1999-03-293912REPS453901999-03-29Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees45394539453912:31:004539Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the latest in our series of omnibus reports—Report 20: Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville peace monitoring group protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 1998 .Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—In all, this report considers eight treaties covering a wide range of subjects, including the destruction of antipersonnel landmines, the Bougainville peace monitoring group and economic cooperation with Indonesia. In each case the committee has concluded that it is in Australia's national interest to ratify the proposed treaties. In the time available to me, I will comment briefly on the major elements of this report.The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is strongly supportive of the Convention on the Prohibition and Destruction of Antipersonnel Mines. This convention is a historic step towards the aim of a total global ban on antipersonnel landmines. The Australian government's commitment to the convention is to be applauded, as is the passage by this parliament of the Antipersonnel Mines Convention Act 1998, which implements in Australian law the obligations imposed by the convention.Our report makes two recommendations aimed at continuing the momentum towards a global ban on antipersonnel landmines. Firstly, we recommend that the Minister for Defence formulate principles to guide the retention of mines for defence training purposes so as to clarify the process and the time frame for the destruction of those mines not required for training purposes. Secondly, we recommend that in the appropriate international fora the Australian government put a strong position against the development of replacement weapons technologies which have indiscriminate and inhumane effects similar to those possessed by antipersonnel landmines.The committee also strongly supports the Bougainville peace monitoring protocol. Australia has played a significant role in the Bougainville peace process by facilitating truce and cease-fire discussions between the warring parties, by contributing around 250 civilian and unarmed Defence Force personnel to the work of the peace monitoring group, and by sponsoring a substantial and growing aid program to Bougainville.Given the scale and the nature of the devastation caused by the conflict on the island, there is much work to be done to restore even the most basic community services to those living on Bougainville. Australia's aid program will continue to play a crucial role in re-establishing services and infrastructure, in building new systems of administration and in restoring a functioning economy.The third major treaty considered in report No. 20 is the development cooperation agreement with Indonesia. This agreement is intended to provide a generic legal framework for Australia's aid program with Indonesia. It is a useful document which will simplify the project development processes for both governments and for the non-government organisations—that is, the NGOs—which are commissioned from time to time to run aid projects in Indonesia. The agreement is important not only because of what it provides but also because it signals that, at a time of great social, political and economic upheaval in Indonesia, Australia is committed to building structures there to support a continuing and a cooperative relationship with our largest and nearest neighbour.Finally, I would like to refer to the proposed amendment to the health services agreement with the United Kingdom. While we support the amendment and acknowledge that reciprocal medical treatment agreements are of considerable benefit to Australians travelling overseas, we are concerned about the adequacy of the costing information upon which such agreements are based. In this, as in some previous cases, we were not provided with sufficient information to assess whether both parties to the agreement would be exposed to particular costs. I know my colleague the member for Macquarie took this up at the hearings.We have recommended that, when negotiating such agreements in future, the Department of Health and Aged Care undertake a more rigorous assessment of the likely costs to both parties of any such agreements, this one in particular. In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who contributed to our reviews. These contributions are important, and they help to promote greater transparency in the treaty making process. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for statements has not expired, but if no-one else chooses to rise I will ask whether the member for Wentworth wishes to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion.4540Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I do. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.4540454012:37:004540Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have great pleasure in presenting the committee's report on the loss of HMAS Sydney , together with the very many volumes of evidence and minutes of the proceedings received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—HMAS Sydney held a special place in the hearts of Australia, having served with great distinction in the Mediterranean from May 1940 to January 1941. She saw significant action there, most famously playing a crucial role in the sinking of the Italian light cruiser, the Bartolomeo Colleoni . As Billy Hughes remarked:This magnificent ship had seemed to have a charmed life. She had run the gauntlet of the toughest fighting in the Mediterranean and escaped with not much more than a scratch on her paint. Everyone of her countrymen had thrilled to her exploits.On her return to Australia in February 1941, she arrived at Circular Quay to be greeted by thousands of cheering well-wishers. An estimated 200,000 people lined the city streets as the crew marched through the city to a civic reception. It is very poignant to watch footage of that return now, with the knowledge that some nine months later most of those young men would be dead, killed in the service of their country.Sydney spent the following months patrolling the shipping routes around Australia and undertaking convoy duties. Sydney was returning from escorting the troopship Zealandia to the Sunda Strait when disaster struck.On 19 November 1941, following an engagement with the disguised German raider, the Kormoran, the ship with all 645 men on board was lost. This was Australia's greatest single wartime disaster. Many could not accept the German account of the battle and that no Australians had survived to tell their story when over 300 of the Germans had been spared.The committee was asked by the Minister for Defence in August 1997 to examine the circumstances of the sinking of HMAS Sydney. It is surprising to many people that a parliamentary committee should be asked to examine a matter that happened almost 60 years ago. However, it appears that there was no formal naval inquiry or public inquiry held into the loss, either immediately after the disaster or in the postwar period.It is perhaps understandable that a full inquiry may not have been held in December 1941, given the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on 7 December and Australia's increasingly threatened position. However, the lack of a formal review after the war means that the opportunity for the government to gather any evidence that might have been available has been lost.Over the years a number of books have been written on the tragedy, but along with scholarly research has come speculation and innuendo. The debate about what actually happened to Sydney continues to rage. For the committee, the task was quite daunting. So many of those who had first-hand knowledge of that period are now dead or infirm. However, many people contacted the committee with their recollections, and we are very grateful to all of them for making the effort to shed some light on this matter.The committee is aware that this report may not put an end to the wilder accusations and speculation that surround the events of that November so long ago. It is unavoidable that those who choose to see cover-up and conspiracy will not be satisfied with many of the conclusions of the inquiry, and will seek to condemn it as part of that very same cover-up. The committee can only stress that, when looking at the evidence presented to it, it tried to determine what a reasonable person would believe.Before looking at some of the recommendations of the report, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of the chairman of the committee, Senator David MacGibbon. In his position as Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee, Senator MacGibbon played a crucial role in the conduct of the inquiry. Those who know Senator MacGibbon are well aware of his comprehensive knowledge of Defence issues, and his interest in the fate of Sydney has been longstanding. Senator MacGibbon did an excellent job in directing this inquiry; his work and the work of the committee in the 38th Parliament should be acknowledged.I would now like to turn to a number of the recommendations of the report. In all, there are 18 recommendations. Some of them deal with issues such as greater public access to World War II archival material; further research in the Public Record Office in London to try and determine if there are any records of a court or board of inquiry dealing with the loss, or records of a coronial inquiry undertaken on the body of the unknown sailor on Christmas Island. Others concern the unknown sailor found off Christmas Island in February 1942, believed by many to be from the Sydney, and relate to the exhumation of the body in an attempt to identify the remains. Certain recommendations relate to searching for Sydney and Kormoran; and several recommendations concern how Sydney should be commemorated.In tabling this report in the Senate last week, Senator MacGibbon spoke at some length about the unknown sailor on Christmas Island, and I do not propose to repeat those remarks. Instead, I would like to speak about the possibility of finding Sydney and what that might mean.The terms of reference for the inquiry asked the committee to investigate and report on the `desirability and practicability of conducting a search for HMAS Sydney and the extent to which the Commonwealth government should participate in such a search, should one be deemed desirable and practicable'. Certainly, among the 200 or so submissions received by the committee, there was not universal support for a search; a strong view was held that the wrecks were war graves and should remain undisturbed.While everyone acknowledged that there should be no interference with the wrecks, there was a strong counterview that said that there could be no closure to this issue for the families of those who were on Sydney until their final resting place was known. Also, that finally something was being done was seen by the families of the survivors as a sign of faith from the government.After considering all the arguments the committee decided that an attempt should be made to find the wrecks. However, finding them is easier said than done. A number of submissions argued that, as Titanic had been found, surely that same technology could be used to locate Sydney. However, the cases are quite different and hinge around having an adequately defined search area. The search area for Kormoran based on existing knowledge is some 7,200 square kilometres. The possible search area for Sydney is even larger. In comparison, the search area for the Titanic was in the order of 500 square kilometres. There is an often quoted statement attributed to Dr Robert Ballard of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the person who led the team that found the Titanic. He is reported to have stated that finding the Sydney is not like trying to find a needle in a haystack because we don't even know where the haystack is.Many people came forward with their theories on the location of one or more of the wrecks. Different methods were used in their calculations: hindcasting, that is, looking at where the rafts carrying the Kormoran survivors were found and then working backwards, taking factors such as currents and weather conditions into account; archival searches, using the German accounts and positions given during interrogations that followed the capture of the German survivors; and more unusual approaches, such as the Knight Direction Location System, which uses a resonant frequency detection method.The committee believes there is still a great deal of work to be done in defining the search area and that it would be unwise to rush to conduct underwater searches until there is a greater agreement on where the wrecks may be. The committee has therefore recommended that Navy sponsor a seminar to bring together all of those with theories about the final resting place of the wrecks to try to reach some common ground. Only after reaching some degree of consensus should an in-water search be started.The committee has also recommended that the Australian government support the search, matching public donations on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to a total of $2 million, a very important recommendation. The committee has proposed that the HMAS Sydney Foundation Trust, based in Western Australia, would be the most appropriate body to coordinate the fundraising and the actual search. The committee was particularly concerned, however, that should the wrecks be located they be adequately protected as the final resting place of so many Australian servicemen. The committee has recommended that should the wrecks be located in Australian waters they be declared wrecks of historical significance under the terms of the Historic Shipwrecks Act and that a protected zone be declared around them.The search for the Sydney and Kormoran is not guaranteed of success by any means. If it does succeed, it may provide those interested in the fate of the ships with some further insights into the events of 19 November 1941. If the search is unsuccessful it will not mean that people will no longer wonder about the final resting place of the ship. However, an attempt to find the Sydney will be a sign that Australia cares about the 645 men who gave their lives in the defence of their country as well as their families and their friends. I commend this excellent report to the House. (Time expired)12:49:004542Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I join with the member for Calwell in speaking to the tabling of this report on the loss of HMAS Sydney and I would certainly support the remarks that he has made. The work of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has been first class. I particularly endorse his comments about Senator MacGibbon, who has done an outstanding job in chairing what has been a very difficult inquiry and one that—as I think those of us who have had any involvement would realise—raised high emotions and one that worked under some very difficult circumstances in trying to get the facts, of which some will never be known.Overall the inquiry has shown that parliamentary committees—in particular, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—can do some very worthwhile work, even given the time delay in trying to look at what was a very tragic occasion in Australia's maritime and wartime history.As has been pointed out, the HMAS Sydney was lost with all hands on 19 November 1941. This accounted for more than 35 per cent of the Royal Australian Navy servicemen killed in action between 1939 and 1945. For 12 days after the incident the government issued no less than 11 censorship notices preventing the publication of details before the Prime Minister was prepared to confirm on 1 December that the Sydney had indeed been sunk. With no explanation given as to how the Sydney and her crew had disappeared, rumours of government cover-ups began. Suspicions were heightened for a number of reasons: firstly, the delay in making the official announcement, despite widespread public rumour; secondly, the lack of any real explanation when the announcement did come; thirdly, the secrecy which surrounded the official investigation of the disaster which continued into January 1942; and, fourthly, the many obvious questions which the government failed to publicly address.As the member for Calwell has pointed out, the committee in its report made 18 recommendations to cover a range of issues that were raised during the inquiry and which the committee felt were important to respond to. Clearly, in those recommendations a very serious attempt has been made through the parliament to try to address the many concerns that are raised by those who keep asking, quite validly, questions as what really did happen and why we still seem to know so little about this terrible tragedy that occurred to what was the pride of the Australian Navy of the time.I would like to talk a little about references to the need to open up the archives. In the first recommendation the committee asks that the public have full access to all the material. It is quite amazing the amount of material that is there on the Sydney itself. What is still not known is to what extent there is material there that people are still unaware of that may shed further light on that tragic day in November 1941.There have been several publications since the Second World War. For example, in 1981 Michael Montgomery published Who Sank the Sydney. He gave that account based on the archival material made available to the public in 1972. Montgomery's account reflected his strong conviction that a cover-up had indeed occurred. Several more volumes on the disaster followed in subsequent years with differing views on what had occurred on that fateful day, including the more recent one, Tom Frame's HMAS Sydney. Loss and Con troversy. This book, which was published in 1993, also looked at the issue of suppressed documentation, calling the sinking `a grand conspiracy of deception within officialdom'.Conspiracy theorists maintain that somewhere in official government archives there must exist documents that provide answers to many of the unanswered questions. Suspicions that documentary evidence had been destroyed, misplaced or concealed led to the committee examining the issue of archival material as part of the inquiry. As such, the committee recommended that the Australian government review the operations of the Archives Act 1983 with regard to making available to the public all material relating to World War II, including the 21.6 kilometres of material on the shelves relating to the Sydney.It is a staggering amount of material and one would appreciate that the sheer logistics of assessing that material is a major task. However, we believe that that recommendation is one that should be followed up to assist those who still have many concerns, including the relatives and successors of those who tragically lost their lives on that occasion, together with many other friends and relations. It is not an unreasonable recommendation.Until 1966 access was restricted to records at least 50 years old. This 50-year rule, as it was known, was changed in December 1970 when the then government introduced a 30-year rule. This change saw the introduction of several changes to the rules governing public access to government materials, allowing materials about the events of World War II to become accessible. However, not all records were publicly available from that time. Access to such records was discretionary with documents needing to be checked for sensitivity. Departments could withhold exceptionally sensitive papers, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest, whether on security or other grounds. Furthermore, departments could withhold documents containing information supplied in confidence the release of which might constitute a breach of good faith, and information about individuals the disclosure of which would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons. It is with those caveats that the changes were brought into place.In 1984, with the proclamation of the Archives Act, the discretion of government agencies to unilaterally refuse access to these records was removed. The Archives Act now gives the public a right of access to government records over 30 years old, with an exception for those records falling into certain categories. The Archives Act overrides the secrecy provisions in almost all other legislation for records over 30 years old. The committee believes that it is unlikely that any material relating to the Second World War retains a degree of sensitivity that warrants exemption. Although most of this material is considered to be accessible, difficulties arise as the materials cannot be accessed until cleared on a piece-by-piece basis.The committee believes the decision should be taken to make all material relating to the Second World War open to public access on a blanket basis. This would place the onus on individuals to undertake archival research into the loss of the HMAS Sydney free of restrictions which in the past have fuelled suspicions that material is being withheld.Obviously, the report will not put an end to much of the speculation surrounding the loss of the HMAS Sydney. However, allowing historians to access the wealth of information being held on the Sydney and on the Second World War may finally achieve that and more light may be shed on the whole subject.This has been a very big inquiry by the committee. As I say, 18 recommendations have been made and they have been canvassed already in part. It shows that the recommendations to government do take into account the whole range of submissions provided and give a very serious and sober assessment of what can be done, albeit many years later.I have great pleasure in supporting the tabling of this report and will certainly be recommending to the government that they respond to these 18 recommendations favourably. We hope that those who feel such loss will gain some solace from what is being offered. 12:58:004544Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to make a few remarks about the report. Firstly, those of us who are pleased to see this report need to express our gratitude to the member for Perth, Stephen Smith, and the then member for Moore, Paul Filing, who, through a private member's motion, really were the instigators of this report.I am one of those members who was not particularly pleased that the committee was looking at this issue. It is difficult for a parliamentary committee to be very conclusive about events that occurred 58 years ago. I know there is a danger of trying to judge things by today's norms, but it is a real blight on the Navy that a proper naval board of inquiry was never held closer to the event. I believe such a board could have been much more certain about the circumstances surrounding the event. I believe the Navy owed that to the 645 men who were lost, as well as to their families, friends and relatives.Inasmuch as the committee has been able to do anything, I think it is that we have been able to rule out some of the wilder suggestions about what happened.It is an unusual report in that the conclusions are of almost equal weight to the recommendations because it is in the conclusions where the committee comes to finality about the circumstances surrounding the loss of HMAS Sydney. I am pleased about the recommendations. The difficulty in locating the wreck is quite great so, although we have recommended expenditure of some Commonwealth moneys on a search, it is conditional. Unless we can be satisfied that we are going to get a much better handle on where the haystack is, very little Commonwealth money will be expended.I particularly want to mention two recommendations that have not been mentioned by the chairman of the committee or previous speakers. Firstly, we have an opportunity in 2001 to have a 60-year memorial of the loss of Sydney. I hope that we will have a permanent memorial in Western Australia and simultaneous functions in New South Wales, in Sydney, and in Western Australia.Secondly, I want to mention a very modest recommendation—that is, that in memory of those serving men who were lost on HMAS Sydney there should be a research grant scheme instituted, funded by Navy, in the name of HMAS Sydney, of some $50,000. A similar scheme already exists in Army. It would allow a small amount of money to be paid out each and every year for interesting research projects undertaken into naval history. I think that, if the government were prepared to generously accept this recommendation, it would get very good value for money, and the memory of those who have served will continue for a very long period of time.As a member of the committee, I concur with the conclusions and recommendations. I suppose I should not be churlish, but I do think that, given the circumstances of an inquiry being undertaken 58 years after the event, this is a good report, although we will never be able to make up for the fact that there was not a proper naval board of inquiry at the time. The men and their families and friends certainly deserve that.13:03:004545Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I echo the comments of the previous speaker. In fact, I mentioned on Friday night at a gathering at Colonel Light Gardens RSL the fact that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade had released a report on HMAS Sydney , and the president laconically said, `Gee, it took you long enough.'The meeting was quite interesting because also present was a former RAAF chaplain, Father John Kinsman. He relayed the story that he had, on a flight to Christmas Island in a C130, performed a funeral service for a crewman of HMAS Sydney who was not on that final voyage of the Sydney. The crewman had always retained a link with HMAS Sydney, and when he died many years after 1941 it was his request that he be buried at sea at the approximate location of the sinking of HMAS Sydney. As this report has shown, there is no firm agreement on the location of HMAS Sydney, but there are some very interesting studies and some very interesting arguments as to where it might be.As we have already heard, the Sydney sank with 645 crew. There were no survivors. In the committee report we have a list of all the vessels this century that have sunk in battle without survivors, often due to heavy shelling and the explosion of the magazine. It remains, 57 years on, Australia's greatest maritime mystery.If you think back to that period and the three months from November 1941 onwards, there was the sinking of HMAS Sydney, a light cruiser, with the loss of 645 sailors in November 1941. In December 1941, there was the bombing of Pearl Harbour and the Japanese invasion of Malaya. In February 1942, there was the fall of Singapore and the capture of 150,000 allied servicemen on that peninsula, and eventually the fall of the Dutch East Indies.In that three-month period it must have been a searing experience for anyone who was alive at that time to realise that not only had the Sydney been sunk but all around the region the allies were having very serious setbacks. In fact, it is still commemorated now. The launch of submarines like Farncomb and Waller commemorate RAN servicemen who were involved in the battles of the Sunda Strait and the Java Sea during the period.The committee touched on things like the body that was washed ashore on Christmas Island and carley floats that were found afterwards. The Western Australian Maritime Museum has two carley floats. The Australian War Memorial has one. Another one that almost certainly did come from HMAS Sydney has now been lost. One of the recommendations is for someone to examine both the ones in the Western Australian Maritime Museum and the one in the Australian War Memorial. The report also mentions a memorial at Fremantle for HMAS Sydney, which I think is good idea.The body on Christmas Island is a difficult issue because there is still no firm evidence as to where the body was buried. I would say it is worth pursuing on Christmas Island to find out if we can locate the grave site, and I would say it is important that we commemorate the grave site. I do not agree with disinterring in the body. I do not agree with doing DNA testing. We have talked about a needle in a haystack; this is another needle in a haystack.In terms of the search for the Sydney, a submission from Bernard O'Sullivan said that the last sighting of HMAS Sydney by the survivors of the encounter was it steaming away with smoke and flames coming from her. In relation to searching for the Sydney and the Kormoran, Kormoran is in an area of 7,000 square metres and the Sydney area is much larger. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has promised support in locating HMAS Sydney, providing the search areas can be narrowed down to Bismarck and Titanic parameters, which were only 500 square metres. It looks like it is in either 2,500 or 4,900 metres depth of water, which is no problem for technology. Regarding the examination of overseas sources, Dutch signals intelligence was destroyed before the Japanese capture. There is no material in Dutch archives that relates to the Sydney and German records have been extensively examined. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Calwell wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?QJ4Southcott, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills4546s2044546Bill presented by Mr Bevis.13:10:004546Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Australian workers have found themselves under attack from two sources in recent years. The principal source of that attack comes from this government's legislation: legislation that seeks to deny them the right to collective bargaining and collective representation; legislation which, in the few weeks of sitting since the last election, has seen attempts to deny some 2½ million workers access to unfair dismissal laws; legislation that seeks to remove superannuation from those matters able to be dealt with by the industrial commission; and, of course, legislation on junior rates of pay which seeks to override an industrial commission hearing being conducted at this time by virtue of an act of this parliament.The second major source of concern for Australian workers is the practice we saw during the waterfront dispute with the Patrick company—and with some others—whereby companies go into insolvency and cease to have money to pay their employees, but in fact the people associated with the companies and who control the financial interests of those companies indeed do have the wherewithal to meet the obligations to workers. But, rather than meet those obligations, they use a system of legal contrivances to establish other shelf companies and avoid their obligations.The Employment Security Bill 1999 , which I present to the parliament today, is aimed squarely at that problem. It is aimed at ensuring that workers' entitlements to pay, to accumulated leave and to other financial entitlements are actually provided to them notwithstanding the legal contrivances that some employers are willing to go to. I hasten to add that this is a small problem in terms of the number of employers who engage in this sort of activity, but we saw a very high profile example of this very thing with the Patrick stevedoring firm in a process and a campaign that was certainly aided and supported by this government.The workers in that situation believed themselves to be employed by the same employer. They believed themselves to be employed by a company that had contracts to provide stevedoring services. It was only when the matter was unravelled in the courts that they and the rest of the Australian public discovered that the Patrick company had established shelf companies and had shifted the employment of those people to those shelf companies, and those workers found themselves employed by shelf companies that had no capacity to pay their wages and accrued leave entitlements.This sort of contrivance, this artificial arrangement, entered into expressly to avoid obligations to employees has no place in the decent and proper management of industrial relations in this country. Regrettably, the current law allows it to occur. The bill I present to the parliament today will ensure that, in those circumstances in which an associated company is able to meet the obligations of its bankrupt affiliate, it does so and that the workers' entitlements to wages are met.Obviously not every company that goes into liquidation participates in these sorts of contrivances. There are many enterprises led by good people who, for one reason or another, find themselves on hard times and unable to continue. But we have seen a spate of cases where companies have gone into receivership owing very substantial sums of money to Australian workers, and I want to mention a couple of those.At the Woodlawn mine, 160 workers lost $6 million in entitlements. At the Grafton meatworks, 250 workers lost $3 million. In Rockhampton and Yeppoon, 157 hospital workers lost $1.4 million. In Sizzler restaurants, 2,000 workers lost $2 million in entitlements. Of course, we had workers from Cobar coming here and 270 of them lost some $6 million in entitlements. We as a parliament have a responsibility to ensure that workers' entitlements are honoured and that artificial contrivances of business people in cahoots with smart lawyers and accountants do not deprive them of those rights.This bill will fulfil that role. I commend it to the House. It is a pity that a bill of a similar form was not debated by this parliament, although it was moved by my colleague Mr McMullan in the last parliament. I urge the government to accept this bill and bring on a debate. (Time expired)ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—by leave—I present the explanatory memorandum of the Employment Security Bill 1999 .Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday.Private Members' Business4547454713:14:004547Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I move:That the House:(1) continues to support the staging of the Sydney Olympics as an opportunity to showcase Australia, its people, culture and above all our sporting traditions;(2) acknowledges the commitment, work and performance of Australia's athletes and sporting organisations as they prepare to participate in the 2000 Olympics;(3) deplores the disrepute caused to the Olympic ideals by the continuing bribery allegations;(4) notes the concerns expressed by the local and international community at the loss of integrity in the Olympic movement and its possible effect on the successful staging of Australia's 2000 Games; and(5) requests that SOCOG calls on the IOC to fund any shortfall in sponsorship finances which may result from inappropriate action by IOC members.As a lover of sports, I am very enthusiastic about the Sydney Games. As a Victorian, I am pleased that Melbourne's groundwork paid off for the Sydney bid, ensuring it will truly be Australia's games. The Deakin electorate is home to many fine athletes who have had Olympic aspirations since childhood—Anna Wilson, Lauren Hewitt, Kyle van der Kuyp and Cathy Freeman, to name but a few. It is unfortunate that the current furore should detract from the preparation for the games and more a tragedy should it interfere with the preparation of our athletes. How ironic it is that the future of the Olympic movement has been put at risk by those who directly control the legacy of Baron Pierre de Coubertin.Sports management theory will show that this is another example of an amateur sports body evolving into a commercial entity with all the competing values associated with such a transition. Although the games organising committees are now set up along corporate lines, the games they play to accommodate the Olympic family are not. The genesis of this can be traced track to the LA Games of 1984. The games broke with tradition by turning a profit. President Samaranch begged the USOC for a healthy slice of those profits and appointed the corrupt American Bob Helmick to the club to ensure he got them. Since then, the Olympic motto of Citius Altius Fortius has applied not only to the competing athletes, but also to a growing number of IOC members who have taken bribes and other inducements while travelling the world in lavish style.As the IOC answers to no-one, this cancerous behaviour has gone unchecked. The damage caused to the Olympic movement can only be repaired by changing the culture of the IOC. The IOC has now banned delegate visits to bidding cities altogether, which seems just as futile as sending over 100 of its members on grand tours.While the games have changed significantly, the IOC has not. It still refers to itself as the `supreme authority of the Olympic movement'. Delegates represent the interests not of individual nations or their Olympic organisations but of the IOC itself. Until that situation is reversed, reforms are mere window-dressing. A possible revamped structure can be found in the existing IOC charter—that is, in the recognition of the world's six regional Olympic associations. These associations would emerge as important regional representatives of the national Olympic committees in their region.The sporting world demands full transparency from the guardians of the flame. Until recently it was impossible to get an accurate picture of its financial performance. A veil of secrecy surrounded the detail. We can be sure the coffers are not empty. Revenue from television broadcast rights of the summer games alone grew ninefold from $US100 million in 1976 to around $US900 million in 1996. Sydney is entrusted with continuing the recent expectation of a successful and financially viable games. However, the selling of sponsorships to ensure that the Olympic caravan does not leave a trail of debt has slowed in its momentum. Recent reports indicate that SOCOG is about $90 million short of its corporate sponsorship target. This is clearly due to the actions of some IOC delegates and the loss of credibility of the organisation, from the President down.When Sydney bid to host the games, they expected that they would provide a fillip for sport and tourism. The games were a valued asset. But there is now the real danger that Sydney has bought damaged goods and, in one way or another, the Australian public may have to foot the bill for years to come.In that light SOCOG should call on the IOC to fund any shortfalls in finances caused by the revelations of the corruption and greed of Samaranch's team. Remember, the Olympic charter states, `All profits derived from the celebration of the Olympic Games shall be applied to the development of the Olympic movement and of sport.' The IOC will certainly make a healthy profit from the Sydney 2000 Games. Therefore, by making good any losses suffered by Sydney it would truly live out its charter. In the spirit of Olympism, they could fund a shortfall or even guarantee a minimum surplus. In this way the IOC could ensure that our athletes and sporting organisations will not suffer post-Olympics from any adverse financial consequences of hosting the games.The IOC, by breaching their own ideals, have threatened the future of the Olympic movement, of which they are the trustees. It is only the public's insatiable desire for a universal sporting competition that keeps the Olympic movement alive. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?FB6THOMSONMr Andrew Thomson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:20:004548Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise today to give in-principle support to paragraphs 1 to 4 of this motion. I have some reservations about paragraph 5. I will first deal with the early sections of the motion, after which I will seek to highlight the problems with paragraph 5 of the motion. Paragraph 1 calls on the House to make a statement of its continuing support for the staging of the Sydney Olympics:. . . as an opportunity to showcase Australia, its people, culture and . . . our sporting traditions;There seems little doubt that there remains strong bipartisan support for the Sydney Olympics within this place. Further, the success of the recent opening of Stadium Australia—one of the major venues for the games—would indicate that many Australian people share that support.With the expected influx of overseas visitors and international television exposure, the Olympics will provide the opportunity to showcase our nation and its people. It will also place Australia on the international stage and open to criticism on our ability to handle matters of internal affairs. It is a shame that the government appears intent on tarnishing the image that Australia will present to the international community.We will be judged by more than just the games. Attacks on the rights of organised labour, the emasculation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the victimisation of our young unemployed are just a few examples—as is the Prime Minister's reluctance to acknowledge our indigenous Australians' custodianship of this land, not to mention his inability to offer the Australian people a serious proposal for a new preamble to our Constitution that could inspire us to be proud of our national identity. At the same time, the Prime Minister demands to perform the official opening of the 2000 Olympic Games.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am glad the honourable member has got back to the games.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—I have never left it, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a role historically reserved for the host country's head of state. In our present situation, that would be the Queen of England. So could our real head of state please stand up?The second paragraph states our acknowledgment of the `commitment, work and performance' of our `athletes and sporting organisations'. As a nation, we have always respected and held in high regard the efforts and achievements of our sportspeople, not only in relation to the Olympics but in a wide range of sporting events—local, national and international. What we need to remember, however, is that today's sporting heroes were yesterday's junior players. Without adequate funding to support the development of junior sports through the provision of high standard venues and equipment, accredited coaches and officials and access to quality competition our young people will not have the opportunity to develop to the elite stance required to continue to excel in high level competitions.The next two paragraphs of the motion deplore `the disrepute caused' to the Olympics by the bribery allegations and `notes the concerns expressed . . . at the loss of integrity in the Olympic movement and its possible effect on the successful staging of Australia's 2000 Games'. It is truly unfortunate that the International Olympic Committee's structure and bidding process has failed to keep pace with the publicly expected standards of probity. We can only hope that the IOC will retain its commitment to move forward to address these problems in a full and open fashion. The spin-off effects of the original bribery allegations have tarnished the whole Olympic movement, not just our games in 2000. The efficacy of the win of every past host city, and those that will host the games after 2000 as well as every bidding city, has now been put in doubt. I believe that we can overcome the effects of the current controversies and go on to host the most successful games of this millennium. What we need to do now is focus on that task. We can deplore the fact that these issues arose, but if they lead to progressive and overdue reform of the IOC it will have produced a beneficial outcome that may see a revitalisation of the Olympics as a whole. Similarly, we can note the concerns expressed about possible ramifications flowing from these problems. We do need to pay heed to the views of others. However, we should not accept such as a fait accompli. The task of making the games a success, both as an event and financially, may be harder because of the recent controversy, but we need to focus on recovering that ground—not looking for someone else to blame.This brings me to the last paragraph of the motion that `requests that SOCOG calls on the IOC to fund any shortfall in sponsorship finances which may result from inappropriate action by IOC members'. This section of the motion is largely a feelgood, blame others statement. I wonder why SOCOG should be the one left to make such an impractical and unlikely call on the IOC? If the mover of this motion believes this should be done, then why not request the Howard government to make this call? It would be very difficult to establish in a clear fashion what, if any, losses were the results of `inappropriate action' alleged `by IOC members'. The contracts surrounding the organisation and operation of the games in Sydney provide (1) that the responsibility to build the venues and to meet all costs associated with the games rests with the taxpayers; (2) that approximately $160 million be provided to the Australian Olympic Committee to maintain assistance to Australian athletes; and (3) that the IOC has the right to negotiate major international sponsorship agreements and to keep one-third of the revenue from such sponsorships, 40 per cent of all television revenue and five per cent of all marketing contracts negotiated by SOCOG. (Time expired)13:25:004550Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—Beneath the rhetoric, this motion is really about a flourishing civil culture of games and sport in Australia—I say `civil' as opposed to `public' or `government administered'—and about the government's role in sport which, in the long term, is questionable. We should take the opportunity to examine why government is involved at all in sport and we should ask ourselves what the effect is of that involvement in sport, especially at a local level.For some very solid background on this topic, I recommend an essay by Barry Maley, a Sydney scholar at the Centre for Independent Studies which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 August 1990. Maley points out that the essence of games is voluntary submission to a set of rules by the participants. He points out that there is an irony in that we Australians are often said to be very contemptuous of authority, to be natural rebels, and yet we obviously love games. Every weekend, we see in our electorates many thousands of people submitting themselves voluntarily to those rules.He goes on to postulate that a society with an elaborate and sophisticated culture of games is much more likely to be politically sophisticated and, therefore, suffused with greater liberty. I believe he is right in saying so. While I served as Minister for Sport and Tourism I felt that, in the long term, there was something of a contradiction in Australian government policy about sports. Government on both sides in the past have sought a deep involvement in sport. We fund elite athletes to the tune of many millions of dollars and we tax Australian families very heavily to pay for that. We fund the sports federations and, in doing so, we relieve them of the necessity, to that extent, of raising any money themselves. I do not think this sort of sports policy is sustainable in the long term, because it really seeks to foster outcomes that are at best meaningless—unless you regard the modern entertainment media as important in our citizens' lives—and at worst sometimes dangerous. We can see now that elite sport really must be divorced from so-called national prestige. That its biggest problem is drug taking should tell us that it is in very deep trouble.Sport and games, if they flourish locally, especially in schools, work to create social capital. They motivate parents and local businesses to give money to local sports clubs to improve their local community, yet heavy taxes and unnecessary government spending may actually harm this healthy habit. So you could say that, in financing elite sport for so-called national prestige, the government is actually working to inhibit a valuable thing in Australia—that is, the cultivation and growth of social capital locally. The Olympic movement was never really a force for good. These days, of course, it has harnessed government to its selfish and preposterous pseudo-political ends and, in that sense, it works to leach money out of families and out of local businesses.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Leichhardt will not pass between the speaker and the chair.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—This works to inflict damage on our great Australian games culture and, worse still, it also infects the weak-minded among us with the notion that the government can do it all for us, that we can get away with a little less effort. To me, the antithesis of the Australian sporting ethic is that we can get away with less effort because the government can do it for us. So I say that, in the long term, the government should leave sport well alone.13:30:004551Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to speak to this motion. It is appropriate that we are discussing the Olympics hosted by Sydney under the auspices of the Carr Labor government two days after its re-election in what was a rout of the opposition. We are indeed on track. The Sydney 2000 Olympics and Paralympic Games will have a very positive effect. KPMG has estimated that there will be $7.3 billion in additional economic benefits, that there will be an increase in employment of more than 150,000 jobs, and more than $1.9 billion will be collected in Commonwealth taxes.Olympic planning under Labor is on track. All construction is on time and on budget. When Labor came to government in New South Wales in 1995, it inherited a situation in which the construction of not one new facility had been started by the Liberals in the 18 months following the bid's success. Olympic planning was a shambles presided over by four different ministers and five different government departments. No master plan had been developed for the Homebush site.In contrast, Labor has built the world's largest Olympic stadium in which functions are already being held successfully. All facilities for the games will be completed by September this year, a full year before the start of the Games. SOCOG has made great progress: in particular it has already raised more revenue than has ever been raised by an Olympic committee before. It has successfully released a ticketing policy, a launch for volunteers who will work on the games, the route of the torch relay and the torch bearer selection process. It has also successfully conducted a number of sporting test events.Sydney's Olympic organisers are not being distracted by the IOC turmoil, which is why I want to particularly talk about section (5) of this motion which I believe is not appropriate. There is no serious indication that sponsors' revenue is in danger. Further, under the Olympic host city contract, SOCOG has no legal powers to ask the IOC for more money. Both expenditure and revenue to run the games are determined by the host city Sydney, not by the IOC. The fact is that SOCOG could still stage a games of which all Australians could be very proud on a budget of around $2.1 billion. If SOCOG does not raise one more cent, it has still raised the $2.1 billion to be fully funded. In response to the honourable member opposite who moved this motion, I do not believe that section (5) is appropriate. It is appropriate that we talk about how positive the developments have been. Two days ago we saw in part a vote for the Carr Labor government because the people of New South Wales are very proud about how efficiently the government is running the Olympics planning process.I was surprised that the member for Cook is not listed to speak on this motion, given the role he played in the Olympics bid process. Perhaps he is out commiserating with the former member for Miranda, who has joined the unemployment queue as a result of the general view which people in New South Wales have that it is only New South Wales Labor which is competent enough to stage something such as the Olympic Games. This is one of the reasons why they rejected the incompetent rabble that is represented, for the moment, by the New South Wales Liberals under Kerry Chikarovski.I commend all those who are doing work in New South Wales—the Premier, Bob Carr, the Olympics minister, Michael Knight, and all those associated with the planning, including the SOCOG committee. I think it is very important that in the next 18 months this federal government and the federal parliament play a very supportive role for what will be an event which will give great credit to all Australians. We can all be very proud of the Olympics. They will be a sense of great pride overseas for ex-pat Australians. Even more importantly, it will raise and enhance the reputation of Australia as a nation that has the ability to hold the millennium games in a way which will make them the best games ever held. (Time expired)13:35:004552Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—It is a great pleasure that I speak in this debate on the motion moved by the honourable member for Deakin about the Olympic Games in Sydney. It is even more gratifying to speak in this debate on a motion moved by someone who represents an outer Melbourne seat. We do know the competition that exists between Sydney and Melbourne from time to time.I served in the Greiner and Fahey cabinets. I am well aware of what went on in the bid for Sydney to gain the Olympics for 2000. Gaining the Olympics was a very concerted and well-planned operation. I am also well aware of subjects that have been raised by the honourable member for Cook in this House. The honourable member for Cook, who was the minister presiding over the Olympic bid at that time, did report back to cabinet on certain issues that concerned him and that cabinet deliberated on whether in fact they would agree to or not. The New South Wales cabinet at that time was very scrupulous in what we might do. We knew what China was doing in Africa in relation to building roads. Here was a country that could not look after its own people and it was out there making all sorts of contributions to African nations in trying to gain the Olympic Games. As the honourable member for Cook said, the biggest surprise that we in the Fahey cabinet received on that night was the fact that `Sydney' was called out because the IOC President at the time had never seen Beijing spelt that way before.We understood clearly the responsibility of the government to ensure that the Olympics were staged successfully and profitably. We drew on the experience from Queensland that had successfully held a Commonwealth Games and an Expo, and its Premier of the day, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, whom the Labor Party often likes to berate, was very careful in the way that the infrastructure costs were contained. One of the greatest problems we have in New South Wales at the present time is that the infrastructure costs have not been contained. There has been a blow-out of some $1 billion and the taxpayers of New South Wales will be paying for this for years to come.As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, the country is already feeling it. There have been cutbacks by the Carr government in funds to country areas which are obviously being funnelled towards the Olympic Games in Sydney. Country New South Wales is not very impressed with that and not very impressed with the management of the construction operations in Sydney. The honourable member for Grayndler looks at these things through rose-tinted glasses at the present time. I dare say that is a little better than being red tinted, which they usually are.The fact is that there was work done before the Labor Party took over. He must forget that the Olympic pool was almost completed by the time the Labor Party won government in New South Wales. He would also be aware that the Homebush Bay site was a site that had to be cleaned quite considerably of contamination from previous industrial efforts at that site. There was a lot of planning and a lot of work that went into getting the substance of the games ready to proceed. As I said, the coalition cabinet also had in place plans to contain the costs, which are so important in this matter.If you want to look at Labor Party management, just look at Darling Harbour. Just have a look at the construction of this Parliament House. It started off as an estimate of something like $250,000 to $300,000 and finished up at $1.2 billion. That is management under Labor. Darling Harbour was the same. I would like to see the member for Kingsford-Smith come in here—he was the minister responsible at the time. If you want me to go through Labor Party management, I will do it. We have plenty of states to go through and plenty of federal governments to go through if you want to talk about Labor Party management.The honourable member for Deakin would be interested to know that when the Greiner government first won government in New South Wales the Victorian debt at the time stood at $32 billion. By the time Joan Kirner was kicked out, it was $40 billion. That is obviously the way the Labor Party manages any of its states and any of its obligations. The same thing is happening with the Olympic Games in Sydney. Who is going to pay? The taxpayers of New South Wales and country New South Wales. (Time expired)13:39:004553Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Like millions of Australians, I was wonderfully excited about the news several years ago that Sydney had won the right to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000. When I first saw this motion put together by government members, I approached it with some trepidation. In general, the tone of it is a negative tone. It is a tone which seeks to denigrate some aspects of the games. My concerns have just been confirmed by the three speakers opposite who have exhibited a miserable approach to the Sydney Olympics to see if they can denigrate and drag down the Sydney Olympics.We here are excited. We think it is wonderful that the Sydney Olympics are proceeding. I do call on the government to call these people into line so we can celebrate the Sydney Olympics in a spirit of true bipartisanship and as Australians. Maybe I can bring some extra dignity and enthusiasm to the debate by quoting someone about the Olympic Games. He said:There is nothing in the world like being in the Olympic City during a Games. The brew is one of excitement, anxiety, colour and athletic endeavour that, when taken in deep draughts by any youngster with natural ability, saturates the brain with aspirations that can lead to all sorts of juvenile resolutions. How lucky I was that my mother and father in 1956 took me from Perth to Melbourne for the first time and put me in contact with all this.Those words were spoken by Herb Elliott, Australia's gold medallist in the 1,500 metres at the Rome Olympic Games. He was one of the world's greatest middle-distance runners of all time. In fact, he was never beaten over a mile or 1,500 metres.SOCOG has announced its ticketing policy. Five million tickets will be available for sale to the Australian public when tickets go on sale in mid-1999. All Australians are getting an opportunity to be involved in the Olympics and to see the Olympics. Further than that, SOCOG will set aside 1½ million tickets priced between $10 and $19 to enable children and the financially disadvantaged to see Olympic Games events.What of the impact and the economic benefits, if you like, of the Sydney Olympics? According to the latest estimates of the Tourism Forecasting Council, 1½ million additional international tourists are projected to visit Australia from the mid-1990s to 2005-06 because of the Olympics related exposure. I can point out that half of those tourist visitors are expected to also travel to my state of Queensland. These tourists are estimated to generate an additional $2.7 billion in tourism exports for Australia. Over a 12-year gain period, the Sydney 2000 Games are projected to contribute an additional $6½ billion to Australia's gross domestic product.Let us look at some of the benefits in the local area. I used to live in Lidcombe, not very far from Homebush Bay. The 760-hectare site of Homebush Bay had been marred for decades by serious environmental damage after years of landfilling and waste dumping activities. Parts of the site have been used variously as naval armaments depots, the New South Wales government abattoir, the state brickworks and as a dumping ground for much of Sydney's household and industrial waste. It is now going to be one of the greatest sporting precincts in the world.A couple of weeks ago we saw the success of the first operational event at the Olympic stadium which attracted 104,000 people. In addition, we are going to get a superb new site for the Royal Easter Show. As a result of the Sydney Olympics, we are going to see the creation of a major metropolitan park of 400 hectares which will be larger than the city's biggest existing parks, Centennial and Moore parks. Let us look ahead with generosity of spirit in approaching this issue of the Sydney Olympics. Let us not, as government members seem intent on doing, clutch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Let us support SOCOG. Let us support people like Sandy Hollway, Simon Balderstone and John Bowan, who are former colleagues of mine. I pay tribute to SOCOG and to its professionalism. Certainly, with the re-election of the Carr government and with Olympics minister Knight, it leaves this great task of organising and hosting the Sydney Olympics in good, safe hands.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The time allotted for the debate has expired. I indicate to the House that the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members455445544554Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I was very pleased to receive a letter last week from Mr Stephen Hains, the City Manager of the City of Salisbury, on the ongoing vexed question of the Wingfield dump.The Salisbury Council has an interest in the management of the Wingfield landfill site due to its strong interest in maintaining the health of the Barker Inlet and the North Arm Creek estuaries. The council pointed out to me the sensitivity of these environments, highlighted recently by the significant dieback of mangroves north of the site. Whilst not proven, this would appear to have occurred as a consequence of excessive acidification of soils in that area, attributable to the landfill site at Wingfield.The Salisbury Council's examination of documents prepared by the City of Adelaide, the EPA and the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, reveal that potential movement of acidic water emanating from naturally occurring peat soils both within the tip site and on its boundary and the translocation of pore water to the mangroves due to horizontal pressure from an increased tip height have not been addressed. Surprise, surprise!In addition to the above, Mr Hains points out that the control of litter from the Wing field tip has been an ongoing problem, and significant quantities of plastics, paper and contaminants have been blown from the tip into the North Arm Creek despite the efforts of the Adelaide City Council to recover this litter. He also points out that an increase in the height of the tip is perceived to expose the landfill to increased wind velocities thereby exacerbating the problems currently experienced. That puts a different slant on the Wingfield dump and to claims by the Adelaide City Council of no odour, no dust, no litter off site and that satisfactory environmental safeguards are in place.On behalf of my constituents, I thank Mr Hains and the Salisbury Council for the above information and for their opposition to an increase in the height of the Wingfield tip.45544554Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—As we all know, members of parliament are always getting complaints and sometimes it is just nice to pause for a short while and recognise some good things that we see happening. Three good things happened to me in the last couple of days in relation to good customer service.First of all, there was Terry Graham at the Willows Pool Shop. When I went in there on Saturday as a new customer, Terry could not help me enough. It was very good to see the way that he looks after his customers. Later that night, there was Leigh Bassett at the Hog's Breath Cafe at Cannon Park in Thuringowa. What a delightful young lady she was. She is a university student during the day and works at the ANZ Bank, and she works at the restaurant at night, but has time on her hands to look after the customers. It was great to see.Finally, I went into Westpac in Canberra city this morning. Normally the big banks do not have such a kind reputation, but John Fisher at Westpac was a tremendous customer service officer. It was really terrific to see that the Westpac bank is looking after its customers. I certainly say a great `well done' to those who understand the value of excellent customer service.45554555Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Today I want to speak of the sorrow at the news of the death of Dr Michael Aris, the husband of Burma's democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The attitude of the military government of Burma in refusing a visa to Dr Aris in his last months of life is to be deplored, and our sympathy and thoughts are with Aung San Suu Kyi, her family and her followers in Burma.Aung San Suu Kyi has made and continues to make a contribution to her people that has already brought acknowledgment with a Nobel peace prize. The arrogance of the Burmese military government in offering her a visa to visit Dr Aris and expecting her to believe that they would allow her back into Burma is extraordinary.Dr Aris, a senior research fellow at Oxford University, campaigned tirelessly for Burmese democracy. In the final months of his life, he repeatedly attempted to gain a visa to visit his wife in Burma but his wish was frustrated by the military government's stalling. Dr Aris had seen his wife on only five brief occasions in the last 10 years, the last being in Rangoon for Christmas in 1995. Appeals by several countries, prominent individuals and organisations were made to the Burmese authorities, but to no avail. The United States, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and the Pope were among them, but none were successful.Rightfully and understandably, our eyes and the eyes of the world are currently on Europe, but we should not forget the continuing struggle—at all levels of the community—that goes on in Burma. The death of Dr Aris and the situation facing Aung Sun Suu Kyi yet again display that struggle. (Time expired)45554555Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The historic town of Mount Morgan is the new northern extremity of my electorate. The shire of some 3,500 people has been synonymous with gold mining and it is said that in 1902 enormous gold production from Mount Morgan saved the then fledgling Commonwealth from financial ruin.I recently visited the Mount Morgan High School which, in keeping with the town's vibrant history, can claim to be the first of Queensland's modern state high schools, having been founded in 1912. Its gracious brick facade of that era attests to the role it played in early education in Central Queensland. It was my pleasure to address the grade 10 students in the social education class on the parliamentary process. I was pleasantly surprised at the depth of their knowledge of civics. The students were obviously well led by their teacher, Alota Lima, and the principal, Heather Varcin. On an unpleasantly hot day the students were alert and searching in their questions. I also thank Troy Lennox who moved a very gracious vote of thanks.I salute the community, their school, the students and, in particular, the courteous reception they gave me. While gold mining may have taken a back seat in recent years, the focus of Mount Morgan's students bodes well for innovative solutions to that town's current problems.45554555Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—One Nation won 1,800 votes in the state seat of Gosford last weekend. Because of postal and absentee votes we do not know yet whether this number of votes will decide the result in Gosford. What we do know is that the result will be close.The New South Wales optional preferential system further complicates the picture, with many electors' votes being exhausted after the first preference. What we do know is that in Gosford One Nation issued a how-to-vote card—of which I have a copy—which preferenced to the Liberal Party. It appears that this was the only place in New South Wales where One Nation preferences were directed to the Liberal Party. What we do not know is whether there was any arrangement between One Nation and the Liberal Party to assist their beleaguered candidate, Chris Hartcher. If Mr Hartcher did win with this secret support, his very narrow victory is tainted. 