1999-03-253912REPS436301999-03-25Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills4363r7664363Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.436309:31:004363Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is the Commonwealth's security agency. It operates under statute to collect, evaluate and communicate intelligence relevant to the protection of Australia and its people from a number of specified activities, including espionage, politically motivated violence, promotion of communal violence and acts of foreign interference. Its role is to inform and advise Australian governments, including police services, about those activities.This bill is directed at ensuring that ASIO remains capable of providing timely intelligence and advice to governments. ASIO is not a police force itself, for instance, having no powers of arrest.The bill results from a periodic internal review of the ASIO Act and evolving changes in ASIO's operational environment and, in particular, the impact of technological developments on intelligence gathering.Examination of the bill will reveal that it will not extend ASIO's functions but simply will enable the organisation to meet its statutory responsibilities in more efficient and effective ways.The bill is not a response to the challenges posed by a particular event or threat, such as the Year 2000 Olympics, notwithstanding that ASIO will have an important role to play in ensuring the safety of the athletes, officials and spectators attending those games. Rather, the bill results from a considered examination of ASIO's capacity to meet its ongoing responsibilities to government in a rapidly changing information environment.In bringing this bill before this House, I have in mind that it is no simple or easy thing to achieve a balance between the rights of individual persons and the preservation of national security. But, in the final analysis, national security and personal safety are interconnected. The recent terrorist attacks on US diplomatic missions in East Africa illustrate the human cost if security defences are breached.The government is committed to ensuring that ASIO will be ready to play its part in domestic and international arrangements against terrorism.Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979The bill contains several provisions intended to improve ASIO's ability to access information stored in computers. These amendments are necessary given that information relevant to security is frequently stored as computer data. This is not a totally new power.ASIO is already able to examine computer information relevant to security under search warrants and telecommunications interception warrants. The new computer access provisions will allow ASIO to obtain access through other means which at present cannot be used.The bill makes provision for ASIO to do certain things which may be necessary in order to execute a warrant authorising it to access computer data.However, this will be subject to a strict limitation that a warrant does not permit ASIO to do anything that interferes with the lawful use of a computer or causes loss or damage to other persons lawfully using the computer.The new computer access warrant, subject to renewal, will remain in force for a maximum period of six months, which is the same period that applies to telecommunications interception warrants.The bill will also permit the issue of warrants to ASIO authorising the use of tracking devices. The use of tracking devices will permit more efficient use of resources. In addition, these amendments are necessary as several Australian states are in the process of legislating to regulate the use of such devices by police and other members of the community. These amendments will permit ASIO to use a tracking device under warrant.Provision is made for ASIO to be authorised to enter property and enter or alter an object for the purpose of installing, using and maintaining a tracking device. The new warrant provisions are similar to the present section of the ASIO Act dealing with the use of listening devices. All the proposed amendments are within the existing accountability framework.The bill will also provide ASIO with a statutory authority to enter premises to remove a listening device or a tracking device which has been installed under warrant while a warrant is in force or within 28 days of it ceasing to be in force or, if the device is not recovered in that period, at the earliest reasonably practicable time. This provision is intended to provide for those situations where it is not possible for ASIO to recover a device undetected during the warrant period.The minister will also be given the power to issue warrants permitting ASIO to examine an article being delivered by a delivery service provider. This amendment reflects the growth of such services which have lessened the value of the present warrant power to inspect postal articles which is restricted to articles carried by Australia Post.The bill makes a number of amendments to the provisions dealing with search warrants.These amendments clarify the requirements for the issue of a search warrant and ASIO's authority to use a computer found on premises being searched as well as lengthening the maximum period a warrant may remain in force to 28 days, although only one search is authorised, and permitting the minister to defer the commencement of a warrant for up to 28 days.Other amendments to the ASIO Act deal with the minister's power to authorise ASIO to collect foreign intelligence in Australia. Firstly, the bill extends the authority of the minister to issue warrants for that purpose by taking into account the new categories of warrant which are introduced elsewhere in the bill. That amendment will maintain the present connection in the ASIO Act between warrants for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence in Australia and warrants for the purpose of collecting intelligence relevant to security.Secondly, the bill will enable the minister, based on advice from relevant ministers, to authorise ASIO to collect foreign intelligence by means which are not otherwise regulated under relevant warrant provisions, for example, by the use of human agents.Another amendment dealing with warrants will broaden the range of warrants which the director-general may issue in an emergency. As is currently the case, such warrants may remain in force for no longer than 48 hours and the director-general must immediately notify the minister.The bill will also provide the director-general with a discretion to charge a fee to recover all or part of the cost to ASIO of providing advice or a service to a person at that person's request. It is envisaged that a fee may be imposed where, for example, ASIO provides protective security advice to a state agency under paragraph 17(1)(d) of the ASIO Act. ASIO will not charge fees for the performance of its core function of communicating security intelligence.A further amendment to the ASIO Act will permit ASIO to provide a security assessment for state purposes in relation to the 2000 Olympics or Paralympics directly to a state or an authority of a state. This change will achieve administrative efficiencies in the communication of such assessments without extending ASIO's responsibilities. Because this amendment is specifically related to the Olympics, there is a sunset clause. The amendments also revise the penalty provisions in the ASIO Act to permit the calculation of pecuniary penalties according to the formula set out in the Commonwealth Crimes Act.Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988The bill amends the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to give ASIO access to information on certain financial transactions that are reported to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC. The amendments allow the Director of AUSTRAC to authorise ASIO to have access to the AUSTRAC database of reportable transactions in order to be able to follow the money trail, as happens in the investigation of criminal activity, and identify the financiers of major crime. This amendment means that ASIO will be able to follow the money trail associated with activities that are intended to harm Australia's security.Like organised crime, activities that are prejudicial to Australia's national security are likely to be connected with concealed movements of money, including movements of money into Australia. It is entirely appropriate that ASIO should be able to access such potentially important information which is already available for law enforcement.ASIO's authority to use and communicate FTR information is regulated by the amendments. In addition, access to the AUSTRAC database will be controlled by a memorandum of understanding agreed between the Director-General of Security and the Director of AUSTRAC.ASIO is also required to comply with ministerial guidelines regarding the performance of its functions. Amongst other matters, those guidelines cover ASIO's handling of personal information. The guidelines are being reviewed in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that information obtained from the AUSTRAC database is properly handled within ASIO.The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will monitor ASIO's compliance with the Financial Transaction Reports Act, the memorandum of understanding and the guidelines; and, to ensure proper accountability, will report to the Attorney-General on those matters.Taxation Administration Act 1953The amendments to the Taxation Administration Act will permit the tax commissioner to disclose tax information to ASIO. This provision will put ASIO into the same position as law enforcement agencies who may already receive tax information from the commissioner.This amendment will also assist strengthen ASIO's ability to conduct investigations into activities which involve concealed financial transactions. Counter espionage investigations are one example.ASIO's use of tax information will be controlled by the strict secrecy provisions of the Taxation Administration Act and will be monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.Other consequential amendmentsThe bill contains a schedule of consequential amendments to other legislation arising from the decision to change the spelling of `organisation' in ASIO's title.In conclusion, I remind the House that ASIO performs functions which are fundamental to any responsible government and that, although many of its operations must be secret, ASIO is nevertheless answerable to ministers and, through them, to the parliament and the people.I also remind the House of the mechanisms available to ministers and the parliament to ensure that ASIO acts lawfully and properly, including the parliamentary joint committee and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Honourable members may continue to have confidence in the measures.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills4365r7704365Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.436509:42:004365Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. This bill proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 by introducing a new reporting scheme for high volume low value cargo arriving in Australia. All cargo arriving in Australia is required to be reported under the Customs Act. It is basic to Customs' ability to fulfil its border protection responsibilities that people transporting cargo to Australia report to Customs the details of the cargo intended to be discharged in Australia. An effective reporting mechanism enables Customs to screen the cargo and to protect the Australian community from the importation of illicit drugs and prohibited goods. This bill deals with a particular type of cargo, which is referred to as high volume low value cargo. This term covers bulk consignments of documents and consolidated mail orders which are valued at less than $250 per consignment and which are transported to Australia by specialist operators such as express couriers.This sector of the transport industry has grown dramatically in recent years, with some 120,000 consignments arriving each week at Sydney airport alone. The current reporting provisions do not work effectively for high volume low value consignments simply because of the large volume of such consignments entering the country each year. This results in many of these consignments not being properly reported. Consequently, Customs has not been able to screen the consignments as effectively as it would like. This is of particular concern given that these types of consignments are of the type commonly suspect by Customs as harbouring illicit drugs.The High Volume Low Value Reporting Scheme proposed by this bill would enable these consignments to be properly reported and screened. The scheme will utilise electronic technology to enable those reporting such consignments to provide Customs with access to their internal electronic data bases so that Customs may electronically screen the details of each consignment. To perform this screening task, Customs is currently developing the advanced cargo profiling system. The system is being developed at a cost of $2.8 million under the Government's National Illicit Drug Strategy.This bill proposes to make the scheme available to all people reporting such consignments, whether the consignments arrive by air or sea. The proposed system will therefore enable Customs to perform its screening responsibilities more effectively. At the same time, this bill will provide arrangements for industry to more efficiently and properly report high volume low value cargo. The House should note that further changes to the reporting arrangements will be necessary in the future as Customs updates its processing requirements as part of the continuing streamlining and reform of international trade.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills4366r7734366Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.436609:46:004366Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill proposes to amend the Import Processing Charges Act 1997 by introducing a new screening charge in relation to cargo reported under the High Volume Low Value Reporting Scheme outlined in Customs Amendment Bill (No.2) 1999. The screening charge was introduced in 1997 as a cost recovery measure. It is charged on each air cargo consignment valued at less than $250. Such a consignment must be reported to Customs, although it does not require a Customs entry.This bill proposes to introduce a reduced screening charge for people who are eligible to join the High Volume Low Value Reporting Scheme. At present, people reporting high volume low value consignments pay $2.40 for each consignment. Under the proposed scheme, people reporting such consignments will pay an amount of $45 for each bulk consignment put together by those transporting the consignments to Australia.This reduced screening charge option would be available for two types of consignments. Documents, such as courier mail, legal documents and intra-company correspondence is one type. The other is mail order consignments. In relation to both types of consignments, those reporting the cargo are to ensure that each consignment does not exceed $250 in value. They must also ensure that the customs duty and sales tax payable does not exceed $50. Due to these restrictions, consignments eligible for a reduced screening charge payment will pose a low revenue risk to Customs.As a result of the proposed reduced screen charge option, Customs will not have to devote the same amount of resources to screening high volume low value consignments as it will to consignments reported outside the proposed scheme. This saving in resources is reflected in the difference between the bulk consignment screening charge and the individual consignment screening charge.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills4367r7754367Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.436709:49:004367McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Australian telecommunications regime includes universal service arrangements to ensure that all Australians have reasonable and equitable access to a standard telephone service and to payphone services. The Telecommunications Act 1997 places a universal service obligation, or USO for short, on one or more carriers, requiring them to ensure that these services are reasonably available to all Australians, wherever they may reside or carry on business. At present, Telstra is the carrier which fulfils the USO throughout Australia.The cost of fulfilling the USO is shared amongst all the carriers in proportion to each carrier's market share. At the end of each financial year, Telstra puts in a claim for the cost of fulfilling the USO during that financial year. The Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, assesses that claim and rules on the actual cost, then bills the other carriers for their contributions. This assessment of the USO claim by the ACA ensures that an independent regulatory authority transparently assesses the cost of the USO in each year.A problem has now arisen with these arrangements. In previous years, under the equivalent provisions of the former Telecommunications Act 1991, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone simply agreed on an estimate of the cost of fulfilling the USO. The sum agreed was $230 million in 1993-94, to be increased by the consumer price index each year. For the 1996-97 financial year, the agreed sum had increased to $252 million.The three carriers and the ACA used that time to develop a new model for estimating the cost of the USO. In September 1998, Telstra put in its claim for the 1997-98 financial year using the new model. That claim was $1.828 billion, seven times the agreed cost for the previous year. While this amount needs to be assessed by the ACA, the government recognised that the claim had the potential to destabilise the entire industry and deter investment in Australian telecommunications. The government moved swiftly to alleviate the uncertainty hanging over the industry by an interim solution, pending a detailed review of the USO arrangements.On 12 October 1998 the government announced that the USO cost for 1997-98 would be capped at $253,320,000, which is the agreed cost for 1996-97 plus CPI. The government said that we would seek to reach an agreement with the industry for such a cap but, failing such agreement, we would introduce legislation to impose a cap.The government continues to negotiate with Telstra and the other carriers, seeking their agreement to a negotiated cap. In case an agreement is not reached, the government is today introducing legislation to cap the USO cost for the short term. This legislation will, therefore, serve as a fallback.This will be an interim solution only, to provide sufficient time for a measured and orderly review of future USO funding arrangements. While the terms of reference of this review have yet to be finalised by the government, it will broadly consider the full range of options to fund the costs of the provision of loss making USO services, while promoting an Australian telecommunications industry that is efficient, competitive and responsive. This review will take into account the interests of all parties, including the universal service provider. It is in the best interests of the industry that sustainable competition takes place in a framework in which USO providers have appropriate incentives to sustain adequate investment and improve levels of service for all users.The government expects to carry out that review in 1999, and to enact any changes to USO funding arrangements before the commencement of the 2000-01 financial year. In the interim, this problem could recur. Therefore, a cap will also be applied to financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.The legislation itself is quite simple. The Australian Communications Authority will continue its assessment of Telstra's claim for 1997-98. However, this legislation caps the USO cost to be used for working out industry contributions to Telstra for 1997-98 at a maximum of $253.32 million. Should the Australian Communications Authority assessment produce a lower figure, that is the amount which will apply.For 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the USO cost to be used for working out industry contributions to Telstra will be fixed at $253.32 million plus CPI. Telstra and the Australian Communications Authority will not need to repeat the process of calculating a USO cost for those two years. However, the minister will be given a power to change the amount for 1998-99 or 1999-2000, to allow for changes in circumstances. Such a change to the fixed cost will be by a disallowable instrument, so that the parliament may consider the proposed change.That sums up the legislation. The government is introducing legislation before the Australian Communications Authority completes its assessment of Telstra's claim for the following reasons. Firstly, once the assessment is completed, the Telecommunications Act gives the carriers only 28 days to pay their share of the USO cost. It would be too late by then to pass legislation. Secondly, it is necessary to follow up the government's 12 October announcement within a reasonable time if industry certainty is to be maintained.Finally, I would like to reassure the House that the government prepared this legislation determined that any cap should not put at risk Telstra's ability to fulfil the USO. In fact, recourse to this legislation as a short-term measure affects Telstra less severely than other carriers would be affected if a substantially increased claim is allowed without a properly detailed review. Under the interim solution proposed, Telstra can be expected to receive an amount comparable to last year, indexed to CPI for a three-year period. This outcome minimises instability in the industry while a longer-term solution is implemented. In the meantime, the government can be satisfied that the USO will continue to be delivered, while long-term arrangements are being reviewed. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills4368r7334368Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:004368McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will be opposing the second reading of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, which he gave on 17 February of this year, spoke very briefly indeed, less than half a page of Hansard . He made three points. He said:The bill provides for the reorganisation of the commission's membership . . .That is, the membership of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. He said:Most importantly, this bill will be the catalyst for a fundamental cultural change . . .This cultural change will be to shift the emphasis to one which is educative. He continued:This refocusing of the commission's functions is reflected in its new name—the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.Consistent with this cultural change the bill will make the commission's power to intervene in court proceedings which raise human rights issues conditional upon it first obtaining my approval.Our reply will address substantially those issues put forward by the Attorney-General as justification for this proposed legislation. But before I do so I would like to point out the atrocious human rights record of this government. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission has been financially decimated by this government. There is no other word for it. HREOC's budget has gone from $21.6 million in 1995-96 to $20.5 million in 1996-97 to $18.2 million in 1997-98 and $12.3 million in 1998-99. As if that were not good enough, it will have an average budget of only $10.6 million in the next three years. In real terms the budget has been cut by an average of $13 million per year, or a staggering 55 per cent. In real terms HREOC is now receiving $57 million less per year than if the 1995-96 levels under the previous government had been maintained.In addition to that, the government's record on human rights in its very short time in office has become internationally condemned. All Australians will recall the disgrace in the government's failure to reappoint Sir Ronald Wilson as a Human Rights Commissioner. There is no doubt that failure to reappoint was substantially motivated by Sir Ronald Wilson's role in the preparation of the stolen children report. Indeed, there has been speculation that the restructuring of the commission proposed in this bill has resulted from fearless criticism by not only Sir Ronald Wilson but also other independent commissioners of this government's policies.From an international perspective, in an unusual move, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women expressed their concern about the delay in appointing a sex discrimination commissioner following the resignation of the former commissioner in February 1997. On 18 March, just this month, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination strongly condemned the government in relation to amendments to the Native Title Act and also these proposed changes to the structure of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission including, in particular, the abolition of the position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and assigning those functions to a non-specialist deputy president.Also there have been criticisms by the International Labor Organisation of this government, and there has indeed been criticism of failure to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. All in all, this government has an atrocious human rights record. Yet in a press release on 11 March this year the Attorney-General said that the Australian government takes its international obligations seriously. Regrettably, the Attorney-General's comments must be taken to be only words, and those words are not backed up by what this government has done and clearly is attempting to continue to do in respect of this bill.Moving on to address the major amendments to this bill, firstly, there is a symbolic name change from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. The government has failed to give justification for changing the name. It says it is part of a desire to focus upon this more educative function. The reality is otherwise. As the editorial in the Age newspaper on 29 September 1997 said:To those familiar with the Government's tense relationship with the Commission the new emphasis sounds like an attempt to pull the Commission's teeth . . . education in human rights is important, but the Commission educates chiefly by example— specifically by vigorous prosecution of rights violations. Its pursuit of such violations has often irked the present government.That is an independent commentator, the editor of the Age newspaper.Keith Suter, the Convenor of the Human Rights Committee of the International Law Association, suggested that the government's name change is simply a gimmick—and it is difficult not to agree with him. The whole tenor of the name change indeed suggests that we should regard human rights as privileges that must be tempered by responsible action on the part of those who have been discriminated against or victimised. That view espoused by the government is entirely consistent with an ignorant view that can sometimes surface in the community such as that revealed by the One Nation party who seem to convey the impression that those who are disabled, discriminated against or victimised are, in some way, in breach of an obligation to the rest of the community to live up to the obligations that the community feels they owe to the rest of Australia.In other words, this change of focus to human rights and responsibilities is very much part of the government's scapegoating or wedge politics. For example, what responsibility do Aboriginal children have for the fact that life expectancy for Aboriginals is 20 years less than non-Aboriginals? Aboriginal boys born today have only a 45 per cent chance of living to the age of 65; non-Aboriginals have an 85 per cent chance. Aboriginal girls have a 54 per cent chance of living to that age whereas non-Aboriginal girls have an 89 per cent chance of living till the age of 65. The infant mortality rate among Aboriginal children is three times as much as the general community.What responsibility do they have for the fact that their water supplies are inadequate and that the health services provided to them are inadequate? Do they have a responsibility for that fact? Do the disabled in wheelchairs trying to get access to a building without stairs have a responsibility to get off their wheelchairs and carry them up the stairs? Does a father who sees his child, his son or daughter, miss out on a job simply because they have an Arabic name have a responsibility to quell the disappointment that that child feels? Those events still occur in this community. This government has failed to demonstrate why it needs to shift into that concept of `responsibility'.The government has proposed to restructure the commission, as I have indicated, by reducing the current five specialist commissioners to an Executive President and three deputy presidents. How will this achieve a supposedly new collegiate or more efficient approach with appropriate delegation of responsibilities to areas of expertise? The specialists will be gone. One presumes that the hidden agenda is more that the Executive President can attempt to exercise some restraint on the fearless voice that has otherwise come in the past from the specialist commissioners.Second, in respect to abolishing specialist commissioners, the government has overlooked the fact that different forms of discrimination manifest themselves in radically different ways and resolving disputes requires a considerable depth of understanding of the particular issues involved in that discrimination. The government has literally thrown that expertise out as a result of doing away with specialist commissioners.Third, on this point, the loss of the specialist commissioners will unquestionably undermine the symbolic importance and visibility that the current specialist commissioners have, much to the chagrin of the government. This is particularly concerning in respect of the merger of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner and also the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. In fact, the phrase `Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander' does not even appear in the specific responsibilities of the deputy president.These actions of the government's proposed restructure have been the subject, again, of independent criticism, not just opposition criticism. For instance, the Acting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Ms Zita Antonios, said:I believe unequivocally that the office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner should be held by an indigenous person. It is only in the absence of such an appointment and with the support of Mick [Dodson] and other Indigenous people that I have taken up the position in order to keep the office alive and active at this time of particular need.The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Chris Sidoti, who has performed an admirable job, also criticised the government's moves. He said:The loss of a specialist position devoted solely to disability discrimination issues comes only five years after the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the establishment of the position. Much has been accomplished during those five years but equality, for Australians with a disability, remains at best unfinished. The case for maintaining the specialist position remains compelling.That is at a local level with experts involved face to face with people suffering from disabilities, suffering from underresourcing and suffering from neglect—really the most downtrodden members of our community. Those people have had the courage to voice their concerns. But, also at an international level, on 18 March this year, as I said, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concluded in respect of this aspect of the government's legislation:The Committee strongly encourages the State Party to consider all possible effects of such a restructuring, including whether the Deputy President would have sufficient opportunity to address in an adequate manner the full range of issues regarding indigenous peoples warranting attention. Consideration should be given to the additional benefits of an appropriately qualified specialist position to address these matters, given the continuing political, economic and social marginalisation of the indigenous community in Australia.That is, those who are suffering from those health and life expectancy deprivations that I have already referred to. So we have not only politicians and independent editors but also independent commissioners and, indeed, an international human rights body criticising this action on the part of the government.The next aspect that I will speak of is the Attorney-General's statement that the purpose of the commission will be to make education the commission's new priority. Indeed, it will have a role, according to the Attorney-General, of assisting business understand those obligations. While education unquestionably does provide an important role, it does not provide immediate protection for the most vulnerable in our society.The government has failed to understand entirely that the highlighting of individual examples or the plights of groups of people is the most profound and the most effective way of demonstrating in reality how discrimination and victimisation is occurring in actuality in our society. The suggestions that the reforms will enhance the ability of the commission to undertake an educative role are quite simply rubbish. They are rubbish for many reasons, but one reason stands out above all—that is, the massive decimation of the financial capacity of the commission.In 1995-96, under the previous government, the commission spent almost $595,000 on community and public education campaigns. In the first year of the government, that was reduced to $539,000. This year it will be reduced to $425,000. In other words, the commission's education budget has been cut by 28.5 per cent. At the same time, the commission still has its statutory obligation to perform its dispute resolution role.The government's sincerity about education is proven to be a sham entirely. Indeed, the government's lack of sincerity about educating the community about issues of discrimination is demonstrated by the supposed campaign against racism. Members will recall that, three years after such a campaign was promised and two years after the former member for Oxley made her infamous speech in this House, an intention was announced by the government to spend over $10 million over two years on an antiracist campaign. In the 1996-97 budget, that was reduced to $5 million over one year and reduced in 1997-98 to $4.5 million. Indeed, the campaign was not funded in the 1998-99 budget at all.Instead of educating Australians, the campaign was effectively an attitude survey undertaken by the government, and it amounted to no more than push polling which itself, in the questions asked of Australians, peddled racially discriminatory stereotypes. So the government's claim that it wishes to educate Australians about the need to respect other Australians' human rights is hollow.I congratulate the Age newspaper for pursuing these issues. It is a fundamentally important role of an independent press to publicise what is happening to the most downtrodden, the most neglected, members of our community. On 31 July 1997, they said that the government's `cultural shift':. . . amounts to a sidelining of the Commission by a Government that does not want watchdog agencies to frustrate its agenda. The fact is that the Commissioners have regularly crossed swords with the Government on key areas of policy . . . it is obvious why the Government might be irked at being constantly reminded of things that it should not do but that is what a body such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is for . . . when . . . Government's act to trim the Commission's powers . . . it is the quality of Australia's democracy that suffers.I repeat that: it is the quality of Australia's democracy that will suffer if this bill is passed through the parliament. That, indeed, comes on to the next phase—and it is something which causes fair-minded Australians outrage—and that is the fact that, if this bill is passed, the Attorney-General will supervise the ability of the commission to engage in litigation. The Attorney-General has imposed that unprecedented restriction on what has been an independently operating commission to seek leave to intervene in federal court proceedings to assist the court in comprehending issues relating to human rights.No other instrumentality has any similar control attached to it. There is no evidence whatsoever that the commission has misused any of its powers. It has never been refused intervention by a court to which it has applied. And, indeed, the Federal Court of Australia has on numerous occasions gone out of its way to thank the commission for its helpful submissions.The Attorney-General said in his second reading speech that this gatekeeper role will enable him to ensure that the commission operates in `the best interests of the Australian community as a whole'. But, again, he fundamentally misconstrues the role of an independent human rights commission. It is not the role of that commission to administer government policy or, indeed, to act in a way which is in the interests of `mainstream Australians'—to use the Prime Minister's oft quoted phrase. Indeed, as I have repeated in this speech, it is the most downtrodden, victimised and discriminated against who invariably do not fall within the Prime Minister's concept of `mainstream Australians'.In other words, the very fact that these persons are exceptions to the mainstream frequently is the reason why they are victims of discrimination. So to say that this gatekeeper role is being performed in the interests of Australians as a whole or in the interests of those who fit into the Prime Minister's concept of `mainstream Australians' simply defeats the purpose of having an independent watchdog. There is no doubt that human rights can be protected in this community only by an honest, high-minded and fearless guardian, and this government is effectively destroying the role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to act in that capacity as guardian of the rights of Australians—the most vulnerable Australians which we in this House have a fundamental obligation to protect.Indeed, it is not surprising that, in their Senate committee report on the government's proposed legislation, government senators themselves—Senators Coonan, O'Chee and Payne—strongly criticised this aspect of their own government's bill. They said:The changes proposed may well give rise to a conflict of interest and be perceived by the community as compromising the independence of the commission. At the same time the changes impose an administrative procedure to be observed. The committee is also concerned that the proposed legislation contains no accountability or review provisions to make the decision making process transparent, predictable and reviewable.That is the comment of three government senators in respect of their own government's legislation. I do not know the background of Senators O'Chee and Payne as well as I do that of Senator Coonan, who is respected as an extremely competent lawyer and a fair-minded person. It is a shame that those views have not prevailed in respect of this legisla tion. The three senators went on to say that the government should reconsider what it is doing this respect.The government's motives are revealed, this gatekeeper role is revealed, when one considers some of the cases in which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has intervened and successfully sought leave. They include the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case, the Teoh case and the B & B Family Law case. In each of those cases the commission made submissions that were fundamentally different from those which were made by the government of the day. But that is their role. And, indeed, we cannot forget that it is frequently the government of the day that is the greatest oppressor of human rights.Bear in mind that the whole concept of human rights came to the fore internationally after the Second World War with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights arising from the atrocities and abuses of human rights that occurred in the period leading up to the war and during the war. Can we imagine what would have happened if the Attorney-General of Hitler's government had a gatekeeper role? If there had been such a creature as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, what leave would that commission have been given to intervene in the apprehension of Jews and the sending of them to concentration camps? If there had been a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or Committee at an international level, what would they have said of Japan's incarceration of prisoners of war and the allocation of them to slavery?All of these are fundamental principles. We are living in a time when there is relative democratic stability in this country. But the principle of fundamental rights cannot be taken away, as this government is indeed doing. You have to have the institutions search for the traumas that can occur in society. Another famous lawyer, Charles Hughes, the President of the American Bar Association, speaking to that association on 2 September 1925, said:The interests of liberty are peculiarly those of individuals, and hence of minorities, and freedom is in danger of being slain at her own alter if the passion for uniformity and control of opinion gathers head.That is precisely what this is about. This is precisely so that the Attorney-General can control and impose a uniformity of opinion on that which he allows through the gate. As I have said, that action is grossly offensive to the Australian people. It is a gross breach of the fundamental human rights of the Australian people, and the Attorney-General personally should be ashamed if he is responsible for the legislation. If others are responsible, they should certainly review what they are talking about.The other point in the bill which gives us concern is the limiting of the commission's ability to award damages. It is said that that is necessary because of the Brandy decision which found that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission cannot exercise at the same time administrative and judicial power. Nonetheless, the mere fact that in conciliation proceedings it had the ability to make a recommendation for the payment of damages at least provided an opportunity for someone who had been discriminated against or victimised to obtain compensation. That will no longer be a possibility unless the person has sufficient resources to take their action to the Federal Court of Australia and pay a $500 filing fee, together with all the legal costs. So effectively the ability to obtain damages has been taken away from most Australians, other than those of means.Another concern is the abolition of the Community Relations Council, which was established under the Racial Discrimination Act to provide community input into the development of policies in the human rights area. While that facility has not been utilised, the mere fact that it exists provides a far more appropriate mechanism to feed into the role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission the views of the community—whether they be business people, unions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or disability groups. That is a useful mechanism whereby the views of the community could be received, as opposed to what the Attorney-General, for instance, will now regard as being in the interests of mainstream Australians.Another matter which the opposition has spoken on with respect to the human rights No. 1 bill was the prohibition on the delegation of the president's complaint handling powers. We say that is short-sighted in the extreme. I have touched on this issue in the context of the abolition of the specialist commissioners. We say that the prohibition on delegation is short-sighted because there will be other commissioners who do have the expertise and experience to make the prospect of obtaining a satisfactory settlement of a discrimination or victimisation issue more likely.The opposition has very grave concerns about this legislation. They are fundamental concerns about this government's human rights record and its lack of sincerity in voicing an intention to address human rights issues in the community which is totally lacking when substance is looked at. It is a situation which is now causing not only great injustice in the Australian community, but also severe embarrassment internationally, because there is no doubt that Australia has breached and is continuing to breach its fundamental human rights obligations.When the reports come in from those international committees examining Australia's conduct, the government criticises the messenger and attacks the make-up of those human rights committees or the message that they have received. In the case of the government's native title legislation, which was criticised on 18 March by the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the government criticised that committee despite the fact that the committee gave precisely the same advice to the government that it had received from its own lawyers and, indeed, own General Counsel, by way of advice dated 25 July 1997. So the government is shamefully hypocritical in turning its back on that international voice.It is extremely short-sighted, because we live in a region where there are a number of poor countries around us. If we, as an industrialised and sophisticated nation, do not ourselves show concern for human rights within our own borders, how can we expect the rights of those citizens who exist in countries around us to be fostered? If those rights are not fostered—as the United Nations realised after the Second World War—they are a source of grievance, they are a source of conflict, and they are a source of instability in our region. So this government is short-sighted in the extreme in the approach it has taken to Australia's human rights record, both from the point of view of the victims of abuse of human rights and from the point of view of our democratic system and the interests of Australia as a whole.10:27:004374Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—To take up the intemperate outburst by the member for Barton, the government notes the views of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination but does not agree with the conclusions reached. The decision by the committee is superficial and unbalanced. We do not accept that the Native Title Amendment Act is discriminatory or that it is in breach of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The committee has failed to explain in any detail why it considers the act to be racially discriminatory, nor does it address the submissions made to it by the government, either in the written submission or by the government representatives who appeared before the committee. The report does not even mention the High Court's decision in Wik. The committee is not a court. It does not give binding decisions or judgments. It provides a view, an opinion, and it is up to countries to decide whether they agree with those views and how they will respond to them. And it is up to the Australian courts to determine the validity of native title legislation.This is the second bill proposed by the government to reorganise the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and to refocus the commission's functions. The bill follows on from the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 which passed recently through this House. Two separate matters have given rise to these bills. The first is the High Court decision in Brandy v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Com mission. The effect of Brandy is that chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution prevents the Commonwealth parliament from providing that a decision of a Commonwealth tribunal can be made judicially enforceable by the simple device of registering the decision with the Federal Court and giving it legal force, provided the respondent has not sought review of the decision within a specified time. This decision has been a major influence in restructuring Commonwealth tribunals and quasi-tribunals generally.The second matter is the review of the functions and management of the human rights commission carried out by the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Finance and Administration and the commission. The recommendations arising from that review have been given effect in these two bills.As to the bill before the House today, it was introduced in the House nearly 12 months ago, on 8 April 1998, and has been the subject of a Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report in the other place. Complementary legislation to the current bill was also passed by this House, which included the removal of provisions providing for the functions performed by the current Privacy Commissioner to be separated from the human rights commission and for a statutory office of the Privacy Commissioner to be created. That separate bill, the Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill, has been passed by this House.Essentially, this bill seeks to ensure that the commission that is empowered to handle issues of human rights is an effective, contemporary, yet progressive organisation. The original Human Rights Commission was established in 1981 and it gave effect to five international instruments: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the declaration on the rights of the child, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons.A new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was created in 1986. The major functions of the commission are outlined in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and the three antidiscrimination acts: the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.Prior to the High Court decision in Brandy, the commission's focus was to investigate alleged infringements under the three antidiscrimination laws and the privacy legislation and to attempt to resolve such matters through conciliation, where it was considered appropriate. Where conciliation was unsuccessful, or deemed inappropriate, matters were referred for formal hearing by hearing commissioners and, upon further inquiry, determinations were made to resolve such matters.Ancillary to that function, in the event that the commission was able to identify acts or practices that infringed other human rights, or that were otherwise discriminatory, and having identified such infringements and where conciliation was unsuccessful, or deemed inappropriate, the commission made recommendations and reports to the Attorney-General which were tabled in parliament. That was the major focus of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.The field of human rights is ever emerging, ever expanding. We must embrace change to meet the challenges, both internationally and domestically. The government is of the view that the new commission be primarily a forum for the negotiation and conciliation of complaints, rather than a quasi-judicial forum adjudicating on people's rights, and that it refocus its functions and its role with regard to education.The new commission's priority will be to educate Australians about human rights and discrimination and to help them to understand their responsibility as members of the Australian community to respect other people's human rights. I cannot conceive that anyone could seriously question the refocus and the emphasis on better educating the general community on human rights.Education is not about moralising and telling people what they should or should not do, or what is good or not good for them. It is not about indoctrination and trying to ensure that everyone thinks as we do. The philosophy of education in the human rights field should be a two-stage process. First, we gather the knowledge, the facts and the information, rules and processes about human rights in the world around us.The ground rules of human rights, what they are and whom they belong to, are ultimately very simple and perhaps very well known to people in this House, but not always elsewhere. They are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted 51 years ago, and acknowledged the world over as a new common standard for human dignity.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the wake of a devastating world war and it marked the first time that the rights and freedoms of individuals had been set out in such detail. It represented the first international recognition that human rights and fundamental freedoms were applicable to every person everywhere. In this sense, the universal declaration was a landmark achievement in world history. Today, it continues to affect people's lives and inspire human rights activism and legislation all over the world.In just 30 articles, the declaration set out the basic rights that each person shares, regardless of gender, race or religion. They have been described as the rock bottom of human existence and they include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of thought and opinion and the right to equal treatment before the law. They have gained prominence as a universally recognised set of norms and standards that increasingly inform all aspects of our relations as individuals and as collective members of groups within communities and among nations.These rights of political choice and association, of opinion, of expression, and of culture, the freedoms from fear and from all forms of discrimination and prejudice, freedom from want, and the right to employment and wellbeing and, collectively, to development, are essential to the sustainable achievement of the three agreed global priorities of peace, development and democracy.Australia is rightly regarded as a leading nation in the protection of human rights. We have a culture that is broadly accepting of others and we have legislation and legal mechanisms to guard against discrimination. However, the education process concerning human rights is not perfect. Much important work needs to be done. There is still intolerance, prejudice, a lack of appreciation, a lack of understanding of the fundamentals in the human rights area.So there is a second step in the process of education where individuals or organisations, understanding the ground rules they have learned, go beyond simply knowing how things work and go towards an understanding of how things can be improved. In the area of human rights, the end result and the chief goal of education is that we all become more effective members of our community in broadening our sensibilities and deepening our understanding of the privileges and responsibilities of being human.Hence the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission has a pivotal role. Yes, we have legislation in place, but this alone is not enough. Education is vital to ensure that we understand and recognise discrimination and then are in a position to counter and prevent discrimination from occurring in the first place.The government is very sincere about its focus for the commission on education. The task of a human rights commission in Australia should be to provide Australians from all walks of life with the information and assistance they require to help them better understand their human rights and community responsibilities. This refocusing of the commission's functions is reflected in the proposed new name, the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. The change of name recognises the fact that not only are there human rights, but there are responsibilities attaching as well.Surely no-one could seriously criticise a change in the functions of the human rights commission to ensure that Australians from all walks of life are better educated, better informed and better assisted in understanding their human rights and community responsi bilities. Prevention is all important in ensuring that Australia can have an exemplary attitude and approach intrinsic in their spirit to the matter of human rights.Education, and particularly education in the workplace, is vital as it allows us to counter and prevent discrimination from occurring in the first place. If we take business and industry as an example, there is an increasing recognition of the value of human rights education in the workplace. It is broadly accepted that addressing antidiscrimination and equal opportunity issues is good business sense. It ensures that the best people for the job get the job, that employees are given opportunities to develop their skills and potential, and it generates greater harmony and productivity for an organisation.The commission has previously seen as just one of its functions to foster public discussion and undertake research in educational programs concerning human rights, but the changes embodied in this act will focus the commission's work on programs and initiatives that eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunities in the workplace and in other areas, including health and education. It can play a leadership role in ensuring that education is given its due place in our communities, including the workplace, sending a clear message to the wider community about the sort of society that we value and that we are committed to achieving.In fact, the bill proposes to amend each of the provisions which confers functions on the commission by reordering those functions to accord priority to education and related functions. Thus, the bill will amend each of sections 11 and 31 of the act, section 67 of the Disability Discrimination Act, section 20 of the Racial Discrimination Act and section 48 of the Sex Discrimination Act.It is worth noting what it is that the focus will now become and the order in which the commission will focus its priorities. The amendments of each provision are similar and aim to place the following functions or similar functions at the forefront of the provisions in question: firstly, the promotion of an understanding and acceptance and the public discussion of human rights and of the respon sibility of all Australians to respect those rights. I challenge anyone to question the priority given to that function. Secondly, there is the promotion of an understanding and acceptance of and compliance with the three federal acts which make certain forms of discrimination unlawful; thirdly, the dissemination of information on human rights and on federal antidiscrimination laws, and on the correlative responsibility of people to respect those rights and to avoid discrimination; fourthly, the undertaking of research and educational programs for the purpose of promoting the objects of the federal antidiscrimination laws; and, finally, the preparation and publication of guidelines for avoiding discrimination and breaches of human rights. If the commission is able to focus on those priorities, it will indeed have international standing.As well as the change of name and the priority given to education, the bill provides for the reorganisation of the commission's membership which will comprise a president and three deputy presidents. The commission and its members will have a common responsibility to protect and promote human rights for all Australians. Each of the three deputy presidents will have responsibility for one of the following grouped subject areas, social justice and race—an all encompassing concept—sex discrimination and equal opportunity, and human rights and disability.There are solid reasons for this change. The first is that, as identified by the recent review, the commission's current structure is inefficient and top heavy and, in fact, the structure does not enable the commission to operate in the best interests of the entire community. Clearly, the prior situation where there were separate commissioners for specified areas of human rights is not administratively ideal, particularly where a case or a matter raised various aspects of human rights or equal opportunity law and could not be pigeon-holed into one specialisation or another.The development of a collegiate group of deputy presidents with overall responsibility for human rights, while still retaining certain specialisation, should improve the effectiveness of the commission. What is proposed is a useful and appropriate compromise between the two extremes of having specialist commissioners on the one hand and generalist deputy presidents on the other.Under the existing legislation, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the three antidiscrimination acts confer a series of functions on the commission as a whole, including the handling of complaints under the relevant acts. So, in fact, while in practice the specialist commissioners had been performing functions under their specific act, only the complaints handling functions have been required by the legislation to be performed by the relevant commissioners.The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill, which has already passed through the House, means that none of the acts specifically provide that any commission function is to be performed by a specific commissioner. That is no longer there. Instead, it will be up to the commission to delegate these functions and powers to commissioners as it sees fit. More importantly, post the Brandy decision, the powers in relation to complaints handling are to be the exclusive domain of the president.In fact, with this bill the government is continuing what is the current approach to the allocation of functions amongst the members of the commission. Although the deputy presidents will be designated in the legislation as having responsibility for general subject areas, it will in practice the left to the commission to decide which functions are to be performed by which deputy presidents, the expectation being, of course, that the commission would allocate functions in accordance with the designated fields of responsibility.This approach gives the commission the ability to make the most efficient use of its resources by departing from the expected allocation of functions where there is a valid reason for doing so. That level of flexibility is not currently available to it. An example would be where the guidelines are being produced for a particular industry which cover all aspects of human rights and discrimination in that industry—a holistic approach.The government believes that this approach will encourage the deputy presidents to focus on the broader strategic goals of the commission as a whole, rather than being forced to confine their narrow focus to a portfolio of specific concerns. Broadening the range of subject areas for which the deputy presidents might have responsibility will ensure that the new structure of the three deputy presidents, with support from specialist units within the staff of the commission, will allow the commission to work in specific areas without the current overlap and duplication in work and administration.It is important to note that the new structure will allow for the development of expertise in new areas without the need to appoint new portfolio specific commissioners for each of the new or emerging areas. The commission's new structure will be more streamlined, more efficient and will make better use of its resources. It will maintain its areas of specialist expertise, but the new structure will allow for the development of a broader and more cohesive organisation with responsibility of protecting everyone's rights and promoting awareness of everyone's responsibilities to each other.Neither the collegiate responsibility of the deputy presidents nor the designation of spheres of responsibilities for each deputy president is intended to limit his or her ability to develop specialisations in other important areas—for example, children's rights, age discrimination and other areas. In addition, the proposed legislation requires persons appointed as deputy presidents to the new commission to have the same expertise, qualifications and experience as persons appointed as commissioners to the old commission.The new commission will not retain the current human rights commissioner's power to make non-binding recommendations in reports to the Attorney-General for the payment of damages or compensation following inquiries into complaints of breaches of human rights under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act. Unlike complaints under the three antidiscrimination acts, these complaints do not allege conduct which is unlawful, and the removal of this function is entirely consistent with the government's desire that the new commission be primarily a forum for the negotiation and conciliation of complaints. It would indeed be inappropriate, if not entirely incongruous, to retain a power, even one recommendatory in nature, in relation to compensation for these types of complaints which do not even constitute unlawful discrimination when the new commission will have no such power in relation to complaints of unlawful discrimination.The third area of interest is the fact that the commission will enhance its role as amicus curiae, friend of the court. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)10:47:004379Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise this morning to speak on the issue of human rights and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . Firstly, I thank the member for Curtin for her fascinating lesson on international human rights. Unfortunately, it failed to address the issue of Australian human rights and the ever diminishing role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission under this government. The human rights legislation bill is a deception on the people of Australia. This bill will not deliver a more efficient human rights commission focused on the delivery of community education concerning discrimination. Rather it is a further attack on an internationally admired institution, an institution used by others in establishing their own human rights bodies.This bill represents the antipathy this government feels towards protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. This bill is consistent with the continued timidness and lack of leadership shown by this Prime Minister on the issues of human rights. The changes to structures and policies within the commission outlined in this bill cannot be supported because they will have a deeply felt and fundamental impact on the machinery of individual protection within our society. The assertion by the minister that this bill will be `a catalyst for fundamental change in the commission' is quite simply inaccurate and immodest. That statement fails to give full credit to the impact of the government's budgetary cuts. Surely nothing this government has done has altered the role of the commission more than these harsh and unsustainable cuts to the commission's budget.The government's funding shortfalls are choking the commission. Since coming to office this government has stripped away the commission's funding with each successive budget. When they came to office, $21.6 million was provided to the commission in the 1995-96 financial year. This was reduced to $20.5 million provided in the Howard budget for the 1996-97 financial year. This amount was then further reduced to $18.2 million provided in the years 1997-98. This figure went down again in the budget for the year 1998-99. The commission received only $12.3 million in funding. This represents a massive overall cut to operating funds that must have an impact on the ability of the commission to function fully and properly. The commission must now operate with an average of only $10.6 million over each of the three out years.This budget crisis has meant that the commission now operates on a budget just over half the size it previously enjoyed. The result of these budget cuts has meant that the commission has been forced to sack 60 of the 180 staff that it had. As a consequence of all this, the commission has abandoned the majority of the inquiry work and instead focuses purely on essential statutory obligations. These cuts have been particularly deep in the area of the disability discrimination commissioner. The fact that half the staff employed to assist the commissioner for disabilities have been sacked due to budget cuts is not information gladly received in my electorate of Oxley. Due to the placement of significant members of welfare institutions and organisations within the electorate of Oxley, we have a large number of people who have disabilities. These people and their families are deeply affected by any diminution of rights or opportunities for Australians with disabilities.In light of the budget cuts endured by the commission under this government, it has meant that certain roles and functions of the commission had to be shed. The minister refers to the new commission's priority as being to `educate Australians about human rights and discrimination'. What he is not telling us is that it will not so much be the commission's priority in so far as it has choices. Due to serious under funding, it will be the only progressive and proactive role the commission will have the resources to undertake. Notwithstanding the vital importance of education, this is a dramatic degrading of the role of the commission. Without the funds to undertake inquiry work, and coupled with the minister taking away the independence of the commission and giving himself discretion over intervention in court proceedings, the only role other than complaint handling is that of education. How can this government expect the commission to make inroads into the community's views on discrimination when they continue to send all the wrong signals on these matter themselves?The government calls on the commission to educate the community about human rights to help them understand their responsibilities as members of the Australian community and to respect other people's human rights. This job is impossible when the government itself does not live up to these standards. When confronted with discrimination, this government has a track record ranging between arrogant indifference to the views of others through to timidness in the face of destructive populism. When Pauline Hanson rose from the Liberal Party into national prominence as a spruiker of ignorant untruths and bigotry, it was not the Prime Minister who took control of the situation. There was no leadership. Instead, if anything, the Prime Minister flirted with a situation he quite enjoyed. The government had an unprincipled bet each way, and they lost.The Prime Minister did not educate the Australian people on the fundamental wrongness of Hanson's comments or of her actions. Instead, he chose to hide. He let it go on and, in doing so, it is now widely accepted that he played a vital part in the growth in popularity of Pauline Hanson and the One Nation movement. In fact, for the Prime Minister to do anything other than hide would have meant taking the sort of bold public stand on matters of human rights and dignity which are conspicuously absent from his political career. The Prime Minister did not educate Hanson or those with a growing sympathy for her anxieties and prejudices because to do so would have meant a confrontation, not just a confrontation with Hanson and One Nation but the Prime Minister would have had to confront matters much closer to home.The public statements of the member for Kennedy are early incarnations of the views of Hanson, and what too of Mr Howard's own demons? Surely he would not welcome a visit from the ghost of elections past where comments of his own are matters of lingering regret. How can the commission communicate to the people of Australia a growing awareness of the importance of human rights when the Australian people can see a government with decreasing emphasis placed on these very matters?The government's commitment to human rights can be justifiably measured easily by the funding allocated to one of the principal bodies designated to protect and enforce human rights. As illustrated earlier, the commission is declining rapidly under the weight of successive budget cuts. Staff have been shed. Subsequently, vital work is now no longer being done by the commission. The community is feeling the impact of these cuts and is taking on board the underlying message that this government believes—that is, that human rights are a diminishing concern.It can be rightly assumed that the government's commitment to individual rights has decreased since the change of government and that the approach of this government is to trim back protection for individuals. This fact is borne out by a similar reduction to the legal aid budget and changes to administrative law. All of these changes have the net impact of putting justice further out of reach for individuals. The Howard government's criteria for legal assistance in relation to the human rights commission carries additional criteria to the usual standard of merit and financial hardship and as such excludes people who are suffering discrimination from access to legal assistance. These additional broad public interest criteria are unique to those enduring discrimination and are not imposed on other civil litigants seeking legal aid.Those of us on this side of the House believe that the elimination of discrimination against any individual is in both the sectional and broader public interest. How can Australians have respect for our national human rights watchdog when this government has shown such disrespect for the international human rights watchdog? The fact is that this government does not listen to the independent umpire, and that sets a poor example for the rest of the community.The report from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was a major embarrassment for this country. We have achieved infamy as the first Western nation to be criticised by this body. Australia's international standing and our economy cannot sustain the international embarrassment that comes with having been reported. Of course, diminishing the United Nations and ignoring international obligations is a habitual problem with this government. Australia's reputation as a human rights beacon has slipped away and bodies like the UN are now left with only the ability to criticise. Where once this criticism would have deeply concerned the government and motivated swift action to meet international standards, this is sadly no longer the case. This government, however, have a different approach: they simply point out these bodies that have no way of enforcing their recommendations and as such the government are free to continue embarrassing our country and offending the international community.There can be no greater offence in the international community than to be reported as racially discriminatory. This offence certainly demonstrates very little mateship to the rest of the international community, let alone for our own people. The committee has found a multitude of problems that can be addressed, including fixing the Native Title Act so it is consistent with the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. But a significant part of the report also covers concerns over changes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the abolition of the specialist commissioners, particularly the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.The development of five commissioners in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was based on need and not fashion. While the government attempts to economically justify scaling down the number of commissioners to three vice-presidents, it has shown its true misunderstanding of human rights. Each title of the commissioners identifies the issue that comes under their individual jurisdiction. A workplace discrimination case against a disabled woman may cross into the field of expertise of two commissioners, but the consultation between experts from two areas of discrimination enables an accurate identification of the nature and resolution of such a claim.By appointing vice-presidents to the commission, this government is determined to diminish people's rights to a fair hearing. When a case is being heard before a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner, we expect them to have a comprehensive understanding of the breaches of human rights and a specific understanding of the individual violations brought before them. In creating generalist vice-presidents, the government is proposing to deny each one of us the right to be treated fairly and with equity in our own human rights commission.In the much discussed preamble released this week, the Prime Minister has recognised a fundamental separation between the indigenous of our nation and the immigrants who have arrived since settlement. Why is this then not evident in the proposed Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission? The elimination of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner is just another step in the government's not so subtle attack on indigenous Australians.Our nation has been heralded throughout the international community as the only OECD country to face a committee hearing at the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recognised that a:. . . broad range of discriminatory practices had long been directed against Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.What does the John Howard government do less than a week after this statement is made? It introduces legislation into this chamber that further denies the rights of the people that the United Nations is trying to protect and that Australia should be trying to protect. The soon to be irreconcilable position between government and indigenous Australians is not going to be rectified by eliminating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander means of discourse. The Howard government cannot censure the rights of individuals by restructuring the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.This government continues to ignore that Australian indigenous people have long had a voice in the international arena. The Maralinga Tjarutja successfully lobbied the UK government for reparation in their land damaged by nuclear testing, and former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Dodson, was included in the consultation process for the UN draft declaration on the rights of the indigenous peoples.You would think that the Howard government would want to avoid highlighting this failure to reconcile with our own history. After all, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination considered the recent Australian case under its early warning measures. The Attorney-General may have fobbed off the findings of the committee as irrelevant, but the rest of the world now knows a bit more about it and will continue to watch us. Instead of considering the findings of the United Nations committee as a warning to smarten up, the Howard government wants to restrict the effectiveness of human rights by inventing the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 will centralise conciliation powers to the president of the commission, further alienating individuals in an attempt by the government purely to save money. The Howard government has put an economic value on human rights. But the prohibition on the delegation of the president will eventually force individuals to take their concerns outside of the commission. Specialist commissioners should continue to have the conduct of the conciliation of disputes. Their expertise places them in the best position to understand the requirements needed for conciliation of a particular type of dispute.The centralisation of conciliation process in the hands of the Executive President of the commission ignores the need for different types of disputes to be conciliated in different ways. The suggestion that such centralisation produces efficiency ignores the fact that if complaints are not handled in the most appropriate manner then they will be less likely to be successfully conciliated, and therefore more likely to proceed to determination at the Federal Court. All that increases expenses to the taxpayer.Under the proposed model, the three vice-presidents of the commission are designated to supersede the five current commissioners. In order for the five vice-presidents to remain in touch with the Australian community on human rights matters, the Community Relations Council and advisory committees must remain. Without these two bodies, the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission will be vulnerable to lobbying from community groups all vying for the attention of the relevant vice-president. If a vice-president's role is to be generalist in nature, then the Community Relations Council and advisory committees would be able to provide an essential means of discourse for community groups. The community consultation process that is required by the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission could be undertaken by the advisory committees. In turn, these committees could advise the commission on the specific matters of concern in the community.The Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission must have expertise in human rights, disability and racial discrimination, social justice, sex discrimination and equal opportunity. If the Howard government limits the commission's expertise on human rights by abolishing the Community Relations Council and the advisory committees, it is under mining an individual's inherent value. By doing that, the Howard government is denying an individual his or her most basic human right. This bill is an attack on all Australians and should be condemned for what it is.Debate (on motion by Mr Truss) adjourned.Bills4383r7674383Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.438311:04:004383Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is a further example of the government's commitment to the broad policy objective of encouraging self-reliance through the security of a steady income stream. The government will ensure that people who receive compensation payments use them for their support, at least for a reasonable period of time, before calling on the taxpayer funded social security system. Many members will be aware of cases where injured people have received one-off lump sum compensation payments which have been quickly dissipated and hence have not provided them with long-term financial support. In contrast, compensation paid in periodic instalments provides a more reliable, long-term source of income for injured people. Accordingly, this bill aims at reducing any social security incentive for compensation recipients to choose lump sum payments in preference to ongoing periodic payments as well as encouraging insurers and compensation authorities to make periodic payments.This measure applies only to compensation payments made solely in respect of non-economic loss. Significantly, these payments will continue to be treated more concessionally than other compensation payments. Applying the current treatment of economic loss payments to payments awarded purely for non-economic loss would be unduly harsh, given that these payments are not made in respect of any loss of income but are typically for pain and suffering, loss of limbs, et cetera. Nevertheless, disregarding these lump sums is inequitable and inconsistent with government policy.Under this initiative, the treatment of non-economic loss lump sums will still be more generous than the treatment of other types of lump sum income, because the first $10,000 will be disregarded under the income test. In addition, the usual income test free areas and generous taper will apply to the amount of the lump sum that exceeds $10,000, in the same manner as they apply to other ordinary income amounts. Further, in contrast to the treatment of lump sums made in respect of economic loss, the maximum time a person will be excluded from receiving social security payments as a result of receiving a lump sum non-economic loss payment will be capped at 12 months.In line with the government's policy of encouraging self-reliance through the security of a steady income stream, a person will be able to use any amount of a non-economic loss lump sum payment to purchase an income stream product. Where a person makes that choice, the amount used will be disregarded for the purposes of this measure, and the more beneficial income stream provisions which are already in the Social Security Act 1991 will apply. Prior to the commencement of this measure, consultations will be undertaken with relevant industry organisations so that their comments can be taken into account when drafting the regulations necessary to implement the income streams option.For periodic payments in respect of non-economic loss, payments which do not exceed $2,000 in a 28-day period will be disregarded for the purposes of the income test. In effect, this allows a person to receive $500 per week—that is, approximately $25,000 per annum—without that payment affecting his or her social security entitlement. This approach offers a significant incentive for compensation recipients to opt for the long-term security of periodic payments and is in recognition that there are additional costs to be met in respect of injury, for example, mobility aids.This measure also recognises that a person receiving a non-economic loss compensation payment may have special needs arising out of the injury, such as necessary home or car modifications. Accordingly, where a compensation authority or insurer makes payments directly to a third party for those modifications to be undertaken, those payments are to be disregarded for the purposes of this initiative.By having the commencement date determined by proclamation, there will be sufficient flexibility to allow state and territory governments and insurers the opportunity to implement any desirable changes to the way their schemes operate in response to the introduction of this initiative. