to establish circumstances where the domestic price is not considered a fair market price. This is a layman's interpretation, but this is what we are trying to achieve.One of those circumstances is where government control over the cost of inputs is such that effectively it can distort the market activity in the domestic market. Why would it be the case that that sort of impact on raw materials of 10 per cent of cost might—and probably would—affect the domestic price in such a way as to make it not a fair comparison for the purposes of comparing an anti-dumping action, but when they have the same control over equally significant prices of a different character it does not count? All that you can conclude is that someone is trying to make sure that these anti-dumping provisions do not work. Because there are those who conclude that anti-dumping is really an artificial barrier to trade and that we should welcome dumping because it means prices come in cheaper and domestic Australian users, consumers or manufacturers can take advantage of a cheaper product. But nowhere in the world is it accepted—even advocates of free markets of which I am one do not accept it—that you can allow this sort of predatory pricing to occur so that your domestic market is destroyed. The great free markets of the world do not accept this proposition and nor should they.What is the second problem that the industry raised? The new provision is confined to inputs supplied by a state owned enterprise. This is the second part of what is wrong with the definition of the first inadequacy of the bill. It is confined to inputs supplied by state owned enterprises but does not extend to situations where the price of the input is substantially controlled by the government. This means the provision applies where the domestic price is effectively fixed because it is supplied by a state owned enterprise—but that is of decreasing significance in China now—but not where the price is directly fixed by the government or where the price is effectively fixed because of government restrictions on selling in the domestic market or government restrictions on the quantity of goods manufactured in the domestic market. It is another anomalous situation which does not take account of the real world conditions which prevail in the circumstances in which this provision is meant to apply.The second industry concern in 1997 was that a price control situation was defined as one in which the domestic selling price of the goods is controlled or substantially controlled by government. Industry wanted the definition to include situations where the price is directly or indirectly controlled or substantially controlled or substantially influenced by government. This concern has not been addressed in the current bill. There were some options open to the government as to how they could have responded to this question of the impact of government involvement in markets in countries—in particular in China but in any country in which this law might apply—where the influence of government distorts the fair market price. This concern has not been addressed in the current bill at all. It was not addressed in the 1997 provisions. It is not addressed here.The third industry concern in 1997 was that industry wanted to include a regulation making power to allow the minister to make regulations deeming price control situations. This has not been addressed at all. The fourth concern in relation to the 1997 bills—and it applies equally here—was that where a price control situation did exist industry wanted the minister to use the surrogate country method, but the bill proposes that the minister should have an option of using any other method undefined to determine the normal value of the allegedly dumped goods.The surrogate method is not perfect, but it gives everybody some confidence because we have all been using that for a very long time. Anti-dumping in Australia has always used it. Every other country's anti-dumping regime uses that model. People know what it means. It gives certainty and confidence. It is not a perfect method, but it is an understood, manageable, comprehensible method. If you are planning your industry, you know the circumstances in which you are operating. Under this bill, the minister still has the discretion to use some other undefined, unknown, unmeasured method. You can see that industry has a number of concerns.Anti-dumping arises in industries almost by definition that are in a fragile situation. If we have a healthy, vibrant domestic market, the people who sell into it do not dump. They sell at the highest price they can get. You do not get anti-dumping when the domestic market is ripping along and all the domestic industries are doing really well. Why would someone come in and sell below the market price? They are just reducing their return. What you get almost without question other than in the most extraordinary of circumstances is that anti-dumping occurs when the domestic industry is already under pressure. So there is competition for market share. The people who are affected are almost exclusively experiencing difficulties. I know you can find circumstances where this is not the case, where there is predatory pricing of someone coming in trying to capture an otherwise buoyant market, but that is unusual. International people seeking to sell their product usually would not need to dump in a healthy, buoyant domestic market because there would be enough demand for them to sell into that market, and they would be able to get the high domestic price that the domestic producers are getting. Therefore, they would get a bigger return. So why would they come here and sell for less?The circumstance is that this almost exclusively happens when the domestic industry is in trouble. What we have here is a failure to respond to the legitimate concerns of Australian industry that is seeking assistance when it is at its most vulnerable and when it is being subjected to unfair trading practices. This is not about protectionism because the government are not saying we should not have an anti-dumping regime. They are claiming that this is re-establishing the strength of our anti-dumping regime. But what we all know is that the government created this problem, and they have failed to address it adequately.Given this catalogue of unaddressed concerns, there is no doubt that the industry has every reason to be disappointed with the government's handling of this very important issue, and it is not surprising that they are disappointed. The industry had to watch aghast as the trade minister bungled in China and created the problem which must now be fixed. They then had to wait for six months before the government got around to addressing the mess they had created. They have now had to wait another two years before this legislation is before us. There is still no certainty of the timetable by which it will be passed, even though the opposition has supported its support for the legislation and will vote for it. To rub salt in the wounds, that outcome does not even address all of the industry's legitimate concerns.We have before us a sorry tale. It is one that the industry have come to accept from this government. It is not surprising that they are disappointed with this package. To reiterate, the opposition will not be opposing the bills. We said in November 1997 that we would not oppose these bills.To the extent that they are an improvement on the original legislation introduced by the government, that is a victory for my colleague the member for Hotham and, more particularly, for the industry who campaigned for these changes. They have not achieved everything that they wished but they have improved the legislation a bit. The bills are needed. The industry needs some certainty.I wish the bills were better; I would support them with more enthusiasm. But it is time to move on. It is time to get this legislation and this problem behind us—at least to the extent that this legislation does that. To the extent that inadequacies continue to show up, as I think they will, we will find that the blame will be in only one quarter—it will be on the government. The opposition will not be opposing these bills. They are inadequate but they are the only opportunity that industry has to get any certainty, so we will allow their passage.22:10:004094Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I note the member for Fraser said that the opposition does not plan to object to the Customs (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 before the parliament. I will comment on some of the concerns that he presented through my contribution.The Customs (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 seeks to amend the Customs Act 1901 to provide for a special approach to determining the normal value of allegedly dumped goods from countries transitioning from command to market economies. Specifically, the bill creates a new method for calculating the normal value of goods thought to be dumped in Australia from an economy in transition where state owned businesses supply more than 10 per cent of the costs of production as raw materials or where there remain government price controls over domestic selling prices of those goods.The bill also tidies up provisions that govern the collection of interim dumping and countervailing duties as well as some language inconsistencies which have been identified. These changes, and the changes the government introduced last year, are necessary because the legislation was both prescriptive and restrictive in that it required Customs to treat transitioning economies like free market economies even in situations where the central government still had effective control over many industries and large sections of the economy. The provisions allows Customs to use an alternative or surrogate pricing model for determining the normal value of goods by reference to the selling prices of like goods in a substitute or surrogate country.For the people of Dunkley, this bill ensures that the textile, clothing and footwear manufacturers and the automotive component manufacturers that are active, alive and well in the electorate have a significant opportunity not only to maintain their domestic share of the market in Australia but also to provide the foundation from which to expand overseas. This bill ensures that a significant portion of the manufacturing sector have greater protection against cheap imports dumped on Australian markets. It also picks up some issues that directly relate to economies in transition.These latest proposed changes to the Customs Act 1901 came about because of recommendations made by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, and the member for Fraser mentioned some of those concerns earlier. In particular, the committee recommended that the legislation be flexible enough to allow Customs to use alternative tools, including the surrogate markets model we spoke of earlier, to establish the normal value of raw material inputs used in the production of goods allegedly dumped in Australia or where those goods have inputs that are supplied by a state owned enterprise.Unlike what the member for Fraser said, it is not a requirement that both of those triggers be activated for the provisions of the bill to be introduced. We do not require both a 10 per cent share of raw inputs as part of the total cost of goods and that raw materials be supplied by an enterprise which is wholly owned by a national or provincial government—it is either/or. In his remarks the member for Fraser seemed to miss the fact that it is either the input trigger or the state control pricing trigger that can activate anti- dumping action; it is not a combination of both. Some of those concerns about which the member for Fraser was expressing deep regret that the government had not picked up have been picked up, and flexibilities have been provided within the amendment to make sure that other changes within the market are also accommodated. So it is an either/or trigger. There is not a requirement for both.The other thing that the member for Fraser said, which he might wish to consider in light of what is actually in the bill, is that the raw material definition extends to raw inputs. Let us use steel for instance: it is not as if you need the ore; it is not iron ore being owned by a state owned enterprise, it is steel that would meet those classification definitions. So, again, evidence of flexibility in the provisions of the bill.In correcting the member for Fraser's misunderstanding, I think we wipe out all four of the concerns he mentioned. The opposition is probably not opposing the bill because those concerns are not valid. The surrogate pricing tool is not obliged to be utilised where there is the state control of prices, but it is one tool. The bill is also an example of the need for flexibility in dealing with some of the cute and clever developments that the member for Fraser quite rightly pointed to. For instance, there are attempts to suggest that products are coming from a wholly owned national or provincial government enterprise. That was the basis for engaging in remedial action under this anti-dumping bill.What if the provincial, state or national government said, `But we've got a joint venture partner'? It might own less than one per cent, but under the definitions of this act it is not a provincial or state owned enterprise. That is more evidence of the need for flexibility that this bill represents and provides Customs. So the four concerns that the member for Fraser talked about are non-concerns. The reason that the opposition is not voting against this bill is that they are non-concerns and there is no basis to oppose the bill. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to clarify the misunderstandings of the member for Fraser.The provisions relating to government enterprises supplying raw materials for more than 10 per cent of the value of alleged dumped goods require the minister to be satisfied that that is the case. There are opportunities for the minister to look at ways of calculating a normal price. I mentioned the surrogate country model that is available. The surrogate pricing tool can also be applied to remove the distortion of the state controlled pricing of goods. An artificially subsidised domestic price is no way to justify artificially subsidised prices for the same goods entering our markets. This is why we have gone to the surrogate pricing tool as one of a range of options that is available to Customs. Again, it is a very wise and sound improvement on the earlier bill.Representatives of the textiles, clothing and footwear industry in particular raised this issue during the Economics Legislation Committee investigation. The industry made the point that anti-dumping legislation should acknowledge not only the normal cost of the final product but also the major raw materials consumed and involved in the production of the final product in determining whether goods have been dumped. A recent anti-dumping case highlighting the situation regarding raw materials involved woven blankets from China. There is a readily identifiable world price for yarns used in blanket manufacturing. The comparative cost advantage does not play a large part in the product manufacturing cost in the case of blankets. In many cases, the cost of the fabric can represent more than 50 per cent of the cost of manufacture of the goods. The conversion to a blanket, while requiring more labour, is still not labour intensive.Chinese manufacturers have been able to provide Customs with documents indicating that their costings for raw materials is much cheaper than the prevailing world price and reflects internal Chinese costs. That is evidence of the need for the provisions in this bill. These costs, whether internal or reflecting purchases of fibres or partly processed material from state owned enterprises, have no relevance to international market determined prices that commercial manufacturers operating in this country must realise in their selling prices.The changes in this bill ensure that Australian businesses have some protection from inherent subsidisation by governments in centrally controlled and transition economies. Because the clothing and textiles industry is so dependent on seasons and because the majority of the commercial activity in the industry is carried out in the Northern Hemisphere, Australia becomes an attractive destination for clearing out-of-season goods, sometimes well below costs. Again, our geography, climate and seasons being the reverse of the northern hemisphere highlights the need for the mechanisms contained in this bill today.Because some sectors of the industry are labour intensive and in particular make use of large pools of unskilled and semiskilled labour, it is an industry that many command and transition economies have traditionally subsidised through various direct and indirect methods. Giving Australian Customs the flexibility to establish an accurate normal value for goods will ensure that Australia's anti-dumping policy does what it is designed to do, which is to protect Australian industries from unfair assaults on our local markets without causing an unfair disadvantage for Australian consumers and Australian industry, which relies on imported raw materials for local manufacturing.The Dunkley electorate in the Mornington Peninsula region in Victoria in general is home to a large number of micro and small businesses. Because they are small, they are vulnerable to damage in their revenue base and market share from imports dumped on Australian markets below cost. One such business is the Seaford manufacturer of women's cardigans, jumpers and suits, David Keys. It once had many more staff than it has today. The business is still a vibrant business operating in the Hartnell Drive industrial precinct. For 45 years, it was a supplier to Coles Myer and David Jones. Today, the goods it used to supply are mainly sourced from Chinese manufacturers, which is much to my regret, although we are working on it.David Keys finds itself paying a higher price for yarn than many overseas competitors. Ironically, some Australian mills sell yarn for export prices at below what the Australian textile manufacturers pay locally. That might be something for us to look at on another day. In many cases, it is cheaper to bring in completed goods. But for manufacturers like David Keys, quality is more important than dollars. That is part of its strategic plan to secure its place with the support of the government's textiles, clothing and footwear industry package.The company has not entered what it believes would be a readily available export market because it simply does not have access to the capital required for start-up. The company has reorientated its business to smaller boutique retailers but fears that the big retailers will eventually swamp those retailers as well. China has done very well at mass producing product for the big chain stores in Australia. This has left traditional local suppliers out in the cold, unable to compete on price and at the same time maintain their quality advantage.Another local manufacturer, BTR Automotive, which employs about 4,000 people in Victoria and quite a few who call Dunkley home, has to constantly be on the look-out for cheap and inferior raw materials as it strives to ensure that all its automotive component products are world-class and competitive in dollar terms. There have been recent successful anti-dumping actions relating to polypropylene, fibreglass, glass, polystyrene and PVC. These successful actions show that Australian regulations are having an effect and are providing the better protection that the industry needs. But we can make them even better.I am looking through the material provided to me by the Minister for Justice and Customs. I note that a number of areas where there have been successful actions are directly impinging on the motor vehicle component sector and the BTR manufacturing outfit in the electorate of Dunkley. Looking through the list, I see that some of them include PVC from command economies such as China. A number of self-proclaimed free trade exporters, such as Canada, Japan, France, Brazil and the USA, also crack it for a mention. Action against the dumping of polystyrene resin from Korea has also attracted support from local motor vehicle component manufacturers in the Dunkley electorate.For BTR Automotive, the challenge is to compete with the raw material input costs that are sometimes 50 per cent of the value of their goods. This can be significant if the raw materials are sourced from a government owned plant that is able to supply the materials at prices that are not available to the domestic manufacturers on free market terms. This is particularly critical to the automotive sector where quality and consistency of the finished product are critical to retaining long-term supplier contracts, and I have heard a number of colleagues in this place talk about the exacting demands and cost-down requirements of vehicle assemblers. So they are battling on all fronts to keep their head above water, but they are doing very well.I am told that the greatest threat to the long-term future of both the small TCF and automotive industries in Dunkley is the increased use of non-tariff barriers by countries that are looking for new and more devious ways of protecting their industry. There is one country that I will not mention here where, I am told reliably by people active in the motor vehicle industry, you do not have a job with a competing manufacturer if you happen to drive a motor vehicle imported from another country. I am not quite sure how our officials would canvass addressing those issues, but it is a difficult climate out there and we have to make the best of it.It is interesting that, when you look at these provisions and you see that the government is addressing distortions inspired by government on the cost of goods, you think that maybe in the longer term we will be back here talking about similar government inspired distortions of the cost of goods as they relate to the Kyoto agreement. We will be competing with nations that are producing product that our manufacturers produce but overseas suppliers act without the disciplines that come with our climate control compliance requirements. We might be back here for a further discussion.Australia has long been a proponent of free markets, but that does not mean we cannot provide appropriate and proper protection to Australian industries from injurious dumping practices. This bill, which I understand is WTO friendly—for the benefit for the member for Fraser—completes the changes this government has already made to Australia's anti-dumping legislation and provides Customs with added flexibility to ensure that Australian businesses get a fair go in markets here at home.Trade is good. Trade is something that improves our living standards. Trade is something that enables us to take advantage of our nation's strengths and what we do well. Trade is a way of carving out new opportunities for the future in our country. But it is a jungle out there. There are no `reserved for Australia' signs in international markets—for our products or our services—but, when people overseas look at the strength of our domestic economy, it must be tantalisingly attractive to get a piece of what is on offer in the Australian economy.We know that fair trade is important to our future success, but wishing for fair trade just is not enough. We need to act, and this bill before the House is evidence that the government is acting and providing the confidence for local manufacturers to invest and continue to call Australia home for their production systems.While we talk about the TCF industries, I am aware that there is a local footwear manufacturer in my electorate which is very keen to look at further investment in the Dunkley electorate to maintain its competitiveness. I will be very active in making sure that the TCF Strategic Investment Program meets its needs and is able to play a role in establishing Dunkley as a great place to do business whether it be for tourism, for retail, for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries or for the magnificent wine industry on the Mornington Peninsula.The electorate of Dunkley is certainly open for business. There are a number of government policies that are helping to promote jobs in the electorate of Dunkley. The low interest rates are giving encouragement and support for our local businesses, particularly the manufacturing sector. We have specific programs in place that target key employers in the Dunkley electorate—that is, the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and the motor vehicle industry, which has a strong component of manufacturing activity in the electorate.We have many top and high end elaborately transferred manufacturers operating in the Dunkley electorate who appreciate the skills that are available from the Dunkley community. There are very talented and gifted people living in the electorate, and I am not just saying that because a majority of them voted for me at the last election. They are very talented, gifted and productive people.For anyone listening to this broadcast tonight, if you are looking for somewhere to invest, if you are