45564556Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise today to thank and pay tribute to the large number of dedicated people from the Dunkley community who combined to form the Dunkley Federation Community Projects Committee. This team of people, led by the Hon. Roy Ward, a very distinguished member of the local community, included Vicki Martin from the Frankston Information and Support Centre; Tim Long, who has considerable experience in festivals, events, tourism and multimedia; Tony Kitto, the franchisee from McDonald's in Mornington; Sophie Chea, who was not able to join us at our meetings, but we would have appreciated her input; the Reverend Ian Kruithoff; Helen Constas, from the Community Legal Centre; as well as ex officio advice from the two local councils. Robin Adams, from the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, provided considerable insight into the submissions we received from the southern area of the Dunkley electorate. Maxine Sando, together with Robin Batt, Fiona Lee and Doug Moore from the Frankston City Council also provided considerable advice for the team.I would particularly like to thank Sandra Darby from my office who had the awesome task of bringing together 39 separate applications which ranged in size from $1,500 for some sheet music all the way up to change out of half a million dollars for the restoration of a tourist railway line that runs through the electorate. It is a worthy project, but more than the total funds that we had available would have been required to support it. We had a great amount of interest in the local area in projects for the Federation Community Projects Grants Scheme. Our recommendations have gone through to the federal Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I would like to thank those people for contributing to the process.45564556Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—It is with great pleasure that I draw to the attention of the House the activities of Alycia Baxter, who is the school co-captain of Aspendale Primary School, in the heart of Isaacs. The school community knows Alycia to be a highly intelligent person, a voracious reader and, indeed, an active netball player—and netball is a sport in which she excels. In particular, Alycia was recently elected as Junior Mayor of the City of Kingston, a position which was much sought after by many students of primary school age across the electorate. Alycia had the privilege and honour on that occasion of, for example, judging the float parade at the Chelsea Youth Week, and she undertook many other mayoral duties during her short but most enjoyable term as mayor. Alycia is the pride of Aspendale Primary school—which is, in turn, the pride of the Aspendale community. I congratulate her on her achievements on this occasion.45564556Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—As a former player and coach of rugby league—the greatest game of all—and a supporter for some 30 years, it certainly disappoints me to stand here today and pass some comments on the NRL. In a press release which I have before me, the NRL, in relation to the governing of public criticism of the game, stated:Under the rules, the management of the NRL now has the power to deal with these matters immediately without reference to the Board. From this point, all players and officials in the game are clearly on notice that any breach will risk swift action and substantial penalties.That is speaking on behalf of the game. The press release continued:Any official or player who offers this type of criticism when it is known, or ought to be known, that those comments may be reported in the media, will leave the club or the individual liable to penalty.Fancy doing that in the parliament. It continued:Comments made "off the record" or "taken out of context", will not necessarily form a defence where these comments are subsequently reported. It should also be noted that thinly veiled or insinuated criticism may also be viewed as unacceptable.People like Rex Mossop, who is not known to be a wallflower or to be short on comments, or people like Tommy Raudonikis, whom I heard on ABC radio yesterday with his tongue tied and his hands underneath his backside, would find it nearly impossible to coach a team let alone to make any comment without being critical of referees. It is appalling that the National Rugby League should be taking such a stand against players, officials and coaches. I hope they will see the error of their ways and return this greatest game of all back to the people who own it—that is, the public.45574557Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise on the matter of the ongoing economic circumstances in Romania and the plight of orphan children there. There is an increase in awareness in our constituencies in Australia of the enormous numbers of abandoned children in Romania. These children are housed wherever there is room and, because the files of these children have marked on them that they have a mental disability, adoption is impossible. The facts are that many of the children do not have a mental disability. Many abandoned children in Romania are housed in former prisons converted into mental hospitals. They live in dreadful conditions.I note that currently the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has an honorary consul in Bucharest. This post lacks full capacity for the immigration and consular duties which were administered through Australia's embassy in Belgrade. That embassy is now closed due to the recent hostilities in Yugoslavia. I urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs to review the status of the honorary consul in Bucharest and raise it to the status of full consul, with full immigration and consular duties, in order to further the adoption and immigration processes for orphaned children.45574557Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I have been disappointed to read various reviews written by movie critics and others on the film Lolita . Hollywood has succeeded in seducing and manipulating so-called intelligent academic people with the idea that it is quite okay for adults to have sexual relations with children. A number of people have now written and been heard describing Lolita as a love story. Some have even suggested that the character of Lolita is as much the seducer as the one seduced—the initiator, the promiscuous nymphette. The silence from our feminist writers is deafening. These images have the effect of legitimising the victimisation of children. They dilute the message that it is never okay to have sex with a child and that it is up to the adult in any relationship to act responsibly and to ensure that certain boundaries are never crossed.When confronted with their crimes in court, paedophiles have often used the excuse that they were seduced by the child in question, even in some cases where the child was as young as five. The film Lolita will do much to provide comfort to these predators and justification for their twisted self-justifications. How clever of Hollywood. The theme of violence has been done to death, so they are now saying, `Let's now push out the boundaries so we can have sex with children.'45574557Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I would like to inform the House of an organisation called the Wildlife Rescue and Information Service—WRIN, as it is commonly known. This is a state-wide organisation endorsed by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment in Victoria to assist injured, sick or orphaned native wildlife. There are 260 licensed carers throughout the state of Victoria who raise young orphaned wildlife or nurse injured animals back to health so they may be released back into the wild. These carers are dedicated people with a passion to see our wildlife returned to the bush. They give up both time and money for seemingly no return, although their greatest reward is in seeing an animal that was on the brink of death run or fly free. With all the best intentions, wildlife carers, like everyone else, are limited by time and funds. WRIN was established to assist the carers in as many ways as possible. WRIN is an organisation for people with a common interest in wildlife.I had the privilege of visiting the Maryborough Wildlife Shelter recently and saw first-hand the outstanding work undertaken by Brenda and Gary Cheers. I was delighted to meet Bet-Bet, a delightful juvenile wallaby who was orphaned as a result of a road accident. Bet-Bet will one day be returned to her natural environment as a result of the dedication of Brenda and Gary Cheers. WRIN is a wonderful organisation that makes an outstanding contribution to the preservation of our magnificent native species and I commend the service to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements is concluded.Questions Without Notice455845584558Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that the people of New South Wales have now spoken against the privatisation of public assets used by the whole community, will you now permanently withdraw your bill for the full sell-off of Telstra? Have you heard the message delivered on Saturday, or are you going to ignore it?4558Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—He is so unpredictable, isn't he! He is so unpredictable one would never have dreamt for a moment that I would have got that question. It has got me totally unprepared! The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether we are going to change our policy on the sale of Telstra. The answer is a resounding no. We are not going to change our policy. The reason we are not going to change our policy is that we took it to the Australian people last October and they voted for it. By the same token, we are not going to change our policy on reforming the Australian taxation system, because we took that policy to the Australian people last October and they voted for it as well.So far as the New South Wales electorate is concerned, I will rest my case on the words of Mr Bob Carr when he said that it was fought overwhelmingly on state issues. I would make the observation that you would have to have a very, very selective piece of electoral amnesia to imagine that the Leader of the Opposition in the federal Labor Party could draw any comfort at all from the result on Saturday. They had their opportunity in New South Wales.Let me refer to this parliament. The last time there was a federal contest in New South Wales my colleague the Minister for Sport and Tourism was resoundingly returned. The honourable member for Robertson, Mr Lloyd, was resoundingly returned. The honourable member for Hughes, Danna Vale, was resoundingly returned. The honourable member for Parramatta, Ross Cameron, was resoundingly returned. The honourable member for Macquarie, Kerry Bartlett, was resoundingly returned. There are so many of them I have forgotten all the names. I am very happy that the last time the Leader of the Opposition and I went head to head in New South Wales he got done like a dinner.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I appreciate that the interjections have been good natured, but the House should come to order.45584558Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the new taxation measures recently announced by the government to encourage greater corporate and personal philanthropy in Australia? What has been the response to this announcement?4558Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for that question. With the indulgence of your good self, Mr Speaker, before I answer that question, because it was asked by the member for Kalgoorlie, can I say that when I visited his electorate on Thursday, accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of Western Australia, how immensely impressed and moved I was—and I know the Leader of the Opposition would have been likewise—by the tremendous spirit and attitude of the people of Exmouth and the people of his electorate who have suffered very extensively from cyclone damage.I was able to announce the establishment of a special trust fund of $10 million, contributed equally by the Commonwealth and the Western Australian governments as well as a number of ex-gratia measures similar to what was invoked at the time of the floods in Katherine over and above the normal disaster relief arrangements. I want to compliment the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for the tremendous work that he has done in rallying the locals and making certain that their position was put in a very direct and very effective manner not only to me but also to the Western Australian government. It was a splendid example of people pulling together in a time of great adversity—a wonderful Australian tradition.It is true that last Friday I had the opportunity at a very large dinner in Melbourne to announce a number of major changes to the taxation law that are going to result in tens of millions of dollars of further contributions to charities in Australia each year. These measures are part of the government's long-term philosophical approach in this area of building a new social coalition, a coalition between the government, business, the welfare sector and individuals. What the government has done by these measures is provide to both corporations and to wealthy individuals in Australia more incentives to give to needy causes and to needy organisations.It is our calculation that they will generate an additional $75 million a year—and that is putting it conservatively—in donations to eligible bodies. They comprise a series of income tax deductions for the market value of donations of property worth more than $5,000, regardless of when the property was purchased or acquired, and a capital gains tax exemption for testamentary gifts of property to bodies eligible to receive tax deductible donations. Eligible not-for-profit organisations can expect a $15 million boost in donations as a result of that particular measure alone.There will also be greater incentives for donations of property under the Cultural Gifts Program. Donations will be exempt from capital gains tax, and donors will be able to apportion their tax deductions for donations over a period of up to five years.We are going to create a new category of private charitable funds. These funds will not be required, in order to get the benefit of existing tax deductions, to seek donations from the public at large. This will provide businesses and more affluent families and individuals greater freedom to set up trusts for philanthropic purposes. It is expected that this measure alone will increase donations by a further $15 million a year.These taxation measures flow from the recommendations of a taxation working group, chaired by Mr David Gonski of Wentworth Associates. This working group was set up after the round-table meeting with business and community leaders in March 1998, and I am very grateful for the work of Mr Gonski and the members of that working group.I am pleased to report to the parliament that the announcement I made to the dinner on Friday night has had a very, very positive response. For example, the Salvation Army has welcomed the tax breaks to boost business and personal philanthropy; the army said that the package of measures would make a dramatic difference to its work. They are not my words. They are not the words of a government propagandist. They are the words of one of the most respected bodies in the Australian community, the Salvation Army, when it said that the measures would make a dramatic difference to its work.The Salvation Army went on to say, `It will encourage asset rich but income poor people to give to us without having to pay capital gains tax on their real estate, shares or other assets.' In other words, this is the social coalition at work: the government provides the tax break, the corporate sector responds and the needy in the community get the benefit of that assistance.Those words of support were echoed by the Australian Foundation for Culture and the Humanities. Its executive director, Winsome McCaughey, said yesterday, `The Prime Minister's announcement sets new directions for philanthropy and sponsorship that will lead to a significant boost for the cultural sector.' She said:Mr Howard's announcement is important for two reasons: it sends a powerful message to business that supporting the community and culture sectors can add value to a corporate bottom line when enriching society; and secondly, it removes some big disincentives that inhibit private sector support for community and cultural projects.Finally, the government's announcement has been very warmly welcomed by ACOSS:The Australian Council of Social Service has welcomed the Prime Minister's promise to give tax breaks to business for donations to charity. The President, Michael Raper, said that he supported the initiatives, which included capital gains tax exemptions . . . Also, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry's chief executive, Mark Paterson, said, `The proposals should encourage more philanthropy in the business community.' I have been greatly encouraged by the reaction not only of the welfare sector but of the community generally.What I announced on Friday night is part of a careful long-term strategy of the government to build a stronger and better social coalition. I made it clear on Friday night, and I make it clear again, that the government does not intend by any of these initiatives to wind back the income support that it provides in the Australian community. The moneys that will come under these initiatives will be over and above what the government provides by way of income support; they will be value adding to what is already there in the community. This will be new money for the charitable sector, new support under the government's long-term concept of an effective social coalition within the Australian community.45604560Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Minister, given that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will not be accepting the message delivered on Saturday, do you propose to go ahead with the full sell-off of Telstra? If you think that Mrs Chikarovski's privatisation plans had merit, will you be offering a $1,000 cash or $1,100 share bonus for households with the full sell-off of Telstra?4560Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—What a desperate and silly question. You always know that you can come in here on a Monday and get the most irrelevant of questions in terms of what is the real concern of the Australian people. The one thing the Leader of the Opposition does not have is his finger on the pulse of what is concerning the Australian people. He will look at all sorts of gimmicks and silly questions instead of getting down to the real issues.Of course I will not rule out the sale of Telstra, because I want to get rid of Labor's debt. I recognise, just as is recognised by everybody on this side of the House, that for the past three years we have been addressing the debt left to us by Labor, and the sale of Telstra will make a significant contribution to that debt.I recently had a call, which is normal, from ACOSS. They visited me, as I am sure they visited many of my ministerial colleagues. The one thing I mentioned to them—and I note that they took it on board—was that, if they want to get the sorts of things that their particular constituency is constantly calling for—and, in many cases, with good reason—if they want to see the Commonwealth budget directed towards the welfare area, towards housing, education and those core areas in which governments would like to have a responsibility, if they give us a chance, if this parliament gives us a chance to clear the debt, there are several billion dollars available each year ad infinitum that can be directed towards the real needs of the Australian people.If we can clear Labor's debt, we can reorganise and reprioritise how the money is spent in any budget towards those most in need in this community. So we are going to press on with the sale of Telstra for that purpose. We are going to press on for a number of other reasons too which have been stated here in this House constantly.As to the second question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, quite clearly what this government intends to do by way of a social bonus has been on the table for some considerable time. There are $671 million worth of benefits to the community, particularly in regional Australia. I note that the member for Perth has been running around saying that there is less in the way of social bonus than there is in the way of benefits to the brokers. Of course, he conveniently embarrasses himself by saying that the commission on selling the whole of Telstra is less than the bonus we have indicated is available from the sale of 16 per cent.It is quite clear what we will give back to the Australian community, particularly in the area of telecommunications in regional and remote Australia. That has been on the table for some time. There is not the slightest doubt that this nation will benefit significantly, as will all members of the Australian community, if the Senate finally wakes up to itself and gives us the opportunity to sell Telstra.45614561Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of the strengthening push for the Leader of the Opposition to drop his opposition for opposition's sake to the government's tax reform package?4561Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. Obviously, support is growing amongst supporters—former supporters—of Mr Beazley for him to pass the government's tax reform package. I inform the House that the former national secretary of the ALP, Mr Bob Hogg, wrote in the Melbourne Age on 24 March 1999:On the policy front, Beazley needs to do two things—firstly, he should declare support for the government's GST and, secondly, he should declare support for the full privatisation of Telstra.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You gave that answer last week.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As somebody interjects, I gave that answer last week, but last week I hadn't seen an article in the Melbourne Age on 26 March 1999 by Mr Neil O'Keefe, who said this:Now we have the GST saga—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Listen carefully, because he is one of the backbenchers breathing down your necks:Now we have the GST saga. Put aside your view of the policy and whether it should be passed by the Senate. Even if it does get through, it is 14 years since a consumption tax was first seriously proposed by the federal Treasurer in 1985.We remember who the federal Treasurer was in 1985. We remember who supported him in the cabinet—none other than the current Leader of the Opposition. Then Mr O'Keefe went on to say this:Australia doesn't for much longer have the luxury of this sort of procrastination in major policy and infrastructure decisions. Quite right. Rather than going around and attacking Mr O'Keefe after question time, the front bench ought to be going around for a bit of instruction from Mr O'Keefe.We can tell from the questions that have been asked already today that the Labor Party has a high opinion of Mr Bob Carr—Mr Bob Carr, the recently re-elected New South Wales Premier, somebody who has experience of government. What does Mr Carr say on the issue? Mr Carr said on Stateline on 9 October 1998:My view is that a government with a majority in any lower house ought to be able to implement its program not subject to frustration by an upper house, state or federal, and be judged by the people three or four years down the track.Well might we recommend Mr Carr to the Leader of the Opposition.Mr Beazley interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—We have the Leader of the Opposition interjecting right now. He would be well advised to read Glenn Milne's column today, which said this:`Kim's bogged down in the marshes on the GST', says one ALP strategist. `They think they're making headway but they're becoming obsessed with minutiae.' Elements of the New South Wales Right now want Beazley to do the same with GST—admit that Labor lost the battle—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—These are the great figures of the New South Wales Right, Mr Speaker.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Name one!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Kingsford-Smith, for starters, I will name. The column continues:. . . admit that Labor lost the battle to stop the tax and offer Howard a compromise in order to make the final package fairer.So we've got the national secretary of the ALP, we've got one of your own backbenchers, we've got the New South Wales Premier and we've got the strategists from the New South Wales ALP. But the one I like the best was a former federal minister who served with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Gary—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Gary Johns.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, it was Mr Gary Johns, actually.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Member for Cunningham!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, it was Mr Gary Johns, who wrote a piece called `Stumbling block':In threatening Senate obstruction, the Opposition had better get used to the idea they are not running the country.Mr Gary Johns had this to say, and I think it is probably the best comment I have heard on the Leader of the Opposition:Beazley's statement after the election that Howard had no mandate other than for good government was unbecoming an aspirant for PM. It smacked of the sore loser—accepted practice in the Asian sham democracies, but not here.You've got Bob Hawke, you've got Gary Johns, you've got the New South Wales thinkers of the Right, you've got Bob Carr and you've got Neil O'Keefe. We know precisely what is going on here. The Labor Party is desperately hoping that tax reform will go through so that they can take advantage of it. If this was a Labor Party that was serious about defeating tax reform, the Leader of the Opposition would be giving a pledge now that if this tax reform went through the Senate he would repeal it. That is what he would be doing. But he doesn't say that—oh no. He says, `We'll fight it to the death—and then as soon as it is passed we will take every advantage of it.' It may be acceptable in a sham Asian democracy, but not here.45624562Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—He made heavier weather of that than cyclone Vance. It is 24 per cent in New South Wales; that is what you have got to worry about. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Do you agree with the Leader of the New South Wales National Party, George Souris, that federal issues were partly to blame for the New South Wales opposition's heavy loss in Saturday's election, which, of course, saw the Liberal vote go to 24 per cent?Do you also agree with Mr Armstrong's statement that there needs to be an end to the coalition with the Liberals in order to `demon strate we are a true country party.' Minister, will you acknowledge that country people are turning their backs on the National Party, because at both federal and state levels the National Party just rolls over and accepts whatever the Liberals dish up? When are you going to stand up for country people on issues such as the privatisation of Telstra?4562Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Once again, this is a very much expected question, as I look at the ALP figures. The ALP figures for the state seat of Albury were 17 per cent, in the state seat of Dubbo they were 20 per cent, and Monaro 31 per cent, and we will win that.Opposition members interjecting—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Why don't you stand up to them now and then?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! A question has been asked and the people of Australia are entitled to listen to the answer. No-one could hear the answer above that cacophony of sound. I call the Deputy Prime Minister.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—As a matter of passing reference, the seat of Wagga was won by the coalition. Labor is now down to just one in four of the votes and they used to hold that seat a few years ago. Let us make it very clear—as Malcolm Mackerras did in a summary piece today—that, all things considered, the National Party stood up very well in the state election results. Why is that so? At the end of the day, One Nation won zero seats in the lower house in New South Wales and the National Party won over 14 seats, and in the federal election it was much the same.As a matter of fact, if you take out the head-to-head figures of the National Party versus One Nation, it is quite interesting. We got 34 per cent of the vote on Saturday in the seats where we were both contesting and One Nation got 12 per cent. We polled more than One Nation state-wide, even though we contested fewer than one-quarter of the seats.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—There is a bit of noise here today. At the end of the day, the federal Labor Party made no contribution to Bob Carr's win.Mr Beazley interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You were not even invited to participate at any length in the campaign.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I raise a point of order on relevance. The question did not to relate to the National Party's vote with One Nation. We want to know when the National Party is going to stop getting rolled over by—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is being entirely relevant to the question asked and will continue his answer.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We beat the Labor Party in the bush; we beat One Nation. Today in the Senate I understand another hopeless report is coming down from some committee saying that the $3.5 billion of fuel tax cuts being delivered by tax reform—which I stand up for and which we will deliver—you will oppose. It is about time country New South Wales—indeed rural and regional Australia—sees through your opposition to the $3.5 billion of transport fuel tax cuts that we will deliver.Federal issues had little enough to do with the state election outcome. You said that; the Prime Minister said that; I said that; and George Souris said that overall federal issues did not play much part.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Why did the Prime Minister campaign for a week?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Corio.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I am very happy to defend the fact that in terms of the outcome of the New South Wales elections, your part was infinitely small and contributed nothing to Carr's win.Distinguished Visitors456310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the United States of America led by the Chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, Mr Bill Archer. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice456345634563Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question—Mr Snowdon interjecting—Mr SPEAKER —I warn the member for the Northern Territory.8H4Mr HAWKER—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. It is a matter of international interest and very timely, too, I might add. I refer the minister to the United States International Trade Commission's reported recommendation to impose substantial tariffs on Australian lamb imports to the United States. Would the minister inform the House and the many lamb producers in my electorate of Wannon what action the government is taking to protect this $100 million export trade?4563Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—This is a very important issue which would have the interest of members on both sides of the House. I join with you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the US delegation, including congressman Bill Archer and Carol Crawford, who is one of the members of the US International Trade Commission who signed on the recommendation of three out of six with regard to prime lamb. This is a very critical issue and the federal government is standing up for the Australian prime lamb industry at every stage.I sent Ambassador Andrew Peacock in to present directly at the hearings of the commission which took place in Washington a few weeks ago. He presented evidence, along with Jim Bolger, the former New Zealand Prime Minister, as to why our prime lamb exports are not the cause of the difficulties being faced by the US producers.We have gone about developing a market and providing close liaison with supermarket chains and US consumers organisations to produce and fine tune a product which has won a lot of acceptance across the United States in an area which is not traditionally a big market for lamb product.We have done that and have now built a $100 million market—and I thank the member for Wannon for his interest. About 10 per cent of the total production of Australian prime lamb is now flowing through to the United States under free fair trade. It is unsubsidised product out of Australia which we are marketing and exporting successfully to the United States. So full marks to the Australian prime lamb industry in opening up this market. What has now happened is that the US International Trade Commission has made a recommendation to the Clinton administration, which has 60 days to respond to that recommendation.The Australian government is very concerned about the recommendations in respect of tariffs and quotas on Australian lamb and some other elements of the recommendations which would mark a very severe restriction on that export. If the recommendation of three of the commissioners, including the one that happens to be present in the gallery this day, were to be carried, that would see the existing trade continue to be able to proceed at about current levels, but there would be no ability to grow the trade or work with the US prime lamb industry—the Australian prime lamb industry has indicated their preparedness to do so—to expand the overall market and create the win-win situation which is the best way forward.The Australian government is standing as one with the Australian prime lamb industry. It is very strong in the state of Victoria particularly—where the members for Wannon, Mallee, Ballarat and others come from—and also across so many of the states of Australia. This is a new wave market, carved out by an industry which has done the hard work and liaises with the supermarket chains directly.I will go to Washington in May, and I am scheduled to meet with the US trade representative, Charlene Barchevsky, to further directly pursue this matter. The government is considering a number of other options to add momentum to our legitimate case in standing up for our legitimate export interests.45644564Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is the minister aware of the release today by the Australian Communications Authority of the Telecommunications Performance Monitoring Bulletin for the December 1998 quarter? In particular, is the minister aware of the following Telstra performance monitoring statistics in respect of rural and regional Australia: a six percentage point decline nationally for new services to major rural areas, which includes a 24 percentage point decline for Tasmania; a 10 percentage point decline in fault repair times for Tasmania; and an 11-hour increase in the average time for payphone fault clearances in Tasmania? Minister, if Telstra service levels to rural and regional Australia have declined in this way, why should anyone believe they will not decline further if Telstra is further privatised?4564McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Sadly, though, it does not properly represent all aspects of the ACA's latest performance monitoring bulletin which shows a good national performance by Telstra except, unfortunately, for Tasmania.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Except for the regions.XH4Mr McGAURAN—No, there is a disappointing result in Tasmania. However, you do have to keep in context that the number of connections in rural Tasmania is very small, so even some very poor performances can distort the figures.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—XH4Mr McGAURAN—You scoff, but do you want a scientific, rational examination, an interpretation of this report, or do you just want to make some cheap political points? Why do I ask such a rhetorical question—we know the answer! The government expects Telstra to act urgently to restore service quality levels in Tasmania to the national performance level. When the current Telstra legislation does pass the Senate, the government, through the ACA, will have greater power to act directly to require Telstra to respond to specific concerns and areas of fault such as Tasmania. The report shows that Telstra's fault clearance performance improved in all categories nationally and in urban, rural and remote areas. Telstra's new service connections nationally generally main tained the level of the previous quarter with some variations across urban, rural and remote areas.There is some satisfaction to be taken from the report, but never complacency. In regard to Tasmania, there is work to be done by Telstra, and we will require it of them.45654565Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, can you advise the House of the current situation in relation to the deployment of Australian defence personnel to the Gulf?4565Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question because, of all the members here, he represents a very substantial military involvement in his electorate—the barracks at Lavarack and also the other military facilities that lie within his area.Yesterday I announced the government's decision to deploy the Australian built guided missile frigate HMAS Melbourne to the Gulf to support the United Nations sanctions against Iraq. The Melbourne and a crew of approximately 210 naval personnel will depart in late April. They will join the multi-nation Maritime Interception Force for a three-month period commencing in late May. They will be responsible for intercepting cargo being transported to the Gulf in contravention of the sanctions. The Australian Defence Force has contributed naval support to the MIF on eight occasions since it was established in August 1990. In fact, it was HMAS Melbourne which conducted the last deployment in 1996.The government is committed to the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. The MIF role in enforcing these resolutions is an important element in ensuring that Saddam Hussein is not able to threaten regional or international security. It is in Australia's national interests and in the interests of international stability that we continue to administer these sanctions until Iraq fully complies with the United Nations conditions.There is no connection between this deployment to the Gulf and the current NATO action in the Balkans. Planning for the Gulf deployment has been going on for at least three months. In the meantime, HMAS Melbourne is due to arrive in the Gulf in late May.I noted yesterday the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in supporting this deployment. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments, and I am sure that all members of the House will join me in wishing the crew of Melbourne a safe mission and a safe return to Australia.45654565Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is not about the success of Independents in the New South Wales election on Saturday—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calare will come to his question.KL6Mr ANDREN—In fact, it is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, are you aware of anomalies in the current education resources index for non-government school funding? Are you aware of some difficulties being experienced by some rural based independent schools competing against schools that enjoy far higher levels of funding in a market that is severely contracted due particularly to the wool downturn and the Asian crisis? Are you planning a review of the ERI scheme? When would any reforms take effect?4565Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Calare for his question. The ERI—the education resources index—was in fact reviewed in 1997 and it was a full and comprehensive review of the index which looked at the strengths and weaknesses. Last year, 1998, the government conducted a series of pilots to investigate alternative funding mechanisms for schools. The government is now considering the reports of those two reviews, and decisions on the basis of those reports will be announced at an appropriate time.45654565Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I refer to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Kosovo. What is the government's response to this crisis?DT4CREANMr Crean—The dream team!