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills4384r7504384Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.11:08:004384Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 that we are debating today is a further step in the government's piecemeal development of policy on the private health insurance industry. This bill makes a number of amendments to the National Health Act 1953. The objective of the government is to address various concerns raised in the Industry Commission's report No. 57 into private health insurance by adding to the powers and functions of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, commonly known as PHIAC.I refer the government to the Industry Commission's conclusions on page 364 of that report, where it stated:The over-riding purpose of any regulatory regime should be the protection of consumers and not the protection of inefficient funds. The commission made three other points which are relevant to the bill before us. It recommended that there was a need to separate the regulator from the policy making bureaucracy, a need to exclude representation by stakeholders in the management of the regulator and a need to hire specialist skills.Tacked onto the end of this bill there is a large number of amendments to the Private Health Insurance Rebate Scheme that everyone will recall was rushed through parliament last December. In fact, there are no fewer than 19 pages of amendments to the original bill which are necessary to deal with a wide range of what the government probably sees as administrative glitches and unforeseen consequential problems. With the original bill being only 48 pages long, it is pretty remarkable in that the amendments are nearly half the length of the original. I will come to the problems associated with these later.This bill is the third piece of legislation brought forward by this government as part of what we could call `its obsession' with private health insurance. Any international visitor coming to this country would be excused from thinking that private health insurance was the dominant source of finance within Australia's health sector—and it is not. Members opposite might be interested to know that, until last year, member contributions through health funds amounted to just over $4 billion a year—and I stress that that is under 10 per cent of the total cost of running the health system.The ideological commitment of this government to propping up the private health insurance industry is based on the view that, as money is drawn in through private funds, the public hospital system will be relieved of pressure. So far, the government's actions have proved completely counterproductive to this goal. If there is no substantial increase in the number of people with health insurance—and this is the important thing—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—There will be.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—And the Minister for Community Services opposite says that there will be—the result will be that private contributions to funds will have slumped to around $3 billion, or just seven per cent of the total health bill. Further, the government will have picked up the enormous costs of the rebate. Estimates are that it will be spending up to $1.7 billion a year to further meet a cost which private contributors were previously meeting. In other words, the proportion of the health system not paid for by private health insurance premiums will have increased under this government from 90 to 93 per cent. Talk about getting it the wrong way around! In the meantime there is no evidence of a reduction of pressure on the public system; such reduction, of course, could have been achieved for far less than the government has spent on the private health insurance rebate.I would emphasise a comment I made in the House just a couple of weeks ago. That is, rather than being the saviour of the health insurance industry, this government is turning out to be its worst enemy through its inconsistent and ill thought out attempts to prop up the industry without addressing its glaring and deep faults.I just want to remind the government of what has been achieved so far with the 30 per cent rebate. As we approach the end of the third month of the rebate, the government has now handed out over $300 million to existing health fund members who have been queuing up to get their money. Private comments by the funds indicate that only a small number of new members have been joining up for hospital coverage. For example, Medibank Private has reported that only 6,000 new members signed up for hospital insurance in January, and that fund represents a quarter of the market.The government's very modest target—given the money being spent—of 33 per cent of the population having private health insurance by the end of this year requires 500,000 new members to take out health insurance. The industry gave sworn evidence only three months ago that it believed the rebate would fix all its problems in attracting over 2½ million new members and boosting the participation rate to 45 per cent. Of course, the issues in private health insurance are gaps and value for money. But this government seems to be deaf to the public who are voting with their feet, deserting the funds and supporting Medicare.This minister seems unable to come to terms with these facts and instead simply is hoping that the industry itself will one day sort out its problems. One significant benefit of the bill we are debating is that the power of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to examine complaints about the payment of the rebate is to be confirmed. I understand in practice this is already happening and that there was a steady stream of complaints from people to that ombudsman in January and February of this year. It is certainly the case that electorate officers from both sides of the House around Australia have received a wave of complaints from people who have been misled by the government's advertisements for the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. This was because the government's advertisements conflicted with the advice the insurance funds were giving to members and did not fully disclose the conditions attached to the rebate. Many people found that the rebate produced only a small reduction in their actual health insurance bill because the government abolished the previous means tested assistance for pensioners and low income families. Just as the opposition warned, the people who need it the most got the least. Instead of the advertised cuts of up to $600 many people found that they got as little as $100 extra off their bill.Other problems that have been complained about include that the funds wrote to their members saying that the 30 per cent rebate was not available to people who had paid for their insurance in advance. The funds extended the term of insurance rather than providing a reduction in premiums. Funds charged the full rate of insurance in January because they had been unable to alter their computer programs and access to cash rebates was delayed for many members until mid February. So the 30 per cent rebate turned out not to be 30 per cent for many people and not available as a rebate.This confusion was added to by the government's advertising which failed to explain that many people would get much less than 30 per cent off their current bills and failed to mention that the rebate did not apply to unregistered funds. The amendments in this bill attempt to paper over some of these cracks and fix up the administrative procedures associated with the rebate. I will return to the detail of that in a moment.First of all, I want to address the substance of the bill which concerns the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. This body—PHIAC—was established in June 1989 as an essentially administrative and advisory body when a new part 6AA was inserted into the National Health Act. The functions that had previously been the responsibility of the then Department of Human Services and Health were transferred to the new council. Initially the council was responsible for mainly procedural matters and giving policy advice. This was reflected in the membership of the council which included various representatives from the private health funds. There have since been several amendments to its legislation as PHIAC has slowly evolved into a more independent entity. Additional functions were given to it in 1995 including the dissemination of information about private health insurance.In 1998 further changes were made conferring more functions and changing the structure from an advisory council to an independent board. As a result the insurance funds representatives were removed from the council in July 1998. Yet further changes were proposed in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) of 1998 which is currently before the parliament. The government has proposed to divest its responsibility for approval of premium increases to PHIAC which it represented as being an arms-length industry regulated body suited to this task. But we actually happen to just be debating this bill now. The opposition did not support this move when it was debated in the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago and we have not supported it in the Senate because at this stage PHIAC is not properly constituted as an independent regulator and because the government must retain accountability for premium increases because of the huge amount of public funds it has now poured into the 30 per cent health insurance rebate. I am pleased that the Senate has agreed with this view and has rejected these amendments.Once again, the government has put the cart before the horse because it lacked an overall plan and this lack of an overall plan is also evidenced by the toe-dipping approach that we see here to the reconstituting of PHIAC. There needs to be a much more fundamental review if it is really to be turned into the sort of body which would have independent responsibility for pricing, prudential control and overall regulation of a $4 billion industry.The proposals that are now before us in this bill will leave the organisation as it is but extend PHIAC's responsibility for regulating the industry and remove the direct involvement of the minister and the department except for policy matters. Schedule 1 of the bill will transfer further functions and powers from the Department of Health and Aged Care to PHIAC to enhance its role as an industry regulator and this includes the power to register funds, cancel registrations and approve mergers.The opposition does support the thrust of this approach but we are concerned about the ad hoc way in which PHIAC has developed as an organisation. A better approach would have been to establish a strong and clearly focused private health insurance regulatory authority with responsibility for supervision of the industry. I will return to this alternative when I discuss the prudential regulatory provisions contained in schedule 2.Schedule 1 includes a range of other amendments which impact on the expanded functions of PHIAC, and I want to touch on those briefly. Firstly, the bill will require all funds to incorporate as companies. Members of the House may be surprised to find that at present three of the private health insurance funds are unincorporated associations and others are incorporated but do not have full company status under the Corporations Law. This provision in the bill is highly desirable as it will ensure that all funds are run in a professional way subject to the normal checks and balances that fund members would expect to protect their interests.Another requirement is that registered companies must be constituted so that health insurance is their primary purpose and so payment by health funds is to be used only for health insurance business purposes. This too reflects the desirable evolution of the funds into organisations which are focused on their principal task. The bill also requires business decisions to be taken giving priority to the interests of the contributors to the funds. The bill goes further to allow the courts to set aside transactions which manifestly are not in the interest of contributors. Finally, the bill creates a new civil penalty regime for directors where serious contraventions have occurred without taking reasonable steps to avoid them.These are all appropriate measures to establish a more accountable industry, and they have the support of the opposition. However, they continue the pattern, as I say again, of piecemeal change to the evolution of PHIAC. What we would like to see is a fresh start. The degree of government regulation of the industry and the heavy subsidies from the government are two powerful reasons why there should be a strong and independent regulatory authority for the private health insurance industry.The government should look at a broader approach to carve out a clear future for this industry in a manner which would complement Medicare, not constantly be in competition with it. A new strong industry regulator would be able to ensure that the funds become more professional and competitive with each other. It could establish proper prudential standards and enforce them. It could promote a more efficient industry by promoting mergers to create fewer but larger funds or groups of funds to negotiate collectively with hospitals and doctors. This would enable more control on costs. It could give a new focus on increasing accountability to consumers and delivering more consumer friendly products. Above all else, it should be exercising some discipline on the industry to contain costs, eliminate gap payments and offer value for money. This would be the road back to industry health, and it is time the government and the industry took on this task.Schedule 2 of the bill strengthens the powers of PHIAC in regard to prudential regulation of registered funds. A number of funds have operated below the current minimum reserve requirements for some years. The bill proposes to strengthen PHIAC's oversight role and gives it power to order the winding up of a fund and the appointment of an administrator.It is proposed that the current reserve requirement that funds hold two months operating funds be replaced with more relaxed solvency and capital adequacy standards. The new standards are to be adopted by the council after consultation with the Australian Government Actuary. PHIAC reported that, as of 30 June last year, five out of the 44 funds were in breach of these solvency standards. This was down from nine funds operating below the minimum requirements a year earlier and the funds involved are mainly small. However, it is unsettling that a significant part of the industry is operating close to the minimum requirements. During 1997-98 the average reserves in contribution months declined from 2.75 to 2.68, and the recent 22 per cent premium increase required by the Defence Health Benefits Fund, which came 15 months after an earlier 12 per cent increase, indicates how vulnerable some funds have become to changes in claim behaviour.The opposition has several concerns about the proposed amendments which substantially alter the way that health insurance providers are prudentially regulated. While not necessarily opposed to the government's proposals, the opposition is concerned that we are being asked to vote on a bill on which we do not have the full information.Specifically, schedule 2, part 1, item 2 of the bill repeals sections 73BAB and 73BAC of the National Health Act, which state that, as a condition of registration as a health benefits fund, the fund must at all times maintain assets of a value which exceed a minimum prescribed amount, which is defined as $1 million or a higher amount if prescribed. These set the minimum capital reserves that must be maintained by health benefits funds and the methods in which health benefits funds can seek exemption from the minimum levels. There are also a range of other conditions in the sections which a health benefits provider must meet in order to remain a registered organisation. This includes a provision for the minister on the advice of the council to set an additional amount which is deemed necessary.What the current law is stating is that the parliament considers that a health benefits provider must meet certain capital adequacy and solvency standards if it wishes to be registered as a provider. It is a clear message from all of us—the elected representatives—that we expect certain standards to be met by these organisations if they wish to operate as legitimate health benefit providers.In place of this very clear message—which is the current law on capital adequacy and solvency—the government is proposing in division 3A of the bill we are currently debating that solvency standards and capital adequacy standards can be set by PHIAC. In other words, the government is removing from the direct jurisdiction of the parliament the capacity for the parliament to set capital adequacy and solvency standards and is giving this power to the unelected board of PHIAC. This is a very substantial increase in responsibility and should be accompanied by a rethink on the make-up and range of skills needed on the board of PHIAC to carry out this role.What the government is proposing is a fundamental shift in the capital adequacy and solvency setting arrangements for health benefit fund providers. I would like to emphasise that the opposition is not in-principle opposed to this type of arrangement. For example, we gave our in-principle support to this type of arrangement in the Managed Investments Act 1998 and went on to support the capital adequacy provisions proposed in the Senate for that act.But, just as with the Managed Investments Act 1998, the opposition has concerns about this type of shift in capital adequacy and solvency arrangements. While we are prepared to let this bill go through the House unopposed, we do reserve our right to make amendments after an investigation of this issue by an appropriate Senate committee. I point out that when we did go through a similar process on the Managed Investments Bill in 1998 the government was most helpful in providing answers to opposition concerns and questions and was also helpful during Senate negotiations. I hope that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will consider adopting a similar approach should the need arise.In terms of the capital adequacy and solvency standards required under the government's proposals, the bill will require PHIAC to establish in writing a capital adequacy and solvency standard which may set different standards for various health benefits organisations. In setting such a standard, PHIAC is required to consult with the Australian Government Actuary concerning that standard. These standards would be a disallowable instrument of the parliament.Again I stress that the opposition is not fundamentally opposed to this type of arrangement. However, if we are to accept this we must first be assured that the standard set by PHIAC will be appropriate. Remember, PHIAC will be taking over a role which it did not previously have.In addition, there are complex provisions of the Corporations Law that will apply if this bill passes in its current form. Will PHIAC have the expertise to deal with this new power? During the debate on the Managed Investments Act, the government encouraged the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to draft and release its proposed policy on how it would set and apply these capital adequacy standards for single responsible entities. The opposition would be interested in seeing a similar draft policy or document for PHIAC outlining the policies and practices that it will be adopting.Another issue that should be considered is that PHIAC is only required to consult with the Australian Government Actuary on the issue of these capital adequacy and solvency standards. The Australian Government Actuary is an appropriate body to advise PHIAC on the issues of such standards. However, under this bill there is no obligation on the part of PHIAC to actually follow the Australian Government Actuary's advice. Without knowing how the government will strengthen PHIAC and ensure it has the necessary skills, I am still uncomfortable with the prospect that PHIAC has the power to ignore expert advice and decide its own standards.If PHIAC is too close to the insurance funds or can be influenced by them, it could make a choice which was not in the best long-term interests of the industry. The board of PHIAC will also need to draw on a high level of expertise to assist them, and for this they will need appropriate staffing and funding to carry out the new roles that they have been given and to apply the new provisions of the Corporations Law. We would also like to know whether the health insurance funds have made the commitment to pay significant increased levies to provide the necessary resources.The government did consider transfer of the prudential requirements to the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority but decided to retain PHIAC's role on the grounds that the industry required specialist knowledge and—more time to move to a more commercially oriented regulatory framework.The basic issue is that health insurance is still a non-risk rated form of insurance and heavily regulated whereas, of course, general insurance is not.So the opposition does accept the argument that private health insurance will be better off, at least in the short term, under a stand-alone prudential regulator. However, from my point of view, the government's arguments really do need to be further explained, and the question of the comparative powers and resources between APRA and PHIAC examined to see whether or not the Private Health Insurance Administration Council in its current form is capable of doing the equivalent job. The opposition can see a strong case for a new private health insurance regulatory authority with its own act and clear powers and functions, including the equivalent prudential functions that apply to the general insurance industry under the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.Two other matters are dealt with in schedule 2. They are the replacement of the current judicial management and winding up arrangements with an administrative scheme. Court approval would still be required to force compliance with the winding up order. Funds can also elect to have a voluntary wind-up. Health fund contributors would be given priority in the winding up of funds and directors could be made liable for losses where they failed to show due diligence. The opposition supports both of these measures.I want to turn briefly to schedule 3 of the bill which will make a number of changes to overcome problems that have arisen in the implementation of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. These changes are essentially administrative and reflect a number of defects in the 1998 legislation as well as unforseen complications. Among other things, these amendments will resolve doubts about who is the eligible person to receive the rebate by requiring the fund to issue receipts to the payee who may be a person other than the insured person—for example, a relative or an employer.The Health Insurance Commission will be required to pay claims within 14 days. Fund members who have had a claim rejected will be able to seek a review by the Health Insurance Commission before having to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as currently applies.The bill removes the requirements for annual registration to reduce the amount of paperwork. This does introduce a risk of incorrect payments being made but equally makes administration much simpler. The minister will be able to revoke the registration of a fund as would be necessary to enforce Senator Harradine's amendments should a fund not offer no gap or known gap policies by July 2000. There will be a tightening up of other reporting and auditing requirements.The opposition will agree to these amendments but once again highlights the hurried and, I would have to say, ill-prepared way in which the legislation for the 30 per cent rebate was prepared. These amendments would not have been necessary if the government had done its homework in the first instance.I conclude by repeating that the opposition has considerable concerns about the way in which the government has tackled the regula tion of the private health insurance industry. I do hope that some of our concerns will be able to be addressed via a Senate committee. It is certainly my view that rather than taking this piecemeal approach to the long-term role of PHIAC it would be much better for the government to start afresh and get a proper regulatory authority for this very important industry. The opposition is not opposing the bill but will reserve its right to propose amendments in the Senate after some of the issues that I have talked about today have been further explored.11:37:004390Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Governments for many years have struggled with the health policy of this nation because the fact of the matter is the price and cost of health is rising much more quickly than the price and cost of other commodities in our society. Modern health techniques, drugs and methods of poor health management have improved so vastly, and the nation and its people want to have the very best, particularly the children of the nation deserve the very best. Governments have struggled to retain the costs of health, so the balance is drawn between obtaining the best and limiting the cost of health.The Australian Labor Party have adopted an approach of almost complete socialised medicine. I went back to the last election and found in their policy a commitment to improve Medicare, to open Medicare offices that had been closed and to maintain the private health system. But when you examine that policy, they indicated they would not unscramble some of the things they claimed that the government had done, and they dealt also with pharmaceuticals.It was very much, `We were right. We should never have lost the election in 1996. We are going to go back to that and continue the policies of those days.' Those policies have been demonstrated to be a failure. The health bills continue to rise. They become more and more expensive for the nation to cover, and we have a declining level of private insurance, a level that is putting and has put a greater load on the private health system. The states suffer. Public hospitals suffer. The fact is that the whole medical and hospital services are confronted with difficulties under the policies of the Labor Party.Over a period of time we have had highly paid Labor Party ministers coming into this House and boasting that they were not insured. I remember former Minister for Health Neal Blewett being proud of the fact that he carried no private health insurance, and his wife also had a government job, if I remember rightly. He boasted of the fact that he and his wife made no contribution other than the normal contribution to health, despite their high incomes. We also had the Prime Minister of the day making those same claims.It is not an easy task, and the Labor Party found that out. We have a Minister for Health and Aged Care who has applied himself relentlessly to the difficulties and the complexities of these problems. Point after point he is gaining success and gradually changing the system, despite the problems and costs of it. Some of the initiatives of this government have been to recognise by the payment of a 30 per cent rebate those people who are privately insured and to encourage those who want to be sure that there can be no hold-ups or hang-ups with their health payments.I do not know what the member for Calwell, the member for Menzies or any other member in the House has found in their electorate, but I have found that elderly people think of their health coverage first. It does not matter whether they have very low incomes or moderately high incomes, being certain that they are going to get coverage from their local doctor, a place in the local hospital and the best treatment is their number one concern. Health insurance is really related to a matter of wishing to have certainty and protection against ill health.The notorious gap has made that more and more doubtful because people have not been able to assess the increasingly high charges they have had to meet for procedures in hospitals. Bills of $1,000 or $1,200 to cover the gap for medical procedures are not unheard of, and elderly people with meagre savings find that amount very difficult to cover, to prepare for, to save for. So, even reluctantly, some of those people who carry the burden of poor health have had to drop their health insurance. The government is seeking to restore all that. The government wants people to regain that sense of certainty and to feel that they will have the choices that they want in health services, and the 30 per cent rebate is one way of doing that.Another way that the government has implemented is to have no gap or to have a known gap so people know exactly what they are going to be up for before a procedure is carried out in a hospital. The concept of the minister is to have one bill covering all procedures at the hospital. That is an innovation. The Labor Party could have done it years ago. It took a Liberal Party to come in and a Liberal minister, Dr Wooldridge, to say, `We need to change these things and take the uncertainties out of the system.' That is what he has done and that is what this government has done.The Labor Party, with their meagre policy on health, after years of attempting to solve the problem with ministers who were ideologically committed to a public health system and could not countenance a public system—Graham Richardson made some small attempt, but he was squashed after a period—did nothing about private coverage and making people feel certain in the health system. They just jacked up the cost year after year and it became more and more messy. One has only to look at the impact in the state of New South Wales to understand precisely what the ramifications of the combination of a Commonwealth Labor government and a state Labor government produces. In the current election campaign the policies are markedly different between the parties. You have Kerry Chikarovski out there saying, `We're going to build new hospitals and restore those that have been pulled down by the Labor Party.'Dr Southcott interjecting—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—The `Sir Humphrey' hospitals, I call them—empty wards because they are cheaper to run.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—No cockroaches.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—We are getting rid of the cockroaches. There are some around Macquarie Street too at the moment, and they will go also. The cockroaches in the hospitals will go. The Sir Humphrey hospitals will go. It is the Sir Humphrey argument—`We cannot move patients in, Minister. That will complicate things. It will make the hospitals unprofitable. But we need to keep the hospitals open with staff and beds in order to run the system.' And that is the system in New South Wales in many hospitals. In both the Northmead and the Hornsby hospitals in my area that is certainly the case.The Labor Party policies at the last election do not give them any claim in this House to do anything but say, `We want to revert to the former system.' I am pleased to hear that the Labor Party will not be opposing this legislation. It is about time that they gave the government of the day a go to resolve some of the problems. I remember that in March of last year Kim Beazley was pretty critical of the government's private health insurance, labelling it a failure. But now he says he will retain it. During the election campaign he said he would retain it. Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, said, `They have put in place a $1.7 billion failure in relation to private health funds.' That is what he said. But then he went on to say that he would retain that failure. That is some assessment he must have made to be able to come to such a quick judgment of what comprises a failure.This legislation forms part of the government's provision of the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance, and it is also working hard to reform the industry. As I have said, the minister, step by step, is a minister of reform. The government wants to provide an environment where health funds can offer better products and be more responsive to their customers. I have seen in the last few days the comments in the press about the Silver Cross Insurance organisation and the prospect it may hold to offer variety and a greater comfort to a wider range of people than that which is offered by some of the current insurance services—and that is part of the government's plan and part of the government's scheme.The ALP voted against the 30 per cent rebate when we introduced it and are often voting against more flexible insurance pro ducts. They have decided not to vote against these current reforms. Australians do want choice in their health system. Private health insurance provides this choice, and a strong private sector does relieve the pressure on the public sector. It is the simplest and most commonsense way of solving the problems of the public sector. The government of the Labor Party tried the other method for years. We have for a few years tried doing it this different way, and already you can point to the success—greater flexibility in the system, greater certainty in the management of the insurance funds, more doctors into rural areas. The successes are there. It takes a long time to turn this process around, but there is the movement towards a more successful system and one that all Australians want.People in private funds who will take advantage of the 30 per cent rebate come from all walks of life and all levels of income. To try to put a means test on all of this or to try to play around with it, as was proposed originally, is completely wrong and impossible.This bill is basically in three parts. The 30 per cent rebate is part of it, but the registration of organisations and other related matters are also part of the bill. The establishment of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council will transfer a number of factors—registration or cancellation of registration and merger proposals—from the minister to the council.This bill restricts new registration to companies whose primary purpose is the operation of a health benefits fund, and it requires any current registered organisations that are unincorporated associations to become incorporated as a company within a period established by the minister—all responsible and sensible business administration. There are incentives that allow the Health Insurance Commission 14 days to either grant or refuse the claim for an incentive payment and which provide for internal reviews by the Health Insurance Commission of a decision to refuse to pay a claim—all of these things are improvements.The bill also enables a person who has paid a premium or whose employer as a fringe benefit has paid their premium to register for the premiums deductions scheme—all sensible things. It removes the requirements for annual registration in the premiums deductions scheme for individuals in health funds. It introduces a new section that provides that the minister may revoke the status of a participating fund. It requires a health fund, when given notice, to produce a certificate in writing from a registered company auditor as to the correctness of its accounts—all of these are sensible management things that should have been done years ago. And here we are in 1999 under a Liberal government, a Liberal minister, making changes that should have been in place 10 years ago or longer.I want to say how strongly I support the changes the government is making in health in Australia. With the cooperation of the states we can go further, and with a willingness of this House and, particularly, the Senate we can move ahead to fix and to allay the fears that the Australian people have about the costs and the difficulties within the health system. We have made changes. They have been good changes. That is the insurance part of it.There is one area of health that does concern me, and that is the abuse of drugs in Australia. I know this bill does not cover those issues, but I just want to briefly congratulate the minister on the way in which the government is moving ahead in this area.RH4KERRMr Kerr—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the honourable member has ranged from gratuitous advice to the New South Wales government to now self-admittedly departing from the subject matter of this bill. Perhaps, given his confession, he might be brought back to the subject matter of the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—In response to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Denison, I note that the title of the bill includes the words `and for related purposes', which he will know gives members some scope in relation to what they say. But, having said that, I remind the honourable member for Mitchell of the subject matter of the debate before the House at the moment.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I notice that after two sentences the opposition is quick to intervene, because the fact is that it had no drugs strategy for the young people of Australia and it is embarrassed to have these matters raised in a broad health debate in the chamber with the minister. It is an embarrassment to the Labor Party.This bill deals with a wide range of issues and, unfortunately, the treatment of young people who are addicted to drugs is part of our health system and part of the cost of health in Australia today. There are parts of this bill that could be related to any and every illness and any and every health payment. The member at the table knows that. The fact that I raise this matter, which I think is of concern for all members, is an indication that not only do we deal with the issues of health education in these areas, both in the broad medical sense of the value of health insurance, what it can achieve and the need for greater choice—that is a matter of education mostly undertaken by the funds, but for which I believe the government also has a responsibility—but also education in the dangers of drug abuse should be part of a health education program. The two should be linked because they are a cost to the nation—a dreadful cost in one instance, and an unnecessarily high cost in other instances.So the comprehensive program that the government has produced to change health insurance and to reverse many of the difficulties created by successive Labor governments is to be commended. The comprehensive program that I would like to see go into place for the control and management of narcotics in Australia has started. That, too, can go further and will go further. Tough on Drugs is a good program and one that has a very strong health component. It is the responsibility of the minister at the table. I want to commend the minister and encourage him to go harder and faster, because Australia needs the best system in the world. We need to re-establish the certainty of that. Reverting to the tired, old, thoughtless, ill-conceived policies of the Australian Labor Party that have failed time and time again is certainly not the way to go.11:55:004393Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—My friend the member for Mitchell was full of a lot of bombast in his comments, but I did not notice much in his contribution by way of any new ideas or suggestions in this very difficult area. Let me say, first of all, that I agree with the comments of the shadow minister that we have 19 pages of amendments in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 because of the fact that the government rushed the previous legislation through and did not think about a number of key issues in relation to it.Since we are essentially discussing questions about the funding of health and the role of the private health insurance industry, I say to the member for Mitchell that he is completely incorrect when he says that the Labor Party did not do sufficient thinking on this in the past. I can tell you that between 1993 and 1996, when I was parliamentary secretary for health under Ministers Graham Richardson and Carmen Lawrence, there was a lot of thought and discussion put into these issues. In fact, the matter was discussed not only at the ministerial level but also at the level of the Labor Party caucus. Indeed, there was even an inquiry by the Labor Party caucus in relation to these issues. So to suggest that the Labor Party did not consider this matter is false.In addition to that, we should also have a warning here. No system in the Western world is perfect when it comes to the issues of health funding. It is very important that we try to learn from the experience of other Western countries that are struggling with these issues rather than pretending, as the member for Mitchell does, that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has now got the system absolutely right and that he has done a fabulous job. I think that what the minister has done is actually a stab in the dark. He has basically brought in the $1.5 billion support for the private health insurance industry in the hope that it is going to fix up our problems.But, before I address this question of whether that is going to do anything very much for our problems, I want to say some thing about this whole question of private and public health, because of the way the terms private and public are being used. The member for Mitchell talked about socialised medicine. I do not know that there are many countries in the world nowadays talking about socialised medicine, but I assume he is referring to the British system. The model of funding whereby the government actually pays doctors a certain salary for so many patients—which is the British system—is not one that is generally used by most Western countries. If that is what he meant by socialised medicine—namely, that GPs dealing with people and also doctors in hospitals and specialists are all paid a fixed salary—that system is now pretty rarely seen around the world. If that is what is meant by socialised medicine, it has never been the position in Australia, with the exception, of course, of some areas in our public hospital system.When we are talking about the funding of hospitals, that is one of four possible categories of ways in which to fund hospitals and health services. The one that is most interesting from the point of view of Australia, and the one that we have generally pursued, is the Medicare system, which does not pay doctors a salary but pays them on the basis of a fee. It does allow people to choose doctors and it does allow doctors to have a number of patients—provided, of course, that they do not go overboard and completely overservice and overcharge. That is a matter which is critical in certain respects with a system such as the Medicare system, and a matter which the minister has failed to address seriously since he became the minister. I give him credit for some of the initiatives that he has carried out, but on the issue of overservicing and overcharging he has not done very much at all, and I think he ought to look at that.The Australian system also has a third category. The third category is where doctors are paid, especially in private hospitals, through this business of the private health insurance funds. Even the word `private' in relation to these health insurance funds is interesting—especially now. We call them private health insurance funds but, especially with the government's latest initiative, the taxpayer actually contributes very significant amounts towards those funds. So in what sense are they private? There is obviously a public component. The public component is the contribution which the taxpayer makes towards the sustenance of those funds—the $1.5 billion which was recently added by the minister in order to prop up the private funds.One of the issues that has been raised by the opposition is: if these funds are intended to help people pay for hospital treatment, why not boost the hospital system directly with these funds rather than doing it indirectly by paying through the health funds and then getting the health funds to sponsor private hospitals and other services? That is the question.The minister, in trying to deal with this question, has said over and over again, `This is an ideological issue; the Labor Party simply has an ideological commitment to public hospitals.' But that is not the issue. The issue would apply even if we were to say that there were a number of hospitals that were privately owned. This question would still arise.One of the questions that has not been thought about in the health debate, which was thought about for a while during the time of Minister Graham Richardson, was the matter of making private hospital beds accessible to public patients and, indeed, to people who are being subsidised by the taxpayer. So rather than having this roundabout system, the minister might care to think about a more direct way of supporting the private hospital system, if he wants to support it, by allowing more public patients to be able to go into the private hospital system, rather than having this indirect and highly expensive approach of boosting the private health insurance funds, which are then supposed to support the private hospitals. Why does it have to be done in that way? The minister has not answered these questions.There is also a fourth category of funding—where the individuals pay directly for their fees. One of the problems in the private health insurance area—and, as the minister knows, probably the major reason why so many people have not joined private health insurance funds—is that people know that, even when they join a private health insurance fund and pay all of that money for private health insurance, they go into a private hospital and find, at the end of the process, that many of their fees are not covered. The private insurance does not cover the totality of the fees for their procedures, operations and the specialists who use those private hospitals.Many people have effectively said, `I'm going to end up paying anyway.' Some individuals have refused to take out private health insurance, not because they will not go into a private hospital but because they have worked out that, in the event that they do go into a private hospital, it is probably in their financial interest to pay the hospital directly. If they have private insurance, they will end up having to pay both the private insurance and the additional fees.Why is this happening? It is happening because the minister has done nothing to control the charges imposed by private hospitals and private health institutions. The minister has done nothing on that point. In other words, a private hospital can virtually charge whatever they like. If people have to go to that private hospital, even if they have got private health insurance, they then have to pay that gap, that difference.What about addressing this very serious problem, Minister? This is a key problem in health funding. The minister prefers to boost the health insurance funds, to give them support, so that they can make money out of the process. At the same time, it does very little in relation to the issue of the costs imposed by private hospitals for procedures and, indeed, it does little in relation to the costs for the procedures imposed by the specialists working in private hospitals.I must correct the member for Mitchell: the suggestion that there ought to be a package did not come from the minister; it originated in the Labor Party in discussions held at the time Graham Richardson was minister. At that time there was discussion—and it was followed up by Carmen Lawrence when she was minister—as to whether arrangements could be made between private health funds and specific private hospitals so that the cost could be kept down and the coverage for people could be more comprehensive. The minister has finally decided to have a go at this after having been minister for all this time. But when are we going to see serious action on this matter? When are we going to see comprehensive coverage? When are we going to be able to say to the private health funds, `What have you done? Why don't you get into serious discussions with the private hospitals and the specialists about the costs of health care?'This is the core of the whole funding issue. Funding for the provision of health services is not merely a private matter; it is a matter of concern to the whole of the community. As such, it is something which the whole of the community should have an input into. It is something which the whole of the community should be discussing. It is something which needs to be solved by the participation of the community. That means sacrifices. If we are going to continue to have a good health care system in this country, then, given that the overall costs of health care, especially the technical costs, are growing substantially, we have to ask ourselves how we are going to fund that health care system and how we as a community are going to be able to afford it.Those who are most involved in the system have a responsibility. Our health care professionals, generally speaking, work hard, are very dedicated, perform excellently and in the majority of cases are not rewarded with very high salaries. This is especially true of nurses and non-doctor professionals. But there are some areas which are now beyond a joke, where greed is the principle rather than responsible service to the community. This is particularly the case with specialist technical services, such as pathology services, screening services, X-ray services and the like, where the costs are blowing out substantially. The minister says he talks to these associations and tries to get some responses from them in terms of controlling costs. But that is not what is happening. Far too many unnecessary procedures are still carried out as a result of these tests and the costs of those procedures relative to the cost of providing the technical assistance are far too high. This area is going to catch up with us, Minister, if we do not do more about it.So when we talk about health care funding, health insurance and making the system operate well we also have to look at the responsibility the health care professionals have. They are making a good living, but some of them are now too greedy. They are ripping off the system, ripping off the Australian people and not behaving in accordance with their Hippocratic oath.This is not only true of the ancillary services but also true of some specialist doctors. Nobody wants to say that if a specialist doctor has spent so many years at university and has had all this training he should not be very handsomely rewarded. But is it reasonable that some of these people are earning five to six times the salary of the Prime Minister of Australia? Is this reasonable, given the costs they are imposing on the health area through their private practices, especially through private hospitals? I think not.While fair recompense, even generous recompense, is justified, we are now reaching a point where the costs of these excesses are affecting the whole community. If we could save in the areas of pathology services, X-ray services and specialist services, just think what we could do for our public hospitals, what we could do for our emergency services in hospitals and what we could do to help our ordinary GPs. While the health care professionals at this end are boosting themselves more and more, many of our ordinary GPs are in a difficult situation.The minister struggled to get ordinary GPs to work in the country areas. The fact is that we do not offer them sufficient incentives, yet we offer these other people huge incentives. In fact we allow them to provide whatever charge they wish. When we talk about health funding, we need to think about those four categories I mentioned. We need to ask ourselves: what is the best balance that is to be achieved? The minister, in giving $1.5 billion to the health funds, has not achieved the best balance, unless he has also got a lot more money for other areas, which I doubt. But what is more disturbing is that, even if you accept that he is going to proceed with this approach, he has done very little to reduce the costs in this area. (Time expired)12:15:004396Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 . The previous speaker, the member for Calwell, mentioned that he was parliamentary secretary for health during the last government. I suggest to the Minister for Health and Aged Care that we offer him a briefing from the Department of Health and Aged Care just to let him know that, contrary to what he said in his speech, the government has been very successful in containing costs. This has been one of the real success areas. Health expenditure is about 8½ per cent of GDP and that is where it has remained for some years.It is just wrong to say that costs in radiology and pathology services are exploding. He has actually picked two of the areas in which the minister has negotiated agreements to cap the fees—pathology and radiology. I suggest that it might be time for the good doctor, the member for Calwell, to have a refresher course in the areas of health, to find out what the situation is and what the government's achievements have been in those areas of cost containment over the last three years.This bill deals with two areas. It is continuing to draw on the recommendations of the Industry Commission's report into private health insurance and it also addresses some of the issues raised with the 30 per cent rebate and helps to streamline that and make it more efficient. Today is a red-letter day because today we have been debating a bill on private health insurance which the Labor Party are not going to oppose. We now know that the Labor Party define themselves by opposition to government policies. On tax reform, they oppose us. On labour market reform, they oppose us. On health reform, they oppose us. On economic reform, they oppose government policy. They now react to government policy. They are now a reactionary political party. Regardless of whatever the merits are of reform, they oppose it.We have previously heard from the opposition spokesperson for health a diatribe on changes to the private health industry. It is important to point out that the public hospital system already receives over $6 billion a year to treat less than 70 per cent of the population. That does not take into account self- insurance. Thirty per cent of the population have private health insurance and they do not necessarily use the public hospital system. They receive the 30 per cent rebate, which is a subsidy of $1½ billion, which does save the Commonwealth revenue in the public hospital system. That is the important role of private health insurance—to take the pressure off the public hospital system. There is no use saying that this money would have been better off being put into the public hospital system. You would then have a continuing decline in private health insurance and you would have the majority of people being treated in the public hospital system. If you want to know what that looks like, it looks like the UK's National Health Service. They have a very small private health system for the elite and a very large inefficient public health system.The aim of this bill is to address the concerns that were raised in the 1997 Industry Commission report on private health insurance relating to prudential regulation of the private health industry. This amends the National Health Act, the Private Health Insurance Incentive Act and also the Health Insurance Commission Act. The second purpose, as I said, is to streamline the government's 30 per cent rebate. By improving the prudential regulation of health insurance, it will create consistency with the industry to other prudentially regulated products. It will also enable private health insurance to be more responsive and flexible to market changes. It will address the concerns that were raised in the Industry Commission report from consumer groups, and it addresses the concerns of private health industry as well. The changes will also improve the financial accountability of those who manage private health insurance business.At the moment there are different agencies controlling private health insurance, predominantly the Department of Health and Aged Care and also the Private Health Insurance Administrative Council. This bill will remove responsibility for solvency requirements and so on to the Private Health Insurance Administrative Council, which will be independent of the department. PHIAC will also have the ability to approve registration and mergers which are now controlled by the Department of Health and Aged Care. To make PHIAC's role consistent with other insurance regulators, the deregulation provisions will be strengthened. What this means is that the day-to-day regulation of the industry will be simplified by transferring and strengthening the industry function of PHIAC.PHIAC—and this was a recommendation by the Industry Commission—is the best agency suited to respond to the prudential regulatory needs of consumers and the industry. PHIAC will have the power to quickly appoint an administrator when a fund is at risk of insolvency. That is an improvement on the current arrangements. They will ensure that the interests of the health fund and the contributors are paramount at all times.Turning to the 30 per cent rebate, there is already anecdotal evidence that the 30 per cent rebate has been successful in attracting new members and young, fit and healthy members back into private health insurance. The funds and the government have moved very quickly from the voting on it in early December to the implementation in January. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have seen advertisements outside the health funds and so on about the 30 per cent rebate. We are rewarding people for being private health members. They are the ones who are saving the Commonwealth and state governments money by opting out of the public hospital system.This bill also makes some minor amendments to enable the 30 per cent rebate to function more efficiently. It will enable people who are claiming the 30 per cent rebate as a premium rebate not to have to register annually. It will also improve the method for health funds to claim the 30 per cent rebate as a premium reduction. It will ensure that people are paid the 30 per cent rebate when extending cover into the next financial year. It is only by removing some of the constraints that presently suffocate the private health insurance funds that they can provide the best outcomes for their members.Going back to the Industry Commission report in 1997, they pointed out that enhancing prudential regulation plays a key role in helping consumer confidence. The current system is that the funds must operate with reserves of either two contribution months or $1 million. Small funds have been exempt from that provision of having $1 million in reserve. The Industry Commission raised the question: is $1 million an appropriate level for the fund reserves when you have such a wide variety of funds? They also pointed out that the reinsurance pool pools the risk of patients who stay more than 35 days anyway. They said that these reserve requirements are quite inflexible when you consider that there are a wide diversity of funds. Whatever the optimal reserve for each individual fund is depends on what its market is and what its membership is.Having one suit fits all fund reserve requirement is not necessarily optimal. Small funds can have random fluctuations in claims. This does not recognise that some, although not most, of the funds are for-profit funds and some of the insurers are quite large. What this does is allows more appropriate capital adequacy reserve requirements to be introduced. Also, at present assets do not have to be held in liquid form. There is no requirement for the funds to have asset diversification. One of the advantages of allowing PHIAC to regulate private health insurance is that it will allow private health insurance to be more flexible, cheaper and more protective of consumers.The Industry Commission also recommended that the regulator should be separated from the policy making bureaucracy. They suggested that you exclude representation by stakeholders in the management of the regulator. PHIAC needs to be independent. The government has done that and it now has an independent board. By overseeing fund solvency, PHIAC will extend beyond an industry focus to a consumer focus. The Industry Commission also looked at some important issues on the governance of the private health funds.When you consider the Labor Party's opposition to reforms to private health insur ance and the way they react to any initiatives the government has with private health insurance, one of the problems really is the name—that is, `private'. They do not like things that are private. They do not like the private sector. When you look at the 47 funds in Australia, only three of them are for-profit funds. Most of them are mutuals and friendly societies. They are not owned by some sort of foreign multinational. They are owned by the members. The members hold them. There are no returns to the shareholders. Any profits that are made by the fund are basically redistributed in the form of lower premiums or changed premiums.Changing the governance arrangements can decrease the cost and also allow scrutiny of funds by fund members. One of the problems, if you have funds which are operating more like a publicly listed company, are the potentially large transaction costs in that they have to spend more money notifying people of annual general meetings, what the directors are doing, election for directors and so on. There is also no scope for hostile takeovers. Hostile takeovers in the corporate world do play an important role in increasing competitive pressure. This bill will allow mergers to occur more easily and streamlining, if necessary, of the industry.As I have said before, the bill transfers the prudential regulatory responsibilities to PHIAC. It deletes the minimum reserve thresholds in liquidity. It allows PHIAC to set new and more appropriate solvency and capital adequacy standards. Essentially, it puts the funds on a more commercial footing. This will be good for the small funds especially. It allows PHIAC to appoint an administrator. It allows mergers and it should increase consumer confidence. This means that PHIAC will move from having an industry focus to now having a consumer focus as well. It allows the funds to be regulated under the National Health Act and the Corporations Law.The achievements of this government in the area of private health insurance are something that we can be proud of. Without that, we know Labor's record. When they came to office in 1983 some 66 per cent of people were privately insured. When they left office in 1996 that had declined to about 33 per cent. There was a rapid drop-out. That put much more pressure on the public hospital system. This government believes in a balance between private health insurance and the public system. We believe in both. I used to work in both. I worked more in the public hospital system. We believe in that sort of balance. The Labor Party does not. I commend this bill to the House.12:29:004399Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—in reply—I thank honourable members for their contributions. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 addresses government, consumer and private health industry concerns about the prudential regulation of the private health industry identified in the 1997 Industry Commission report on private health insurance. It also enhances the implementation of the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. The bill will promote efficiency in essential regulation of health funds, transparency and accountability for both health funds and the Private Health Insurance Administration Council and increase protection for health fund contributors.The bill will make PHIAC's role consistent with the roles of other regulators by allowing them to control entry to and from the market, set guidelines and rules for the industry and enforce those rules to ensure compliance. PHIAC will also be given broader inspectorial powers. The existing minimum reserve requirements set out in legislation are arbitrary and inflexible. They do not take into account the individual profiles of health funds. A new solvency and capital adequacy model is widely and generally accepted as being prudentially sound. Its application will be specific to the health insurance industry resulting in improved confidence and stability for the industry.This bill introduces the requirement that to be approved as a registered health fund an organisation must be a company under the Corporations Law, with the running of the health benefit fund as its primary business. This will mean private health funds are more accountable and provide grounds for increased consumer confidence.This bill provides a comprehensive new scheme for effective prudential management of health funds. The existing judicial management provisions will be replaced with a new administrative scheme that will ensure an outcome in the interests of contributors rather than creditors or the individual funds. Health fund contributors are also better protected through this bill by restricting health fund moneys for use only in health fund business, ensuring health funds manage their assets in the interests of contributors and requiring them to take reasonable steps to ensure the fund complies with the National Health Act.Lastly, despite the short time frames, the Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, my department and the health funds have successfully implemented the federal government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. Schedule 3 of the bill facilitates administration of the rebate by organisations responsible for this function and provides these organisations with the means to continue to provide a high level of service to people participating in or seeking to take up private health insurance. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4399Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge) read a third time.Bills4399r7184399Debate resumed from 11 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.12:33:004399Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—On the face of it, the Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 is a housekeeping exercise to tidy up the new youth allowance and Austudy schemes. I cannot help feeling a sense of irony about this. It is like sweeping up the dust and polishing the floors in a house when the very structure of the house itself is crumbling down. During the months following the introduction of the youth allowance, all members, including I am sure those opposite, were inundated by phone calls and letters from youth in the community and their families who had been affected very badly by the introduction of the new system—a system that for many cut off their financial independence, placed extra burdens on their families and put up new barriers to undertaking study or finding a job.The government, through its implementation of the youth allowance, showed callous disregard to the aspirations of Australia's youth and the wellbeing of their loved ones. Far from making things simpler, the new system caused confusion and frustration for those who were affected. The introduction and administration of the new system by the government and Centrelink were a disgrace. Rarely have we seen in this country the implementation of a public policy which has been so badly handled. It could have come right out of an episode of Yes, Minister, and if it were not for the hurt, confusion and frustration that was perpetrated on our youth and their families it may well have been as humorous.As I said earlier, I doubt whether those opposite were accurately aware of it even in their own communities. It was a farce. We had the situation where on one day Centrelink received something like a million phone calls. Of those, only something like 90,000 were answered, and we have no idea how many were successfully resolved. People would call me and say that they had just received a letter from Centrelink telling them that their social security entitlement would be drastically reduced or cut off altogether in a few days time because of the changes. Some time later they would get a call back, and Centrelink would say that they had made a mistake and their payment was not being reduced. This occurred to many people. I will talk about some of those cases in a moment.For most people who were badly affected, there had been no mistake. It was the unfairness and inequity of what the government was doing that was the cause of so much hurt. Many of them had commitments they were unable to meet, such as rent or loan payments. In some cases young adults had moved away from home to improve their employment prospects and had to return home to regional areas where they had no prospect of finding work. To make things worse, some remained liable for rent payments under fixed term leases. I can well remember receiving a call from a person who was in precisely that predicament. In her case, she had borrowed money to buy a car so she could look for work further afield. She had also entered into a lease. When her youth allowance was cut, she could no longer meet her loan repayments for the car and was ultimately in breach of rental agreements.There were many, many stories like these but all with a common theme: motivated young adults trying to establish themselves in mainstream society finding accommodation, entering financial arrangements and doing all they could to get a job but requiring financial assistance from the government until they could get regular work. And then what happened? The government pulled the rug right out from underneath them. Once again, the government have welshed on their end of their much touted mutual obligation bargain. This is yet another classic example of the government's actions not living up to their rhetoric. Rather than assisting young adults to get a job, they set up barriers. They make it more difficult to get into work or to undertake study that would assist people in obtaining long-term unemployment.I believe that this is part and parcel of what has become the corrupted ideology pedalled by the government on a daily basis. Contrary to everything the government says, it promotes dependency rather than fighting it; it makes it more difficult for people to stand on their own two feet.The pretender behind most of this is not the minister opposite; it is the minister for employment. His secret plan was revealed in this House some weeks ago when he let the cat out of the bag about what the real game was. The real game is not about making people independent. The real game is about slashing wages, slashing benefits and, through that process, creating in the end far greater dependency. He admitted in his secret paper that, between 1990 and 1998, the number of people on allowances for longer than six months had risen from 357,000 to 546,000; that is an increase of 200 per cent.The scale of the escalation of welfare dependency is also borne out by the latest long-term unemployment figures. One in three of all unemployed have been out of work for longer than 12 months. The figures also show that this group is becoming less skilled by the month. Young adults in Australia, especially those affected by this bill, are therefore being sold short.On average, under this government the unemployed spend seven weeks longer on benefits. As that goes right to the heart of the government's credibility with getting people off welfare and into work, let me say it again: with the government having completed its first term in office, the unemployed are spending an average of seven weeks longer on benefits. Our young unemployed currently on the youth allowance—languishing on benefits, their hands tied—lose skills and become further disillusioned.We know what the record of the government has been. Abolition of labour market programs in particular have left these people with very few options. The government's answer to date has been little more than plastic populism with its promotion of Work for the Dole—cosmetic programs rather than programs of substance. To have something like 6,700 working for the dole means bandaid help for just one in 27 of the 180,000 young unemployed.The Prime Minister announced that there were to be literacy courses for the long-term unemployed. So what is the government's record? We have had 108 takers for the 12,000 literacy places available. That reveals the extent of the government's failure to get Centrelink and the Job Network doing their job properly—and I will say a bit more about Centrelink's role in this later on.While the measures contained in this bill can only add to the barriers and disincentives to find work, I suspect they will pale into insignificance if the pretender to the throne, the shadow successor Prime Minister, gets his way. At the heart of his insidious plan is a proposal to introduce widespread cut-price wages for the unemployed. I suspect that the minister has not thought this particular proposal through fully.Let me pose this question: what incentive is there for a young unemployed person to leave their social security benefits for a job that will not give them enough to live on? What incentive is there for them to work if they are not clearly better off? Then again, perhaps the minister has thought it through because a sparkle of reasoning can be found on page 13 of his secret plan. It states:Discounting wages would also likely require complementary action on the social security entitlements for this group if adequate work incentives were to be provided . . . What is that code for? We know what it is code for. We know what those opposite are up to. This is the classic conservative approach to welfare reform: lower wages and lower social security.This is supposed to deliver jobs but, in reality, it delivers rising poverty, crime and social breakdown. For those on youth allowance, particularly those looking for work, the government's approach is just a one-way street. Let me give an example. If the government really believes in helping young people get into jobs, why is it currently trying to abolish the employment entry payment? That is one of the last real incentives left to help people into the work force, providing a bit of incentive. Before the youth allowance was introduced, Labor understood that it would hurt many young adults and their families, and we opposed it.Senator Harradine understood this as well. Senator Harradine also believed that the scheme should not be introduced unless some compensation for families was to be provided through the tax system. He decided not to block the youth allowance legislation after receiving the personal assurance from the Prime Minister that the tax system would be restructured to benefit families.What has the government done to live up to that promise? It has sought to introduce a GST that will hurt families. It has promised compensation for the GST by way of pension increases and tax cuts that are manifestly inadequate for those at the lower end of the income scale. But where are the tax concessions to relieve the extra burden on families caused by the youth allowance? They are not there.There are tax cuts for families in the highest income brackets which will more than compensate those people for the impact of the GST. But the government will not compensate the great bulk of families. Half the tax cuts go to the top 20 per cent of income earners, while the other half go to the remaining 80 per cent. This remaining 80 per cent are the people whom Labor and Senator Harradine have identified; these being the people who have been adversely affected by the youth allowance, they are the ones the government promised Senator Harradine it would do something about. But, of course, nothing happened.It appears that Senator Harradine simply forgot to ask which families would benefit from the restructure of the tax system. In fact, it appears that the government never intended to honour its commitment to Senator Harradine; it never intended to make any special adjustment to the tax system to meet its commitment at all.David Tune, senior official in the Department of Family and Community Services, was seconded to the Treasury to work on the GST compensation. He told the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiring into the GST that he was never made aware of the commitment by the government to Senator Harradine that the tax package would provide relief to families affected by the youth allowance. In his evidence before the committee, Professor Peter McDonald of the Australian National University said, `There is absolutely no compensation for the cost to parents of children aged over 17.'So the implementation of the new scheme was just utter chaos. Many families, as Senator Harradine and Labor have identified, were simply sold short. But so too was the administration of the scheme.Many applications for or transfers to the new payments were not processed in time. People who suffered allowance cuts under the new scheme were given inadequate notice and little or no explanation. Payments were delayed. Some people were overpaid; others were underpaid. Many people were given misleading or incorrect advice about how the scheme would affect them. Guidelines were issued to Centrelink staff advising them of how to deal with customers distressed by the new scheme but telling them not to talk to the local MP.In one case a young woman received a letter from Centrelink telling her that her entitlement had been drastically reduced. She was due to receive her next payment in two days time and her rent was due the day after that. If the letter was correct, she would not be able to pay her rent. She had tried getting through to Centrelink by the phone all morning but to no avail. She went to her local Centrelink office only to find it had been closed. That is a story which was repeated time after time during the introduction of the youth allowance and is repeated time and time again now across every Centrelink office in this country. Eighty-one per cent of all phone calls to Centrelink receive an engaged signal. In 43 per cent of the offices surveyed by Centrelink in January people had to wait five days or more for an appointment. Centrelink figures show that there has been a 160 per cent increase in incidents of aggression in Centrelink offices.In this very town we were told by the minister in this House on Monday that people who rang up for an appointment at the Tuggeranong Centrelink office could receive one immediately. But anyone in this town who rings Centrelink today will find at one office no appointments are available—none. In others, there is a waiting period of up to two weeks. This is disgraceful. At the opening of the Tuggeranong Centrelink office on Monday the minister created a fairytale film set to con the media into believing that there was some happy paradise of workers and clients sitting there in the brightly painted office all receiving prompt service. How did he achieve that? They bussed in five addition al counter staff to reduce the queues. The reality out there today where I have been is that there are queues and that people cannot get through on the phone. How can you deliver any program if you cut 5,000 staff and $150 million from this budget in an environment where major policy changes are taking place?At the height of the introduction of the scheme, on one day one million calls were made and only 90,000 were answered. We do not know how many of those 90,000 that were answered actually produced successful results. Such is the decline in the level of service. These are cases which members opposite know are occurring on a daily basis and they will continue to occur, not only in youth allowance but across the board in all of the benefits that are provided, until this government comes clean and recognises that there is a crisis within Centrelink.How has the government come to respond to all of the problems of the youth allowance and the crisis in service delivery? Have they apologised to those who fell victim to the introduction and inept handling of the scheme? Have they even admitted that there is a problem? Let me quote from a press release issued by Senator Newman on 2 July. The release is headed:The fallacies being pedalled about youth allowance.In that, the senator says:The implementation is being bungled, not true. Implementation is going according to plan.It is certainly going according to plan. The plan is to knock as many people off benefits as possible, to provide as little money as possible, as little incentive as possible, as little service as possible to people because this government has an innate hatred of the notion of public service and the employment of skilled people in that service to help people with human problems. That is some plan.Just to deal with some of the detail of the bills, the first three of the five schedules contained in the bill we are dealing with today move provisions currently contained in disallowable instruments into the Social Security Act itself. We urge the government to do this during the debate on the youth allowance legislation. The current instruments contain the substantive provisions dealing with certain entitlements and means testing arrangements. Now that they are all within the social security system they belong within the Social Security Act. That act and the system it governs are far too complex. At least by putting as many of the provisions as possible into the act anyone hoping to understand the system can find all the basic rules in one place. That is something that is sensible. At least there is one thing we can say that has some logic to it.Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Social Society (Fares Allowance) Rules 1998 and replaces them with similar provisions in the Social Security Act. A fares allowance is currently payable under the rules to certain tertiary students who are living away from home to study and are receiving youth allowance. The provisions contained in the bill largely reflect the current rules. Most of the differences are minor and technical and there are even some improvements. For example, under the fares allowance rules, payment can only be made as reimbursement for the cost of travel undertaken unless the student is in financial hardship, in which case an advance payment can be made to the commercial operator providing the student's travel. The bill proposes to abolish the hardship test and allow easier access to the advance payment.The bill also seeks to add provisions under which a claim for fares allowance may be treated as having been received when the person first contacts Centrelink about the claim by telephone or fax. Well, that is handy, given that nobody can get through. That is particularly timely and it is perhaps an acknowledgment of the crisis and gridlock that I was talking about earlier.In theory, this is a good idea and it follows similar initiatives in respect of other entitlements. The main problem in practice is that people cannot get through to Centrelink by phone to talk to them about a claim. They need an appointment to discuss their claim before lodging it. They may well have to wait weeks and weeks, irrespective of how often the minister misleads this House about that fact. The truth is out there.Schedule 2 of the bill repeals the Social Security Student Financial Supplement Scheme 1998—EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have listened very tolerantly to the points made by the shadow minister. Now he is saying that the minister has misled the House often. I do not believe that is in accordance with the standing orders and I think he should rephrase his comments.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I think the minister will find that, for it to be considered unparliamentary, it must be `deliberately misleading' the House, not just `misleading'. The word `deliberately' is required, but it was not used. The minister should know better than to take a point of order. He is a minister, after all. If he is so ignorant of the parliamentary processes, perhaps he should reconsider his position.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—I thank the honourable member for Newcastle for his point of order. I think you made the right point, and I do not believe the shadow minister has breached the procedures of the House. I ask him to stay on the bill before us.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Indeed, I was very careful with my words, because the minister did come into this House on Monday and say that there was no waiting time at the Tuggeranong office, that anyone who wanted to call could get an appointment almost immediately. The reality around this town today, and right around this country across the 400 Centrelink offices, is that people are waiting and waiting and waiting. At Tuggeranong people were advised yesterday that they could not even get an appointment or a time for an appointment. So when I say that the minister misled the House there are objective facts to prove it and there are people wandering around this country desperately in need who cannot get an appointment, and that is shameful.Schedule 2 of the bill repeals the Social Security Student Financial Supplement Scheme 1998, a disallowable instrument, and replaces it with similar provisions in the Social Security Act. The Student Financial Supplement Scheme allows tertiary students who receive youth allowance, Austudy pay ment or the pensioner education supplement to trade in some of their entitlement for a loan of twice the amount traded in. The supplement loan is also available to some students who would receive one of these payments but for the parental means test. In such cases, the amount of supplement loan is determined under a formula taking the level of their parents' income into account.Prior to the introduction of the youth allowance and Austudy payment, the student financial supplement was also available under the Austudy regulations. Although the provisions contained in schedule 2 are structured differently from those in the disallowable instrument, they are of similar effect. There are, however, some differences. Overall, these changes made by the schedule that are not purely technical appear to be relatively minor and beneficial.Schedule 3 of the bill repeals the Social Security (Family Actual Means Test) Regulations 1998 and replaces them with similar provisions in the Social Security Act. Youth allowance recipients who are not regarded as independent under certain criteria are subject to parental means testing. In most cases, the income taken into account is the parents' taxable income in the tax year that ended before the calendar year in question. This is called the base year. Assessment may be based on the subsequent tax year where there has been a significant change in income.In certain cases, such as where a parent has an interest in a company or is self-employed, where taxable income may not reflect the family's true means, the actual means test may apply. The actual means test looks at total savings and expenditure of the family rather than at taxable income.Although schedule 3 does not seek to make many substantial changes to the operation of the actual means test, there is one that deserves a mention here. The effect of the change would be that the question of whether the actual means test should apply is to be determined by reference to the base tax year, regardless of whether that is the year during which the actual means are to be assessed.Although this proposal reflects the old Austudy regulations, it could be unfair in practice. For example, the parents of a youth allowance applicant might have owned a company until January 1998, when they sold that interest. Under the proposal, they would be subject to the actual means test in 1999 on the basis of an interest in a company they have not had for 12 months, even if they are being assessed on their income and expenditure during the 1998-99 tax year. At this stage we are opposed to this change. However, if the government can show us why the change is necessary or appropriate, we might change our view on this issue.Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to address issues identified during the implementation of the youth allowance and Austudy payment. Many of the proposed changes in the schedule are technical in nature. However, some will have a significant effect upon income support recipients. Some of these changes are beneficial and we welcome them. For example, the criterion of independence based on work force attachment will be relaxed so that a youth allowance recipient may be regarded as independent if they have worked for 30 hours a week for at least 18 months in any two-year period. This ground of independence will be further relaxed by removing the requirement that the work in question must have been undertaken in Australia. We also welcome the extension of the concept of long-term income support students to partnered students, allowing them to be paid at a higher rate consistent with single students in the same circumstances.There are further reasonable beneficial measures in the schedule and I will not go through them here. However, some of the changes contained in schedule 4 are not so positive. For example, it proposes to align the basic rate of disability support pension for people under the age of 21 with the youth allowance. Currently, the rate of disability support pension for under-21s is aligned with the old Newstart allowance rate for this age group. These pensioners receive the rate of Newstart allowance applicable in their circumstances plus a youth disability supplement of $75.60 per fortnight. Under this schedule, the rates for these pensioners would be aligned with the current youth allowance rates and a supplement will continue to apply. The effect of the changes varies depending on the pensioner's circumstances. Some will get more and some will get less. We will be looking at this in the Senate, probably with the aim of moving some amendments where those affected are going to have current entitlements reduced.Another change that we will not support concerns the family allowance income test. Under the current provisions, the rate of family allowance is reduced where income exceeds $23,550 plus $624 for each additional family allowance child. Among other things, a family allowance child can be a child receiving youth allowance. The schedule seeks to amend this so that a child receiving youth allowance is a family allowance child only if they are under 18 years of age.It seems to me that this proposal is a perfect example of the government trying to have it both ways. Really what they are saying is, `We will now regard your unemployed son or daughter as dependent on you until they turn 21 and we will reduce their youth allowance accordingly but, for the purposes of the family allowance, we will regard them as independent when they turn 18.' It is another vicious measure which is going to hit battling families. So when they turn 18, it will effectively reduce the amount of family payment they get for their other children.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—It is something that the member for Moreton should be very ashamed of. Schedule 5 of the bill seeks to amend legislation other than the Social Security Act to reflect other changes made by the bill and to address issues arising during the implementation of the youth allowance and new Austudy payment. Again, many of the changes proposed by this schedule are technical. One, however, is worthy of mention. Part 2 of the schedule seeks to amend the Farm Household Support Act 1992 to change the rates of exceptional circumstances relief payment and restart income support payment payable under that act in certain circumstances. Under that act, as it currently stands, the rate of these payments may be the rate of Newstart allowance that the person in question would be entitled to if they qualified for the Newstart allowance.Part 2 of the schedule seeks to provide that, if the person is of youth allowance age, the rate of exceptional circumstances relief payment and restart income support payment is to be the rate at which the person would be paid youth allowance if they were qualified for that allowance. We will not support these changes to the extent that they will result in a reduction of entitlement.But, as I said at the outset, this bill is mainly concerned with tidying up the youth allowance legislation. Many of the changes are neutral, while some are good. But the problem is that they are introduced into an overall framework which has attacked the living standards of battling families and eroded their capacity to support their families and which has worked against the professed mutual obligation principle that the government constantly prattles on about. It does not matter what particular aspect of this government's approach to family and community services or industrial relations or education you look to, there is one agenda that drives through the whole lot—lower wages and lower social security support. We in this country have to be about building up independence of people, not pushing them down; giving them a hand up, giving them some incentive to achieve. It does not matter where you look, particularly in this bill or particularly in the tax package, this government is building road blocks that are stopping people from moving from welfare to work, because at the end of the day the most fundamental form of welfare you can give anyone is a job.But what do we see in the House in recent times? We have seen the government introduce a bill to abolish the employment entry payment, one very tangible incentive and measure which can assist people to move from welfare to work. We have seen provisions in the ANTS package that the Treasurer was talking about in the House the other day where if you are a single parent you are better off stopping on welfare than you are work ing—another substantial disincentive to stop people moving from welfare to work.Then we saw the secret agenda of the shadow prime ministerial successor, the member for Flinders, Mr Reith. What he was fundamentally on about, and what he let the cat out of the bag on, was the government's agenda—lower wages. If you are going to lower wages, you lower support for people, and that is the core of the Youth Allowance scheme. It has had a dramatic effect on many battling families out there. To assist their children to become independent, to assist their children to move into the work force, they need a helping hand from the government—some incentive—not the sort of punishing measures that are contained in this scheme which have only one objective in the end, which is to drive people down, to cut their wages and to cut their living standards. That is the agenda of this government, and that is why we have opposed this scheme so vehemently. (Time expired)13:03:004406Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—It is a twist of fate, but it seems I keep following the member for Lilley in debates in recent times. I follow him only in the sense that I rise to speak immediately after him and I have had the opportunity to reflect upon just how sad so much of his contribution has been since he has come back from his almost self-imposed exile in the paddock for the 2½ years he was not in this place. He did not have the chance to contribute to the debate on youth allowance in the last parliament, but he is trying to play catch-up this morning.I think it is very sad that those who pretend to be the alternative government in this place rise constantly and offer sad reflections on the motives of the government, offer a sad and dire future for the people of Australia, while on this side we are working on the big positive to give people incentive and security—the safety net, if you like, if they have to fall back on it. At the end of the day, we are giving them a hand-up and the direction that they need to follow in order to get somewhere themselves, based on their own skills and of course their own motivation.I thought back on the years of the previous government, which the member for Lilley had a short stay in, and I thought about how the previous government in fact encouraged young Australians to leave school, because the unemployment benefits were higher than the Austudy benefits that were paid to the underprivileged. The underprivileged families, the families with low incomes in this country, were getting a smaller hand up in the form of a handout under Labor than they are under this government and, moreover, they were getting a smaller hand up as a handout under Labor than those who opted to go on the unemployment lists.I think it is extraordinary that we have a Leader of the Opposition who pretends that one day he may be known as the education Prime Minister but who was happy to earn a wage from the people of Australia as a member of several cabinets through the Hawke and Keating years which presided over a system which encouraged people to leave education. One of the things this government had to do when it came to power was to try to reorganise the incentive for young people to learn and to put in the effort and to apply a mutual obligation standard on the benefits they receive from government. As a result of the youth allowance, which was introduced on 1 July last year, something like 95 per cent of recipients of government benefits either received the same or more money on going onto the common youth allowance. More money went to those particularly from battler families, families who found it difficult to afford the costs of keeping children in years 11 and 12 at high school. Battler families now get additional money under youth allowance than they were getting under Labor's allowances of Austudy for the same purpose.I find it extraordinary to have the member for Lilley coming in here promoting the big scare, as usual, coming in here to deny some of the basic truths about the government's tax reform agenda, which includes compensation measures that are going to rework the way so many of the systems which people rely upon in the form of a safety net. One of the systems that is going to be enhanced and improved, something that people have been crying out for for years while they have been caught in a poverty trap, is this government's broadening of the base of income that people are able to receive before benefits start to decline completely.In other words, people will be encouraged to earn a little money and not run the risk of losing a benefit. The benefits themselves will increase as the government recognises that there will be a one-off increase in the cost of living of about 1.9 per cent as a result of bringing in a 10 per cent GST after all of the various taxes that the Labor Party seem to love—like wholesale sales tax of 12, 22 and 32 per cent and more—are taken off.These sorts of compensations were never evident after the 1993 federal election when the Labor government of the time campaigned heavily against the Hewson opposition's proposals with regard to taxation reform. And what did they do? They rewarded the people of Australia who narrowly returned them at that time with an increase in wholesale sales tax; in fact, not just one, but two increases in wholesale sales tax. Between 1993 and 1996 wholesale sales taxes went up from 10 to 12 per cent, 20 to 22 per cent, 30 to 32 per cent, and where were the compensation measures for the battlers which the member for Lilley now decries? He is back in this place ever so narrowly, replacing a very effective former member, Mrs Elizabeth Grace. The member for Lilley now decries this government's compensation measures which are targeting the battlers of Australia like the Labor governments of Hawke and Keating never did. I find all of this talk unbelievable.I also want to talk about the member for Lilley's fantasy about the crisis in Centrelink. The only crisis that is evident to people in Australia today is the crisis of leadership of those opposite, which is very obvious to everybody. I would invite the member for Lilley to use his apparent extensive power in caucus to call on his Labor senators to pass the government's taxation measures, so that, once implemented, along with all of the other various improvements we have made to the mess that Labor left us, we will find the battlers of Australia especially doing very well as a result of this government's agenda.I turn now to matters relating to this bill. The member for Lilley again tried to suggest that there was some apparent revisionist brilliance in taking some of the disallowable instruments and popping them back into the social security acts. The five tenets of the youth allowance package last year included a number of disallowable instruments. At the end of the day the reason there were these disallowable instruments—something that allowed a bit more hands-on in terms of its implementation—was to ensure that no student suffered as a result of any disruptions to payment halfway through the academic year.The government was not making some carte blanche policy decision in the middle of an academic year without realising that there may have been some disruption to payments. The government kept closer control on those matters and now, quite rightly, we are doing what we always intended to do, which is to displace those particular disallowable instruments with these particular pieces of legislation contained in this bill today. This is a sensible continuation of what the government had always intended to do.What happened? From 1 July last year students were eligible for the first time to receive the same amount of government benefit as those who were unemployed and receiving Newstart. The government made sure that all young people, whether they were studying or looking for work, were treated equally when receiving government benefits. The government introduced a policy which recognised the fact that, whether you were studying full-time or looking for work, your living expenses are exactly the same.In fact, the common youth allowance was introduced as a direct result of concerns expressed to the government by the young people of Australia; people who voted for us in droves in 1996 and repeated the exercise in 1998. Their families were also concerned about the way their young people would be treated. The general community understood that there needed to be a change and that the income support arrangements that existed prior to 1 July last year were inefficient and treated young people very differently, despite the fact that they were in similar situations.Another new benefit that came in as a result of those changes which are being enhanced again today was that young people were able to move between looking for a job, training and full-time and part-time study without having to go through all the paperwork involved in actually changing the government payment. It was a recognisable streamlining of the process of ensuring that there was some consistent income support for those who were definitely in the business of trying to get themselves into full-time work through whatever stream—training, study or simply doing the hard slog of trying to find a job.I firmly believe that in practice the government's proposals, which have been in place since 1 July last year, have in fact encouraged young people to improve their job prospects by staying on in education and training longer. It has provided the right incentives to ensure that young people are not better off on the dole than they were by trying to improve their general knowledge, training and study.The parental means test has been the subject of some disappointment to some. As I said, 95 per cent of those who receive the common youth allowance were in fact either receiving the same benefit prior to its introduction, or receiving greater than what they were receiving under Labor. That left five per cent who dropped out, but those five per cent tended to be from families who had an income stream which, because of a means test, excluded their students from access.Ninety-five per cent of recipients being better off is an obvious equation and we should feel as though the government has got the policy right. For the other five per cent, there has been a realisation that their families have had to provide some of the income that their charges may need and most people believe that is fair enough. The introduction of that parental means test has encouraged families who can afford to to continue to support their children until they are financially independent. The measures contained in the bills today define and refine that even further.I maintain a great deal of concern about what those opposite might do if they were ever to find themselves back in power. They talked this morning about lower wages. The only party in this place that has delivered lower wages in recent times has been the Australian Labor Party. Through the course of the Hawke and Keating years the real take-home pay of people declined. I know because of my own circumstances. I felt it myself. It is one of the reasons why I became involved in this political business that we are all involved in. It was because it seemed to me that my lot in life was declining before my very eyes after the Hawke government came to power. It was obvious as costs rose and my wages never kept up that there was a problem and a problem that needed to be addressed.What is happening under this government is that a whole new stream of incentives are being introduced. People are realising that, with the government's tax reform package in place, we are going to find greater amounts of money in people's pockets than is currently the case, and people will genuinely be better off.I am left to ponder why those opposite are now trying to campaign against junior wage rates in the way they are, given that as a consequence of their policy there will be more people on youth allowance. I think it is an important point to bring into this debate. The government has committed itself to ensuring that there are as many employment opportunities for young people as is possible, and junior rates of pay certainly do help achieve this objective. In fact, they are necessary to preserve the vulnerable youth labour market—a labour market that is on the edge on a constant basis.Junior rates of pay assist young people to gain a foothold in the labour market. Talking to an employer in my electorate the other day, he made the comment that 15-year-olds are terrific workers and 15-year-olds know when they have a birthday they receive a pay rise, as a 16-year-old realises there is a pay rise when they turn 17 and a 17-year-old receives a pay rise when they turn 18—and on it goes. There is an incentive involved in actually staying on the job and working hard and preserving your position because you are going to get a wage rise on your birthday.I also tested the concept across some young people. The Moreton Youth Advisory Group met in my office last week, and I asked these 16- and 17-year-old students from high schools what they thought about junior rates of pay. I hope all those opposite realise that those young people are absolutely terrified of the course the Australian Labor Party have taken in the Senate. They are absolutely terrified that they are going to lose their jobs, because they realise that if they are competing in a skills sense with someone 10 years older than they are they are going to fail.If the Labor Party are going to change the system so that the wages of junior workers are going to be the same as the more experienced, senior workers, then there is going to be a great deal of focus on that particular skill and experience base that those young people offer in return for remuneration. They know that their chances of holding onto their jobs are going to become bleak indeed if junior wages disappear. They understand quite clearly in the businesses they work for—McDonald's, KFC, Woolies or wherever—that they are learning on the job and they do advance themselves in skills as well as in wages. They are quite happy with the system as it stands.In fact, it is about 22 years ago I bought my first car, a Holden Gemini of a dreadful colour. I worked at McDonald's at Mount Gravatt and I was paid a junior wage rate which went up when I turned from 16 to 17. It seemed to work fine then and I believe most young people today believe it works fine now. So hands off junior wages, I say to those opposite, just as it should be hands off changes to the government's tax reform agenda and government proposals as far as common youth allowances are concerned. If those opposite had a clear and concise understanding of exactly what was going on in the real world, they would not be promoting the sorts of changes they have been promoting.I find it greatly disturbing they are turning their back on some of the facts. The Australian Retailers Association survey identified that 46.4 per cent of respondents—these are people who employ juniors—said the main reason they employed them was junior wage rates. I think that says something else, given that 50.6 per cent of respondents said they were more likely to employ adults in the future over young people if junior wage rates were to decline. Those sorts of matters are very important to air in this debate because, at the end of the day, if we are going to tip more young people out of jobs as a result of Labor's proposals, we are going to find more and more of them having to access the common youth allowance and the cost to government and the cost to taxpayers of this country is going to increase.We are going to find those queues at Centrelink that the member for Lilley promoted in his contribution getting longer. We are going to find the challenge to government will be to continue to use new technology and to decentralise access to Centrelink, which I believe is a proposal that is going to work extremely well. Instead of people having to go to Centrelink to access the common youth allowance or any other government benefit, we are going to take Centrelink to the people. We will start to see those kiosks in major regional shopping centres and, in rural and regional Australia, in other established institutions—council offices or whatever.At the end of the day, the government is thinking and acting in the very best interests of the people of Australia. We are prepared to disclose before an election what our intentions are for after that election. Moreover, we are prepared to meet the commitments made before an election in the form of legislation introduced into this place.The disturbing thing is that, without any positive attributes to offer, those opposite are simply into the big negative, the big scare, the big delay and the big protraction of development of this nation. In years to come, when people read the history that is being written as those actions opposite evolve each day in this place, they are going to reflect upon a very negative, obstructionist Australian Labor Party. They will read about a Labor Party that turned its back on the real world and forgot that the world was demanding greater individualism, greater freedom, greater opportunities for those who wanted to work and rewards for their efforts and less government intervention in people's lives and less paperwork.These are all the things that this government has already delivered, and will continue to deliver, with its programs. Those opposite have nothing positive to contribute, only the big negative, and they should be condemned for it. I believe they will continue to be at the ballot box until they start to bring themselves into the real world and support some of the government's programs. I commend this bill to the house.13:23:004410Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—That speech from the member for Moreton probably demonstrates why the current government has the biggest swing against it of any first term government in living memory—the biggest swing against any government in this country for 40 or 50 years and perhaps even longer. The speech was a mixture of half-truths, deceptions, errors and sheer fraudulence.If the member for Moreton were to tell the youth in his electorate what he has told the parliament today, he would not just be misleading us but also be misleading the people who really deserve to know the truth. If he were to tell them that we support the idea that you pay people the same regardless of their skills or experience, that would be blatantly untrue. He knows that as well as we all know and in the same way that his government does.In recent weeks, when asked about the pay for the defence forces, the government have made it clear that the defence forces would be paid on rank and ability. We think the same should apply, whether it be the defences forces, 16-year-olds, 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. Whether they be male or female, we think the same should apply. Equal pay for equal work has long been an aspiration of the vast majority of Australians. The government is saying: unequal pay for equal work.The member for Moreton knows full well that what the government is putting forward is not about the people currently on youth wages but rather about bringing in a youth wage in unskilled industries—the building industry, for example—where an 18-, 19- or 20-year-old would be paid at a much lower rate for the same physical work, the same low level of skill which exists in many of those jobs and the same level of risk to life and limb as an adult. He knows that what this government is putting forward could well lead to the displacement of adult workers by youth workers on lower wages.This is just one more twist to the age-old theory of conservative politicians of trying to find a lower wage structure to put pressure on wages. Whether in the case of unemployment under Fraser, youth wages or whatever, it is the age-old system of putting pressure on wages by creating a surplus. This case is much more nasty and invidious, because you are really putting son against father—and daughter against mother, but particularly in the case of males.Take the building industry where the father is a builder's labourer and the son turns 16 or 17 and is looking for a job. He goes onto the same building site and works for a quarter of the wages. Who gets retrenched? Which job goes? The 45-year-old father goes and he will never work again because there are going to be a lot of young men at 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 who will be forced to do the job for a fraction of the wage. The honourable member knows that; I know that. Did he tell his Moreton youth advisory group that? I guarantee he did not. And for that he stands condemned. That is what government members are doing around the country. They know it and we know it. I find the dishonesty of that absolutely appalling. This is from a party that is supposedly pro-family. This is supposedly a party that stands for family values. Nice kind of family values that is where you say to a family, `We don't care what your skills are. Just so long as we know what your age is, that's how you'll get paid.'The Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999 , as has been said by the member for Lilley and the previous speaker, is an integration into the social welfare legislation of the youth allowance amendments from last year. It is therefore important that we go back and remember what the youth allowance legislation did. I am sure the majority of Australians do not know, because it did not affect the majority of Australians. Like most of the other changes that took place from 1996 onwards, what we have seen has been the targeting of pockets of people. Quite frankly, people know what happens to them; they do not know what happens to others.When the member for Moreton actually talked about the number of people being better and no worse off, what a deceitful way of talking about it. What a dishonest way of putting forward what actually occurred in that period between March 1996 and July of last year. In the 1996 budget, there were in fact substantial cuts to support for young Australians via Austudy. When he talks about how people were better off, some of those things making them better off were actually cuts from the 1996 budget. What he did not say was that there was a whole stack of young people who actually lost all access to income support. He has got some really interesting conundrums there. On the one hand, he was saying that, somehow, we were supposed to have encouraged young people to leave school. Let us go back and look: from 1983 to 1996, school attendance rates for year 12 went from 36 per cent under John Howard as Treasurer to something like 67 per cent to 70 per cent in our term. It is currently declining, not increasing. That more than doubling of school retention ratios under Labor was very stark. There was no Austudy for young Australians at school back in 1983. There was no payment at all. There was a dole payment if they left school, but there was no payment to stay at school in 1983 when the Liberals and Nationals were previously in government. So let us be very clear. The idea he has put forward that, somehow, the Labor Party was encouraging people to leave school is blatantly dishonest and wrong.The removal of income support for under-18-year-olds, unless they were in full-time education or training, was even more dishonest, because the government admitted that there were not sufficient places for those young people to attend, and if they stayed at school there were no extra funds for state education departments to actually have teachers to teach them. So they took away the money from those young people and made no provisions for increased spending to accom modate them in full-time training or education.The government made those young people and their families carry that cost. The savings made there were on the backs of poorly off young people. Worse than that, many of the young people who leave school at 15 and 16 are people who have difficulty with education, who have real special needs. They may have a mental health problem; they may have a learning disability; they may have a dysfunctional family; they may have been victims of abuse at some stage in their lives. There is a whole range of reasons why that 25 per cent to 30 per cent leave school at that age without going on to year 12.Taking income support away from them did not address any of those needs at all. We also saw cuts in all the other welfare and family support programs at the same time, between 1996 and July of last year. So the idea that what the government was doing was somehow beneficial to young Australians is fundamentally wrong, and it knows that. The fact is that it did not affect most Australians; it affected a relatively small number. The idea being put forward by the government is that these people were getting the benefits dishonestly or unfairly, and that was reinforced a moment ago. Weren't we just told how that five per cent who lost income support were in fact from families who failed the means test?That was not the case. A substantial number of those young people were in fact from families whose young people were under 18 and, regardless of income, that support was not means tested at all. They were from low income families whose children were unable to continue at school for one reason or another, and they got no support. I think that nails the lie that we have been getting over and over, and it indicates the lengths to which members of the government are prepared to go to perpetuate a lie and a fraud on the Australian community.I was interested to note that the minister took exception to some of the comments made by the member for Lilley regarding Centrelink. I thought the member for Lilley's comments were in fact very moderate, given the problems that we all know about. In the last three years we have had a lot of new members of the government who have spoken over this time but who have not sat through debates in the previous parliaments when the current government was in opposition. They did not hear their now ministers making speeches for some years about what they would do and how caring they were nor did they hear the promises they made in this chamber—they are all in the Hansard but no-one goes back to those any more. So I guess I was a bit tolerant of those new members in the last parliament because they were not really a part—you could understand their naivety and their inexperience. It is now three years and they can no longer play off that kind of mythology; they can no longer pretend not to know because they have also just gone through some elections as well.I actually think that they thought it was normal for their offices to get the kind of angst and the kinds of complaints that they were getting. Let me tell you, it was not. I would be interested to know the number of Federal Police calls to members' offices in the last three years and in the three years before. From my office experience, I can absolutely guarantee you that the difference is more than noticeable; it is dramatic. The amount of anger, suppressed frustration and rage that we get in our office now is vastly greater—immeasurably greater—than it was in the previous three years. Those new members of the government perhaps did not know that and I was always a bit tolerant of their naivety.I noticed last year that there was a bit of a veto on departments talking to parliamentarians and on information about possible violence on members' offices being made known. The grounds for that were, supposedly, so there would not be any copycatting. The real grounds, of course, were not that at all. The real grounds were because the government was so embarrassed by it. We all know that that was particularly the case with Centrelink.The Centrelink role in the Youth Allowance issue in July of last year was monumental. The people who worked in Centrelink—who were administering this program and who will now be administering the amendments to it—deserve medals. Mind you, many of them have now gone. Many of them did not survive that process. The cuts in recent times will mean that young Australians now approaching Centrelink are going to be just as badly off as they were back in July of last year. It seems to me that the government is saying that Centrelink is somehow a business that seems to have to have some profitability or some way of accounting rather than it being a service to the community that meets their needs—especially when one hears that four out of five phone callers do not get through.I had a circumstance last year where a student counsellor at a university advised me that over two days he had made 52 phone calls to Centrelink, never got through and eventually gave up altogether. He made 52 phone calls over two days and did not get through. So when we hear that four out of five do not get through now, that does not surprise me, and it certainly reinforces what we are told.This is not just about young Australians, it is also about others. I talk to pensioners who go to Centrelink offices and are forced to wait in queues. They have the indignity and embarrassment of standing in a queue for a very long time and then being told their appointment is going to be some weeks away because they cannot talk to anybody at that time. This is not the fault of the staff and it is not the fault of the person seeking assistance.Centrelink was designed to save the government money, not to provide a better service. All the nonsense we get from the government about Centrelink, its service models and its service functionality is absolute nonsense, and we know it, because our officers are dealing with more and more cases. The idea that that was normal should now be better understood by the members opposite.They know that last July they were besieged with Centrelink complaints, youth complaints and angry, upset people and families. We know that it is dishonest to come in here one year later to pretend this is somehow all okay, because we and they get similar levels of complaints. We deal with the same people in the community. Whereas in the first term of parliament they may have been able to pretend that this is normal, they can no longer do that. Of course, those people who were removed and whose support was reduced by the youth allowance—and who will be further affected now—turned to the Job Network. What a fiasco!The following is quite interesting. In recent times I have been making inquiries because I produce a directory of Commonwealth services available in Newcastle. These are services that taxpayers pay for and which they are entitled to access and know about. With the change from CES and so on with the Job Network it seemed to me that, given that Employment National is government owned and it is actually taxpayers who eventually pay the bills there, I should include Employment National. Well, I am sorry, I am not supposed to.Employment National does not want to be seen as being owned by or in any way connected to the Australian people. They do not want to be included. They are not a public service; they are not part of government services. They see themselves as somehow being totally separate, and I suppose in a sense they are because it appears they are not accountable to this parliament either. It appears the separation of functionality and money means that by the outsourcing function that has been done, the accountability and liability of Employment National is no longer to this parliament or has the involvement of any federal members.I think the exclusion of them from my Newcastle Commonwealth services directory is rather tragic because the taxpayers should know that they are actually paying for it. They should know that a minister, somehow, eventually decides who runs it. The minister may not be able to tell them what to do any more, but the minister does actually decide who is on the board. But they are now outside the framework. So, technically, the Commonwealth no longer has a function in employment services.With the one hand the government has cut the services to young people, removed the eligibility of many young Australians and put a massive burden on their families in terms of means testing their income up to the age of 21—and up to the age of 25 for Austudy, which is even worse. With the other hand the government has pulled away the Centrelink or actual service support in terms of accessing information, the job placement support and the investment in their development and skills through cuts to universities and job training programs.Amongst all that, the government says that this is reform. I have heard of words being misused, but the way this government uses the word `reform' means the word no longer has any meaning. Reform is actually making things better. Go and ask young Australians out there—the people on Austudy and youth allowance—whether the system is better for them and they will say no. These were not reforms; these were simply changes, many of which were disastrous for the people affected. We now have this word `reform' as the current euphemism for explaining cuts in government expenditure.The previous speaker, the member for Moreton, also talked about treating all young Australians equally, whether they are looking for work or are in training. That is an absolute lie. Sixteen-year-olds are no longer treated equally. They have no income at all unless they are in training. If they are looking for a job, bad luck, because there is no money to help them find a job—no money for bus fares, no money for phone calls, no money for CVs, no money for clothes, unless their parents can give it to them, and it does not matter how much their parents earn, because they get nothing. This is just one more of those examples of dishonesty.I was interested in the comments of the member for Moreton on his judgment in buying a Gemini. I thought they were perhaps indicative of his judgment in general. He indicated how bad his judgment was in his choice of car; I suspect that it has not improved. I have noticed him over the years, and the only thing that seems to have changed is his dimensions. I see no change in his learning or understanding of what actually affects young Australians. The idea of hands-off junior wages that he is talking about, he knows and we all know, is not what that legislation is about.These amendments tidy up some parts of the legislation. They do not go to the core question of whether or not we share responsibility for young Australians and their families to any degree. They do not go to the question of whether young Australians are part of our community or not—of whether we have any sense of inclusiveness about them. These amendments and this legislation are exclusive and remain so. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Slipper) adjourned.Bills4414r7144414Debate resumed from 9 December 1998, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.13:43:004414Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The process of reform in the seafaring industry is an important one. It is a reform process recognised and supported by this side of the House. Indeed, it was during the period of the Labor government that the reform process commenced with significant improvements. In 1985, Australian ships had an average crew of 30.9 members. In 1995, ten years later, as a result of the reform process undertaken in consultation with the industry and all of the stakeholders, that figure had declined to 18.So the process of reform in the seafaring industry is one that is understood and supported by this House. However, the bill before us today is not about proper reform of the seafaring industry. This bill is the first of a two-part review. There is to be a second bill introduced, presumably some time later this year, which will be a major rewrite of the Navigation Act, encompassing the full scope of the operations of our seafaring industry.The government has decided, for reasons best known to itself, to single out workers' conditions and rights for special treatment in this bill, so that what we have before us is not a reform of the seafaring industry; what we have before us is a piece of legislation de signed to reduce the employment conditions and rights of those Australians who work in that industry.If reform is to be fair dinkum, it needs to adopt some basic criteria. It should recognise the unique nature of this industry; it should recognise the threats to the Australian industry from international operators, whose performances have been regularly attacked for their substandard and, in many cases, illegal behaviour; and it should ensure that all stakeholders in the industry have participated in the process of reform. The government has failed all of those tests.The government has introduced a bill that proposes a number of major changes. They include abolishing the system of articles of agreement which are fundamental to the means by which seafarers are engaged and fundamental to ensuring their rights on board ship and in ports around the world. The bill removes the system of discharging a seafarer at the completion of their voyage. It abolishes the Marine Council, which presently has the function of assessing and determining the suitability of a person as a seafarer and of enforcing the code of conduct in relation to seafarers. It removes seafarers' entitlements to paid sick leave whilst left ashore during illness. It removes the prescriptions setting out how workers are to receive their pay whilst on-board crew. It removes the restrictions that exist at the moment concerning the handling of cargo or ballasts in port. It removes the restriction prohibiting the demanding or receiving of a fee for providing a seafarer with employment.The single most fundamental issue that has been contained in this bill is whether employment conditions that are prescribed in the Navigation Act should now be repealed to effectively allow seafarers to have their conditions of employment determined by the Workplace Relations Act—an act which has already wreaked havoc and pain upon so many other Australians who are working in industries with far fewer dangers, both economic and physical, than the seafaring industry.The government has stated four objectives that motivated this bill. The first is to remove employment related provisions that are inconsistent with the Workplace Relations Act. This objective is really about removing seafarers' conditions of employment—pure and simple. It is about forcing them to again negotiate one on one with their employer—a return to the dark days of the seafaring industry.Their second objective is to remove outdated and inappropriate legislative amendments. This objective, I think, is going to be met because there are a number of items in the bill which the Labor Party will support. Those that deal with updating the legislation in a proper manner rather than focusing on stripping away rights and conditions for workers in the industry will be supported by us when they come to be debated in detail at a subsequent time.The third objective the government announced was to bring the legislation applying to seafarers into line with that which applies to employees in other industries. It is not possible to regard the shipping industry as just another industry. It has unique and peculiar characteristics that I will talk at some length about later on.The fourth objective the government announced in proposing this legislation was to reduce the cost of administering and complying with the legislation. Frankly, that is just a piece of government rhetoric because, as you look at the bill, you will see that the red tape still remains and the cost of complying will be no different from those provided in current industry arrangements.This is an industry that is regarded by this parliament as having special and importantly different characteristics. That is why there was a special act of this parliament to regulate the way in which seafaring is undertaken. Parliaments of both political persuasions, Liberal and Labor—Malcolm Fraser, Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating, Robert Menzies, John Gorton; you can go through the list—for decades have accepted this. Until this time, every parliament of all political persuasions has accepted the unique nature of this industry and the need for it to be properly regulated by statute. Indeed, in the last six years, there have been no fewer than three parlia mentary committee reports into the operations of this industry. I can think of no other industry where such parliamentary scrutiny is given because of the concern in the community and the parliament—the understanding that the nature of this industry is like no other.All three committee reports have done credit to the members of parliament that have been involved in them. I will refer to each of them. There was the Ships of shame report that the former distinguished member of the parliament Peter Morris chaired. Frankly, that was a benchmark report and not just for this industry. Many people in the parliament see that as an example of how backbench members can have a very significant say in the operations of the parliament and in the lives of Australians. It was a first rate report.Peter Morris followed that up with a return visit to the Ships of shame report in 1995, and at the end of last year another very good report, Ship safe, was delivered to the parliament. I want to repeat some of the comments that have been made in those reports.The most recent of the reports, Ship safe, is from a committee that was chaired by a government member of parliament, Mr Neville, the majority of the committee being government members. The committee said that a ship is not just a means of transport and a workplace but also a social system. That is perfectly correct. A ship is a workplace that is like no other. There is no other job in civilian life where you say goodbye to your family, leave home, and go abroad or around the country for three months before you get back to your own bed. There is no other job where you live confined in a very small space, day and night, with between 15 and 20 other people—on a ship, 24 hours a day, even in your non-working hours—for maybe three or four months. It is a social system. It is not just a place of work. That was recognised by the parliamentary committee. The report also said:The abuse and neglect of crew members is of concern for two reasons. As a violation of human rights, it warrants international attention and condemnation. It also constitutes a significant risk factor for ship safety.Whereas clear improvements have been noted in the other focus areas, the committee is concerned that crew welfare is not being adequately addressed. It may even be deteriorating . . . That was the finding of this parliament's own committee last year—a committee dominated by Liberal and National Party members. What is the response from the Liberal and National Party government to that advice of their own committee which says, `It is a unique industry. There are problems about crew safety. There are violations. And, in fact, we are worried because we think things are getting worse, not better'? The response of this government to that advice is actually to strip away the existing protections. That is what this bill seeks to do—to strip away those existing protections.In case there is any doubt about the conclusions the committee came to, the report stated:The committee urges the Commonwealth to take what steps it can to enhance the well being of seafarers. In all the focus areas before the committee in this inquiry, crew welfare appears to have progressed the least in the 1990s, and much remains in need of improvement.The committee was right. Its advice has been ignored by this government. Even worse, rather than heeding the plea from the parliament's committee to `enhance the wellbeing of seafarers', the government has gone absolutely in the opposite direction—180 degrees the other way. Rather than enhancing the protection that seafarers have, the government is in this bill seeking to remove every single protection of seafarers' rights and welfare that currently exists in Australian law in the Navigation Act. It is telling them to rely on the normal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act—the same as any other worker—when they know this is not an industry like any other and when they know there is a growing community concern that the Workplace Relations Act does not afford protection for people in conventional jobs.Let me deal with that for a moment. The government would have us believe that seafarers can negotiate as individuals: an Australian worker trying to get a contract on a shipping line should negotiate, by himself or herself, their conditions of employment and take whatever it is that is offered. This is not a new idea. When as a country we set up our system of an independent commission, an independent umpire, and of collective bargaining, Justice Higgins noted that people were offering this view. In 1907, in the famous Harvester decision, Justice Higgins said that the freedom of choice to which people referred was `like the freedom of contract between the wolf and the lamb'. Justice Higgins was right, and too many Australian workers are discovering that. To expose people in an industry which is unique and at greater risk than any other to the same threats is unconscionable.I was surprised, when looking at some recent developments in this industry, to understand how bleak the situation is even in recent times. We tend, in our ignorance, to believe that everything has moved on to better circumstances. But in fact the director-general of the International Labour Organisation in October of 1996, when he was speaking at the ILO convention, said this about the industry:The dangers to which shipowners and governments are exposed are financial or political in nature, but seafarers are exposed to physical risks which threaten their very lives. It has, for example, been emphasised that since 1994—remember he was saying this in 1996, so we are talking about a period of only two years—180 ships of more than 500 tonnes have been lost at sea, causing the death of 1,200 seafarers and many passengers. In the first six months of 1996, twice as many human lives were lost at sea than in the whole of 1995.This is an industry that to this day sadly includes operators who are more than happy to break the law and to cut corners, and if it means loss of life to them or loss of flags of convenience ships in poor repair, they have little concern for the consequences. We as a nation have historically sought to protect Australian seafarers from that exploitation that does not just exploit their wages—it puts their very health and life at risk. For the first time in decades, we now have a government that wants to deny seafarers that protection.I foreshadow that the Labor Party will be moving a series of amendments in the House of Representatives and opposing a number of the provisions. We will also be seeking when this matter goes to the Senate to have the bill considered in detail, because this is an important matter and it is a somewhat complex bill, given that it seeks to deal with about 80 various sections of the existing act.One of the provisions of the bill I mentioned is to abolish the Marine Council. The Marine Council is part of the AMSA structure. AMSA has also come under careful scrutiny in the course of parliamentary consideration over the years and is subject to regular parliamentary committee inquiry. The parliamentary committee have actually noted the very positive role that AMSA plays. They said:AMSA is generally held in high regard by Australian and international representatives of the shipping industry. The organisation was described as efficient, cost effective and well managed. It was described as professional, even handed, fair and discreet. Its port state inspection program was described as thorough and well directed, successfully combining firmness with pragmatism.Against that background we have a government that actually wants to take those powers away from AMSA. We have a government that receives reports applauding the role that these councils have played in guaranteeing the safety and fair operation of our shipping industry. Against that advice and against its own committee reports it now seeks to deny those workers that protection. It seeks through this bill to remove the Marine Council from its present role.There has been a total lack of consultation in the way this government has gone about the conduct of this bill, and for good reason: they cannot even get their own backbenchers to talk on it. I have referred to the committee reports on this matter. In fact, there is not one member of those committees—not the chairman, not any other member of those committees; I forgot, they dragged out one, the standard dry economic theorist to come and give us the standard speech no matter what the issue—who wants to stand here because those committees have recommended to this government that they continue and expand the protection, a course that has not only been—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Ministerial Arrangements441814:00:004418Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I wish to advise that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and party have now arrived in the Exmouth area for inspections of the horrific cyclone damage at that location. The member for Kalgoorlie has joined them at that location. During the course of this question time I will be taking questions on behalf of the Prime Minister.Questions Without Notice441844184418Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Minister, do you recall telling the House yesterday that you only became aware two days ago of Senator Minchin's statement to the Senate on 1 December 1998 concerning Pangea, adding:The fact is that I do not read the Senate Hansard.Minister, did you also not read the Australian on 2 December 1998 which reported Senator Minchin's statement on page 5, or the Age of that day on page 2, or the Sydney Morning Herald of that day on page 5? Did you also not listen to the ABC AM on 1 December 1998 which reported Minister Minchin's denial, or ABC PM that day on which Senator Minchin himself said:There has been absolutely no ministerial level discussions with that company, Pangea Resources.Minister, did you tell the truth yesterday or are you just incompetent?4418Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to all those questions, of course, is no. I am not someone who bothers to read every newspaper in Australia because I simply believe I have more important things to do in delivering good policy, which is something you don't even have and gives you plenty of opportunity to read the newspapers. I told the absolute truth.44184418Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House if he is aware of international support for the introduction in Australia of a broad-based indirect tax? What does international experience teach us about the complexity and compliance costs that result from unnecessary exemptions and anomalies in the application of a goods and services tax?4418Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Yesterday I informed the House of growing support for the government's tax policy coming from the former national secretary of the ALP, Mr Hogg.Yesterday, one of the world's foremost indirect tax experts, Professor Cnossen, Professor of Economics at Erasmus University and a judge of the Dutch tax court, delivered a significant paper in Australia. The professor has advised 25 governments on the design and implementation of GST. He stated in his paper yesterday:Research and experience . . . proves that the best GST is a GST with a single rate applicable to all goods and services. A zero rate on food is largely ineffective in mitigating the GST burden on the poor.The professor also noted that the nations of Europe which had introduced VATs in the 1960s and 1970s now widely recognised that dual rates were wrong and that a single rate would be best on grounds of fairness, efficiency and simplicity. The professor said:Later converts to the GST and countries with modern tax systems have single rate GSTs . . . What the professor was saying was that Australia can have one of the best models for indirect tax in the world as long as we have a single rate with few exemptions.Adding to the measures that the professor referred to yesterday was a speech from the Commissioner of Taxation who yesterday said that he wanted to inject into the public debate that—any attempt to draw a line around food will lead to costly disputation . . .The Commissioner of Taxation warned that to exempt food from the GST would mean that 370,000 businesses would get into the business of trying to distinguish between GST and non-GST purchases and sales.The commissioner adverted to the UK system where hot meat pies are rated zero unless they are warmed at the customer's request or reheated from cold. A more recent ruling in the UK which tried to have a different rate for food was that a meat pie sold before 3 p.m. is taxable as snack food but, if it is sold after 3 p.m., it is classified as a grocery and is sold tax free.Countries around the world that have tried to work out what is and what is not food have engaged in temperature tests, and the Commissioner of Taxation said that a temperature test makes frozen yoghurt taxable and refrigerated yoghurt tax free. They have tried to engage in timing tests. They have tried to engage in volume tests in the UK where a gingerbread man with chocolate is taxable unless the chocolate is only used to paint the eyes on the gingerbread man. If it is only used to put the eyes on it is not taxable. Restaurants face a particular problem in excluding food. Those that have tried to engage in a fresh food test have oysters served natural tax free and oysters kilpatrick served as taxable. That is another one of the rulings.The House would be well advised to take notice of both the professor and the Commissioner of Taxation. The government has the most modern, up-to-date model in relation to GST. That was the policy that was put to the Australian people; that is the policy that the Senate should enact.44194419McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence in that capacity and as the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and as a former minister for industry. Minister, can you guarantee that none of your current or previous ministerial staff met with Pangea Resources at any time about their proposal to dump nuclear waste in outback Australia? If you are not able to give this absolute assurance, will you make inquiries and report back to the House today?4419Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I have not met with the gentleman concerned.DT4CREANMr Crean—Your staff?EI4Mr MOORE—An approach was made to one of my staff. We declined to meet him. He sent his bumf along, and that was the end of it.44194419Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House what Australia is doing to promote confidence and stability in the international financial system? To what extent is Australia a model for other economies?4419Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Tomorrow in Melbourne Australia will be hosting and chairing a meeting of the Manila Framework Group. The Manila Framework Group is a group that was set up in response to the Asian financial crisis to put together rules which would be preventive in the future and would help countries deal their way through financial crises. Australia has taken a lead in relation to the international financial architecture, and we will be hosting this conference in Melbourne tomorrow, at which I will be making the opening speech.Last year the Prime Minister set up a task force on international financial reform, which I chaired, which has reported to the government. One of the recommendations that that task force made was that countries should engage in transparency reports to promote openness and understanding of their financial regulation and to benchmark themselves against international best practice. Tomorrow in Melbourne I will be releasing the first transparency report in the world. Australia has led the way, and I will be releasing this transparency report which will be regarded by the IMF as a model for other countries to adopt and to follow.Australia's transparency report is aimed at developing best practice in our own economy in relation to financial regulation and promoting amongst our near neighbours a model which they could adopt in order to try to promote fiscal transparency in their policies as well. The IMF regards Australia's charter of budget honesty as the best international model for openness in fiscal policy. With the release of the transparency report in Melbourne tomorrow, we will again lead the world in promoting openness and understanding of policy.As a result of the Asian financial crisis and because the Australian economy has come through this crisis in such strong health, Australia is now well placed to lead in the region and to take these steps to promote international reform. It is a leadership role which Australia has won the right to exercise and which it now has the duty to exercise. We will be leading in this way in Melbourne tomorrow.44204420Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. Minister, yesterday the Prime Minister failed to rule out the GST pension compensation being clawed back to zero. Now that the minister has had time to reflect on the Prime Minister's answer, can he guarantee that pensions under the GST will always be higher than what they are guaranteed to be without a GST? Minister, what mechanism will you use to ensure that?4420Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Every answer that the Prime Minister gives is, of course, correct and a comprehensive response to the issues raised. The government is providing several guarantees to pensioners, including a four per cent rise in pensions up-front on 1 July 2000 and a second guarantee that the pension will remain 1.5 per cent above the CPI rise, whatever that figure may be. Pensioners will be very much better off under this government in the future as they have been in the past.