looking for a magnificent environment where you have the joy of Port Phillip Bay on your doorstep, a wonderful supply of skilled labour in both the trades and professional sector, we have it all. We have terrifically affordable housing and a wonderful array of housing types. We are where the Melbourne metropolitan sprawl stops and that beautiful place where I think everybody needs to go to recharge—the Mornington Peninsula—begins. It is the playground of Melbourne. Some 3½ million people in Melbourne look to the Mornington Peninsula to breathe, to recharge their batteries, to appreciate and, in some respects, to admire the wonderful lifestyle that those of us who live down there enjoy.There are a number of other exciting initiatives that the government has introduced to make sure that trade, commerce and enterprise are supporting the Dunkley electorate. Minister Reith's fair trading package looks at making sure our micro and home businesses have a fair go when they are dealing with larger enterprises. The reforms that were inspired by Minister Reith in the retail sector are very good for the many tenants of the major shopping centres in the electorate of Dunkley. That is good news for those retailers. It contrasts very starkly, though, with the efforts of those opposite to try to end youth wages. Youth wages are an important element in providing employment opportunities in the retail sector in Dunkley.In closing, both sides of this parliament support this bill. We have heard from the member for Fraser that the opposition intends to vote for the bill. I have explained in my contribution that the concerns he raised are counterfeit. They have been addressed in the bill. The flexibility is there to deal with the changing circumstances of commercial trade, the changing attitudes and, in some cases, the devious practices of those who seek to compete with our local manufacturers for the strong growing domestic market that is available here. Australia's economy is a good news story. It must be a tantalising picture for those who are producing goods overseas to see the strength in our economy and the market opportunities that are there. We need to make sure our local manufacturers compete on fair grounds. I commend the bill to the House.Adjournment409910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 409922:30:004099Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I wish to state my concern at the lack of support given to clients of Centrelink who contact the agency to notify it of changes in their circumstances. Over the past six months, since becoming the member for Canning, I have found there has been a continual stream of people to my office needing help in their dealings with Centrelink. The first problem is that of access. The decision was taken by the federal coalition government to close the Centrelink offices in Pinjarra and Armadale. For the people of Pinjarra and the surrounding areas it is now necessary to travel to Mandurah to have an appointment at Centrelink. This is difficult, however, as there is no public transport available.The other major problem is the cuts that have been made to Centrelink. There has been a reduction of resources and staff. As most constituents do everything in their power to inform Centrelink of changes in their circumstances, they become frustrated and angry when their information is not recorded accurately and they end up in debt because of this, or their payments are changed suddenly and they find that they are in dire financial straits because of the amended payments.Mr Davies of Gosnells approached my office with paperwork which proved that on numerous occasions he had contacted Centrelink to tell them that he was no longer qualified for Austudy and was now in full-time employment. Despite this, his payments continued and he now has a debt of $1,118. He is faced with an interest charge of 20 per cent on top of this if he does not pay immediately. Mr Davies is further upset that not once has he ever received an apology despite his diligently supplying the correct information to Centrelink at all times.Another case in my electorate is that of a gentleman from Armadale who was on a mature age partner allowance and found a job. He kept Centrelink informed of his payment details and some weeks later his wife received a letter stating that she was eligible for an aged pension. More letters came from Centrelink asking for information, which the couple had already supplied. They were very confused by all the paperwork and their daughter undertook to sort the problems out with Centrelink. She was told that her mother now had a debt of $444 due to overpayments, because the wrong box had been ticked on the computer, and that her pension would be reduced to repay the debt. The next correspondence from Centrelink was that she would not receive any payment for six weeks until the whole debt had been paid. Once again no apology was forthcoming.The amount of paperwork required to correctly obtain payments is daunting and means that people are forced into a position where errors are made and then they need to repay the money that they should never have received. It seems that, although information is given regularly to the Centrelink offices, it is not always recorded promptly and accurately, which leads to errors in payments and further stress for Centrelink clients. People feel that there are not enough staff to cope with the demands on them.Another example of the needless stress put on people was given to me when a couple approached me late last year. They have a disabled daughter who was turning 17 and leaving school. She had received the forms necessary to apply for the common youth allowance. This young woman had become disabled after a severe illness when she was eight, and there is no chance that her condition will ever improve. To change from the common youth allowance to a disability pension, the parents were having to take their daughter to a series of specialists to `re-prove' that she had a disability and was entitled to that pension. It is difficult enough for the parents to deal with the problems their daughter is going to encounter on a daily basis without having to go through the painful process of proving again that their child is disabled.The vast majority of people who have approached my office with problems with Centrelink have not deliberately set out to mislead so that additional payments are received. They are typically people who do their best to comply with all the conditions put upon them to ensure that their payments are accurate and timely. The staff at Centrelink offices are under increased pressures with the decrease in staff numbers and the number of offices. They are in a position of trying to help people with one hand tied behind their backs. The federal government should allocate the resources necessary to ensure that those receiving payments who need to deal with Centrelink offices are not forced into a position of being unable to get the help and advice they need.410022:35:004100Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I would like to pay tribute tonight to a couple of clubs in the area of Ipswich in my electorate that have been doing very well and have been performing a very important service in our community, creating a bit of innovation and a bit of employment along the way. Some time ago Queensland's Goss state government introduced poker machine legislation. From the start that particular legislation was ineffective in that it wound up producing some great disparities in the performance of clubs and in the impact on hotels and the community.Ever since that decision to introduce those poker machines, we have been playing catch-up in Queensland. We have seen the situation of a lucky few clubs making an absolute fortune. For anyone who has seen the performance of the Broncos it is hard to equate them in the same category as a struggling RSL club or something like that in our community, yet to all intents and purposes the Broncos are a club just the same as any one of these other clubs.In the latest effort to try and iron out the problems with the gaming machine legislation, the Beattie government have proposed retrospective legislation to outlaw a few of the shared revenue agreements that have been developed by many of the struggling clubs as a way of finding their way into the winner's circle as far as the revenue generated by poker machines is concerned.I want to congratulate the state government because they have actually made a decision that will benefit our community. Having said that they intended to introduce retrospective legislation and, in effect, to take apart some of the clubs that are organising these shared agreements, we have had a decision in the case of the Ipswich Jets club that the government are going to reverse that earlier decision and allow the club to continue operating for five years.So they have a five-year exemption from the retrospective legislation that would have outlawed shared agreements. And, believe you me, if that had gone ahead, the impact on the Ipswich Jets Rugby League Club would have been dramatic. We would have seen all the poker machines being dragged out the door on trolleys and the whole box and dice boarded up and closed down. The impact would have been quite significant. But what happened in the interim was that membership of the Ipswich Jets Rugby League Club absolutely skyrocketed.The Ipswich Jets has been a struggling club for many years, and the decision for them to enter a shared agreement with the Victorian company, Tabcorp, was quite a significant one. They took that step—they were taking quite a bold step—and the decision meant that they wound up with a club that really was quite an entertainment venue and they were able to provide more revenue to fund their forays into the rugby league competition—the Queensland rugby league. Overall, it was quite a positive move, and the membership of that club soared to more than 9,000 in four or five weeks. So there was a huge community expression of support for the Ipswich Jets Rugby League Club. The disappointment, though, when the government was intending to move ahead with this retrospective legislation was quite concerning, and the decision now to go back on that decision is certainly welcomed.Because of that revenue from the poker machines, the Ipswich Jets Rugby League Club has been able to create employment in north Ipswich for 35 Ipswichians. On a wider scale, you might say that that does not sound like a lot but, believe you me, in north Ipswich that is quite significant. That is an area that has been struggling, and it is a welcome outcome. If only the Ipswich Jets could replicate their performance in the business arena on the playing field, we really would have something to crow about.One of the concerning aspects, though, is that the ramifications of being able to pursue a shared poker machine agreement have not been extended to other local clubs. I believe that those types of agreements need not be overbearing as far as clubs are concerned. In fact, in many cases I believe they can be quite beneficial. I think that the state government should take that into account when they are looking at the impact of poker machines, because if they can harness the competitive ability of these small clubs and put them up against some of these big clubs, then I think we would have greater employment, more benefits and the opportunity for the larger clubs to contribute more to the general community. I congratulate the Jets on their success. (Time expired)410122:40:004101Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—Integral to the purchase by the Moorabbin Airports Corporation of a long-term lease over the Moorabbin Airport in Melbourne's south-eastern suburbs from the federal government, is that an airport use draft master plan is to be developed. The Moorabbin Airports Corporation is responsible for on-the-ground activities and Airservices Australia is responsible for airborne activities in the airport environs.The draft master plan has been prepared pursuant to the Airports Act 1996, and its aim is to charter the development of an airport of regional and state significance over the next 20 years. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services is soon to consider the master plan, and I urge him to do so principally with a view to lowering noise levels over the surrounding residential areas.I am concerned that the minister is to consider a draft master plan which, despite the proximity of residential areas on each side of the airport, proposes an unacceptable ceiling of 440,000 general aviation and 12½ thousand regular public transport movements per year, and extensions to the main runway to accommodate modern regional jet aircraft engaged in regular public transport operations. This total of 452,500 aircraft movements per annum is an increase in the current level of 340,000 aircraft movements per annum.The Moorabbin Airport Residents Association has indeed been an effective voice in advancing safety considerations for residents and achieving decreases in aircraft noise levels. MARA has enjoyed a very productive relationship with the MAC and it has found the MAC to be both cooperative and helpful. However, MARA is of the view that the introduction of 70- to 100-seat passenger jets and an increase in the number of aircraft movements, as I say, from 340,000 to more than 452,000 annually is incompatible with the surrounding suburban environment from both a noise and a safety perspective.MARA is also of the view that the Moorabbin airport master plan should stipulate curfews on training flying circuits, including those for helicopters, between 1830 hours and 0830 hours to reduce the noise impact on residents; and provide for the redrawing of circuit flying patterns away from residential areas and more orientated towards green belt and industrial areas. The association also contends that there must be a phasing-out of older, less environmentally sensitive aircraft, a reduction in flying for recreation and sightseeing purposes and an abandonment of formation flying. Only when these issues have been addressed can local residents accurately assess the viability of the draft master plan.Critically, when considering the master plan and its approval, I urge the minister not to spend much time on matters relating to the commercial and industrial development around the perimeter of the airport and landscaping of the site, but rather consider in more detail issues which adversely affect the quality of life of local residents. These issues notably are noise, safety, noise, curfew arrangements and noise.I conclude by commending the activities of MARA, in particular the commitment and dedication of its president, Mr Tom Uren, and its secretary, Miss Anna Emanuel, who have led the charge to ensure that surrounding residents on each side of the airport get a fair go and who will no doubt ensure that, in the long haul, noise levels will be reduced and safety considerations will be put at the forefront of the mind of the minister.410222:45:004102Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Just before Christmas last year I thought all my Christmases had come at once. I was fortunate enough to be able to launch the Regional Home Based Business Study for the south-east region of Melbourne. It was something that I have felt very strongly about for a long time. I have been urging local councils to act on the matter of home based microbusinesses that are very much part of the electorates of Dunkley and Isaacs and the general south-east region of Melbourne. I know that this study enjoyed my support and that of the member for Isaacs and members from both sides of politics when it was launched in December.The study was commissioned by the City of Casey which, from all accounts, is doing an excellent job trying to stimulate economic activity in their municipality. It was funded by South East Development, the area consultative committee that operates over the south-east of Melbourne. The study was aimed principally at getting a handle on this phenomenon of home based businesses, because all the anecdotal evidence and advice coming through from the microbusiness network that Barbara Gabogrecan and others are so active in is that the micro- and home based business sector is an enormously important area of outer metropolitan economies. This is very much the case in the Dunkley electorate and on the Mornington Peninsula.The fascinating thing about home based business surveys that were conducted in the lead-up to the preparation of the strategy is that home based businesses have a number of highly desirable characteristics which, in my view, warrant closer consideration by all levels of government. Home based businesses in the south-east region are sustainable. For example, almost 50 per cent have been in existence for five years or more and more than 40 per cent of these businesses have a turnover of more than $100,000. Almost 50 per cent of home based businesses have the intention of increasing their level of employment. That implies a potential for between 1,200 and 7,000 new jobs in the region if we can leverage home based businesses and give them the support that this study identified as being necessary.But the highest need for home based businesses is external support. Being from the local government sector, I am familiar with the—at times—hostile attitude of some councils a number of years ago towards home based businesses, particularly if they were inappropriate home based businesses operating in residential areas and having a negative impact on the amenity of that neighbourhood. But this study identifies a large number of home based businesses that can operate and prosper in an entirely compatible arrangement with local neighbourhoods. They represent quite an exciting employment opportunity that has not been properly tapped or fully supported by any level of government. The total number of people employed in the south-east region is a tad under a quarter of a million. Those employed in home based businesses are estimated to be around 15 per cent of the total employment level. That is 35,000 to 40,000 people employed in home based businesses in the south-east region of Melbourne. That is a large number of people contributing to the local economies and a large number of home based businesses with the potential to employ more people.A number of recommendations came out of the study focusing on external support. There were a couple of recommendations that I particularly paid attention to. One of them was the need for information. Home based businesses are generally very self-reliant in obtaining information. A number of them avoid registering with the normal institutional structures that would otherwise generate information because of fear that they would be subject to the less than welcoming treatment that a number of them have experienced in the past. Having said that, though, we need to address this information need so that microbusinesses are aware of potential customers, marketing information, government regulations and support programs and can take advantage of them.Beyond that access to information, there is also a need for commercial support services at an appropriate scale. Some of those involve the new technologies in the Internet service area which I have been actively working at supporting, particularly with a proposal for an e-commerce summit on the Mornington Peninsula that I hope the National Office of Information Economy will get behind. Another idea that has come out of Barbara Gabogrecan's work—and I must take my hat off to her, she does an enormous amount of networking for the microbusiness community—is a home based business expo that would enable a lot of these smaller operators to come out and share the opportunities that each represents with other home based businesses in the area, to celebrate their contribution to the economy and also to take advantage of the changing ways of doing business, in particular online commerce.The local councils need to have a look at their town planning regulations. I know Frankston City Council has already done that and I look forward to being further briefed on that. I wish the new mayor of Frankston City Council—Councillor David Dawn—well and hope I have the opportunity of discussing these matters further with him, as well as with the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. This is an important area. I hope the government will get behind home based businesses. (Time expired)410322:50:004103Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—There has been considerable discussion of various issues involving Perth airport recently. The issue of aircraft noise needs to be revisited. This is important to people in my constituency of Swan and I would like to foreshadow that I have on notice a private member's motion dealing specifically with this issue, which I hope to address in the near future if I can get some air time.I believe the government needs to establish a three part strategy. Firstly, the government needs to consider compensation under the guidelines already established in Sydney. These need to be adopted in Perth and become effective immediately. Secondly, action must be taken to re-examine the methodology for testing and apportioning the noise `footprint'. Thirdly, the government should develop a long- term plan with consideration for future development at the airport, in light of projections of increased aircraft traffic and noise. I have received many calls from residents concerned about the current level of noise, the future projections of noise as the airport develops, and what will be done to ensure the community's needs are given justifiable consideration.To do justice to the concerns of my constituents, last week in this place I intended to raise some matters concerning the Airports Amendment Bill. The government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to stifle the debate on this matter. I also contend that the government's past performance concerning the issue of those affected by aircraft noise in Perth leads me to be pessimistic about the opportunities of open discussion on the issue of compensation. I believe that the Airservices corporation and this government need to undertake further discussions with community groups to look at what can be achieved in the near future. This parliament needs to be ready to assist in developing commensurate packages, as they have in Sydney.Last week whilst visiting the Queens Park Primary School I had direct experience of the noise issue when attending an assembly. On three separate occasions the children had to cease speaking due to aircraft movements directly overhead. This area needs to have the current noise methodology re-examined. I find it hard to believe that the current Australian Noise Expectation Footprint, ANEF, of 20 for the primary school has been calculated accurately. Nevertheless, it is possible to see the extent of the problem when you consider that where a school has an ANEF in the 20-25 range `an analysis of building noise reduction requirements by an acoustic consultant should be made and any necessary noise control features included in the design of the building'. It is also suggested that where the ANEF is greater than 25 double glazing and insulation should be the minimum standard.Unfortunately, at present all educational activity has to cease whenever an aircraft is overhead. Future projections put the school in the 30 to 35 ANEF bracket. Furthermore, I believe that in the latest ANEF data there are projections that list some residential areas north of the runway at 30 and even 40 ANEF and that parts of Queens Road, South Guildford are currently within the 30 to 35 ANEF boundary. Where we had 40 ANEF in Sydney the government purchased the houses in that locality because they believed that they were uninhabitable. I am also led to believe that the ANEF footprint will extend south to areas in the suburbs of Queens Park and Kewdale at a rating of 30 to 35 ANEF.If we find that the amount of flights is to increase, plans must be made accordingly. Where alterations have to be made, we must develop a strategy to ensure the community is consulted and appropriate action taken. This means that guidelines to ensure community protection measures need to be put in place. This must be done immediately, and a monitoring strategy needs to be developed. This strategy must be implemented following public consultation and be open to modification.Some members here will be familiar with Perth airport. It is, of course, the central hub of the aviation industry in the city, located 12 kilometres from the city centre. It also is a considerable component of the total landmass of the electorate of Swan, comprising a site of 2,105 hectares. Key information for the financial year of 1997-98 include that there were almost 3.1 million passenger movements, that the growth in international passenger traffic was five per cent and that airport tonnage was up a total of 10 per cent.In conclusion, I have real problems with the broad thrust of the government's aircraft noise policy for Perth International Airport. This is for two principal reasons. The first is that this government needs to immediately act to ensure that the rights of residents surrounding Perth airport are protected, and the second