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hotham!4566Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—It is not a joking matter. I do not think it is of any credit to the opposition that they think that these are matters for cheap political point scoring, but I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. I can help him with a rather pessimistic answer to the question by saying that the Australian government is alarmed by the reports that we have received about the rapidly worsening humanitarian situation in Kosovo. It is estimated now that there are as many as half a million displaced ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, including some 50,000 people who have been displaced just in the last few days, and there are many thousands of refugees turning up now in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and across other borders as well.There are indications that the Yugoslav forces and paramilitaries have burned homes and forced people to flee. There are very disturbing reports of widespread murders of civilians. The Australian government acknowledges the extreme conditions facing internally displaced persons in Kosovo and the increasing flows and needs of refugees in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and in Albania.The Australian government stands ready to contribute generously to this humanitarian disaster. Officials from my department and AusAID are in contact with humanitarian organisations including Care Australia, World Vision, the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to determine the most effective means of assistance. As plans of action become available, Australia will give highest priority to assistance targeting the health and shelter needs of refugees and internally displaced persons.45664566Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer the minister again to Mrs Chikarovski's promise of funding to widen the F3 freeway from four to six lanes, which she said had his support. Is the minister aware that the New South Wales National Party leader, George Souris, repeated this commitment and also promised funding for two new on and off ramps on the F3 and the Pacific Freeway, an extension of the F3 to Belford and a link from the F3 to the M2? Minister, despite the New South Wales coalition's loss last weekend, do you still intend to keep your promise to provide the additional federal funding necessary for these essential road improvements for the Central Coast?4566Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Suffice it to say that we are always willing to cooperate with state governments when major road upgrading programs are needed, consistent with what we can afford. But it would be a very good help and would indeed assist us when making progress with this matter if the New South Wales state government were prepared to get on with the job of spending the resources we have already made available that they have sat on for months.45664566Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the outcome of the Manila Framework Group meeting that was hosted by Australia last week? What are the likely benefits for Australia and the region?4566Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question. The fourth meeting of the Manila Framework Group was held in Melbourne over the weekend. It was attended by three of the G7 economies—the US, Canada and Japan—by China and by all of the crisis affected Asian economies. It was a productive meeting in discussing regional financial architecture and what can be done in particular to build institutions in the region which will secure a return to strong growth.One of the matters that the group commented on was the need to develop transparency in policy and to report openly to foreign investors' policy problems and how legal institutions underpin financial investment and economic policy. To that end, the Australian government released a transparency report explaining the basis for fiscal monetary policy in Australia, investment policy and benchmarking ourselves against world's best practice in reporting requirements, accounting standards and corporate governance.It is the first transparency report which has ever been published in the world. It was a recommendation that was made by the Prime Minister's international financial task force that Australia move beyond the general statements with something practical which would be a model and an example for countries in the region. It has been welcomed by the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF has said that it will use this report as a tool in helping other countries develop more transparent economic policy.Together with other things—such as the charter of budget honesty, which is now world's best practice in relation to economic reporting and acknowledged as such by the IMF, and the financial sector reforms arising from the Wallis inquiry, which are described by the IMF as `path-breaking reform'—this indicates where Australia leads the world in the conduct of policy. And it no doubt contributes to the fact that, in a region which is now in near total recession, Australia is not only growing but growing faster than the OECD, the G7 and most of the industrialised world.In addition to that, some of the countries attending made reports on what they considered to be prospects for the forthcoming year. The Japanese representative reiterated Japan's commitment to maintaining stimulus to domestic demand and reported progress in financial sector reform. China reported that fiscal stimulus would sustain growth at strong levels in 1999, and reports in relation to the US indicated that, notwithstanding slowing in the US economy, there would be robust growth continuing.This is a key arrangement for the region and for Australia. It is a practical contribution that we are making in relation to the international financial architecture, and it provides a concrete step to advancing Australia's leadership role in many of the arrangements, which it has won the right to do as a result of its economic performance over the last three years.45674567Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, do you recall your 1996 election commitment to veterans that `the coalition will always attempt to err on the side of generosity in the levels of support it provides our veteran community'? Minister, can you explain why the government is currently trying to deny tens of thousands of veterans who receive a disability pension at least an extra $20 a week that non-veterans who receive a similar compensation payment will be entitled to? Why are you erring on the side of meanness and discriminating against veterans in this way?4567Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—We remain committed to erring on the side of generosity in relation to veterans who have an entitlement under the Veterans' Entitlement Act. I really think the member for Lilley is a little bit confused in relation to the veterans' entitlement. If he would like to come around to my room with an issue, I would be very happy to look at the issue that he raises, because I have always thought that on both sides of this parliament there was support for the Veterans' Entitlements Act to err on the side of generosity. And I would have thought that would have had the support of the Leader of the Opposition.45674567Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House about the level of interest in organisations injecting funds in the residential care industry?4567Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for his question, because I am fully aware of his interest in the care of older Australians and in the facilities that are provided for them. The first thing I want to say is that what we inherited from the Labor Party was a mess. They had withdrawn capital funding from facilities. They had commissioned the Gregory report, which they never even responded to. They opposed our reforms on capital funding. And the good news is— and I can say this because the Prime Minister personally had such a hand in putting these reforms in place—that those reforms are working.Indeed, there is a good report in the Sydney Morning Herald saying that in the last fortnight a company, Development Capital of Australia, has just purchased for $7.5 million two nursing homes—one in Queensland and one in New South Wales—both of which will form part of an unlisted property trust which they anticipate will have a yield indexed to CPI of 9½ to 10 per cent. The reason they believe that there is such a good yield to be had from this investment—and I quote the general manager, Mr Vaux—is:"The low-risk profile of the trust's income will be underpinned by the fact that nursing home revenue is substantially sourced by the Federal Government and paid monthly in advance."The point that is important to make there is that the involvement of the private sector in the area, giving good care under the scrutiny and under the checks and balances that this government has put in place, means that this good, sound investment will result in more Australians having good, sound quality care in facilities when they need it.It is important to remember that the statistics are these: there are 2.2 million Australians over the age of 65 and at any time there are only 135,000 people in residential care, and on those 135,000 people we spend annually $3 billion in recurrent expenditure. This government has put its money where its rhetoric lay. We have injected more capital. We have put more money into recurrent funding. We have put in place a capital stream of income which is allowing more activity to take place in upgrading facilities so that the horrors that the Labor Party let exist will no longer exist under this government.45684568Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, can you guarantee that veterans' pensions under the GST will always be higher than they would be without the GST?4568Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer is yes. We have repeated several times from this side of the House that, on 1 July 2000, they will receive a four per cent up-front increase in all pension entitlements right through to benefits, including child education assistance. That comes up-front on 1 July next year—if you pass the GST package.45684568Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the minister advise of the implications for Australia of the EU-US disputes involving bananas and beef growth hormones and of foreshadowed US retaliation?4568Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his thoughtful question with regard to the existence of this trade war, by degrees, between the US and Europe. I know he has pursued this and other trade issues with a great deal of diligence. Both the issues nominated by the member are connected to the implementation of the WTO legal rulings and are very important to the credibility of the World Trade Organisation system. Rules in this area require clarification and Australia is active in the World Trade Organisation in seeking to resolve this problem.With regard to the bananas case, there is a disagreement about WTO consistency in the measures that Europe has put in place in response to the WTO findings. With regard to the beef hormones case, the indications are that Europe will not be able to implement by May this year the WTO findings on an import ban on beef treated with hormonal growth promotents. In both cases, the US has set in train processes, under its domestic trade legislation, to apply retaliatory measures which need to comply with certain conditions. But the knock-on effect with regard to these cases and other disputes at this time—including between the United States and Japan with regard to steel legislation, which is through the lower house but not through the Senate in the US—would be quite disastrous for Australian steel producers and Australian steel exports directly or indirectly.Let me simply say there is probably more to come. In fact, the suggestion is that the United States will ban the Concorde aircraft from landing at New York and Washington, as part of an escalation for a reciprocal ban on some hush kit-fitted Boeing aircraft from using European airports. The sooner we have a Millennium Round launched out of the Seattle ministerial meeting scheduled for November this year, the sooner we will have these problems addressed in a comprehensive way and the sooner we will have a win-win situation to address the problem that there is no such thing as a level playing field. We need to do something about that sooner rather than later.45694569Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I address a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, do you recall my raising, on 11 November last year, the issue of six Vietnam veterans who have had their bravery awards downgraded by your government? Do you also recall that, in response, your office advised various media outlets that the matter was being reviewed? Is it not a fact that on ABC radio on 16 March, when asked about the review, you replied: `Well, I do not think it is a review process'? Minister, is the matter being reviewed or not? If not, why did your office advise media outlets otherwise? And, if not, what are you proposing to do to redress this unfair situation?4569Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Cowan for his question and acknowledge that he is a Vietnam veteran himself and bears the scars of war. I also acknowledge the service of our Deputy Prime Minister, who is also a veteran of the Vietnam War. I think all in this House should be grateful that we have had people willing to put their lives on the line in defence of the freedom of others. But I am not surprised at someone from the opposition coming forward with a question like this. I would have thought that what the member would have been asking was, `Why didn't Labor put out the End of War List when they had 13 years in government to do it?'Opposition members interjecting—YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—Not only—Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Brisbane. I will raise that matter with the minister for health on a later occasion.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—This was the government that completed the End of War List for Vietnam. We have the Leader of the Opposition who, as Minister for Defence for a number of years in a Labor government, could have put out the End of War List. Now we have got someone on his backbench trying to destabilise his leadership; that is what we have got.Opposition members interjecting—YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—But I am not surprised that it was the Labor Party which was never ever going to complete the End of War List for Vietnam. That goes right back to the defence minister in the early seventies—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I have a point on order, Mr Speaker, under standing order 145 on relevance. The member for Cowan asked a very serious question that is very important to a large number of people. It concerns bravery awards which have been downgraded by this government, and the answer has not at all referred to that very important point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I agree entirely with the Manager of Opposition Business that this is a matter that deserves the consideration of everyone in the House. For that reason, it ought to be heard in silence. I do believe, however, that the minister is now being relevant to the question.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—The government takes very seriously the issue of the End of War List, and that is why it was this government that completed that list, notwithstanding that the Labor Party had 13 years and did nothing about it. The End of War List was completed by the government and I am always happy to talk to any veterans' group about the issue, as I have said quite openly.83REDWARDSMr Edwards—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Can the minister tell me whether the matter is being reviewed or not?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has completed his answer.45704570Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Could the minister inform the House of the opportunities our government is providing for students to study at overseas universities in the Asia-Pacific region? What benefits do such educational links provide for Australia?4570Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Blair for his question. The government is anticipating a record number of Australian students studying at universities in the Asia- Pacific region this year. Recently I announced a grant of $1.2 million in funding for 266 Australian students to study overseas under the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific program. This program provides financial support to Australian universities to develop international university student exchanges. It allows two-way student exchanges, allowing Australian students to experience one or more semesters of study for their degrees at a university in the Asia-Pacific region.There are a wide range of fields in which Australian students will be studying under this program. They include architecture, economics, business studies, communication, engineering, urban planning and environmental management. The program is going to give Australian students a chance to develop very important and valuable contacts and career opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region because it provides the opportunity to live and study there for an extended period. Certainly these students are going to gain a great deal of valuable experience. The program has been endorsed by APEC as a valuable vehicle for human resource development in the region.For the information of honourable members, the countries included in the program are China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand. This program is an important initiative to raise Australia's profile and boost Australia's future ability to trade and conduct business with our neighbours in the region and the beneficiaries will be not only students but also Australia in the future.45704570Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the issue of the downgraded bravery awards for the six Vietnam veteran diggers. I ask the minister: is the matter being reviewed or not?4570Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I have already answered the member's question. I am always happy to receive representation from members of the veteran community, no matter what the issue. But I do know this was an issue that was never going to be addressed by the Labor Party.45704570Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of the support within the agricultural and food sector for the government's tax reform package?4570Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. I would like to inform the House that last Friday I had the opportunity of meeting with a forum of chief executive officers representing the food industry of Australia and farm organisations to discuss a series of issues revolving around government policy. Of all those government policies, that which took the majority of the discussion and the attention was taxation reform. Coming out of the meeting there was a very clear message from those chief executive officers from food organisations across Australia, food processors and retailers, and the farm sector. It was one of absolute support for the government's tax reform package, particularly that food should not be exempt from GST.This message came through quite clearly from industry, and those companies who represent a very diverse cross-section of the food industries in Australia are very supportive of the government's position on this. They included the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Restaurant and Caterers Association and the Australian Fresh Fruit Growers Association.It is very clear that we must have a policy that is unambiguous and uncomplicated without any red tape as far as Australia's taxation system is concerned. This was the message left with us in that forum of food retailers and manufacturers last week. They also left a message that, if the Australian Labor Party want to be constructive in this debate, they should be listening to and supporting the view of their former national secretary, Bob Hogg, and should support the government's tax reform package.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous457115:06:004571Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Could I have the indulgence of the parliament to raise a matter concerning the honourable member for Moncrieff?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Today, 29 March 1999, the honourable member for Moncrieff, Kathy Sullivan, has become the longest serving female parliamentarian in Australian history. It is a source of considerable satisfaction to her many friends and colleagues, not only within the Liberal and National parties but also within the entire parliament and the broader Australian political and general community, that she has served with such very great distinction and has served for such a long period of time.The honourable member was first elected to the parliament as a senator from Queensland in May of 1974 when Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister. She joined the parliament with a number of other members who have had various experiences in their careers. She was a senator for Queensland from May 1974 to November 1984. In the 1984 election she transferred to the House of Representatives and has been continuously a member of the House of Representatives since 1984. As well as being now the longest serving female parliamentarian in Australian history of any party of any parliament anywhere in this country, Kathy is also the only woman MP in Australia to have been elected on 10 occasions. She is the first woman in Australian politics to have been elected to both the Senate and the House of Representatives.The member for Moncrieff was the first woman to be appointed as a whip in the House of Representatives and the first person ever to have served as both a whip in the Senate and the House of Representatives. She was the youngest woman ever elected to the Australian parliament when elected in 1974, a distinction she held for a period of 11 years. In being re-elected in 1998, Kathy participated in the election of a total of 25 female Liberal members of the parliament together with two National Party women, a record of any side of politics in any parliament at any time in Australian political history. Kathy Sullivan is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. She carries out her duties with very great application and distinction.I first served with Kathy as a member of the then opposition education committee in 1974. I think the shadow minister for education on that particular occasion was the then Mr Jim Killen, later Sir James Killen. The federal Minister for Education we had to shadow at the time was the federal Leader of the Opposition's father, Mr Kim Beazley. It was my first work on a committee with her, and we have been colleagues ever since. On a number of occasions in the earlier years those of us who entered parliament on 18 May 1974 used to celebrate together. Over the years the ranks have become a little thinner through a combination of retirement, second thoughts, electoral adversity and whatever. Now left of that class of 1974, unless my recollection fails me, are the honourable member for Moncrieff, the honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for Bennelong. They are the only three from that class of 1974.I want to say to Kathy that we are very proud of your record. I want to say that it is a source of enormous pleasure and satisfaction that it is the Liberal Party—RH4KERRMr Kerr—Then why don't you give her a go?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I might say that it is rather ungracious cacophony that comes from that other side, utterly ungracious cacophony. I can remember moments when—and, for example, I refer to the 25 years of Fred Daly's service in the parliament—the 25 years of service of people on both sides of the parliament have been remarked in a spirit of bipartisan friendliness. Despite our political adversity, I thought we might have been spared the ungracious cacophony that has emanated from the frontbench in particular of the Australian Labor Party. That will not in any way diminish or in any way deter those on this side of the House and I am sure many on the other side of the House in congratulating the honourable member for Moncrieff, in thanking her for the service that she has rendered to her electors and in remarking upon the contribution that she has made to the Senate and to the House of Representatives.The member for Moncrieff is a person who has never sought preferment other than on the basis of merit. She has never pleaded an exclusively female point of view. She has always been willing to express in a totally objective and frank manner her views on things so far as they might affect women. But, above all, she has been willing to serve the people of her electorate, the people of her state and the people of the Commonwealth of Australia in a very energetic and conscientious way. She is a perfect illustration that a political party which selects its candidates on the basis of merit, not on the basis of phoney, futile patronising quotas, is the political party which over the long period of time has not only put more women into federal parliament but also been successful in establishing the record.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That's not how you selected your members. It was all about keeping you in the job.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I take great pride in the fact that it is a Liberal member of the House of Representatives who is the longest serving female member in Australian political history. I am delighted to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's gallery on our side of her husband, Bob, whom we all know extremely well. We are delighted to have him to share this very special moment. Congratulations, Kathy. Thank you for your long contribution to the Liberal Party and to your electors. I hope you go on serving them for many, many years into the future. We are all very proud of you and we are very proud of what you have achieved.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I obviously extend precisely the same indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not expect to have to name someone in what was indulgence granted for the purposes of paying tribute to a colleague.15:14:004572Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We on this side of the House would like to join the Prime Minister in congratulating the member for Moncrieff on the achievement of her record and hope that she enjoys long years of service in the way in which the Prime Minister described. We hope indeed that her service will be at least as distinguished as her abilities would lead her to expect it to be. No doubt that will be a matter for ongoing consideration by the government.The member for Moncrieff now beats the record of a Labor member of parliament, Dorothy Tangney, who of course served in the parliament and was out of parliament by the time the member for Moncrieff entered. I remember Dorothy Tangney very well because she was a Western Australian member. Dorothy was a good, hard, partisan fighter. I can recollect one occasion when, as a very young lad, I was waiting in Forrest Place and Gough Whitlam was due to turn up but was delayed. Dorothy was on the back of this truck and Gough came huffing and puffing through the crowd belatedly, and someone called out to Gough, `Slow down, Gough, you don't have to worry; Dorothy is only up to John Curtin.'The member for Moncrieff's service is exceptionally distinguished. One of the good things about the member for Moncrieff is that she is a good, professional parliamentarian. One of the reasons why she has the affection of many of the people on this side of the House is that they have had an opportunity to serve with her in the various parliamentary duties she has chosen from time to time to undertake. She has been an excellent committee person in this parliament in the Senate and, until very recently, in the House of Representatives. That committee service has been at a time when the committee system in this parliament, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, has arguably increased in dimension and quality, and she has been no small contributor to that process as time has gone by. She is a person recognised on both sides of the House as a person of outstanding ability and one who deserves preferment simply beyond just the opportunity she has to contribute as a parliamentarian.The Prime Minister made a number of points about women who have been members of this parliament and the numbers that were elected in 1996—I could make similar points about the numbers elected in 1998. But the main point to make about the numbers elected in 1996 and 1998—I think it probably still is the case; it was then—is that the majority of women who have served in the federal parliament now serve in the federal parliament. That is an extraordinary statistic when you contemplate it. There have been 100 years of history of this place and we have a majority of the women who have served throughout that 100 years of history still with us.Of course, when Dorothy Tangney was here, for much of the time—not for all of it but for much of it—she was on her own. For some of the time that the member for Moncrieff has been here, she was not quite on her own but almost. She was one of a very small number of women members of this chamber. A revolution has occurred over the course of the last decade on both sides of the House for the good of the people of Australia generally. I think those who are the pioneers in that regard can take some credit for that process. I could name members on our side of the House who have done that, but this is not the moment to celebrate them; it is the moment to celebrate the member for Moncrieff. We extend our full and wholehearted congratulations to her.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Allow me to be associated with the remarks of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of all members and on behalf of the staff of the House of Representatives, I extend to the member for Moncrieff our congratulations on a remarkable achievement.15:18:004573Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their kind words, and give my thanks to all on both sides for their encouraging remarks in the course of those words. Today is my 9,081st day in parliament. The Library has been counting, and I thank the Library for that piece of information.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—And tomorrow you go to Maputo.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—And tomorrow I shall be in Mozambique; that is right. I do not know what sounds longer—9,000 days or nearly 25 years. I have to say that the first 15 years felt like 15 years, but I do not know where the last 10 have gone. I imagine that the reason that I still endure is that to be here is a great privilege and to me every day has been a thrill.It is nearly 56 years since the first woman was elected to this House—Dame Enid Lyons. She made her maiden speech on 29 September 1943. So it is only over that period of time that a woman's voice has been heard in this chamber, and for very long periods of time—even since then—there was no woman's voice here. At the time that I was elected to parliament there had only ever been three women elected to the House of Representatives and seven to the Senate. So there were only 10 women in parliament before me. Given that I was elected in 1974, it is really incredible that, after nearly three-quarters of a century of our Federation, the numbers would be so small—and, even so, quite a few of them served only very briefly. Therefore, it is very welcome indeed to look around the chamber here today and to see the number of women who are now here. Of course, in the Senate the proportion is even higher.It is not very hard to check on the history of women in the federal parliament—there is a page in the Parliamentary Handbook which lists all the women who have ever served and the years that they have served. When I came in it was a short list; these days it must be running close to a couple of pages. From time to time different male colleagues have said, `Why should there be all this special concentration on women? Why would there be a page in the handbook for women?' In case they have not noticed, there is a page that is exclusively for men, and that is the page that lists the people who have served for 30 years or more. So, fellows, you have your consolations.One of the other remarkable things about this parliament is the number of members who have been here only since about 1980. In fact, from those elected in 1980 to 1983-84, the numbers here are now actually quite small. So the parliament that we serve in here today, which has largely been elected over the last 10 to 15 years, is a very different one indeed to that to which I was first elected.In the last couple of weeks, I have been asked to comment on a few occasions about being in parliament for nearly 25 years. I always say that I feel a certain reluctance to talk about that because, as soon as I start talking about what it was like 25 years ago, I am instantly turned into a walking, talking fossil. However, it was a different world for women then and, therefore, a different world for everyone.Why am I still here after so long? I happen to believe passionately that parliament matters. In the course of my parliamentary duties I have visited quite a number of countries which do not have democracies. For instance, I visited China in January 1977—just three months after the overthrow of the Gang of Four and four months after Mao's death. These days, if you say to the Chinese, `I was here in January 1977,' they will say, `Ah, that was after the Cultural Revolution.' It was and it was not. The Red Guard had been disbanded, but the apparatus and the paranoia were still very much in place. More recently, I visited North Korea, which was like going back to China in January 1977.Mr Downer interjecting—3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—I will leave that one out of the record, Minister! I have been very lucky in my parliamentary life in that I have had a number of incarnations, first of all in the Senate and then in the House of Representatives. In my time in the House of Representatives I have had a number of different positions which have challenged me and kept my interest very much alive, so I have never been bored. Throughout it all, I have believed passionately in this institution. I believe, also very passionately, that it is important that there are women in this institution. I have seen in the committees, for example—as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned—how women in our community are empowered by the women here in parliament. I am not suggesting that men do not mean to do it the right way; it is just that sometimes they need a little more information than they would otherwise come by.I must acknowledge a number of people and bodies. First of all, I acknowledge the Liberal Party. When it selected me to run for the Senate—and that selection happened in June 1973, and some of you have heard me say this before—I was young, I was female, I was blonde and I was divorced. Talk about four strikes and you're out! If you want to read the biography of someone who was not going to be selected by a political party to stand for public office, that was it in those days. The Liberal Party took a chance with me and I hope it has not been disappointed. It has been taking that same chance ever since—not for want of people suggesting that it might be otherwise, I must say. I suppose that is political life.I also thank my electors, whom I love dearly—every one. I drive through certain suburbs in my electorate—suburbs where the Labor Party is lucky to get double figures in the local polling booth—and I look at them fondly and say, `I love all you lovely people.' As I said, I am lucky that I have had more than one incarnation. I am quite sure that if I had stayed in the Senate I would not still be in parliament. I feel I had run my race in the Senate, but my House of Representatives electorate constantly renews me.I must say a very special thank you to my husband, Bob. I thank you also, Mr Speaker, for the indulgence you have granted today in allowing him to sit in the distinguished visitors gallery. I have no doubt at all that I would not have been elected as the member for Moncrieff in 1984 if it had not been for Bob. I have no doubt at all that I would not still be in parliament if it were not for him. He gets all the credit for our marriage, and he gets a lot of the credit for my being here. He has been a wonderful partner. I must also mention—and I know this is a little bit out of left field—the two people sitting with him, Judy and Mike Slee, whom quite a few people here have met. They are very special people. They have shared their home here in Canberra with me for the past 25 years. Anyone who can put up with the comings and goings of a member of parliament for 25 years belongs to a very rare breed indeed.I also thank you, Prime Minister, for the opportunities you have given me. We have shared a roller-coaster ride on occasions over the past 25 years, but the privilege I have at the moment is very special. It is a privilege to serve the Liberal Party, the electors and, through the national parliament, my nation.You have also given me the privilege of representing Australia overseas and of working in the fascinating and worthwhile area of overseas development aid. That has added a dimension to my parliamentary service that I never dreamt it would have. Thank you for a wonderful experience.Some parliamentary friends sat in the gallery on the day I made my maiden speech in the Senate. Afterwards, I received a note written by one of them—a note which I still have—which said, `Congratulations on your speech. It is your first step in a great adventure.' It was signed `Andrew Peacock'. I have often thought of that note. It has been a great adventure. It has had its challenges, particularly when there were not very many women here. I had to take that experience in that sense—an adventure. Andrew, who was and is a good friend of mine, was right: life here is a great adventure. It is a different adventure for each one of us. It is what you make of it, and I only hope that, whenever the day comes that I leave here, the adventure will have been worth something to others as well. It has given me a wonderful life.Personal Explanations457515:28:004575O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—Grievously, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke may proceed.