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it goes to relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's point of order, but I believe the minister has concluded his answer.DT4CREANMr Crean—The minister was asked this, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no facility—Mr Downer interjecting—Mr Costello interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Treasurer are being of no assistance to the chair. There is no facility for me to hear a point of order on relevance when in fact the minister has concluded his answer.DT4CREANMr Crean—Even if he hasn't answered it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has answered the question.DT4CREANMr Crean—He has not answered it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.44204420Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of the industrial disputation figures which were released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday? How do these figures demonstrate the positive effect that the government's workplace relations changes have had in workplaces around the country?Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Isaacs!4420Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The figures released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show how the Workplace Relations Act is transforming the nature of industrial relations in Australia for the better and particularly for the benefit of employees. We saw yesterday that, for the second successive year, Australia has recorded the lowest number of working days lost per thousand employees to industrial disputes since 1913—1997 was the best, and 1998 is now the new record for Australia since figures were first collected back in 1913.This is a tremendous tribute to the effectiveness of the legislation and it really shows you that when you have a better system most people want to take a cooperative, sensible attitude to issues at work for the interests of both employees and employers. Also, it is not just the lowest number of disputes per thousand employees; it is the second lowest actual number of disputes since 1939—1997 is still the record, but 1998 is the second lowest actual number of disputes. So the reduction is very comprehensive right across the board.When we first put up the Workplace Relations Act many of our critics were saying, `You might have fewer disputes, but you will have longer disputes. They will be more protracted disputes.' In fact, the opposite has been shown to be the case. So the nature of the disputes is also worth looking at. And, of course, the high levels of industrial disputes tend to be in those sectors which are highly unionised and, of course, that is often characterised by a failure of the Labor Party to speak out against disputes which cost the Australian community so dearly.The other thing that is worth noting is that these figures do not include the bans and limitations type of industrial action. Yet we do know from anecdotal evidence that the extent of those is not what it once was either. One of the reasons for that is that we have introduced a ban on the payment of strike pay during industrial action. There is no doubt that this has affected people's behaviour. That is good for the economy as a whole, and it is also good for employees. The strike pay ban, the secondary boycott provisions that we introduced and the other compliance measures were all opposed by Labor. If Labor were ever to be re-elected, they would of course repeal all the measures which have seen such a dramatic improvement in the state of industrial relations in Australia.Lastly, to conclude, when we advanced our policy before the 1996 election the Labor Party said, `Instead of industrial peace you will have industrial war.' And the headlines told the story: `We will go to war for pay rises, says Kelty', back in February 1996; `Kelty warns Howard: it is war over wages'; in the Canberra Times, `Union chief predicts IR war: Kelty sets his sights'; and, of course, `Crean backs wage war threat'. It is interesting to see what the acting Leader of the Opposition had to say. When asked about the prospect of industrial strife if the coalition was elected he said,`I think they are statements of reality. You'll get interest rates up and inflation up.' `That is a recipe for economic chaos,' he predicted.War did not break out. Peace has broken out. These are very good figures for Australian workers. The only crowd who stands in the way of the continuation of this is none other than the Labor Party, who presided over very high rates of industrial action in this country which undermined productivity and undermined the security of thousands of Australian workers.44214421McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Does the minister stand by the Prime Minister's claim that the only GST losers will be tax cheats? Has he seen the new report by independent expert Professor Peter Dixon that shows a scenario under which the GST will cost the entertainment industry 29,000 jobs, transport and communications 21,000 jobs, wholesale and retail 17,000 jobs, the Public Service 14,000 jobs, and so on—120,000 jobs lost in total? Can the minister guarantee that all of these people will not be losers?Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Charlton.4421Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—The quality of the general secretaryship of the Labor Party has gone down since Bob Hogg. Bob Hogg understood what the answer was—you pass the GST.44214421Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Is the minister aware of the media reports this morning regarding the future of the RFA legislation? What are the implications of those reports?Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton is warned. The minister has the call.4421Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Yesterday I reminded the House of the Labor Party's sham attempt to placate the forest industry by issuing the National Forest Policy Statement in 1992 and how it failed to produce even one RFA in four years. The Howard government has finalised three RFAs and is well advanced with a further nine. Those completed have already shown positive investment results. However, all major investment is still on hold awaiting the passing of the RFA legislation through the Senate, as all interest groups know that this legislative guarantee is essential for long-term investment.Opposition members interjecting—AE4NEHLMr Nehl—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I wish to advise you that I asked this question and, as yet, the level of noise in this chamber has meant that I have not heard one single word. Having asked the question, I would like to hear the answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks, the member for Hunter and the member for Brisbane will exercise some additional restraint. I call the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I am advised that the Tasmanian forestry industry needs investment approaching $4 billion to guarantee its future, but no-one would invest such funds without a legislative guarantee. However, I read in today's West Australian that the Labor caucus has decided to move an amendment to the RFA legislation to make all RFAs subject to disallowance in the Senate. My office has received advice from the Senate Clerk's office that such a process would effectively negate all the guarantees proposed in the RFA legislation and, in fact, there would be more security if no legislation existed at all. The Labor Party knows that, and this proposal of theirs is designed to destroy the legislation completely.There is plenty of evidence that other sections of the community do not want that, and I am now in possession of a copy of a letter from the Australian Workers Union which they did not send to me, so someone over there better say who did. That letter asks the Leader of the Opposition to end the uncertainty by not proceeding with the ALP's proposed disallowance motion. It also says that there is increasing disenchantment with the Labor Party within the union, as it appears to place the legitimate concerns of ordinary working people behind those of Green activists. All of this has been rejected by the Leader of the Opposition who is, of course, putting his job ahead of those of workers. A lot of people seem worried at the moment about people giving advice to ministers; let me assure the House I am getting plenty on this issue from the Labor Party. You can tell why—because they are in total disarray on it. That is further evidenced by the West Australian article which quotes what certain people said in the caucus. We know, of course, who would have passed that information on. In conclusion, there is ample evidence in the media that I have rejected emotionalism and opportunism on this issue, be it from Labor, Green or Liberal voters. That is called a principled position. The window on principle has been wide open in the Labor caucus from the day they elected Kim Beazley their leader.DT4CREANMr Crean—Would the minister table—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Would you like a copy?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is not a conversation between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the minister. The chair will determine who speaks to who. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a request for the information to be tabled. I ask the minister: was he reading the material, and was it from a confidential document?QI4PRICEMr Price—He was certainly reading!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not ask the member for Chifley for an opinion. The minister will respond.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The notes I prepared are marked confidential. But, of course, it is now obvious that the letter from the AWU is not, and I table it.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, on a point of order. Will the minister table the advice which he quoted from the Senate clerk, given that he tabled the letter?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In response to my earlier question, the minister indicated that the papers he had were marked confidential. I ask him if there are any other papers he wishes to table?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—No, sir.44224422Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the minister stand by the Prime Minister's claim that the only GST losers will be tax cheats? Has he seen the new report of independent expert, Peter Dixon, that shows a scenario under which the GST will cost 16,000 jobs in regional New South Wales, 11,000 in regional Victoria, 12,000 jobs in regional Queensland, 2,500 jobs in regional South Australia, 1,600 jobs in regional Western Australia and 2,200 jobs in Tasmania—a total of 45,000 jobs in areas of high unemployment.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson will come to her question.XW4Ms KERNOT—Can the minister guarantee that all of these people will not be losers under the GST?4423Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—It is interesting that the opposite number in this regard is, of course, the person who facilitated the passage of Labor's increases in the indirect tax mix mess that they put up after the 1993 election—the Dawkins budget. There was no compensation then for pensioners. There was certainly no compensation for those people in rural Australia who were most affected by the increases in fuel tax—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: the question was specific and clear—the GST package and the job losses, his comments and his guarantee.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question. It was not difficult to draw a bow between what he was saying and where he was going, but he will respond to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I submit that the point is relevant because, in fact, their changes to the indirect tax mix did cost jobs whereas the assumption is made by—DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: he is defying your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I believe the minister was coming directly to the answer and that is why I had not intervened. If I thought he was defying the chair, clearly I would have intervened.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The point really is that whilst those measures cost jobs, the assumptions made by Dixon are inappropriate. Apart from the fact that we are not hearing from the opposition the full story on this work that has been done—which does point to the prospect for increased jobs in totality—the assumptions in relation to rural industries and regional areas are made on incorrect foundations. For example, there seems to be an assumption that making Australian rural and regional export industries more competitive means that we will therefore produce too much of them, we will flood global markets, the price will come down and somehow there will be fewer jobs. I do not believe that that is realistic at all. I think the assumptions made about elasticity of demand and supply and prices here are inappropriate.In reality, global economic strength, international seasonal circumstances where agricultural products are concerned, the corrupt world markets that we sometimes face as a result of activities in Europe and America: these factors will have more impact on global supply and demand and price than taxation reforms here at home in Australia. The reality is that a more competitive tax system will boost exports, boost economic growth and boost jobs. That applies to rural and regional Australia as much as anywhere else.44234423Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the Australian government's response to the decision by NATO to launch air attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?4423Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for her question, and recognise the interest she shows in these broader international issues. These attacks by NATO on Yugoslavia are, of course, deeply regrettable, but the Australian government supports the NATO air strikes against military targets in Yugoslavia. We do regret that this action has become necessary, but there is only one person who is responsible for what has happened—that is, President Milosevic, the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The international community cannot simply stand by and watch as President Milosevic's forces continue to perpetrate the sort of human rights abuses that have recently been perpetrated in Kosovo. It is an unreasonable proposition to expect NATO leaders to sit on their hands in that situation and do nothing.Let me make it clear that our argument here is an argument with President Milosevic, with his government and with the instrument of his government, his armed forces. It is not an argument with the Serbian people as a whole. The tragic situation rests squarely with President Milosevic himself.I note that President Yeltsin and others in the Russian government have recently made remarks that Russia could take military measures if the conflict grows. From the Australian government's perspective, we think that Russia should play a constructive role. For Russia to play a constructive role, President Yeltsin and other members of the Russian government, including Prime Minister Primakov, should pressure Mr Milosevic to halt his aggression and terror in Kosovo and sign up to the accord which has been negotiated at Rambouillet in France.Finally, let me say something about those Australian citizens, many of whom have dual nationality, who are in Yugoslavia. I understand from my department that at the moment the borders of Yugoslavia still remain open, so those Australians planning to depart and who are in a position to do so should leave by the safest means available to them. Australians choosing to remain are encouraged to take the maximum protection to ensure their safety and welfare and should avoid military installations at all costs because it is the military installations which are going to be the targets of the NATO attacks.In terms of consular services for those who are remaining, the welfare and safety of our locally engaged staff in Belgrade are obviously paramount. We have authorised them temporarily to close the embassy at short notice, should the situation warrant it. They are very dedicated people. They are prepared to provide consular assistance to Australians, but we want them to put their own safety and welfare before their professional commitment.44244424O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and relates to the Prime Minister's claim that the only losers from a GST will be tax cheats. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: have you seen claims by the Winemakers Federation—backed up by wine growers in my own electorate—that, under the government's new proposed wine tax, wine prices will rise by double the rate claimed by the government and that up to 500 jobs will be lost in the wine industry? Deputy Prime Minister, how can you claim that no-one will be losers from your tax package?4424Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I am delighted to get a question, having put in an hour's extra preparation today for this, the 204th question time since the government changed; and you guys have learned nothing in terms of tactics over that period of time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will come to the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—In fact, there have been 2,040 questions. The criticism is a bit curious considering that the Winemakers Federation of Australia's own opinion is that all sectors of the industry—the very important wine export industry—will be better off.DT4CREANMr Crean—What about jobs?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The wine industry commissioned their own modelling of the tax package from the Centre of International Economic Studies at the University of South Australia, and from ACIL Consulting. Mr Brian Croser, President of the Winemakers Federation, told a select committee hearing in Adelaide that the results of the modelling showed that under our tax package—the coalition's better tax system tax reform package—everyone wins in relation to the wine industry. I quote:Under an ad valorem system, which is a continuation of the current system, the non-premium wine sector benefits more than the premium wine sector, but both sectors benefit under a GST plus, in effect, wine equalisation tax arrangements.We are about helping export industry. We are about helping to give them a competitive basis, which we will do under our system, so that they can push forward with their export effort to the world. We are about modern industry truly putting in place competitive taxation arrangements which will ensure extra jobs, not fewer jobs, and more pay for the workers with those extra jobs compared to your treatment of workers' pay during the years that you were in government.I salute the great Australian wine industry. I salute the fact that last year they increased their exports to Japan by 135 per cent. I salute the fact that their exports are now valued at over $900 million. The additional steps which we will take with tax reform will ensure a very bright future for the great Australian wine industry.44254425Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Can the minister inform the House what action Centrelink is taking for victims of floods and cyclones in Western Australia?4425Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I am sure all members are dismayed at the extent of the damage that has been caused in Western Australia. Fortunately there has been no loss of life, but there has been considerable damage from the cyclone and flooding in Western Australia. As has been reported to the House earlier today, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, along with the member for Kalgoorlie, are visiting those areas at the present time.Mr Haase has been very active in representing the needs of the people of his area in this time of tragedy. Centrelink has been quick to move to assist the people who are in need. I am told that in Exmouth there are some 780 homes, of which 112 have been destroyed. In all, around two-thirds of all the housing in the town has been seriously damaged or destroyed. So there is considerable need for prompt assistance.Centrelink has 10 staff at the Noalimba centre in Bateman to care for those who have been evacuated from the Moora area and to offer assistance to the victims. They are also providing counselling. Centrelink counsellors are available both there and to assist the people at Exmouth to deal with the emergency and to provide emergency assistance as required. Centrelink Carnarvon is the local office for the Exmouth people. It is fully operational. It is attending to the needs of the people, ensuring that emergency assistance is available promptly to all of those who need it.There have been a number of emergencies around Australia over recent weeks. I would like to pay tribute to the Centrelink staff who have kept their offices open, often in very difficult circumstances, to meet the needs of and to care for people in these emergency situations. In Cairns, North Queensland, in Gympie in the electorate of the honourable member for Fairfax, coming in across the floods, many Centrelink staff have left their own homes behind to make sure that essential government services were provided. These people are real heroes, just as are those who are involved in rescue. I would like to congratulate the Centrelink staff who have put so much effort into Moora and Exmouth to make sure that the victims of these tragedies are receiving their benefits and the sort of care and assistance that they need at this time.44254425Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I ask whether the minister is aware that the explanatory memorandum for the government's textile, clothing and footwear legislation, which appears on the parliamentary web site, and which notes that it is authorised by minister Minchin, states:The implementation of the strategic investment program may contribute to further losses in employment.Are you also aware that this statement and several others are expressly crossed out in the website copy of the explanatory memorandum and do not appear in the copy circulated to members of this House? Will you ask the minister to immediately investigate whether the EM was doctored because it conflicted with the Prime Minister's claim in September 1997 that the government's plan would `result in jobs being saved in the industry'?4426Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—Mr Speaker—Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned. The minister has the call.EI4Mr MOORE—Mr Speaker, as you know and as every other member of the House knows, the TCF program brought forward by the government made a very significant contribution to that industry. The implementation of that program has now been put in place by Senator Minchin and I believe it will be an outstanding success.44264426Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the government taking steps to extend the Work for the Dole program? What role can members of parliament play in promoting this wonderful program?4426Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Barker for his question and for his very strong support for the Work for the Dole projects in Mount Gambier in his electorate. This week the government has called for applications for the third round of Work for the Dole projects. These projects will start between August and next February and they should involve 15,000 young Australians. This is on top of the 20,000 young Australians who have already been involved in this magnificent program. It is important for members of the House to appreciate that Work for the Dole projects are not handed down from on high. They are allocated by my department in response to applications from the community.MPs can play an important role in Work for the Dole by encouraging community organisations in their electorates to apply. The Leader of the Opposition has recently been complaining that Work for the Dole is too small to do any good. Members opposite should take their leader seriously and encourage organisations in their electorates to apply for Work for the Dole projects. The Leader of the Opposition should tell the Australian Workers Union to lift the veto on Work for the Dole projects on the north coast of New South Wales. So should the member for Lilley and so should the member for Wills because they are members of the Australian Workers Union.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—And another member of the Australian Workers Union leaps to his feet.QI4PRICEMr Price—I rise on a point of order. That is entirely irrelevant to question that was asked.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley will resume his seat. The minister is addressing the question of the Work for the Dole program as he was asked.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The Leader of the Opposition could have contributed to the Work for the Dole program by telling the Australian Workers Union to lift the veto and he had a perfectly good opportunity this morning when he addressed the Australian Workers Union national conference. He would not have done it because he is worried that pretty soon he is going to need the vote of Senator-elect Ludwig Junior.44264426Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that according to the Australian Automobile Association the only way to ensure petrol prices will not rise in the bush due to the GST is to cut the excise not by your 7c per litre but by 8.9c per litre? Will you be adopting that measure? If not, why not?4426Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I really have no respect for the track record of the questioner on this matter when he voted to increase fuel excise tax in respect of a Dawkins budget. He has no credibility on this matter. The government will reduce, by $3½ billion, diesel fuel excise tax including diesel fuel excise on the transport of super fuel across Australia by road and rail. A full factoring in of that contribution to the reduction of transport costs in country Australia has been missing from so much of the analysis of the tax package.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I stand fair and square for this $3½ million tax reduction in transport fuel taxes and the sooner it comes in the better.44274427Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of recent developments in the Australian pork industry?4427Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Ballarat for his question. I know he is interested in the pork industry particularly in his electorate. It is not a question about one former Prime Minister's interest in the pork industry either, unfortunately. This is a good news story. As members would be aware, the Australian pork industry has suffered from tough times in the last year or so. Basically that started as a result of the former Labor government removing all import barriers as far as pork was concerned and putting no adjustment provisions in place to assist that industry. Our government has responded to the difficulties that are being faced and confronted by the Australian pork industry by announcing a multi-pronged $24 million package of assistance and adjustment to the pork industry of Australia. It is working.The key components of the package include a $9 million National Pork Industry Development Program, $1 million under FarmBis for national skills enhancement, $6 million exit assistance package, an $8 million Pigmeat Processing Grants Program. In regard to the $8 million Pigmeat Processing Grants Program, last week we announced $6.8 million worth of grants to the processing side of the industry, including processing in the electorate of the member for Ballarat.Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would have thought, given the import of this question to all rural electorates, the member for Lyons would be exercising considerably more restraint.SU5Mr VAILE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is important because as of next week we are going to see the first shipment of Australian chilled pork into Singapore thanks to the good work of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade in opening up that marketplace. We are sending a trial shipment there next week. We are one of the first countries to meet Singapore's stringent inspection standards for chilled pork. Another development has been that, with the outbreak of disease in Malaysia, Singapore has closed off its borders to pork from Malaysia. The Singaporean market is worth about 100,000 tonnes of pork a year. What the government is doing in improving the capacity, the viability and the competitiveness of Australia's pork industry is absolutely the correct thing to do to help develop a modern export oriented pork industry in Australia. We are proving that with the marketplaces that are being opened up all over the world.83YHOAREMs Hoare—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was reading from a statement and I ask him to table the ministerial statement he was reading from.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister was not reading and is not therefore required to table the statement.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will exercise the sort of restraint Australia would expect from them.44274427Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the options paper currently being considered which includes the proposal from your government's Commission of Audit that the Australian Red Cross blood service be commercialised by having its government grants abolished and a price put on every litre of blood supplied to hospitals? Will the minister commit to continuation in full of Commonwealth grants for the blood bank to continue as a voluntary community service? Will the minister rein in the Victorian Premier, who is actively pushing this proposal? Will the minister ensure that patients are not charged for each litre of blood provided? 4428Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I am not aware of the options paper that the shadow minister raises.44284428Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. In relation to the recent benefits that he has told us about with developing Australia as a centre for global financial services, do such developments have any implication for the export of Australian financial services into the Asian region?4428Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I can report information that would be pleasing to the Deputy Prime Minister—that is, that financial exports have more than doubled over the last five years. In part, that is attributable to the Asian financial crisis which has led to South-East Asian countries requesting Australian support in relation to corporate restructuring, accounting and legal services, debt recovery, financial forecasting and merger and acquisition activity. I can also report that Australian regulatory authorities such as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the RBA, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ACCC and APRA are all playing a role in the region. They are up there providing regulatory advice and services to the region in assisting the region to rebuild the regulatory framework that will help it recover from the Asian financial crisis.We must build on these existing relationships. I am very pleased to observe that AMP has announced a strategic link with the Unit Trust of India. The Unit Trust of India is no minnow in the provision of financial services. It has $US15 billion in funds under management. It has 50 million customer accounts and it manages more than six offshore funds. AMP and the Unit Trust of India have indicated that they are developing a $US500 million infrastructure fund that will assist with the construction of power generation facilities, transport, oil, gas and telecommunications facilities in India. This follows on the successful activities of other financial institutions in the Asian region such as Macquarie Bank, the Australia-New Zealand Banking Corporation, AMP, NAB, GIO, QBE, Westpac and many others.If we are seeking to be a financial centre for the region, it is important that we provide the world with access to the Asian region without the risks of the region. That can be best facilitated by actively participating in the region and encouraging Australian financial institutions to be more involved in the financial recovery of Asia.44284428Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall saying in your leaked letter to the Prime Minister that using the corporations power for industrial laws provides a method of opting out of state awards? Do you also recall promoting the transfer of state industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth in that letter by saying `the New South Wales opposition has long been attracted to this reform'? Minister, given your support yesterday for using the corporations power, could you advise the House what evidence has lead you to conclude that the New South Wales Liberals support this move? What discussions have you actually undertaken with the New South Wales Liberals about this?4428Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I must say that the honourable member seems to have an abysmal lack of understanding of some of these fairly basic issues. He asks whether or not the corporations power could be used for people to opt out of state awards.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—That's what you said; that's what was in your letter to the Prime Minister.WI4Mr REITH—Quite frankly, big deal! You do not even understand how the system works today. Quite frankly, the shadow minister shows no capacity to even understand basic issues about how the system operates.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Brisbane has been here long enough to know that the behaviour he is presently exhibiting is quite unacceptable.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane. I call the minister and ask him to address his remarks through the chair.WI4Mr REITH—The point I make, Mr Speaker—Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons.WI4Mr REITH—The point I make is that, if you are a body corporate today and you are subject to state industrial laws but you wish to use the federal system for agreement making, there is nothing to stop you. That happens today. That was part of the Workplace Relations Act. In terms of the policy position of the New South Wales state opposition, there have been various statements by members of the state opposition in New South Wales over the years. The statements they make are a matter for them. Our policy position has been to have a simpler system by encouraging harmonisation between the two systems.The question today of the member for Brisbane is like his inane press release of yesterday. It was inane. Even ACTU President Jennie George said, `On the face of it, Mr Reith's proposal to allow the commission to make common rule awards which applied to all workers in an industry may be helpful.' Leigh Hubbard—he is not exactly on our side, is he?—also said, `On the face of it, it sounds good.' He qualified the statement, but at least he was prepared to say, `Well, here's an idea. Let's talk about it.' Andrew Murray, a senator for the Democrats, was quoted in the AAP as saying:. . . some parts of the plan could be supported.. . . . . . . . .Senator Murray also agreed with Mr Reith that the system could cover the entire community.He then went on to make some positive comments. If you are going to be a frontbencher, whether on this side or the other side, you do have to have a capacity to understand the issues and to have a considered response to sensible proposals. It is not just a problem for you that you are a former trade union official. The fact is that you do not even understand how the system operates today. It is no wonder you have no policies and it is no wonder you are such a pushover for the trade union leadership.44294429Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister please explain to the House the benefits that the assistance to the carers amendment bill will provide for Australian carers?4429Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—This government is committed to carers in ensuring that they receive the support they need in caring for people with disabilities, particularly elderly Australians and children. In every budget since this government has come to office, there have been initiatives to provide benefits for carers and care recipients. In particular, the $280 million staying at home package announced in April 1998 provided tremendous benefits to carers. The assistance to the carers amendment bill will help another 14,000 Australian carers and result in a simpler and more consistent system for assessing entitlements. These changes reflect the government's commitment to providing a better deal for carers and to ensuring that they have support in undertaking their important task.The government proposes that the carers allowance combine two existing payments—the child disability allowance for carers of children up to 16 years and the domiciliary nursing care benefit for carers of adults 16 years of age or older. These benefits will take effect from July 1999. There will be no income test, and they will not be subject to taxation. So these are real benefits. There will also be greater flexibility in ensuring that the benefits continue during periods when people are temporarily in hospital. I thank the honourable member for Hughes for her question and for her continuing interest in the needs of carers and those people in her community with disabilities, those people who need some support to ensure that in spite of their disability they are able to live in the community with the best possible care.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Miscellaneous4430443015:02:004430Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—After the 204th question time, I would like to add to an answer given during question time by providing the House with some additional information in which members might be interested. The first full shipment, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has correctly indicated, of chilled pork to Singapore is going ahead with a major promotion this month. The first trial shipment went ahead just in time for Chinese new year last month. I was very pleased to see that trial shipment on the supermarket shelves of Singapore and the very good consumer response it attracted, the buyer success. It proved to be a very popular new market for the Australian pork industry. It augurs well for future export and jobs for the Australian pork industry.Miscellaneous443015:03:004430Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I just seek your indulgence for a moment. During question time the Minister for Community Services paid tribute to the hard work of Centrelink staff in natural disasters in Western Australia and Queensland. I too would like to pay tribute to them.Personal Explanations443015:03:004430Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you claim to have been misrepresented?WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs indicated to this House that he was quoting from a chapter written by me in a book whose title was not mine. He said at question time that I had made `a valuable statement in support of voluntary student unionism'. What the article the minister selectively quoted from says is that the members of a peak student body of the time, AUS, `favoured reform from within and furthermore by free consent by mustering arguments and allies through democratic means of persuasion'.As the former president of the Melbourne University students' representative council, I have always supported universal membership of student unions. I also supported student unions and their members withholding affiliation payments to the AUS. I have written several chapters for several books. Publication does not hold the same frisson of excitement for me as it does for some opposite.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I put it to you that under the standing orders the member has to point out where he has been misrepresented.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left! I could have been forgiven for imagining that the Leader of the House was putting his point of order to me.WI4REITHMr Reith—I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that you have been more than generous. He has had ample opportunity to deny what he claims is a misrepresentation. I note that he has basically failed to do so. Leaving that aside, this is just a debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports is a new member. He has thus far indicated where he has been misrepresented. I would expect him to bring his statement to a conclusion and I will allow him to do so.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been consistent on this issue. It is the member for Higgins who seems to have changed his mind on this topic.15:06:004430Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you claim to have been misrepresented?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I certainly do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I do not believe belonging to a union is a sin, but the Minister for Employment Services suggested that I was a member of the Australian Workers Union. I point out that I do know a lot of AWU members and officials, but I am not a member of the AWU, although I have been a member of a union for all my working life and am today.15:07:004431Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—I do.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed. I remind those on my left that the minister is entitled to precisely the same protection as I endeavoured to provide for the member for Melbourne Ports.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The member for Melbourne Ports has claimed that I misrepresented what he said in the article entitled `Compulsory student unions: Australia's forgotten closed shop'. I table the article.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is required to show where he has been misrepresented. He has not done that, and he has abused this parliamentary procedure.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Had the minister not taken the action he took and tabled the document, I would have entirely concurred.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think there is some confusion. A minister can always add to an answer and table a document, but a member rising on a personal explanation has a responsibility to you and the House to show where he has been misrepresented. It is an abuse of the forms of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister indicated that he had been misrepresented and then sought to table a document.Matters of Public Importance4431443110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wills proposing that a definite matter of public import ance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The negative effect of the government's proposed GST and other policies on employment throughout Australia.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—15:09:004431Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Being one of the more technologically challenged members of the House, I had to rely on my staff to get for me from the parliamentary web site the explanatory memorandum for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999. But, having obtained that memorandum, I was very surprised when reading it to find that a number of sentences had been crossed out and, in looking further, I found that they did not appear on the version of the explanatory memorandum which was circulated to members of the House. So I had a closer look at some of the sentences which had been altered or crossed out to see what might have given rise to this.I draw to the attention of the House, first, the sentence which said, `It is not possible to easily establish the full costs of the strategic investment program.' That sentence had been deleted and replaced by, `The overall cost to revenue is $700 million.' You have to ask yourself what sort of faith you might have in a figure like that which apparently has just been plucked from the air.Even more seriously, I went on to note that the sentence which read, `The implementation of the Strategic Investment Program may contribute to further losses in employment as a result of increased efficiencies due to capitalisation as well as rationalisation,' had been completely deleted from the tabled version of the explanatory memorandum. Then on page 14 I saw the sentence, `The Strategic Investment Program addresses the regional elements of the loss of employment; under this program targeted assistance will be provided to retrenched regional TCF employees.' The government did not want any reference to retrenched regional TCF employ ees appearing, so that reference had disappeared.Again, on page 16, there was a reference to `skills upgrading for displaced TCF employees'. That was too sensitive. That had disappeared as well. Finally, on that page there reference is made to the 2005 review of assistance for TCF, and the dot point concerning the need for further assistance for the TCF industries had been deleted from the explanatory memorandum too. So the government does not want to send out a message that that 2005 review might consider the need for further assistance for the TCF industries.Had it not been for the government's blunder in posting both the initial and revised explanatory memorandum on the Internet, we may never have become aware that the industry department believes that the government's plan will lead to job losses and regional retrenchments in the TCF industries. I suppose we can get some wry amusement at the prospect of some bureaucratic butt being kicked as a result of this gaff, but it does have a much more sinister side.It is clear that these changes were made to protect the Prime Minister from embarrassment over the announcement he made back in September 1997 at the Bonds factory in the electorate of Parramatta. There the Prime Minister referred to `a decision that will promote job security'. He went on to say:This is a very good decision for the battlers of Australia. It is a decision which is designed to give people a greater sense of job security.And later again:It will result in jobs being saved in the industry.Certainly, the Prime Minister would have had considerable egg over his face if that explanatory memorandum had come out in that form referring to the prospect of job losses in the TCF industries as a result of the government's plan.Frankly, we deserve better than this. The Prime Minister made a covenant with the people of Australia talking about standards of honesty, standards of integrity. Instead, what we get is this kind of attempt at cover-up. We are entitled to a full explanation from the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources as to who doctored these sentences, and on whose authority it was done. In the meantime, the government stands condemned for attempting to conceal from this parliament and from the people of Australia the real job costing impact of its policies for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries.This was not the only cat that got out of the jobs bag this week. I take the House back to the findings of Professor Peter Dixon of Monash University earlier this year, when he reported to the Senate inquiry into the GST that `the GST is job destroying'. He said that the extent of the job destruction could reach 100,000, with tourism and exports of education being hit hardest. He went on to say that there will be no long-term boost to economic growth from the tax package. And this came at a time when the Treasury had to admit to that inquiry that they had done no modelling of the impact of the GST concerning jobs and that their GST modelling assumed no increase in employment.At the same time, we had the new head of the Business Council of Australia—one of those enthusiastic supporters of the GST—saying that he could not say whether the GST would create or destroy jobs. The evidence of that time from Professor Dixon was that the GST would cost jobs. He said, `Why would you bother with a tax like this that is only going to cost jobs?'In addition to that, we had the modelling of Chris Murphy, whom the government is very fond of, indicating to the Master Builders Association the prospect of long-term job losses in the housing industry of 2.4 per cent—that against the optimistic background that he had made no allowance for the extra GST paperwork burden for the 1.5 million extra businesses caught in the GST net. Mr Murphy indicated to the Senate inquiry that Queensland and Tasmania will face job losses arising from the government's tax package, which of course must be a matter of interest to Senators Colston and Harradine.If you actually look at where the greatest number of job losses are going to occur, it turns out that they are in New South Wales. I was intrigued today to notice that the government, in the final question time before the New South Wales election, saw fit to ask not one dorothy dixer in support of their side at the forthcoming election. In every question time I have been here prior to a state election, this government have asked dorothy dixers designed to support their own side. In the case of Kerry Chikarovski, they have decided she is beyond recall, so they are not interested in asking anything that might support her.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Wills does not need the help of the member for Watson.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Perhaps New South Wales voters might be interested to learn that, in the case of the tourism industry, the Tourism Task Force has estimated that some 59,000 jobs will be lost following the introduction of a GST and, of those jobs, over 19,500 are expected to be lost in New South Wales. That is a bigger share of those job losses than any other state. Similarly, we now find Professor Dixon, from the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University, released modelling this week concerning the short-run implications for employment of the government's tax package broken down by industry, region, occupation and so on. If we look at those, we find that the most severe impact is in New South Wales.Under the scenario Professor Dixon puts forward, whereby workers seek and obtain some wage rise based on extra costs they will incur as a result of the GST—and let me say the government has made the heroic assumption that it believes workers will not seek any kind of wage compensation for the GST based price rises—the GST will cost over 40,000 jobs in New South Wales. Of those, 26,800 jobs will be lost in the Sydney area, over 3,000 in the Hunter region, over 2,000 in the Illawarra region, 1,400 in the Richmond-Tweed region, 1,800 on the mid North Coast of New South Wales and over 1,400 in south-eastern New South Wales. I think some New South Wales voters might like to reflect on that when they go to the polls on Saturday and send the same message to Prime Minister Howard as they sent back in October when they, like a majority of other Australians, indicated that they did not support a GST.The GST according to this scenario will cost 16,000 jobs in regional New South Wales, 11,000 in regional Victoria, 12,000 in regional Queensland, 2,500 in regional South Australia, 1,600 in regional Western Australia and 2,200 in Tasmania. So there will be a very severe impact on the wellbeing of people in regional Australia, whom this government claims to have an interest in.We also see from the modelling of Professor Dixon a severe impact in areas such as health and education. Over 1,000 nurses, 600 GPs, 400 occupational therapists and many others in the health area will lose their jobs, while primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, university lecturers, library workers and the like will lose their jobs in the education area.We also discovered this week a little more about the impact of the GST on the wine industry. Yesterday the government announced its legislation concerning the wine industry. The wine industry's response to this was that they would lose some 500 jobs as well as 8,000 tonnes of grape production—equivalent to a wine region the size of the Adelaide Hills and more than even my colleagues could cope with, I suspect. It would be a very severe loss to the wine industry as a result of the government's GST legislation.If we look at other industries, there is a similar unsatisfactory pattern. Even on the government's rosy, most optimistic scenario, we find that employment in the mining area will fall by more than one per cent and employment in agriculture will fall by over two per cent. There will be net job losses as well in forestry and fishing; food, drink and tobacco; textile, clothing and footwear; chemical products; electricity, gas and water; transport; communication; and entertainment—all those sectors face the prospect of job losses if the GST is successful. This is against a background where the government's job record is far from satisfactory.Over the course of the last three years, the Howard government has averaged employment growth of less than 11,000 per month. Under Labor over its last three years, that figure was over 20,000 per month. Similarly, long-term unemployment has gone up by over 10,000 since that change of government occurred.Dr Kemp interjecting—Mr Crean interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister and the member for Hotham will both be silent. The member for Wills has the call.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. While the Prime Minister says there can be no serious addressing of unemployment without a GST, the truth is that a GST is all about this government and this party's traditional agenda of shifting wealth from those who are less well-off towards those who are already well-off. What this is intended to achieve is income tax cuts, the overwhelming majority of which—over 50 per cent of them—will go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. The wealthiest 20 per cent in this country will get over 50 per cent of the tax cuts. So what the government is endeavouring to do with its GST is shift the tax burden on to the poor by imposing that tax on just about everything. That is the approach this government has taken to unemployment all the way through.It has either had useless gimmicks of the kind, `We'll set up a committee,' as the Prime Minister announced back in October 1996, or `We'll have a special meeting,' as he announced in Townsville in 1997, or the government's agenda of shifting money away from those who are less well off towards those who are already well off. In 1996, they said, `Pass our 1996 budget.' It was passed and, indeed, unemployment went up. It is what they say in relation to minimum wages. They say, `Let us cut minimum wages and that will do something about unemployment.' Once again, that is simply about making the rich richer and the poor poorer.We are going to continue to oppose this government's agenda concerning GST. We understand the revelations this week that it will not provide any more jobs for Australians. Indeed, in all those sectors critical to the health of our economy it will have an adverse effect on jobs and we will oppose it accordingly.15:24:004434Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—You have to give Labor credit at least for their audacity. For the vandals of the labour market to come in here and raise an MPI on unemployment is just mind-boggling. On economic management, they fail dismally. On policy development, they score a zero. But on hypocrisy, on audacity, on hide, they score 100 per cent. This is absolute hypocrisy and nonsense.Again, Labor leads with their chin by inviting reminders of their own dismal performance on the issue of jobs. Let me remind the member opposite that during Labor's 13 years unemployment averaged 8.7 per cent. It peaked at 11.2 per cent in December 1992 when their then Prime Minister—I might add with the support of many of the members currently on the opposition front bench—engineered a recession that had close to a million Australians out of work. Labor's only approach was to throw more money at the problem, to create a meaningless merry-go-round of labour market programs that did little more than hide the extent of the problem. Labor's billion dollar bandaid program did nothing to cure the problem; it just held out false hopes to the unemployed.By contrast, under coalition management over the last three years over 406,000 new jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen to 7.4 per cent. We had an average of 8.7 per cent for 13 years of Labor and, already—after three years of coalition government—we are down to 7.4 per cent. And this is at a time when the participation rate has actually risen from the average of 62.4 per cent under Labor to 63.3 per cent now. The point is, under the coalition government, not only are more people working but more people are coming into the job market because they know there are jobs there. Under Labor they had given up. There was no chance; there was no hope—the participation rate was down and unemployment was up. Under the coalition government, in just three years, the participation rate has risen, hope has risen and employment has risen—406,000 new jobs in the last three years.It is also worth pointing out that under this government not only are there more people in jobs but those people who are in jobs are better off than they were under Labor. For 13 years under Labor real wage growth averaged a paltry half a percent—0.5 per cent. Already in the last three years under this government real wages growth has averaged 2.5 per cent a year. Under the coalition we have more people in work, we have more people in the job market because they are confident of getting jobs and we have real wage growth that is, on average, per annum, five times as high as it was under Labor in their miserable 13 years.Added to that are the figures we have just had released this week showing that under this government we have had the lowest level of industrial disputes per thousand workers that we have had for decades. So we have a more content work force, a better paid work force and a work force that has more people in jobs than we had for 13 years of hard labour.It is also worth pointing out that young people are benefiting from jobs growth under this government. Youth unemployment has fallen from 27.2 per cent that we inherited from Labor to 23.5 per cent. It has fallen from the outrageous 34.9 per cent that they gave us in 1992. For young people this government has provided a record number of apprenticeships and traineeships—123,160 commencements last year alone. We have a record number of apprenticeships and a record level of hope for young people. Labor left office with the lowest number of apprenticeships and traineeships in 30 years, and this government has already reached a record number in just three short years.This government's performance on employment is a result of sound economic management that creates sustainable growth based on private sector investment, not on a stop-start cycle of excessive spending that we had under Labor. The bust-boom sort of mentality that they had was unsustainable. The jobs growth we have had under this government is the result of sound economic management. It is a result of increasing motivation and increasing incentive in the work force. It is a result of carefully targeted labour market programs. It is a result of increased spending on vocational education and training. It is a result of increased spending on literacy and numeracy that in the long term will also have a positive impact. It is absolute nonsense and hypocrisy for Labor to come in here and give us the rubbish that we have just heard for the last 15 minutes from the member for Wills.On the specific question of the Dixon model that the member for Wills raised, this is the basis of Labor's limp-wristed criticism of the government's tax package. Typically, it is simplistic, selective and misleading. The member for Wills has done what his colleagues always do—selectively chosen material that will mislead, that will deceive and might somehow give an appearance of substance to their case.Not surprisingly, the Labor dominated committee chose their preferred modeller, Peter Dixon, to analyse the effects of the Monash model. The point that the member for Wills failed to mention is that the shortcomings of the Dixon model, which he so heavily relied on, were comprehensively outlined to the Senate select committee in January this year. In particular, the Dixon analysis wrongly assumes that workers will bargain for wage rises as a result of the tax changes.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Wills!0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—That was the whole basis of their argument. It ignores—and the member for Wills would even know this, if he admitted it—the greater disposable income they will have as a result of the tax cuts. This is totally unrealistic nonsense. They will have higher take-home pay because of the income tax cuts, yet the Dixon model on which Labor depends tries to somehow argue that, with more money in their pocket, higher real wages, they will still be wanting to push for wage rises.Even Dixon himself in his model assumes that there will be real after-tax pay rises. In fact, his figures were these. Dixon's model itself shows ongoing real after-tax pay rises— plus 0.6 in year one, 0.7 per cent in year two, 0.8 per cent in year three, 0.9 per cent in year four, one per cent in year five, one per cent in year six and one per cent in year seven. For seven years there will be rises in after-tax real wages, according to Dixon himself. The member for Wills should go back and read what he had to say.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Wills!0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—The Dixon model also ignores the fact that low income earners and welfare recipients will be better off because of increased government benefits as a result of the government's tax proposal. The Dixon model also ignores the fact that international experience shows that, with the implementation of a GST in countries such as New Zealand, Canada and Japan, there was no wages blow-out at all. Econtech says that a wages blow-out is quite unlikely because workers are better off than in the base wage case simulation. In fact, Econtech said we might more likely get wage restraint rather than a wages blow-out, yet Labor's whole case is based on the theoretical possibility of a wages blow-out.Econtech, in its report of 14 February, said that `the chance of ANTS producing a wages blow-out are remote'. The member for Wills again selectively quoted Chris Murphy earlier on. Mr Murphy also noted in his evidence and his report that the positive employment effects arising out of these models was likely to be an underestimate because they could not capture the employment gains that would occur from the alleviation of the poverty trap.There were many other shortcomings in the Dixon model that I will not go into now except just to briefly say that it included none of the potential positive effects on savings, none of the positive externalities from higher investment, none of the effects of lower marginal tax rates on efficiency and unemployment, and none of the benefits of reducing the complexity and administrative inefficiency of the current ramshackle tax system. And it underestimated by some $100 million to $150 million, according to Econtech, the economic welfare gains of these tax changes. In other words, the Dixon model on which Labor are basing their paltry case ignores many of the benefits that will flow as a result of this tax reform package. Yet this does not stop Labor. It does not stop them relying on inaccuracy, on deceit and on misleading models. They will clutch at any straw to try to mount a case.The argument by Labor also ignores other research and other models. The research undertaken by the Melbourne Institute showed that tax changes could increase the number of jobs long term by 50,000—an increase of 50,000 jobs. Access Economics goes even further. Access Economics, in their AEM model forecast of December last year, indicated that, as a result of the tax changes, 190,000 new jobs would be created in the long term.Two other points need to be mentioned. As a result of this tax package, business costs will fall by $10 billion and the cost to exporters will fall by $4½ billion. Treasury estimates that GDP growth will be at least 0.5 per cent extra per annum, and many other models argue up to two per cent per annum extra in real GDP. What do you get, Mr Thomson, when GDP grows? You get job growth, you get employment growth, you get more people working. Even the member for Wills would understand that.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Wills will be silent and the member for Macquarie will address his remarks through the chair.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—Sadly, but predictably, Labor are well wide of the mark again. It is also worth pointing out, in the context of Labor's argument about employment, two other important issues. One is their refusal to back down from their ridiculous, job destroying unfair dismissal laws—the fact that they are refusing to give small business the chance to employ the young people that they would like to employ. It is estimated that another 50,000 jobs, particularly for young people, would be generated if Labor just had a short-term dose of commonsense and stood aside—Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Macquarie will resume his seat. If I can get the attention of and some eye contact with the member for Wills, I would like to tell him and instruct him that he does not have to be a Greek chorus and keep up a running comment on everything the other members say. Please be silent.