is that the government needs to conduct a comprehensive social, economic and environmental study to examine the long-term ramifications of any expansion at Perth airport.410422:55:004104McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—On 27 January Corangamite had a visit from the Hon. Mark Vaile, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Greatly assisted in this visit were the Chairman of the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, members of that board and other personnel throughout Corangamite who are interested in environmental matters. I wish to raise some of the issues that were raised during the very important visit by the minister.The minister firstly inspected the Southern Farming Systems Research Station at Gnarwarre near Geelong which raised some very interesting research matters in relation to raised bed agriculture. There is a new system of agriculture in southern Victoria, where waterlogging has been a problem. With raised bed cropping it is estimated by the research group that productivity can improve by 40 per cent. They started with some 60 farmer members in 1995, and now they have 700 members who have signed up and are part of that research project.The raised beds improved the root structures and are able to run off the waterlogging which is a problem that emerges during the wet winters in western Victoria. Also, the raised beds helped with salting problems, which are a difficulty in most parts of rural Australia, especially in Western Australia in the Murray-Darling Basin. It was pointed out to the minister that 10 days of waterlogging could be very detrimental to the outcome of any cereal crop. It was also made very clear that cropping gross margins were well ahead of animal gross margins in western Victoria at this stage of the agricultural cycle. With the raised bed agriculture there was an attitudinal change that water was a good thing and that it should be harvested and not just wasted during the winter period.The minister then inspected Alley Tree Farming at Mr Rowan Peel's property at Mount Pollock. This was a very interesting experiment where trees were grown 180 metres apart, utilising deep ripping, moulding and spraying, which encouraged considerable growth rates. These trees are mixed in a cropping program. They cover about 10 per cent of the paddock, and after two years the trees are about four metres high.The minister was particularly impressed with this project, which incorporated no fences and no tree guards and had the combination, as I say, of cropping and commercial forestry farming. Globulus blue gum and spotted blue gum varieties were the basic varieties used, and the comment was made by the farmer that the visual observation of the successful project had made a big impact on the attitude of those visitors who had come to look at something that they thought almost impossible to achieve. Some 300 visitors had visited that site.We next visited a property that had an infestation of serrated tussock—members of this House would be aware of the impact of this particular weed—and Mr Scott Chirnside, Chairman of the Victorian Serrated Tussock Task Force, informed the minister of the problems of serrated tussock. This has 80,000 seeds in one bush. It is very difficult to control, and it has a great capacity to spread in windy conditions to neighbours' properties.It was suggested to the minister that serrated tussock should be a weed of national importance because it infests areas in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales and Tasmania. The problems of enforcement and voluntary eradication were also raised with the minister. It was pointed out that Victorians are attacking the serrated tussock problem with a state-wide approach—unlike New South Wales who have a shire-by-shire approach. I know that the parliamentary secretary is at the moment approaching the issue of making sure that frenock is available for the eradication of serrated tussock.This is a major national problem. Tullamarine airport is infested with serrated tussock—a weed—and many international and interstate visitors do not understand the impact that this weed might have if it is not suitably controlled. I am delighted that the minister was able to visit the electorate of Corangamite and to see these problems first-hand, and I am sure he was able to take away some impressions and some policy advice with which he might run his portfolio in a better manner, taking into account his experience.23:00:004105House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices4106The following notices were given:Mr Anderson to present a bill for an act relating to liability for certain injury, loss, damage or destruction by aircraft, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to provide financial assistance to the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and for related purposes.Mr Costello to present a bill for an act to amend and to repeal the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, to repeal the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994, and for related purposes.Mr Wilkie to move:That this House:(1) requests the federal Government to introduce a noise amelioration program for the Perth International Airport to address areas currently affected by aircraft noise and bring Perth International Airport within the ambit of the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995 and the Aircraft Noise Collection Act 1995; and(2) calls on the Government prior to or contemporaneously with the signing of the Perth International Airport Draft Master Plan to initiate a comprehensive social, economic and environmental study to examine the longer term ramifications of any proposed expansion of the airport with a view to implementing a compensation or other noise amelioration program for areas identified as being affected.1999-03-23Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 4.30 p.m.Bills4107r7274107Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.16:30:004107Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to make a number of significant changes to the payments for people who are caring for a person in their own home. I am pleased to see that the bill contains a number of beneficial measures that will assist these carers because, when it comes down to it, these are people who are in employment, even if they are not being paid a wage for that task. Their work is often arduous and thankless and the value of the work they perform must not be underestimated in either financial or social terms.Carers, selfless in the work they do, are an asset in our communities, giving much more than they take. They take the burden off institutionalised care, saving governments millions. All too often, they receive little or no recognition for this. Carers do an outstanding job in our community, looking after the elderly and the disabled. It is a job which frequently has little respite, with carers having no choice but to work around the clock, seven days a week, for every week of the year. I am sure all members of the House know of many of these people and see the problems they deal with on a day-to-day basis. This is the case in my area which has one of the highest proportions of aged people in Australia. I know, from personal experience, just how carers play a very important part in assisting those who cannot look after themselves. I know that is the case for most members of this House.With age, unfortunately, there comes a time when it is difficult to go about day-to-day activities unaided. Without the assistance of carers, most of whom are family members, many of our elderly citizens would have no choice but to move into institutionalised care. For many this transition is stressful, causing a great deal of hardship for both the individual and their family. The transition more often than not is accompanied by a deterioration in their condition as they move into unfamiliar surroundings. Without compelling medical evidence, people should have the opportunity to remain in their homes amongst familiar surroundings, with their friends and with their family. To this end, providing extra assistance to carers is indeed pivotal.The difficulties faced by the elderly in this regard are also shared by younger people in our community who, through no fault of their own, are unable to cope with their disabilities. Providing extra assistance to their carers helps to relieve the burdens faced on a day-to-day basis by younger people with disabilities and their families. There are many beneficial measures in this bill. I believe it is appropriate to draw attention to the vast areas of unmet need in the disability sector before I deal with those in detail.It is widely acknowledged that disability services are crying out for extra resources. In my state of Queensland, there is a package coming from the state government which will deliver substantially more. This was acknowledged by the 1997 Commonwealth, state and territory community services ministers meeting. This meeting followed a report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare entitled Demand for disability support services in Australia. The figures for unmet needs are quite sobering. There are 13,400 people who urgently require accommodation, while 12,000 people require day or recreation activities, and 38,000 people require employment services to give them the opportunity to participate in the work force. These issues need to be addressed. This cannot be done overnight, but it has to be a high priority for government policy development. State and federal ministers agreed at this meeting I mentioned before to discuss these unmet needs, but the next meeting to do this has yet to happen. It is unfortunate that Senator Newman postponed this meeting from December last year to next month, some 12 months after it was first promised.The demand for disability services is continuing to increase, yet, sadly, the federal government has wound back expenditure in recent years, and this has placed undue burdens on community service and disability sectors. Providing assistance to carers is important and long overdue, but for people with disabilities there are other issues that affect them on a daily basis. I am quite concerned that the government's tax package—described in the House today by the Treasurer as the ANTS package—will have a dramatic impact on people with disabilities and raise new roadblocks for them. This insidious tax not only affects them directly but also undermines the ability of not-for-profit and charitable organisations to help people with disabilities and their carers. People with disabilities have higher costs of living compared with others. In this respect, the GST will be particularly regressive in relation to their incomes, which are diminished by their inability to earn income and to do similar work to other taxpayers.Although many disability services are GST free, many are not. For instance, a person with a disability may be unable to drive or use public transport; they have to rely on taxis, which cost a lot more. I shudder to think how much extra this necessity will cost when the GST is factored in.Mrs Elson interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—They do not get vouchers for every trip they take. This is the normal cost of living. In addition to this, charitable and not-for-profit organisations, which provide assistance to people with disabilities and their carers, will have no choice but to cut valuable services with the imposition of the GST. Massive GST administrative burdens have been estimated to cost the community and charity sector between $500 million and $1 billion annually. I think that, if government members read the submissions, particularly those from the community affairs sector inquiring into this, they would be quite shocked by the impact this will have on those organisations which play such a vital role in caring for the elderly and those with disabilities. In particular, ACROD has had this to say:It is our considered opinion that the tax reform package will adversely affect both people with disabilities, their families and the charities which serve them.The evidence in the Senate inquiry on this is quite compelling, and I will leave that for another day, except to make the point that, whilst there are beneficial measures in this bill, they are being introduced in an environment which will take a lot more away from carers through the government's tax package. Whilst the measures in this bill are welcome and long overdue, I think the government should reflect on the damage the GST will do.I would now like to consider the measures contained in the bill in some detail. As I said before, whilst we support the bill, we have some serious misgivings about some of the changes it proposes. Schedule 1 of the bill empowers the government to create an adult disability assessment tool for assessing the level of a person's disability. This will replace some of the key criteria for determining entitlement to payments for people caring for those over the age of 16. We are not necessarily opposed to the movement this represents to more objective criteria for assessing disability. Our view depends entirely on the detail of the new assessment method. What we are very concerned about is that, by agreeing with this bill, we are agreeing to the introduction of an assessment tool we have not yet seen. We have seen a draft of the assessment tool but it has not yet been finalised. As the assessment tool is to take the form of a disallowable instrument, we will not be able to seek amendments to it. Our only option, if we have real problems with the instrument, is to try to have it disallowed. This is a very difficult option as the effect of the bill is that, from 1 July 1999, entitlement to certain payments cannot be assessed without the tool. Any delay in implementing the tool after that date will cause delays in assessment of entitlement.We have had some experience with this, and this is why I raise it. I hope government members opposite take note of this, because they would have had experience with the child disability assessment tool already and seen people in their areas who have experienced severe problems with this.The child disability assessment tool was introduced last year. I and many other members in the House have received many complaints from carers, community organisations and the medical profession about the way that this tool is operating. In the House only yesterday we had a private member's motion from the member for Braddon, Mr Sidebottom, who detailed many of the difficulties involved in this area. He was talking particularly about cystic fibrosis—and we have all had some experience with people in this position—and about returning cystic fibrosis to the list of recognised conditions contained in the child disability assessment tool.This motion was prompted by many letters from anxious parents of cystic fibrosis sufferers and their treating doctors. I am pleased to say that the motion received support from government members, the members for Bradfield and Moore. That was good to see. I would like to quote from the speech from the member for Bradfield, Dr Nelson, in response to the motion moved by the member for Braddon, Mr Sidebottom. Dr Nelson said: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.The honourable member concluded by giving his personal support to the motion moved by the member for Braddon, Mr Sidebottom, and urged the team that is currently reviewing the tool to replace cystic fibrosis on the recognised conditions list. It appears that two government members also believe, along with members on this side, that the child disability assessment tool is inadequate in its treatment of this condition.This is a serious issue that has been raised with us by parents and professionals since that tool commenced operation. I do not believe that the government got the child disability assessment tool right and I am now very concerned that they will not get the adult tool right either. Given our experience with the child disability assessment tool, we are concerned about taking the government on trust in this matter.To add to these concerns, the National Epilepsy Foundation of Australia have already raised a serious issue regarding the draft adult disability assessment tool. They say that the draft does not contain enough questions about intermittent or episodic conditions, such as epilepsy, which require constant vigilance and occasional intensive care from a carer rather than constant care on a day-to-day basis. I would urge the government today to look very seriously at this issue.Despite the serious practical problems it might cause, if the final version of the adult assessment tool is likely to lead to significant inequities, those on this side of the House and many in the community organisations that have supported the bill to this stage are going to be put, as I explained before, in a very difficult position. I would urge the government to avoid such an unfortunate possibility. I would urge the government, for example, to provide us and the community organisations with the final version of the tool as quickly as possible to give us sufficient time to consider it and to discuss any problems with the government well before 1 July. I mean that in a very genuine and bipartisan sense.Schedule 1 of the bill also provides that a person is not entitled to carer payment unless they provide constant care for a person who has been given a score of at least 25 under the new tool. This will replace the current criterion that the person being cared for must be `a severely handicapped person'—that is, a person requiring frequent care in connection with their bodily functions or constant supervision to prevent injury because of their disability. The schedule further provides that two people may qualify for the carer payment if the person they are caring for has been given a score of at least 80 under the adult disability assessment tool. This replaces the current rules under which they would be entitled to the payment if the level of disability is severe enough to justify the provision of constant care by more than one person. So far these changes simply reflect the current situation except that certain criteria are to be replaced by an assessment under the new tool.However, the schedule does make three significant and beneficial changes to the carer payment. Firstly, it provides that a person may qualify for the carer payment if they are caring for an adult and a dependent child of the adult, aged under 16, if the adult has been given a score of at least 20 under the new tool and, if the child is aged six or more, the child is sufficiently disabled to qualify a carer for a carer allowance. This beneficial measure extends the current rules for the carer payment.Secondly, the schedule provides that a person may qualify for a carer payment for up to 63 days if they are caring for a disabled person in hospital, provided that if the disabled person were not in hospital the carer would be likely to qualify for the carer payment and the disabled person is either terminally ill or likely to return home after leaving hospital. This does represent a further improvement of the rules for the carer payment and is in addition to the 63-day respite period currently available. So it is a beneficial measure.Thirdly, it extends entitlement to bereavement payments for a person receiving carer payment so that they will qualify for the payments if their partner dies and was receiving a social security benefit for the 12 months prior to their death. Under the current provisions a carer payment recipient is only entitled to bereavement payments if their partner was in receipt of a pension or income support supplement. This beneficial measure will make the rules applying to carer payment consistent with those applying to other payment types.Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to replace the domiciliary nursing care benefit and the child disability allowance with a single new payment to be called `carer allowance' for people caring for adults or children with disabilities. The rate of the carer allowance will be $75.60 per fortnight, which is the current rate for both child disability allowance and domiciliary nursing care benefit. Neither the old payments nor the new allowance are subject to means testing.Where the person is caring for a dependent child under the age of 16, they may qualify for the allowance if the child is given a score of not less than one, or has a recognised disability under the child disability assessment tool, and the person is providing care and attention to the child on a daily basis in their own home. This reflects the current criteria for the child disability allowance.Where a person is caring for a disabled person over the age of 16, they may qualify for the proposed new allowance if the care receiver is given a score of not less than 30 under the new adult disability assessment tool and the person is providing care and attention to the adult on a daily basis in their own home.These rules will replace those for the domiciliary nursing care benefit currently available under the National Health Act 1953. The domiciliary nursing care benefit is currently available to a person who is providing care in their own home for a disabled person over the age of 16 who requires nursing home level care.The new rules improve upon the current provisions in a number of ways. Firstly, moving from assessment based on the question of whether the care receiver needs nursing home level care to assessment under the adult disability assessment tool should make qualifying for the allowance easier. The government says that 14,000 additional carers will qualify, and that will be a good thing. Secondly, the new allowance will be payable for overseas absences of up to 26 weeks. Under the current rules, domiciliary nursing care benefit is not payable during any absences overseas.Thirdly, a person may qualify for a carer allowance for up to 63 days if they are caring for a disabled person in hospital provided that if the disabled person were not in hospital the carer would be likely to qualify for the carer allowance and the disabled person is either terminally ill or likely to return home after leaving hospital. This also represents an improvement of the rules for the domiciliary nursing care benefit and is in addition to the 63-day respite period currently available.Finally, in respect of disabled adults, the new carer allowance will allow backdating of entitlement for up to six months prior to the date on which the claim was lodged. This represents a significant improvement of the rules for the domiciliary nursing care benefit which do not provide for such backdating.Part 2 of schedule 2 makes a number of amendments to the Social Security Act consequential upon the introduction of the new carer allowance. Most of these amendments are technical in nature, but one will impact upon a small number of parenting payment recipients. The amendment in question will prevent a sole parent from qualifying for a parenting payment on the basis that they are receiving a child disability allowance for a child who is over 16 years of age. Under the current rules, a sole parent can qualify for a parenting payment if they have a dependent child who is either under the age of 16, or is a child for whom a child disability allowance is received. As the child disability allowance can currently be paid for a full-time student up to the age of 21, this means that a sole parent can also receive the parenting payment until the child turns 21.Sole parents who lose their parenting payment because of this amendment will need to apply for another form of payment, usually the Newstart allowance, which is paid at the lower rate. I understand that there will be a small number of people affected by this around the country. I have to say I am concerned about that.In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, there are a number of beneficial measures in this bill. The opposition is pleased to support them, but we are concerned not only about the wider environment in which the elderly and the disabled are operating but also that the government's tax package will, in fact, have a severe effect upon them and that these measures will subsequently be eroded by the effect of that impact. We are also, as I said earlier, quite concerned about the new tool. We would like to see from the government a high level of consultation so that it can be introduced to the benefit of all.16:51:004112May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Help is at hand for carers. I am delighted to support the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 which will provide a boost for many people in my electorate who spend so much of their time and energy caring for others. In announcing its staying at home package in April 1998 to allow more elderly Australians to stay in their own homes, the Howard government gave a reassurance that it would look after carers. The package aimed at ensuring that staying at home and receiving community care is a real option for those older Australians who choose to do so.The bulk of this package involves improved services to older people living at home and their carers, including community care packages, respite care, continence management