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—During question time today, the Treasurer selectively quoted from an article of mine published in the Melbourne Age on Friday to infer that I support the passage of the GST legislation in the Senate. In doing so, the Treasurer has deliberately misrepresented my position and the nature of the article I wrote. While he was busily quoting my view that Australia will not have the luxury of this sort of procrastination in public policy for very much longer, he deliberately chose to omit the section pointing out that since—WI4REITHMr Reith—A point of order—CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—I am entitled to make my case, for God's sake.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the member is entitled to say where he has been misrepresented. He is not entitled to use it as a platform to make criticisms of the Treasurer. If he wants to do that, he should move a substantive motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was listening closely to the member for Burke's personal explanation, and I felt he had largely covered the point at which he had been misrepresented. I invite him to make any concluding statements he wishes and to be brief.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—Mr Speaker, I am attempting to show the way in which my article has been misrepresented. He deliberately chose to omit the section pointing out that since December 1972 the coalition have always opposed Labor's programs in the Senate, forcing Labor to negotiate passage with the Democrats, Greens and Independents.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have to interrupt at this point and indicate that that is not part of the member for Burke's misrepresentation. He has indicated that not all of the article was read, and that is a valid point to make.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—Mr Speaker, can I make the point to you that I said in my open remarks that he deliberately misrepresented not only me but also the nature of the article I wrote. Can I conclude?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have allowed the member for Burke to proceed thus far, but I invite him to conclude his remarks without entering into any argument.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—The article proposes a future solution, to which I invite the Treasurer to respond positively rather than deliberately misrepresenting me in this place.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke understands that at this point he has exceeded the area where he was misrepresented.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I table the article concerned. I am very happy to rely on the article.Questions to the Speaker457645764576Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to you, Mr Speaker. In accordance with standing order 150, I request that you write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care seeking an answer to my question No. 78 listed on the Notice Paper on 12 November last year.4576Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will do so. I should also indicate to members and for the Hansard record that the Minister for Health and Aged Care came to the chair to indicate to me that he had been unaware that I was on my feet when he left the chamber and returned to apologise. I will take the action the member for Brisbane has sought.457610001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:457610183NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the Government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 101 citizens)45762583NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a majority of Australians voted against the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). We believe a GST is a regressive and unfair tax that impacts savagely on middle to lower income Australians.Your petitioners request that the House does not support the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 25 citizens)457661FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the undersigned deplores the failure of the Government to appoint a judge, from the Newcastle legal profession, to replace Justice Renaud in the Family Court in Newcastle. We are deeply concerned about the delay in dealing with custody and access cases that this will cause.We believe that the profession in Newcastle has lawyers of the calibre required to fill this position and the inference, by the failure to appoint, is extremely insulting. Your petitioners request the House to strongly support the replacement of the judge at the Newcastle Family Court.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 61 citizens)457725FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we have serious concerns about the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). Fresh food is a necessity for healthy living and should not be subjected to a new and unfair tax.The majority of Australians oppose a GST on food items. Your petitioners request that the House does not proceed with legislation for a Goods and Services Tax.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 25 citizens)4577479UK6Thomson Kelvin MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the house to the fact that the United States and United Kingdom, with whom Australia has various military alliances and agreements, including those providing for the use of sensitive communications facilities at Pine Gap, have been conducting an undeclared war against the nation of Iraq since at least the time of "Operation Desert Fox" in December. In the first two weeks of March alone, some 4000 sorties were flown—more than the entire Desert Fox campaign, which was itself much larger than "Operation Desert Storm" in 1991. In mounting this undeclared war, various circles in the U.S. and U.K., from that faction which has often been called the "British American Commonwealth" (BAC) grouping associated with Wall St. and the City of London, have contemptuously ignored any objections to it, such as those raised in the U.N. Security Council, in the Arab world, or elsewhere. Now, according to numerous experts, the U.S. and U.K. are planning an all-out assault against Iraq in late March or in April, which would feature aerial bombardment, the insertion of special forces on the ground, and, according to many experts, the likely use of tactical nuclear weapons.Simultaneously with this outrageous, undeclared war against Iraq, BAC circles in the U.S. and U.K. are rewriting the strategic doctrine of NATO, to enable "out-of-area" military strikes (i.e. beyond the normal North Atlantic theatre), featuring, again, the "first use" of tactical nuclear weapons. These same circles view China and Russia as the enemies in a "new Cold War"—an outlook entirely contrary to the foreign policy of President Clinton—and one which may, given the emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons, quickly escalate into a global war.Given the immense danger which the Iraq bombing and the revision of NATO pose to the world, and to this country, your petitioners request that you take a firm, public stand against:1) the preparations currently underway by our U.S./U.K. allies for a new, escalated military strike against Iraq in March or April, including denying the use of any Australian intelligence and communications facilities for such action, and2) against the new NATO doctrine that is to be officially adopted at the upcoming NATO summit in April, and3) that you communicate such a stance on these two issues directly to the relevant officials in the U.S. and U.K. immediately.Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson(from 479 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business4577457715:33:004577Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the enormous pain, suffering and economic hardship which has been experienced, and which is still being experienced, by victims of asbestos exposure, and their families; and(2) calls on the Government to:(a) immediately ratify ILO Convention No. 162 regarding the prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos;(b) immediately legislate to: (i) preserve the right to claim general damages for relatives of victims of asbestos related diseases upon the death of the claimant in all States and Territories save New South Wales; (ii) remove time limits on claims for damages by those suffering claims for asbestos related disease; (iii) allow the reuse of evidence to minimise the cost of litigation and court time; and (iv) increase financial assistance for asbestos disease support groups; and(c) instigate a national inquiry into the occupational use of asbestos to determine the: (i) extent of knowledge held by government agencies on the lethal effects of asbestos; (ii) extent of knowledge held by private companies using asbestos in their operations as to the lethal effects of asbestos; (iii) nature of work practices which were employed in Australia in relation to the use of asbestos by both government agencies and private companies; and (iv) adequacy of the existing and ongoing arrangements for the payment of compensation to Latrobe Valley workers affected by asbestos exposure in light of the privatisation of the SECV, which for decades has been the region's largest employer as well as being an employer operating in an industry in which asbestos construction materials were extensively used.This motion is about getting justice for those men and women who have been exposed to asbestos in their working lives. Those working men and women who were exposed so cruelly to asbestos and who have died an awful, hacking death as a result of that exposure deserve to have the suffering they endured recognised by this parliament. The families who had to watch as their father or husband died that premature death need to know that we in this parliament recognise their pain. Those families who are now caring for someone with an asbestos related disease need to know that we will make sure that they will be able to access justice. Those government and private sector employers who culpably exposed their work force and their work force's families to asbestos with their eyes wide open as to the lethal impact of that exposure need to be brought to account.Whether it takes two years or 20 years, this parliament has a responsibility to those families affected by asbestos exposure to determine forensically the truth in relation to the extent of knowledge held by employers about the impacts of asbestos exposure. As a matter of urgency, this parliament needs to introduce national legislation to ensure that affected families are able to access justice and compensation without lengthy delays, irrespective of the state they live in.Despite the fact that asbestos and its associated diseases have been recognised as an ongoing problem in Australia—particularly in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria—legislation to protect employees against asbestos related disease and to aid compensation does not exist at the Commonwealth level. A study conducted by the Dust Diseases Tribunal in New South Wales has forecast that 7,000 Australians will die of mesothelioma and asbestos related cancer in the next 16 years and warns employers to be prepared for millions of dollars in compensation claims.The reason this issue is extremely important to me personally and to my electorate is the very high incidence of asbestos related disease which exists in the Latrobe Valley, which makes up about two-thirds of my electorate. The Latrobe Valley is where I grew up and where I am proud to live. It is the place that my father came to when he was just 20 years old to build a new life for himself, as did so many other migrants. What bought migrants from every part of the world to the Latrobe Valley was the work which was available on the construction projects being undertaken by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria.Literally tens of thousands of mostly migrant workers worked on these construction projects, and, as a result of the construction materials they were directed to use by the SECV, thousands of these men contracted asbestos related diseases and have died prematurely as a result of that exposure. To place the scale of this disaster in context, this is what Mr Peter Gordon, a partner in the law firm Slater and Gordon, said in relation to the level of asbestos exposure in the Latrobe Valley:There is no question that the Latrobe Valley is a comparable or greater disaster than the situation at the blue asbestos mine at Wittenoom. Even though the exposure levels may not have been as great at the SEC plants, the number of people exposed in the Latrobe Valley would be at least 10 times more than Wittenoom. So little was done to warn the workers at the SEC. They have suffered decades of neglect and abuse.Medical specialists in Melbourne and the Latrobe Valley also confirm the high level of exposure which has taken place. They say that mesothelioma and asbestosis in the region is endemic. Of most concern they say that the majority of cases will be diagnosed early next century. Dr David Bernshaw, a radiation oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Hospital, believes that the Latrobe Valley will see a dramatic increase in mesothelioma cases. He states:Because of the latency period of this disease, which is up to 30 years, we are going to see more and more of these cases amongst workers down there.The increasing number of men who end up prematurely in nursing homes in the Latrobe Valley as a result of respiratory problems provides strong anecdotal support for his contention.If history has taught us anything with regard to the handling of asbestos, it is to be vigilant with regard to the processes followed in its use. This is why this motion calls on the federal government to immediately ratify ILO convention No. 162, regarding the prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos.I was enormously disappointed last week by the response from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to question No. 372 on the Notice Paper. The question, put by the shadow Attorney-General and the seconder of this motion, the honourable member for Barton, inquired of the government what action it intended to take in relation to the ratification of this convention. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business responded:The Government is not proposing to take any action in relation to this convention outside the agreed consultative process. Accordingly, any further consultation about the convention will occur in the context of the periodic consideration by the Commonwealth, States and Territories of which unratified Conventions should be the subject of further examination.For this response I have to give the minister zero out of 10. I urge him to take the convention seriously and to ensure that the states act in accordance with its principles. I also remind him that it was a similar blase attitude to asbestos handling which led to the massive exposure of workers which our community is now suffering from. I consider this an issue above party politics. In the best bipartisan tradition of this place, I urge the minister to seriously reconsider his approach to this convention.This motion is very straightforward. At its simplest, it calls for government action to ensure that never again are we faced with the massive death toll which our community is now painfully coming to terms with as a result of exposure to asbestos. It calls for government action to ensure that those workers who have been exposed to asbestos can get compensation quickly, without having to endure convoluted legal processes which presently result in many plaintiffs dying during the process and their families completely missing out on receiving any of the compensation which is owed to them. To prevent this from happening, this motion calls for the right to sue for general damages to be preserved so that, in the event of the death of the claimant, his estate or family can continue the claim and receive appropriate compensation.The motion also calls for a national inquiry into the use of asbestos in order to determine the culpability of employers and government agencies and to determine dispassionately the extent of knowledge held by both government and private sector employers as to the lethal impact of asbestos exposure. Finally, the motion calls for an examination of the adequacy of the compensation arrangements which exist for those Latrobe Valley workers who were exposed to asbestos in their working lives and who now can only seek damages from the SECV shell company, which is completely dependent upon the benevolence of the state government of Victoria for its funds.It is my passionate contention that the level of compensation that an affected Latrobe Valley worker receives should not be dependent upon the amount of funds made available by the state government of Victoria but should be assessed against the damage incurred by the claimant and their family. The privatisation of the former SECV has created this new dilemma, and I believe it is appropriate that the federal government ensure that the new arrangements are capable of dealing with the expected flood of claims over the next decade. With the large number of claims anticipated, this is genuinely a national issue and should be viewed as such.I want to wrap up my remarks today by saying a thing or two about the type of people who have been affected by asbestos exposure in the Latrobe Valley. These men and their families came from every corner of the globe to work on the construction of the Latrobe Valley's power stations. They came to the Latrobe Valley with one purpose: to build a new life for themselves so that their children would have the opportunities they did not get. To provide their children with those opportunities, they understood that they would have to work hard—and that is exactly what they did, working in open-cut coal mines or workshops, their whole bodies often black with coal, or on construction sites exposed to the heat, risking life and limb every day on dangerous scaffolding, often without even a toilet or running water on site. These men worked under conditions that few in this parliament would understand or believe possible.But through all this these men kept quiet and got on with the job. To provide the opportunities they wanted for their children, they knew that this is what they had to do. What these men could never have imagined was that, after a lifetime of this toil and after living just long enough to see their children grow up, the working conditions they were exposed to would cruelly cut short their opportunity to see their children and grandchildren enjoy the opportunities which their hard work had been able to secure for them.When these men signed up to work at the SECV, they did not agree to die at 55 or 60. It was not accepted by them that they would have to sacrifice their health and lose 20 years life expectancy just for the privilege of working at the SECV. These men worked hard, and their families did it tough, putting up with physically exhausted husbands and fathers who were often so worn out from work that they would have to go to sleep almost immediately upon getting home to their families.We owe these men and their families the truth about the knowledge held by government agencies and private and government employers. We owe these men and their families access to the compensation they deserve. We have a responsibility to all workers in Australia to ensure that never again will working people be so callously exposed to asbestos and be made to suffer so horribly as a result of that exposure. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Is the motion seconded?JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:43:004580Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I am pleased to rise and state at the outset my support in general for the terms of the motion moved by the member for McMillan. He raises a matter of real importance which has a very direct and personal bearing on a large number of Australians. I rise as possibly one of those Australians who is directly affected, in that I suspect I am one of the few members of this House who before his arrival here was employed as an asbestos removals contractor. It was perhaps a foolhardy vocation, reflecting the lack of judgment that one has whilst at university desperately trying to save to pay the rent and meet one's bills.There are a number of elements to the motion put forward by the honourable member. Certainly I can happily endorse the first:That this House:(1) recognises the enormous pain, suffering and economic hardship which has been experienced, and which is still being experienced, by victims of asbestos exposure, and their families.The second part of the motion calls on the government to do a range of things, including the ratification of ILO convention No. 162, and the introduction of immediate legislation against four different listed heads in the motion.The legislation as proposed is almost a direct mirror of the legislation which was introduced by the New South Wales government on 17 November last year, the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act. In broad terms I find that a forward looking, practical, enlightened piece of legislation. There is much that is desirable in that legislation. For example, one of the great problems with asbestos related cancer is its long gestation period, or latency, as the medical profession describes it. Then when it emerges it hits very rapidly and the demise tends to be very fast, usually in 12 months or so. One of the problems in New South Wales was that they had what were, in effect, death bed hearings, where a patient in the terminal stages of the illness, in a heavily drugged state, had to come to grips with solicitors' representatives of a former employer and their own representatives. It was an undignified way for a person to spend the last days, or in some cases moments, of his life.Similarly in regard to the common law principle that a claim ceases to have validity at the death of the claimant, there are compelling arguments to say that, in instances such as this, that measure ought to be overcome by legislation. In fact, the New South Wales bill does that; it allows the family, wife, children, the estate of the deceased, to continue to deliver on the claim. There has even been some suggestion that insurance companies were deliberately prolonging the consideration of claims in the hope that the claimant would expire. I am reluctant to even ventilate such a claim. The New South Wales bill addresses the three-year limit in the Limitations Act and gives a claimant the opportunity to raise a claim further down the track.The reuse of evidence is another matter raised by the honourable member, which it seems to me is a desirable change in the law in those other states. In New South Wales, formerly you had to have multiple experts coming forward and giving evidence in every case. This provision allows, where expert testimony has been provided on a question relating to a broad class of people and the impact of asbestos or asbestosis, that evidence to be reusable, if you like, in other cases. Certainly both the Bar Association and the New South Wales Law Society were comfortable with and supportive of this commonsense measure, which particularly allows for expediting the hearing of cases in this last phase of people's lives.The request to increase financial assistance for asbestos disease support groups is a good one and one which I support. Around Australia numerous organisations are doing an excellent job of raising awareness and making resources available to those who have contracted asbestos related cancer. I pay tribute to the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of New South Wales, WorkCover New South Wales, the Australian Lung Foundation, the Asbestos Diseases Society of Western Australia, the Asbestos Diseases Support Society of Queensland and other such organisations around the country. To be fair, this is an area where the trade union movement has played an active, and in most cases a very constructive, role. This is exactly the sort of area where organised labour, in my view, has an important role to play in educating both the work force and the employer.I am not supportive in this instance of the ratification of ILO convention 162, not because I do not regard this as an extremely important issue and one that ought to be underlined and highlighted but because of a view about the nature of federalism and the proper place for the use of the external affairs power. It is my view that this parliament has been excessive in undermining the powers of the states in the spirit of federalism, in particular by the use of the external affairs power. I would cite just as one example of the use by the former government of the external affairs power an ILO convention which was the constitutional basis for the unfair dismissals legislation, which was introduced into this parliament and which has proven to be so destructive to the opportunities of young job seekers in Australia.I think the New South Wales government has shown that it is a matter within their power, over which they have a perfectly orthodox power to legislate. They have done so in this instance and that ought to be the path followed by other Australian states. That is not to say that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has not been attentive in regard to or concerned about this issue. In fact, the question of an appropriate response to the question of compensation for asbestos exposure was directly addressed by the Labour Ministers Council, which was chaired by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business last year. The Labour Ministers Council at the time requested in much the same terms as the member himself that we undertake a national survey to identify the action and experience in all states and territories in regard to preventing asbestos related diseases.Based on the outcomes of that survey the Labour Ministers Council agreed at its last meeting in November last year to a range of strategies which are designed to avoid a similar occurrence with other potential diseases of long latency. They include a commitment to further research into relevant areas of public health prevention, generating improved data on occupational disease and ensuring effective control of workplace hazardous substances through national hazardous substances regimes.Research is much needed. Preliminary research has been undertaken. For example, the AmericanJournal of Industrial Medicine in its edition No. 29 of 1996 cites some data from a comparative study by the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia and the Workers Compensation Board of New South Wales into the reporting of asbestos related cancer. They found that at least 1,200 cases in a 12-year period went unreported when it was empirically demonstrable that these cases of mesothelioma were related to asbestos exposure.There is a clear case for raising national awareness of this issue. The fantastic chemical properties of asbestos make it still one of the best insulators against both heat and electricity the world has ever seen, but it just has these tragic terminal consequences which we were not aware of at the time.I certainly hope that I do not have personal need to have recourse to the Dust Diseases Board which was established in 1989 in an enlightened way by the Hon. John Dowd, who is now the Hon. Justice John Dowd of the New South Wales Supreme Court. This government ought to stand solidly behind all those who have contracted this disease and encourage the states to continue their efforts within the spirit of federalism. Nonetheless, we ought to play a constructive leadership role. With those caveats, I warmly commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)15:53:004582McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I had pleasure in seconding the motion moved by the member for McMillan, and I commend him for moving it. It is an important issue. It is fair to say that there would not be a member in this House who would not know someone who has suffered from an asbestos related disease or, indeed had a family member who has so suffered. I sincerely hope that the member for Parramatta does not come down with any such disease.The member for Parramatta indicated that at the time he was involved in asbestos removal, people were not fully aware of the dangers of asbestos. Regrettably, that may not be the case. Indeed, the evidence produced in so many common law cases establishes firmly that employers and government instrumentalities were certainly aware of the dangers of asbestos exposure yet, nonetheless, for reasons of economics, failed to take adequate precautions for their workers. One asks what the consequences would have been for those workers if there had not been trade unions in existence to promote health and safety issues, which, in this case, are literally a matter of life and death.Australia has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma per capita in the world and yet there still has been very little research done. This is an appropriate area where the federal parliament could play a pivotal role in coordinating that research across Australia. As the member for Parramatta said, to have a proper system of reporting asbestos related diseases and then tracking them is very important for identifying the causes. Bear in mind that we are talking about not simply workers, but their families. There have been several cases now where wives who have washed the clothes of workers have themselves contracted the disease. It is an issue that affects the whole community.I was concerned that the government does not appear to support ratification of ILO 162. It is regrettable indeed, because that is an important treaty which, if ratified, requires the federal government to introduce national laws and regulations applying to the use of asbestos in industry, the removal of asbestos, the disposal of asbestos and the release of air borne particles from industry which can clearly affect the community generally. It is an important treaty and, as the member for McMillan said, we are extremely disappointed at the lack of interest this government has in progressing the ratification of that treaty. I note that only the South Australian and Queensland governments have so far taken steps to ratify it, although I have been informed by personal correspondence from the Hon. Jeff Shaw, the New South Wales Attorney-General and Minister for Labour, that the New South Wales government intends to take those steps.I can contrast this government's attitude with the success and empathy that the New South Wales Labor government has had for those involved in the work force and who have contributed to the wealth of the nation by literally and finally giving their health. Under the New South Wales Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment (Dust Diseases and Other Matters) Act, the New South Wales government has provided some very practical measures whereby time limits which previously precluded workers from claiming compensation have been abolished. Bearing in mind the long gestation period of this disease, those measures overcome those complexities.They have provided for the survival of general damages claims even after the death of workers so that their families do not suffer, and also taken practical steps regarding the re-use of evidence from one proceeding into another proceeding which has significantly reduced the cost of litigation to the individual parties and also the cost of justice to the community as a whole.There is a marked contrast with what a New South Wales Labor government has done for the benefit of workers and their families who have given so much to the productivity of the state and the nation, when compared to the blase attitude of this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The contrast could not be any more stark in an area where there should be compassion and recognition of the tremendous sacrifice made by Australian workers to this nation and what should have been done to protect them. These things will only come out with appropriate national recognition and inquiry.(Time expired)15:58:004583Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I would like to compliment the member for McMillan for bringing this issue before the parliament. It is a shame that the member for Barton in his contribution had to try and politicise the debate. It seemed to me that the member for Parramatta had pretty well supported the member for McMillan, and I was about to do the same. I guess my speech has changed a little.I say to the member for McMillan that in 1958 I went to work full time in a steel mill on a blast furnace. I worked in a powerhouse and in the coke works. I was exposed to asbestos in great humps from that time. As a carpenter in the 1970s and 1980s I could not tell you how many times I put asbestos into roofs. I could not count the number of fibre discs I went through with a Black and Decker when cutting AC sheet to fit walls and behind tiles, for roofing profiles or whatever. I do not lie awake at night worrying if I am going to get the disease; if it happens, it happens.But I can say to the parliament with great feeling and great patience that my understanding is that they knew in England in about 1936—that was the year I was born—that free-floating asbestos fibres could cause cancer of the lung. I think it is absolutely abominable, despicable and without justification that industry and government allowed the continuing use of the fibre over such a long number of decades, that we allowed it to be mined so actively in Western Australia, that we imported it from other countries and that we used it so much. There was one time when, per head of population, Australia had the greatest use of asbestos fibre of any country on earth. Did you know that? The greatest use on earth.But there are some other issues here that we might address. Back in 1998, Collective Expertise was set up by INSERM, the French Institute of Health and Medical Research, to promote scientific and technical surveys (state of the art and major trends), and provide support to help INSERM's health sciences partners—private companies, decision makers, government bodies, welfare organisations, hospitals and so on—make effective decisions and define strategies with respect to different issues. Their recommendations on asbestos disease said:While the outcome may appear inconclusive, the experts have been able to make a number of constructive recommendations, not least that we need much more hard data. They recommend:. continuing studies to improve statistics on workers' exposure, and quantitative data on contamination of workplaces. efforts to ensure the exposure of workers to these fibres remains as low as possible. development of experimental models to study how the fibres exert their pathogenic or toxic actions, to predict what will happen. Simple tests of fibre solubility in vitro were criticised as premature and unscientific. setting up a `bank' of asbestos fibre substitutes that would be accessible to all scientists wanting to work in the field.I absolutely support the general terms of section (1) of the motion, which reads:(1) recognises the enormous pain, suffering and economic hardship which has been experienced, and which is still being experienced, by victims of asbestos exposure, and their families;I agree with that absolutely, and I support that part of the motion.I am not convinced that ratifying the ILO convention will do anything for us whatsoever, other than make it just simply another piece of international paper floating around the place. It seems to me that the most effective solution to the problem is to have uniform agreement with the states that we recognise the long-term distance—it is sometimes 30 years—between initial exposure and when the disease appears. I can tell you from my own personal experience that I am one of those in a high risk category who still could easily wind up in hospital with the disease. It seems to me that Neil Bartholomaeus, Worksafe Western Australia Commissioner, was correct when, in a speech about setting the agenda for 2000, he said:Past occupational exposure to asbestos has killed more workers than any other occupational hazard in Australian history. Although active steps have reduced the exposure of most workers to asbestos, many Australians still face the prospect of painful death from presently incurable mesothelioma or of contracting other asbestos-related diseases.