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT—The member for Wills obviously does not like to hear the facts. The fact is that 50,000 jobs would be created almost immediately if the unfair dismissal laws were allowed through. An interesting anecdote: just after the minister passed those regulations at the end of last year, I had a small businessman in my office talking about another issue. He said on his way out, `By the way, congratulate the minister, Peter Reith, for me. I'm going to go out and put on an apprentice.' That was after the regulations went through. Those regulations subsequently were overturned by the opposition, who are intent on destroying jobs, not on creating jobs.The other point that needs to be made is this: Labor's head in the sand, obstructionist approach to youth wages is also destructive of jobs. The government is trying to create jobs; the opposition is trying to destroy jobs. The Retail Traders Association estimates that, if the abolition of youth wages goes ahead, as Labor and the Democrats want, in retail alone 170,000 to 180,000 jobs could be lost. Throughout industry generally, some 230,000 jobs could be lost as a result of their obstructionist determination and their determination to abolish youth wages. This is a disgrace. Labor is more interested in its own political future than it is in the future of the unemployed. It is more dominated by union demands than by sound policy judgment.I will go back to the issue of the impact of the tax package on jobs and make a couple of other points. I quote the executive director of one of my local chambers of commerce. This is what he said towards the end of last year:If I could have a wish, it would be that somehow we could just put aside political bias and just assess the facts of the matter: Member for Wills—just assess the facts of the matter.A GST will dramatically LOWER the cost of running businesses, because we subtract the GST paid out, from the GST collected . . . It's time to fix this tax system and restore the incentive to have a business, create jobs and improve the standard of living for all honest Australians.This tax package is about creating incentive for small business. It is about encouraging the promotion of jobs. It is about giving young people and older people a chance. It is about creating job security for those who are already working. It is about giving opportunities and creating possibilities for those who do not yet have a job. The coalition's record on this is secure. The coalition's record is that we have been creating jobs. We can continue to create jobs if Labor will stand aside, will stop their petty politics and will allow us to get on with the job that we were elected to do. (Time expired)15:39:004437Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—When it comes to matters of public importance they do not come much more important than this one. I can see the negative effect of the government's proposed GST and other policies on employment throughout Australia. It is a matter of paramount importance to every one of us in the Australian Labor Party but, more than that, it is at the heart of so many of the problems facing the communities and families we work with and represent.The government would know that if the Prime Minister and his Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business stopped preening themselves in front of the businessmen's clubs in Sydney and Melbourne and spent time in regional Australia. If, for example, members of the government spent some time at a meatworks where the workers fear for their jobs, health and safety without proper award protection, in a town where the last bank just closed its doors, or at a Centrelink office—I mean a real Centrelink office, not a stage-managed one—where staff cuts mean the unemployed struggle to get an appointment let alone the kind of support and attention they need to seize employment opportunities, they would know more about the impact of their policies. But whether or not they would care is another question.Members of the government obviously do not spend too much time thinking about the problem of unemployment. If they did they would not be carrying on with the arrogance and smugness that we have to put up with here every day and that Australians have to put up with every time they watch the news or open a paper. What a great opportunity this is to get behind the government's arrogance and rhetoric and to talk about the damage being done to our communities as a result of this government's failure to provide solutions for the unemployed—whether they be the young unemployed, the hidden mature aged unemployed people who have been discouraged from even looking for work or the shamefully high 220,000 long-term unemployed that the government continues to leave on the scrap heap.When this opportunity to speak on the MPI came up today the whip was fighting us off with a stick, because I know that every one of my colleagues feels as strongly about this issue as I do. For those of us on this side of the House everything relates back to employment and, as far as we are concerned, the employment impacts of every policy or bill should be at the top of the agenda and form part of every debate. Why is that? It is because we know that, whatever issue comes up, all we will hear from the government is `profits, competition, deregulation and some bigger profits'. It is left to the Labor members to ask, `Will this create employment? Does it lead to opportunities for growth and employment in regional areas, including those on the edges of our large cities? Does it encourage people to improve their skills and provide the means for them to learn new skills?'The government does not apply itself to those fundamental questions, and the results of that uninterest speak for themselves. First of all, 700,000 people in Australia are currently unemployed. That is an absolute disgrace. Even worse is the government's failure to take any responsibility for those people or for their hopes for finding employment. A government that recognised some obligation to combat unemployment would not be putting a new tax on our job creating service industries like tourism and hospitality, or a new tax on education, on training, on job search services and on the services provided by group training companies that are so important to apprentices and businesses in regional areas.In the period February 1996 to February 1999 unemployment has been reduced by less than 70,000. The average growth in employment per month under this government has been less than 11,000. When you compare that to the achievements of Labor in our last three years of government you want to cry for the lost opportunities this government is responsible for. Our record in our last three years of government was over 20,000 new jobs a month. That is a difference of 9,000 jobs a month. Doesn't that figure make you angry? I just think of what it would have done for the young people and families in my community if we had been getting our share of those 9,000 jobs a month over the last three years. How many kids could not afford to go on school excursions? How many relationships broke up under the strain of financial pressures, and how many people missed out on valuable skills for their future because of those 9,000 missing jobs in this country each month? In the same period the rate of people participating in the labour market actually fell from 63.8 per cent in 1996 at the end of Labor's term to 63.1 per cent in February 1999. A significant part of this is a result of people becoming disillusioned and leaving the labour market. Does the government ever stop to think where those people have gone, what they are doing or how they are ever going to get back into employment once they have given up the active search for employment and training opportunities?When Labor was in government we correctly regarded the participation rate as an equally important measure of the success of our employment initiatives. We were about getting people into employment not simply about getting people off the unemployment statistics. There is a very big difference. A drop-off in unemployment is meaningless if it really represents a dropping out.As a member representing a regional seat, I know that the unemployment figures are yet one more example confirming what we in regional and rural areas already know—the Howard government has well and truly abandoned us. Whatever meagre growth there has been in employment in Australia has been very unevenly distributed. The government has to take responsibility for the hole left behind in our regional communities. Realistically, we are not going to get a piece of the boardroom action in the capital cities without a serious effort from government.You can see this in the unemployment figures in February 1999: places like the Hunter which registered 11.4 per cent unemployment; Richmond-Tweed, 15.4 per cent, the central highlands of Victoria, 10.3 per cent; and Queensland—for example, Darling Downs—showing 9.1 per cent unemployment. This government is just not fair dinkum about creating jobs and opportunities in Australia's regions—those in rural areas as well as those in metropolitan centres. Work for the Dole is nowhere near enough. We need a comprehensive plan for regional development. We need a government working with local communities to identify strengths and opportunities for particular regions—in particular, looking at the essential interaction between education, training, labour market programs and regional development incentives. Instead, this government comes up with nothing more than gimmicks.They have had three years to work on answers to unemployment and we have yet to see one new idea emerge that has any answers for creating employment and building a highly skilled work force. The Job Network has failed the long-term unemployed and has failed regional and rural Australia. The rate of long-term unemployment has fallen by less than 20,000 since the Job Network was introduced and, over the last three years since the government slashed the labour market programs that Labor introduced, long-term unemployment has increased by over 10,000 people. When you look at the figures from around some of the regions in Australia it is obvious that the Job Network cannot get results in areas of high unemployment.The figures for teenage unemployment are really frightening in places like Far North Queensland which has jumped from 13.4 per cent in 1996 to 34.4 per cent in 1999. The figure for Canterbury-Bankstown in Sydney has increased from 17.1 to 33.8 per cent. Where is the hope for these young people?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is a disgrace.83DMURPHYMr Murphy—What is it?83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—A disgrace. When you look at the figures from around some of the regions, it is obvious that they are not getting results. The only new idea we have heard about for the last year is the GST; and it is a job-destroyer for regional Australia. Professor Peter Dixon's report to the Senate select committee inquiry shows the disastrous impact that the GST will have on the industries that are the lifeline of our rural and regional areas. There is not much good news in here for anyone in Capricornia. Agriculture, losing over 5,000 jobs, mining, losing 141 jobs in the coalmining sector, and textiles, clothing and footwear are all industries predominantly located in the regional areas that are struggling under high rates of unemployment.There is not much in there for anyone representing regional seats to be very pleased about. As a Queenslander, the impact of the GST is horrifying when you look at the potential job losses projected for the tourism industry. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the GST, the Tourism Task Force has worrying conclusions for people looking for work in any sector of the tourism industry. Their prediction is that total employment losses, due to falling tourist spending in Australia, amounted to 59,500 jobs. And we are supposed to vote for this GST when you talk about those sort of figures. It is unbelievable.Those are the job losses that this government is setting us up for, if it continues with the GST. When Peter Reith spoke to the Press Club yesterday about Australians choosing the rate of unemployment, he was acknowledging the truth. Australians did choose lower unemployment when over half the country voted last October to reject the GST. It is the government that is pushing ahead with what it has chosen for Australia—an acceptance of high unemployment and higher living costs under the GST.15:48:004440Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I note that my colleague and neighbour the member for Capricornia said, `When it comes to matters of public importance, they do not come any more important than this.' It is interesting to note that the member for Wills, the shadow assistant Treasurer, initiated this MPI and I suppose that, in itself, has ramifications for the shadow Treasurer. He still has not made one major speech on the economy in this place.The MPI itself is clearly another token show of support for the policy of the Leader of the Opposition of continuing to oppose tax reform—and, for that matter, just about everything else—while at selected forums he upturns Labor policy for a temporary populist position. There is no greater one than this, that having vehemently opposed a change to youth wages here in the parliament he then goes and supports the shop assistants union in doing the very same thing. He is certainly under a lot of pressure from within his own party. It must damage his leadership still further to have the former ALP national secretary telling him his policies are wrong and that he should support our tax reform package or move to a country that is backward enough to accept his policies. There are some countries like this that have retained the wholesale sales tax system—Botswana, Swaziland, Pakistan and the Solomon Islands. No doubt Mr Hogg was referring to one of these.I am surprised that the Labor Party continues to argue that the tax reform package will have a negative impact on employment, given the evidence that is against that premise. It must be hard for intelligent members opposite to go along with this policy of denial. Let us look at the evidence on the tax reform that will come from the GST and economic growth. The economists Salomon Smith Barney predicted that tax reform would lift GDP by 2.3 per cent. Econtech indicated a long run GDP gain of around two per cent with the replacement of a wholesale sales tax with a VAT. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research model was used and adopted by ACOSS. In its submission to the Senate, ACOSS could prove no class of person was worse off. The Melbourne Institute indicated that indirect tax reform could lift GDP by 3.8 per cent and create 50,000 jobs. Access Economics said that the tax package would lift GDP by 2.5 per cent and create 190,000 new jobs.So what do the opposition do? They go out and get Professor Peter Dixon from Monash University, who is the one person they could get to say something negative about it. Professor Dixon's report called The government's tax package: further analysis based on the Monash model, on which the member for Wills laboured heavily during his presentation here today, shows that employment will be stimulated in the short run by 30,000 jobs. If you have 71,000 young unemployed people—which the member for Capricornia seems so concerned about—wouldn't you think that 30,000 new jobs would be a good start?The point being made by members opposite—the best they can argue—is that they are opposing a policy which will create 30,000 jobs almost immediately. We should not be too surprised that they oppose job creation of that order, because two weeks ago they voted against the retention of youth wages—and that, as I said earlier, could have affected some 71,000 young people around this country.But let us return to Professor Dixon, who said that the short-term effects of the tax package would create 30,000 jobs. The Labor senators said at the inquiry, `Well, we don't like that. Let's make some other assumptions.' They said as members of the Senate committee, `Why don't we assume that there is a wage break-out and that, despite the fact that everybody gets a personal income tax cut and higher take-home pay, the first thing they will do is go out and ask for higher wages?'Do you seriously think that a young married man, with two children and earning $25,000 a year, who will be $22 per week better off—even after the 1.9 per cent impact of the GST—will race to his union and say, `I want more'? Of course not. Do you seriously think that an employee in a similar family situation, on annualised average weekly earnings of $38,000, who will be $58 per week better off, will go to his union or his professional association and say, `I want more'? Do you think that a skilled tradesman on $50,000 a year, who will be over $50 per week better off, will be greedy enough to turn around and ask for more?Do you seriously tell us that the unions that you on the Labor side of this parliament represent—the unions that many of you came from—are so greedy, irresponsible and profligate that their members, having received pay rises of that order, will go out and push for more? Of course you do not believe it, but that is the only way that you could make the Dixon statement stack up: if they went out and asked for more, perhaps there would not be the 30,000 new jobs—despite the fact that everybody one else like Econtech, Access Economics and all the other economists around Australia are saying that the number of jobs available will increase.We learned, under Labor, just how wage break-outs cost jobs. We also learned how their bad economic management cost jobs. It was interesting to hear my colleague and neighbour the member for Capricornia talk in such passionate terms about Central Queensland. We can look at what happened when Labor were in charge of the economy. Instead of introducing the consumption tax that they so fervently embraced at the time of the 1985 tax summit, they sleazed back into this parliament in 1993—and the shadow minister Mr O'Connor, who is at the table, will remember this, because half his party nearly revolted over it—and added one percentage point to every wholesale sales tax. The next year, in a second tranche, they did it all over again—and, for good measure, put five per cent onto cars, on top of that, taking the indirect tax collection from that measure from $9 billion up to $13 billion in one fell swoop.Let me ask the member for Capricornia what effect that had on unemployment. I will tell you what effect it had. At the high point of the introduction of those indirect taxes, we had an unemployment rate in that period fluctuating between 11.2 per cent and 10.6 per cent, the worst since the Great Depres sion. That was their economic management. As for bleating about Central Queensland in those circumstances, that was when the meatworks in Rockhampton were closing; that was when Central Queensland was in dire straits; that was when the Prime Minister of the day, Paul Keating, had to be dragged kicking and shouting to Central Queensland to look at the effects of the drought. Do not talk to me about Labor's economic management, because it did not exist.The reform of Australia's outdated indirect tax regimes and the introduction of a goods and services tax will create jobs, because it reduces costs to business—and, more importantly, to primary producers and exporters—and it makes Australia more competitive. The subject of this debate is whether the GST will create unemployment. The evidence is for the exact opposite position, and that is not just from the economists. Let us have a look at the Central Queensland coast that my neighbour talked so much about, where we have the sugarcane growing areas of Bundaberg and the coal and aluminium export industries of Gladstone.Let us remember that 75 per cent of our primary production and our resources are exported. They require fuel, and fuel will be cheaper. There will be no GST on exports, and transport in general will be 6.7 per cent more efficient. Are you seriously going to say, against that background, that there are going to be fewer jobs? Of course not. This matter of public importance is a sham. Not only is it that, but it shows that the shadow Treasurer, like his leader, has no confidence in the matter. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills4441r6874441Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 11 to 22), omit the definition of growers' organisation , substitute: growers' organisation means: (a) in relation to grain harvested from triticale—the organisation known as the Triticale Grain Association of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; and (b) in relation to any grain other than grain harvested from triticale—the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph. [Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—definition of growers' organisation](2) Schedule 4, page 17 (line 24), omit "$50", substitute "$25". [Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—definition of leviable amount](3) Schedule 4, page 20 (line 26), omit "5%", substitute "3%". [Clause 6 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—maximum rate of levy](4) Schedule 4, page 20 (line 30), omit "5%", substitute "3%". [Clause 6 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—maximum rate of levy](5) Schedule 9, page 44 (lines 10 and 11), omit "dried currant grapes, dried sultana grapes or dried raisin grapes", substitute "dried grapes". [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—definition of dried vine fruits](6) Schedule 9, page 44 (lines 13 to 18), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—definition of R&D authority](7) Schedule 9, page 45 (line 21), omit "$10.00", substitute "$15.00". [Clause 4 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—maximum rate of levy on dried vine fruits](8) Schedule 9, page 45 (line 22), omit "$30.00", substitute "$50.00". [Clause 4 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—maximum rate of levy on dried tree fruits](9) Schedule 12, page 53 (line 11), omit "$50", substitute "$25". [Clause 1 of Schedule 12 (grain legumes)—definition of leviable amount](10) Schedule 13, page 58 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of representative organisation . [Clause 1 of Schedule 13 (grapes)—definition of representative organisation](11) Schedule 14, page 62 (lines 9 and 10), omit "Federal Council of Australian Apiarists' Associations", substitute "Australian Honey Bee Industry Council". [Clause 1 of Schedule 14 (honey)—definition of producers' organisation](12) Schedule 14, page 62 (lines 14 to 19), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 14 (honey)—definition of R&D authority](13) Schedule 14, page 64 (line 23), omit "1.80 cents", substitute "0.00 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](14) Schedule 14, page 64 (line 27), omit "0.25 cent", substitute "0.75 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](15) Schedule 14, page 64 (line 28), omit "0.75 cent", substitute "1.50 cents". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—maximum rate of levy](16) Schedule 14, page 65 (line 1), omit "1.80 cents", substitute "0.00 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](17) Schedule 14, page 65 (line 5), omit "0.25 cent", substitute "0.75 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](18) Schedule 14, page 65 (line 6), omit "0.75 cent", substitute "1.50 cents". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—maximum rate of levy](19) Schedule 16, page 75 (line 14), omit "producer of the chickens", substitute "proprietor of the hatchery where the chickens are hatched". [Clause 5 of Schedule 16 (laying chickens)—payer of levy](20) Schedule 19, page 87 (lines 14 to 19), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—definition of R&D authority](21) Schedule 19, page 88 (lines 3 to 10), omit clause 2. [Clause 2 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—meaning of meat chicken](22) Schedule 19, page 89 (line 17), after "Federation", insert "Incorporated". [Clause 6 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—regulations](23) Schedule 19, page 89 (line 22), after "Federation", insert "Incorporated". [Clause 6 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—regulations](24) Schedule 20, page 91 (line 11), omit "$50", substitute "$25". [Clause 1 of Schedule 20 (oilseeds)—definition of leviable amount](25) Schedule 21, page 96 (before line 7), before the definition of leviable seed , insert: growers' organisation means the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this definition. [Clause 1 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—definition](26) Schedule 21, page 96 (line 7), omit "specified cultivar", substitute "species specified in the table in subclause 5(1)". [Clause 1 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—definition of leviable seed](27) Schedule 21, page 96 (lines 8 to 11), omit the definition of specified cultivar . [Clause 1 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—definition](28) Schedule 21, page 96 (line 20), omit "of a cultivar", substitute "species". [Clause 3 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—rate of levy](29) Schedule 21, page 97 (line 2), omit "cultivars", substitute "species".Note: The heading to clause 5 of Schedule 21 (page 97, line 1) is altered by omitting "cultivars " and substituting "species ". [Clause 5 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—table of pasture seeds](30) Schedule 21, pages 97 to 102 (table), omit the table, substitute: Kind of plant and rate of levy ItemSpeciesCommon nameRate of levy1 Medicago littoralisStrand medic$10.00/tonne 2 Medicago murexMurex medic$10.00/tonne3 Medicago polymorphaBurr medic$10.00/tonne 4 Medicago rugosaGama medic$10.00/tonne 5 Medicago sativaLucerne$14.00/tonne 6 Medicago scutellataSnail medic$10.00/tonne 7 Medicago sphaerocarposSphere medic$10.00/tonne8 Medicago tornataDisc medic$10.00/tonne 9 Medicago truncatulaBarrel medic$10.00/tonne 10 Ornithopus compressusYellow serradella$10.00/tonne 11 Trifolium alexandriumBerseem clover$12.50/tonne 12 Trifolium balansaeBalansa clover$12.50/tonne13 Trifolium fragiferumStrawberry clover$12.50/tonne 14 Trifolium hirtumRose clover$12.50/tonne 15 Trifolium pratenseRed clover$12.50/tonne 16 Trifolium repensWhite clover$12.50/tonne 17 Trifolium resupinatumPersian clover$12.50/tonne 18 Trifolium semipilosumKenya white clover$12.50/tonne19 Trifolium subterraneumSubterranean clover$11.00/tonne 20 Trifolium vesiculosumArrow leaf clover$12.50/tonne [Clause 5 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—table of pasture seeds](31) Schedule 22, page 104 (lines 11 to 16), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 22 (pig slaughter)—definition of R&D authority](32) Schedule 25, page 116 (before line 7), before the definition of value , insert: growers' organisation means the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this definition. [Clause 1 of Schedule 25 (wheat)—definition](33) Schedule 25, page 117 (line 19), omit "5%", substitute "3%". [Clause 5 of Schedule 25 (wheat)—rate of levy](34) Schedule 25, page 117 (lines 28 and 29), omit "Grains Council of Australia", substitute "growers' organisation". [Clause 7 of Schedule 25 (wheat)—regulations]Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4444Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4444r6884444Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 9, page 31 (line 10), omit "Federal Council of Australian Apiarists' Associations", substitute "Australian Honey Bee Industry Council". [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (honey)—definition of producers' organisation](2) Schedule 9, page 31 (lines 14 to 19), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (honey)—definition of R&D authority](3) Schedule 9, page 32 (line 20), omit "0.50 cent", substitute "0.75 cent". [Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (honey)—operative rate of charge](4) Schedule 9, page 32 (line 21), omit "0.75 cent", substitute "1.50 cents". [Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (honey)—maximum rate of charge]Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4444Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4444r6864444Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4445Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4445r6834445Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 2, insert:2A Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 1Omit "that is not a leviable bobby calf", substitute "(other than a head of lot-fed cattle or a leviable bobby calf)".2B After paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 1Insert:(ca) 32 cents per each head of lot-fed cattle or, if another rate (not exceeding 35 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other rate; and[Clause 3 of Schedule 1 (cattle transactions)— rate of levy](2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 15), omit "$50", substitute "$25".[Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (coarse grain)—definition of leviable amount](3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 6, insert:6A Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (definition of dried vine fruits)Omit "dried currant grapes, dried sultana grapes or dried raisin grapes", substitute "dried grapes".6B Clause 1 of Schedule 6 (paragraph (a) of the definition of leviable amount)Omit "$50", substitute "$25".[Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (dried fruits)— definition of dried vine fruits][Clause 1 of Schedule 6 (grain legumes)—definition of leviable amount](4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 8, insert:8A Clause 4 of Schedule 10Omit "producer of the chickens", substitute "proprietor of the hatchery where the laying chickens are hatched".8B Subclause 1(2) of Schedule 12 Repeal the subclause.8C Clause 1 of Schedule 13 (paragraph (a) of the definition of leviable amount)Omit "$50", substitute "$25".[Clause 4 of Schedule 10 (laying chickens)— payer of levy][Clause 1 of Schedule 12 (meat chickens)— meaning of meat chicken][Clause 1 of Schedule 13 (oilseeds)—definition of leviable amount](5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:10 Application of amendments(1) The amendments of Schedule 1 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to: (a) transactions entered into after the commencement of this item by which the ownership of cattle is transferred from one person to another; and (b) deliveries of cattle to processors after the commencement of this item; and (c) slaughter of cattle after the commencement of this item.(2) The amendments of Schedule 2 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to leviable coarse grain delivered or processed after the commencement of this item.(3) The amendments of Schedule 4 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to dried fruits received after the commencement of this item.(4) The amendments of Schedule 6 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to leviable grain legumes delivered or processed after the commencement of this item.(5) The amendments of Schedule 9 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to: (a) leviable horticultural products sold or used after the commencement of this item; and (b) leviable horticultural products presumed to be produced in Australia after the commencement of this item.(6) The amendments of Schedule 10 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to laying chickens hatched after the commencement of this item.(7) The amendments of Schedule 12 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to meat chickens hatched after the commencement of this item.(8) The amendments of Schedule 13 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to leviable oilseeds delivered or processed after the commencement of this item.(9) The amendments of Schedule 15 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to: (a) transactions entered into after the commencement of this item by which the ownership of sheep, lambs or goats is transferred from one person to another; and (b) deliveries of sheep, lambs or goats to processors after the commencement of this item; and (c) slaughter of sheep, lambs or goats after the commencement of this item.[Item 10—application of amendments]Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4446Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4446r6814446Bill returned from Main Committee with an amendment; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendment presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), at the end of the Schedule, add:4 Application of amendments(1) The amendments of Schedule 2 to the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to the export of cattle after the commencement of this item. (2) The amendments of Schedule 4 to the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to leviable horticultural products exported after the commencement of this item.(3) The amendments of Schedule 5 to the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to the export of sheep, lambs or goats after the commencement of this item. [Item 4—application of amendments]Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.4446Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4446r7324446Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4446Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4446r7294446Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4446Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4447r7314447Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4447Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4447s2004447Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4447Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4447s1954447Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.4447Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills4447r6554447Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the requested amendment be taken into consideration at a later hour this day.Bills4447The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Bills4447r7144447Debate resumed.16:11:004447Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Prior to question time I was making some comments about the Marine Council. I want to conclude by referring to another section of parliamentary committee reports dealing with the operation of AMSA, of which the Marine Council is a part. The committee noted:In order to continue to improve ship safety, it is essential that pressure be maintained on participants in the industry. The committee notes that AMSA has played an important role in developing an international ship safety culture.It is against that background, as I commented before question time, that this government—amazingly—seeks to deregulate the industry and ignore the advice of its own committees. There has been a process of review which this government started, albeit inadequate. In August 1996 they set up the Shipping Reform Group, the SRG, but, as with too many other things this government has done, they did it in a very narrow way.The SRG was chaired by Mr Julian Manser, the CEO of Perkins Shipping Pty Ltd. It consisted of representatives of Mobil Oil Australia, BHP, the Australian Shipowners Association, the National Bulk Commodities Group, Howard Smith Ltd and ALOR. There was no representation from the work force on that review. This has not been a process in which all stakeholders have been consulted and there has been no pretence of doing that. I might add that the SRG, on my last advice, was due to report today, on 25 March. I wonder what state that report is in. Obviously the government had no intentions of seeing it prior to legislating.One of the most disturbing aspects of this government's approach to seafaring has been its willingness to breach International Labour Organisation conventions. We are at this time in breach of ILO convention No. 9. If this bill is passed we will be in breach of further articles of ILO convention No. 9. This matter is well understood by both sides of the parliament.Another standing committee of the parliament on which the government has a majority is the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The treaties committee had a look at the situation in relation to our obligations under the ILO and said the following. Firstly, they commented on the consultation:The process of consultation, from the formation of the SRG to the decision to denounce ILO convention 9, has been imperfect. The decision to withdraw the AMSA from the administration of the SES without first finalising the change to company employment or ensuring that other provisions were put in place means that Australia is now in breach of its international obligations.That is the view of a joint all-party committee report to this parliament. They went on and said:More specifically, Australia remains in breach of Article 4 of ILO convention 9, and has no way of ensuring that Article 2 is complied with.This government, rather than adhere to its international obligations, has decided to denounce ILO convention No. 9 and in doing so has breached the procedures to be followed in denouncing the ILO convention. This government is not only incapable of honouring the convention but also incapable of withdrawing from it in accordance with the proper processes. The parliament's joint committee not only commented on but made a recommendation on this matter. It recommended that:. . . proper consideration be given to the adoption of ILO convention No. 179 with the aim of ratification by the time ILO convention No. 9 is denounced.There is no indication from this government that they intend to do that. Again, a committee dominated in the majority by Liberal and National Party members and senators. The fact that we are in breach of ILO conventions is a matter of some shame. Previous Liberal governments would not have countenanced a situation in which we failed to honour those minimum international standards. This government is only too willing to go down that path.The government proposes to replace articles of agreement with a deregulated labour environment that they try and foist on other workers. I have already mentioned a quote from Justice Higgins about the nature of the relationship in one-on-one negotiations. A more contemporary authority for that comes from two prominent legal and academic people in the field of industrial relations, Mr Catanzariti and Mr Baragwanath. In their publication The Workplace Relations Act they made this observation about what happens under the government's AWA legislation when one person has to negotiate for their employment. They said this:In a situation where the agreement is with an individual employee, that employee has virtually no bargaining power.Those are their words, `no bargaining power'. The simple fact is that the situation in the seafaring industry is now serious where workers' basic rights are unable to be protected. Against that background this is what Minister Anderson said in his second reading speech:Australia seafarers enjoy exceptionally good working conditions.As far as Mr Anderson is concerned, they have got it too good. He was only echoing the views of Mr Reith, for whom these comments would have been more customary. Mr Reith went on to say that we needed these sorts of regulations in the shipping industry 100 years ago, but:. . . this is not the case today, when Australian seafarers enjoy exceptionally good working conditions.Let us have a look at the reality and not the political rhetoric from these ministers who are embarked upon an ideological campaign to reduce workers' rights in the seafaring industry.The Ships of shame report, which has been widely acclaimed on both sides of this House as a seminal document in dealing with this matter, made these observations about the evidence they heard. They heard about the maltreatment of seafarers and I will quote examples that were included in their report:denial of food and provision of inadequate food;bashing of crew members by ships officers;maintenance of two pay books, one for official records of International Transport Workers' Federation levels of pay, the other for the real lower level of pay;under or non-payment of wages and overtime;inadequate accommodation and washing facilities;sexual molestation and rape;depriving access to appropriate medical care; andcrew members being considered as `dispensibles'.That is the view of a joint party committee and it is a matter of disgrace that against that background this government wants to persist with its bill. That was in 1992.In 1998 a committee composed in the majority of Liberal and National Party members came to a similar conclusion. As I commented earlier, they found that this was one area where things needed to improve. They said this:To a degree, violations of crew welfare are commercially driven. Costs associated with crew welfare are to some extent discretionary. Therefore, this expenditure is vulnerable to reduction when margins are slim.That is why we need this legislative protection and exactly why we should not be supporting the bulk of this bill. That 1998 report noted these problems:crews from non-traditional maritime nations are those which work in inadequate conditions, are poorly paid and whose living quarters are substandard. mistreated crew members are reluctant to complain as they will be black listed. . . many crew are forced to sign contracts which forbid them to contact the International Transport Workers' Federation, if they do they are instantly dismissed and threatened that they will never work as a seafarer again; crew members have often had to pay a fee to crewing agencies in order to secure employment. . . These are unfortunately all too common in the industry; an industry that this government wants Australian workers exposed to without protection or regulation.Mr Reith would have us believe that these were problems of 100 years ago. In 1995 the second of the three reports presented to this parliament made the following observation:. . . sub-standard ships and practices still exist; crews are still being beaten, harassed, abused and deprived of basic human rights.That was an all-party unanimous view in 1995. In 1998, I repeat, the committee said:In all the focus various before the committee in this inquiry, crew welfare appears to have progressed the least in 1990s, and much remains in need of improvement.The competitive advantage of the global economy and the competitive advantage of Australian industries should not be built at the expense of Australian workers' conditions, employment and safety. That is precisely what this government would have us do. It is a position well understood in Europe and the United States, but unfortunately ignored here.In the couple of minutes remaining to me I want to turn to specifics and the matter of forged certificates. The government wants to deregulate the circumstances in which crew are to be certified. It is an undesirable fact of life that globally in this industry forged certificates are all too common. In 1992 the Ships of shame report said:It is undeniable that the quality of crew training is a central factor in maintaining ship safety.Unfortunately, this bill seeks to end the certification process that currently exists under the articles of agreement. You will then have employers deciding for themselves who they will employ and on what conditions and they will satisfy themselves about the qualifications. Everyone in this House knows what will occur. Employers out there will gladly take people on forged certificates for lower rates of pay, and in the process jeopardise themselves, their fellow crew, the ship, the environment and other seafarers.Possession of forged qualifications by some crew was noted in the 1992 report which stated:Possession of forged qualification certificates by some crew members and the failure of others to have appropriate certificates are also a matter of concern. For example, it has been reported that in a recent crackdown by the Japanese Ministry of Transport, 25 officers on board 11 foreign vessels were found to have no proper qualification certificates.More recently we have the comments of Captain Bolitho. He is the former chairman of the Australian Shipping Line. In an address in August last year he made the following comment:Professor David Moresby of the Institute of Maritime Studies at the University of Plymouth, demonstrated that for $US300 it is possible to purchase a masters certificates perfect in every detail, except that name is left blank for you to fill in . . . approximately 20 per cent of the world's seafarers are now from the Philippines and . . . 90 per cent of them are sailing on worthless paper.That is the reality of the seafaring industry. The only thing that protects Australia from that is this legislation that is now before the parliament that the government is seeking to overturn. This bill is very bad legislation, driven by ideological hatred, driven by an unfortunate political desire of this government to persecute seafarers and anyone associated with the Maritime Union. It is very bad public policy and we will be opposing a large portion of it. (Time expired)16:22:004450Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise today and support the government's Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 . It is very interesting to follow the member for Brisbane and find out why the Labor Party are in such a time warp. They are back in the fifties and have not grasped the fact that the number of people who are joining trade unions is falling at an unprecedented rate. The reason is that the world has changed significantly and the ability of employers to deal directly with employees has changed and people are very happy to deal direct with their employees. This is what it is about. This bill is bringing the seafarers under the same act as the Workplace Relations Act. It is an act which obviously has brought significant reforms across the board in the industrial scene in Australia. To have one group of employees, the seafarers, fall outside of the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act is obviously a nonsense and anomalous in today's world.I would like to congratulate the government and the minister for much of the success of the reforms that have been carried out on the waterfront. The protracted dispute and difficulties that occurred at Patricks have resulted in significantly improved productivity on the wharves. Australia fell so far behind the rest of the world, places like Rotterdam and Singapore, in the loading rate per hour and the number of containers that were loaded in a day. It is this government that has had the guts to make the changes necessary to bring our economy in line with the rest of the world. This act is part of bringing us into line with provisions in other parts of the world.There is nothing terribly draconian or anything machiavellian in this bill. It is simply allowing employers and employees to come to their agreements together. When this government brought in the single voyage permit, the changes made a significant difference to the number of cruise operators that come into Australian waters. The Minister for Sport and Tourism, who is at the table, would be aware of the significant increase we have had in cruise operations into Australian waters. You just have to check the number of cruise vessels that have come into Australian ports over the last 12 months due to the changes by this government to recognise that we are reforming the waterfront in a number of areas.The shipping industry has been hamstrung by union dominated requirements for far too long. The main aim of this bill is to remove employment related provisions in the act which are inconsistent with the Workplace Relations Act and the concept of company employment. Time has meant that provisions of this act are no longer required. For too long the waterfront and all of its aspects have been a closed shop. The whole shift to company employment means that many provisions in the 1913 act are no longer required. It tells you something when the members of the Labor Party are willing to support provisions in a 1913 act. Australia has moved significantly since that time, and it is appropriate that we should review legislation such as this.Clearly, conditions of employment for seafarers should be no different from other industry groups. There are clearly questions to be determined by employers and employees. This is not a special case, not a different industry. The Workplace Relations Act provides the legislative framework in which the needs of individual companies can be obtained through the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Having that framework in place means that this particular legislation becomes redundant.The prime purpose of the act is to remove the employment provisions from the Navigation Act 1912 that are inconsistent with the concept of company employment and with the aims of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. A Shipping Reform Group, appointed by the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, John Sharp, and chaired by Julian Manser, said that a system of company employment should be established and the current seafarers engagement system terminated. The arrangement under the Navigation Act requires that all seafarers enter into an agreement with the master of the vessel on which they sail. The agreement which is prepared on a prescribed form covers such matters as the period of employment, wages, arrangements for allocation of wages and arrangements for discharge of a seafarer.Officers working on Australian ships are not employed under articles of agreement. Instead they have individual contracts with the owner of the vessel. All seafarers employed on Australian built ships operating on the Australian coast or on ships imported into Australia are required to be Australian residents or to have temporary visas. Visas may be issued up to a period of four years, subject to labour market tests under the Migration Act 1958. The Migration Act precludes foreign crew members from working coastal waters without such visas.The other provision is that Australian seafarers have been employed under an employment system known as the seafarers engagement system or `the roster'. This was criticised by the Shipping Reform Group, which stated that the roster system for ratings, which has not allowed the development of company employment, has a number of significant problems including lack of employment continuity and the resulting high cost of training, the inability to transfer personnel within a company's operational structure, inadequate selection arrangements and barriers to promotion, and a significant cost of the operation of the engagement system. Basically what we are talking about is bringing the whole process into 2000 style human relations management. What you want is a union controlled, union dominated, totally rigid system without the flexibility for promotion for people who show significant ability and the skills training that is necessary.Mr Hollis interjecting—MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—I am sure the honourable member opposite can boast about what he is. I am sure your good colleagues from the trade union movement would support you. Some 52 per cent of the frontbench opposite came from a trade union background of work for the ACTU or were union officials. That is all right. You can get your firing orders from the unions, but what the people in broader Australia are concerned about is how efficient our waterfronts and shipping industries are. You do not have to be a rocket scientist or even a member of the Labor Party to know that our waterfront has been a disgrace for many years. In those long, sad, black years when Labor was in power, there was no reform of the waterfront, just more entrenchment of the rigidity that existed—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Of course there was, and you know it.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—There were lots of claims and lots of payouts, and nothing happened. Many millions of dollars were spent, but there was no basic change in the number of people on the waterfront or in how long it took to load a container at Sydney ports. The same applies to the shipping industry within Australia. It is full of rigidity, full of inefficiencies and full of union domination by their old mates and the lists that they brought in. It was like, `Okay, Joe, it's your turn to get on the list, and we'll look after your cousin as well.' It was not about the modern human relations plan of looking after the individual and for them to negotiate directly with their employer as to the conditions in which they will operate. I am very proud that this government has brought in this type of enlightened legislation. It reflects modern human management of resources.The Shipping Reform Group recommended the termination of the seafarers engagement system and predicted that the positive outcomes from introducing company employment would include improved employer-employee relations, the forging of an enterprise culture and outcomes, a more efficient introduction of quality management systems, more effective manpower planning, and the development of additional skills and competencies specific to the needs of enterprise and individuals. These recommendations are about improving the relationship between employers and employees. They are not about worsening the situation.They are about the forging of an enterprise culture relating to productivity and efficiency and the economic gains of doing so. They are about quality management systems and effective manpower planning in order to work out the progression of seafarers within the area of operation so they can look forward to progression according to their merits and their performance. That is the norm these days in the 1990s culture in Australia. Why should the waterfront and the seafarers be any different?One of the main features of the act will be to abolish the Marine Council and its functions. The Marine Council was established under section 424 of the Navigation Act 1912. Its members consist of equal numbers of representatives of shipowners and seafarers together with an employee of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The minister appoints the members and the chairperson. Its principal role is to assess the suitability of people for employment at sea.Why on earth would you have a board set up by legislation to establish the suitability? Why is this any different from somebody who goes down to General Motors and wants a job working on the Holden production plant? There is a personnel and human resources division. They assess the individual according to their qualifications and their suitability for the job. Why do you need a board to determine it? We know why it was established: so the unions could look after their mates.This is not a mates bill, even though mates is very much featured in our preamble, and rightly so. This is about looking after the welfare of seafarers. Those on the other side claim that they are looking after the welfare of the average worker. I can tell you this: this is liberating the seafarers to join modern Australia and their ability to be promoted according to their skills and not tied up with the rigidity we have seen in the past.This bill plans to do away with the articles of agreement and replace them with company contracts between the employer and either individual seafarers or the crew of the vessel as a whole. What could be fairer than that? It is an agreement between the two. There has to be two sides to make the agreement. If one side does not agree, then it is not valid. It requires the agreement of the seafarers. Under company employment, the terms and conditions to apply to seafarers will be matters for negotiation between the seafarers and their employers. The employer may be the owner of the vessel or a company specialised in providing crew for ships. Such issues are matters for employers and seafarers to negotiate to allow crew to be used to clean ships' holds and move cargo in port.In his second reading speech the minister said how significant it would be for the question of what limits are to be placed on the work to be carried out by the ship's crew to be determined by negotiation between the employer and the employee. In another speech Mr Reith talked about the need to have an unfettered employer dealing directly with new entrants into the area. He said that it was the unfettered employer's right to recruit from any source and it was the company's responsibility for new entrant recruitment and training, subject to meeting any minimum mandatory industry standards. It is right that we should look at the minimum industry standards so they are appropriate and safety concerns are taken into consideration. If you have the minimum requirement necessary for the job and you meet the safety standards, I cannot understand what the Labor Party's opposition would be, except, of course, to look after their mates in the union movement.The concerns expressed by the Maritime Union of Australia to the bill relate to the fact that the changes would allow manning agents to supply crew for Australian vessels, that the ship's crew, including foreign crew engaged in overseas voyage, would be able to load and unload cargo in Australian ports, and would allow crew to clean the ship's ballast while in Australian ports. They also claim that the move would allow manning agents, including foreign manning agents, to provide seafarers for Australian vessels. This is all quite erroneous. The proposed measures will not affect the qualifications, competency and welfare of Australian seafarers. It will continue to be the responsibility of employers to ensure that their ships are crewed by properly qualified seafarers.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—As they have in the past? Have a look at the record.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Your government was in power for 13 years. If you had any problem in terms of their record, then why didn't you do something about it? What we have is those people who are now involved in the shipping industry saying that this is the process of reform. Section 16 of the Navigation Act says that unqualified persons performing duties of master, officer or seaman is an offence. Obviously, these concerns are false concerns and are totally erroneous.The Australian Maritime Safety Authority would still have the right to inspect evidence of qualifications. They can do so at any time. The member for Brisbane said that false qualifications were in existence. That is not taken away. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority still has the ability to inspect the qualifications and make sure that they are legitimate. The Navigation Act makes sure that the safety provisions are there.So on what basis do we have objections? Are there objections to the minimum wage levels? Are they going to be eroded? No. Are we going to have an erosion of safety requirements? Absolutely not. Will we have a total absence of qualifications required because of changes to the act? Absolutely not. What we have is a sensible piece of legislation that brings the seafarers into line with the Workplace Relations Act. It is simply appropriate that they be considered as another part of the Australian industry so that we see the efficiencies and the reforms that will come as a result of this government's changes to bring this industry into line with those changes and to allow for a more effective and productive waterfront and shipping industry. I commend the minister for this piece of legislation. I am sure that, as a result of the changes proposed in this legislation, we will see a more significant and efficient shipping industry in Australia.16:39:004453Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to speak to the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 . I support the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow minister. I am sorry that the member for Cook is leaving the chamber because I intend to respond to some of his points. If the amendments are not accepted, the opposition will be opposing this bill. The member for Cook, who is now leaving the chamber, spoke about a time warp. If he wants to talk about a time warp, he ought to read the report that was brought down by a committee on which the honourable member for Corangamite and I served and which was chaired by the honourable member for Hinkler. The member for Cook ought to read that report, because it is obvious from what he said today that the nearest he has been to the waterfront was when he put his well heeled shoe onto the luxury cruiser from some jetty at Dolls Point on the Cronulla peninsula. That is the closest he has ever been to the waterfront, and he comes in here and tries to pontificate, wallowing in his ignorance.I extend an offer to the member for Cook, whose electorate is just to the north of mine. By agreement, in Port Kembla every time a ship comes in there and the unions ban it, they contact me. I go down and report it, and we videotape it because we are sick and tired of the crowd over there making false allegations. Next time a ship comes in, I am prepared to contact the member for Cook and in a totally bipartisan way have him come down there and inspect that ship with me. He can talk to the crew, and if they will let us we will have a look at the ship. He has come in here and made a disgraceful speech today. The member for Corangamite must have been embarrassed. Any members of the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform who were listening who have worked so hard on these reports must have cringed with embarrassment.The member for Cook asked me what I had been doing during 13 years about ship safety and ship conditions. I happen to have worked on three major reports, like the honourable member for Corangamite. I have taken my study leave to talk to shipping companies and unions throughout the world. We brought down the report Ships of shame, which is recognised throughout the world. It has had major newspaper and magazine articles written about it. There have been television programs made on it. It is recognised as a major report on shipping and shipping safety and conditions on ships throughout the world. The report is known throughout the world. While the member for Cook was waltzing around to the fleshpots of the world trying to win the Sydney Olympics, that was what the member for Corangamite and I and other people were doing out of concern for the conditions of the seafarers of the world.The member for Cook spoke about single voyage permits. He ought to learn what a single voyage permit is and have a look at some of those ships that are travelling on single voyage permits. Of course they have increased because of the laxness of this government. They are supposed to meet certain conditions before they are issued with a single voyage permit. They do not meet those conditions. Single voyage permits are increasing and they will continue to increase. They will increase even more under legislation such as this.This bill seeks to amend or repeal some 50 sections and other items of the Navigation Act 1912. But it is significant for its deregulation of the seafarers employment. Let us get one thing clear: on this side we have never opposed reform of the shipping movement. Have a look at our record. Have a look at the number of crews on ships when we came in and when we went out. We have never been opposed to the regulation or the reform of shipping. What we do oppose is doing away with workers' conditions and rights. What we are opposed to is an ideological jihad put out by the minister and those opposite. This is all about the ideological madness and the ideological hatred of the trade union movement, especially the Maritime Union of Australia.This bill aims to put into place the recommendations of the shipping reform group to abolish cabotage and establish a second register. Let me tell you about a second register. All a second register is is a tax evasion mechanism. The French have a second register, and their islands off the Antarctic are populated by nothing but penguins. Where would we put our second register? Would we put it on Herd Island or Macquarie Island or the Cashmore or Ashmore islands? That is probably where we would put it. To abolish cabotage: I wish the honourable member for Cook were in the chamber, because I respect him for the work he did in the tourist industry and as a New South Wales minister. The minister who was previously at the table, the member for Lindsay, is the Minister for Sport and Tourism.All my colleagues on the other side have worked themselves into a huge lather at present because of the threat to have an open sky policy. They are afraid that, instead of Qantas trolley dollies coming down with a rattling drinks tray, they might be served by a trolley dolly from one of the Third World countries. So those opposite are very, very worried at the thought of our having an open sky policy. They are all running along to their ministers, saying, `Oh, you can't do that, you can't open up the Australian skies.'These are the same people who get up in this chamber, sweating and frothing at the mouth about the seafarers, and say, `Oh, we've got to open up the Australian coastline to the seafarers of the world; we've got to let all the rust buckets and everything else in.' They believe that it is all right for the seafarers to have the Australian coastline opened up.I say this: if it is good enough to open up the coastline to all the seafarers on all the rust buckets from all around the world, it is good enough to have the planes that are tied together with bits of string and chewing gum belonging to services that are being run by people all around the world; let us open the skies as well. But those opposite froth at the mouth at the thought of opening up the skies. And these people who froth at the mouth over open skies and run to the minister demanding that we do not have such a policy are the very same people who stand here and demand that our coastline be opened up to all the rust buckets of the world.The bill was first introduced on 25 June 1998 but lapsed due to the calling of the election. It was reintroduced under a new minister on 9 December 1998.I note, from the second reading speech, the former minister went into some detail about what was proposed by the bill. The impression he tried to give—in which he was supported by the member for Cook—was of tidying up some historical anachronisms that are not relevant to the employment of seafarers in the present day. The member for Cook even said, `What's the difference between a seafarer and someone working on an assembly line at Geelong?' What great knowledge he exposed! At least the employee on the shop floor at Geelong can go home each night. They are not on a voyage for three months. They do not live on the job. There seems to me to be a lot of difference between someone working on an assembly line in Geelong and someone working on a ship.Indeed, the former minister even managed to engage in that time honoured tradition—for which, I must say, he is renowned—of a bit of old fashioned union bashing. The new minister in his second reading speech of December was even less respectful in repeating that propaganda—and we now know why. The Howard government has a record of attacking and undermining legislative protection in the field of industrial relations and the conditions of employment. As I said before—and I do not retract it—this is an industrial jihad those opposite are engaged on. Minister Reith in his second reading speech stated:. . . the Workplace Relations Act provides flexibility for employment arrangements to be determined at the enterprise level in a manner that suits the business of the individual employer.The emphasis is on the last few words. By now, every working Australian would have heard the following remarks which were made by Minister Reith at a Perth business luncheon last year:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.