and assessment. The bill gives effect to a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers, including the measures announced in the staying at home package. The bill is an indication that the government is listening to the needs of those people who care for people of all ages.The bill brings into effect a series of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers from 1 July 1999 and introduces a new social security payment—the carer allowance—which combines two existing payments—the child disability allowance for carers of a child up to 16 years of age, and the domiciliary nursing care benefit for carers of adults 16 years of age or more.In June 1998, Australia-wide, there were 101,377 children and students receiving the carers disability allowance. In the 1997-98 program, 45,675 carers were assisted to care for 46,124 people under the domiciliary nursing care benefit. Under the government's changes, people who now receive the current child disability allowance or the domiciliary nursing care benefit will continue to receive the same amount of money.A major benefit of these changes is that the eligibility criteria for the carer allowance for carers of adults will be liberalised to achieve a net increase of 14,000 recipients. This will mean that more Australians will be rewarded by the Howard government for their efforts in caring for individuals who have a disability, are frail aged or chronically ill. It is good news for the people of my electorate that a new category of people eligible for a carer payment has been created, taking into account those who are caring for an adult with a level of disability that is not sufficient to qualify their carer for income support.The carer allowance will not be subject to any income or assets test and will not be taxable. In addition, it will provide a simpler and more consistent system of income supplement for carers of people of all ages with disabilities.The creation of the carer allowance simplifies carer repayments and brings them all into the one department. Combining the child disability allowance and the domiciliary nursing care benefit into one payment delivered through Centrelink will provide carers with a streamlined and simple payment system. In addition, carers will need to deal with only one organisation and fill out one form to arrange their carer payments, making this process easier for carers.Within my electorate, I have more than 300 carers registered with Centrelink to receive social security payments. From feedback received from carers, I am well aware that currently a person cannot qualify for a carer payment where they are caring for an adult who has a disability but that disability does not satisfy the definition of `severely handicapped person'.In cases where an adult has a child, and that adult's carer also cares for the child because the adult's disability means that the adult cannot care for the child himself or herself, the carer may be caring for the adult and child and be unable to work full time. It is good news for the people of my electorate that these changes announced by the government take situations like this into account. The changes extend the carer's qualification for carer payment to persons who are caring for an adult with a disability and that adult's child under 16. The aim is to provide assistance for people who are not only caring full time for the adult with a disability but looking after the child as well.Like everybody, carers need a break. A major boost will be that, when a person being cared for has a terminal illness or is expected to return home after hospital treatment, the carer will continue to qualify for the carer payment or allowance while the person being cared for is in hospital for up to 63 days a year. Previously, carers could not claim child disability allowance, domiciliary nursing care benefit or carer payment when the person they were caring for was hospitalised.The new adult assessment tool to be introduced with these changes will be used when assessing eligibility for carers allowance. This new tool will assess the functional ability of the care recipient on a more consistent basis than in the past. It replaces a rather restrictive and, in general, an unsatisfactory requirement under the domiciliary nursing care benefit that the person being cared for must be in continuing need of nursing home care. In the past, this has had the effect of discriminating between people with similar care needs. It is the government's intention to fix this problem, with the introduction of the new assessment tool, by extending eligibility to more people with cognitive impairments such as dementia, intellectual disability and psychiatric illness.The Howard government has a track record of implementing new positive changes to benefit carers. In every budget since the government came into office, we have introduced measures to improve the situation for carers in terms of income support, respite and access to information. The government has provided additional resources for carer respite centres, and has announced more assistance for ageing carers, and as well has increased the rate of the domiciliary nursing care benefit from $58.30 to $75.10 per fortnight from 1 July 1998.This bill is further evidence of the coalition government's concern for and commitment to carers. I commend the bill to the House.16:58:004113Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 would generally appear to be a positive initiative. It seeks to refine the current legislation that encapsulates a concept that was initially introduced by Neal Blewett in the early 1980s. Labor recognises the importance and the commitment of carers and, in doing so, the importance of giving financial recognition to the role they play in looking after a person with a disability or an elderly person or someone with a terminal illness.It was also a Labor government's initiative that introduced the domiciliary nursing care benefit in 1973. We, on this side of the House, appreciate the role of carers. It is a very hard and often thankless job, born out of a commitment to the person with the disability. Carers save governments millions of dollars each year. The assistance this package will provide is some recognition of the work and commitment to our community.The decision to introduce a single carer allowance to replace the child disability allowance and the domiciliary nursing care benefit should benefit carers and should be more easily accessible and administered. But I do have some concerns, particularly in relation to the adult disability assessment tool. It is essential that carers in Australia receive the recognition they deserve for the hours of care and dedication that many of them give voluntarily. Many carers suffer from lack of sleep; their lives are changed. Many have to give up their lifetime's work, which has often been very important to them. They do not have the same amount of time to socialise, play sport or to mingle with their friends. It is extremely important that governments of every colour and persuasion recognise the work that carers do in our community, and this legislation goes some way towards that.As a person who worked in the area of disability for many years I have seen the commitment of these carers and I know just how much they put into caring for those people. Let us take the example of a person, maybe a young male, with a head injury from a car accident. This young person was once a healthy, vibrant, active young man who may have been involved in sport. He may have been attending university or may have had a job. All of a sudden he has changed from being an active, vibrant person to one who needs nearly 24 hours a day care. He may have undergone a massive personality change. He may even have difficulty walking and toileting—the most basic self care. This person has to be cared for by someone who is prepared to give up their time voluntarily.I was recently talking to a constituent whose young daughter was absolutely brilliant. She was an outstanding student in her second year at university when it was discovered that she had a tumour. She is now confined to a chair, requires assistance 24 hours a day and is unable to see. Without her parents, both of whom have given up their jobs to care for her, she would be institutionalised. The cost to government would be enormous; the cost to that young woman would be enormous. She would not be in a loving, caring environment, would not be surrounded by familiar things, and would not have quality of life, which she has now.One of the issues that is important is to make it easier for people to have two carers. Caring for someone with a spinal injury is nearly a 24-hour a day job. I have worked with many people with spinal injuries. They have been sentenced to spend their life in a chair. These people need to be turned in their beds, fed and looked after in the most basic ways, which is what carers do. They give up their lives and their jobs to care for that person. They provide that care and keep that person out of an institution.You would think that someone with a back injury would be able to look after themselves, that they should be able to cope. I am sure that a number of us here today have occasionally had a twinge in our back. A severe back injury can be very disabling. It can prevent you from carrying out very basic self care, cause you to lose your job and to be totally dependent on other people. The effect of a back injury varies from person to person. That is where I have some problems with the adult disability assessment tool. I am wondering whether that tool will be able to take into account the individual effects that different injuries have on individuals—but I will touch on that more a little later.You may have to care for somebody that suffers from a psychological disability. We all know that schizophrenia does not hit until a person is in their late teens. You can have a young person that had the world at their fingertips and that changes from being a vibrant person to being a person that requires care nearly 24 hours a day. So I see that, once again, this is giving recognition to the people that care for people that have these cognitive and psychological disabilities.I was recently talking to a constituent in the Shortland electorate who lives on the Central Coast. She is a very committed person and one of her friends has a son that is very, very badly affected with cerebral palsy. This young man had been cared for by his mother for some time, but his mother also suffers from a disability and is able to care for herself but unable to care for her son. And this very generous woman has taken that young man into her house and cares for him 24 hours a day. She has to feed him, she has to dress him, she has to look after his most basic needs, but the carer allowance is the only benefit she gets.I must add that she is just a little upset that she is not able to access some other benefits too, because the way she sees it she is saving the government a lot of money. She feels that the domiciliary care nursing benefit that she has been getting goes some way towards helping her and recognising the work that she is doing, but she feels that she should be eligible for some other sort of benefit. Her husband is only on an average wage, and she is doing this because she cares for her friend and cares for the young man she is looking after.That brings us to the elderly. The government has made a commitment to introducing aged care packages in the community which are designed to keep people in their homes longer. In doing that, I think we need to recognise once again the role the carers play. In Shortland electorate we are chronically undersupplied with aged care facilities, particularly in the Central Coast part of the electorate, and the eastern side of Lake Macquarie which Shortland covers is very, very disadvantaged. This package will encourage carers to look after their elderly relatives and friends in the community. In saying that, I must also say that it is not a lot of money, but it is some recognition. But it would be really nice if the government followed up their commitment to carers and this carers package by a commitment to more aged care facilities in Shortland. I would appreciate it and I can assure you that the people of Shortland would be very grateful to the government.These people that are caring for the people that suffer from these disabilities, and for the elderly and the chronically ill, will be the people who will be eligible for the new payment. At least, I hope so. In supporting the legislation, I must express some disappointment and some serious concerns that the adult disability assessment tool is unavailable. I would really like to be able to have a look at it before I say this is a great package. I would really like to know that that assessment tool will ensure that all those carers get access to the new carer payment. This is a significant change to the legislation, and the adult disability assessment tool is a key element of the package. I am sure the government realises that.I am just nervous—nervous that we cannot see it and nervous that this tool that will be used to determine the eligibility may lead to the exclusion of some carers. If the adult assessment disability tool does not work, then the package does not work. It is as simple as that. The package and the success of the package really rely on that adult disability assessment tool.When I look at the changes that were made last year, or came into effect in July last year, to the child disability allowance, I am sure that those on the government side would be aware, as are those of us on this side, that there are a number of problems. There are a number of children and young people that were excluded who had previously been eligible for this allowance. One of the key groups that I feel are particularly disadvantaged in our society are children that suffer from ADDHD. These children are struggling not only to integrate within our society and within their school community but also to learn. These young people definitely require a greater expenditure. If we fail with kids that are suffering from ADDHD, then the cost to our community further down the track will be enormous. A number of studies detail how children that are suffering from this disability later tend to be very disadvantaged, leading to long-term unemployment, crime and all the other things that are associated with people that are extremely socially disadvantaged.Recently a constituent in Shortland came to see me. He has a young boy that was recently diagnosed with diabetes and he has been denied the child disability allowance. I feel quite sure that he would have been eligible before. Because his son is okay when he is not sick he has been denied the allowance. This man has had to give up his job. He has to go to the school six times a day to ensure that the child does not end up in hospital. He has already been hospitalised three times within two weeks recently. It is a great worry.I am worried that the assessment tool will be rigid as the child disability allowance changes have been rigid and that that this will lead to exclusion of people that should be eligible for this disability allowance. This will mean that carers that should be getting this carer allowance will be disadvantaged.The domiciliary care benefit has been criticised for being subjective and unduly restrictive. I am worried that this will be perpetuated in the adult disability assessment tool and that it will also be unduly restrictive and will not ensure that the people who should be getting the allowance do get it.Another thing that worries me greatly is that, when I look at their track record, I am not convinced the government are committed to people with disabilities. The disability panels have been abolished in social security. These panels were working with people with disabilities to assist them to get back into the work force. It was a fine initiative and from personal experience these panels were working. They were saving government money and enabling people with disabilities to have a full and fruitful life. But this government moved away from it.The government's move to privatise the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service has got me extremely worried. The privatisation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service will move the emphasis away from the people with a disability, away from the people that are supposed to be offered that rehabilitation.A government that has abolished the disability review panel, is looking at privatising the CRS, and is introducing a GST, will really disadvantage people who have disabilities, will disadvantage carers, and disadvantage people who are committed to caring for others. It would be most remiss of me if I did not put my concerns on the record. If the adult disability assessment tool in this legislation is not right then it is going to impact on the quality of life of those people with disabilities and the carers.It is all very well to put something like this in place but, if people in the community do not know about it, and if they can only find out about it by accident, then it will be a problem. The government must make sure that it advertises very extensively within the community so that people who are eligible for this carer allowance are aware of it.The other thing that is of great concern to me is the fact that Centrelink is being ravaged by this government. Centrelink staff are in a state of chronic crisis where they are moving from one disaster to another. They cannot cope with the workload that they have now and this is going to put an extra burden on them. The government has to look at making sure that Centrelink is staffed adequately before this bill comes into effect.In conclusion, I would like to recognise the dedication and the commitment of carers—people who care for family, friends and loved ones, because they are good, decent human beings. Without dedicated carers, many of the disabled, elderly and chronically ill people whom they care for would be institutionalised. Everyone would be a loser: those that are being cared for, the carers, and the government that would have to find the money to meet the increased costs associated with the institutionalisation of those people who are being cared for.I sincerely hope that the adult disability assessment tool is workable and that this legislation does benefit Australian carers. I sincerely hope that this time the government is genuinely committed to people with disabilities and the elderly in our community, and that there is not some hidden trick in the legislation where it is really going to turn around and bite those people whom it is seeking to benefit.17:18:004117Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I would like to speak about the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , but before I do I would like to comment on the statements made by the member for Lilley. The member for Lilley deserves to be reprimanded by his constituents for his outrageous, irresponsible and scaremongering comments about costs being increased for the disabled because of the GST. To make comments like that is a cheap political stunt that is made at the expense of those less fortunate than most. It shows the scant regard he holds for the people of Australia. He knows full well there will be no GST on those services.This bill provides several measures designed to improve assistance to carers. It will finetune the federal coalition's Staying at Home package announced in April 1998 and enhance earlier programs initiated by this and other governments. The first measure is the introduction of a new payment, the carer allowance, which combines two existing payments—the child disability allowance and the domiciliary nursing care benefit.The carer allowance is a payment to people who are caring for someone who has a disability, or who is frail, or who is chronically ill. It provides non-means tested assistance with the extra costs of providing care. It is not to be confused with the carers payment which provides means tested income support. The carer allowance streamlines the previous system where, as most people move from one age group to another, their type of assessment, care and payment all have to be changed over to another system and another type of payment. It was, as it sounds, all very confusing.Now, while there are differing criteria for eligibility according to child or adult status, the two payments that make up the carer allowance will be broadly aligned. The other benefit is that carers will now have to deal with only one organisation, and this is because the previous domiciliary nursing care benefit has been transferred from Health and Aged Care to Family and Community Services.My office recently received a call from a constituent who has five children. Three of these five children have disabilities. One of my daughters contracted a disability that required a lot of medical expense and lots of time in hospital for some seven years. The whole household lived with the difficulties created by long absences from home spent at hospitals, the breakdown of routines, the lack of normal support mechanisms and the insecurity and emotions that these all bring. My mother also required increasing amounts of care in the months before she died, so I do have some understanding of the special requirements for carers and for the people receiving the care and for the rest of their families.However, I cannot begin to imagine how difficult life as a parent could become while looking after the needs of three children with disabilities. I know that just looking after children can sometimes be extremely difficult, without having the disabilities. Carers are people who give their time selflessly to look after the needs of others who are frail aged or have a disability. Often carers give up jobs and financial security to take care of people at home who need them. There is no holiday pay, no sick pay, no workers compensation or superannuation. The job that carers take on is a lifetime one. They are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Their commitment ensures that their loved ones and those for whom they care remain in a familiar environment and out of nursing homes, hospitals or other institutions.Previously, a tool existed to test the functionality of a child to determine that child's level of ability. The results would provide a scientific basis on which to determine entitlement. There was no such tool for adults. Carers for adults received entitlements based on subjective opinion. There was no standardised scientific basis on which to make decisions on entitlement. With this amendment, it is this government that is now introducing the adult disability assessment tool.Carers work tirelessly, motivated not by money or power but by generosity and kindness, and they will know that their claims have been assessed using a standard methodology. The generosity of many carers has gone hand in hand with an amount of financial hardship. This government has recognised that something must be done to ease this financial burden. The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is the result. Accordingly, the eligibility criteria for the carer allowance has been liberalised—pardon the pun—to achieve a net increase of 14,000 carers. Australia, through the federal government, needs to assist and commend carers in this society.This government has a good record in its responsiveness to the needs of carers. The extension to the carer payment, introduced last year, assisted carers of children with profound disabilities under 16 years of age. The coalition government's further extension to the carer payment will allow for carers who must care for an adult as well as care for a dependent child or children of that adult. This must surely be good news to people whose responsibility as carers also embraces the extended family of the person with a disability. Often carers are forced to rely on the generosity of their friends and neighbours to help them out when they need a break or they simply need to dash to the shops. Should this occur, be it for one hour or for a weekend, the carer payment can assist with payment for respite care.Parents of young children who do not go out to work become quite adept at setting up that network of people who help each other. It is not so with carers of people with disabilities, as this sort of support network is not always easy to find. People who are not used to helping people with disabilities often feel unable to cope and consequently the need for regular respite is greater and generally must be paid for to ensure appropriate quality care. The extension to the carer payment will provide welcome additional financial support for parents and carers who have a very high caring load. It will, I believe, not only lighten their financial load a little but also make having a break less stressful.As an example, Beth Sanson, from my electorate of Gilmore, is the Secretary of the Council of People with Multiple Sclerosis on the South Coast. She has had MS for nine years, and her husband, Gordon, left work to care for her. According to Beth, caring for someone with MS can be different from day to day, as the illness can take different forms each day. Progressive MS gets steadily worse until