(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.458416:04:004584Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I move:That this House:(1) expresses its deep concern at the level of addictive drug taking in Australia;(2) calls on Australians and all Australian governments to enhance their attack on illegal drugs by all means at their disposal; and(3) encourages the development of preventive programs.In the year 1996 there were 739 deaths from illicit drug use in Australia among people of all ages, of which 182 were attributed to causes other than opioid overdose. The number of deaths from the use of illicit drugs each year in Australia is a huge problem for our nation.In my examination of this matter it appears that the factors that lead to drug taking are, in part, similar to those that relate to suicide, which the House debated a couple of weeks ago. Some of those indicators of depression are: boredom—that is, losing interest in activities once enjoyable; fatigue; worry; irritability; loss of appetite, gain or loss of weight; feeling worthless, guilty or hopeless; low moods; sleep problems; chronic pain that does not respond to medical treatment; and poor concentration.I do not wish to put before the House just a complete medical model, but an inability to manage emotions can result in a number of outworkings, and some of them are terrible indeed. Suicide is only one of those manifestations. Crimes of passion, the debilitating habits of drug and alcohol dependence, and lives lived with chronic anxiety and worry that eventually erode one's health and one's family relationships are all outcomes of what could be termed `depression'. It is the image that a person has of themselves, it is the way they regard themselves, which can often lead to illicit drug taking.I am very much indebted for the assistance given in the examination of these matters by Mr Andrew Mullins, who is the Headmaster of Redfield College, Dural, and his program `Raising resilient children', a marvellous program that I would recommend to any educator or parent.The government's Tough on Drugs program is the first in Australia. It is the first really strong and honest attempt by us to try to deal with this problem—this multifaceted problem to which there are no simple answers. Those that claim that the methadone program, more policing or education will fix the problem are all, in part, right, but they are, in part, wrong also.The Prime Minister's program which extends $120 million of assistance to community groups, to the interception of the movement of illicit drugs, to policing processes, to education and to support for those who are trapped in the dreadful snare of the drug scene is visionary. In my opinion, at this point there is too much of an involvement of state governments wanting to get their hands on the money. It would seem to me that great organisations like that led by Major Brian Watters, the Salvation Army, are the organisations which have had the most practical experience in trying to assist those on drugs.I myself would question the methadone program and the results it is getting. I hope that one day this parliament will conduct a parliamentary inquiry into the methadone programs in Australia so we can find out for ourselves exactly what is going on. The first and initial results of the naltrexone program are looking positive and good.The preventive programs that I have asked the House to consider today, I believe, should be aimed at abstinence, breaking the habit and getting people off drugs. That should be the one goal of everybody in Australia dealing with these programs. They should involve education both in schools, particularly primary and secondary schools, and of parents, such as the programs that have been run in Penrith and Blacktown and are now starting in the hills district, of drug proofing your kids— parents knowing about drugs and understanding how kids are affected.In respect of treatment, I recommend the organisation Teen Challenge as it is moving ahead, taking an interest in young people and endeavouring to have them break the habit. Street contacts with street workers for young people and instant access for their needs, their lack of security and their depression are also important parts of a comprehensive program. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:09:004585Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I do not intend to enter into the `my solution is better than your solution' debate on drugs. Nor do I want to debate the inclusion or exclusion of drugs like alcohol and tobacco or the so-called soft drugs in the context of addiction. These are all matters of health policy which have been addressed over many years. Governments, rightly, have taken to warning citizens of the dangers of drug abuse and should step up that education element in health policy. It is hard drugs, though, which most involve both health and criminal issues, not the least because they are illicit but also because they are directly related to crime rates.My concern is about the increasing use of heroin and cocaine in communities around Liverpool and Cabramatta and the inadequate level of resources being directed at the growing problem. Users can develop habits costing $5,000 a week or more. How much do you get from an average house break-in? Not enough. So dealing is the way to maintain your supply. It certainly has more attraction than doing over houses.Like many others in the community, I am angry that stealing is funding drug dependency. I can understand why the community has so little sympathy for heroin addicts. That is where the government's `get tough on drugs' stand is window dressing. It is pitched at those who are fed up with bag snatching, thieving, house break-ins and hold-ups. We should not let public relations get in front of the very substantial challenge being presented in the growth industry of hard drugs. To its credit, the contents of the package are not true to label because the funds are mostly about providing care to addicts.Last week, I asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care why, out of the latest $20 million funding under the Tough on Drugs program, my electorate got nothing. His response, after shuffling around a bit, was that, out of the $50 million so far allocated, Cabramatta did in fact get some funding—$75,000 to be precise—at the minister's insistence. It was such a generous recognition of the sorts of problems the people of south-west Sydney are facing as greater quantities of heroin and cocaine are coming onto the streets and killing young people. That $75,000 is 0.15 per cent of the total Tough on Drugs outlay, and that was only at the intervention of the minister. I am asking him to do a lot more intervening.I have a counselling and education centre called the South-West Alternative Program, or SWAP, in the Cabramatta area. SWAP work with people suffering addictions. It is work the federal government ought to take notice of. They are pleading for more support. I wrote to the minister conveying their plea because they are being forced to abandon a temporary counsellor. About 45 clients will be without the service if that one counsellor is dispensed with. We are talking $26,000 to maintain an existing service, one experiencing a massive increase in demand. They received nothing from the federal government. SWAP have circulated a letter, and let me read part of it to you:Our submission was not successful . . . For most of the clients counselling will simply cease . . . What these young people will learn from this is that they do not count. Why try to give up drugs if your support system can be pulled out from under you without a second thought?The Tough on Drugs policy has let these people down—the young, out-of-work-with-little-prospects addicts. These young addicts are dealing to ever widening circles and to ever younger clients to support an ever increasing dependency. It is a tough world. There are knives, violence and car chases—it is the pathetic sight of action movies translat ed into real life by players too young to be stars. The government's Tough on Drugs initiative should be called the `tough on drug users in Sydney's south-west' policy because the health minister's electorate has received over $1 million while only $75,000 has come to the Fowler electorate, widely touted as having the drug capital of Australia within its boundaries.As I said at the beginning, I am not pushing a brief for any treatment or any particular prevention strategy. I believe that people become addicted for different reasons and that a range of rehabilitation approaches is necessary. I and the people in my electorate would welcome any funds for any purpose to do anything to ease the pain of anyone who is affected—addicts and householders, police and medical services, churches and families—by the rampant spread of heroin and cocaine. The only side I am on in this whole debate is that of the community I represent. (Time expired)16:14:004586Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I will resist the temptation to respond to the cheap politics from the other side. This is too grave an issue to sink to such a low level. I do not pretend to be an expert on any aspect of what is a very complex problem nor do I profess to have any new insights to offer. However, as a parent of three and as a concerned member of our community, I am appalled by the growing impact the drug menace is having on individuals, their families and the broader community, and I am pleased to support the motion of the member for Mitchell.The problems of illicit drug use do not only affect those directly involved; its tentacles reach much further. There would be few who have not had close contact with those whose lives have been tinged with the curse. Certainly the impact on the users themselves is devastating—many years of life wasted in the debilitation of addiction; an adverse impact on physical and mental health, often long term and irreversible; the degradation and humiliation of prostitution that often goes to supporting an addiction; the risk of death in increasing numbers. The total number of deaths from illicit drugs was 739 in 1996 and is still growing—only a very small fraction, admittedly, of those due to legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, but a totally unacceptable and serious problem.The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre estimates that a staggering 6.5 per cent of deaths of 15- to 24-year-olds and 10 per cent of deaths of 25- to 34-year-olds is due to overdose from opiate substances. The increasing suicide numbers are in many cases a direct result of the despair and depression created by drug addiction.For others the impact is equally as tragic. For families the trauma of dealing with a family member in the grip of addiction or killed by an overdose is devastating. For the community there are many thousands of victims of drug related crime, which is worth an estimated $1.6 billion per annum, and there is a rising number of armed robberies. For the community there is the massive cost of law enforcement, court procedures and imprisonment. The spread of infectious diseases such as hepatitis B and hepatitis C and HIV potentially impact on many more who have nothing to do with drugs directly.Alarmingly, the levels of illicit drug use and addiction are rising. Since 1988 there has been a 63 per cent increase in the number of heroin overdoses—a 63 per cent increase in 10 years. There is widespread evidence of earlier experimentation and addiction. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre indicates that the average age of first time heroin use has fallen from 26.1 years in the 1970s to an appalling 17.5 years in the 1990s. A National Drug Strategy study shows that the number of 14- to 19-year-olds who have never used an illicit drug has fallen from 67 per cent in 1988 to 55 per cent in 1998.There are many other indicators of the growing menace of this scourge. There was an increase of 110 per cent in drug related arrests between 1993 and 1998—300 per cent for arrests related to heroin and 200 per cent for those related to cocaine. There has also been a rapid growth in the use of non-opiates such as cocaine and designer drugs and an increase in the number of poly-drug users.The obvious question that arises from this is why? Why is drug use rising? Why is its tentacles reaching further and further to those who are younger and younger? The answer and the solutions are far more evasive than the question. Certainly factors such as increased availability, family breakdown, rising levels of alienation, cynicism and despair, as well as increasing fashionability of some drugs, must all be part of the problem.There is no one magic answer but, rather, a multi-pronged attack is essential. This must include renewed determination with law enforcement—greater surveillance and interception, expedited court procedures and tougher penalties. It must include more thorough and relevant early education programs emphasising the dangers and urging total abstinence rather than harm minimisation. It must include improved and more accessible treatment of addicts, especially detoxification and rehabilitation. Further, and much more fundamentally, it involves a challenge to tackle those underlying issues which make our young people more prone to experimentation with or addiction to illicit drugs—or, indeed, to abuse legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. This requires conscious and consistent approaches to building the self-esteem of young people, strengthening their security within a stable family unit and encouraging responsible patterns of behaviour. (Time expired)16:20:004587Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—In the debate relating to illicit drugs my experience has been that the attitude you take depends primarily on whether you believe that someone who uses illicit drugs is capable of making any sort of positive contribution to our community. If you take the view that under no circumstances can an addicted drug user contribute anything positive to our society then you will most likely take the prohibitionist line.If, on the other hand, you accept that the drug user may still be able to make a positive contribution to our community if we put in place changes relating to drug law and provide policies which recognise that drug addiction is a health problem and, through this, remove the need for that person's drug use to be linked to illegal activity, then you will most likely be willing to embrace new ideas and strategies which have as their primary focus the reduction of harm associated with drug use rather than simply blindly pursuing law enforcement as a way of eliminating the problems associated with illicit drug use.For the benefit of this House, I make plain that I place myself squarely in the latter category. I am a strong supporter of those who want to radically change our approach to illicit drugs with a view to reducing the harm which our community experiences as a result of illicit drug use.As it presently stands those people in our community who are chronically addicted to drugs have available to them a number of options. None of them are good. The first option they can take is that they can commit a crime to get the drugs which their addiction demands of them. It is well known that more than 70 per cent of all crime is drug related. The second option they can pursue is to prostitute and degrade themselves in order to get money which they need to feed their habit, with all the debilitating long-term social stigma and humiliation involved with going down this path. In fact, some 90 per cent of all prostitutes are addicted to heroin.The third option they can take is to try to get into a treatment program. Often there are long delays in getting into detox, and by the time a place becomes available the addicted drug user's circumstances will most likely have changed profoundly. Treatment may no longer be an option for a variety of reasons—the addicted drug user may by that stage, for example, be working as a prostitute and might feel powerless to leave the industry for fear of physical violence.I take the view that we have a responsibility to provide addicted drug users with another option—an option in which they are genuinely provided with an alternative which allows them to break the cycle of illegal and harmful activity which their habit, and present drug law, requires them to involve themselves in. I take the view that every person who is able to free themselves from the pattern of illegal activity presently associated with illicit drug use is one person who is not being forced, by their addiction, to mug an elderly person in the street or degrade themselves through prostitution. As a result of removing the pressure on addicted drug users to break the law, our community will be made safer and drug users—people who presently exist only at the margins of our society—will be able to contribute positively to our community.This debate on approaches to illicit drug use is a long way short of reaching its conclusion but, as the youngest member of this parliament, I intend to make sure that the interests of young people—who make up the great majority of illicit drug users—are not forgotten about. This debate should not be allowed to deteriorate into a banal bidding war between certain politicians and social commentators who are obsessed, at present, with proving themselves worthy of the title `Tough on Drugs'. This should not be what the debate is about. Whilst it may be politically convenient for some governments to participate in this debased bidding war, my advice would be to ignore the fashion and to focus on those strategies which will make our community safer and which will prevent any further unnecessary deaths as a result of the illegal activities which are presently associated with illicit drug use.16:24:004588Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the member for Mitchell in his motion. This afternoon most of the debate has been centred around heroin use and what are commonly referred to as `hard drugs'. But, as the motion says, the House `expresses its deep concern at the level of addictive drug-taking in Australia'. Cigarettes are addictive, alcohol is addictive, and they have been with us for a lot longer—in plague proportions—than have heroin and cocaine. They should not be diminished in any way because of the publicity that has recently been given to these illicit drugs which are on the streets throughout our nation.Revealing new data indicates that an overwhelming 78 per cent of teenagers said they believed that more people their age are now drinking too much alcohol. It is especially striking that researchers concluded many teenagers are `almost yearning for parental direction and control regarding their drinking'. My own experience, in the electorate of Longman, when I gathered some 30 young youth leaders together from various schools last year, is that they were yearning for that same parental guidance and community guidance in relation to all forms of drugs. One young fellow, who represents Australia in a sporting field, said to me, `If you take heroin once, that is it, you are hooked for life, yet I have seen my friends who have done that, and that is not the case.' He was confused. He did not feel that he had appropriate information at his fingertips. He wondered who was kidding whom. That is one of the dilemmas for young people. They actually want to have the facts at their fingertips. They want to know what the consequences of their actions will be. As they put it to me, they want to be intimidated and frightened into knowing what the consequences of their actions may be. Sometimes it seems to me that the media does not portray this issue in the harsh light of reality and that, if they were to do so, it might actually persuade a few more people not to take that first step.A Current Affair last week interviewed a number of young drug users. The normal position that people take is that marijuana does not hurt you and that you can take marijuana without risk of going onto harder drugs. Their experience was that they had taken marijuana for 12 to 18 months—quite often supplied by parents and friends—and had then found that the kick was no longer good enough and they had gone on to something called `cones' where you spice it up with a spot of heroin but where, as you are not actually injecting it, you are not going to be addicted. From cones they went on, of course, to injecting. These are young people at the ages of 14, 15 and 16.Alcohol is where it often starts. It is easily obtained. It is socially acceptable. Many young people today drink themselves into a stupor as quickly as they can. It is when they are in that state of disrepair that they move on to other drugs which are put in front of them and made easily available.The government intends to underpin this research with a national youth alcohol campaign which is outside of the Tough on Drugs campaign. It is another measure which will be aimed at providing information to young people, who need it in a form that they can appreciate, in a timely, targeted fashion. It will also aid the parents, because parents are feeling left out of the loop. They do not really know how to deal with this. I am the father of 12-, 10- and 8-year-old children and, as such, it worries me to recall, when I was playing football at age 13 and 14, the large amounts of alcohol and sometimes other drugs that were offered to me. I believe it was due to the parental guidelines set out for me that I was able to make the decision to reject these. But there are many people who do not believe they have the power and the information at their fingertips, as parents, with which they can deliver that. In fact, I can support this by saying that, of 55 per cent of all 15- to 17-year-olds who said they had consumed alcohol under adult supervision, half of them had consumed more than six or seven drinks, with that adult supervision, the last time they drank. Seven drinks would manage to put a 14- or 15-year-old into a stupor. This was with adult supervision. So obviously the guidelines are not there.The government's Tough on Drugs campaign is only one part of the strategy. It needs to be supported by the community, as the members opposite have said. It needs to be supported by state governments. It needs to encourage the understanding that can be delivered only by having an education program targeting young people who are most at risk in their teenage years, and also parents and teachers who provide the role models and the boundaries within which young people make their decisions. Alcohol and cigarettes should not be left out of the equation when we deal with the imputation of drugs. (Time expired)16:29:004589Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I am very pleased to hear the member for Mitchell and the member for Longman referring to addictive drugs rather than illicit drugs. I think it is important to note that every day in Australia two people die from the results of illicit drug use, 10 die from alcohol misuse, and 50 die from tobacco use. So it is very important to deal with the abuse of legal drugs as well as illegal drugs. I did want to focus my remarks today on heroin because heroin is a major problem in my electorate of Sydney, as it is in many areas around the country.We need to address the problem of heroin use in three particular ways: we need to reduce both the demand and the supply of heroin in this country, we need to minimise harm and we need to offer real treatment options to addicts. I spoke two weeks ago about the principle of harm minimisation, which is the central tenet of our approach to drug misuse in this country at the moment for the very good reason that we need to keep addicts alive long enough to treat their addiction. Saying that harm minimisation encourages drug use is like saying that sex education encourages teen pregnancy. Senator Harradine is about the only person who still believes that.I wanted to quickly go through some of the approaches of overseas countries in dealing with heroin abuse because we need to examine the experience of overseas countries. We have to have a look at anything that is working, to try anything that is working to help people escape heroin abuse. There is no doubt that the Swiss evaluation and the World Health Organisation evaluation show that the Swiss heroin trial has managed to achieve decreased drug use, less crime, reduced deaths, higher employment and higher retention rates than alternative programs working with the same category of user. There is strong support in the community for safe injecting rooms. Seventy-three per cent of Swiss people support safe injecting rooms and about 70 per cent support the controlled prescription of heroin. This trial applies to people who have tried everything else to get off heroin, and it is having some success in keeping them alive and re-integrating them into the community. We must have a look at that experience.The Dutch approach is based on the principle of normalisation, which allows the public use of cannabis in some prescribed areas and only prosecutes other illicit drug use where it is a public nuisance. This has led to decreased cannabis use amongst people in the Nether lands where the rate is approximately half that of Australia. Heroin use is also declining because of that separation of the approach to softer and harder drugs.The United States `just say no' approach has been a dismal failure. They spend about $20 billion a year on their war against drugs and about half of that is directed to law enforcement. They have about two million people either in gaol or on orders for drug related offences. It is very tough talking, but it has been spectacularly unsuccessful. I think that is certainly a lesson to us when people in the Australian community start to talk about zero tolerance.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for private members business has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 104A. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Sydney will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate4590Question proposed:That grievances be noted.459016:33:004590Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The government has to get serious about food labelling. The government must listen to the community on this issue. Deregulation of food labelling is not good for the industry and it is not acceptable to consumers. It is hard to imagine an issue more serious in our local community than those issues that involve our basic necessities. Food of course is one of life's basic requirements. There is no-one in our community who is unaffected where food is concerned. In Australia we have become accustomed to high quality food products, both fresh and processed. We are entitled to this expectation for good reason. We have tighter controls and regulations on food products than most other countries.The community expectation on the supply and marketing of quality food demands that issues of value and health are also addressed. The government has a major role to play in relation to ensuring the community has access to a food supply that is safe to eat, free of unhealthy herbicides and pesticides and that meets the nutritional expectations of the community. We must also ensure that consumers are given the capacity to evaluate food value as against food prices to ensure that the community has access to food that is value for money.Increasingly, many consumers are also demanding that foods be produced in ways that are ethically sound and environmentally sustainable. Meeting the varying demands of consumers in a free market economy where primary producers must also compete against imported foodstuffs and maximise exports of local food products is clearly the challenge. While regulation is obviously the only path to take on public health and safety issues like pesticides and herbicides, it is unrealistic to strictly regulate on matters relating to nutritional expectation and value for money.The important issue at hand here is that consumers are given the information they need to make decisions on the criteria they feel are important in their choice of food. The solution is food labelling. Food labelling is the consumers' only realistic method of determining what the food is and whether one product differs greatly in terms of expectation of ingredients, manufacturing processes or nutritional outcomes. There should be no debate that information is a vital part of the freedoms associated with a healthy market economy. Without informed choice consumers are left to the peril of marketing, deception or ambiguity. The government's plans to deregulate food labelling will abandon the consumer and the confidence we have in our present system.Labor has a history of taking food labelling very seriously. When in government we tackled the difficult issues of food labelling, in particular, the matter of country of origin labelling and the protection of the `Product of Australia' tag, unlike the current government, who shed crocodile tears when in opposition on this issue but when in government watered down the level of Australian goods required to bear the label `Made in Australia'. This government have never taken food labelling seriously. They do not understand this issue from the point of view of the consumer.Members opposite should understand that the Australian consumer today is hungry for information on food. When my family and I are shopping, I notice that many shoppers, like us, are now stopping before they put food into the trolley. They are reading the labels. People want to know the nutritional content, the country of origin, the ingredients and any other facts they can find out about the products before they make a purchase. Of course they also take some things for granted—like the fact that jam contains fruit—and they should be entitled to do so. These things are the matters usually dealt with by food labelling regulations.One issue of growing concern for consumers is the use of genetically modified organisms in the manufacture of food products. People have a wide range of concerns about the use of GMOs in food—from the ethical and spiritual concerns through to the nutritional, taste and health aspects of genetically altered food. Concerns with GMOs often underlie a deep and fundamental concern about gene technology and the application of this technology in the commercial world. We all live in a technological age where we sometimes quite rightly fear that science can disregard the human perspective. Morally or ethically, human discovery does not always lead to human progress. The gene industry is one that some people would never wish to sponsor and as such would purchase their food free of such technology. This can only be achieved when they have reasonable access to that information through food labelling.This government is very loud when talking about mutual obligation and freedom of choice in relation to many matters, as we have heard recently. So it should be incumbent on this government to offer the same freedoms of choice to consumers through legislation and proper food labelling. There is a lot of information about this subject that people need to know. As that information becomes available, attitudes to GMOs may well change. While concerns exist and for varying reasons the community may wish to avoid genetically altered food, food labelling must identify any foods where GMOs are used.This will not happen under this government because it cannot get it right on food labelling. The government has not taken seriously the fact that there is near zero compliance of the requirement for testing and approval of genetically modified food products. There is little to no chance that consumers or retailers will have identified all the products with genetically modified organisms by the 13 May deadline. While this places retailers in an unenviable position, for consumers it will mean that they are no closer to finding out the truth on what they are buying or what they are eating—a situation that may please the government, which, after all, voted against the labelling of genetically modified foods late last year.Food labelling is about much more than just genetically modified organisms. Food labelling is an issue for every product we purchase. Food labelling allows consumers the confidence to purchase products of a particular description and to know that that product falls within the community expectation of ingredients and nutritional requirements. The government's current plans to deregulate food labelling will pull the rug out from under consumers' feet. Nearing Easter it is timely to consider the government's deregulation of food labelling and its impact.Will the coalition hop from house to house this Easter telling kids and their parents that the chocolate Easter eggs they are eating may contain no chocolate at all? Or will the government tell consumers that it will remove the requirement for jam to contain at least 40 per cent fruit? And what of the great Australian meat pie? An Aussie icon of such magnitude, it is surprising that it did not get a run in John Howard's preamble. Even guidelines for the meat pie will be thrown out the window under this government's recommendations.Food labelling regulations are put in place to assist the consumer. Consumers only get a fair deal when they can go to the supermarket and compare apples with apples and jams with jams. The ability of manufacturers to produce, for example, jams of inferior fruit quality without labelling as such will lead to many consumers purchasing products that are of a reduced value for money. Consumers are owed better than this from this government or any government. They work too hard and earn too little to throw money away at the supermarket. Only regulated food labelling will assist the consumer in making informed comparisons at the point of purchase.Food labelling is also a genuine health issue. When you are shopping for yourself and your family, you want to know that a certain product is made from the ingredients that you expect. With deregulated food labelling, the nutritional value of food can be seriously diminished without consumers being aware of this. This is of genuine concern to many. Without regulated food labelling, public nutrition can be played off against industry expedience. With food labelling deregulation what is removed are the minimum standards of ingredients that are usually healthier, fresher and generally better for us. Of course, they are usually more expensive. Therefore, a manufacturer of jams can reduce the amount of fruit in a jam jar but they can still call it jam. They will reduce their costs and still compete against other jam manufacturers. Where will this eventually lead us? All the jam manufacturers will be forced to reduce their fruit content to compete. The eventual loser is the consumer. As a parent, I want to know that the jam I buy for my family contains a minimum of fruit, that a meat pie contains a minimum of meat and that the integrity of other food products is also maintained. Without that integrity we cannot properly assess the balance of diets of our families or ourselves. That, quite frankly, is just not good enough.Further, I am concerned that Australia's international reputation as a manufacturer of quality foods will be diminished by the falling standards of domestic production. It is widely acknowledged that Australia's food exporters succeed by not only competing by price alone but also providing the world with superior quality foods. The deregulation of food labelling will only serve to reduce this reputation on primary products.The impact of the export on processed foods could be far more serious. Export opportunities for value added products lie very much in the top end of the market. Through tourism and other mediums, the global community will develop a particular belief in the quality of Australian food—qualities that must be maintained and, if anything, increased if locally manufactured goods are to compete in overseas markets. For all these reasons, the government needs to get serious about food labelling. (Time expired)459316:43:004593Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I am sure that the member for Oxley was going to finish by saying that he particularly encouraged people to take account of food labelling of jam in the future, so I will add that for him. I, too, am very concerned about the fruit content in jam. It has been of great concern to me for a long time. I am glad that the member for Oxley is speaking up in this House on behalf of all of those of us who have a great concern about the fruit content of our jams.Globalisation is challenging our traditional ideas of economic policy as capital becomes more diffuse and economic borders more porous. Technological change is reducing the power and capacity of governments to control economies free from outside influence. The challenge for government is to create the architecture which will enable Australia to successfully compete for investment in an era where capital will become even more mobile.Australia needs to embrace a business taxation framework which is incentive based, as free as possible from economic distortions and transparent. Transparency in business and government will be the new buzz word as we enter the next millennium. The coalition government is pioneering transparency practices both domestically and abroad. Domestically, the charter of budget honesty requires a government to report all of its liabilities, whether the budget is going into deficit and, if so, how it will get out of deficit, and independent costings of election promises. Internationally, the coalition government has released a transparency report which will lend itself to superior regional economic surveillance and will be the model used by the International Monetary Fund to determine whether it can be applied to other countries around the world.Transparency arrangements have the advantage of demonstrating to market participants that we have confidence in our economy and financial infrastructure. This is a necessary measure if we want to remain a competitive destination for international capital. But as the international marketplace moves to follow Australia's lead in transparency arrangements, there is an urgency to complete reforms to our taxation system to maximise investment opportunities. The last peg in the government's tax reform strategy is to improve the business taxation system and move towards a lower, more uniform and efficient company tax rate with less distortionary mechanisms.The most visible feature of a country's business tax system is its company tax rate. Slashing the company tax rate from 36 per cent to 30 per cent would earn Australia a reputation as an attractive and efficient place to invest and do business. The benefits would be shared by all Australians through an inevitable boost in economic growth and job creation.