`Making profit' means that often seafarers from Third World countries go to the bottom of the sea because of the condition of their ships and the conditions under which they work. It does not matter whether people die, as long as the capitalist side can make a few extra bucks.The Australian Financial Review in May 1997 also attributes a classic quote to the minister. It is:People have got to stand up to the unions and we will support them. All you have to do is pick up the phone and we will support you.And you might as well say `with balaclavaed thugs accompanied by savage mad dogs'. All of this is from a minister who at every available opportunity steps up to the mat, trying desperately to portray this side of the House as promoters of class warfare.The effect of this bill before us is yet another element in the ideologically driven policies of this government. It continues to knock the industrial relations pendulum all the way to the extreme right. With the minister being so interested in the history of politics, as he appears to claim, he should also remember that, for every reaction, there is also an equal and opposite reaction. While this government swings to the extreme right, the opposition will be pulling the pendulum back to the centre, not only in industrial relations but also in other areas of policy. That is the history of politics and the record of enforcing a class struggle.The Bills Digest for this bill is an interesting read. I must say that the digest has always provided, irrespective of the government of the day, quite a broad and impartial assessment of any bill's provisions. This digest, however, admittedly quoting from a speech Minister Reith gave to the Australian Shipping Chamber on 6 November 1997, has peppered throughout it the phrase `unfettered employer right'.Who can be surprised by the recommendations of the Shipping Reform Group report? The group's purpose was clear, clinical and entirely political; it was designed to swing that pendulum I mentioned earlier to the right—to the extreme right. The group had its brief to present the case for winding back and terminating cabotage. It was about mounting a case for the establishment of a second register. I have told you about the establishment of a second register. And cabotage: if we do away with cabotage, we will be the only country in the world to do so.One only need examine who made up the group to see just how these predictable recommendations were made. Chaired by Mr Julian Manser of Perkins Shipping and accompanied by representatives from Mobil Oil Australia, the Australian Ship Owners Association, National Bulk Commodities Group and Howard Smith Ltd. Only employer groups were represented. Where was the representation from the seafarers and other ship crews? Where was the representation from the Maritime Union of Australia or, indeed, the ACTU?The Shipping Reform Group is a bosses' outfit, recommending a bosses' agenda for shipping to a bosses' government. One can only ask why the government did not grace the group with the presence of the Chairman of Patrick Stevedores, Chris Corrigan? But of course, he was preoccupied at the time with implementing another Howard government policy inspiration: to sack his entire work force in the middle of the night, unleash the dogs and let the balaclavaed thugs loose. He has definitely picked up the telephone!The employment of seafarers should continue to be subject to legislative prescription, not turned over to the vagaries of the Workplace Relations Act. We on this side do not have any difficulty amending or removing historic anachronisms from the Navigation Act 1912, but not all of its sections need to be treated this way. We on this side will stand on our record of reforms to the shipping industry that we brought in during the 13 years we were in government. We are talking about the employment conditions of an entirely different group of workers, not the people on the shop floor at Geelong.Seafarers, like coalminers, all work in a different and tough environment with a savage and brutal history and culture. Conditions of employment, indeed prescriptive legislative provisions, are recognition of that environment, culture and history. In no other industry do a group of workers disappear at sea for three months at a time. They certainly do not do that in Geelong. In no other industry do a group of workers have their working environment also double up as their accommodation and their recreation. It is absolute rubbish to even try to compare the shipping industry and the conditions of employment of seafarers with any other industry. And that is exactly what this bill is trying to do. Seafarers are subject to exploitation. Living conditions on many vessels are deficient, particularly on flag of convenience registered vessels, with too many owners and operators in the chase for a quick buck who turn a blind eye to aspects of safety.Ever since I have been elected to serve in this place, I have had a distinct interest in shipping, representing as I do the port of Kembla. With the member for Corangamite, I have attended countless public and private hearings of the House of Representatives standing committee in its inquiry Ships of shame. All members of that committee, regardless of what side of the House they came from and their ideological bent on industrial relations, were shocked by the conditions on those ships and the working conditions that people had to put up with. That is why I keep referring back to Ship safe, a report brought down here by a committee chaired by the honourable member for Hinkler. That report dealt with conditions on ships.The member for Cook spoke garbage—as though everything there was wonderful. I am disappointed and a bit embarrassed that the member for Hinkler is not here, but I know the member for Corangamite will adequately put the case. I hope that especially the members who served on these committee inquiries dealing with ship safety have not been gagged and refused permission to speak by the minister on that side. There are only two members from the government side who will be speaking. Many members there have served on these committees and have put their names to this report which highlights conditions. I know the parliamentary secretary has read the report, but she should refresh her memory by just flicking through it to see how embarrassed we should be by the comments of the honourable member for Cook.I have seen many rust buckets. I have talked to seafarers from the Third World—in fact, I have spoken to them in the electorate of the member for Hinkler and, indeed, in my own electorate. I am on the board of the Mission to Seamen where we see seafarers coming along almost nightly. Many of them tell us about the food, that they are half starved and that they are abused. I have heard about the non-payment of wages; the disgusting living and working conditions; the torture and physical, mental and sexual abuse; and also, in many cases, the final tragedy—death. There are many, many seafarers from Third World countries who leave the ports of Kembla, Sydney or Melbourne to go to Brisbane, but if they are regarded as a troublemaker they never see the port of Brisbane—they disappear overboard off the coast of New South Wales and no-one mentions it.We have taken evidence under oath about the denial of food, the provision of inadequate food, the bashing of crew members by ships' officers, the maintenance of two sets of pay books which the member for Brisbane men tioned, underpayment of wages and overtime, inadequate accommodation and washing facilities, access to proper medical care and all sorts of deprivation. I am passionate about the defence and protection of seafarers all over the world, particularly our own Australians. This bill threatens Australian seafarers, it threatens their livelihood, and it goes further than that. It also threatens the coastline of Australia because, if you have a poorly trained, half-starved crew, they cannot properly carry out their duties. So our coastline is at risk. Rather than seeking to improve the conditions for all seafarers, it lowers our own standards.The bill also threatens our vast coastline by permitting the entry of rust buckets and allowing crews to clean vessel ballast while in port. The bill also threatens to make Third World labour even more attractive to unscrupulous shipowners and operators. The government is, quite frankly, renewing an interest in a practice so morally and legally indicted throughout the modern world, and that is slavery.The practice of crimping, the government says, was only prevalent in the days of sailing ships. It ignores the fact—and, I might add, the significant evidence—that this abuse is still very active in modern shipping, just as it was a century ago. Yet, just to show how imaginative Australia is, this government is taking us down the road of denouncing ILO convention No. 9, Placing of Seamen 1920. Australia has enjoyed a cooperative relationship with the International Labour Organisation but, like most areas, our participation has been kneecapped by the Liberal government.The honourable member for Brisbane referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of this parliament and its criticism of the government over ILO conventions. We on this side support reform of the shipping industry. We will not support the measures in this bill. If the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow minister are not accepted, we will be voting against this disastrous legislation. (Time expired)16:59:004457McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I acknowledge the great depth of knowledge that the member for Throsby has on this issue. Whilst I might strongly disagree with most of what he has to say, I do acknowledge his lifetime interest in maritime matters, his understanding of the human side of that particular industry and, I might say, his strong support of the MUA and associated personnel on the waterfront. So members of this House would be aware of where he is coming from.I make the fundamental proposition that we are talking about Australian shipping in the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 and the crews on Australian shipping. Whilst the member for Throsby and the shadow minister have spent considerable time talking about the Ships of shame, the very important landmark report, I do draw to the attention of other members that it fundamentally dealt with ships that travelled on the international shipping lanes and the problems that this government, the former government and the Australian authorities have in maintaining reasonable standards on those ships. That is the fundamental difference that I would have with the member for Throsby.Most of the ships that travel on the Australian runs that come under these new sets of conditions are not related to those more questionable conditions on the international trade routes. I do accept the comments that the member for Throsby has raised. He and I conscientiously sat on the committee for many months and weeks listening to some quite horrific evidence from seafarers and shipowners and evidence of those poor souls who are no longer with us who have gone to the bottom in some of the ore ships that silently disappeared into the Indian Ocean.It is important to note the key arguments about those ships—the flags of convenience ships—that the member for Throsby referred to in the large part of his speech and that the shadow minister referred to. The skills of those crews have been accumulated—that is, crews from various parts of the world did not have the use of a common language, be it English, Portuguese or Norwegian. The age of the ship was a very fundamental factor. It was interesting evidence that ships between the age of 17 and 25 years had a higher incidence of sinking.The insurance arrangements of these international shipping lines was a matter of contention for those insurance companies that were providing insurance for these ships in a very questionable state. As the honourable member opposite and I would agree, quite often these problems were at the feet of the insurance agencies who were prepared to `make a fast buck', to use his words, to insure ships which obviously should not have been involved in the movement of iron ore and other bulk products.I will refute some of the remarks of the shadow minister, who really described some of the industrial relations arguments and really did not know a lot about shipping. I am not blaming him for that because he comes from the teachers union and he has not had the experience of the member for Throsby and me of being hands-on in the shipping industry. He referred to Justice Higgins of 1907. It is his point of view that we ought to retain those outdated approaches.In terms of the ILO convention or other treaties signed by Australia—and the honourable member for Throsby remarked about the ILO—I will say that I have a personal distaste that unelected members comprising the United Nations treaties are able to bring about terms and conditions on a range of subject matters which have been before the House on other occasions—for instance, ILO convention No. 22 dates back to 1926. The member opposite is saying that that is okay. I am suggesting that we should make some changes.As I understand it, the basic requirement of ILO convention No. 22 is that employment conditions on a ship covered by an agreement be preserved, with the details left to be negotiated by the employers and the seafarers concerned. What would be wrong with that? The management of these ships would be able to negotiate a set of terms and conditions compatible to the operation. So fundamentally I say to members of the House that we are talking about a change to an act that was initially set up in 1912, before the First World War, and now we are suggesting in 1999 that we make a fundamental change to the way in which we handle the Australian shipping operation.As the member opposite would be aware, Australia has a small trading fleet—three per cent by volume and five per cent by value of world trade. It is a fleet consisting of 42 coastal and 20 overseas vessels. That is not big, but it does undertake an important transport task. There has been a decline in the transport market share since the 1970s based on tonnes-kilometres in this big island nation of ours—some 52 per cent was carried by sea in 1970 and 31 per cent in 1993.We need to make the Australian shipping industry more competitive and get it into the 1990s. It is imperative that we look at the labour costs involved in the operation of the ships and we look at the crew numbers that have gradually been reduced. I concede the point to the honourable member for Throsby that there has been reasonable cooperation between the maritime unions in reducing the crewing numbers on the ships over time and improving their skill standards. In 1984, there was an average of 30 per ship and in 1992 there were 21, and the quality of those crews have improved.There were some slight changes in this whole area—better quality ships and improved crewing—but the attitudes remained the same. They were protected by this act, protected by these sets of terms and conditions, which really do not stand up in the modern day. So, in 1993, the former government, to give them some credit, provided $25 million for voluntary redundancy programs. As I understand it, that did work out where some of the personnel on the maritime runs were able to leave the industry with some dignity. With these enterprise agreements that came in in 1994 under the maritime industry restructuring agreement, there was a movement in the right direction. Even the Labor government understood that you needed to have an enterprise agreement and get away from these very restrictive operations, and I will talk more about that in a minute.I will illustrate the importance of the cargo industry in Australia: carrying general cargo across Bass Strait; carrying dry bulk services—more than 30 billion tonnes—around the Australian coastline; transporting crude oil to the various refineries, in particular to the refinery in Geelong in my home electorate; moving iron ore from Port Hedland to Port Kembla, close to the member for Throsby's electorate; and moving coal from New South Wales to Queensland and to Japan. Of course, the international ANL shipping line, which has now been sold, was involved in some of those activities.The aim of this legislation which we are debating before the House is to bring the Navigation Act into line with the Workplace Relations Act. I have had, personally, a long interest in these matters, in trying to bring about a change from a highly regulated workplace set of arrangements under the Industrial Relations Commission to a more flexible set of arrangements. Even the member opposite could go along with that. We have more flexible arrangements for modern ships where a smaller numbers of crews are better trained, where they can reach an agreement with the senior personnel—the captains and the management—and not go back to rules and regulations that are based in 1912. How would the member opposite defend that position, on any ground?The reality is that we are moving a set of circumstances which the Labor Party fundamentally agreed with when they were in government. They moved towards enterprise agreements, but it was the friends and associates of the member for Throsby who made sure that that did not actually happen. They did not reach enterprise agreements because his union friends and colleagues and his good friend on the waterfront John Coombs made sure that that old set of arrangements were kept in place come hell or high water.This legislation changes the act of 1912. I just emphasise the point, comrade from Throsby, that it was from 1912; that is how far back we go. This will change the period of employment, the allocation of wages and the discharge of seafarers. We are now moving to industry employment. There was traditionally no loyalty to the shipowner because it was a changing situation. We now have a situation where seafarers, because there are fewer of them, wish to stick with the particular shipping lines they are operating with. They hope to get a better set of terms and conditions by negotiation rather than by staying in the casual set-up that used to be the case—and which I concede is the case in other parts of the world.We are moving to enterprise agreements. That is the norm in the Australian workplace. More and more, people are starting to understand the significance of a particular set of crew working under a particular set of management. So we will have an enterprise culture and we will have improvement in the quality of management. I concede that the quality of the management in some of these shipping lines, as the honourable member of Throsby has mentioned, was very questionable, especially on some of the international lines under flags of convenience where crew members had very little training and where direction from senior personnel was less than ordinary. Under these arrangements skills can be developed and employees will become better sailors and better able to employ their skills for one employer.The bill will abolish the Maritime Council. This is an interesting set of circumstances. The Maritime Council, as I understand it, was formed under section 424(2) of the Navigation Act 1912. It had members representing shipowners, members representing seafarers and a representative of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The minister appointed them. They had a little get-together and worked out who could work on which ship. You had a classic situation of a closed shop. So, unless you had a brother, a cousin or a father in the industry, you could not get a job at sea because they were very tightly held, as they were on the waterfront.I think the honourable member opposite would be happy to concede that the waterfront was an absolutely closed shop. There is no doubt that I would not get a job there. But I am sure that the member for Throsby would because he had a lot of friends there. It is the same situation for the seafarers in Australia. Those jobs were tightly held by those people—so much so that you were not able to recruit anyone from outside the little family. You had to recruit from a particular line-up of personnel. This legislation will make a dramatic change in the ability of the employers, those shipowners, to recruit from employment agencies those seafarers who have got some experience, who have got good attitudes and who wish to make a lifetime job of it.We will make a change to the attitude that is in the mining industry and in the waterfront industry that those who are last on are first off. That has been the attitude. If you got on the register and you got a job and then after a while you were put off, if you were last on you would be first off. The member for Throsby fully understands that, and he cannot really refute the fact that that is the situation.There was a situation where the seafarers on Australian built ships on the Australian coast had to be Australian residents—again, a closed shop arrangement. They did not let anyone come in, so they had to have a temporary visa. Now at least there will be some capacity to employ skilled seafarers under the auspices of the Ships of shame who have been well trained in the Philippines and who we have made sure have bona fide certificates of competency. Why shouldn't the shipping industry of Australia enjoy the benefit of these well trained international personnel who have tickets of competency from the Philippines training school and other reputable areas who could come and enjoy the better conditions here on the Australian coastline?I notice that section 45 of the Navigation Act places restrictions on the crew handling of cargo and ballast when a ship is in the Australian port. This was linked to the waterside workers' ancient demand that only they could drive the ships' winches. What a remarkable position! The ship pulls up on the Australian waterfront, and here is this different set of conditions whereby only the waterside workers can drive the ship's cranes.How can the honourable member opposite or the shadow minister argue that that is a reasonable set of arrangements? I understand that they were pushed into that little lurk back in 1911. `We have got jobs for the boys, and we will keep this in 1999.' How can you defend that situation? There was an argument that it defended safety. As your good friend John Coombs argued on the waterfront we had to have everyone on every job for safety reasons—and we know the net result of that. There was a very poor safety record because of some attitudinal problems, overmanning and the way in which there was such a closed shop on the waterfront, which is no longer the case.The outcome of these very important changes is that the ships on the Australian coastline will be using those sailors who have had a change of attitude; who will be well trained; who will be down to 19, 20, 21 in a crew; who will have a continuity of employment; who will be supervised by AMSA. AMSA will not only be observing the quality of the ships, as the honourable member would be aware, on the Australian run but observing and reporting on the quality and the defects of the international shipping that comes to Australia.The bill is a major breakthrough and reflects the way in which Australian industrial conditions have changed. There has been a breaking down of the monopoly position on the waterfront of the Maritime Union and within the shipping industry. I concede the point that there has been an improvement, and this will allow a further improvement to bring about much better conditions for those hardworking maritime personnel whom I concede spend months away from their home base and whose conditions historically have not been as good as they should have been. But they do enjoy high rates of pay and long periods of holiday for which they receive full pay and conditions.This bill before the House brings into line the maritime industry for seafarers as the other industrial relations changes brought in by the minister have brought about such a dramatic change on the Australian waterfront. We will have people on both sides of the industry actually working for a full day's pay for a full day's work—a most unusual set of circumstances on the Australian waterfront. We see quite dramatic changes having taken place there. We see a halving of the personnel so that even the member for Throsby can understand that there must have been a rorting of the system and there must have been an overmanning on the waterfront by any meas ure, by any judgment, by any calculation of the container lifts per hour.I commend the bill in every aspect. It brings about a change that is compatible to the 1990s and gets away from 1912. It is in line with the government's changes to industrial relations. It will bring about a better set of conditions for the seafarers. It will bring about a more profitable domestic shipping industry and it will ensure that the quality of the ships is maintained and improved. I reject most of the suggestions put forward by those opposite—especially the shadow minister, who did not have a great understanding of the issues at hand—and I totally reject the assertion that the speakers on this side are from the dry side of the argument, as he put it. We come with a deep understanding of the arguments and a good feel for the conditions that some of those seafarers have enjoyed and not enjoyed over the years.Debate (on motion by Mrs Stone) adjourned.Bills4461r7204461Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 7 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item, substitute:18 Subsection 192(5) (definition of designated period )Repeal the definition, substitute: designated period , in relation to a core regulated airport, means: (a) the 12-month period beginning at whichever of the following times is applicable: (i) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 21 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 to a company—the sale time for that company (within the meaning of that Act); (ii) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 22 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 —the time of the grant of that lease; or (b) if the ACCC, by written determination, specifies a longer period in respect of the airport—that longer period.18A At the end of section 192 Add: (6) The period specified in respect of an airport in a determination under paragraph (b) of the definition of designated period in subsection (5) must not be longer than the 24-month period beginning at whichever of the following times is applicable: (a) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 21 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 to a company—the sale time for that company (within the meaning of that Act); (b) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 22 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 —the time of the grant of that lease.17:18:004462Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.Under the Airports Act, the airport lessees had 12 months to negotiate access undertakings with airport users. The Airports Amendment Bill proposed to extend this time period to two years. Our experience is that airport lessees have difficulty meeting the ACCC's requirements within the original deadline. The Senate has amended the bill and removed the automatic 12-month extension but replaced it with a system so that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can grant an extension to an airport at its discretion. The government supports these amendments.17:19:004462Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I thank the government for accepting these amendments because they do strike a better balance between the rights of the airport owners and the airport users. When I made my comments on the Airports Amendment Bill 1999 in this place recently, I did say that I found the idea of blanket extensions for all airports—no matter what—a difficult one. These amendments actually mean that we can now look at it on a case by case basis as airport owners' needs arise. It is still 12 months, but where owners have a problem they can apply to the ACCC, and I think that is a much better system than saying everybody can have an extra 12 months. I thank the minister for meeting our objection to blanket extensions and for agreeing to these amendments in a constructive and cooperative way.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees44624462446217:20:004462Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 62nd general report of the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The report which I have tabled is the committee's 62nd general report covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1998. This report covers the work of the 32nd committee from 1 January to 31 August 1998 when the House of Representatives was dissolved and parliament was prorogued and the 33rd committee from 10 December when it met for the first and only time for the balance of the calendar year. As such, the report deals with committee operations under the chairmanship of the member for O'Connor, Mr Tuckey, ably supported by the vice-chairman, the honourable member for Throsby, Mr Hollis.The 32nd committee tabled five reports during 1998. The total estimated cost of projects examined by the committee was $560.67 million. The election period limited the committee's operation during the year. The five reports presented is the same number of reports presented during 1996. This relatively small number does not reflect the complexity of two references which consumed considerable time. These were the proposed new facilities for the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, and the proposed East Coast Armament Complex, Point Wilson, Victoria.It is rare for the committee's inquiries to extend beyond one or two days of public hearings. One reason for this has been the thoroughness of submissions and oral evidence presented by proponent departments in support of proposed works. Another reason is the general support of proposed works by state and local government and interested organisations and individuals. It is when these factors are lacking that the committee's inquiries may be lengthy and protracted.The committee's inquiry into the Museum of Australia extended from December 1997 to mid-April 1998, during which four public hearings were held. Although recommending that the project proceed, in view of a number of uncertainties, principally about the cost of work and the suitability of project delivery mechanisms to be adopted, the committee requested to be provided with six-monthly progress reports. The government agreed with this request.The committee's inquiry into the East Coast Armament Complex was also lengthy. The project referred to the committee was estimated to cost $72.27 million and involved the construction of facilities at Point Wilson to support the ammunitioning and de-ammunitioning of RAN ships and to provide facilities for the importation of munitions for the Defence Force.The committee's inquiry extended from mid-February to mid-June 1998 and involved public hearings and inspections at six locations spread over geographical locations from Far North Queensland to coastal Victoria. The length of the inquiry can be attributed to an erroneous perception by the Department of Defence that the scope of the committee's inquiry would not extend beyond an examination of the need for and the scope of the facility to be constructed at Point Wilson. This inquiry provides a good illustration of the committee's role in safeguarding the public interest.The report canvasses a number of other matters raised in the committee's reports during the year, overseas works, details of medium works submitted by departments, Commonwealth fire safety policy, and amendments to the Public Works Committee Act.As I mentioned earlier, during 1998 the parliament was well served by the committee under the chairmanship of the honourable member for O'Connor and the vice-chairmanship of the honourable member for Throsby. I believe the report demonstrates how the honourable members served the parliament through the committee with dedication and distinction and upheld the long tradition of bipartisanship which has been the hallmark of the committee's operations.I would also like to place on record a vote of appreciation for the hard work of the other members of the committee during 1998 and, of course, the very capable secretariat that supports this work. I commend the report to the House.Adjournment4463Motion (by Mrs Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.446317:26:004463Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In addressing the adjournment this evening, I want to refer to a major local community issue in my electorate of Batman at the moment. It relates to the decision by the Victorian government to close the Preston and Northcote Community Hospital, better known as PANCH, and to relocate what has been a wonderful community hospital to the new Northern Hospital at Epping.In making this decision, I also point out to the House that the state government made promises to the local community that, unfortunately to date, have not been honoured. Those promises related to the fact that, in relocating PANCH, the Victorian government would open a new integrated care centre on the site currently occupied by PANCH. The Kennett government stated that the integrated care centre was to provide a range of day surgery, renal dialysis, chemotherapy, medical procedures, outpatient clinics, diagnostics and aged care programs.The problem is that the decision by the Victorian government to break that promise represents the loss of very important health services to the northern suburbs of Mel bourne. The community is also upset not only by the decision of the government but by the failure of the Minister for Health and the Premier to be accountable to the northern suburbs with respect to this issue and by the fact that these ministers have refused to attend two community meetings held to discuss this issue.On that basis, the following mocking letter about the attitude of the Victorian government was read out at a major community meeting held at the Northcote town hall last week. It represents a supposed response to an invitation to the Victorian Premier, Mr Kennett, to attend this community meeting. The letter reads as follows:When I first heard of your little rally and your fight to save PANCH I felt physically sick. You really are a disloyal whinging un-Victorian rabble.Have any of you ever stopped to think about how I feel? No you just greedily ask for basic health services without a thought for me. You all know how much I have given to the Preston and Northcote areas during my term as your premier.But let me outline my record for those of you with short memories.I've removed all those annoying schools, I've locked up the toilets on stations, I've taken the conductors off your trams and the staff off your stations, I put up your water and gas rates, I sold off your council owned electricity departments, I've taken funding away from your roads and creeks and I even sacked your elected council. Yet after all this service to your community you people still have the temerity to question my decision to remove your hospital.I am sick to the stomach at your lack of gratitude. I am also broke. I'd like to see some of your Preston pensioners get by on my wage and my super. I'll be lucky to walk away from this Premier job with $1 million in super. After years of making my mates Lloyd Williams, Kerry Packer and Ron Walker rich beyond their wildest dreams I will retire a practical pauper.So I have thought about my plight and I've thought about your plight and I've come up with a solution.I've decided to resign next year and restore medical facilities to PANCH that I will personally run.The site will have full facilities, a maternity ward, a cardiac unit, and childcare services and will be known as `The Jeff Kennett Memorial PANCH Casino'.The cardiac unit will be placed next to the pokies hall so that any heart attacks can be promptly treated and the customers can be wheeled back to the pokies machines with a minimum of fuss.Child care will be provided in a most modern manner by a car park attendant who will monitor that all cars have the windows down to allow the children to breath.A maternity ward will be provided adjacent to the black jack room so those mothers can gamble right through the full gestation period.This proposal will not only provide you with medical services but it will give me the tens of millions of dollars that I deserve in my retirement.Now please go home and don't annoy me again.Yours sincerely,JEFF KENNETT, Sole director of PANCH Casino and Premier of VictoriaSpring Street, Melbourne.The letter speaks for itself. The Kennett government has taken away vital community services from the northern suburbs of Melbourne. It is yet another broken promise, similar to the broken promises of the Howard government.Give the site back to the community. They built the hospital by raising money through raffles and cooking cakes. It is a community hospital. We are entitled to have an integrated care centre on our site, rather than Jeff Kennett's mates—Walker and the rest of them—yet again getting access to a major community site. Let us make sure we put community services where they are entitled to be—on a community site that was built and developed by the communities of Preston and the northern suburbs of Melbourne.Question resolved in the nagative.Committees4464446444644464Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the House for the facility, in the absence of this statement earlier. On Monday, 22 March 1999, the member for Cunningham raised as a matter of privilege the alleged premature publication of the contents of the report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration on regional banking services. In accordance with the practice of the House in such matters, the matter was required to be considered by the committee in the first instance. Yesterday, the honourable member for Wannon, as chair of the committee, reported on the committee's consideration of the matter. I am grateful to the Deputy Speaker for drawing the matter to my attention.While there might be circumstances where expeditious decision may be desirable, I believe that in the normal course of events it is preferable for a motion, such as a possible reference of a matter to the Committee of Privileges, to be decided after the House has been provided with appropriate time to consider the proposed reference.The member for Wannon informed the House yesterday that the committee had concluded that substantial interference with its work had not occurred. The member indicated that substantial potential interference with the committee system might have resulted from the disclosure. The committee was unable to ascertain the source of any disclosure. In accordance with the procedure adopted by previous Speakers, in these circumstances I am willing to allow precedence to a motion on this matter. I call the chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Wannon.4465Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this opportunity. I present to the House a copy of the article that was in the Financial Review on Monday, 22 March 1999, and a copy of the transcript of the AM program of the same day. I move:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report: Whether there was an unauthorised disclosure of the Regional banking services: Money too far away report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment4465Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.446517:34:004465Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Members of the House are well aware of my strong support for the government's Tough on Drugs program and of the work that we commenced with parents and school principals during my previous term serving the electorate of Makin. Today I would like to speak briefly about another important aspect of the Tough on Drugs program—treatment and rehabilitation of those who have fallen victim to the scourge of drug addiction. While I have talked on these issues before, I think my comments are worth reiterating this evening.Calls from some sectors of our community for heroin to be legally available to drug addicts failed to take into account the many advances that have been made in recent times in the area of treatment of drug addiction. Firstly, there are a number of drugs that are able to be used in the context of detoxification and/or maintenance. For example, heroin addicts can be stabilised for short periods of time with the use of codeine linctus taken with doloxene, until they can be detoxed in a program involving naltrexone. Some may be aware that naltrexone has been used very effectively to block the brain's receptors and eliminate the physical craving for heroin.Another initiative that should be embraced is the development of drug courts in all of our states, so that drug addicts who have also become criminals can be given the option of entering into treatment, rehabilitation, detoxification and follow-up counselling rather than going to gaol. This could potentially have an enormous impact on breaking the cycle of addiction and crime that has held so many drug users in its grip. I sincerely hope that my parliamentary colleagues in South Australia, and particularly my colleague Martin Hamilton-Smith, chair of the select committee investigating the options available in the fight against heroin addiction, give thought to this process.I congratulate my colleague the member for Hughes for her work in raising this issue in her home state of New South Wales. I understand that this concept is being pursued in both New South Wales and Victoria. I also commend Mr Ross Goodridge for his analysis of the research in this area which shows that the use of drug courts may be expected to result in: a cost saving in judicial time—that is, one judge does the work of seven; reoffend rates down from 85 per cent to as low as 15 per cent; cost savings per arrestee of approximately $18,000; a real improvement in crime and drugs in society; as well as a significant decrease in suicides and health costs.With so many positive initiatives being undertaken to help people break the cycle of despair that is the hallmark of drug addiction, it is disappointing that we should have to put up with the antics of an irresponsible performer who has seen fit to encourage young people into illicit drug use. Recently my eldest son attended The Big Day Out concert which was held in Adelaide. One of the performers there was a person by the name of Marilyn Manson. Mr Manson is one of a long line of rock stars who set out deliberately to shock and offend. Mr Manson, while portrayed as shocking and outrageous, is merely disgusting and pathetic.If you consider that in our day we experienced the performances of Alice Cooper, David Bowie, Lou Reed and Kiss, then Manson is downright boring and, according to many of our young people, a big joke. His act included spitting into the crowd and, more alarmingly, exhorting the crowd of mostly young people to consume illicit drugs. It is bad enough that Mr Manson should choose to engage in such a low rent, disgusting activity as spitting at people, but my concern is that should he have hepatitis C or any other health problem then his sharing of bodily fluids would not just be disgusting, it would be dangerous, irresponsible and life threatening.The question is being asked of me by some people as to why Marilyn Manson was allowed into Australia. Upon speaking to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, I was advised that as Mr Manson does not have a criminal record there was no legal reason for him to be kept out of the country by the federal government.I raise the issue of Mr Manson as a potential role model from the music industry for our young people, and The Big Day Out concert in which he appeared, on behalf of Ms Ros Phillips of the Festival of Light, who had raised some of these issues with me as her local federal member. In relation to The Big Day Out concert, initially I did have very grave concerns for my son who was attending the concert. However, when I sat down to discuss this with my son, my concerns and fears were allayed. When I asked my son's opinion of Manson, he just laughed and said, `Not only was his music a joke, but so was he.'However, there still remains the issue of Manson's inappropriate violent and health endangering behaviour at the concert. Let us promote real talent in Australia. We have got plenty of great local bands just waiting for their chance, and they do not spit at or violently assault their patrons. (Time expired)446617:39:004466Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I rise this afternoon to discuss some fairly irrelevant and erroneous comments made by a Northern Territory minister in relation to the Alice Springs and Central Australian economy. And I speak of the newly appointed Minister for Central Australia, who has made comments published in the Alice Springs News dated 24 March 1999, and this morning on ABC radio in the Northern Territory. What these comments from this particular person point out is the lack of vision, wisdom, understanding and knowledge about the Central Australian economy, about its current state and about the potential impact upon it of a GST if it were ever passed through this parliament and imposed.You may know that the housing and construction industries and the tourism industry have been highlighted as two areas that would be negatively affected by any GST. As a result of work which has been done recently by the Alice Springs Town Council—they have produced a report presenting an economic profile of the Alice Springs community—we have seen a clear flattening of the housing industry in Central Australia, and that has obviously negative connotations in terms of local multipliers, both in generating work for other businesses and in directing employment.Obviously, if you accept the arguments, as I do, of the impact of a GST on the construction industry, then the situation will be exac erbated by the imposition of a GST. I think that is absolutely indefensible. I am concerned that this Minister for Central Australia has absolutely no understanding or comprehension of the nature of the Alice Springs economy or of what this will mean.But it is particularly important when we understand that the main driver of economic activity around Central Australia is the tourism industry. This is demonstrated by not only the work which is being done by the Alice Springs Town Council, but also work which has been published recently by the Northern Territory government called The Face of Alice Springs in Ten Years Project. This is a clear demonstration that the government has no plan for the future development of Alice Springs or the tourism industry.Yet when we criticise it or criticise this government—that is, the Howard government—for its poor planning in relation to these issues and particularly in relation to the potential impact of a GST on tourism, we get a stone wall of silence in relation to the attitudes of Northern Territory ministers about how we expect them to defend the Northern Territory's interests against the negative impact of a GST. The Alice Springs economy and employment in Alice Springs relies heavily upon the tourism industry. And I am concerned that—Mr Lloyd interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—It needs to be understood that the ignoramus opposite has absolutely no understanding of the Alice Springs economy.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—I take offence at that comment and I ask the member to withdraw.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In the interests of the debate, the member for the Northern Territory may care to withdraw the remark. I do not believe it to be unparliamentary.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I will withdraw, Mr Speaker, but thin-skinned fools should know better, and this is a thin-skinned fool who should know better. It highlights the embarrassment that those opposite have as a result of the GST. This is the point: they are not prepared to—IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—I really do not think the term `thin-skinned fool' is parliamentary and I do take offence. I ask the member to withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—All members in the chamber know that there has been a general effort on all sides to raise standards. I believe that the member for the Northern Territory was unwise to enter into that area, although it is not unparliamentary. I call him to complete his speech.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I am happy to, Mr Speaker, but it just highlights and emphasises my point not only about the Minister for Central Australia but also about the CLP government in the Northern Territory and the ignorance of this government—the government of Mr Howard—in relation to these issues. What they have done is demonstrate very clearly that they do not care about the impact of a GST on tourism in Central Australia. I might point out that the select committee on the impact of a GST on tourism in the Northern Territory said we would lose around 2,000 jobs. Are you saying that will not happen? It is very clear that it will. (Time expired)446717:44:004467Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I think it is unfortunate that the kind of language we heard earlier ever needs to be said in this place. I think the people of Australia do want better standards and I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on trying to improve the standards of this place.I rise to congratulate the Townsville Chamber of Commerce this evening in relation to their media release today. The Townsville Chamber of Commerce, by way of a public statement today, have come out in respect of the strike at the Korea Zinc site at Townsville. The crippling strike is doing so much damage to Australia and the economy of my city. Normally the Townsville Chamber of Commerce would adopt an impartial role, so it is highly unusual for them to make the kind of statement that they have today, and they have made it in good faith. It is a damning indictment of the Labor state government and also of Labor members who represent electorates in the Townsville area. The Townsville Chamber of Commerce said that they were:. . . highly critical of the lack of leadership from the Premier Mr Peter Beattie and indeed the State Government representatives in Townsville, Mike Reynolds and Lindy Nelson-Carr. Instead of paving the way for resolution of the Sun Metals dispute, two elected representatives have been supporting the picket line with blatant disregard for the law and the direction of the Industrial Commissioner, Mr Adrian Bloomfield. Mr Reynolds claims the law is unworkable. How can that be? Is it simply that Mr Reynolds doesn't agree with the law?We have two Labor members supporting the picket line. In particular, Lindy Nelson-Carr has joined the picket line. It is an illegal picket line. I think it is unfortunate that members of state parliament should in fact be supporting an illegal action. It is the same as we saw in the Gordonstone coalmine dispute when another state Labor member was arrested for an illegal action in the picket line. The media release goes on:The Chamber President, Fay Barker, claimed Mr Reynolds was all smoke and mirrors and had not faced up to the fact that the law has directed a return to work. The Chamber questions the ethics of elected representatives who denied or did not uphold the law and continued to dispute the direction of the Commissioner. Lindy Nelson-Carr was named as the Mother Theresa of all picket lines in State Parliament last night.I, for one, find that most unfortunate. This is an indictment of the governance of the state of Queensland and the representation of our local members. The chamber said:Rather than represent the people of Mundingburra, Lindy Nelson-Carr has elected to deny the law and maintain her place alongside the CFMEU and BLF in their picket line.The real heroes in this debate are those who this afternoon will be attempting to break that picket line to get back to work. I note that the member for Townsville, Mike Reynolds, stated in the Bulletin of 25 March that the dispute is the result of unworkable industrial relations laws introduced by state and federal coalition governments. Also, in the state parliament today, the Premier said:It is clear that one of the weaknesses of the current industrial relations legislation is the weakened role of the Industrial Relations Commission. That is just piffle because the Premier or any minister of the state government can intervene immediately and require the commission to hold a secret ballot. In that secret ballot the number of men who would like to return to work would outweigh those who wish to remain out of work and the dispute would be resolved. The state government could resolve this immediately.This particular matter is doing enormous damage to Australia. It is doing enormous damage to the states. It is doing enormous damage to the families of the workers. It is doing enormous damage to my city. Already we have probably lost the next 10 years of Asian investment in Australia. That is very sad. We have already lost the second stage of the Sun Metals refinery, about a $500 million investment. Yesterday in question time when the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was dealing with this matter the opposition were laughing. I find that disgraceful. I hope this dispute will be resolved very quickly now, and I call on the state government to do what they need to do.446817:49:004468Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I rise in the adjournment debate to express the concerns of my constituents about the lack of support that has been available for those who are unemployed. In my electorate, as in all electorates, we have seen the social security offices close. The CES office has closed. We had a glaring example of the shortcomings of this government's system with their new service providers in my electorate when about 200 metres down the road from a CES office that had been closed a provider opened its doors. This provider in fact opened its doors in the local suburban soccer club bar. The provider used to open the doors in the morning, get a collapsible table and put it in the bar area, plug a phone in and put it on the pinball machine and do the same with the fax machine that was on a little trolley.That became the venue for unemployed people in that area of Mitchelton in my electorate to gain support—a wholly and totally unsatisfactory situation, in stark contrast to a very well-equipped and well-resourced CES office that was just down the road and in a building that was about four or five years old. Sadly the services now provided by Centrelink have been cut. We have a situation in which I think the government is willing Centrelink to fail. Its resources have been diminished. I know that the people who work in Centrelink, who are people of goodwill and have a commitment to help the unemployed, are finding the stress and frustration of that very demanding.In particular, I want to raise the plight of one of my constituents, Mr Cliff Hunter. Mr Hunter is a mature person who is illiterate—he is unable to read. His wife wrote a letter for him, which he brought to me a little while ago. I want to read what he had to say. It was a letter addressed to the Prime Minister, although I will say in advance that he gives both sides of politics a touch up, but it would do us all good to think about it. The letter states:Your policy on reading and writing leaves a lot to be desired. My name is Cliff Hunter, I am 44 years of age, I have been in the workforce since I was 13 years of age. I cannot read or write, due to the fact that I was neglected at school and shunned by my peers, because of my inability to learn the basic skills as in reading and writing.I bring to your attention the interview on a Current Affair, with your Minister, Mr. Kemp, and his blatant refusal on National Television to spell the word `accommodation'. He told the interviewer Mike Munro he would not play his little game. When asked to spell this word, is his refusal to spell this word justified. Has Mr Kemp got something to hide? Does he find it difficult to spell a word which a 13 year old child can spell with little difficulty?Mr Howard it is a well known fact that all members of any Government have a Secretary who take dictation, probably in shorthand and proceeds to write this letter on a computer which is enhanced by having a spelling check in its program. Consequently, the computer would be basically writing the letter for you, with no errors being made.My own belief is that, the classes are too large, and some of the students who are experiencing learning difficulties are neglected to a certain extent, and seem to be always playing catch up, which is not how an education system should be operated.In my view, I believe that a child who is experiencing learning difficulties, for whatever reason, should have one on one teaching in a separate class to enable them to catch up on basic learning skills, thus, giving them the opportunity which they would not otherwise have. My own 8 year old son is an example of what I have just mentioned. He is in a class of 20 plus students, and has a certain amount of difficulty in understanding the basic requirements as in reading and writing.We have had to get him a tutor to enable him to keep up with the other children in his class, out of our own pocket. Your Government gives a lot of financial support to the Private Schools, and it seems to be that our "free" public schools are being left to battle on with a minimum of resources and basic funding, whereas the private schools seem to have a lot more opportunities.It seems that the Politicians and those more fortunate than "Joe average" are in the financial position where they can have the best education for their children. Someone who is surviving on $30 000 per year just does not have the ability to shell out $5 000—$10 000 per year on a private education for their child/children.As far as I am concerned, all you Politicians are not much better than legalised criminals, your new code of conduct rules are nothing but a joke. Because, last year, all your Ministers that were ripping off their expense accounts from Tax Payers money, have a lot to answer for. The only reason why you have changed your Code of Conduct is to protect your Ministers.I doubt that I will have time to complete the letter, and I will seek the opportunity to do that at a later time. This constituent of mine has a lot more commonsense than many other people who would claim an education. It is an affront to him and many others to say that they are to be denied support if they fail to pass some literacy test. He is not illiterate by choice. He does not wish to be unable to read or write. It happens to be the outcome of a childhood that neglected his potential.446917:54:004469Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the enormous emergency, volunteer and appeal effort that is underway in conjunction with the local, state and federal governments in assisting those who have been affected by the widespread devastation of Tropical Cyclone Vance in the Pilbara coast area and beyond in Western Australia. As members heard during question time today, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposi tion and the member for Kalgoorlie have travelled to Exmouth to inspect the damage and to demonstrate in a visible and conspicuous way our support for the people of the Pilbara area and the local community.The Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court, declared Exmouth a natural disaster area and activated a state recovery plan to help repair the tens of millions of dollars damage that has been caused by what is some of the worst flooding in the history of the state. Members will have read in press reports this week that the area experienced the highest ever recorded wind speeds in Western Australia—that is, some 267 kilometres an hour—when Tropical Cyclone Vance crossed the coast. Homes and businesses were quite literally flattened. It seems that at least 300 homes in Exmouth alone had some major structural damage. At the last count, over 120 homes had been destroyed in just that town.The essential services of power and water are seriously affected. Exmouth is cut off by road and many of the roads around the area are inaccessible. There have also been reports of extensive damage to pastoral properties and to the communities of Moora and Onslow. It may be several weeks before the full extent of the damage from the cyclone, including the winds and the floods, can be assessed. I applaud the move by the Prime Minister to travel to Exmouth with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kalgoorlie. The Prime Minister has indicated that he will ascertain how the federal government can help after visiting the site. The federal government is already assisting under the disaster relief arrangements that apply automatically when a disaster such as this happens, whether in Western Australia or elsewhere in the country.I mention the incredible support being shown by the people of Western Australia and across the country. Welfare organisations have mobilised to send food, clothes, blankets, furniture and the like to victims of the cyclone. Organisations such as St Vincent de Paul's, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross are arranging for donations of food and goods to be flown to Exmouth with the help of the RAAF. In the typically generous spirit of all West Australians, a number of appeals have been set up so that people who want to help can donate cash to assist the disaster effort. In my electorate of Curtin—of course many, many kilometres south of the disaster—people are concerned for their rural cousins.In metropolitan Perth, the City of Perth, through the Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund, has established a Cyclone Vance appeal. The Lord Mayor, Dr Peter Nattrass, started the appeal following discussions with local government in the Onslow and Exmouth regions. He has called upon West Australians to show their support for the communities of the affected regions by donating to the appeal. Cash donations are being made at BankWest branches. In announcing the appeal, Dr Nattrass said:We cannot fully comprehend the difficulties these communities face, but we can show our caring by donating to the appeal.The Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund has a framework already in place to respond quickly to emergency situations. The fund is a coordinating body for most natural disaster appeals within Western Australia. To ensure the effective distribution of donations, moneys collected by other agencies, including the Red Cross, will also be directed through the Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund. The distribution of funds will then be coordinated by the fund members in conjunction with the local authorities in the affected areas. To date, the Lord Mayor's fund has already committed two lump sum contributions—that is, $25,000 to start the appeal for the Moora region and another $50,000 for the Onslow and Exmouth regions. I understand that money is coming in in generous amounts.I applaud the local government authorities, the community representatives, the emergency services, the volunteers and the state and federal governments for responding swiftly to alleviate the distress, the suffering, the hardship and the misfortune which has been brought about by this major disaster within Western Australia. As we count the cost of the flood ravaged area, we are all grateful that there has to date been no loss of life. It is a devastating time for all those involved. I am confident to say that the thoughts, prayers and support of all Australians are with those who have endured this terrible ordeal.447117:59:004471Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to express my best wishes to my former employer, Bob Carr, with the up-coming election on Saturday. It is quite clear that Bob and the Labor team will get a very good result due to their outstanding performance in bringing jobs to New South Wales and due to their performance in social areas such as health and housing. In spite of federal government cuts, they have put an extra $1.3 billion into health. In spite of the cuts in the area of housing, they have doubled the maintenance budget and have maintained support for public and community housing.The people of New South Wales are showing good sense in rejecting the bribe being offered on the privatisation of electricity. People know that these public assets are best held in public hands. I will conclude by also congratulating John Della Bosca and the campaign team of the New South Wales branch for what has been an outstanding campaign performance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted and the House stands adjourned.18:00:004471House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.1999-03-25Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members4472447209:40:004472Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Today much is made about regionalism and, as a regional representative, I support this concept. That is why I have always regarded takeover bids from Sydney of the Illawarra with some concern. A difficulty we always have in the Illawarra is that we are so close to Sydney. Groups in Sydney wishing to gain more support or to expand their empire often cast their eyes south in takeover bids.Last year I went through quite a bitter preselection battle when Sydney elements tried to replace me with one of their stooges. Last night another attempted takeover of Illawarra was repelled. The New South Wales Labor Council has been attempting to take over the South Coast Labour Council despite strenuous denials that the Sydney Labor Council was involved. Nine delegates were sent down from Sydney to vote to replace the secretary of the South Coast Labour Council, Paul Matters. These people had absolutely no association with the Illawarra and replaced some Illawarra delegates. They were so familiar with the region that two of them got lost and had to use their mobile phones to find out directions to the venue. Paul Matters has upset some vested interests and these interests were determined to get rid of him. They wanted someone more compliant.The long-term plan was to make the South Coast Labour Council so ineffective and weak that it would eventually be taken over by Sydney. They put up a stooge in someone who had not been to a labour council meeting for something like four years. It was interesting that this person was a union official from the CPSU whose members have been under attack as no other members have been over the last few months. Instead of looking after their interests, this person has been trying to get the votes to secure his own future. In the oldest trick in the book, when the pro-Sydney group last night realised they did not have the votes, they staged a walkout and started screaming about stacking, rorts and so forth.But the good news is that this attempted takeover bid was repelled. As well as Paul Matters remaining, so do Fay Campbell, Sandra Herbert Lowe, Mark Armstrong and Marlene McAlear, all local people. These people will deliver a vibrant South Coast Labour Council doing the good work it has been doing for many years. Most importantly, it will be in South Coast people's hands. It will not be a weak apology for Sydney. It will not be used as a ploy to get rid of the South Coast Labour Council, our local trade union body, and have it replaced with Sydney. For once all these people in Sydney might realise that in the Illawarra we will not accept their stooges. (Time expired)447209:43:004472Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Currently in Townsville in North Queensland, we have the largest investment by a Korean company in Australia ever. This involves the new Sun Metals zinc refinery being built at Stuart. After the completion of stage 1, which is a $530 million development, stage 2 is scheduled to commence, worth another $500 million. Of course, there are many add-on industries that go with such a major project, such as a new gas pipeline to Townsville.This project is in severe jeopardy at the moment. The thousand workers on the site have gone on strike and have now entered the fourth week of their strike. The Koreans, I can tell you, are just amazed that a major investment in Australia, so important to Australia itself, could be in jeopardy. If the problem is not resolved in the very near future, the Koreans are going to mothball that development at this stage. I can tell you that already we have lost the stage 2 redevelopment of the site and we may have lost the next 10 years of Asian investment in this country.It is nothing more than a battle between the CFMEU and the AWU. It is a tragic strike because the workers and their families have been so badly affected; the Townsville community has been badly affected; the project and its investors have been badly affected; and Australia's credibility and reputation have been so badly affected.The solution to this, I guess, is secret ballots being incorporated in all awards. I know that the men want to go back to work but, as a result of union thuggery, intimidation and the calls in the middle of the night they are afraid to break the picket line. The other thing is that the industrial relations court in Queensland must be able to enforce its decisions. Currently, it has ordered the men back to work but they have just simply thumbed their noses at the court and there does not seem to be any will whatsoever to make sure that the wish of the umpire is respected. There does not seem to be any penalty and that is very sad for our industrial relations system.Currently, matters such as the supply of sulfuric acid to the Western Mining phosphate hill project are in jeopardy. The output of the new George Fisher zinc mine in Mount Isa is in jeopardy and the gas pipeline and base load power station are in jeopardy. We must not allow this to continue. We must get the men back to work. We must look after their families and we must stop this union thuggery that has been going on in Townsville.447309:46:004473Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to make a few comments today about the New South Wales Farmers Federation. I am one of those members on the Labor side who never objects to people getting together in associations to try to improve the lot of individuals, whether it be the National Farmers Federation or trade unions or whatever. I think they have a legitimate role to play.I am not raising the issue that the National Farmers Federation may be biased. I think it is unfortunate that they purport to be apolitical when we all know they have a leaning. I think that is fair enough and if they would only come out, as it were, it would lead to a lot more transparency and openness. I do think that the reputation not only of the state body but, through knock-on effects, of the national body, has been damaged by some outrageous ads in the New South Wales state election.You may recall the tragic fire at Crookwell. The New South Wales Farmers Federation have put out print, radio and TV advertisements suggesting that those farmers who had been through that tragedy were not permitted to clear firebreaks. I just wanted to say that that is totally untrue and misleading. Section 12A and B of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act clearly states that activities carried out under the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 are exempt from the native vegetation legislation, so they did not even have to apply under that. But just in case there was some misunderstanding by the four farmers who appeared on the TV ad, there has been absolutely no application lodged by any of those four farmers either for clearing bushfire breaks or any other clearing. I think that this is just an absolute outrage of twisting the facts. I think the New South Wales Farmers Federation have done irreparable damage to their reputation. I call on the New South Wales Farmers Federation to launch a full-scale investigation about how their good name has been so badly tarnished by this mischievous and deceitful ad which, in fact, has been withdrawn. They have faced the humiliation of having to have it withdrawn because the facts clearly showed how outrageous the ad was. This is not acting in the best interests of farmers when they use tactics like this. (Time expired)447409:49:004474Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Over the last couple of years I have been campaigning for a ban on non-local trucks on many of the suburban thoroughfares in the electorate of Moreton. Streets affected include Kessels Road, Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road, Mains Road, McCullough Street and Padstow Road in the Sunnybank, Macgregor and Upper Mount Gravatt areas, also Beenleigh Road and Beaudesert Road between Granard Road and Ipswich Road at Moorooka.These are areas where trucks that have come from outside the area are rat-running. These are not local trucks, these are not trucks delivering goods into the local area, or working within local businesses, or owned by local people; in the main these are trucks that have travelled from many far away places, some from within Queensland, some from interstate, but they are basically rat-running.These are an old, traditional routes that have been made redundant because a lot of money has been spent by the state and federal governments on the Southern Brisbane Bypass. It is south of my area and it is an effective four-lane highway. Yes, it is a toll road, but it is nevertheless, for those local truck drivers in the know, a very effective route to get from Ipswich Road, the route out to the Warrego Highway and the New England Highway, to the port of Brisbane and to North Queensland.The Southern Brisbane Bypass is not being utilised as well as it should, in part because the Queensland state government continues to refuse to take down signs directing trucks away from the toll road and onto suburban roads in my electorate. As well, the toll needs to be looked at.I will continue having discussions with the new federal minister for transport, as I did with the transport minister in the previous federal government, because some of these roads were designated by Labor in about 1991-92 as part of the national road freight corridor. I am working to get that gazettal taken away to make sure that there is no impediment to stop those trucks from being moved onto the Southern Brisbane Bypass instead of through streets in my electorate.I was stunned by the response of the councillors of the Brisbane City Council in my electorate. They have been putting up excuses, day after day, week after week, as to why the council cannot purchase a simple $38 sign. I have bought one and I am willing to buy all the signs that are necessary to tell truck drivers that they are not allowed on those roads in my electorate.The Brisbane City Council promotes livability, but they mainly implement that in the inner city. In the Fortitude Valley area, close to the city of Brisbane, trucks are not allowed. And most recently in West End, behind Southbank, again in the inner city, truck drivers have been told that they are not allowed there. Yet just a few miles down the road at Beaudesert Road, Moorooka, a local councillor says it is going to cost millions to implement my simple plan.My simple plan will cost $76 for signs—two times $38—and maybe the council would get a discount. Yes, it will cost some money for the posts, it will cost some money for the workmen to dig the holes and to put the concrete in the ground and the post and the sign in it, but I want the Brisbane City Council to act for people in my electorate, not just for the people in the inner city. (Time expired)447509:52:004475Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Hatzolah is a totally volunteer based community medical emergency service which operates in my electorate with but one aim and charter: to save lives. Statistics show that when a person is suddenly faced with a medical life-threatening situation, the speed and accuracy of treatment within the first few minutes is crucial to survival. Therefore, it is imperative to have access to immediate professional first aid at the scene of trauma. In Melbourne, the Metropolitan Ambulance Service is the first call to make in such a situation. In my electorate, Hatzolah is the next call.Hatzolah, an emergency first aid service, operates at the moment within two areas of my electorate, Caulfield and St Kilda, and has an average three-minute response time. A team of highly trained—by the Metropolitan Ambulance Service—first aid specialists is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with sophisticated and advanced medical emergency equipment. On arrival, the Hatzolah team will immediately commence emergency treatment until the ambulance arrives.The Hatzolah team, 19 currently in Caulfield and St Kilda, are highly trained to treat most medical emergencies. They have the highest level of accreditations from the Ambulance Officers Training Centre. All cars are equipped with approximately $20,000 worth of the latest lifesaving devices including defibrillators, oxygen resuscitators and other medical aids.Hatzolah has an audited response time of two minutes. In 1996, its first year of operation, it attended 180 calls; in its second year, 1997, it attended 310 calls; and in its third year, 1998, it attended 414 calls.It is important to note that all its cars, equipment and training have been acquired as a result of self-funding from donations, and to date these have been in the order of $600,000 plus. No funds have been provided by local council, state or federal governments. It is imperative to add that this service is totally free. No membership fees or charges exist and, as stated previously, the paramount aim is the act of saving a life.The origin of Hatzolah was in the local Jewish community, but over the past few years many others within the Melbourne Ports community have also freely availed themselves of this excellent service—as all locals are free to do. The origin of Hatzolah, its funding and expansion can be directly attributed to four young men: Mark Ernst, Ruvi Herzog, Yumi Friedman and Eli Benedikt.In conclusion, let me pay special tribute to my dear friends Moish and Vicki Gordon, whose family's philanthropy has supported Hatzolah over the years. As the federal member for Melbourne Ports, I express the gratitude of all people in the electorate and our pride in this service that goes about its job quietly, efficiently and professionally. Well done, Hatzolah.447609:55:004476Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise today on behalf of over 10,000 15- to 20-year-olds who live in my electorate of Forde. Many of these energetic and enthusiastic young people have had their jobs put at risk because of the ridiculous action of Labor and the Democrats in blocking the government's youth wages bill in the Senate a few weeks ago.Last week I attended two meetings of our local chambers of commerce at Logan Village and Beaudesert. These rural communities battled for years under the former Labor government. I strongly support our local chambers, who do a great job, and I attend as many meetings as possible so I am kept up to date on how small business people are thinking.These business owners, employers—most of them parents—are shaking their heads over Labor's decision to abolish youth wages. They find it absolutely incredible that, at a time when youth unemployment is a major concern, Labor is putting at risk the jobs of over 400,000 young Australians. It seems that Labor really is not interested in helping young Australians. Not only did it create the problem, but now it will not help fix it.Perhaps Labor believes in some twisted way that, if our youth unemployment gets worse, some political benefit will be provided to Labor at the next election. This is not a difficult conclusion to draw—there can be no other logical reason for Labor's position, unless we look at the trade union movement's position. It is not surprising, they are exactly the same: Labor is bound hand and foot to the union movement. There cannot be any other reason for playing with the lives of our young Australians who are just trying to get a start in their working life.Last week, when I was talking to our local business people, parents and young people about this important issue, what was Kim Beazley doing? He was unveiling his so-called vision to try to poly-fill the widening cracks in his leadership, but he refused to keep the current youth wages system as an important issue.His vision was about looking after Labor's noisy interest groups and paying some token amount for finding and keeping a job—implying that some sort of bonus was the only way to motivate people into finding a job, implying that long-term unemployed people are lazy and are motivated only by the almighty dollar. I can tell the Labor Party leader that the best incentive for people to get and keep a job is the feeling of self-worth, motivation and security they get as a result. It is an insult to suggest that waving a few hundred dollars would be a solution.High school retention rates have increased under the Howard government, and we all know that a solid education is a very important prerequisite in finding lasting jobs. But that does not suit everyone. I have raised eight adult children—some have gone on to university, some left school at years 10 and 12 and went on to apprenticeships, some commenced work as soon as they left school and others have gone on to further study at TAFE.We must recognise that there is not one prescriptive measure to ensure success for all young people, because everyone is unique and has different abilities. Labor's elitist view of the world fails to recognise this simple truth. A lot of traditional Labor voters I have spoken to are angry that today's Labor looks down at anyone who does not have a university degree. I am proud to be part of a government that is providing young people with more apprenticeships. (Time expired)UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills4477r687Billsr688Billsr686Billsr683Billsr681BillsBillsBillsBills4477Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:004477O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—by leave—The amendments that we are considering today were introduced by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry at quite late notice in the previous debate on the primary industries legislation. I would just put on the public record the question of why these amendments were shanghaied into the legislation at the last minute. Is this the responsibility of the minister's office, or is the responsibility of the department? We would be very interested to know exactly why, when a piece of legislation has been on the books for a long time, at the eleventh hour the minister suddenly comes into the chamber and puts to us a plethora of amendments to the legislation.I just make the point that we are not going to challenge the amendments that have been made. They are functional amendments dealing with amounts in the legislation, typographical errors and changes to names as industry bodies have restructured. They are sensible amendments, but I am interested in the justification for introducing these amendments provided to the coalition in the speaking points which the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry kindly made available to me. I have to say that it is pretty flimsy.I could not make a lot of sense of some of it. Firstly, it said that amalgamating a levies and charges bill from 40 to two has enabled industry to make comparisons and seek greater consistency in the legislation. I suppose that would be a normal thing to happen if you amalgamated 50 bills into five, so I am just wondering why it took so long for the government to generate these amendments. The second reason given was that industry is dynamic and changing and that this gives us an opportunity to make amendments in a timely manner. If that is not gobbledegook, I do not know what is.But given the fact that this legislation needs to go through at this time, I should state this: given the situation the government found itself in on this legislation, dropping it on the opposition at the last moment, we did get from the minister's office a high degree of cooperation in dealing with this and in presenting it at the last debate we had. I express my appreciation to the minister for that cooperation.That does not absolve the government from the larger responsibility of seeing that, when legislation is before the parliament over a long period of time, amendments are given to the opposition in sufficient time for us to debate them. I will not go into the amendments. I understand the minister wants them to go through fairly quickly, and we will cooperate in that regard. We will not be opposing any of the amendments that he has put to this committee.10:07:004478Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—in reply—I thank the opposition for their consideration in getting this package of bills through. The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 , the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998 , the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 , the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 and the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 are important bills.When I introduced this package of bills to parliament, I noted that it would make the law more accessible to those involved in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The singular achievement of the PILA legislation is the amalgamation of 40 primary industry levy and charge acts into two main bills. This will reduce the call on the time of parliament and the public sector for the often involved process of making changes to levies and charges by reducing the number of imposition acts that will have to be amended to effect changes in the future.The other important aspect of the PILA legislation is that it provides a framework for future levies and charges to be imposed by regulation. This will enable the government to better service industry by simplifying the processes and reducing the long lead times surrounding changes to levies and charges and by being more flexible and responsive to industry requests for such changes as well as for new or additional levies. The streamlining of the administration of levies and charges legislation will also introduce new efficiencies in the public sector.It is important to note that the government intends that the regulation introducing new levies will be required to be accompanied by a report setting out the extent to which the proposed levy or charge complies with the government's general principles for new primary industry levies and charges when tabled in the parliament and will be subject to disallowance by parliament. In addition, the Office of Regulation Review examines new levies through its regulation impact process and a regulation impact statement is required for each new levy or charge.Industry is supportive of the PILA legislation because it will streamline the process of amending levy rates and introducing new levies. Many sectors have taken the opportunity to request minor amendments to the legislation while it is before the parliament.Essentially, these amendments have involved minor tidying up and reflecting changes within industry sectors which have occurred since their legislation was last before parliament. There have been some substantive changes, however. At the request of industry, the national residue survey cattle transaction levy has been changed so that the grass-fed and lot-fed components can be separately and clearly identified. The maximum levy rates for the dried fruit industry and the levy and charge rates for the honey industries have been increased at the request of those industries. I must stress that these changes do not affect the current amount of levy or charge presently paid by those industries and that, if and when the industries do seek to change their operative rates at some stage in the future, they will have to ensure that the government's levy principles and the regulation impact statement requirements are met.I would point out, though, that the government has been pleased to show that it is responsive to industry requests by moving these amendments. In addition, the government has introduced some minor technical amendments to correct deficiencies and improve the legislation. In conclusion, the government's initiative in introducing the PILA legislation represents a major step forward in the administration of primary industries levies and charges.