the sufferer is completely disabled. They require full-time care, from getting them out of bed in the morning to showering, feeding and toileting. Other sufferers get attacks of MS which can render them partially paralysed for days or months at a time.Beth does not need 24 hours a day care, but she cannot do a lot of the things she used to—things that we take for granted. For example, Beth can put the washing in the machine, but cannot hang it out or bring it in when it is dry as she cannot stand up long enough to do that. If she wakes up in the middle of the night, her husband has to help her to the bathroom, as she finds it difficult to get off the bed.Beth welcomes the changes to the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 because she said that it will at least give her a little extra money to enable both her and her husband to get the benefits from some respite care. She said that they both need a break, but she knows that Gordon finds it difficult to leave her unless he knows she is in good care.In the area from Berry to Ulladulla, the Council of People with Multiple Sclerosis has compiled a list of the people with MS. There are 47 people listed with the organisation. In the area from Wollongong to Bega, 300 MS sufferers are listed with the organisation. However, Beth believes there may be twice as many in both areas, but there are some people who do not choose to be part of the support group for various reasons.The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 meets the needs of the community. I applaud the government for having the vision to see this and the commitment to do something about it. When the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 was announced, I wrote a press release, which was published in the local papers. My office was then inundated by people requesting further information. Therefore, I know that there is a need for more assistance. The government is meeting this need and the number of people eligible to receive the carer allowance will be dramatically increased. In fact, an extra 14,000 people who care for others less fortunate will be able to receive financial assistance. More good news is that the carer allowance will not be subject to any income or assets test and will not be taxed.Carer allowance and carer payment can be claimed and paid while the care recipient is in hospital for up to 63 days in any calendar year. A bereavement payment will be paid on the death of the care recipient. Easing the financial burden for carers is an acknowledgment by this government that being a carer, although in most cases a labour of love, is also a job and one that deserves financial recognition.The response from the people of Gilmore has shown me that the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is well supported in the community and welcomed by those who give selflessly to others. The changes to the carer payment have come about through extensive consultation with the Carers Association of Australia. The association is supportive of measures in this bill and, even though the financial assistance may be less than the association would have liked, the eligibility criteria and the administration of the payments will all be vastly improved.Similarly, this government will be communicating with the Carers Association of Australia to revisit the changes after they have been implemented and address issues as they arise. I welcome feedback from the Gilmore community and look forward to comments and constructive criticism should there be any.17:28:004120Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—The opposition does support the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , but we still have serious concerns over the introduction of significant changes to the way the eligibility for many of these payments will be assessed prior to the finalisation and the availability of the adult disability assessment tool, which is a key part of that assessment.The basis of the need for governments to provide financial and social support to Australian carers is that those carers actually save our government around $16 billion a year. The largely unrecognised work of carers translates into over $700 a week cost savings for each person who does not have to enter a nursing home. The carers looking after these people survive on around $200 a week.This legislation is another small step in providing carers with the resources they need to be able to care for their loved ones at home for as long as possible. Government financial resources are minimal and previous eligibility criteria could have ruled out that support for some.I hope that the adult disability assessment tool will alleviate some of those restrictions on families and we in the Labor Party will be insisting that the government do provide us with the final version of the assessment tool at the earliest possible time. If there are then significant problems with it, we will have no option but to seek to have it disallowed. Let us hope that this is not necessary. We will also want the government to commit itself to review the operation of this legislation to ensure that no Australian family is worse off.I will turn to some background to the carers legislation. Social security income support for people caring for adults with disability originated with the creation of the spouse carers pension in December 1983. It was a Hawke Labor government initiative that introduced the original carer discrete income support payment. It was payable to the husband of a severely handicapped aged or invalid pensioner or rehabilitation allowee who required constant care and attention, either permanently or for an extended period. The care had to be provided by the husband in person and in the matrimonial home. The husband could only receive the spouse carers pension if he was ineligible for an age, invalid or service pension. The rates and the conditions were the same as for the wife pension.From November 1985 this payment was renamed the carer pension and made available to anyone caring for a severely handicapped relative who was an age or invalid pensioner. The care had to be provided by the carer in person and the carer had to live in the home of the handicapped relative. From February 1988 the carer pension could be paid to a carer who was not a relative of the person being cared for. The requirement that constant care and attention was necessary was removed. It was replaced by a stricter requirement that personal care in connection with bodily functions, including eating, toileting and medication, or constant supervision to prevent injury to the person or others, were required.From January 1991 the carer pension was made available for people caring for a severely handicapped person in receipt of any income support payment. Carers who lived in neighbouring dwellings to those in which the person they cared for lived were also made eligible for the carer pension. From July 1993 carers were allowed to cease care for a total of 42 days in a calendar year—up from 28—and still be eligible for the carer pension. They were also allowed to travel overseas during the periods when they were not giving care. Carers were also allowed to participate in employment, education or training for up to 10 hours a week and were allowed to accompany the person being cared for overseas for up to three months without losing their entitlement.From March 1996 the carer pension was paid for 14 weeks after the permanent institutionalisation of the person who had been receiving care. Carer pension was payable where the person receiving care was not in receipt of a social security payment. The carer was no longer required to live in the same house or in an adjacent house to the person being cared for. This is how the carers legislation has evolved. From July carer pensioners were eligible for advanced pension payments of between $250 and $500 to assist with living or capital expenses.In July 1997 the carer pension was renamed the carer payment. The number of hours that the carer could spend in employment, voluntary work, education or training was extended and the number of days that a carer might temporarily cease caring in a calendar year was increased. From July 1998 eligibility for the carer payment was extended to carers of profoundly disabled children under 16 years of age. Carers were able to cease caring for up to 63 days in a calendar year and still qualify for the carer payment.In July 1998 there were nearly 34,000 people receiving carer payments, with total outlays of $270 million in 1997-98. At the moment there are nearly 12,000 people caring for people who are on an age pension. There are more than 18,500 people caring for people who are on a disability support pension. There are just over 3,500 people who are on a carer payment where it is not indicated that the people they are caring for are on any other kind of social security payment.As previous speakers have indicated, caring does bring its own rewards but the work is unpaid, unrelenting and around the clock. The chores involved include feeding, washing, lifting, toileting, giving medication, transporting, coordinating medical practitioners and filling out forms. Carers get little sleep, emotional support or respite.Carers who fulfil these tasks are mainly women. A breakdown includes 39 per cent adult offspring, mainly daughters, caring for their parents; 23 per cent are spouses or partners, mostly elderly wives caring for husbands; 20 per cent are parents, mostly mothers, caring for children. The remainder are caring for a range of other relatives, usually elderly.Carers must also deal with a wide and diverse range of disabilities and behavioural problems, including some that have been mentioned here today: diabetes, stroke, dementia, heart disease, cancer, arthritis, asthma, multiple sclerosis, musculoskeletal problems, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, development delay and various psychiatric disorders. Half the care recipients have multiple conditions.A common feature of caring for a relative with a long-term illness or disability is dealing with problem behaviour. In a recent survey, about 38 per cent of carers found their relatives' behaviour `difficult' or `very difficult' to cope with. About two-thirds experienced at least one frequent behaviour problem. The most common of these were repetition of questions and stories, listlessness and fatigue, inability to concentrate, crankiness or irritability and forgetfulness. Over half the carers surveyed indicated that relatives `often' or `sometimes' behaved in these ways. Attention seeking, hyperactivity, uncooperativeness, depression and fearfulness were also common. Over one in four carers recorded aggression in their relatives and one in 10 physical violence.Another major problem facing carers, which I think all members would agree with, is the need for respite care. While this legislation extends the time available for respite, and we welcome that, it really is not much good for our communities where that respite care is not available.The complaints I hear from my carer constituents are that there are not enough respite facilities available or that those facilities are not appropriate to the needs of the carer or the patients. The expense of in-home respite care puts that out of reach of most of my constituents. All of the local community options packages are full and there are 12-month waiting lists for residential respite care in nursing homes.With our ageing population, however, there is a myriad of services available to these families and many of these are funded under the Home and Community Care program by the Commonwealth government. These services in my area around Lake Macquarie include the Alkira Respite Centre, the Carers Action Network, Carers New South Wales, Hunter Carer Respite Centre, Dementia Support, the Community Aged Care Packages, the Aged Care Rights Service, the Independent Living Centre, the Lake Macquarie Council—Ageing and Disability Worker, the Newcastle Council—Ageing and Disability Worker, the Lake Macquarie/Newcastle Home and Community Care support project, the Pensioners Advisory Service and the Program of Appliances for Disabled People.There are also many support groups which operate and which are gladly appreciated by my constituents who require those support groups. They include the Newcastle Agoraphobic Self-Help Group, Cleft Pals, the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability, the Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team of Lake Macquarie, AMPS for amputees and associates, the Spina Bifida Support Group and the Stroke and Disability Information Service. And other support groups are around for sufferers and carers of people with anorexia nervosa, arthritis, attention deficit disorder, autism, cancer, cardiac and open heart, cerebral palsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, colostomy, cystic fibrosis, deafness and hypoglycaemia.There are support groups also for Down syndrome, Huntingdon's disease, muscular dystrophy and musculoskeletal problems, sudden infant death syndrome, sight defects, Parkinson's disease and Paget's disease. There are probably many more support groups in my electorate and in the electorates of other honourable members who will be participating in this debate this evening.The Alkira Respite Service which operates from my home town of Toronto is run by a group of hardworking, dedicated people who are committed to the work they are doing and who do much more than their funding suggests. These people include Betty Lawton, the coordinator of Alkira Respite Service; Pat Jones, who relieves Betty as coordinator; Lavina Staader, the activities officer at Alkira; Heather Riley, Kim Tobin and Jeanette Tudgery, who are nurses with Alkira; and Lenore Goodliff, the administrator. There are many more casuals and volunteers who give their time, their commitment, and their dedication to assist carers who are looking for respite care.Alkira also works closely with our local Community Options. Ann Mearrick is the coordinator of that group. As many other speakers would find, as I find when I go around my constituency and attend meetings of support groups and support organisations, many of these people are the same people who turn up all the time. I applaud and pay tribute to many of those workers in our community who give so much time to those more in need.I would like to conclude with a reference to the funding which is allocated through home and community care forums and the funding which is allocated to the organisations that support carers. The level of funding is not enough, as I indicated before. The shortfall could have been alleviated by the $1.7 billion that this government paid for private health insurance rebates. This $1.7 billion could have gone into reducing hospital waiting lists. Five hundred million dollars would have eliminated hospital waiting lists across the country.Part of the $1.7 billion which was allocated for private health insurance rebates could have gone to in-home and residential respite care. There could have been more for daycare respite. There could have been more assistance offered in this package, from that $1.7 billion, to carers. There could have been more money given to nursing homes so that it does not cost people when they do eventually have to go into a nursing home.There was reference made by the previous speaker, the member for Gilmore, to a GST on health services; she indicated that most of these health services will not attract a GST—Mr Hardgrave interjecting—83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—These health services will not attract a GST, of course, but there will be a GST applied to every other good that a carer buys and every other service that a carer uses.Some of these expenses that other families in our communities do not have to face include home renovations and modifications around the home to enable the person that they love and care for to stay at home a lot longer. Another expense is services such as taxis which carers have to use a lot more often than the average family that does not have to provide care for somebody with a severe disability.A GST will apply to electricity bills which are already much higher because of health requirements within the home. Therapeutic swimming pools will attract a GST. Special dietary requirements will attract a GST, as will sanitary needs. Any extra leisure activities pursued by the carer and the person whom they are caring for will attract a GST.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—So even though the GST may not be applied to some health services, families in my electorate that try to provide care for their loved ones in their homes for as long as possible, and who try to live on $200 a week, will be worse off with a GST. I reiterate: they could have been better off if the government had spent the $1.7 billion, provided for private health insurance rebates, on making life easier for carers and their families.17:45:004123Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Whenever members of the Australian Labor Party opposition speak on any matter relating to aged care a very simple theme always develops. While they offer the big scare, the coalition offers the big care. There is a definite difference between those opposite and those who are in government.There is no doubt about it, when we came to power after 13 years of those opposite running this nation, it was the area of aged care, nursing homes in particular, which stood out as an area crying out for instant help and reworking. The fact is they defunded the area of nursing homes over a number of years as some sort of penalty to try to get nursing home operators to bring on capital works. All that did was fail.We then brought in a system adopting completely the approach that they had taken on hostels. But do you think those opposite would offer support when we mimicked their policy that had worked quite effectively in the area of hostels? No, it was the big scare. It was the big scare targeting older Australians day in, day out for months on end. I am on the record on so many occasions as saying that the member for Jagajaga and her cohorts needed to be condemned for that big scare.Today, the member for Lilley, who seems to have adopted the mantle of the big scare after his three years of exile in the paddock—as I think he calls it—is now back on the white horse of scaring older Australians. So too is the member for Charlton. I was, until the last few minutes, going to associate myself with some of her comments in regard to recognising the real heroes of the carer community in her electorate. In fact, I think carers are the untold heroes of Australia and deserve the sort of support contained in the measures before us. But the member for Charlton adopted the big scare herself and decided to highlight things that were going to go up as a result of a GST. One she mentioned was sanitary items but, of course, every sanitary item has a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on it.And did the Australian Labor Party offer any compensation to older Australians, disabled Australians or Australians in need when they increased wholesale sales taxes from 20 per cent to 22 per cent after the 1993 election? No. At least this government—the Howard government—is progressing along the path of recognising that costs will rise in some areas as a result of the changes to the taxation system and there will be compensation in such forms as: an up-front increase in pensions; holding on to the nexus between pensions and the male average weekly earnings—25 per cent of average weekly earnings will be the benchmark; and pensions will be tied at 1.5 per cent ahead of the CPI. These are all good reasons why this government can be said in fact to be in care mode while Labor continues in scare mode.The member for Forde, who was in the chamber until a few moments ago, had a long and distinguished career in the area of disability services. Listening to the contributions from those opposite, she remarked to me that Labor never did the sorts of things this government is doing in the area of care and carers and care for disability services, and I believe the member for Forde is 100 per cent correct on that.Whilst it was never stated by those opposite it was certainly implied in the contribution of members to the debate today—a continuation of the early debates about nursing home funding arrangements in the 38th Parliament—that Labor has this philosophical notion that, when Australians reach a certain age, families no longer have the prime responsibility for care, and that, rather, institutionalisation is the answer. I found that particularly offensive.I actually put that to a meeting of people concerned about these matters, held in the Palomar Room at Sunnybank about 18 months ago. They realised that the automatic assumption that people reaching old age must be in a nursing home for some reason or other was a worrying philosophical underpinning of the Labor Party argument.Most families understand their responsibilities and will do their very best to provide the care and attention that those in their family need as a first port of call. This government is doing something about assisting them. We are doing something about helping families realise that responsibility that they do, in the main, want to take on. Through these measures here today we are offering some additional assistance, a package of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers, making sure that there is a clearer cut and more understandable definition and better allowances, through eligibility criteria, for people who are carers of adults, liberalising it—if you like—to increase the number of recipients of benefits by 14,000.I know that in my own electorate there is a crying need for assistance, particularly amongst those who are the carers of adults; parents who have gone through the emotional tragedy of finding their child afflicted with a disability at birth who is then denied the natural consequence of working, growing older and retiring. Instead they have to continue to look after a disabled child. As until now there has never been the sort of assistance they needed, it has been, I am sure, an absolute lifelong tragedy for them.I know that the people at Soubirous Place—which our Lady of Lourdes Church at Sunnybank opened a couple of years ago and received substantial assistance for from this government—provide direct daytime respite for parents of the adult disabled in my electorate. I congratulate the work of the people in places such as that. I know that families undergo stress when they are taking on the role of caring for older relatives. They watch the person whom they looked up to as a child, and from whom they got all of the life skills that we all hope parents can pass on to their children, losing dignity.I am thinking in particular about my own family and how my parents did everything they could for my grandparents. My father's father realised, I guess, in his own mind, that it was no longer a possibility for my father to look after him and he moved out of my parents' home where he had stayed for a couple of years. He went into a hostel and paid his bond money—there was never any argument about that—and he ended his life six weeks after moving into a nursing home, just a few months ago; a nursing home where, again, he fulfilled the government's requirements. He was a proud man who was never afraid to stand on his own two feet and do his darned best.It is people like that that this bill is really all about. This government is all about supporting those who want to realise the personal priorities that they establish for themselves and their families, whether through birth or simply the degeneration of the body and mind as life progresses. I congratulate the government for having this sort of resolve in the area of assistance to carers. I believe this bill will, in fact, provide the sort of certainty that a lot of carers want.But let us not kid ourselves that everything is always as good as it could be. I think we all understand that we would like to put as much effort as we could into assisting those who, of course, we can relate to in a personal way. I think it is worth noting for the record that, as a member of parliament from Queensland, I continue to have concern about the slowness of coalescing of nursing home payments which the government pays—federal funding, if you like—for nursing home residents in my state of Queensland. In fact, in comparison with Tasmania, Queensland continues to have a funding deficit of $7,391 per person per year for category 1 nursing home patients—a considerable deficit. In fact, $89.74 is paid per resident per day for category 1 in Queensland, while $109.99 is paid in Tasmania. That is no criticism of the circumstances that Tasmanians find themselves in but, in comparison with Queensland, Tasmanians do very well out of federal funding for nursing homes.I am looking forward to receiving the final version of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into this matter, because it is important that Queenslanders understand that they are getting a fair and equitable set of circumstances from federal government funding to nursing homes in Queensland. The solution that has been put forward by lobbyists from Aged Care Queensland is budget neutral. It does not disadvantage other states and I hope the government will look closely at it.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will be disturbed to know that disparity occurs simply because of what occurred in the Hawke government era in 1987, and this government again is left with another mess in the area of nursing homes to try to fix up. It is also worth noting that those who are already receiving domiciliary care benefit or child disability allowance currently need to understand what will happen when the carer allowance is introduced on 1 July this year. The people who are already receiving these sorts of payments will continue to receive the same amount of money but it will be called carer allowance. Reviews of entitlements will continue to be conducted, of course on a regular basis, to make sure that both the child and adult streams of carer allowance are commensurate with the cost involved and so forth.The new adult disability assessment tool will also be used for reviews of the adult stream of carer allowance, including recipients of child disability allowance who are currently receiving payments for a student child over the age of 16 with a disability. There will be reviews of their circumstances, and other people currently receiving child disability allowance for a child under the age of 16 will be reviewed and tested under the adult disability assessment tool at the same time as their child's 16th birthday.Essentially this government is getting on with sensible measures, measures which will offer the sort of dignity that those who receive the care as well as those who give the care deserve. I think it is important that all in this place do pay a great deal of tribute to those people who are the untold heroes of this nation. That both sides of this chamber are supporting the measures contained in the government's bill—while, of course, taking the opportunity to make their comments, to make their observations, on how to enhance them—is recognition that both sides of politics see the need to give everything we can to those who give everything they have to those who deserve everything they can get. I commend the bill to the House.17:57:004126Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—While the opposition support the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , we have a number of reservations, which have been outlined. The shadow minister, Wayne Swan, did a particularly good job of outlining some of those reservations, as did Kelly Hoare. She made a particularly good speech that certainly did not warrant the sorts of comments that it drew from the member for Moreton, who has just sat down.There is an immense amount of work that is yet required to be done in relation to caring and disability issues generally. While it is fine for government members to get up here and say what a great job the government is doing, as the previous speaker did, I think one has only to go out into the community, particularly the disabled community, to talk to some of the people and to listen to them tell some of the horrific stories about the way their lives are impacted on and the way they are affected when they simply set out to care for someone with a disability, particularly when that someone is a family member, to see what still needs to be done.I was recently adopted under the Adopt a Politician program, a scheme which was initiated in Western Australia. The family that adopted me was a family by the name of Edwards in my electorate—no relation—and, through that relationship with the father, Ian Edwards, and the son Alex, I have come to get a pretty good understanding of the incredible commitment that, in this instance, a single father has to make to look after a severely disabled son; a commitment which he has made for many years, and a commitment which he is happy to go on making. But the amount of government support he gets is negligible. Not only is it negligible but, because of the stand-off between the states and the attitude being taken by the minister responsible, and given that funding arrangements are not yet in place, his son is being even further disadvantaged.This government really needs to wake up to the problems that it is causing unnecessarily in this area. I would certainly urge the member who spoke before me to perhaps get out into the community and have a look at some of those real problems and some of the people that are carrying the burden of this government's neglect in this area.I want to speak about a different aspect from those raised by others. I want to refer to parts 2, 3 and 4 of schedule 1, which makes some minor technical amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. In my view, these amendments do not go far enough, and I will go through them and explain why I am saying that.I have been approached by a person who provides some financial support to a person who is a quadriplegic. In approaching me, this person has outlined to me how this particular client—and I will give his name: it is a Mr Dario Sinibaldi—requires care around the clock. In 1991 he was awarded a lump sum to pay for his cost of living independently from an institution. He does not want to go into an institution; he prefers to stay in a home environment.Mr Sinibaldi is a quadriplegic. He has no use of his feet or legs and very little use of his arms and hands. He is immobile, other than through the use of an electronically controlled wheelchair. He relies totally on carers for his every requirement: feeding, bathing, getting into and out of bed, drinking, turning over. As I said, my constituent chooses to live alone. He values his independence. He likes to be at home; he does not want to be in an institution. But he recognises and accepts that he has care for about 18 out of 24 hours. He probably needs care for 24 hours, but he simply cannot afford it.There are two issues at stake which I want to develop. I simply ask the minister to have a look at these issues and perhaps at some later stage of this debate he might be able to come back to me. If he cannot come back to me today, I would accept that, but I would really appreciate the minister's views on the things that I am about to outline. The first issue is whether Mr Sinibaldi should be entitled to a tax deduction for his cost of employing carers, or whether he should only receive the current available rebate, which is 20 cents in the dollar over and above expenditure of about $1,250 a year—I am not certain of that figure. The other issue is that the cost of providing amenities for carers is currently subject to neither a rebate nor an allowable tax deduction. I simply ask that the minister have a look at these issues and perhaps he might be able to take them on board.But in developing the argument about the first issue, which is that carers' wages should be tax deductible, I will just say this: Mr Sinibaldi's funds are carefully invested, so as to produce sufficient income to meet his expenses, and these expenses are quite considerable. His carers' wages are $75,000 per annum. Costs for carers' amenities are in the vicinity of $2,340 per annum. His personal living costs are about $20,000 per annum. That amounts of $97,340 per annum.The generation of this income means that my constituent is liable to pay tax at the top marginal rate of 49.6 per cent, which is inclusive of the Medicare levy on nearly $50,000 of his income. The income generated goes, in the main, to pay his carers. He pays tax on that income and, in turn, the carers pay tax on their earnings. As I understand it, he is entitled to claim a rebate of 20c against his medical costs. That only partly defrays the 49.6 per cent income tax liability on the bulk of his income. He is left with a situation where he has a tax liability of about $35,000 each year.He has that liability because he is a quadriplegic who requires care. As I said, he has to generate a lot of income to cover those costs—something like $130,000 per annum before he pays tax and the other carers' costs about which I spoke. Of course, he also needs to generate the amount of about $20,000 needed for his personal living expenses. I might say that while he is outside of an institution and in a home he lives quite frugally. I have actually visited him in his home and he looks after his dollars; he simply has to. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, would probably understand how difficult it is in today's economic environment to generate that sort of an income.Going back to the rebate, it seems that the rebate was conceived as being a fair method of compensating people for medical costs without encouraging unnecessary spending. It was probably also implemented without thought for people in my particular constituent's situation, but with bracket creep affecting tax on earnings and with the continually rising cost of living, clearly the rebate does not fairly compensate people with higher incomes required to meet medical expenses.As my constituent was awarded his lump sum to enable him to live independently, it seems only fair that he be given an opportunity to use his funds for that purpose rather than seeing those funds largely being absorbed in taxes. He is currently eating into his capital, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it seems that in the foreseeable future he is going to find it harder to generate the sort of income that he requires to live independently and to pay his carers. What is going to happen is that he is going to find himself, if he is not cautious, back in an institution or relying on some other public monies to enable him to have the sort of care that he wants.That is why I am saying that parts 2, 3 and 4 of schedule 1, which make these minor technical amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Acts do not really go far enough. That is why I want to take this opportunity during this debate to get the minister to perhaps have a look at the issues that I am raising. We all know that five minutes prevention can often negate a whole lot of problems further down the track.In relation to my constituent, carers come in for 18 of the 24 hours per day, and two carers are in the house for four hours in the morning. As I said, he would really like to have care for 24 hours but it is just not something he can afford. The cost of running his home is largely related to the cost of his carers. More than half of all household items consumed and depreciated would relate to use and wear and tear by carers for their own reasonable amenity.The expenses attached to the day-to-day requirements of the carers are simply an extension of his medical carer costs. While this is only $2,340 per annum, the income that must be generated to pay these costs attracts the top marginal tax rate, as I have explained. As these expenses are purely the result of his need for care, perhaps this item should also be subject to either the medical rebate or treated as a tax deductible item because without carers the costs would not be incurred.I will give you an itemisation of these costs as they were presented to me. Carers sleep in the house overnight, every night, which means that a room must be kept solely for the use of carers. Each carer requires freshly laundered bed linen, evening tea and coffee, a morning meal and a morning shower. Expenses relating to the provision of these facilities for carers are: laundry goods; wear and tear on the washing machine; power; tea, coffee, toast, cereals and fruit et cetera; and cooking utensils and the power that they consume.He goes on to tell me that there needs to be the replacement of linen every nine to 12 months, for example, three sets of sheets and pillowcases. Doona covers, mattress protectors and other bedroom items require replacement less often. The bed and mattress depreciate and require replacement probably on a 10-year or so rotation. Toiletries and cleaning goods such as soap, toilet paper and general maintenance, including light bulbs, also need to be taken into account for the 12 hours that the overnight carers work.Generally, the things I have listed here are the things that, as we go about our general day-to-day living as able-bodied persons, we would consume and use ourselves. But, as I have said, because this bloke requires carers—not just one carer, but a number of carers over the course of the day—the use of these things is much more pronounced. The use is probably similar to that of a family with three or four kids rather than an individual, as this person is, living in a home and trying to stay independent, trying to stay away from the government purse, and trying to stay out of an institution.He goes on to tell me that he estimates that a sum of about $5 per day would cover consumables, and the depreciation of furniture could either be calculated on a straight line basis over 10 years, or that a flat sum of $10 per week could be allowed for wear and tear and replacement. In total, he believes that the cost would realistically be $5 by seven days, plus $10 per week, which equals $45 per week, or $2,340 per annum, which I mentioned as the figure he has come up with.Having visited Mr Sinibaldi I know that he lives conservatively, and he keeps costs down as a matter of necessity. He needs to do this to ensure that he is not running over his budget, and to ensure that the dollars he is generating as a result of his investments are there to pay for the type of care that he requires. As I said, as conservative as he is, it is very difficult to foresee his future and to foresee where his investments might be and what they will be generating two or three years down the track.I apologise if I have strayed a little bit further than the bill would normally have taken me, but I think it is important when we talk about carers to look at both sides of the coin. Here I have given you a situation where the government has brought forward a bill which the opposition has said it supports. We have voiced reservations to that support, but in giving that support, as I am today speaking on the bill, I also wanted to draw to the attention of the minister and of the committee, this other side of the coin so that we can see that there is still a lot of work required. I do not want to get into a debate about the GST, and perhaps some will argue that this bloke will get some relief under a GST given the income that he is generating, but we do not know what impact he will suffer as a result of the GST and perhaps that is something that the minister could have a look at.I will conclude my remarks fairly soon, but I did want to reiterate that which I said at the start of my comments on this bill. None of us in this place should lose sight of the need for those who are in receipt of care to have that care delivered in a dignified way, and neither should we lose sight of the need for those who provide the care to be able to do it in a dignified way. Giving care, either on a professional basis, or on a basis where you are looking after someone who is a family member, where you are not being paid, requires a great degree of commitment. I have great respect for people in that situation where they have to give care, and I think that we in this place, regardless of which side we sit on, should do all in our power to ensure that that dignity is there as much as it possibly can be.18:17:004129Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I sympathise wholeheartedly with the previous speaker, the member for Cowan, and his story about his constituent and the care that is required around the clock. It is a very intensive process and he made a great and painstaking effort today to go through the daily costs of a person who is at home, who has a disability and requires constant care. People like Mr Sinibaldi—and I hope I have said that correctly— have the choice to stay at home because of a number of aspects that this government has brought in that were not there before. It is always preferable to stay in one's home and be in the comfort and the familiar surrounding of one's home. People like that constituent would not have been able to stay at home had we not brought in a vast array of measures in the particular area that we are all speaking on today.I sympathise with the member for Cowan. I know the problems of caring for elderly relatives. I meet regularly with people in the community who have to care for people with disabilities, and the enormous strain that imposes on their daily lives and their family lives is very apparent to all of us in this room. I know that there is a great deal more that can be done and I would not hesitate to recommend that more be done in this area for people. But it needs to be brought to the attention of member for Cowan that this government has achieved a great deal, and I would like to reiterate some of those things that we have done.When the Howard government came into office in 1996 we inherited a system and an economy on the edge of collapse. In that time we have managed through our economic policies to reshape some of those mismanaged and misguided policies of those Hawke-Keating Labor years. The previous Labor government was driving the economy into the ground. They ignored so many areas because of their rather arrogant and indifferent attitude towards the plight of the people that we are speaking about today, battling Australians.The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , unlike so many that have come here before under Labor, will address the needs of an average group of Australians who provide the community with an incredibly valuable service. The fine work that they do must be reiterated—and at little or no cost in the past. The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 recognises the demanding work and the hardship that comes with being a carer. It is a 24-hour job and a very relentless one at that. But the carers that I speak to do it with great compassion and great love.It is a bill that redresses the balance in an area that was neglected by the previous Labor government. The provisions in this bill deliver on the government's April 1998 Staying at Home package. That was quite a revolutionary package, which made life a lot easier for hundreds of thousands of Australians. These measures that we are speaking about here today will go a long way towards making life much easier for carers.The principal reform of the bill is the introduction of a new social security payment, the carer allowance. This carer allowance will combine two existing payments: the child disability allowance payment and the domiciliary nursing care benefit. It actually makes it a more simple system. The child disability allowance formerly provided a benefit to the carers of children up to the age of 16. Conversely, the domiciliary nursing care benefit was paid to carers of people aged 16 or more.In this bill, the carer allowance will bring the two together. The combination of these two payments will also be complemented by a liberalisation of the eligibility criteria for the new carer allowance. The current eligibility criteria do not really allow for sufficient flexibility in the recognition of the role of carers of adult sufferers. For example, as it stands at the moment, access to domiciliary nursing care benefit is based on whether or not the carer requires ongoing nursing care and also on whether or not the person would be eligible for nursing home care. This poses a real problem for many carers of people of adult age in that it locks them really out of the benefit because of the rigid definition of the role of a carer.The criteria also fail to recognise and include people who care for people who need high level care. The previous speaker mentioned a person in that particular position, a high level care person who needs constant supervision but does not need continuous nursing care. Carers of dementia sufferers and of people with multiple disabilities are therefore ineligible. The Howard government believes that these carers should be eligible for assistance and that is why this bill introduces a new assessment method for the carer allowance for the adult stream, and I would like to commend that recognition.Schedule 1, part 1 of the bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to create the adult disability assessment tool. The new assessment tool will ease the eligibility criteria for the carer allowance by more broadly recognising the needs of carers and the recipients of care. This is a very progressive move that the government anticipates will see some 14,000 carers take up assistance for the first time. I know the carers in the Petrie electorate will be very pleased to see this in place. From July 1999, the government will inject approximately $98.5 million over four years into the carer allowance and this is a huge step forward.Liberalising the eligibility criteria is also an important step. Exempting the carer allowance from means and income tests reflects the government's commitment to Australian carers. We will always have an ongoing commitment to people in this particular role. The liberalisation of the eligibility criteria for the carer allowance will also extend to the means tested pension payment for carers, and that is the carer payment.The introduction of the adult disability assessment tool covering carers who look after adults with disabilities where the disabled adult has a child under six or children under 16 with qualifying disabilities is a welcome measure. In my role as a federal member I quite often have to attend functions that are put on in my electorate and I admire people like those in the Endeavour Foundation and the work that they do with people with disabilities. It is important to note that there is a need for more services like that in the community.What is more, this bill also makes provision for carer payment recipients to receive a bereavement payment on the death of a partner who was in receipt of a social security benefit. That can be a very welcome thing. It is a very distressing time when a partner is lost in these circumstances. I do work in my electorate for Meals on Wheels and I was quite pleased one day to be able to assist someone who was placed in this position. The impact that the death of a person has on the partner's life can never be underestimated. The elderly gentleman in question was very distressed and was not even able to pick up the phone and make a phone call to Social Security. We must always recognise that a lot of people in that situation do not have any family or any people that they can call on. The bill makes provision for a bereavement payment. That is a very welcome addition.The bill also provides for the recipients of both the carer allowance and payment to claim benefits while the care recipient is in hospital for a period of up to 63 days in a calendar year. I believe that this is a very welcome measure as well. Carers have spoken to me about this in particular.Carers, as I am sure many people would agree, play a very important role in our community. It is not a role that people seek out by choice; it is a role that they are often driven to by tragic circumstances. They are often looking after elderly parents. I think back to when I was in my teens and my mother cared for our grandfather at home. It gave me a new insight into the constant care that she provided—I think that, as younger teenagers, we often underestimated the care that she provided in our home. Having worked with people in this situation and spoken to many carers, I think it is something that we should never underestimate.In Australia today, nearly half of all people with dementia live at home, and I would like to speak about that. They are also dependent on carers for support. Without that particular support, dementia sufferers would be institutionalised. Dementia is often caused by a variety of reasons, a lot of which are medical reasons. I think we need to provide for those people and ensure that they are in a safe and comfortable environment, and quite often the home is that environment.In recognition of the contribution carers make to the community, the Howard government has also increased funding available for carers, despite the budgetary constraints imposed upon the government's social program by Labor's mismanagement. That needs to be highlighted here. Despite the fiscal difficulties that Labor brought upon the current administration, the government has been able to set aside $280 million as part of a staying at home package.In summary, I would like to reiterate my pride in being a member of the Howard government that has put this bill in place. I also believe that any measures that can somehow lighten the heavy burden that is carried by carers are worthy of unequivocal support. I commend this bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Prosser) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 6.30 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4133The following answers to questions were circulated:4133(Question No. 126)1264133Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1998:Did the Minister, his or her predecessor or his or her Department appoint a (a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament or (b) member of the secretariats of the national offices of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats or Australian Greens as a (i) statutory appointment, (ii) consultant or (iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998; if so, in each case, (A) what was the person's name and the position to which he or she was appointed, (B) to which political party was he or she affiliated, (C) what remuneration was involved, (D) was the appointment (I) full-time, (II) part-time or (III) casual, (E) what fees were applicable and (F) with respect to (I) travel allowance, (II) vehicles, (III) telephones and (IV) attendance fees, (aa) what entitlements were claimable, (ab) how often were entitlements claimed and (ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement.4133Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Two former Federal Parliamentarians have been identified as being appointed to statutory positions in the period in question. The details are:Mr Leonard Joseph KeoghShort-term re-appointment to the Veterans' Review Board as a part-time member for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 September 1997Former Member for Bowman (Australian Labor Party)Remuneration: a daily sitting fee of $310Total sitting fees for period 1 July to 30 September (15 days)—$4 650Total travel allowance claimed for period 1 July to 30 September—Cairns 4 nights @ $155—total $620Mr John Barry Mildren Short-term re-appointment to the Veterans' Review Board as a part-time member for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 September 1997Former Member for Ballarat (Australian Labor Party)Remuneration: a daily sitting fee of $310Total sitting fees for period 1 July to 30 September (34 days)—$10 540Total travel allowance claimed for period 1 July to 30 September—Hobart 4 nights @ $200—$800Remuneration for members of the Veterans' Review Board is paid at rates determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.4133(Question No. 262)2624133McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:(1) On the most recent data, how many community based child care centres are there in the electoral division of Barton.