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4479Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:07:004479Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 34:(1) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 11 to 22), omit the definition of growers' organisation , substitute: growers' organisation means: (a) in relation to grain harvested from triticale—the organisation known as the Triticale Grain Association of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; and (b) in relation to any grain other than grain harvested from triticale—the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph. [Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—definition of growers' organisation](2) Schedule 4, page 17 (line 24), omit "$50", substitute "$25". [Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—definition of leviable amount](3) Schedule 4, page 20 (line 26), omit "5%", substitute "3%". [Clause 6 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—maximum rate of levy](4) Schedule 4, page 20 (line 30), omit "5%", substitute "3%". [Clause 6 of Schedule 4 (coarse grains)—maximum rate of levy](5) Schedule 9, page 44 (lines 10 and 11), omit "dried currant grapes, dried sultana grapes or dried raisin grapes", substitute "dried grapes". [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—definition of dried vine fruits](6) Schedule 9, page 44 (lines 13 to 18), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—definition of R&D authority](7) Schedule 9, page 45 (line 21), omit "$10.00", substitute "$15.00". [Clause 4 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—maximum rate of levy on dried vine fruits](8) Schedule 9, page 45 (line 22), omit "$30.00", substitute "$50.00". [Clause 4 of Schedule 9 (dried fruits)—maximum rate of levy on dried tree fruits](9) Schedule 12, page 53 (line 11), omit "$50", substitute "$25". [Clause 1 of Schedule 12 (grain legumes)—definition of leviable amount](10) Schedule 13, page 58 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of representative organisation . [Clause 1 of Schedule 13 (grapes)—definition of representative organisation](11) Schedule 14, page 62 (lines 9 and 10), omit "Federal Council of Australian Apiarists' Associations", substitute "Australian Honey Bee Industry Council". [Clause 1 of Schedule 14 (honey)—definition of producers' organisation](12) Schedule 14, page 62 (lines 14 to 19), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 14 (honey)—definition of R&D authority](13) Schedule 14, page 64 (line 23), omit "1.80 cents", substitute "0.00 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](14) Schedule 14, page 64 (line 27), omit "0.25 cent", substitute "0.75 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](15) Schedule 14, page 64 (line 28), omit "0.75 cent", substitute "1.50 cents". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—maximum rate of levy](16) Schedule 14, page 65 (line 1), omit "1.80 cents", substitute "0.00 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](17) Schedule 14, page 65 (line 5), omit "0.25 cent", substitute "0.75 cent". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—operative rate of levy](18) Schedule 14, page 65 (line 6), omit "0.75 cent", substitute "1.50 cents". [Clause 4 of Schedule 14 (honey)—maximum rate of levy](19) Schedule 16, page 75 (line 14), omit "producer of the chickens", substitute "proprietor of the hatchery where the chickens are hatched". [Clause 5 of Schedule 16 (laying chickens)—payer of levy](20) Schedule 19, page 87 (lines 14 to 19), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—definition of R&D authority](21) Schedule 19, page 88 (lines 3 to 10), omit clause 2. [Clause 2 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—meaning of meat chicken](22) Schedule 19, page 89 (line 17), after "Federation", insert "Incorporated". [Clause 6 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—regulations](23) Schedule 19, page 89 (line 22), after "Federation", insert "Incorporated". [Clause 6 of Schedule 19 (meat chickens)—regulations](24) Schedule 20, page 91 (line 11), omit "$50", substitute "$25". [Clause 1 of Schedule 20 (oilseeds)—definition of leviable amount](25) Schedule 21, page 96 (before line 7), before the definition of leviable seed , insert: growers' organisation means the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this definition. [Clause 1 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—definition](26) Schedule 21, page 96 (line 7), omit "specified cultivar", substitute "species specified in the table in subclause 5(1)". [Clause 1 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—definition of leviable seed](27) Schedule 21, page 96 (lines 8 to 11), omit the definition of specified cultivar . [Clause 1 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—definition](28) Schedule 21, page 96 (line 20), omit "of a cultivar", substitute "species". [Clause 3 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—rate of levy](29) Schedule 21, page 97 (line 2), omit "cultivars", substitute "species".Note: The heading to clause 5 of Schedule 21 (page 97, line 1) is altered by omitting "cultivars " and substituting "species ". [Clause 5 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—table of pasture seeds](30) Schedule 21, pages 97 to 102 (table), omit the table, substitute: Kind of plant and rate of levy ItemSpeciesCommon nameRate of levy1 Medicago littoralisStrand medic$10.00/tonne 2 Medicago murexMurex medic$10.00/tonne3 Medicago polymorphaBurr medic$10.00/tonne 4 Medicago rugosaGama medic$10.00/tonne 5 Medicago sativaLucerne$14.00/tonne 6 Medicago scutellataSnail medic$10.00/tonne 7 Medicago sphaerocarposSphere medic$10.00/tonne8 Medicago tornataDisc medic$10.00/tonne 9 Medicago truncatulaBarrel medic$10.00/tonne 10 Ornithopus compressusYellow serradella$10.00/tonne 11 Trifolium alexandriumBerseem clover$12.50/tonne 12 Trifolium balansaeBalansa clover$12.50/tonne13 Trifolium fragiferumStrawberry clover$12.50/tonne 14 Trifolium hirtumRose clover$12.50/tonne 15 Trifolium pratenseRed clover$12.50/tonne 16 Trifolium repensWhite clover$12.50/tonne 17 Trifolium resupinatumPersian clover$12.50/tonne 18 Trifolium semipilosumKenya white clover$12.50/tonne19 Trifolium subterraneumSubterranean clover$11.00/tonne 20 Trifolium vesiculosumArrow leaf clover$12.50/tonne [Clause 5 of Schedule 21 (pasture seeds)—table of pasture seeds](31) Schedule 22, page 104 (lines 11 to 16), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 22 (pig slaughter)—definition of R&D authority](32) Schedule 25, page 116 (before line 7), before the definition of value , insert: growers' organisation means the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia or such other organisation as is prescribed for the purposes of this definition. [Clause 1 of Schedule 25 (wheat)—definition](33) Schedule 25, page 117 (line 19), omit "5%", substitute "3%". [Clause 5 of Schedule 25 (wheat)—rate of levy](34) Schedule 25, page 117 (lines 28 and 29), omit "Grains Council of Australia", substitute "growers' organisation". [Clause 7 of Schedule 25 (wheat)—regulations]The purpose of these amendments is to reflect changes in industry, respond to the industry requests to increase the maximum charge rate on the export of honey and introduce minor technical amendments to improve the legislation. Amendments to the schedules covering coarse grains, grain legumes, oilseeds, pasture seed and wheat are intended to introduce consistency across the grains industries in relation to the definitions of growers' organisations and the annual levy liability threshold.The maximum levy rate for leviable coarse grains and wheat will be reduced from five per cent to three per cent to maintain consistency with the maximum rates for grain legumes and oilseeds and to take account of industry changes. In the case of wheat, this change reflects the cessation from 1 July 1999 of the Wheat Industry Fund component of the wheat levy, which was two per cent of the maximum five per cent levy rate. For coarse grains the change corrects an anomaly which arose when coarse grains were changed to an ad valorem rate and the maximum levy rate was set at the same level as for wheat rather than at the more relevant figure of three per cent, which applied to other research only levies.The Dried Fruits Research and Development Council and the Australian Dried Fruits Association Inc., the peak industry body, have requested that the maximum levy rates for dried vine fruits be increased from $10 to $15 per tonne and from $30 to $50 per tonne for dried tree fruits, and that the definition of dried vine fruits be extended to include new grape varieties and existing table grape varieties which are increasingly being dried, processed and marketed. The operative levy rate is currently set at the same level as the maximum levy rate. Therefore, there would be no scope to meet industry's request for an increase in the operative levy rate in the absence of this amendment.The Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, supported by the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, has requested that the maximum levy rates for the research component of the sale of honey and on honey used in the production of other goods be increased. Again, the operative levy rate is currently set at the same level as the maximum levy rate, and there is no scope for an increase in the operative levy rate in the absence of this amendment.The industry has also requested that the operative levy rates applying to the research component be amended to reflect the fact that these have been set at 0.75c per kilogram by regulation since 1998. The industry has requested that the operative levy rate applying to the marketing component of the sale of honey and on honey used in the production of other goods be amended to reflect the fact that these have been set at zero by regulation since 1995.Increasing the maximum rates for dried fruit and honey at this time will allow operative rates to be increased without the need for further amendment to this legislation in the foreseeable future. However, any operative rate increase will be through regulatory change and thus subject to scrutiny by parliament. The increases in the maximum levy rates do not have any direct financial implications for Commonwealth funding at this time.In line with the aim of the PILA legislation to improve the efficiency of the administration of levies and charges, the process for making changes to the levy on pasture seeds will be simplified by amending clause 5 of schedule 21 so that only nominated species, rather than cultivars, should be included in the list of leviable seeds. All cultivars of a species are subject to the same rate of pasture seed levy. This change, which has been requested by the relevant growers organisation, the Grains Council of Australia, will remove the need for keeping the cultivar list up to date, which is a time consuming task for the industry.Other minor policy changes include amending the definition of who pays the levy on laying chickens to reflect the fact that the owner of the hatchery is responsible for the payment of the levy and repealing a redundant definition of meat chickens and amending references to the Australian Chicken Meat Federation to reflect the fact that this organisation is an incorporated body.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4483r6884483Consideration resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4483Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:12:004483Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 4:(1) Schedule 9, page 31 (line 10), omit "Federal Council of Australian Apiarists' Associations", substitute "Australian Honey Bee Industry Council". [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (honey)—definition of producers' organisation](2) Schedule 9, page 31 (lines 14 to 19), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of R&D authority . [Clause 1 of Schedule 9 (honey)—definition of R&D authority](3) Schedule 9, page 32 (line 20), omit "0.50 cent", substitute "0.75 cent". [Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (honey)—operative rate of charge](4) Schedule 9, page 32 (line 21), omit "0.75 cent", substitute "1.50 cents". [Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (honey)—maximum rate of charge]The purpose of these amendments is to reflect changes in the honey industry and to respond to the industry's requests to increase the maximum charge rate on the export of honey and to introduce a minor technical amendment to improve the legislation. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4484r6864484Consideration resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.10:14:004484Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4484r6834484Consideration resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4484Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:15:004484Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 5:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 2, insert:2A Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 1Omit "that is not a leviable bobby calf", substitute "(other than a head of lot-fed cattle or a leviable bobby calf)".2B After paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 1Insert:(ca) 32 cents per each head of lot-fed cattle or, if another rate (not exceeding 35 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other rate; and [Clause 3 of Schedule 1 (cattle transactions)—rate of levy](2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 15), omit "$50", substitute "$25".[Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (coarse grain)—definition of leviable amount](3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 6, insert:6A Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (definition of dried vine fruits)Omit "dried currant grapes, dried sultana grapes or dried raisin grapes", substitute "dried grapes".6B Clause 1 of Schedule 6 (paragraph (a) of the definition of leviable amount)Omit "$50", substitute "$25".[Clause 1 of Schedule 4 (dried fruits)—definition of dried vine fruits][Clause 1 of Schedule 6 (grain legumes)—definition of leviable amount](4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 8, insert:8A Clause 4 of Schedule 10Omit "producer of the chickens", substitute "proprietor of the hatchery where the laying chickens are hatched".8B Subclause 1(2) of Schedule 12 Repeal the subclause.8C Clause 1 of Schedule 13 (paragraph (a) of the definition of leviable amount)Omit "$50", substitute "$25".[Clause 4 of Schedule 10 (laying chickens)—payer of levy][Clause 1 of Schedule 12 (meat chickens)—meaning of meat chicken][Clause 1 of Schedule 13 (oilseeds)—definition of leviable amount](5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:10 Application of amendments(1) The amendments of Schedule 1 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to: (a) transactions entered into after the commencement of this item by which the ownership of cattle is transferred from one person to another; and (b) deliveries of cattle to processors after the commencement of this item; and (c) slaughter of cattle after the commencement of this item.(2) The amendments of Schedule 2 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to leviable coarse grain delivered or processed after the commencement of this item.(3) The amendments of Schedule 4 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to dried fruits received after the commencement of this item.(4) The amendments of Schedule 6 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to leviable grain legumes delivered or processed after the commencement of this item.(5) The amendments of Schedule 9 to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to: (a) leviable horticultural products sold or used after the commencement of this item; and (b) leviable horticultural products presumed to be produced in Australia after the commencement of this item.The purpose of these amendments is to respond to industry requests to clearly and separately identify the grass-fed and lot-fed components of the NRS cattle transaction levy, so that these sectors of the industry can be levied separately at some future date; to provide for amendments to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 as a consequence of amendments to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998; and to include a clause dealing with the application of the amendments. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4486r6814486Consideration resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4486Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:17:004486Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move government amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), at the end of the Schedule, add:4 Application of amendments(1) The amendments of Schedule 2 to the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to the export of cattle after the commencement of this item.(2) The amendments of Schedule 4 to the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to leviable horticultural products exported after the commencement of this item.(3) The amendments of Schedule 5 to the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998 made by this Schedule apply to the export of sheep, lambs or goats after the commencement of this item. [Item 4—application of amendments]The purpose of this amendment is to remove any doubt about the commencement date of the amendments by including a clause on the application of the amendments. I present the explanatory memorandum.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with an amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4487r732Billsr729Billsr731BillsBills4487Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:19:004487Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—As the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, Mr McGauran, correctly identified when he introduced this package of legislation—the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and two associated bills—these are a series of `unrelated minor amendments which have been requested by the Australian Communications Authority (the ACA) and its predecessors, in consultation with the telecommunications industry and consumers'. These amendments are largely unrelated to each other. They are also essentially technical in nature. In this area, as in very many areas of communications, things which appear technical in nature may well have more substantive measures underneath them.The opposition's view is that, whilst we are very happy for these measures to go through the House and through this Main Committee in a non-controversial way, we are in the process of consulting with the industry to satisfy ourselves and ensure that none of these proposed technical measures cause any difficulty. To give one illustration, the bill proposes to allow the ACA to control emissions to and from domestic and foreign space objects and there is a technical argument as to what the definition of a space object may be.It is almost certainly the case that none of these issues will raise great controversial or contentious matters but, to ensure that they do not, in the other place this matter will be referred to the relevant Senate committee for inquiry. I would be most surprised if that inquiry was not resolved on the papers without the need for any form of public hearing or the like.For the purposes of the debate here, we are happy to support the measures. They are technical in nature. Other than the one item I have referred to, we have not, at this stage, discovered any hidden bombs, so to speak, but we are reserving our rights to do so if consultation with the industry or evidence to the Senate select committee requires us to move any amendments, technical or otherwise. I have indicated this personally to the minister for the arts, who handles these matters in the House. I have also indicated the same to the office of the minister for communications to ensure the focus of the Senate committee's activities will be technical in nature rather than having people think there is some hidden agenda here. We support the measures in that context.10:21:004487Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I thank the member for Perth for the support for this particular legislation and all of the miscellaneous matters that are contained within this particular tranche of bills. The Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999 , Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 1999 and the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 contain various minor amendments aimed at improving the provision of radiocommunication services and telecommunication services in Australia today. The amendments, by and large, are quite unrelated but, taken as a package, they will provide for much more efficient management of the radiocommunications spectrum. With increasing use of the spectrum these days, moving right up into the super high frequencies above 50 gigahertz, it is very important that we are able to efficiently manage that spectrum.It is interesting, however, that, as time goes by, the spectrum that was originally used for the first ever radio transmissions in the world is now by and large quite unused. I am referring, of course, to the frequencies 15 kilohertz through to about 500 kilohertz. By and large, this is used only by a few airport non-directional beacons. There will be some very specific benefits for the industry, for operators and consumers alike.The amendments are a sensible response, and the opposition has acknowledged that, to the practical concerns that have been raised by the industry. They have been raised also by consumers and government. Government is a very significant user of the radiocommunication spectrum in all sorts of ways. There are more and more interesting ways of using that radiocommunications spectrum these days—not only using the normal voice as was the case for so many years.There will also be benefits from the competitive nature of these amendments and they will be able to improve the government's opportunity to deliver innovative services to all Australians at the lowest possible price. That is very important as well.Something else that will come out of this tranche of amendments is the benefit to industry from the greater certainty that will apply. Often because the particular act has been in existence for so many years, it goes out of date very easily and you can easily lose sight of the fact that what is in the act is no longer relevant in these modern times. The changes here, as I have looked over them, are practical changes which will bring back certainty and direct guidance to the users of the radio frequency spectrum, so that there can be an efficient regime for the management of that spectrum.Turning more specifically to some of the provisions that are in this tranche of bills, the first one in relation to space objects is most interesting. Obviously, it is good to see Australia continuing to be up-front there with modern times. I think that we have all seen the mobile phone technology, for example. The iridium satellite system that is up there has 66 low orbiting satellites, from memory, providing that mobile phone technology worldwide. It is very important that the spectrum be protected for the benefit of the users of that technology here in Australia.There are many other satellites, of course, some of which we know about, some of which we do not particularly know about and some we will never know about, that also need to be protected. With deep space objects the signals coming back from so far away are so minute in amplitude that it is very easy to cause interference to those signals. With the tracking stations that we have here in Australia monitoring those deep space objects, we need to make sure that we can protect them and that they are not interfered with. So this is a good move by the government to protect that investment in the future of our country and in the technology that is encompassing us at the moment.The second provision which is interesting is this matter of reflectors. A number of reflectors are in use today. They are passive devices and they redirect the radiocommunications signals, particularly in the microwave band. That redirection could cause interference to other services. This amendment will enable those passive devices to now be incorporated in the protection regime. Previously only active transmitting and receiving devices were protected, but now the passive devices will also be able to be protected. They are a very low cost investment in providing radiocommunications. They are the sort of thing where you put a metal sheet on the top of a very tall building to reflect a signal coming from one direction down to a receiver that would normally not be line of sight.The third provision I am interested in is the delegation of the power to issue certificates of proficiency. The reason I am interested in this is that I do hold three of those certificates of proficiency.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You personally?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I do. The first one I hold is a radio licence. My particular radio station is Victor Kilo Four Tango Oscar. I am able to broadcast on many bands and my certificate of proficiency was issued originally by the PMG, but now these certificates are issued by the ABA. This will allow these certificates to be issued by the examining body. Things have moved on from many years ago. In my case, the modern equivalents of the AOCP, BOCP and TVOCP which I hold will be able to be issued by the examining body.In relation to licence renewal, this has been a loophole in the act. Some people have not renewed their licences and then continued to operate. They choose to pay for their licences only from the time that they then renew their licences. These people have been able to get a period of up to six months or so in which to operate without paying any fees at all. In that sense, this is a very sensible and practical amendment which will enable the government to collect its licence fees in a timely fashion.There are a number of other matters contained in this particular tranche of legislation. They are sensible matters and I would commend them to the Main Committee.10:30:004489McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—in reply—I wish to thank the member for Perth, Mr Stephen Smith, and the member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay, for their contributions, both very worth while and constructive, during this debate on the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . Sadly I missed the contribution of the member for Perth because I was in the chamber itself on House duty, but, as I understand it from private conversations, it was essentially that the legislation has a qualified pass. Is this the Labor Party hedging their bets again in that they cannot see any obvious faults, failing or misdemeanours in this legislation but, nonetheless, they reserve judgment until a Senate committee can examine it in fine detail?Far be it for me to deprive Her Majesty's loyal opposition from fulfilling its full responsibilities to properly scrutinise government legislation and hold the executive accountable, but I think it is fairly self-evident that this legislation, being of a technical housekeeping nature, exactly fixes any uncertainties or ambiguities even, dare I say, loopholes in the legislation.If the opposition's concern is that there has been insufficient consultation and there needs to be an extended further period which they will provide by way of reference to the Senate committee, I am quick to assure the opposition that many months consultation has taken place with industry in the preparation of the amendments that now form part of the Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. I think it is extremely well drafted legislation. It is exactly what the industry needs to provide certainty for their very considerable investments and, because of the consultation period, the opposition can be assured that we are happy to provide any information that the Senate inquiry and indeed, the Senate itself, may require of us. I can assure the member for Perth, who himself is a very thorough and, indeed, exacting individual in his approach to work, that we have crossed all the t's and dotted all of the i's.Allow me to summarise, Madam Deputy Speaker, the legislation before the chamber. The government is very proud to establish, in a way our predecessors never did, a pro-competitive telecommunications regulatory framework which encourages new entrants, promotes diversity of services and providers, allows for vigorous but fair competition and protects the interests of consumers.How stark is the contrast with the previous Labor governments? They were slow to reform; it was almost impossible to protect the interests of consumers in relation to the partial entry of new competitors. Look, let us not be distracted. They are gone, they are buried and they are not coming back for the foreseeable future. Consistent with this policy of the government, the government supports the introduction, where practical and technically feasible, of new and innovative services and efficient usage of associated radio spectrum frequencies.As many members know, I would hope, the regulatory framework for spectrum management is set out in the Radiocommunications Act of 1992 and associated legislation. The major principles underlying the Radiocommunications Act of 1992 include technological neutrality and indeed, in general, neutrality on the uses to which the spectrum is put.The bill before the chamber contains various minor amendments that have been requested over several years by the Australian Communications Authority, and the ACA's predecessors, in consultation with the telecommunications industry and consumers. They are, as is obvious, largely unrelated but designed to clarify some possible ambiguities, to finetune aspects of some parts of the act, to increase flexibility, to address some potential loopholes, and to reduce some red tape. The amendments make the existing act clearer and work better. In short, they reflect the good housekeeping nature and efforts of this government. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4490r7294490Consideration resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4491r7314491Consideration resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4491s200Consideration resumed from 11 March.449110:37:004491Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill represents an important moment in the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia. The bill encompasses the first component of a package of reforms designed to provide a new and appropriate framework for the regulation and management of complementary medicines.The bill that I am presenting today includes the legislative component of complementary medicine reforms. While cutting a lot of regulatory red tape for industry, this bill will ensure that through a system of responsible regulation, the Australian public can be confident that the medicines they consume and the medical devices that they use are safe and of a high quality.In summary, the bill makes amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in three key respects. Firstly, it amends key definitions in the act to provide greater clarity and certainty in relation to the application of the legislation. Secondly, it includes amendments which acknowledge the shift of focus from pre-market clearance to post-market vigilance for low-risk listable goods. Thirdly, the bill includes a new part in the act that establishes a statutory body—the existing Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee.The reforms provide a unique opportunity to achieve a cooperative approach to health care and provide assurances to the Australian public that the medicines they consume are safe and of a high quality. I commend the bill to the Committee and present an explanatory memorandum.10:38:004491Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—As the government is aware, the opposition is supportive of the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , and I largely endorse the comments made by the minister. This is the first step in a three-step process, basically, around the question of reform in respect to complementary medicines, this being the legislative component. The opposition has no problem with what has been proposed in the legislation.However, I want to go beyond that slightly and elaborate on some comments that the minister made. This industry is a very important industry in relation to the overall health care of Australians. Over 60 per cent of Australians are estimated to use complementary health care products at least once a year. The Australian complementary health care industry has an estimated turnover annually of over $1 billion and approximately 17,000 complementary health care products are on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. There are an estimated 6,000 complementary medical practitioners in Australia.As you can see from all that—and these are well-known statistics that have been quoted by a number of speakers on this industry in the past and no doubt will be into the future as it grows—it is an industry that does have a very important role to play with respect to health care in this country.A recent newsletter from the Complementary Healthcare Council of Australia, in talking about things that have to be done in the future, states:The second task is to amend the Therapeutic Goods Regulations to provide the detail on how the new proposals will be implemented. More than one set of changes to the regulations will be needed as different parts of the package are negotiated and agreed. Drafting instructions have been provided to CHC for consideration of the first round of changes. Another round will be necessary when the Advertising Code review is completed.The third and much larger task is to review the various Codes, Guidelines, Policy documents, Orders, etc. that make up the administrative and procedural instructions for regulation of our products. TGA have advised that the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code is to have the highest priority. Consultants are commencing work on this review immediately with a view to having it completed early in the second half of the year.What we are seeing here is a situation which, as far as this legislation goes, is fine. But such issues as the membership of the Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee are not stipulated in the act; they go to the regulations.There have been undertakings given by the government to a range of groups and organisation in the industry, around the question of what that representation will be. I am confident the government will honour those sorts of commitments. Certainly that is something that needs to happen in the future, because for the CMEC to continue working well it needs to be broadly representative, along the lines of the way it has commenced operation.The opposition supports this legislation but will watch with interest as the other developments in reforms in this area occur. This industry is crucial to the overall provision of health care in Australia. As far as this bill goes, we are supportive of what the government has done, but we will be watching with interest any developments that occur in the future. I commend the bill to the House.10:42:004492Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—It is estimated that over half of all Australians use complementary medicines at least once a year. Complementary medicines include vitamins, minerals, and herbal, naturopathic and/or homoeopathic preparations with therapeutic properties—things like echinacea and even Berocca.The acceptance and use of complementary medicines is rapidly growing in Australia. It is estimated that there are approximately 17,000 complementary health care products on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and approximately 6,000 complementary medicine practitioners in Australia. Only through maintaining and promoting consumer confidence can growth occur in complementary medicines. The Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 contains reforms to promote confidence in the complementary medicine market.The credibility of the industry in the consumer's eyes is vital to maintain the high level of consumer confidence in complementary medicines. I believe the government and the industry have found a balance between improving market access and consumer confidence. Above all, the industry and the government are cooperating to ensure public health and safety.This bill makes a number of legislative and regulatory amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, including reforms for the complementary medicines industry. These reforms relate to market access and the regulatory environment and allowing for greater participation of experts in the industry in the regulation of complementary health care products.Measures in this bill are a result of consultations undertaken by a working party chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Aged Care, Senator the Hon. Grant Tambling. The working party was composed of government, industry and consumer representatives. Over 30 peak body organisations were consulted and the key stakeholders have endorsed all of the amendments to the legislation.I will outline the key components of the bill. Firstly, there are amendments to definitions. The bill amends key definitions in the Therapeutic Goods Act so that it improves the interpretation between foods, complementary medicines and prescription medicines. It also allows for a more streamlined and efficient process of the listing of substances. It amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to emphasise post-market vigilance instead of pre-market clearance for listable items. That is helping business and cutting red tape by enabling sponsors of relatively low risk products to market such products without undue delay. It does this by providing a more streamlined and efficient process for the listing of substances on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.Once the Therapeutics Goods Administration is satisfied that a substance is low risk, it may be eligible for listing on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. At present this requires changes to the regulation. This is cumbersome and time consuming for businesses. The amendments in this bill propose the use of a gazetting type of mechanism instead of the present regulatory change. Let me emphasise that this amendment does not mean that there will be marketing of less safe products and products whose therapeutic claims cannot be backed up. The bill reinforces the existing requirement that all sponsors must hold evidence to substantiate therapeutic claims made in the marketplace.The bill also establishes two non-statutory committees—the Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee, which currently provides advice on complementary medicines to the Therapeutic Goods Administration on an administrative basis, and the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee, which is currently a committee of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council—as statutory bodies. The establishment of the Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee is an acknowledgment of the growing complementary medicine industry. There is a need for the government to have access to expertise in complementary medicines. By establishing the Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee as a statutory body, it creates an opportunity for more expert, timely and relevant input into the evaluation of medicines. The scheduling of substances by the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee has public health and commercial implications. The bill details the functions, government representation and decision making criteria of the committee.The bill also describes offences and penalties relating to the publication of certain advertisements in mainstream print media. This amendment proposes to add a new part to the Therapeutic Goods Act that describes the offences and penalties where there is an advertisement in the mainstream media without pre-clearance. This bill ensures that the public can be confident that complementary medicines are safe, effective and high quality. This is an important bill. It is perhaps a reflection on the non-controversial nature of the bill that speeches on it have, by and large, been brief and without any acrimony.What the bill does is add to the priority areas for the government in health which include things like medical research—we have just had an excellent report from Dr Wills which recommends strategies for the government on ways to improve medical research and improve what we are doing there. Also, in the area of rural health the government has had a number of innovations relating to things like the selection of medical students, relating to exposure of medical students through the John Flynn scholarships while they are undergraduates, and also relating to keeping doctors in country areas when they are already there.This bill deals with an important area. It has been achieved with a lot of consultation and everyone is happy with it. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.10:50:004494Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I wish to speak today to the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . In my electorate of Gilmore, especially in the Kiama region, there are a number of alternative practitioners and general practitioners who suggest to patients the use of complementary medicines. Of course complementary medicines are an important part of Australia's health system. Complementary medicines are used by over 60 per cent of the Australian population and are used for a wide variety of purposes. Today complementary medicines are widely available from health foods stores, pharmacies and practitioners, of which there are many in my electorate. This legislation recognises both the widespread use and the demand by Australians for access to complementary medicines.The complementary medicines industry has been frustrated for a long time with the amount of red tape and hoops that manufacturers and suppliers have been put through. This bill is the first step in getting rid of some of those problems. One good example of improving the system is by streamlining the application process. The Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee is now going to be recognised in legislation and this will give the committee the status it deserves as an expert advisory committee. This committee will comprise some of the best and brightest practitioners and scientists in Australia who understand all about complementary medicines. This committee will also ensure that the health of the consumers will be maintained and that people who take complementary medicines can continue to have confidence in the products that they buy.Another problem that the complementary medicine industry had was with its advertising controls. The reform package which is before us today includes a review of the advertising code. This will certainly assist the people in my electorate who have been demanding for some time that they are recognised for the advertising that they do. Whilst they may not be asking for PBS usage at this stage, that is one of the areas that they would like us to look at and I believe that this is one step forward in gaining that recognition for the alternative medicine practitioners.Industry, government and consumers are all working together to try to get this balance right. This bill acknowledges the importance of complementary medicines in the health care of Australians. This bill has, in the main, been driven by the complementary medicines industry and, in particular, the people of my electorate of Gilmore.10:52:004495Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—in reply—I would like to thank honourable members for their cooperation with this legislation, the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . Reform of complementary medicine regulation has involved considerable negotiation and hard work on the part of many groups and many individuals. I would like to particularly pay tribute to the Complementary Health Care Council and the Proprietary Medicines Association of Australia for their commitment and contribution to this ongoing reform process.You may be interested to learn that since this reform process commenced back in December much has been achieved: the commencement of the review of the therapeutic goods advertising code; the appointment of a director of the Office of Complementary Medicines; a review of the Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee; preliminary work on the establishment of the Complementary Health Care Consultative Committee; discussions initiated with industry on post-market vigilance; extensive work on the redevelopment of the electronic lodgment facility; development of new arrangements to enhance the listing of complementary medicines on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and the preparation of targeted information, including website development, to help explain what these reforms mean and how they will enhance the health choices of Australians. These reforms have been a long time in coming. With your help I believe that we are striking the right balance between the needs of industry and the interests of consumers.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4495s1954495Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:That the bill be now read a second time.10:54:004495Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—This legislation, the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] is to protect the survival of many of the world's critically endangered animal species which are threatened by illegal hunting to obtain their body parts to be used in a range of products and medicinal preparations from eastern Asia. The bill will amend the relevant evidentiary provisions in the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, and its effect will be to strengthen controls on the illegal import, export and possession of products that contain, or purport to contain, endangered animals or plants as component ingredients.The regulations are made pursuant to the ratification of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, otherwise known as CITES. Under the provisions of this convention, Australia is required to control international trade in those species which are threatened with extinction or that may face extinction if such international trade is not controlled.It is often thought that the reason many animals are under threat of extinction is the loss of their natural habitat, as with the giant panda in China. However, the hunting and poaching of endangered animal species for use in the preparation of traditional Chinese or Asian medicines is a significant contributing factor in declining numbers. The tiger and the rhinoceros are well known to be used in traditional preparations in oriental countries like China, Japan and Korea, and they have recently found markets in the developed world. In eastern and southern Africa, the predominant medicine is traditional remedies, and the quantities of endangered animals and plant species required in making these medicines are increasing with the growing demand. It is easily understood that such demand on wild plant and rare animal populations leads to depletion and possible extinction.It is only in relatively recent times that the world community has realised the extent of the problem. The vast majority of medicinal animals and plants are collected from the wilderness areas. These species, which demand our protection, include the tiger, the rhinoceros, the musk deer and certain types of orchid.This legislation was made under the convention, which is the primary international instrument for the protection of such rare species and was ratified by Australia on 29 July 1976. The parties to the convention met in Harare, Zimbabwe in June 1997 for their 10th conference and acknowledged that the controlled use of wild species in traditional preparations was likely to threaten not only the survival of those precious species but also the continuation of important traditional indigenous medicinal practices.The parties at the conference decided on four points of consensus: firstly, to eliminate illegal use of endangered species as medicinal substances; secondly, to ensure that national laws control the use of these species; thirdly, to encourage the promotion of substitutes for threatened medicinal wildlife; and, fourthly, to consider artificial propagation and captive breeding programs.This legislation gives effect to Australia's obligations under the convention and is the legislative base for conservation types of controls on the export and import of wildlife and wildlife products. It could be said that the wide aim of this bill is to ensure that all trade in wildlife species is pursued in a sustainable way that is not contrary to the survival of the species or the ecosystems in which they occur. The parties to the convention were aware that all nations had to participate in the protection of the world's wildlife and that each nation had a vested interest in the survival of all animals.The decline in the number of tigers is telling. There were over 100,000 tigers at the beginning of this century, yet today it is estimated that fewer than 5,000 tigers remain in their natural state. The rhinoceros has seen a similar alarming decline, from 70,000 in the late 1960s to less than 12,000 today. In Australia, we are seeing a growth in the demand for traditional Eastern medicines as an alternative to Western medicine and many of those traditional preparations either contain or claim to contain endangered species as part of their constituents. And this is even so despite the fact that alternatives to the use of endangered species are now available.Between 1996 and 1998, there were over 3,000 seizures of traditional medicine product imports containing or derived from threatened species. Of these, over 500 were animal species, including several significant species on the highly endangered list such as tigers, bears and rhinoceroses. These seizures reveal a huge problem in the illegal international trade in traditional medicines which contain derivatives of endangered animals, hence the urgent need for this important legislation.I was rather amazed to learn of the extent of the recourse to traditional medicine by Australians today. It would appear that the diverse communities from many other countries and who now call Australia home utilise traditional preparations as an important part of their health care regimes. In 1996, it was estimated that there were over 4,500 traditional medical practitioners in the eastern states of Australia alone who gave 2.8 million traditional medicine consultations each year. This represents an astonishing turnover of $85 million. And this trend is increasing. The practice of traditional medicine is seen more and more as a viable alternative to Western medicine.In 1993, a study estimated that Australians spent $621 million on alternative medicines in the years 1992 to 1993. I was alarmed to learn of the great variety of threatened species which have been used in traditional medicinal preparations that have been imported into Australia. In the years from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1998, the seizures of traditional medicines which contained endangered species included 182 seizures of tiger, 149 of deer, 25 of bear, four of rhinoceros, 61 of leopard, six of cobra, 31 of other snakes, 35 of turtle, 13 of tortoise, six of antelope, four of elephant, four of reptiles, three of wolf, one of seal, one of monkey, one of baboon and one of macaque.There are also items which contain threatened species of plants. These include one seizure of hard coral, 2,590 seizures of ginseng root and three of other plants. Lion paws, zebra skins, elephant tail bracelets and monkey skulls were also seized by customs agents in 1998. There are even developing export markets for certain Australian animals. There are certain Australian animals like pipefish, leafy sea dragons and seahorses which, while they are not listed under the convention, are nonetheless covered by these regulations because of the significant threat to their survival. The internal organs of crocodiles bred in farms in Northern Australia are prized for their medicinal properties and in an Australian Associated Press report of 11 November 1998, journalist Gil Beitkreutz heralded that crocodile penises may become the Viagra of the East.I want to make it clear to those who work in the traditional medical sector that the government recognises that there is a vast and genuine demand for such products in Australia and it respects the rights of choice of all Australians in regard to their health and their wellbeing. The government also respects the vast wealth of knowledge and expertise offered by practitioners of traditional medicine and the significant contributions the sector has made to health in Australia and, indeed, throughout the world.However, it is internationally recognised that, as well as habitat loss, the greatest threat to the rapidly declining numbers of certain species is the demand for their use as constituents in traditional medicines. The hunting and poaching, especially of the tiger and rhinoceros, will continue while this demand remains. This legislation will work to eliminate such demand from Australian markets.There are now many effective alternatives to the use of these endangered animals in the preparation of alternative medicines. These alternatives have been recognised by the traditional medicine sector, so this will also lessen the demand. The promotion of these alternatives among the traditional medicine community is also being supported by our government.It should also be noted that this legislation will catch those imports which may be imitations of an endangered species yet claim to include an authentic threatened species. This legislation removes the need to prove that the medicine includes endangered plants or animals, a requirement which in the past has meant that no-one has been prosecuted in the 16 years since the legislation was introduced originally. The government considers that even products which contain imitations of endangered species only serve to encourage market demand for those endangered species and that, in turn, encourages the illegal poaching and further threatens their survival.This government is determined to provide for the protection of the whole of the Australian environment and the world environment, especially those aspects that are a matter of national environmental significance, to promote ecologically sustainable development and to assist in the cooperative implementation of Australia's international environmental responsibilities. This bill will be of profound interest to the wildlife protection community in Australia. I point out that the convention has proved to be a useful tool in the protection of wildlife and Australia is on the record as having a positive commitment to its implementation. I commend this bill to the House.11:04:004498Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] before us today strengthens the current legal provisions that implement obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973, otherwise known as the CITES convention. The convention seeks to ban international trade in endangered species. Australia embraced the convention and other measures regarding the export and import of wildlife and trade in wildlife products in the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 that was introduced by the Fraser government.The amending bill before the House seeks to strengthen the current protection of endangered wildlife by extending the prohibition on products that contain an endangered species by making it a criminal offence to claim that a product contains material from endangered species. Under this bill it will be illegal to import, export or possess a product that claims to contain material from an endangered species.Why is this important? One-quarter of the world's population embrace traditional Chinese medicines. Beyond that, there are traditional medicines that come with long histories from parts of the world such as South Africa, India and China, and even our own bush medicine traditions of the indigenous Australians. The demand for traditional medicine is rising dramatically as Western industrialised countries, such as our own, have begun incorporating the alternative medicines into our lifestyles and as populations of communities which have historically relied on traditional medicines have steadily grown.The World Wide Fund for Nature has reported that the World Health Organisation estimates that up to 80 per cent of the world's population still rely on medicinal plants and animals for their primary health care needs. The WWF reports also that the herbal medicine business in the European Union alone accounts for $US4 billion of trade each year. In Australia the alternative health industry is now a billion dollar a year industry which 57 per cent of Australians have drawn upon in the past 12 months. I suppose I would include myself in that with the thankfully odourless garlic tablets that keep the lurgies that you get from Canberra at bay—at least I hope they do.In 1996, there was thought to be 4,500 traditional medicine practitioners in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland alone and 2.8 million traditional medicine consultations each year. We are not talking about a small area of activity; we are certainly not talking about a small area of interest. This is something that affects a vast number of Australians. In particular, traditional Chinese medicine has become very popular in this part of the world and in Western cultures. It is also estimated that imports of Chinese herbal medicine have increased 100 per cent annually since 1993. As I mentioned earlier, the growing healthy lifestyle emphasis, the interest in non-pharmaceutical health promotion products and dietary supplements contribute to there being approximately 1,500 Chinese medicine practitioners in Australia alone.Why the growth, Madam Deputy Speaker, in traditional medicines? There are a number of reasons for it. One is that we are interested in trying to put as few pharmaceuticals into our bodies as we can. The long histories that have supported the use of traditional medicines give us something to think about when we look at some of the pharmaceutical products that we tend to consider for our health needs.It is a fact that the list of threatened endangered flora and fauna is growing ever longer. Some aspects of traditional medicine are partly to blame for increasing the threat of extinction of endangered species, purely because of their popularity. Traditional medicine is not the only motivation for poachers to kill endangered species but, sadly, it can be a significant contributing factor in many nations.How big is the problem of illegal trade in endangered species? From 1996 through to 1998, there were 3,000 seizures of traditional medicine products in Australia which contained or claimed to contain products derived from endangered species. While the vast majority were plant species such as ginseng, cactus, orchids and I think it is cycads—but someone can correct me if I am wrong there—more than 500 were animal species including some of the world's most endangered or threatened animals such as tigers, bears, rhinoceroses, leopards and turtles, as my colleague the member for Hughes, Mrs Vale, mentioned earlier.However, there have been no prosecutions under the wildlife protection act that involved illegally imported traditional medicine products containing material from endangered species. Why we have had that vast number of seizures but no prosecutions is the reason that we are discussing this bill today. The major impediment to a successful prosecution is that current forensic technology is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that traditional medicines contain material from endangered species as claimed on their packaging. DNA testing cannot identify a specific species once material from that species has been combined, co-mingled, heated and treated at high temperatures to produce the product. It is interesting to think of the US President and the use of DNA technology with some of the recent events surrounding his situation. We have that level of expertise yet when it comes to seeing what is actually combined to produce a so-called traditional medical product, we are not able to identify the component parts.Other jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, where legislation has been introduced that reflects the evidentiary provisions of the bill we are discussing today, have recorded greater success with prosecutions and that is why we are hoping to go that way ourselves.How will this legislation help? Growth in traditional medicines and species survival are on a collision course. The greater the popularity of traditional medicines that draw from endangered species, the greater the threat to those endangered species. Nobody wants to see these species wiped out, certainly not traditional medical practitioners or their patients.I would like to compliment the traditional medical practitioners who have worked very cooperatively with the government to produce this bill, recognising that they have a shared interest and responsibility in what we are discussing today. However, species will be lost unless we can reduce the demand for products from endangered species. Reducing demand for these products is a worldwide responsibility, and the changes outlined in this bill will ensure that Australia will continue to meet its responsibilities under the CITES convention. Similar legislation is being implemented in other countries that are also parties to the CITES convention. It acknowledges that merely representing a product as being sourced from an endangered species adds to the demand for poaching that species, and therefore the vulnerability of that species.In addition to this legislation the federal government will be conducting an education campaign to complement the new arrangements. Again, I would like to acknowledge the help of those working in this industry who have contributed to that campaign and who will be helping with its implementation. The government is currently preparing a comprehensive booklet which outlines the CITES convention framework and our own legislation. This booklet will be distributed widely amongst the traditional medicine community.It is not as if we, as a nation, are only looking to others elsewhere to play a role in the traditional medicine field in protecting endangered flora and fauna. I would like to acknowledge the fact that a number of our indigenous communities here have in recent times revised some of their hunting practices and their use of our natural flora to help prevent the extinction of various species. Those species are under threat through no fault of the Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are playing an important role domestically by making sure that what we are talking about today is not an area that we think others only have responsibility for; it is an area that we are also addressing on our home soil.I will have much pleasure in representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage at the second symposium on traditional medicines and endangered species at RMIT in Melbourne on the weekend.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And you'll do it well.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—It is very kind of you to say that. I hope that is the reaction of the crowd who are at the symposium where this bill we are debating today will be of great interest to everybody. At the first symposium held in Sydney in August 1997, a number of speakers addressed the issue of alternatives to endangered species and the need for better communication between traditional medicine practitioners and patients, and those concerned with protecting endangered species. This symposium brings together those interests and that is why it is something that I am more than happy to support.This legislation and other efforts by the government seek to address these issues. We are playing our role as well. Alternatives to endangered species are being canvassed consistently. For example, cultivating alternative sources of the same species is part of the harvesting strategy that many of those involved in the traditional medicine industry are looking at. Also, finding completely different species that have those quintessential characteristics, some of which my colleague the member for Hughes discussed, is also part of the solution. Those different species, not under threat in many cases, are believed to be able to provide the same health benefits. We ought to encourage the investigation and identification of those alternatives. As an example, the Chinese government is currently encouraging the cultivation of medicinal plants as a harvesting exercise and already there are 33,000 hectares under production. Even developing countries are playing an important role. Also, substitutes that have been identified include buffalo horn for the rhinoceros horn, and pig bone instead of tiger bone.The government looks forward to working with traditional medicine practitioners and patients to find alternatives to endangered species that are in medicines, or said to be in medicines, and to find innovative ways to take the pressure off our endangered species. This is a good day for everybody. This is a win-win proposition. It is good for those concerned about endangered species, it recognises the importance of traditional medicines and alternative medicines, and it embraces the work all of us are doing to try and make sure we have the benefits of those long-established, traditional medicine strategies, as well as looking after endangered flora and fauna. I commend the bill to the committee.11:15:004501Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] amends the principal act to strengthen its ability to control the illegal export, import and possession of materials containing certain endangered species among their ingredients. The need for this has come about because of the difficulties that have been entailed in trying to use the provisions of the original act with regard to, especially, traditional East Asian medicines. This debate is timely, in that the previous piece of legislation before the Main Committee—to do with amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act—acknowledges that traditional medical practices, no matter what their origin, are beginning to be something that people are turning to.A briefing paper prepared by the research departments of the House of Commons, entitled `Endangered Species: CITES, tigers and ivory', research paper 97/45 dated 4 April 1997 from the House of Commons Library, says in part:Over one fifth of the World's population (over one billion people) depend on TCM in varying degrees for their health care, and the development of both western and traditional medicine is required in law by the People's Republic of China. Indeed, the WHO—the World Health Organisation—encourages up to 80% of the world's population to rely on traditional medicines. TCM is gaining credibility in the West; the number of TCM clinics in the UK have trebled to quadrupled in the last three years.I think that if we studied the situation here in Australia we would see a similar picture emerging. Certainly we must not dismiss either those that wish to practise traditional medicine or those that wish to partake of such medicines. Nevertheless, amending legislation is required because it is important that we undertake our international obligations to ensure that endangered species are protected from whatever threat and pressure is placed on them.The way in which the public perceives the impact of traditional medicine on endangered species may have been clouded by a number of notorious examples, one of which was outlined in the National Geographic of January 1996. This example, the use of Asiatic black bears in Chinese medicine, is something that was picked up by the popular media in Australia. The black bear was having its bile milked so as to provide a dried bile which was believed under traditional practices to alleviate liver diseases, and there was a very large market in such places as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. The process was carried out by way of the use of bear farms. It is interesting that throughout this debate there is some question about whether we should be allowing the use of endangered species under controlled circumstances. That gets back to the point that is often made in debates of this nature—that we should be looking at the sustainable use of any species.The other aspect we have to be aware of is the question of appropriate labelling that arises with traditional medicines. This piece of legislation simply says that, if material purports to contain something originating from an endangered species, that is enough to ban its import, export or possession. I think that is fair enough, because difficulties have arisen in trying to do the appropriate testing which would allow this piece of legislation to be used in the courts.In a similar debate in 1995 on an amendment to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 people raised the use of DNA testing—especially, I think, in the case of the importation of endangered birds—which would enable a proper tagging process to enable recognition of what the particular species was. But, as has been stated in this debate, one of the real problems in the preparation of the types of medicine this amendment will cover is that that type of DNA testing is not possible because of heat treatment and other treatments. The way in which practitioners of traditional medicine, especially in East Asia, are trying to ensure that their practices can be acceptable to the wider international community is by looking at how they can substitute other species, for instance water buffalo horn instead of rhinoceros horn. Other, similar suggestions have been made. This indicates that traditional medical practitioners wish to do the right thing. I think they should be given every assistance to enable them to do that.It is interesting that in Asian countries there is a debate similar to the one in Australia about the relative way in which Western medicine and traditional medicine can be used together. I think there is ample evidence that there is a symbiotic relationship between the use of the two styles of medicine. For instance, in a recent discussion that I was able to have with officials from the department of health of the Republic of China—Taiwan—they indicated that one of the difficulties they had in being able to put traditional medicines on their list of available drugs was that they could only list the already prepared medicines, because at least there they could have some guarantee of consistency in what was contained within the preparation. In the more traditional method, where somebody attends a traditional medical practitioner and has something specifically put together for them, those drugs cannot be put on their list because they cannot guarantee the content of the preparation. It is interesting that even in those Asian countries people are trying to come to grips with ways of ensuring the availability of traditional medicine at the same time as ensuring that there is some form of standard.The honourable member for Dunkley mentioned traditional practices of our indigenous people. That is of interest to me, because at the moment I am a supplementary member to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs for the conduct of their inquiry into indigenous health.