(2) What is the name and address of each centre.(3) How many children are enrolled at each centre.(4) What sum of Commonwealth funding did each centre receive in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98.(5) What sum will each centre receive in 1998-99.(6) On the most recent data, how many families residing within the postcode areas of (a) 2205, (b) 2207, (c) 2216, (d) 2217, (e) 2218, (f) 2219, (g) 2220, (h) 2221, (i) 2222 and (j) 2223, receive some level of financial child care support from the Commonwealth and which payments do families receive.4133Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) There are 4 community based child care centres in the electoral division of Barton.(2) The names and addresses of each centre are: Macedonian Orthodox Community Child Care Centre, 7-10 Firth Street, ARNCLIFFE 2205; Roslyn Hall Children's Centre, 85-87 Cameron Street, ROCKDALE 2216; Turrella Children's Centre, 49 Walker Street, TURRELLA 2205; Kogarah Uniting Church Long Day Care Centre, 18 Gray Street, KOGARAH 2217.(3) The numbers of children who attended services in the last week in October 1998 were:Macedonian Orthodox Community Child Care Centre 38; Roslyn Hall Children's Centre 65; Turrella Children's Centre 65; Kogarah Uniting Church Long Day Care Centre 40.(4) and (5) The sum of Commonwealth funding each centre received in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 and the estimated sum each centre will receive in 1998-99 is:NAME1995-961996-971997-98Estimate 1998-99Macedonian Orthodox Community Child Care Centre$203,170$204,828$154,665$80,100Roslyn Hall Children's Centre$196,251$178,731$177,610$112,000Turrella Children's Centre $469,369$220,080$109,255$104,692Kogarah Uniting Church Long Day Care Centre$144,237$156,685$130,862$135,500Note: Commonwealth funding to services, including payments on behalf of families, included Childcare Assistance, Special Childcare Assistance, Operational Subsidy, Block Grant, JET Payment, Superannuation Guarantee and Special Needs Payment. In addition, in the case of Turrella Children's Centre, around $386,000 was provided as capital funding for major works in 1995-96 and 1996-97.(6) Childcare Assistance is paid to services on behalf of eligible families. As at November 1998, the numbers of families in the following postcodes for whom Childcare Assistance (CA) was paid and to whom Childcare Rebate (CR) was paid, were:Postcode:(a) 2205—CA 301- CR 167(b) 2207—CA 552- CR 418(c) 2216—CA 523- CR 298(d) 2217—CA 556- CR 375(e) 2218—CA 383- CR 224(f) 2219—CA 215- CR 169(g) 2220—CA 642- CR 386(h) 2221—CA 250- CR 275(i) 2222—CA 283- CR 230(j) 2223—CA 399- CR 348 Note: CR payments for work related care include payments for care provided in formal and informal child care and preschool.4134(Question No. 265)2654134McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 2 December 1998:On the most recent data, what sum in child care assistance per child per annum was allocated to (a) family, (b) private long and (c) community long day care in the postcode areas of (i) 2205, (ii) 2207, (iii) 2216, (iv) 2217, (v) 2218, (vi) 2219, (vii) 2220, (viii) 2221, (ix) 2222 (x) 2223.4134Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Childcare Assistance is not allocated on a per child per annum basis but is paid to services on behalf of eligible families in accordance with families' income assessments. Average Childcare Assistance per child paid on behalf of eligible families in 1997-98 for (a) family day care, (b) private long day care and (c) community long day care services in the postcode areas of (i) 2205, (ii) 2207, (iii) 2216, (iv) 2217, (v) 2218, (vi) 2219, (vii) 2220, (viii) 2221, (ix) 2222, (x) 2223 was as follows:Postcode:$(i)2205- (a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Caren/a(c) Community Long Day Care$2,519(ii)2207- (a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$2,141(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(iii)2216- (a) Family Day Care$2,229(b) Private Long Day Care$2,107(c) Community Long Day Care$2,531(iv)2217- (a) Family Day Care$2,346(b) Private Long Day Care$1,968(c) Community Long Day Care$3,101(v)2218- (a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$2,107(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(vi)2219- (a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$1,514(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(vii)2220- (a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$1,954(c) Community Long Day Care$2,098(viii)2221- (a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$1,605(c) Community Long Day Caren/a(ix)2222- (a) Family Day Care$1,670(b) Private Long Day Care$1,401(c) Community Long Day Care$2,846(x)2223- (a) Family Day Caren/a(b) Private Long Day Care$1,846(c) Community Long Day Caren/aNote:(1) n/a—no services of this type in the postcode area.(2) Figures for Family Day Care are based on Childcare Assistance paid to family day care schemes located in the specified postcodes. Each scheme may however have some carers who live, and therefore care for children, in a different postcode. 4136(Question No. 294)2944136Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) Did the Commonwealth in 1963 surrender to the State of Western Australia parcels of land comprising:(a) portions of Swan Location 2039 and being (firstly) Lots 515 to 533, inclusive, 547, 578 to 582, inclusive, and part of Lot 534 on plan 2574 and (secondly) the portion numbered 577 on the map of Certificate of Title Volume 1056 Folio 756 being the whole of the land comprised in the said Certificate of Title Volume 1056 Folio 756;(b) portions of Swan Location 2039 and being (firstly) Lots 509 on plan 2574 and (secondly) Lot 510 on plan 2610 (sheet 2) and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1058 Folio 823;(c) portion of Swan Location 2039 and being part of the land coloured blue and marked "Drain Reserve" on plan 2574 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1069 Folio 891;(d) portions of Swan Location 2039 and being Lots 513 and 514 and part of the land coloured blue and marked "Drain Reserve" on plan 2574 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1060 Folio 8; and(e) portion of Swan Location 2039 and being part of the land on plan 2574 and being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 1064 Folio 265.(2) If so:(a) was it a condition of the surrender that the land be set aside for purposes of public open space and for police purposes, the condition to be varied only by agreement of the Commonwealth; and(b) has the Commonwealth varied the condition with the State of Western Australia; if so, (i) when and (ii) why.4136Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The above land was transferred to the State of Western Australia for the sum of 21,905 pounds, by an Instrument of Transfer dated 21 July 1964.(2) (a) The initial agreement, by exchange of letters, set out the condition `that the said land shall be set aside for all time for use as an "A" Class Reserve for public open space and police purposes'. The Instrument of Transfer is less emphatic and states that `the land was to be set aside for the purposes of public open space and for Police purposes'. Neither the exchange of correspondence nor the Instrument of Transfer requires Commonwealth agreement should the use of the land be varied.(b) Yes.(i) In October 1997 the Western Australian Government asked for the cooperation of the Commonwealth to waive the `perpetual reserve' condition over the Police Academy site that was included in the original exchange of letters. In July 1998 the Commonwealth agreed on condition that any rezoning/redevelopment proposal for the site will be subject to the normal processes of community consultation and environmental assessment, and the approval of all relevant authorities.(ii) State Governments have statutory responsibilities for determining land use.4136(Question No. 320)3204136Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2917 (Hansard , 29 June 1998, page 5627), when a Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) member offered a view on the risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants at the 10 June and 24 July 1997 meetings of the SCARM GAP Working Group, as described in part (14) of the answer, (a) what views of the risks were recorded in the minutes of those meetings, (b) are any of those views similar to the conclusions of the GMAC Scientific Subcommittee made at their 1 August 1997 meeting reported in part (3) of the answer to question No. 2918 (Hansard , 22 June 1998, page 5073) and (c) was a representative of the Grains Research and Development Corporation present.(2) What was the (a) name and (b) affiliation of each person who (i) attended and (ii) received the agenda for meetings of the SCARM Working Group on the Regulation of Gene Technology during 1997 and when did the Working Group meet during 1997.(3) What are the terms of reference of the SCARM Working Group on the Regulation of Gene Technology.(4) Has the SCARM Working Group on the Regulation of Gene Technology discussed or received reports on (a) insect-resistant transgenic plants, (b) herbicide-resistant transgenic plants or (c) virus-resistant transgenic plants; if so, (i) when did the discussions take place and (ii) when were the reports received. (5) Was there a proposal at a SCARM GAP Working Group meeting to seek the views of Dr Mark Gibbs on the risks posed by plants carrying viral genes; if so, (a) when was the proposal made, (b) what actions were suggested in relation to the proposal, (c) what actions were taken as a result, (d) was any person asked to contact Dr Gibbs in relation to his views and (e) did any person offer to contact Dr Gibbs in relation to his views.Was there a proposal at a SCARM GAP Working Group meeting to seek the views of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Plant Science on the risks posed by plants carrying viral genes; if so, (a) when was the proposal made, (b) what actions were suggested in relation to the proposal, (c) what actions were taken as a result, (d) was any person asked to contact the CRC for Plant Science in relation to the views and (e) did any person offer to contact the CRC. for Plant Science in relation to the views.(7) When was the report on virus-resistant transgenic plants, identified in part (16) of the answer to question No. 2917, received.(8) Did the report referred to in part (7) include comments on (a) possible risks and (b) recombination involving viruses.(9) Did PIC 28, the meeting of the Plant Industries Committee from 8 to 10 October 1997, discuss matters relating to the report on virus-resistant to transgenic plants identified in part (16) of the answer question No. 2917; if so, (a) what matters and Co) which members at PIC 28 commented on those matters at the meeting.(1) Will he release the minutes of (a) the SCARM GAP Working group meetings that took place on (i) 10 June 1997, (ii) 24 July 1997, (iii) 4 September 1997 and (iv) 13 November 1997 and (b) PIC 28 (8-10 October 1997).(11) What is the (a) name and (b) affiliation of each member of the Biotechnology Task Force announced on 28 August 1998.(12) What are the terms of reference of the Biotechnology Task Force.4137Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, has provided the following answer as the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee provided the secretariat for the Good Agricultural Practices Guidelines Working Group.(a) No specific views on the risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants were recorded in the minutes of the 10 June 1997 meeting of the SCARM GAP Working Group. The following views were recorded in the minutes of the 24 July 1997 meeting. Issues to be considered for virus-resistant transgenic plants include:(i) recombination, potentially resulting in new virus types with increased host range or virulence. As a general principle, only the minimum viral sequence necessary to produce viral resistance should be inserted.(ii) transcapsidation (the possibility that a different virus could encapsulate itself in the transgenic coat protein);(iii) spread of transgenes by sap sucking insects acting as virus vectors; and(iv) transfer of plant viruses via seeds.(b) These views do not conflict with the conclusions of the GMAC Scientific Subcommittee made at their 1 August 1997 meeting reported in part (3) of the answer to question No. 2918.(c) Dr Bryan Whan and Dr Ray Shorter represented the Grains Research and Development Corporation at the 10 June 1997 and 24 July 1997 meetings, respectively.(2) Technically, there was not a SCARM activity called the SCARM Working Group on the Regulation of Gene Technology in 1997 (nor since).(i) The members of the SCARM Working Group To Examine Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) Regulatory System were:Mr John Madden (Chair),Director, Science and Technology Policy SectionCorporate Policy DivisionCommonwealth Department of Primary Industries and EnergyMr Brian Stynes,Manager, New Industry Products,Agriculture WADr Catherine Hollywell,Manager, Chemical Standards Branch,Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentVictoriaDr Ken ReedDirector, Queensland Agricultural Biotechnology CentreDepartment of Primary IndustriesQueenslandDr Howard DengateDepartment of Primary Industries and FisheriesNorthern Territory Dr Vic Edge,Deputy Chief, Division of Plant IndustriesNSW AgricultureDr Mikael Hirsch, Principal Adviser, Evaluation and Natural Resources Policy,Office of the Deputy Chief Executive (Environment and Natural Resources)CSIROMr Donn Corcoran,Director, Gene TechnologyCommonwealth Department of Industry, Science and TourismSecretaryMr Brian WixtedScience and Technology Policy SectionCorporate Policy DivisionCommonwealth Department of Primary Industries and EnergyTwo Ad hoc attendeesDr George McLeanBureau of Resource SciencesDepartment of Primary Industries and EnergyAttended the meeting of 24 March 1997Mr Kevin JackmanQueensland Department of Premier & CabinetParticipated in the teleconference of 27 May 1997(ii) The Secretary distributed the agenda to the Working Group listed at 2(i).The Working group met:4 March 1997 (teleconference)24 March 1997 (Canberra)8 May 1997 (teleconference)27 May 1997 (teleconference)(3) Terms Of Reference; Working Group To Examine Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) Regulatory System:Examine current arrangements for regulation of GMOs with a view to identifying(a) the importance of GMOs to Australian current and future agricultural production and trade;(b) the required attributes of an effective GMO regulatory system;(c) scope for further improving on current GMO regulatory arrangements in meeting the above requirements; and(d) advise on:(i) appropriate adjustments to the GMO regulatory system to ensure that it better meets the needs of Australian agriculture and community expectations;(ii) appropriate roles and responsibilities of relevant agencies; and (iii) proposals for the development of a whole of government approach on the above which will meet Australian trade and WTO requirements.Membership. Chaired by Department of Primary Industries and Energy. State/Territory plant, animal and biological expertise. Representation from Department of Industry, Science and Tourism.(4) (a) (i) The topics were raised in general terms but with discussion focused on the impact of such developments on the construction of an appropriate regulatory structure.(ii) No reports were received.(b) (i) The topics were raised in general terms but with discussion focused on the impact of such developments on the construction of an appropriate regulatory structure.(ii) No reports were received.(c) (i) The topics were raised in general terms but with discussion focused on the impact of such developments on the construction of an appropriate regulatory structure.(ii) No reports were received.(5) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, has provided the following answer as the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee provided the secretariat for the Good Agricultural Practices Guidelines Working Group.Yes.(a) The proposal was made at the 24 July 1997 meeting of the SCARM GAP Working Group.(b) Dr Mark Gibbs would be asked to provide input on the risks relating to virus-resistant transgenic plants.(c) Dr Thomas Higgins, a scientist at the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Plant Science asked Peter Waterhouse, a CRC colleague who was Dr Gibbs' Program Leader, to provide a report on the risks posed by plants carrying viral genes. He consulted widely with plant virologists around Australia, including Dr Gibbs and other plant virologists at the CRC for Plant Science, before the preparation of the report.(d) The records do not show whether any person was asked specifically to contact Dr Gibbs in relation to his views.(e) The records do not show whether any person offered specifically to contact Dr Gibbs in relation to his views.(6) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer as the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee provid ed the secretariat for the Good Agricultural Practices Guidelines Working Group.Indirectly. A proposal was made to contact Dr Gibbs who was employed by the CRC for Plant Science. Also, Dr Higgins, who was attending the meeting as a representative of CSIRO, in place of an absent member of the working group, and was a member of the CRC for Plant Science, volunteered to provide a report on risks of virus-resistant transgenic plants.(a) See 5a.(b) See 5b.(c) See 5c.(d) The records do not show whether any person was asked specifically to contact the CRC for Plant Science in relation to their views. However, Dr Higgins, a member of the CRC for Plant Science, volunteered to provide a report on risks of virus-resistant transgenic plants.(e) Yes, Dr Higgins contacted Dr Peter Waterhouse who in turn consulted with other plant virologists at the CRC for Plant Science, including Dr Gibbs.(7) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer as the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee provided the secretariat for the Good Agricultural Practices Guidelines Working Group.27 August 1997(8) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer as the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee provided the secretariat for the Good Agricultural Practices Guidelines Working Group.(a) Yes(b) Yes.(9) (a) This issue was discussed at PIC 28, in October 1997. A recommendation was made by the Workshop on the Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops and Pastures that the CRC for Plant Science prepare a concise `out-of-session issue paper for PIC on the issue of Risk Assessment of Viral Recombination in Transgenic Crops'.(b) Professor Snow Barlow.(10) SCARM committees are comprised jointly of Commonwealth and State representatives and invited experts. I am not prepared to authorise the release of the minutes. However, extracts of the minutes can be released if the committee or working group is approached and all members agree to their release.(11) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, has provided the following answer. The Biotechnology Task Force consists of officials of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. Officers may be seconded from other Departments and organisations as necessary. An officer of the CSIRO Division of Animal Production has been seconded to the Task Force on a part time basis.(12) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, has provided the following answer.The Biotechnology Task Force has been established to advise the Government on strategies for development of the Australian biotechnology sectors. To ensure that all relevant factors are taken into consideration, the Task Force will consult widely with other Commonwealth Departments and State Governments, industry, research institutions, consumer groups and other stakeholders. It will also provide secretariat services to the Biotechnology Consultative Group announced on 22 December 1998. In the context of the development of a Biotechnology Action Agenda, the Task Force will report on:. Opportunities for the development of internationally-competitive biotechnology-based economic activities. Impediments to the development of such activities. Strategies to address issues such as:- Technology development and diffusion;- Intellectual property management and ownership;- Access to venture capital;- Market access and promotion;- Regulation, biosafety and biodiversity;- Public awareness; and- International agreements on intellectual property and other issues.4139(Question No. 324)3244139Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr Sidebottom849BraddonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:Following the Government's provision of a $40 million package of incentives for the Tumut pulp mill in southern New South Wales, will the Minister communicate directly with the Tasmanian Government and Crest Resources to offer a similar support package to allow a proposed magnesite mining and processing proposal in Tasmania to proceed.4139Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Government in its industry policy statement Investing for Growth released in December 1997 stated that it was not disposed towards providing across the board investment incentives for major projects or establishing a dedicated fund for that purpose.The Government did acknowledge however, that in particular limited and special circumstances which meet established criteria there may be a need for some specific assistance. The criteria for investment incentives were published in Investing for Growth. The Government also established the position of the Strategic Investment Coordinator to coordinate case by case assessment of projects to determine any need for investment incentives.I am aware that there are a number of investment proposals seeking to establish magnesite mining and processing operations in Australia—two in Tasmania and a number of others throughout Australia. All of these projects, including Crest Resources, are entitled to seek assistance under current government programs.I understand that the Deputy Premier of Tasmania has met with my colleague the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to ascertain what assistance may be available to this project under current government programs. The Government encourages this approach before a company formally applies for an investment incentive. The honourable member will recall that the majority of the investment incentive package provided to Visy was from existing programs.In the event that assistance cannot be provided through existing Government programs the company is entitled to submit a proposal for investment incentives to the Strategic Investment Coordinator. All proposals will be considered on their merits and against the published investment incentives criteria.4140(Question No. 344)3444140Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement. 