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—A very important inquiry, that one.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—It is a very important inquiry, and I acknowledge that the honourable member who unfairly interjects had some say in making sure that that inquiry was instigated. Throughout the course of that inquiry one of the things that has impressed the committee is that where Aboriginal communities are able to encourage their members to continue their traditional practices there is a fair degree of evidence that it has produced a very positive health outcome.I accept what the honourable member for Dunkley said, that in getting the balance by allowing our indigenous people to carry out their practices we are able to educate them on any concerns there might be about the way it may be done in a sustainable manner. Given that indigenous culture and indigenous practice have supported indigenous people in being able to carry out their lifestyles in a sustainable way, I do not think that is a great problem, but it would be a great problem if others saw the wisdom in some of those traditional practices and introduced them to the wider public.This is a fairly straightforward and simple amendment that is being made, but it is important because it builds on the actions that successive Australian governments have taken under their international obligations about endangered species. It ensures that we are able to look at the way in which we do that and ensures that it can be policed and that the spirit of the law is able to be ensured through action reports in other places.In conclusion, I wish to highlight one element which has been highlighted earlier in debate not only in this place but also in the other place. There is some concern that these provisions relate only to those species that are actually listed. Some of the examples that appear to be developing in an Australian context actually involve some species that are not listed, and I think that perhaps there is some need for us to look domestically beyond just our international obligations—to look at other things. For instance, an example is cited in an article originating out of the Courier-Mail of August last year, which talks about members of the pipefish family, which includes seahorses, caught as a by-product of trawling by prawn trawlers, that are in some way used for medicinal purposes. One of the concerns is that, whilst some of those species are not listed species, they have some pressures upon them, and if they were to further develop as a popular medical relief they would very quickly become endangered.With that very minor criticism, I indicate my full support for what the government is intending to do with regard to our obligations about endangered species. I also look forward to developing debate about the way in which we can ensure that traditional medicines, from whatever origin, can be accommodated in the way in which we make them available as an alternative for people who believe that there is some remedy from those types of medicines.11:28:004503Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise in support of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] on behalf of an electorate where people care deeply about environmental and conservation issues and which is home to a large number of activists in these increasingly important areas. I think that Australians everywhere would be delighted with this legislation. Under the wildlife protection act, Australia currently bans the importation, and in some cases possession, of products containing endangered species. Despite the fact that there are products in this country containing such contraband, no prosecutions have been possible because the law puts the onus on the prosecutors to comprehensively prove the existence of substances from protected species. It is an expensive and inefficient process to forensically scrutinise these products, and detection has so far proven to be difficult.This amendment means that a claim on a label is proof enough—that is, if a claim is made, the law holds that claim to be true. This is an important change to procedure; one that seeks to further protect several animal species whose very survival has been placed at risk by the greed of mankind. Importantly, it is also about affording some protection to the many herbalists, alternative medicine and exotic food importers which operate in my electorate—good, decent, small businesses.The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—CITES—prohibits international and domestic trade in species under threat. By way of example of the importance of this legislation, I would like to refer to one particular animal, an animal we have all known and loved from childhood: the tiger. Often depicted as a cuddly toy, a cartoon, a nursery rhyme character or even a mascot of a football team, the tiger becomes, in a child's mind, an object of affection. In reality, they are not the warm and fuzzy beasts as portrayed to children. They are powerful, majestic felines at the very top of the food chain.It is believed that tigers evolved over one million years ago in what we know today as southern China. Their search for territory and prey took them to eastern Russia, to Indonesia, to the subcontinent, to Turkey and around the Caspian Sea. It has been estimated that at the turn of this century there were over 100,000 of these magnificent beasts. Today, estimates put the earth's tiger population at 7,500 at best, but probably closer to 5,000. Caspian Sea tigers were extinct by the 1950s and the tiger populations of Bali and Java have also gone. In south China there are as few as 20 to 30 tigers in the wild, and those in Chinese zoos are the descendants of the same six tigers. Not surprisingly, the rate of reproduction there is limited.Given the illusive and secretive nature of the tiger, it is nearly impossible to gauge accurately the numbers that survive. India has the largest population of tigers, probably somewhere between 3,000 and 4,500. The tiger has struggled for survival as human settlement has expanded. Forests and jungles have disappeared, rivers have been dammed, industry has grown. The difficulties in providing and maintaining suitable reserves, sanctuaries for the tigers, have often proven disastrous for these animals.While it is illegal to hunt tigers, that has not stopped poachers from doing so. Unlike the American buffalo which was hunted for food by America's indigenous tribes, the tiger is killed so its parts can be used in traditional Chinese medicines. While this has always been the case, with the standards of living rising in Asia and the emigration of many from that part of the world to Western countries, the use of these medicines has risen markedly.By way of illustration, we can compare the expenditure of Australians on these treatments with our expenditure on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We spend approximately $3 billion on the PBS and a staggering $1 billion on alternatives. This is not to suggest that Australia is a huge haven for products containing illegally hunted animals, but merely to suggest that sales of alternative medicines have experienced enormous growth. In Hong Kong, China, Japan and South Korea, where there are long-held beliefs about the powers and supposed powers of these products, sales are astronomical. In large markets such as the United States and Great Britain, sales are also sizeable. Huge volumes of tiger products, in the form of wine, powders and pills, are imported and sold in Japan, the US and the UK, despite the protections offered by legislative bans against importation and sale.In countries where the law has changed in a similar fashion to what we are proposing here today, such as in the USA and in Europe, successful prosecutions have increased. In the USA, the World Wildlife Fund has noticed an increased public awareness of threats to tigers and a reduction of market availability of tiger parts in traditional Chinese medicine. They attribute this to the outreach and education campaign that was targeted at San Francisco.The Bay area is home to many Asian immigrants and the users of traditional Chinese medicines. Last year the World Wildlife Fund worked with the American College of Chinese Medicine on a pilot program to implement steps for reducing demand for tiger based products. In February, at the end of the lunar year, these organisations held an award ceremony in San Francisco's Chinatown to honour key players in the Year of the Tiger conservation efforts.Likewise, I am happy that this government is making the local industry more aware of the dangers. Through involvement in symposiums in various cities, we are also educating the industry about the role it can play in conservation of threatened species. I note that there is such a symposium happening this weekend in Melbourne at RMIT. I wish the government's representative, the member for Dunkley, all the best at that symposium. I trust that he will be well received and the symposium itself will make landmark breakthroughs in its education campaign in Australian society.I believe that an education campaign can be an effective measure, given that it is the very claim on the label that is ensuring rapid sale, and the demand is driving poachers to even greater feats of ruthlessness. It should be a matter of great sadness and human disgrace that the greater the threat to the survival of the species, the greater the demand for its body parts.By the estimate of the Zoological Society of London, Japan imported 1,900 kilograms of tiger bones from Taiwan. That is equivalent to between 400 and 500 tigers in one year, perhaps nearly 10 per cent of the world's tiger population. Japan is by no means the largest market for tiger products. That dubious honour belongs to Hong Kong, which accounts for around 50 per cent of the market.The poor tiger suffers the indignity of its bones being ground down for inclusion in various potions and powders supposedly to benefit the sufferers of rheumatism or paralysis. Its whiskers are plucked to cure toothache; its tail is used for the treatment of skin disease; its brain proffered as a cure to laziness and pimples, and its eyeballs for epilepsy. The dead tiger, it seems, is looked upon as a veritable cure-all. Tiger claws are claimed to help with insomnia; its teeth to fight fever; its fat to treat leprosy; its nose leather to soothe bites; its bile to help children with meningitis; its dung to treat haemorrhoids, boils and alcoholism; and its penis to help our virility.Now that Viagra has come along and been approved for sale in many countries, perhaps the demand for endangered species like the tiger, the seahorse and the rhinoceros will ease somewhat. The rhinoceros is also as sad a case as the tiger. Only 14,000 now survive because of a huge illegal trade in rhino horns. Their declining numbers are the result of large-scale destruction of habitat, especially by deforestation, ruthless hunting and the rise of illegal trade in rhinoceros products. The black rhinoceros has suffered most. There are now about 3,000 black rhinos in Africa, compared with 65,000 to 100,000 that roamed that continent just 30 years ago.In conclusion, I recently saw a film which best depicts the often ruthless relationship between mankind and our endangered species. `Tell me what the drums are saying,' says one of the characters in the movie. The reply comes, `They always say the same: white hunter—black heart.'11:38:004505Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I lend my wholehearted support to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] . In doing so I would like to congratulate the Howard government, in particular Senator Robert Hill, on the formation of major legislation due to be debated in the House, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] . This will make quite a substantive change to the way in which the Commonwealth has the power to protect our environment and, along with the amendment we are discussing here today, will ensure Australia meets its responsibility and maintains its reputation as a world leader in environmental conservation.In the three years this government have been in power, their leadership on environmental policy has been impressive, in particular the $1 billion Natural Heritage Trust, the largest environmental rescue package ever to be undertaken in this country. It is now making a tangible difference around Australia with projects covering the broad spectrum of environmental restoration and conservation.As my electorate is bordered by the Indian Ocean, the government's oceans policy has generated a lot of keen interest and, once again, demonstrates Australia's leadership in marine and coastal protection. The policy will put our nation in a strong position when dealing with the raft of issues confronting the long-term future of our oceans.The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] seeks to tighten Australia's stance on buying and selling medical products that contain endangered animals and plants in their ingredients. The amendments will see tough penalties enforced on the retailers or exporters who use these products. This amendment bill also makes it a criminal offence to import, export or possess a product that is `represented' to contain material from an endangered species. This is to prevent producers of traditional medicine who cannot afford the endangered product—or it is unattainable—from still listing it as an ingredient for marketing purposes or just as a plain con. This amendment enables Australia to further meet its obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973. Australia has been an active participant in the application of this convention. The amendment also brings us up to speed with the United States and the European Union, both of whom have implemented similar laws.I believe all Australians support the protection of endangered animals and plants both here and abroad. As we witnessed the extinction of hundreds of species over the last century, it is no longer a question of whether or not we should protect what is remaining, but how we protect it. Species like the black rhinoceros, as we have heard, have all but disappeared, with 95 per cent of its population being hunted between 1970 and 1993 for Chinese medicine. As with the tiger, Chinese medicine has proved to be a greater threat than the loss of habitat.Although animals make up only a small part of alternative medicine and Chinese medicine, this is an industry that is indeed growing. In fact, Chinese medicine is used by one-quarter of the world's population. In China, it is an industry worth more than $2 billion each year and Chinese medicine requires about 1.6 million tonnes of ingredients each year.As a trend for many Australians seeking alternatives to Western medicine grows, it is an industry that will no doubt flourish in this country as well. As we all know, Chinese medicine has been practised for thousands of years, and I want to make it clear that, even though I have practised Western medicine for 26 years, I am in no way denigrating this alternative by supporting the bill. In fact, Western medicine has adopted many treatments from Chinese medicine. For example, the drug ephedrine, which was used in the treatment of asthma, is extracted from a plant that Chinese medicine practitioners have been using for centuries. Western doctors have now hailed an ingredient extracted from daisies for over 1,500 years in Chinese medicine as a treatment for malaria.I am pleased to see that practitioners in Chinese medicine in Australia have supported the measures outlined in this bill, and they are keen to produce alternatives for their patients. The President of the New South Wales Association of Chinese Medicine, Yifan Yang, agrees that there are alternatives to treatments that traditionally used endangered animals as ingredients. It was encouraging to see that for back pain he prescribed physiotherapy rather than tiger extract and buffalo horn, and panadol rather than rhino horn to control fever. Perhaps the Chinese medicine industry could also substitute the traditional aphrodisiac, deer horn, with a modern aphrodisiac, Viagra, as mentioned formerly. The former has to be farmed to prevent extinction because of this treatment, while the latter is readily available, endangers no animal, and is probably a lot cheaper.The problem we face globally, however, is that many practitioners of Chinese medicine outside Australia do not believe that substitutes for traditional ingredients work. They also believe that farm species are not as effective as those animals and plants found in the wild. This is a belief that is also supported by their patients, and products with ingredients from the wild attract a far higher price tag than those which have been farmed. Ingredients which have been cultivated rather than collected from the wild only make up 20 per cent of the Chinese medicine market. Of course, a fundamental problem we have in changing the ways of traditional practitioners in China, Korea and Japan is that many acknowledge some species are in danger of becoming extinct, but believe saving the lives of humans is more important.This bill is indeed a step in the right direction, but I hope Australia and other like-minded countries continue a dialogue with China, Korea and Japan against the use of endangered species in Chinese medicine. I understand there are cultural sensitivities and genuine reasons against using farmed ingredients, in particular some plants and animals which simply do not grow or reproduce in captivity. However, there is a need for a more effective deterrent when it comes to saving the last of these species.We should also be careful that the alternatives do not create further harm. Who could forget the heart-wrenching stories of bear farming in China where thousands of bears are kept in tiny cages with a permanent tube inserted into their gall bladders which constantly collects bile used in Chinese medicine. Furthermore, some of the species that have been put up as alternatives to endangered species have themselves become endangered for the same reasons.For us to be successful, we need to focus on education and not confrontation. We need to appeal to the Chinese medicine industry to consider the long-term viability of their practices. If they understand that, when these species become extinct they will no longer have that ingredient to use, hopefully they will begin to seek alternatives.News on this front is not all doom and gloom. The trade monitoring program arm of the World Wide Fund for Nature, which is known as TRAFFIC, has met with representatives from the Chinese medicine profession in Asia and has had ongoing dialogue since 1995. In 1997 China signed a formal resolution drawn up by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora which recognises that the use of endangered species in Chinese medicines threatens their survival.It is now up to countries such as China to make a concerted effort with both the practitioners in their countries as well as the consumers to put an end to the medical products that contain endangered species. I congratulate TRAFFIC's approach to this issue which appears to be making a difference, albeit slowly. It is a particularly emotional subject for many people, and justifiably so, but this often leads to protests and confrontation that in particular cultures do more harm than good. Basically, since the opium wars, China has not much cared for being told what to do by the Western world. This is not a black and white issue. The World Wide Fund for Nature obviously recognises this and deals with this issue appropriately.I welcome the move to legislate that ingredients listed on the labels of Chinese medicine will be proof enough for successful prosecution if the product contains endangered plants or animals. Previously we had to rely, as you heard before, on DNA testing of the ingredients to establish proof and this can be inconclusive and costly. Perhaps it will also make producers of Chinese medicine who pretend to have endangered species in their ingredients think twice before they list them on the label, as this alone will lead to prosecution. Prosecution of offences outlined in this bill will be extremely important. There is no point in legislating against endangered species in Chinese medicine if we cannot police it. If you will excuse the pun, Australia does not want to be seen as a toothless tiger.A similar move to use the ingredients listed on the pack was made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration some 10 years go and I understand this has made a marked improvement on the number of successful prosecutions. I commend this bill to the Main Committee and hope that it is part of a continuing push to see that those plants and animals on the verge of extinction are no longer hunted or collected from the wild for any purpose.23:48:004508Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—in reply—In concluding the debate on this Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] in the Main Committee, I would like to thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate. It is a significant piece of legislation and a very important one.There was one issue evidently raised in the debate today that I would like to respond to on behalf of the government. That was that the amendment only covers CITES listed animals and that this is of concern for some non-CITES listed animals, for example, pipefish and seahorses. The response is that, if a species is not listed under CITES, generally speaking that is because it is not currently under threat or potential threat from trade.It would not be appropriate to extend the effect of this amendment to individual non-CITES listed species as there is a recognised process under CITES for adding new species to those appendices as the need arises. The government is currently considering whether to nominate seahorses for CITES listing. For Australian native animals which are not CITES listed, Australia has some of the strictest protective controls in the world.As a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Australia has obligations to control trade in species that are in danger of extinction. Australia's implementing legislation is the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. It is internationally recognised that one of the greatest threats to the rapidly declining numbers of endangered species, particularly the tiger and rhinoceros, is poaching for traditional medicines. Therefore, the conservation of endangered species depends largely on the strength of trade laws and the capacity to enforce those laws within and among trading nations.At the most recent conference of member countries to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora held in 1997, parties resolved to ensure that, in accordance with resolution 9.6 passed at the previous conference in 1995, their national legislation effectively controls trade in traditional medicines purporting to contain endangered species as well as those actually containing them. Resolution 9.6 stipulates that goods that are represented to be a part of or to contain endangered species, for example by their labelling or packaging, should be treated as containing those species. As the legislation currently stands, for a prosecution to be successful it must be proven conclusively that a product actually contains an endangered species. This is not workable as current technologies cannot identify beyond reasonable doubt individual species within a mixture. The amendment will ensure that all products represented to contain an endangered species such as the tiger and the rhino are treated as containing the ingredient. It also shows yet again that the government is taking firm action to protect endangered species.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment450910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The Main Committee having completed all the matters referred to it, I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.450911:52:004509Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I take the opportunity today to talk about some recent political events in my home state of Victoria. As members would be aware, John Brumby, who was the leader of the Victorian Parliamentary Labor Party, resigned just a few days ago and was replaced by the then shadow Treasurer, Steve Bracks. This was after a period of considerable media speculation about Mr Brumby's future which resulted in a situation where Mr Brumby decided that under the circumstances it was best to fall on his sword.I do not want to go through the details of this issue but I have a couple of things to say on that point. I think John Brumby deserves to be congratulated for the way he handled himself over this matter. Members would know it is a very difficult time in the career of any politician, particularly a leader, when they are faced with these sorts of situations. It is something that we may all have to face some time.I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate John Brumby on what he has done over the last five or six years in terms of endeavouring to take the fight up to Jeff Kennett and the Liberal Party in the Victorian government. It is a thankless task being an opposition leader. Particularly, I would have to say that, in the current political situation in Australia, probably the most thankless task is that of the opposition leader in Victoria.That is for several reasons. The reason that is often quoted is the Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett's political mastery of the whole situation. At least that is the way the media portrays it. Part of what any opposition leader in Victoria currently has to deal with is the nature of the media's almost Oscar style adulation of the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett. It was not always so, but it certainly has been that way for some years now. That does make it difficult for an opposition to get points across about problems and issues in the operation of a government.One other issue that I think ought to be focused on is the actual operation of the Victorian parliament. For example, members may not be aware that question time in the Victorian parliament, as I understand it, normally goes for something like 30 to 40 minutes.83TRUDDMr Rudd—That is gracious of them.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—It is not a long time and it is not a situation where a lot of questions can be answered. The member for Griffith, Mr Rudd, interjects, calling it `gracious'—in a sarcastic fashion, I take it—and I think that is quite correct. The circumstances are that scrutiny from an opposition within the context of the Victorian lower house is not something that is widely available or freely allowed to be utilised.The situation in the upper house in the Victorian parliament is different from that in our Senate. In the Senate, depending on which side of the chamber you are on, people either praise it or deride the issue being considered. However, in the Senate there is no party with a majority and so the government of the day has to deal with the Senate on the issues that it wishes to proceed with.In the Victorian upper house there are 44 members of which there are 10 from the Labor Party and 34 from the coalition. Therefore, controlling the debate and using the upper house as a house of review in Victoria is not an operative situation. In fact, the Labor Party has only ever had control of the Victorian upper house for a period of several months at the time of the 1985 state election when a member's position was being questioned in the courts. For that very short period of time, Labor had a majority. Other than at that time the Labor Party has not had an opportunity to effectively utilise the upper house, even when it was in government for the 10 years from 1982 to 1992.This situation exists despite the fact that at the last election Labor, on a two-party preferred basis, got around 47 per cent of the vote. It was nowhere near half, in the context of democracy in this country, but certainly it was a lot better than 10 out of 44 seats in the upper house would suggest.All of those institutional and operational issues come to mind when you see a government of the nature of Jeff Kennett's running roughshod over the concerns of ordinary Victorians. All of those issues are things which ought to be taken into account by the media and by commentators in Victoria when they look to ensure that there is a proper analysis of what the Kennett government does. If we face an election later this year, that analysis has to occur. (Time expired)451011:57:004510Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In the adjournment debate today I wish to remark upon an individual deserving of attention. At a time when it seems all we read and hear about our young people are the problems facing Australia's youth and their apparent inability to deal with the challenges society presents, it was an inspiration to me to learn about the achievements of a young constituent of mine, Tom Monks, a 24-year-old from the beach suburb of Cottesloe.With Tom, good news makes good reading. He is a double amputee, both legs from below the knees. He migrated to Australia from Thailand when he was just four years old, and he has a passion to help the young people of Australia. In conversation with Tom he quickly points out that to him his disability does not make him unique in any way. In fact, he never mentions it.He is a master in the art of positive thinking, he is the original optimist, and he endeavours to live life to the full through his studies and his work, particularly his work with young people, and his self-run business in the field of youth training. He runs a business at the age of 24.It would probably embarrass Tom to hear this, but his energy and his enthusiasm would put many people in the shade. It was refreshing to see Tom make the front page of many newspapers for his achievements in helping people, rather than hear the negative stories that often seem to have a lock on many page 1 splashes.Tom feels it is his duty to help many young people in Western Australia, many of whom I might add have had opportunities and advantages that he has not. Tom currently studies economics and education at Murdoch University and was a delegate to the National Youth Round Table in March that was held here in Canberra. He was selected for the round table due to his communication skills and his role as an advocate and mentor for other people in similar situations.As the committee will know, the National Youth Round Table was an initiative of the federal government. It was made up of a wide range of young people aged between 15 and 24, including those who have overcome barriers such as disabilities, homelessness and unemployment. It included indigenous Australians and representatives from both rural and metropolitan areas. Topics including education, health, employment, Aboriginal reconciliation and the preamble were all discussed at the round table.At that conference the representatives were split up into working groups of about seven to 11 people who then tackled a particular issue. Tom was part of the group concerned with educational issues. This is a field of particular interest to Tom as it straddles two of his interest areas—youth training and teaching. Tom and his group came up with ideas on aspects of education such as educational programs in the juvenile prison system, the youth allowance and up-front university fees.Tom tells me that he is now keeping in contact with his working group, made up of young Australians from all over the country, to act on the proposals made at the round table. I certainly look forward to working closely with Tom to achieve these aims, which represent a path forward for the youth of Australia. By the time he attends the next round table, which is scheduled to take place in Canberra in September, he will have made significant headway with his group on these education issues.For Tom, the round table provided a unique opportunity for communicating his valued and considered opinions, which were heard by the appropriate senior government ministers. In fact, an article which appeared on 24 March in the local newspaper in my electorate of Curtin, the News Chronicle, attests to Tom's dogged desire to get his views on the future of Australia's youth across to the legislators. Apparently, when the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was fielding questions from the participants, he made special note of Tom's persistence and zeal by commenting jocularly, when asked a question by Tom, `Not you again?' Tom certainly took that as a mark of respect and a recognition of his contribution. But the clearest impression that Tom conveys is one that he does not even mention in words. It is clear that, whatever Tom's circumstances were, he would be the same remarkable individual that he is.Like Tom, I feel it is vital that today's youth are able to communicate directly with the federal government about issues of concern to them, including employment, education, health, drugs and youth suicide. Tom told me when he came to see me in the electorate that the round table was a great experience for all concerned. I further that by saying that the work of people like Tom is great for all the youth of Australia, and I commend further the federal government and the minister for education for the vision of creating opportunities for youth to speak out on issues of concern to them at the National Youth Round Table.451212:02:004512Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the adjournment debate today to talk about problems experienced not just in my electorate of Griffith but in electorates right across the nation. These relate to one of the more distressing experiences that you can have as a federal member of parliament: dealing with the concerns and the complaints and the anxieties of individual citizens who have not been able to properly access their payments through Centrelink.This problem is not peculiar to the suburbs of Brisbane. It is one which, based on the reflections of my colleagues, is experienced right across the country. When we talk about the clients and customers of Centrelink, we are talking about people who are in severe, substantial financial difficulty. Therefore, our responsibility as members to represent their interests is particularly acute, over and above most of the other things which the community expects of us, because the very ability of these people to survive week to week rests on their ability to receive payments and, if there is an interruption or difficulty in receiving those payments, our ability as members of parliament to discharge our responsibilities by intervening on their behalf as their court of last recourse.I fear that what we are seeing across the country, in terms of the functions of Centrelink, is part and parcel of a broader scheme of withdrawal of government services. If we look specifically at the funding which has been directed to Centrelink, it is clear that in the period of this government we have seen, in effect, comparing like with like, a 10 per cent reduction in the funding allocated to Centrelink. We have seen a 21 per cent reduction in the funding to national office, a 13 per cent reduction of funding to area offices and a 12 per cent reduction of funding to the coalface, the people responsible for delivering Centrelink services to their clients and customers, people in need of income support. In terms of staff numbers, some 2,100 staff have been taken out of Centrelink nationally already, 2,700 are being removed in the course of 1998-99 and a further 2,300 are to be removed over the following two to three years. The problem, based on these facts alone, will only be exacerbated.What of the impact on staff? Staff who are responsible for Centrelink offices across the country are dealing with customers in considerable distress. The level of customer aggression being faced by Centrelink staff has gone up manyfold. The most recent report on this matter indicates that there has been a 160 per cent increase in the last quarter in the number of incidents of customer aggression reported, up from 302 incidents in the previous quarter to 792 incidents in the most recently reported quarter.It follows that, when individual clients of Centrelink cannot obtain the payments they need to feed the kids, they are going to become angry, aggressive and stroppy. I have complete sympathy for the staff of Centrelink offices who are required, with diminishing resources, to handle the human tragedy which confronts them across the desk, across the counter, each day.I look at my own constituency of Griffith: we are serviced by three Centrelink offices—one at Wynnum-Manly, one at Mount Gravatt and another at Stones Corner. In those offices alone we have seen a reduction of 13 staff at Stones Corner, 17 at Mount Gravatt and five scheduled to go from the Centrelink office at Wynnum. In passing, I note that the Centrelink office at Stones Corner has, however, been able to manage to secure funding of $480,000 to refurbish its office. You do not have to be a mathematical genius to work out that for $480,000 you could actually be employing an additional 10 Centrelink staff on the average of about $50,000 per professional employee. Yet the priorities seem to have been taken in the completely wrong direction as far as that office is concerned.So much for the staff. But the critical point which distresses me is the increasing number of calls to my electorate office by people in genuine distress, people who have committed no error but who cannot obtain payments or, worse, who have become victims of the overpayment scandal which this government has presided over in recent months. In January Centrelink nationally confessed to the fact that there had been 37,000 overpayments by accident. I had in my office yesterday a student who was in tears because she has to repay suddenly $600 which she had inadvertently been overpaid. I have also had a case of another constituent who has come to me because it has been quoted to her that there has been a `fat fingering processing error' in one of the offices, resulting in a huge overpayment. (Time expired)451312:07:004513Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Today I would like to share with the House a story from my electorate. It is a story of individual tragedy, yet it is also a story of a village community and how they have responded to that tragedy. During the early hours of Saturday, 16 January this year one of my young constituents from Bundeena, Jonathan Beninca, who was aged 19 and had completed his HSC only last year, was involved in a horrendous accident with a train near Cronulla railway station. The little township of Bundeena is a village community across the Port Hacking River and it is generally accessed by its young people by ferry.Jonathan was returning home from a Saturday night with his friends. No-one is quite sure exactly how the accident happened but it was obviously on the railway line where he was found. He sustained severe injuries as a result of a train running over him. He lost his right arm, from six inches below his shoulder, his left leg had been removed just below the knee and he lost two fingers of his left hand. Jono's recovery to date has been remarkable, to the point that he has been transferred from St George Hospital to Prince Henry's, where he has commenced rehabilitation and is preparing for the fitting of his artificial limbs.On Friday, 12 February, his parents, Debbie Beninca and Bernie Attwood, and his little sisters, Jenna and Maddison, were delighted to be able to welcome Jonathan home to Bundeena for the weekend, as were his many friends and family. It is hoped that he will continue to spend weekends at Bundeena for the period of his rehabilitation, which is expected to take six to eight weeks. Bernie and Debbie have been at Jonathan's side throughout the ordeal of the last two months. They, like Jono, have accepted what has happened and are totally focused on dealing with the many challenges that Jono now faces in his life.Debbie and Bernie and Jono wish to thank all their relatives and friends and the community of Bundeena who have rallied around them to help them through this trauma. Jono's vibrant approach to life, and his determination to overcome the obstacles that his disabilities have presented to him, will ensure his success in life. But he cannot be expected to do it on his own. He has the support of this wonderful village community.In close consultation with the family, a few people have got together to start organising some fundraising activities to cover many of Jono's costs. It was felt that it would be appropriate to coordinate these activities under the broad umbrella of the combined Bundeena-Maianbar sporting clubs—that includes the soccer, touch football, rugby league, fishos, golf, tennis and bowlers clubs. So far, the committees from the various clubs have been approached and are all willing to help in Jono's cause.It is proposed that a trust fund be established for the purpose of administering what funds are raised. Bernie and Debbie have asked that the trust be administered by those outside the family. Paul Rumble, Ian Layland and Lindsay Moss, who are neighbours, have agreed to be the trustees, and Terry Willett of Willett and Associates, accountants from Cronulla, has agreed to audit the trust. A bank account has been opened at the post office and those who wish to make a direct donation have been able to do so by contacting Ian, the postmaster at Bundeena.The Cronulla legal firm of Baker, Ryrie, Rickards, Tidmarsh have agreed to act on Jono's behalf to explore what, if any, legal remedies are available to him. At this stage, it is planned to hold a benefit night at the Bundeena RSL this coming Saturday, 27 March. The RSL have kindly provided the venue and will assist in putting on a concert. Three local bands have indicated that they would perform free of charge. So far, the Cronulla Sharks, the Canberra Raiders and the Melbourne Storm have indicated their support by promising a large range of items, such as signed jumpers, for auction on the night.A second function some months down the track will be also organised with a more family oriented theme. Apparently the Bundeena Bowling Club will be able to give its support. There has also been support from Michael Riddell, the Director of the St Francis Community at Bundeena. He has offered to provide whatever help they can. Michael has made a great donation to our cause, a Luke Perry personally signed shirt. Luke, as you will be aware, is one of the main stars in the currently run Beverly Hills 90210 series.The Bundeena-Maianbar art community has responded warmly to Jonathan's plight. George Gittoes, Gary Shead, Bob Marchant, Jiawei Shen, Judith Englert-Shead, Lan Wang, Liz Borghero, Michael Weekes, Jenny Jarvis, Belinda Allen, Chris Lawrie and Vo Waters have committed to donating works of art with a view to raising funds for Jono. Time escapes me to acknowledge all the other people from this wonderful village community that are gathering around an individual young man who is inspiring them all. It is just like the old village communities from which, I think, we once derived many centuries ago.451412:12:004514Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I commend the previous speaker, the member for Hughes, Mrs Vale, for her contribution. I am aware of the case which she refers to. Paul Rumble is a very close friend of mine and I spoke to him about this particular case. I commend her on what she has said this morning.What I want to talk about today is the question of the maternity allowance. As of 1 January 1998, the maternity allowance has had two components: the first component of $750 is paid at birth; the second component of $200 is due to be paid to the mother when the infant reaches the age of 18 months provided immunisation has taken place. This raises an issue because we need to be able to guarantee that all mothers will be able to access benefits if they have had their infants immunised, and there is no guarantee of that.In the Alice Springs region there are 85 providers of immunisation services. These services provide data on immunisation to NT Health on prescribed forms. The data collected is sent from Darwin to Canberra electronically. The Darwin based national health register is used by Centrelink in paying the second component of maternity allowance. A breakdown in communicating the immunisation information within the NT, or in communicating the information to Canberra in the correct manner, means that it is possible that mothers who have had their children immunised may not be able to receive the second component of their maternity allowance when it becomes payable on 1 July 1999. A situation could arise where mothers who know they have had their children immunised will be denied maternity allowance because their records do not appear on a screen at their Centrelink office.In Aboriginal communities there are likely to be linguistic problems where Aboriginal names have been misspelt and/or other relatives have been recorded as the mother, for example, foster parents such as a sister or parents of the birth mother. There could also be a breakdown in information reaching collection points from providers before being communicated to Darwin. The size and nature of the NT makes this possible. The problem is more severe than in other states. Information from Darwin also may not reach Canberra.The end result is that an incomplete or unmatchable set of data is being processed and cannot be put on the national register for access by Centrelink. According to Centrelink, mothers with incomplete immunisation records can, through their Medicare office, obtain an immunisation history form which they need to take to the immunisation provider to complete as proof that immunisation has taken place. If a technical problem has resulted in immunisation information for Northern Territory mothers not appearing on the national register, mothers that have done the right thing by having their children immunised should not have to run around their community filling in more forms. That, of course, assumes they have got the capacity to do so. The government is responsible for ensuring that accurate, recordable records are kept.Therefore, if data has not been collected appropriately by the Northern Territory or federal government, we need to fund programs to provide data catch-up. This needs to be done as soon as possible, as payment of the second component of maternity allowance is due from 1 July 1999.This may not seem a big issue in the national scheme but it is a very important issue for parents in Central Australia. I know this will be an issue for people who live in remote Australia generally, because they do not have the same access to communication tools as people who live in Sydney or Canberra, to medical staff or to record keeping. A lot of people in remote communities, in particular, who may well have had their children immunised are handicapped by the fact that they might well be illiterate. The whole process of dealing with forms, of going from one point to another to get approval or proof of immunisation, is very difficult.This is an issue which the government ought to look at urgently, so that people in my electorate—and I know other electorates—will not be disadvantaged because their records have not been kept up to date by the appropriate authorities. It demonstrates the necessity for us to examine the process by which the government provides the resources to organisations like Centrelink and other organisations which have the administrative responsibility and should have the capacity to ensure that these records are kept up to date, and there is a severe question as to whether they have been. This should be seen as a priority by the government lest it come back to bite them, because I will make sure it does if it is not done. (Time expired)451512:16:004515Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to pay tribute to some innovative and visionary primary producers and processors in my electorate. At a time when we are most likely to see negative stories about rural industry in the metropolitan media, and even sometimes in provincial and rural media, highly focused people and groups give the lie to that negative image.The people I particularly want to talk about today are proving that ingenuity is alive and well in the bush and in our provincial cities and I am sure that is something from which all Australians will take comfort. The group I want to talk about are an innovative group of producers and processors who formed a groundbreaking alliance known as the Queensland Burnett Food Alliance. The alliance has been formed to improve market access for Queensland and in particular Burnett region exports through quite interesting strategies. Its CEO is Phil Cheesman, who will mentor the organisation until it has its own administration, while the Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers Coop—also a very focused group, which Mr Cheesman also leads—will offer secretarial services.The alliance, which is very much the vision of QDPI's Brett Tucker, includes the following: the highly professional tomato and zucchini producers, Steinhardt Family Farms; food processors, Farmfresh Fine Foods; avocado producers, Simpson Farms; Australia's largest producer of tomatoes for fresh local consumption, SP Exports; producers of honeydew, rockmelon and watermelons, the South Pacific Melon Group; chilli producers and processors, Austchilli; producers of beef from Australia's finest grazing lands, North Burnett Callide Beef; specialists in scallops, spanner crabs and other seafood, Mandarin Trawlers; premium pork producers, Monto Pork Enterprises; producers of delicious mangoes, Koala Exports; vegetable producers and packing group, Central Pack House Fresh; leading citrus producers, Gayndah Packers Coop or Gaypak, as it is sometimes known; producers of aloe vera products for health, cosmetic and therapeutic applications, Australian Aloe Company; and the outstanding brewed drinks manufacturer, Cliff Fleming's Bundaberg Brewed Drinks.Seventy per cent of the group's products are processed or are non-perishable and that figure could be even higher if we can master some long-life technologies. The alliance hopes to deliver a coordinated approach to allow Burnett producers to penetrate food chains and to respond effectively to the needs of international retail conglomerates, especially those in Asia.Of course we know that, when we are dealing with Asia, the sorts of things that are important are consistency of quality, continuity of supply and appropriate volumes. While the Burnett area can supply, on a year-round basis, tomatoes and avocadoes, there are other products it cannot. So it will be important that similar alliances grow up in the Granite Belt, the Bowen-Burdekin area, the Riverina and Leeton. These groups interacting together can provide the volume, continuity and quality that will be required to penetrate the Asian market.The alliance places responsibility on people within the region to maintain their business relationships and operations and allows for regional communities to be more independent and responsible for their own direction. However, what it does do is provide overseas buyers with one point of reference. It is a criticism of Australia by Asian buyers that they have to deal with too many small entities and these alliances and groups of alliances are the answer to that problem.The initiative is made to order for the Prime Minister's Supermarket to Asia strategy. Despite the downturn that has occurred in the Asia-Pacific region, exports of Australian food over the last 12 months to all destinations have risen in the order of 10 per cent. In the 1997-98 year, total food exports were over $18 billion and nearly 60 per cent of that was earned in Asia. At present we contribute about six per cent of the imported food into Asia, so there is plenty of scope for expansion.Finally, I would like to make a plea that we look very seriously at superior methods of packaging. If we are going to provide this quality in some volume to Asia, the sorts of grants that are available currently through state governments of $50,000 for special packaging plants are not sufficient. I make a plea here today for packaging in the order of $500,000 to $1 million. I commend that view to the federal government and I support this very important Burnett Food Alliance. (Time expired)451712:21:004517Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to congratulate the Townsville Chamber of Commerce on the public statement that they have made today in relation to the devastating strike—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for debate has expired.Main Committee adjourned at 12.22 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing4518The following answers to questions were circulated:4518(Question No. 25)254518Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What measures has the Minister's Department undertaken which are categorised as positive discrimination programs, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic.(2) What are the details and funding commitments involved in each case.4518Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) is committed to meeting the needs of a diverse workforce, which will in turn, assist the Department in the provision of services to a diverse client base. It has in place a number of initiatives that endeavour to create an inclusive environment that values and utilises the contributions of people of different backgrounds and experiences.Details and Funding(2) As part of the 1998-99 Certified Agreement, the Department appointed a Workplace Diversity Coordinator and a Disability Access Coordinator to further the principles and objectives of workplace diversity in the department and assist staff with disabilities in the workplace. The salary commitment for these two full-time officers is $115 000.In line with the "Managing Workplace Diversity—Guidelines" issued by the Public Service Commissioner in February 1998, the Department developed and has begun implementing a Workplace Diversity program. This program includes a commitment to develop complementary strategies including:. an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment and career development strategy.In the 1998/99 financial year, $25 000 is committed to the Workplace Diversity program.A Disability Access Plan has been developed and is being implemented. This plan focuses on ways to ensure that the FaCS workplace is fully accessible and supportive of staff with disabilities. The plan also includes a number of initiatives to maintain the representation of people with disabilities within and across the FaCS workforce. Disability Awareness training has been offered to staff. Funding for Disability Access issues is included in the Workplace Diversity program financial commitment.A Women's Forum was established in 1997 for women in the national offices of the former DSS and Centrelink prior to the October 1998 machinery of government changes. Ways of integrating women from all parts of the new department into the forum will be made. The forum is a voluntary network of working women in the Department that aims to provide a focus on issues raised by women. The Forum is self-funding.FaCS staff have access to two carer's rooms at Woden and Tuggeranong. These rooms are another example of the Department's commitment to balancing work and family/personal responsibilities. The rooms are primarily for staff caring for dependents, whose normal care arrangements are temporarily unavailable and for nursing mothers.4518(Question No. 110)1104518Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, 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.4519Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNP10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No appointments of this nature were made by Austrade.4519(Question No. 117)1174519Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign 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.4519Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament(iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998(A) Mr M.E. Baume, Australian Consul-General, New York(B) Liberal Party of Australia(C) current salary $107,387, plus overseas allowances and other entitlements at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(D) (I) full-time(E) not applicable(F) (I) travel allowance(aa) what entitlements were claimable—cost of accommodation and service charges and an allowance with respect to meals and incidental expendi ture at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(ab) how often were entitlements claimed—see attached(ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement—see attached(F) (II) vehicles(aa) a vehicle is provided for official use; the remuneration of a driver and the cost of maintaining the vehicle is borne by the Australian Government. The official vehicle may be made available without chauffeur for private purposes.(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official vehicle provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (III) telephones(aa) charges for official telephone (excluding personal long distance calls) are borne by the Australian Government(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official telephone provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (IV) attendance fees—not applicable(a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament(iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998(A) Mr D. Connolly, Ambassador, Australian Embassy, Pretoria(B) Liberal Party of Australia(C) current salary $87,493, plus overseas allowances and other entitlements at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(D) (I) full-time(E) not applicable(F) (I) travel allowance(aa) what entitlements were claimable—cost of accommodation and service charges and an allowance with respect to meals and incidental expenditure at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(ab) how often were entitlements claimed—see attached(ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement—see attached(F) (II) vehicles(aa) a vehicle is provided for official use; the remuneration of a driver and the cost of maintaining the vehicle is borne by the Australian Govern ment. The official vehicle may be made available without chauffeur for private purposes.(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official vehicle provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (III) telephones(aa) charges for official telephone (excluding personal long distance calls) are borne by the Australian Government(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official telephone provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (IV) attendance fees—not applicable(a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament(iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998(A) The Hon. A.S. Peacock AC, Ambassador, Australian Embassy, Washington(B) Liberal Party of Australia(C) current salary $129,499, plus overseas allowances and other entitlements at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(D) (I) full-time(E) not applicable(F) (I) travel allowance(aa) what entitlements were claimable—cost of accommodation and service charges and an allowance with respect to meals and incidental expenditure at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(ab) how often were entitlements claimed—see attached(ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement—see attached(F) (II) vehicles(aa) a vehicle is provided for official use; the remuneration of a driver and the cost of maintaining the vehicle is borne by the Australian Government. The official vehicle may be made available without chauffeur for private purposes.(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official vehicle provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (III) telephones(aa) charges for official telephone (excluding personal long distance calls) are borne by the Australian Government(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official telephone provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (IV) attendance fees—not applicable(a) former member of the Commonwealth Parliament(iii) other appointment to government boards or posts between 30 April 1996 and 31 August 1998(A) Mr J.M. Spender, QC, Ambassador, Australian Embassy, Paris(B) Liberal Party of Australia(C) current salary $107,387, plus overseas allowances and other entitlements at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(D) (I) full-time(E) not applicable(F) (I) travel allowance(aa) what entitlements were claimable—cost of accommodation and service charges and an allowance with respect to meals and incidental expenditure at a rate equivalent to that determined for officers of the Department receiving the same standard salary(ab) how often were entitlements claimed—see attached(ac) what sum was paid under each entitlement—see attached(F) (II) vehicles(aa) a vehicle is provided for official use; the remuneration of a driver and the cost of maintaining the vehicle is borne by the Australian Government. The official vehicle may be made available without chauffeur for private purposes.(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official vehicle provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (III) telephones(aa) charges for official telephone (excluding personal long distance calls) are borne by the Australian Government(ab) for the tenure of the appointment(ac) nil—official telephone provided for tenure of the appointment(F) (IV) attendance fees—not applicableMICHAEL BAUME—CONSUL-GENERAL NEW YORK—TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAYMENTSTravel PeriodDestinationAccommodation & Service ChargesMeal AllowancesIncidentals ExpenditureTotals09/09/96-03/10/96Canberra: payments relating to duty when Mr Baume was away from home base in Sydney2215.00302.5064.902582.408/10/96Canberra85.000.000.0085.0025/09/96-27/09/96Melbourne320.00179.1050.25549.3530/09/96-04/10/96Canberra0.00137.5029.50167.0013/10/96-16/10/96Canberra (spouse accompanied)243.0028.200.00271.2016/10/96-18/10/96Los Angeles (spouse accompanied)500.00546.500.001046.507/11/96Washington D.C.0.0060.660.0060.6625/1/97-26/01/97Boston280.85156.0766.30503.2212/02/97-13/02/97Columbus, Ohio211.7592.7911.19315.7301/04/97-02/04/97Boston71.23162.3256.02289.5702/05/97-04/05/97Washington, D.C.665.61319.4356.611041.6509/05/97-10/05/97Boston (spouse accompanied)181.16230.9867.29479.4311/05/97Princeton NJ0.0023.290.0023.2911/05/97-13/05/97Detroit0.00144.9329.11174.0406/06/97-07/06/97Philadelphia166.8587.7017.20271.7520/08/97-22/08/97Providence (Rhode Island) and Augusta (Maine)295.28156.51192.43644.2203/09/97-07/09/97Washington D.C.0.00421.72118.35540.0709/10/97-10/10/97Montpelier, Vermont166.81133.440.00300.2507/11/97-12/11/97San Juan, Puerto Rico481.79297.58496.391275.7630/01/98-01/02/98State College, Pennsylvania and Boston168.93366.27148.00683.2007/05-29/05/98Canberra/Sydney/Melbourne (spouse accompanied)3479.604154.86852.858487.3109/09/98-13/09/98Washington D.C.644.18534.41176.301354.8912/11/98-15/11/98Worcester and Boston (spouse accompanied)401.66593.9687.821083.4421/11/98-23/11/98Orlando, Florida0.00232.3087.67319.97TOTALS10578.709363.022608.1822549.90Temporary engagement for pre-posting consultations/training prior to posting; (home base Sydney) Commencement of posting 21.10.96DAVID CONNOLLY—HIGH COMMISSIONER—PRETORIA—TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAYMENTSTravel PeriodDestinationAccommodation & Service ChargesMeal AllowancesIncidentals ExpenditureTotals03/05/98-22/05/98Canberra: payments relating to duty when Mr Connolly as away from home base in Sydney768.00572.50170.001510.5025/05/98-28/05/98Perth348.00186.0051.00585.0004/06/98-10/06/98Cape Town0.00241.9173.05314.9626/06/98-30/06/98Cape Town (spouse accompanied)0.00378.6479.24457.8830/06/98-03/07/98Durban (spouse accompanied)403.42567.96101.441072.8220/07/98-29/07/98Cape Town (spouse accompanied)0.00727.44199.56927.0008/08/98-09/08/98Bloemfontein93.6587.1520.69201.4928/08/98-04/09/98Durban1865.58335.21119.002319.7910/09/98-16/09/98Cape Town0.00257.5274.08331.6030/09/98-01/10/98Cape Town0.0092.1221.88114.0009/10/98-11/10/98Cape Town0.0092.1421.88114.0216/10/98-20/10/98Cape Town (spouse accompanied)0.00410.32109.60519.9231/10/98-08/11/98Cape Town (spouse accompanied)0.00546.330.00546.3315/11/98-19/11/98Windhoek (spouse accompanied)619.70401.20138.421159.3227/11/98-30/11/98Sydney465.00157.3551.00673.3530/11/98-01/12/98Adelaide112.0062.0017.00191.0001/12/98-02/12/98Melbourne147.0062.0034.00243.00 02/12/98-06/12/98Sydney620.00219.3568.00907.3507/12/98-14/12/98Australia (spouse accompanied)813.48523.80275.001612.2820/12/98-23/12/98East London278.23229.4148.81556.4524/12/98-11/01/99Cape Town (spouse accompanied 7-11/1)0.00893.330.00893.3314/01/99-15/01/99Cape Town0.0075.2816.0891.36TOTALS7110.067538.811808.7316457.60 Temporary engagement for pre-posting consultations/training prior to posting, (home base Sydney) Commencement of posting 28/5/98ANDREW PEACOCK—AMBASSADOR WASHINGTON—TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAYMENTSTravel PeriodDestinationAccommodation & Service ChargesMeal AllowancesIncidentals ExpenditureTotals28/01-30/01/97Melbourne/LA1118.00144.0099.001361.0003/02-04/02/97New York292.00118.0020.00430.0013/02-14/02/97New York293.00116.0022.00431.0027/02-03/03/97San Francisco/LA535.00216.00128.00879.0024/03-26/03/97Los Angeles540.00142.0080.00762.0003/04-04/04/97St Louis212.0051.0024.00287.0009/05-10/05/97Boston149.0051.0030.00230.0013/05-14/05/97Phoenix/Houston0.0046.0018.0064.0028/05-29/05/97New York302.00116.0033.00451.0005/06/06/06/97New York304.0087.0022.00413.0012/06-16/06/97New York0.00435.0087.00522.0029/06-01/07/97New York1124.00233.0056.001413.0001/08/03/08/97New York0.00132.0022.00154.0016/08/97New York337.00234.0043.00614.0018/08-29/08/97Australia1588.00693.00249.002530.0031/08-01/09/97New York0.00168.0043.00211.0011/09-14/09/97Aspen/Denver0.00284.0049.00333.0024/09-28/09/97Denver/San Diego/New York925.00516.0094.001535.0011/10-13/10/97New York221.00268.0043.00532.0016/10-18/10/97Lexington/Chicago236.00206.0041.00483.0004/11-07/11/97Atlanta/Houston583.00233.0050.00866.000911-10/11/97Cincinatti/Lexington208.00103.0025.00336.0017/11-20/11/97New York995.00402.0075.001472.0026/11-30/11/97New York0.00637.00108.00745.0023/01-24/01/98New York318.00100.0022.00440.0030/01/98Palm Beach0.00206.0041.00247.0006/02-07/02/98New York318.00100.0022.00440.0020/02-21/02/98Atlanta184.0078.0016.00278.0006/03-07/03/98Houston0.00108.0025.00133.0016/03/98Pennsylvania0.0065.000.0065.0020/03-24/03/98Anchorage/Homer654.00349.0065.001068.0001/04-03/04/98New York1031.00175.0043.001249.0004/04-05/04/98New York516.00175.0043.00734.0009/04-13/04/98Cincinatti/Albuquerque0.00430.00133.00563.0001/05/03/05/98Cincinatti/Lexington554.00189.0032.00775.0023/05-25/05/98Wilmington/Charlotte0.00215.0041.00256.0030/06-01/07/98New York318.00105.0015.00438.0002/07-05/07/98New York0.00339.0052.00391.0022/07-06/08/98Australia3401.001331.00695.005427.0015/08-16/08/98New York355.00156.0036.00547.0028/08-30/08/98Houston523.00240.0046.00809.0009/12-14/12/98Melbourne775.00290.8085.001150.80 14/12-16/12/98Canberra192.00124.0034.00350.0016/12-18/12/98Sydney322.00124.0034.00480.0018/12-21/12/98Melbourne465.00166.8051.00682.8021/12-22/12/98Adelaide112.0081.2034.00227.20TOTALS20000.0010778.803026.0033804.80 Commencement of posting 31/1/97JOHN SPENDER—AMBASSADOR PARIS—TRAVEL ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS Travel PeriodDestinationAccommodation & Service ChargesMeal AllowancesIncidentals ExpenditureTotals19/6/96-7/8/96Canberra: payments relating to duty when Mr Spender was away from home base in Sydney3655.00742.50159.304556.807/9/96-9/9/96Paris0.00442.770.00442.775/10/96-7/10/96London0.00251.760.00251.7628/11/96-29/11/96France—Epernay105.2632.6735.30173.2329/01/97-30/01/97Belgium294.8174.4850.56419.8504/03/97-06/03/97Portugal—Lisbon0.00112.22134.51246.7313/03/97-14/03/97France—Lyon (spouse accompanied)401.00588.05291.251280.3017/03/97-19/03/97Lebanon242.08131.92232.72606.7220/03/97-26/03/97Morocco1552.23691.88495.742739.8509/05/97-12/05/97France—Nice902.26686.05447.502035.8101/11/97-07/11/97London/Bordeaux303.53487.33410.591201.4515/12/97-16/12/97France—Montpellier160.00136.1835.46331.6405/02/98-06/02/98Portugal—Lisbon220.13234.52127.05581.7011/03/98-12/03/98France—Strassburg350.59137.9434.59523.1222/04/98Sydney0.0020.110.0020.115/5/98-6/5/98Melbourne136.0061.350.00197.356/5/98-13/5/98Canberra679.00382.25102.001163.2514/5/98-19/5/98Sydney0.00183.730.00183.737/07/98London0.000.00158.10158.1026/07/98-29/07/98Lisbon & London1263.24252.88163.771679.8901/08/98-17/08/98Australia2137.68831.03469.143437.8509/09/98-16/09/98Canada USA1149.87868.74556.602575.2123/09/98-09/10/98Cyprus Greece Turkey3358.071380.00812.195550.2619/10/98France—Toulouse318.34603.4153.78975.53TOTALS17229.099333.774770.1531333.01 Temporary engagement for pre-posting consultations/training prior to posting; (home base Sydney) Commencement of posting 7/10/96.4523(Question No. 355)3554523Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 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.4523Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (AFFA) personnel computer system indicates that:(a) 7 employees have their principal conditions of employment set by awards. These are Senior Executive Service officers that are currently on extended leave from AFFA and are yet to be offered an Australian workplace agreement.(b) these same 7 employees are also covered by an industrial agreement.(c) 2973 employees have their principal conditions of employment set by certified agreements.(d) 152 employees have their principal conditions of employment set by Australian workplace agreements.(2) The AFFA personnel computer system indicates that the classifications of officers who have Australian workplace agreements are:70 Senior Executive Service officers.25 DPIE Band 1 officers.22 DPIE Band 2 officers.35 DPIE Band 3 officers.4524(Question No. 359)3594524O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'ConnorWU5CorioALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 8 February 1999:(1) Did the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy issue a media release on 28 July 1998 stating that (a) he had called for a full report following the death en route of at least 346 of a shipment of 1200 cattle sent to Israel in June 1998 and (b) the exporter had been asked to show cause why his licence should not be suspended.(2) Has he or his Department received a report on the incident; if so, (a) when, (b) will the report be made public and (c) did the report recommend the suspension or cancellation of the exporter's licence.(3) What action has he taken with respect to the exporter's licence.(4) Is it a fact that details of the incident have been known since the ship arrived in Israel on 1 July 1998 but that results of departmental investigations into the matter are yet to be made public; if so, why has there been a delay.4524Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 (AMLI Act), the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is responsible for a decision in this matter. To assist him in discharging this responsibility he received a number of reports including a report prepared by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority under the Navigation Act 1912 and a number of reports prepared by the Department. The departmental reports included reports prepared by AQIS under the Export Control Act 1982, an incident report, a Bureau of Rural Sciences report on mortalities and two reports analysing possible action under sections 23, 24 and 17 of the AMLI Act.The Minister was provided with a copy of the incident report on 22 December 1998.These reports are not to be released in their entirety, as they deal with commercially sensitive information and cover issues of privacy.The incident report did not recommend suspension or cancellation of the exporter's licence. The Secretary of the Department based his decision on the facts before him having due regard to the requirement of administrative law and the provisions of the AMLI Act.(3) In addition to a range of measures already taken to achieve a satisfactory animal welfare outcome, the Secretary on 11 February 1999 issued a direction under section 17 of the AMLI Act to the exporter not to export live cattle from ports south of the 26th parallel to the Middle East and North Africa during the Northern Hemisphere summer (between 1 May and 31 October). Details of the Secretary's decision were announced in media releases issued by the Minister and the Secretary on 12 February 1999.(4) While information on levels of mortality was available soon after the event, there was a need for full and thorough investigation of events prior to, during and after the voyage. Information was not easily accessible due to the fact that there was a time lapse between events occurring and the reporting, as well as the fact that the event occurred some distance from Australia and beyond Australian national jurisdiction.4524(Question No. 364)3644524Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 8 February:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the report entitled The Cost of Superannuation Tax Concessions which was prepared by Access Economics and released by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, Investment and Financial Services Association Australia, Australian Stock Exchange and Financial Planning Association of Australia in September 1998.(2) Has his attention also been drawn to claims in Appendix 1 of the report that(a) the Treasury TES model for costing superannuation tax concessions assumes that the income taxed as superannuation is otherwise taxable in the hands of the employee (b) the Australian Taxation Office and his Department therefore calculate the concession as the gap between an assumed marginal personal tax rate and the contributions rate of 15 per cent, and(c) the official marginal personal tax rate is not revealed but is likely to be around 40%.(3) Is it a fact the official marginal rate referred to in part (2) is not revealed; if so, why.(4) What is the official marginal rate referred to in part (2).(5) Will he respond to the report; if not, why not; if so, will he present his response to the Parliament or make it available to the public.(6) Does existing tax policy discriminate against superannuation rather than incur a cost in terms of forgone revenue; if not, why not.4525Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3) and (4) The counterfactual marginal tax rates have not been published in recent years. However, it has been noted in earlier statements to be 40 per cent for superannuation income, and this rate continues to be used as the benchmark.(5) No public response is planned or required.(6) No. The taxation of superannuation is concessional.4525(Question No. 411)4114525Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 February 1999:(1) Does the Australian Defence Force use pyridostigmine bromide, a nerve agent pre-treatment tablet.(2) What is the purpose of the tablet and what side effects does it have.(3) Was the tablet taken by Australian troops during the Gulf War; if so, (a) were they warned of side effects and (b) did they take the tablets (i) voluntarily or (ii) under orders.4525Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The purpose of the tablet is to reduce significantly the number and severity of casualties from a nerve agent attack and to increase the number of personnel who can continue their duties. The tablet should be taken eight hourly from eight hours before, and for the duration of, the period when the threat of nerve agent attack is deemed to occur. The side effects are short lived and include increased salivation, nausea and vomiting, abdominal cramps and diarrhoea. At the designated dosage, these side effects do not impair job performance.(3) Yes.(a) Yes(b) The operational commanders were given the responsibility for determining when pyridostigmine pre-treatment should start and end, based on the level of threat from nerve agent attack. The commanders therefore instructed their troops when to commence and cease taking pyridostigmine.