4140Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) None(b) None(c) Approximately 3180(d) 44(2) Persons employed under Australian Workplace Agreements are Senior Executive Service (SES) Officers Bands 1, 2 and 3, SES equivalents and Executive Level 2 officers on long term higher duties arrangements in the SES.4140(Question No. 345)3454140Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.4140McGauran, 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:(1) (a)Nil(b) Nil(c) 1292(d) 61(2) Senior Executive Service Band 2; Senior Executive Service Band 1; Executive Level 2; Executive Level 1; APS Level 6; APS Level 5; APS Level 4; APS Level 3.4140(Question No. 346)3464140Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.4141Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No employees of the department have their principal conditions of employment set by an award. All employees are either covered by the department's certified agreements or by Australian workplace agreements.It is estimated that:. 123 employees are covered by the DADA Network Certified Agreement 1998. 1403 employees are covered by the DWRSB Agency Agreement 1998-2000. 106 employees are covered by Australian workplace agreementsThe DEETYA Network Certified Agreement 1998 is not comprehensive, it calls up the APS Salaries Awards. All other agreements are comprehensive and do not call up any awards.(2)—. Senior executive employees (Band 1 to 3). Executive Level 2 employees. An APS level 6 employeeThe certified agreements provide for the introduction of Australian workplace agreements with employees whose terms and conditions of employment would otherwise be regulated by the certified agreements.4141(Question No. 347)3474141Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) How many employees in the Minister's Department have their principal conditions of employment set by (a) an award, (b) an industrial agreement, (c) a certified agreement and (d) an Australian workplace agreement.(2) What is the classification of each person in the Minister's Department employed under an Australian workplace agreement.4141Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) and (c) 5596 employees have their principal conditions set by both an award and a certified agreement.(b) nil employees have their principal conditions set by an industrial agreement.(d) 63 employees have their principal conditions set by an Australian workplace agreement.(2) The classifications employed under an Australian workplace agreement are Senior Executive Bands 1, 2 and 3; and Senior Officer Grade A and B.4141(Question No. 367)3674141Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 February 1999: (1) What (a) are the existing staffing levels at the Perth Immigration Detention Centre under the supervision of Australasian Correctional Management and (b) were the staffing levels when the centre was operated and administered by Australian Protective Services.(2) How many staff are required to be on duty during the day at the centre.(3) What is deemed to be a safe ratio of prison officers to detainees.(4) What procedures have been established to ensure the safety of detainees and staff members in the case of an emergency(5) How many staff members have resigned since control of the centre was transferred from Australian Protective Services to Australasian Correctional Management.4141Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department's detention services provider, Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd (ACM), is required to ensure that the staffing of the detention centres is at all times adequate to provide safe and dignified detention which meets the qualitative outcomes specified in the immigration detention standards.I am reluctant to publicly provide information on staffing levels at Perth Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) as this may compromise the security of the centre. However, I will arrange for the honourable member to be provided with a full and detailed personal briefing by senior officers of my department on the matters she has raised.(2) As above(3) As above (4) ACM has comprehensive policies and procedures covering all aspects of operations including safety and emergencies in place at Perth IDC. These procedures include emergency contingency plans which cover all aspects of managing an emergency such as evacuation and use of local emergency services. Regular rehearsals and drills are conducted and equipment is regularly inspected by qualified officers. Breathing apparatus is held at the IDC and there is a qualified officer on staff to undertake training in its use. The fire alarms at the IDC are linked to the Airport Fire Service which responds within 2 minutes.(5) ACM has advised that there have been six staff resignations from Perth IDC since ACM commenced operations on 18 December 1997.4142(Question No. 370)3704142McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 175, (Hansard , 8 February 1999, page 2120) has the Government received advice of the progress of the complaint by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to the ILO which was lodged on 7 May 1998; if so, what is the progress of the investigation of the complaint.4142Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In November 1998 the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association gave initial consideration to the complaint lodged by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The Committee adjourned its examination of the case and requested further information from the Government.4142(Question No. 371)3714142McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 333, (Hansard , 9 February 1999, page 2198) has he provided the Attorney-General with an instrument of delegation in respect of the administration of Division 1 of Part XXII of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, what are the terms of the instrument; if not, on what basis does the Attorney-General administer the division.4142Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I do not administer Division 1 of Part XXII of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Accordingly, I have no capacity to delegate any power in respect of that Division.The Attorney administers the Division in accordance with the Administrative Arrangements Order made by the Governor-General on 21 October 1998, as amended on 17 December 1998.4142(Question No. 372)3724142McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 172, (Hansard , 10 February 1999, page 2298) will the Government inquire of all States their current position on the ratification of ILO Convention No. 162—Asbestos, 1986 with a view to taking further action to ratify the convention.4142Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government is not proposing to take any action in relation to this Convention outside the agreed consultative processes. Accordingly, any further consultation about the Convention will occur in the context of the periodic consideration by the Commonwealth, States and Territories of which unratified Conventions should be the subject of further examination.4142(Question No. 387)3874142Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) What specific requirements must State Governments meet to be eligible to receive funding for revegetation schemes under the Natural Heritage Trust.(2) Has the Western Australian Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Cheryl Edwardes, (a) sought funding to purchase 870 hectares of land near Mt Lesueur National Park for revegetation purposes and (b) approved the owner's application to clear the land.(3) How many land clearing plans submitted by farmers have been approved by the WA Government since February 1998 and in what general locations are they.(4) Is the Minister satisfied with the State Government's handling of the matters referred to in the preceding parts; if not, what action will the Minister take.4143Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) All proponents must apply in accordance with the published `NHT Guide to new applications 1999-2000.'(2) (a) In April 1998, the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection submitted an application under the Natural Heritage Trust for funding support to acquire 1220 hectares of land for inclusion in the national reserve system.(2) (b) On 22 December 1998, the Western Australian Minister for the Environment approved, on appeal, the property owner's application to clear 870 hectares on condition that:(i) 335 hectares be retained and protected on a Legal Agreement to Reserve with the Western Australian Commissioner for Soil Conservation; and(ii) the largest area of the property adjacent to Mt Lesueur National Park (285 hectares) be established on a separate title of land.(3) This is a State matter and information on the number of plans would need to be sought from the Western Australian Government.(4) I have written to the Western Australian Minister for the Environment stressing my concern at the appeal decision and seeking advice on the impact on other properties in the Mt Lesueur area. I also expressed concern at an apparent weakening in commitment to improving mechanisms to control land clearing for the purposes of biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management.4143(Question No. 391)3914143Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) What is the minimum age restriction applicable to (a) full-time service in the Australian Defence Force and (-b) part-time service in the reserves.(2) What is the estimated number of uniformed personnel who are currently under 18 years of age.(3) Are there restriction the tasks that can be performed by personnel who are under 18 years of age; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) when were the restrictions introduced. 4143Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) 17 years.However, an age waiver may be given if an applicant is deemed to have the maturity and potential suitability to adjust to Service life.(2) 295.(3) Yes.(a) and (b) In Time of War: Members under 1 8 years are not liable to serve in the Defence Forces in time of war. (The Defence Act 1903).In Time of Peace: It has been a long standing practice (actual date of commencement is unknown but believed to be in place for Vietnam) in all three Services not to send members under 18 years to an area of hostility except in exceptional circumstances, eg. a ship at sea which is deployed at short notice and there is no opportunity to off-load any crew member who could be under 18 years. This practice is currently being formalised and will be the subject of written guidance in the near future.4143(Question No. 398)3984143Hoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare83YCharltonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Did the Federal Court on 6 November 1998, on an appeal of the decision of the full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) in relation to the Hunter valley Rio Tinto No. 1 mine dispute, decide effectively in favour of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.(2) Did the Federal Court (a) decide that Justice Giudice and the full bench of the AIRC got the law wrong, (b) identify a number of errors in Justice Giudice's judgment and (c) send the case back to the full bench of the AIRC to reconsider it in the light of clarifications made on the law.4143Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable's member's question is as follows:(1) On 6 November 1998 the Federal Court remitted the matter back by way of a writ of mandamus to the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to be dealt with in accordance with law. In doing so the Federal Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Full Bench of the AIRC. The appeal has not been finally determined by the Full Bench of the AIRC.(2) (a) The Federal Court concluded that the AIRC Full Bench had made an error of law in relation to its appellate jurisdiction conferred on it by s.45 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. (b) Yes.(c) Yes.4144(Question No. 399)3994144Hoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare83YCharltonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) Does he support Rio Tinto in its legal dispute with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and other unions concerning the Hunter Valley Rio Tinto No. 1 mine.(2) Did the unions, supported by the NSW Government and the Singleton and Muswellbrook local governments, argue before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) that the Hunter Valley No. 1 dispute was damaging the economy.(3) Did Justice Boulton of the AIRC agree that the dispute was damaging the economy.(4) Is the concept of damage to the economy an attempt to assess public interest.(5) Did Justice Boulton decide to arbitrate the case because the dispute was damaging the economy.(6) Did he support Rio Tinto's move to appeal Justice Boulton's decision to the full bench of the AIRC.(7) Was the President of the AIRC, Justice Giudice, appointed by the Howard Government.(8) Did Justice Giudice quash Justice Boulton's decision.(9) Was Justice Giudice's decision overturning Justice Boulton's decision given on the basis of public interest.(1) Did the Federal Court, in deciding an appeal by the CFMEU, overturn the full bench decision and uphold Justice Boulton's decision for arbitration.(11) Has he applied for a review of Justice Boulton's original decision on public interest grounds.(12) Is he guided by the public interest in pursuing industrial relations issues.4144Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I have intervened in various proceedings related to the dispute at the Hunter Valley No.1 mine to put submissions on behalf of the Commonwealth about the proper construction of the termination of bargaining period provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act).(2) The unions and the NSW Government argued before the Australian Industrial Relations Commis sion (AIRC) that the bargaining periods should be terminated under S.170MW(3) (b) of the Act in that it was alleged that the industrial action was threatening significant damage to the economy.(3) Justice Boulton concluded that the industrial action at the mine was threatening to cause significant damage to an important part of the Australian economy.(4) The ground in s.170MW(3) of the Act relating to damage to the economy as a ground for terminating a bargaining period is an exception to the policy intent of the Act. This is to ensure that the primary responsibility for determining employment matters rests with employers and employees at the workplace level. The public interest is served by ensuring that there are only limited exceptions to employers and employees being able to determine their own employment arrangements.(5) The consequence of Justice Boulton's decision to terminate the bargaining periods under s.170MW(3) of the Act is that the Commission must exercise conciliation powers. If the conciliation is not successful in resolving matters between the parties then a Full Bench of the AIRC must exercise arbitration powers. Arbitration has not occurred because the matter has been subject to appeal to the Full Bench of the AIRC and has been subject to prerogative writs issued by the Federal Court of Australia.(6) I exercised my statutory right of intervention in appeals before the Full Bench of the AIRC.(7) Yes. I find the inference contained in this question and its relationship to previous and subsequent questions offensive and insulting to the AIRC and its office holders.(8) A Full Bench of the AIRC constituted by Justice Giudice, Justice Munro and Commissioner Larkin unanimously quashed Justice Boulton's decision.(9) Justice Giudice's decision in overturning Justice Boulton's decision was made on the basis of a finding that Justice Boulton's interpretation of S.170MW(3) involved error in the construction and application of the section.(10)The Federal Court issued a writ of certiorari to the Full Bench of the AIRC and in so doing quashed its decision. The Federal Court also issued a writ of mandamus to the Full Bench of the AIRC directing them to proceed to deal with the appeal in accordance with law. That appeal is continuing.(11) Yes. I exercised a statutory right for a review under s.109 of the Act for a review of Justice Boulton's decision. This application was made on the basis that the decision was contrary to the public interest. An application was also made to the AIRC to extend time to enable the application to be brought, as the application had been lodged out of time. On 18 February 1999, the AIRC Full Bench refused the application to extend time.(12) Yes.4145(Question No. 413)4134145Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 February 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the statement in the National Competition Council's report entitled Some impacts on society and the economy that groups who become exposed to competition after previously being sheltered are often very vocal about explaining, and in some cases exaggerating, the potential costs to them about the loss of privileges.(2) Is it a fact that operators of newsagencies are exaggerating the costs of reform to them and that existing arrangements are simply a privilege.4145Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The ACCC is consulting stakeholders about the recent decision of the Australian Competition Tribunal on newsagents. It will report to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation on the outcome of these consultations by the end of March 1999. This report will be carefully considered by the Government in the light of its commitment to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, low cost home delivery system for newspapers.4145(Question No. 423)4234145Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr Sidebottom849BraddonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer upon notice, on 15 February 1999:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 3 November 1998 entitled "Multilateral investment pact on ice" in which it is claimed that the Government hoped that the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) would be revived.(2) Is it a fact that Australian OECD negotiators in Paris sought the paring back of the MAI to its core elements; if so, what are the core elements.(3) Did the OECD, in a press release dated 3 December 1998, confirm that negotiations on the MAI were no longer taking place but that OECD officials agreed on the importance of multidisciplinary work on the desirability of establishing international rules for investment. (4) Has the Minister undertaken to carefully consider the Government's approach to further agreement on international investment rules; if so, what criteria would apply to the consideration.4145Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The Government's position on the discontinued MAI negotiations remains as stated in the Assistant Treasurer's press statement of 2 November 1998. That is, the Government had indicated for some time that it had a number of serious concerns with the draft text of the treaty as it stood. The Government will not sign any treaty unless it was demonstrably in Australia's interest to do so.(2) Yes. These core elements were: National Treatment; Most Favoured Nation Treatment; Investment Protection; and Dispute Settlement.(3) Yes.(4) As noted above, the Government will not sign any agreement unless it is demonstrably in Australia's interest to do so.4145(Question No. 426)4264145Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to (a) serious problems in the administration of the visitors visa program publicised in recent cases, (b) complaints of many ethnic groups, other community organisations and members of parliament about arbitrary actions by immigration officers towards visitors visas and (c) rejection rates of applications from some countries for visitors visas including persons wishing to visit their families in Australia having reached levels of up to 46 per cent.(2) Will he initiate an inquiry into the administration of the visitors visa program especially as applied to Lebanon, Turkey, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam.4145Ruddock, 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)I am aware of recent interest in the visitor visa program, and receive letters from members of the public alluding to problems with the decision making processes in overseas posts.Allegations of impropriety in the administration of the visitor visa program are taken very seriously and are fully investigated by the Internal Investigations Section of my Department. Generally such allegations have proven to be unfounded. All applications for visitor visas are assessed on their merit. Local staff make decisions on visas in accordance with the Migration Regulations and under the supervision of trained, A-Based officers. Complex decisions are referred to the A-Based staff for decision.Where the applicant wishes to enter Australia to visit a close family relative an adverse decision is open to review by the Migration Internal Review Office (MIRO). In all cases where there is new information that will support an applicant, they may submit fresh applications, which are given fresh consideration.(b) My officers do not make arbitrary decisions when assessing applications. The Migration Regulations and supporting procedural documentation clearly define the role and responsibilities of decision-makers and the factors to be assessed.In assessing an application, decision-makers overseas have no option other than to comply with these instructions. If they are not convinced that the applicant intends a genuine visit to Australia decision-makers cannot, by law, issue a visa.(c) It is true that the rejection rate for visitor visas in some countries is as high as 46%, whereas the global average rejection rate was just 3% in 1 998. For some groups of applicants in some countries there is a higher degree of scrutiny to ensure that those applicants are, in fact, genuine visitors.The honourable member is aware of Public Interest Criteria 4011, also known as the `Risk Factor Criterion'. The Risk Factor is a creation of the former Labor Government and is derived from legitimate, objective data. The data identifies applicants in certain countries by age and sex where that group is significantly over-represented in overstay and non-return rates (by these terms I mean those people who overstay the term of their visa, and those people who did not leave Australia under the terms they agreed to at the time their initial visa was granted) .(2) I have confidence in my Department and its efforts to facilitate the entry of bona fide visitors and in maintaining the integrity of the migration program. I see no reason to initiate an inquiry into the administration of the visitor visa program as it is applied in Lebanon, Turkey, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam.I announced on 2 March 1999 a review on visa compliance of visitors and temporary entrants. This review will look at a range of issues in relation to compliance with visa conditions, including:. Options to reduce employers hiring illegal workers. Effectiveness of the Employer Awareness Campaign . The possible introduction of bonds for medium risk visitors.There will be extensive consultation in the conduct of this review.4146(Question No. 427)4274146Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 1999:(1) During the program of consultations on the next planning year of the immigration intake, will he give due weight to submissions from groups in the community who favour increasing the immigration intake.(2) Will he extend the closing date for submissions from organisations wishing to present a detailed case in relation to immigration intake.4146Ruddock, 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) During the annual program of consultations, I encounter a wide cross-section of views on the Migration and Humanitarian programs. All of these views will help to shape the 1999-2000 Migration and Humanitarian Programs.(2) The formulation of the Migration and Humanitarian Programs is linked closely to the Budget process. As the submissions feed into the process of formulating my submission to Cabinet, it is important that the deadlines are met. Where a minor extension of time has been sought, eg for a few days, such requests have been accommodated.4146(Question No. 454)4544146Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) Did the Office of the Employment Advocate advertise a senior executive position tasked with increasing the recognition and take-up rates of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) by employers; if so, (a) what are the duty statement and selection criteria for the position, (b) is funding for the position provided within the $3 million awareness campaign budget; if not, how is the position funded and (c) will the position attract performance pay; if so, what criteria will be used to determine performance pay.(2) Have targets been set for the take-up rate of AWAs; if so, what are they.(3) Do the advertisement and other publicity measures indicate a failure of the AWA process, in particular, and the Government's industrial relations initiatives, in general.4147Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(a) The duty statement and selection criteria for the position have been forwarded to the Table Office.(b) No; funding is provided from the Office of the Employment Advocate's running costs.(c) A Performance Agreement will be developed when the position is filled. The occupant of the position will be eligible for performance pay if their performance against the Performance Agreement is assessed as good or better.(2) No.(3) No.