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—The pensioners will be screaming.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—It will be of benefit to all Australians, I say to the member for Grayndler—in his new lilac shirt which he asked me to comment on in my speech today; looking particularly spivvy.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—I rise on a point of order. I would ask that the member for Sturt withdraw—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The reference to the lilac shirt?R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—The reference to the shirt is entirely appropriate, but the reference to a group of people which seems to dominate his party—that is, spivs—I find offensive.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. If the honourable member has taken offence to certain words, I would ask the honourable member for Sturt to withdraw.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Because I do not want to lose any more time, I am happy to withdraw. Considering a country's corporate tax rate in isolation is adopting a narrow and limited approach. The country with the lowest rate of company tax will not always be the most attractive place to invest. Potential investors consider other peripheral factors, such as liability for other taxes like payroll tax, the skills and flexibility of the labour market and industrial relations regulations. Other considerations include the manner in which corporate taxes are administered. Some countries adopt a dual income tax approach in which they apply a low rate of tax to the earnings of companies but tax the income more heavily in the hands of domestic shareholders. Other countries, such as Germany, have a split rate system, applying different rates to both distributed and undistributed income.Reducing Australia's corporate tax rate from 36 per cent is only half the challenge. The invisibility of economic distortions and the costs of compliance for businesses and government through the Australian Taxation Office are compelling arguments for reforming the corporate tax system beyond a reduction in the rate. Some of these distortions are caused by concessional treatment of corporate tax liabilities. One such concession is accelerated depreciation of an asset, which allows companies to depreciate an asset for tax purposes faster than it depreciates commercially. Australia provides more generous depreciation allowances compared to most other countries for assets with longer economic lives. This tends to arise because of the broadbanding approach to fixing the rates as well as the underlying concessional treatment that is built into the rates.Australia's mining, manufacturing and agricultural industries are all heavy beneficiaries of the present system. The capital intensive nature of mining, particularly in the early stages of a project, means that the concessional treatment of accelerated depreciation reduces the cost burden in the embryonic stages of a development. This has the effect of substantially improving returns from the investment over the long term. It is effectively an industry subsidy. Clearly, the government must be cognisant of the impact that the removal of this concession might have on existing industries.However, it is difficult to ignore the advantages of a lower and more uniform application of corporate tax. A reduction of company tax rates would encourage the expansion of less capital intensive industries, particularly industries which are exporting services. Reforms to the corporate tax rate would foster a broader range of foreign investment which would extend beyond mining and manufacturing and make many of our domestic industries more internationally competitive. Removing or reducing accelerated depreciation as a concession would also remove distortions. Although concessions have a distortionary effect on the economy, well-targeted concessions can enjoy a place in the tax system. But if you have less distortions in the tax system then everyone enjoys the benefits.Economic efficiency is best achieved if consumption patterns are determined by the true cost of production and not by tax considerations. The concessional treatment of accelerated depreciation works against that principle. The current tax system fails to achieve adequate efficiency because producer behaviour is distorted as production favours low-taxed goods and services. The consequent price distortions affect investment decisions, innovation and product development.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Hear, hear!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I am delighted the member for Werriwa was pleased with my point in my speech, because I have some regard for his economic credentials and the work that he has done since the last election. I am sorry that his economic credentials are not so well recognised by other members of the Labor Party—like the member for Grayndler, who I understand is not quite as supportive of the member for Werriwa as are members on this side of the House.The objective of responsible tax policy should be to minimise the impact of taxes on production and consumption decisions. There must be a cogent argument to allow dis tortionary measures in a tax system. Supporters of the status quo argue that any significant changes to the present system will expose established capital intensive industries and may drive away existing investors who were initially drawn to our present system. Others argue that setting the corporate tax rate as low as 30 per cent would accelerate the shift of pay-as-you-earn taxpayers into company structures to minimise personal taxation liability.This recycled argument has no contemporary relevance. In the modern global economy, the mobility of capital requires countries to have an internationally competitive corporate tax system if they want to capture their share of that capital. To continue with a corporate tax system which does not take sufficient account of international factors would be to risk a declining revenue base, expiring levels of foreign investment and a poorer competitive position for Australian enterprises and Australian based multinationals. If Australia is to remain competitive, we need to lower the company tax rate to 30 per cent and reduce distortionary measures in the tax system.It is difficult to project the impact of removing concessions on market behaviour and market driven resource allocation. Based on Treasury projections, lowering the corporate tax rate to 30 per cent would cost approximately $4½ billion in transition costs by 2003-04 and would come at an annual cost to the Commonwealth budget of around $2.2 billion. Removing the concessional treatment of accelerated depreciation would recoup $2.4 billion. This would have the twofold advantage of making the exercise revenue neutral while removing some of the distortions in the current business tax system. Such a proposal deserves serious consideration by government and industry. The Minerals Council of Australia has already indicated that it could `possibly' embrace supporting the removal or modification of accelerated depreciation.We should avoid the pitfall of borrowing a corporate tax system from another country and grafting it onto our own tax and legislative frameworks. Australia should be looking to learn from the experiences of other count ries rather than looking for an off-the-shelf panacea. The international race to improve the competitiveness of national corporate tax systems illustrates the urgency for Australia to keep ahead of our competitors. The faster we achieve reform, the faster we will make progress as a country. At the moment, the government's reform process is being delayed by some sections of the Senate which want to prolong the personal income tax reform debate. That debate is finished: the Australian electorate voted in favour of the government's tax reform package at the last election. The Senate has an obligation to all Australians to pass tax reform. (Time expired)459516:53:004595Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The history of cross-media laws in this parliament is well known. They were devised by Paul Keating during his time as Treasurer and then vigorously defended during his time as Prime Minister. These laws stand in the way of the Packer group acquiring the Fairfax newspapers. For the Packer family, this is an article of faith. As Kerry Packer himself said in October 1991:For 50 years of my life Fairfax has been in competition to me and my family. The idea that I can end up buying it amuses me.What for Mr Packer is a matter of family redemption and personal amusement has been seen by this parliament as sound competition policy. No matter how much information can be dispersed on the Internet, no matter how prolific the information superhighway may become, competition policy will still matter.The information age, while changing the format of economic regulation, is not an invitation for laissez faire, nor is it an invitation for oligopoly markets. This country already has a relatively high concentration of media ownership across the established technologies of print, radio and television. Obviously, the major players want to extend their ownership and control into emerging media technologies. Competition policy needs to guard against this scenario. It is not desirable for the princes of print and the queens of the screen in Australia to now become moguls of multimedia and kings of content. Rather than abolishing the cross-media laws, it is time to update their effectiveness.I have long been an advocate of a policy of vertical separation for the new media technologies—that is, content provision, multimedia delivery and cable ownership. An access regime should be established for media content, just as the Hilmer reforms have entrenched open access rules for service carrying public infrastructure in Australia. Within this framework, the print media would be classified as part of content provision. The Packer organisation would still need to make a choice: does it want to be a provider of television and other multimedia services or a newspaper owner? The integrity and intent of the cross-media laws would then be preserved.I note that Mr Packer is now advocating the abolition of both the cross-media laws and foreign ownership restrictions in the media. This is far from amusing, especially given this is the same Mr Packer who just a few years ago—indeed, on 16 February 1995—said:Nowhere in the world, and I mean nowhere . . . is there not some control over media assets by nationals.This was the same Mr Packer who, on 18 November 1996, said:Australian media companies talk an Australian language and their prime loyalty both in a business sense and as corporate citizens is to Australia. What we are now talking about is the preservation of national identity and pride.It is always surprising when a strident economic nationalist becomes a born-again internationalist. I suspect that Mr Packer's conversion is not so much to do with public policy as with self-interest. Mr Packer has justified this change in position by arguing:I think the world changes and you can't just sit there in isolation.It is true that the world does constantly change, but some things in it remain remarkably constant. Take, for instance, the Packer organisation's approach to media policy. Paul Barry's biography of Mr Packer offers a remarkable account of single-minded purpose and consistency across three generations. From Robert Clyde Packer's crusade against Jack Lang, to Frank Packer's personal em brace of Menzies and Askin, to Kerry Packer's endorsement of the current Prime Minister, this has been a Liberal leaning outfit. All three generations have been willing to use their media power for, in the words of Paul Barry, `all sorts of crusades and vendettas and to ride their own personal hobbyhorses'.This takes me back to Paul Keating, the latest and most spectacular victim of a Packer vendetta. Mr Keating is now paying a public price for standing up to the Packer organisation and blocking its ambition to take over Fairfax. No-one in this parliament, least of all those who truly value the principles of parliamentary independence, should support this campaign. The 60 Minutes allegations are both misleading and malicious. I offer three instances. First, 60 Minutes broadcast that Mr Constantinidis took $100,000 away from the piggery, yet 60 Minutes had in its possession documents which showed that this amount was substantially higher. Mr Keating has subsequently shown it to be $9.1 million. Second, 60 Minutes knowingly failed to report that its star witness, Mr Tony Norman, has been on Mr Constantinidis's payroll. Third, the Commonwealth Bank has totally rejected the 60 Minutes allegations. It has been willing to open its books to full public scrutiny to prove this point.The parliamentary Liberal Party may think it clever, even amusing, to support these allegations. The Prime Minister at one time thought it clever to have his friend Michael Baume drag these matters through the Senate. Perhaps he now finds it amusing to direct the Attorney-General to go through the charade of an inquiry. There is, of course, nothing to inquire into. Paul Keating has not been a member of this House for three years. His private business affairs deserve no greater scrutiny than any other Australian citizen.This matter should sound warning bells for all members in this place but for a very different reason to that put by 60 Minutes. The Packer organisation is trying to send a message to anyone who stands in the way of its ambitions for Fairfax. If anyone takes the same stance as Paul Keating, they will end up being subject to the same treatment. This is the standard Packer treatment—the media politics of intimidation and vendettas. Some politicians are more likely to buckle under to this type of treatment than others. This is the reason why the Howard government has had the cross-media rules under a permanent state of review since March 1996. The health of democracy, however, is damaged if any one citizen has the power to intimidate an elected government. Caving into those demands can only worsen the situation.Politics is full of ironies. Often it follows the dictum that my enemy's enemy is my friend. This can be seen by the way in which Brian Toohey—the contrarian journalist who first peddled the notorious `Goanna' allegations against Mr Packer—is now cheering on the Packer allegations against Mr Keating. Mr Toohey is more interested in settling old scores than reporting the facts. Toohey has a hateful obsession of Indonesia, and this has coloured his reporting of the recent controversies concerning the two former Labor prime ministers Mr Keating and Mr Whitlam. In fact, Keating's letter published in today's Financial Review exposes Toohey as a serial liar. This is a judgment supported by the experience of the Whitlam government, given Mr Toohey's actions in stealing sensitive defence documents from the defence minister's office.This parliament should reject the Packer and Toohey allegations against Keating. It should also reject Toohey's rewriting of the Whitlam government's record in foreign policy. As Paul Keating made clear in his press release yesterday, it is time to seriously examine the question of journalistic ethics and professionalism, especially when they are so hopelessly abused by programs like 60 Minutes. Most of all, we should reject any weakening of the cross-media principles to which this parliament has subscribed for more than a decade. To weaken those principles is to weaken the health of parliamentary democracy itself. None of us at any time under any circumstances should ever cave in to intimidation.459717:02:004597Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—Today I want to highlight in this House a few re gional issues which have evolved over the last 20 years or so. If you were to formulate a checklist of the things that were most important to regional Australians, it would be that their health services be of a reasonably equivalent standard to metropolitan Australia; that their education be of a reasonable quality, standard and cost, as it is for metropolitan families; that their communications be of a reasonably convenient standard to enable them to operate their businesses and to progress the investment that is required to maintain our communities; and that the general investment climate in regional Australia be strong enough to generate as much employment as is possible. Petrol prices should also be reasonably equivalent.For the record, it is worth looking at what has happened over the last 10 to 20 years. I will mention one example to show the very clear difference between regional Australia and metropolitan Australia. Everybody is familiar with SBS. Many people in this place would know that it costs about $100 million per annum of taxpayers' subsidy to run the SBS. Many regional Australians do not have access to SBS. Those that do are offered it on the basis—regretfully from this government but also from the previous government—that they pay for it themselves. There is no subsidy whatsoever. That is a glaring inequity. Metropolitan Australians can access SBS at no cost, but regional Australians must pay for it themselves. It would be far fairer if SBS were funded on a similar per capita basis. Perhaps it could even be capitalised out, considering that it has been subsidised for 20 years. There should at least be some equity between rural Australians and metropolitan Australians.I want to briefly touch on health. If you look at the Medicare payments per capita per annum per electorate—BV5ADAMSMr Adams—In regional Australia?HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—In regional Australia. The figures that I have are for 1993-94. I am sure there are later figures, but I have not been able to lay my hand on them yet. In 1993-94 the electorate of Kalgoorlie, the largest electorate in the world, had a per capita costing of $137 per head. If you look at the electorate of Sydney, it was $407 per head. Therefore, taxpayers' dollars in the electorate of Sydney were accessed at almost three times the rate of that in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, an inequity that regional Australia would not find acceptable.In its defence, this government has introduced a number of initiatives—for example, higher rural and remote centres of excellence. We have tried to train the professionals in a regionally appropriate way. There have been some initiatives in the GP area. There has been a range of initiatives, but there is this bottom line figure that we cannot avoid. Drawings on the Medicare services are at least 2½ to three times greater in metropolitan Sydney than in the remote areas of Australia. We really need to address that issue.Touching on education, everybody knows that, if you are a regional Australian, you will have far less opportunity to go to university. Also, you will have significantly less opportunity to acquire the most competitive secondary education—and that, of course, has implications as to whether or not you will be able to access a university education. A lot of work is going into that area and many things are being tried, but that is the fundamental situation.These things come down to cost. The government has, in the youth allowance, extended the rent subsidy in certain cases which has made it more generous than it was. But I believe the basic issue is that the billions of dollars which are available in those metropolitan facilities are not available to the smaller group of Australians, those millions who live outside the main cities of this country.Currently, at a time when education and opportunities for the future through education have never been more important, and at a time in regional Australia where change is occurring at a more rapid rate, access to education is inequitable. In fact, I would suggest that greater change, much greater fundamental restructuring, is occurring in regional Australia than in the cities. So there is this issue in terms of education.A matter of great grievance in regional Australia is that of petrol price. It is an age- old problem. From memory, we have been wrestling with this issue for at least 20 years. The greatest complaint that I used to get from regional retailers was, `We can't buy it wholesale for what the retailers in the city can sell it.' Clearly there is something wrong with a system that allows that to happen. Once again this government has acted, as the previous government endeavoured to, to do some things about this issue. Nevertheless, in dealing with these major oil companies, I think everybody understands that it is not easy to overcome this problem.So generally there exists this fundamental issue about getting some equity in city and country fuel prices. I have already referred to the issue of the oil code that the government is still trying to negotiate. There is the matter that the price charged at the terminal should be reasonably equivalent or at least as close as possible for everyone, no matter who you are. There are those sorts of issues in which the ACCC takes an interest, and I think it needs to take a greater interest in the issue of accessing supplies at a terminal at a fair dinkum price, no matter how big you are.You can imagine the concern attaching to this issue. For example, there is a Woolworths in Port Pirie; the people of that town certainly enjoy the opportunity to access cheaper fuel that that store brings with the bigger companies having to match its price. But a small community 20 kilometres away is pretty indignant that it cannot have fuel prices at least 8c to 12c cheaper, similar to its neighbour just down the road. So, for regional people, there are some issues of equity.Last Friday I participated in an absolutely brilliant ceremony: the opening of the expansion at Roxby Downs or Olympic Dam by the Prime Minister. That expansion was an exercise worth nearly $2 billion. At that opening I had the pleasure of meeting one Norman Foster, a former Labor man who, with great courage, crossed the floor in June 1982 to allow this project to proceed.There was a lot of banter on the day and it was all in good fun and occurred with good humour. But these are serious issues when relying on an upper house and the vote of one man to allow a $3 billion to $4 billion project to go ahead, with $24 million of royalties currently going to the state government, let alone all the other activity such as employment and a population of 4,000 people. That project would not have occurred but for the courage of one man. Perhaps that puts too much on Norman Foster. But I think it really does show the weaknesses in our system of government where upper houses operate. I am grateful to Norman Foster for crossing the floor and enabling this project to proceed, and for the opportunities it has brought to the people in my electorate. But I think we ignore the excess use of power by our upper houses at our own peril.459917:12:004599Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The honourable member for Grey made a couple of comments to which I would respond. I think the member should realise that SBS began because of our multicultural society, for which we were given the opportunity to have a television station which related to a whole variety of cultures, and it has been pushing out into the regions from there. I do not disagree with the honourable member for Grey in his sentiment that perhaps we need more of our migrants to locate themselves in Australia's regional areas. I support him, if that is what his comments were getting at. Similarly, in Tasmania, we need to look at our population base and perhaps expand it.The honourable member also looked at health. Let me tell him that it is his government that is tearing the heart out of health in Tasmania. It is his government that has poured the millions, or the $1.3 billion, into private health insurance at the expense of the public hospital system in this country, especially in Tasmania. As we grapple with trying to keep our hospital system going in Tasmania, the honourable member might like to take up in his party room the issue of getting a bit more money back into the public health system and the public hospital system. That would certainly help my people, the people in the regional districts of Tasmania, and in the region of Tasmania as a whole.This government's indifference to the needs and aspirations not only of my electorate in Tasmania but the state of Tasmania and its people is a well established fact. In just three short years, the Prime Minister of this country has managed to disappoint and alienate just about everybody in Tasmania, and I think he has done the same in New South Wales. If he wants evidence of that, I am more than happy to provide it to him. Take, for example, a letter I received from a group of people calling themselves the `Disillusioned Voters'. This group of 10 or so people has written to me expressing their deep concern about the direction of a government that ignores the welfare of its battlers, people who are struggling to make a go of their lives on pensions, unemployment benefits and low wages. That letter—and I quote verbatim—states in part:You the Government won't get us off the dole but the system won't pay us a decent wage to live on and allow us to work. Why do you the politicians allow this to go on? You are all out of control and being blatantly unfair to the lower classes of people in this country. Why are there lower classes? You the politicians make them with your laws for the rich and none for the struggling.The sense of powerlessness evident in the letter from `Disillusioned Voters' contrasts markedly with the Prime Minister's draft preamble, a clause from which asserts that Australians are `free to release themselves as individuals and free to pursue their hopes and ideals'. I do not think `Disillusioned Voters' feel free to assert themselves as individuals nor do they feel free to pursue their hopes and ideals when, seemingly, every policy that this government has introduced marginalises, victimises and penalises them. In their letter they remind us that young Australians are becoming desperate and that their desperation will not abate until they have a reason, a purpose, a job—something for them to hang onto, something to have, something to do.In Tasmania, a state which already has 10 per cent plus unemployment, it has been estimated that the introduction of Mr Howard's GST will cost at least 1,000 jobs. With average weekly earnings below the national average, it will bite a bit deeper into the pockets of most Tasmanians than it will for many other Australians. Yet the Prime Minister has ruled out any additional compensation for Tasmania or any compensation for the regions. I am pleased that the honourable member for Mallee is here because he is a man of the regions. He should stand up for the regions, especially in the tax debate that is going on at the moment. He should take a strong position in his party room.Although the Prime Minister ruled out any additional compensation for Tasmania after the last election, he knows that this government owes the Tasmanian people some money from many years ago, and I am sure that will come back onto the agenda. Confronted with these facts, is it any wonder then that the `Disillusioned Voters' in their letter to me ask:Why are you politicians hell-bent on making our lives hard just because we live in this state? Will you not be satisfied till everyone in this state gets poorer and more families break up and then crime increases? Is it Mr Howard's policy to keep people down and out?I think most of us on our side would say, yes, that is his policy position and that is probably what he has nailed his colours to. One can only reply in the affirmative, for this government practises the politics of exclusion rather than inclusion. It does not govern for all of us; it governs for some of us. It most certainly does not govern for the `Disillusioned Voters' of my electorate. These people are asking what they have done to deserve John Howard. They can see the extent to which this government panders to the big end of town, especially to the big companies, who are more concerned with tax minimisation than with the plight of rural people living on income support of $140 a week. In their words:The companies that are making all the profits are giving nothing back to the people who work in the sweatshops and the country, yet they continue to make profits at the poor people's expense. Why?The letter concludes with this comment:Stop giving the rich the tax breaks, as all they are doing is privatising everything and creating unemployment and many of our services are suffering due to this.Of course they are. I just spoke about the health budget in Tasmania—which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would be very familiar with—having its heart torn out with each agreement that is signed as they cut back, cut back and cut back, especially the services in the outlying areas. I am sure the member for Mallee, who is still in the House listening to my speech—I thank him for that—is going to take something from this as a regional member. I certainly hope he does take it up strongly with his government.This letter is a cry from the bush. It is a demand that the government abandon its plans to sell off the remains of Telstra. It is a demand for a taxation system that is fair and equitable to all Australians. It is a demand for recognition for ordinary people—for ordinary Tasmanians and ordinary Australians.Finally, the authors of the letter make some suggestions as to what needs to happen to help people living in the bush. Foremost amongst these suggestions is education, corresponding exactly with the views of the Australian Labor Party and our policies as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, in a recent speech. I was very pleased about that. I will let these `Disillusioned Voters' know that at least they have one party that will look after them. There is one party that is in tune with the thinking of country people, with regional people. It is a party that is letting Tasmania out of the shadow of six years of Liberal mismanagement. It is the party that has just been returned in New South Wales. It is the Australian Labor Party.The Australian Labor Party is the only party that is going to give regional and country Australia the sort of direction they need for the future. We will need to look at that in a whole range of areas. Some figures have come out today regarding how Telstra has been cut to pieces in Tasmania. The minister got up today to answer a question and made a bit of a song and dance about it. The government has cut enormous amounts out of Telstra's budget in Tasmania. (Time expired)460017:22:004600Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—It has been quite a day today for members to focus on the issues of rural and regional Australia. This debate gives me a great opportunity to highlight the direct effect of the rural doctor shortage in the electorate of Pearce, and I know it is more widespread than that. In the rural part of my electorate, in particular, some difficulties have arisen in regard to the retention of foreign doctors who have been prepared to locate in rural areas of Australia.The difficulty of attracting a doctor to the country town of Beverley in my electorate over several years was the catalyst for the Shire of Beverley to take some very innovative approaches to the problem. Two years ago the shire decided to actually employ a doctor for the town of Beverley and the surrounding region. Their search did locate a doctor from overseas who was subsequently employed and who served the community very well over that time. But recently, along with other country doctors who came from overseas, Beverley's doctor was under threat of deportation unless he was able to meet certain conditions, which I will refer to a little later.The town were understandably upset, and I received a call from the shire president, Fred Bremner, who sought my assistance to ensure their doctor, Dr Gogna, was able to remain providing medical services to that community. With the support of residents—and I must say this is democracy as it ought to work—they sent me over 500 letters of support for Dr Gogna, and I was able to work with the appropriate state and federal ministers to ensure that this doctor and other Western Australian doctors were able to obtain the necessary extensions to continue practising and serving the rural and regional areas of Western Australia. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the ministers—the state minister for health, the federal Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, and also the federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Phillip Ruddock, who was especially helpful in providing a quick response to the situation the people of Beverley found themselves in.The government has taken some very important steps to address the serious shortage of doctors in rural and remote areas with the Rural Incentive program. This program has, I believe, assisted over 400 GPs to relocate to rural areas. This is backed up by a very strong program to train country students by establishing departments of rural health in strategic locations around Australia. Indeed, in Western Australia, this will take place in the rural town of Geraldton, which is north of my electorate.The value of this initiative, according to a discussion paper that was released by the Australian Medical Association—and it was a particularly good discussion paper entitled `Increasing rural medical services'—is that young people raised in rural and remote areas are twice as likely to return to their communities, so encouraging rural high school students to enter medical school is a very important long-term strategy for our communities. In Western Australia this scheme has the support of the University of Western Australia.These, along with other initiatives, are important in the medium and the long term to improve the delivery of health care in rural and remote areas. However, there is currently a shortage of general practitioners, particularly in rural and remote areas of Western Australia, and we need to ensure a more streamlined system of attracting and retaining suitably qualified overseas doctors as a short-term interim measure before these other measures really begin to alleviate some of the problems.The situation the people of Beverley found themselves in was distressing and unsettling and, from their perspective, unnecessary because Dr Gogna was an extremely well credentialled doctor. He had served the community of Beverley for two years. Indeed, his level of skill, ability and training was such that he was examining the final year medical students coming out of the University of WA. In order for him to remain under the current system, he was required to complete the Australian Medical Council examination. I think it is important we ensure that doctors coming into Australia from overseas are properly credentialled. We certainly need to ensure that rural people have only the best of services and, therefore, it is important that governments, both state and federal, ensure the proper qualification of those doctors coming into Australia to practise.In the West Australian last Thursday, I noticed an article with the headline `Country pain over doctor bans' which had some quotes by the Vice-Chancellor of Murdoch University, Steven Schwartz. The article stated:The Federal Government and the doctors' group—in concert—should remove barriers to the registration of foreign-trained doctors whose training met Australian standards . . .. . . . . . . . .He said specialists who had trained at some of the world's most prestigious medical schools had been denied entry into some Australian colleges.In a paper published in the latest Policy journal, Professor Schwartz said foreign-trained doctors were restricted on the ground that they were not as well trained as Australians.Professor Schwartz said that this may apply to doctors trained in some inferior universities. He also believes that health care should be opened up to market forces and that the restriction of doctor numbers has failed to curb spending, but it has resulted in poorer access to care. I guess that is particularly so for people in rural and remote areas. Professor Schwartz said these qualifications should be recognised where the qualifications are sound and meet our own standards. But he also said that access to the Medical Council examination, which was a requirement for permanent residency and vocational registration, should be more readily available to the doctors, and I wholeheartedly agree with that comment.Rural communities have faced considerable hardships over the last decade or so. They have taken more than their fair share of pain, economically and socially, and I think we need to do everything we can for them. We need to do this in a cooperative manner, recognising that it is not only the federal government that can act on this; it is something that needs to be done in concert with the state governments and the peak representative bodies of the medical profession in Australia.But we do need to do everything we can to remove the levels of anxiety felt by people in rural and remote areas. There is a good reason for that anxiety because, in the report done by the AMA and using Australian Bureau of Statistics and other information, they highlighted the fact that Australian death rates for all causes amongst people living in rural and remote zones were higher than those in metropolitan areas. There were some disturbing figures that came out from the ABS, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and other agencies in respect of that, which are incorporated in this report. We need to address that situation and ensure that country people do have proper access to appropriate medical services in their areas.The short-term solutions require, as I said, the cooperation of state and federal governments and those peak representative bodies. Without that kind of cooperation we cannot resolve what is an immensely difficult issue. Everybody talks about the difficulties of resolving this issue. There are many factors that have given rise to the shortages of doctors in country towns. There is no one factor that has created this, but a number. Again, the report by the AMA highlights some of those difficulties confronted by rural and remote doctors. They include the high on-call burden; there is very little relief for doctors practising in country towns. There is difficulty sometimes in gaining access to local hospitals. There is professional isolation. There is the family's educational needs, which sometimes they have difficulty in meeting. There are a number of problems.As I said, we need to resolve this problem cooperatively. I am certainly committed to working with the relevant ministers, both state and federal, the peak organisations and my colleagues in this place to find a way of ensuring appropriate medical services are available to rural and remote communities.460217:32:004602Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—I take the opportunity of this debate to talk for just a few moments about the death of a man whom I believe this parliament and, indeed, the whole world should be honouring. Last Saturday, on his 53rd birthday, Doctor Michael Aris died of cancer in London, leaving grieving his wife, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, his two sons, Alexander and Kim, and a very large number of people around the world who had the most intense admiration, respect and affection for him.I was privileged to be one of those who knew him personally. We had discussions on a number of occasions, both when I was foreign minister and subsequently, about the appalling situation in Burma and what the international community might possibly be able to do to advance it.Just a couple of days before his death I wrote and posted a letter to him saying how terribly distressed I was to hear of his terminal illness and how disgusted I was at the news, which had, by then, echoed around the world, of the appalling cruelty of the Burmese authorities in denying him entry to Burma to pay a last visit to his wife. I said to him in that letter that I hoped he had some sense of the enormous respect and affection there was for him personally all around the world not only from those who had the privilege of knowing him personally but also from those many more who had to be content with admiring him at a distance.I also said to him that few people can possibly imagine the stress which that enforced separation must have had on his personal and family life, compounded throughout as it was by the impossibility of knowing when it would ever end, but that his bravery and his decency had been obvious to everyone. Unhappily, and very sadly, he could never have received that letter, but I do think it is appropriate to put on the public record a few of the sentiments in it and to spell out in just a little more detail the nature of that bravery and that decency.Michael Aris was a man of great personal charm and warmth, with a calm and a gentleness about him characteristic, perhaps, of what one might expect of a scholar in the Tibetan language and literature; a calmness and a gentleness, however, that rather belied an immense inner strength. And make no mistake about that strength: he needed absolutely immense reserves of it to cope with the stress of the last decade. He was deeply and utterly devoted to Aung San Suu Kyi, his wife of 27 years, and one can barely imagine the pain that was involved in that separation and the responsibility that he had to keep his young family together, without the boys' mother, throughout that more than a decade.The obvious stress began in 1988 when Suu Kyi went to Burma to care for her dying mother—the widow, of course, of her father, the great national hero, Aung San—and then stayed on to lead the democracy movement in response to those tumultuous events of 1988; the hopes and the fears that were running throughout the community in response also to the horrors of the regime's attempted suppression of the democracy movement. Michael Aris identifies in the preface to his book the circumstances of that 1988 decision. He said:Suu picked up the phone to learn that her mother had suffered a severe stroke. She put the phone down and at once started to pack. I had a premonition that our lives would change for ever.That is in the preface to the book Freedom from Fear and Other Writings that Michael Aris edited, putting together the work of Suu Kyi for an international audience.The most appalling separation was at the end, of course, but it was preceded by many long years of acute and enormous difficulty. He and the boys were completely denied access to her from 1989 to 1992—the years of house arrest and, indeed, total isolation—when, for two years and four months, the family went by without even a letter passing between them. Some visits were allowed in the period from 1992 to 1995 but, since January 1996, again there has been no physical contact at all.The most appalling separation of all must have been in those last few weeks and days when both of them, Michael and Suu Kyi, must have known they would never see each other again—knowing that, if she left the country to see him in London, she would never be allowed back because forcing her into exile has been the absolute centrepiece of the Burmese regime's whole strategy for the last few years. It is nonsense, I believe, to suggest that the regime should and could have been taken at its word when it said that she would be allowed back. If it had been genuine, it would have opened up the option for him to come to Burma. It just refused to do that with utterly spurious arguments about the quality of available medical treatment, and the whole thing was a cynical and ugly exercise.But both of them bore this final separation with great dignity as they had borne all the others because they knew that what they were fighting for—Aung San Suu Kyi herself on the ground in Burma and Michael Aris as her voice and her presence throughout the rest of the world—was the life, the happiness and the future of millions of people and they were both prepared to devote their lives to that cause. Michael Aris made it clear, again in the preface to his edited book, that he understood the nature of the commitment he might one day be ultimately obliged to make. He knew that this day, this time, this obligation and this sacrifice would probably come. He said:She constantly reminded me—in the days before their marriage—that one day she would have to return to Burma, that she counted on my support at that time, not as her due, but as a favour.Again, he says rather movingly:Sometimes I am beset by fears that circumstances and national considerations might tear us apart just when we are so happy in each other that separation would be a torment. And yet such fears are so futile and inconsequential: if we love and cherish each other as much as we can while we can, I am sure love and compassion will triumph in the end.This is what he was writing in the early 1970s in anticipation of what might come to pass, and it did come to pass and it has been horrifying. I did not think I would ever find myself quoting John Pilger with any degree of approval, but he did write a piece in the press this morning which I think captures exactly what I want to say about Michael Aris:Just as Aung San Suu Kyi is Burma's most famous heroine, her husband, Michael Aris, was one of its heroes. Michael, who died at the weekend, was not simply the Oxford professor who supported his extraordinary wife; he gave his life to the cause of freedom in that suffering country.Might I say just finally in the few moments remaining that this is a time, this week, with this unhappy death behind us, for the international community and for this government and parliament to renew our commitment once more to achieving peace and democracy in Burma. The need is stronger than ever. The country is in absolute terrible limbo— economically, politically, in terms of human rights, in terms of the primacy of the drug trade and in every other way—and it desperately needs to break out of that cycle.No-one suggests that the task is an easy one. The leverage of the rest of the world is very limited. The lever of ASEAN membership, the main game for so long in terms of putting pressure to bear on Burma to behave better, has been lost with the admission of Burma to ASEAN in mid-1997. China, one of the other countries with real leverage, has obviously never been interested in any kind of political reform. Japan is interested and it does have real influence but, unfortunately, it is engaged in a rather misconceived policy of constructive engagement which has meant that its potential to really be influential in changing the course of action through the application of its aid policy has not been exercised at all. Japan has not been nearly as influential a force for good as it may have been.There is some small ray of hope with the package that has just been put together by the UN and the World Bank, presented last October by Special Envoy Alvaro de Soto to the Burmese authorities, in which it is proposed that political progress be rewarded with $1 billion in financial and humanitarian aid. That will involve some flexibility on both sides if a process of that kind can be put in place.I just want to conclude by saying that suggestions that are emerging in some quarters—for a long time in ASEAN, now in the US Congress more visibly and, I fear, in some quarters in the Australian government—that Suu Kyi's time personally has come and gone, that she is too intransigent, too inflexible, cannot lead the way forward and should no longer be regarded as the centrepiece of the democratic movement struggle, I believe, should be absolutely rejected. That diminishes her judgment and her intelligence which, I believe, have always been of a kind—and it is partly based on my conversations with her husband—that would lead her to be appropriately flexible whenever there was half a chance of that being reciprocated. To challenge her authority or question it in this way is not only to diminish her and her magnifi cent stature but also to diminish the memory of Michael Aris which it is totally appropriate that the world and this parliament, as I say, should be honouring this week.460517:42:004605Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I would like an opportunity to place the needs of the horticultural industries in my electorate before the parliament. We have had another fruit fly outbreak in Sunraysia which impacts very substantially on a number of commodities—grapes, stone fruit, et cetera—but I do want to particularly speak this afternoon about the citrus industry.In the last two years, this industry has experienced a remarkable recovery by the sheer hard work of the growers and their marketing organisations. This turnaround has been greatly assisted by access to lucrative US markets in the off season over there in the Northern Hemisphere. For years, access has been prevented to this market owing to the problem of fruit fly infestation in the growing areas of the arid zones across the middle of Australia. Better monitoring and other government sponsored initiatives have overcome some of these problems and growers in the last two seasons have enjoyed better prospects. It is, therefore, of some concern to report on a fruit fly outbreak in Sunraysia.This is a major setback for my growers. The impacts on international and interstate market access will produce major economic downsides for growers, which is the last thing they need when the industry, particularly the citrus industry, is just starting to recover from years of decline. The Sunraysia district of Victoria and New South Wales is one of three major inland arid zone districts in Australia. Other regions include the Riverland in South Australia, in the electorate of the member for Wakefield and Speaker of the House, and the Riverina region, catered for by the member for Riverina.The fruit fly initiatives put in place some years ago were a giant step in interstate cooperation. It is quite a model for finding a way through those difficulties of federation—including the rail gauge problem, which I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, often refer to—where phytosanitary food standards and so forth are controlled by states. And here we have major economic zones across three states in the centre of Australia.The whole region now is a huge fruit fly quarantine area across a major area of inland Australia, as I said, including the electorates of Murray and Farrer as well as those others I have mentioned. With coordinated monitoring and mobile fruit fly stops on major highways this huge area can provide international fruit fly freedom status by providing phytosanitary certification to satisfy our international obligations. It is this that has opened up opportunities, particularly for the citrus industry—there is a lot more to be done—and they have reaped the benefits in the last two years. It was a struggle, but I am immensely proud of their efforts. So it is a major setback, considering the huge amount of work that has been undertaken involving special tri-state agreements between South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria.Incidences of fruit fly occur from time to time. Some are minor and some substantial—thankfully, we have not had a substantial one for some time—and the impacts vary. The current discovery of flies was on a property in Cardross, not far from my birthplace in Sunraysia on the Victorian side of the river. It is understood to be a minor outbreak, with three male flies and some larvae discovered. The Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment has standard procedures, which were implemented immediately because we have obligations under our international trading agreements to report the discovery of fruit fly, no matter how minor. The impact is the implementation of a 15 kilometre suspension zone around the discovery centre for a 12-month period. This requires any fruit from that region to be treated in a very expensive way, therefore reducing the return to growers.There are some very sensitive fruit fly markets—the US is one of them and Korea is another—where market access has not yet been able to be achieved. Fruit fly is the major sticking point for the Koreans to agree to let off-season Australian oranges into their markets. Other Asian markets and New Zealand cause an additional problem in that they require an 80 kilometre radius around the centre of the discovery site, and that virtually precludes the whole of the Sunraysia region from fruit fly freedom status. Growers will incur additional costs in having their fruit treated in order to obtain confidence and access in some of those markets.Only last week growers were greatly confident about opportunities in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as Taiwan—and I have mentioned Korea, an elusive market but one which is getting closer. In fact, a delegation of Australian citrus growers is to visit some of those countries in April, May and June of this year. So this latest incident could not have happened at a worse time.I have said that I am very proud of the Australian growers of citrus in my electorate. It was not that long ago that they were outside the parliament protesting at that time about their very poor financial position owing to intense international competition, especially due to the import of concentrated so-called juice from Brazil which saw some major readjustment of the whole industry, particularly in regard to summer valencias, which was the juice fruit. The industry has fought back and, with the assistance of the Commonwealth contribution of $595,000 to a tri-state fruit fly strategy and another $1.5 million of citrus market diversification grant funds, it has made a major impact on fruit fly—including, of all things, the sterilisation of male flies, mobile fruit blocks and a research, surveillance and monitoring program right through the growing region.There were two outbreaks of fruit fly in the 1996-97 season and one in 1997-98, and we were rather hoping not to have any discoveries in the current season. But with all of that commitment of funding and with all of those initiatives—mobile fruit blocks and even sanctions on visitors who visit the region who are required to remove any fruit from their baggage and from their motor vehicles and dispose of it under sufferance of penalty—we still have fruit fly discovered in our zone, and it is a bitter disappointment.I want to make a plea to all members present who might be prepared to advise their own constituency. In Sunraysia we welcome tourists and we welcome backpackers, who bring their disposable income and dispose of it in the wonderful Murray Valley region. But we do not want them to bring fruit which has the risk of being infested with fruit fly. The two flies discovered in Cardross came from somewhere, and not far from where they were discovered some larvae were found in a pear tree, which was basically a backyard tree with no maintenance for pest infestation.So we have two problems. One is community awareness. Despite signs, despite a considerable amount of advertising on television, visitors still bypass and come via a non-main highway route and bring fruit into the region which has the risk of bringing in fruit fly. The downside economic impacts for our $100 million industry are quite substantial when you are talking about the restriction that a fruit fly discovery can place on their international market access—and, indeed, on their interstate access. It is interesting that a major source of fruit fly is the western regions around outer-suburban Sydney and that any access for Sunraysia fruit all the way back to Sydney requires cold storage de-infestation and extra expense to growers. It has been said that that zone was the source of some of the fruit fly discoveries in the past.The second thing we can do is to have a local awareness program. There are many hobby trees and backyard trees—peaches, plums and even apples and pears—in backyards that do not have the maintenance that a professional orchard has, and I believe that there ought to be some sanction or even some encouragement and carrots to perhaps encourage people to grub out those trees if they cannot maintain them to a proper professional standard. Or there could be some concession given on their rents, or local government by-laws could be used to encourage the whole community to take part. The economic downsides in Sunraysia that affect growers will affect the whole community, and they need to be involved. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! The question is that grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous460710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Tuesday, 30 March 1999 at 4.30 p.m. as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous4607Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 [1999]Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999Miscellaneous4607Motion (by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—agreed to:That for the Main Committee at its sitting on Wednesday, 31 March 1999 so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent references to `Thursday' in standing orders 274A (Main Committee adjournment debates) and 275A (Main Committee statements by Members) being omitted and `Wednesday' being substituted.Bills4607r6554607Consideration resumed from 25 March.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Page 14 (after line 28), after Schedule 1, insert:Schedule 1A—Amendment of the Health Insurance Act 1973 relating to the Medicare rebate for certain procedures rendered in approved procedures facilities1 Subsection 10(2) Omit "A benefit", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), a benefit".2 After subsection 10(2) Insert: (2A) Subject to subsection (3) and section 14, the level of benefit that is payable in respect of the performance, in an approved procedures facility, of an out-of-hospital procedure determined by the Minister under subsection 73BA(2C) of the National Health Act 1953 is an amount at least equal to the sum of 85% of the Schedule fee and the facility benefit determined by the Minister under that subsection in respect of that service.17:54:004607Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the requested amendment be not made.The Senate has argued that the introduction of approved procedure facilities discriminates against uninsured patients. On the basis of this, schedule 1 of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 was amended at part 5 by the opposition with the support of other senators. The opposition moved two amendments to subsection 10(2) of part 5 of the bill which made the Commonwealth liable for a private patient's facility fee and raised the scheduled Medicare benefit payable for procedures undertaken in approved facilities from 75 per cent to 85 per cent.The government does not accept these amendments for the following reasons. Uninsured patients are ensured access to the types of services proposed to be undertaken in approved procedure facilities in a number of ways. Under the Australian health care agreement, state governments are already able to provide treatment outside of a hospital in doctors' rooms. Given the additional funding that has been provided to the states by the Commonwealth under these agreements, there is every reason to think that uninsured patients would have access to similar services in the public sector or services purchased from the private sector by the state government. Uninsured patients can also access services in the private approved procedure facilities established in this bill. In fact, the ABS survey `Private Hospitals' found that, in 1996-97, 25 per cent of patients admitted to private hospitals did so on a self-insured basis.Let us take the example, though, of a typically uninsured person. He or she attends a public hospital with a condition requiring a procedure that I, as minister, have determined appropriately to be undertaken in an approved procedures facility. The person sees a doctor who makes a clinical decision. The patient could have this condition treated safely in an approved procedures facility. As the Austral ian health care agreement ensures that all eligible Medicare patients are guaranteed treatment in public hospitals, this person's treatment could be undertaken either in a public hospital, as it would be now, or in a freestanding approved facility contracted by the public hospital free of charge.The simple fact is that we are talking about privately insured patients here, not publicly insured patients. If we look at public patients, they are no worse off because the situation for them does not change. To accept this amendment would mean that private patients would have the overall financial impact. We estimate it to be $30.5 million per annum—$14 million from Medicare and $16.5 million for a facility fee calculated at the current default table rate of $130 per day (that is at band one) for an estimated 50 ABFs performed at 10 services per day over 245 working days. For an opposition who demonstrated a feigned concern in the Senate inquiry at the effect of this previously cost neutral bill on the Commonwealth, this additional impost of $30.5 million is untenable.The amendment has missed the key point on the approved procedure facility provisions. Procedures undertaken in approved procedure facilities will be procedures that would otherwise have been undertaken in a hospital or a day hospital facility. It is a requirement that this fact be determined before I approve any procedure to be undertaken in an approved procedure facility. Increasing the Medicare rebate for such services from 75 per cent to 85 per cent gives an added incentive for states and territories to cost shift to the Commonwealth—something the opposition has also talked of being concerned about in the past. So the opposition is asking the Commonwealth to contribute to a private patient's accommodation charge. The fact is that hospital services have changed over the last 15 years. While a rigid demarcation between in-hospital and out-of-hospital treatment may have been tenable in 1984, it is not tenable in 1999. This bill simply allows health funds to have people treated in the most appropriate place. It does not apply to public patients.17:59:004608Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Part 5 of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , as the Minister for Health and Aged Care has just outlined, creates a new class of approved facilities in which medical procedures can be undertaken which previously could be done only in hospital. The way in which this is being proposed by the government will benefit only privately insured patients. Public patients sent by a hospital or a doctor to an approved facility could incur a potentially large gap payment. The economic justification, which the minister has just outlined, for creating this new class of facility is that procedures in these approved facilities would be more economic because the overheads for office based procedures are much less than doing the same thing in a hospital.This bill does enable the medical practitioner to make an additional charge to cover the costs of providing services in an approved facility, for example, to recoup the capital costs of setting up a location for more advanced surgery. The bill also enables the private health fund to cover this additional charge through insurance policies. The government argues that the benefit for the health fund of this proposal is that it will still be cheaper for health funds to pay the 25 per cent gap on the schedule fee plus the facilities fee plus whatever contracted amount above the schedule fee is contracted between the specialists and the funds. The government argues—and we will certainly see if this ever comes to pass—that to cover the same procedure in a day surgery or a hospital is more expensive where there would be a day's accommodation charge. If this is true, then the benefits should be equally great for the public system as for the private. If procedures are relocated from a public hospital to an approved facility, there should be savings to the public purse because the specialist fees and the facilities fee could be much lower than the cost of a public hospital stay.As the bill was drafted, the public patient would face the unenviable choice of waiting for a bed in a public hospital or have an opportunity to have the procedure done at a publicly funded day surgery or at their own expense in an approved doctors room. This would mean that a public patient would have to meet the remaining 25 per cent of the schedule fee, the whole of the facilities fee and any over schedule fee charges made by the doctor. This would constitute a very large gap payment for any Medicare patient. To solve this problem the opposition propose that a Medicare rebate be required for any procedure for which there is a facilities fee set which can be covered by private health insurance. As this involves expenditure, this is taken in the form of a request to the House.The Senate's request, as the minister has outlined, was moved by the opposition and supported by all non-government senators, apart from the absent Senator Colston. The request seeks to simply put public patients on the same footing as private patients in relation to surgery carried out in these approved facilities. It is extraordinary that such a request even has to be made. It states that where the minister has established a facilities fee, the amount payable as a Medicare rebate for such procedures should be 85 per cent of the schedule fee and the facility benefit. Without this provision there will be little chance of a public patient using an approved facility which seemed designed to be a special arrangement for those with private health insurance only. It looks as though the government's ulterior motive in this matter is simply to apply its powers in a manner biased towards private insurance. This is wrong and also makes no economic sense.If the development of technology means that surgical procedures can be safely done out of hospitals and that this results in economic savings, then the minister should be more interested in making those savings in the 70 per cent of the health sector that he is directly responsible for and for which he pays directly and indirectly the bulk of the bills. Instead of being fixated by the 30 per cent of the public who have private health insurance, he should be looking to the application of this new approach to public patients, not leaving it up to whether or not the states might do it.The government has advanced two arguments, which we have just heard from the minister. Firstly, it is concerned because the request proposes a benefit rate of 85 per cent, as is paid for rebates involving procedures in doctors rooms, rather than the 75 per cent, as is paid for in private hospitals. (Extension of time granted) The government argues that this would be some sort of perverse incentive to carry out procedures in approved facilities and that this would result in inappropriate procedures being carried out. I have to say that is just the government arguing against itself. If it is cheaper to do these procedures in doctors rooms, then further encouragement is a good thing.In response, it should be made clear that the bill makes the minister responsible for making the decision about which procedures are approved to be undertaken in an out-of-hospital setting. The government has further argued that, because the Senate has amended the legislation to restrict approved procedures to those which are normally carried out in a hospital, all the work being done in approved facilities should be work that is relocated from a hospital. Therefore, these procedures would previously have attracted a 75 per cent rebate and they should attract the same rate in approved facilities.This overlooks the fact that public patients pay nothing out of their pockets for hospital treatment and private patients in public hospitals are insured for the 25 per cent gap. Approved facilities are unlikely to bulkbill if they receive only a 75 per cent rebate and therefore public patients will of course be reluctant to use these approved facilities where they will have to make large gap payments. This means public hospitals will not achieve the economic gains that would be made by encouraging public patients to have procedures done outside of hospital.Moreover, reducing the payment—this is from 85 per cent to 75 per cent—would create an unacceptable anomaly. Because most of the proposed approved facilities are likely to be in major practices or adjacent to specialist rooms, a patient is going to be receiving an 85 per cent rebate for one service and a 75 per cent rebate for other services carried out on the same premises.The second argument the government has advanced is that providing a rebate for the facility fee would amount to cost shifting—we have just heard the minister repeat this argu ment—because the states would save on hospital funding and Medicare costs would increase. This is another example of the government not seeing an opportunity before it. The government argues that the states should use some of the funds—we have just heard this again from the minister—provided to them through the Australian health agreements to pay for out-of-hospital procedures for public patients, and the agreements provide for this to be done. This manifestly ignores the reality that the states are strapped for cash when it comes to public hospitals. They can barely keep their hospitals clean and safe, let alone have money to spend in the way that the government proposes.Once again, if it is a good idea, let us see the government do it. This federal government is responsible for what goes on in doctors rooms. If it is a good idea, it should be done for public as well as private patients. Cost shifting would be a serious issue only if these approved facilities became a significant sector of activity. In this case, if it was done safely and well, the Commonwealth needs simply to make an adjustment to the next hospital funding agreement. To not offer this option would exclude public patients and impose large gap payments for them to use what would essentially be private facilities.I therefore commend the request of the Senate to the House and urge the government to reconsider its position. If the government rejects this request, it will be signalling its intention to proceed with out-of-hospital surgery which will benefit only those with private health insurance, will exclude public patients, and public hospitals will get no relief. If the government refuses to restore some equity to this proposal, then the opposition will have no alternative but to seek to delete what is a half-baked proposal contained in part 5 of this bill.There may be a case that provision needs to be made for safe and economic use of new technology which has made it possible for new procedures in an out-of-hospital setting. If the government is unwilling to establish adequate safety and quality procedures under an appropriate regulatory regime and to treat public patients fairly and equally alongside private patients, then the time has not arrived for this new branch of surgery to gain approval. The opposition continues to support parts 1 to 4 of this bill and will vote for these sections as amended when the bill is next considered in the Senate.18:09:004610Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I have no desire to get into a long debate. There is no possibility of the government and the opposition reaching any common ground on this because there is a very simple thing that the opposition is overlooking—that is, we do not run public hospitals. The states run public hospitals.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—They're no good. That's why you should do it.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—It is all very well to say you should turn the Australian health care system on its head, but that is not going to happen in the next five years. Given that we do not run public hospitals, I cannot tell the states what to do.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Exactly!8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Exactly, so you are cutting out your own argument. We do control private health insurance. I am doing something to try to help those with private health insurance. I have already done a lot by increasing the health care agreements by an amount of money that the opposition would have thought unimaginable and certainly was much better than it was able to do in 1993 or 1988.If the benefits are equivalent to what is happening in a public hospital, then it is the role of the state, not the Commonwealth. If hospitals are strapped for cash, that is because of the agreement signed in the dying days of the Keating government in 1993. What happened there was that the Commonwealth took money out of the financial assistance grants to the states and put it into the health care grants. The states were, in a net position, not a lot better off, except their hands were tied. Clearly, they had to cut back on their own resources into health. The net effect was that the health care agreement was a sham and public hospitals have suffered.We have not done that. Any extra money we have put into the health care agreements is new money. We are not robbing the states financial assistance grants to do it. The states do have flexibility that they did not have under the old system to do this if they wish. I think they would be silly not to do it, but I cannot compel them to do it. The whole tone of what the opposition is saying is, `Well, just get the states to do this. If they're not going to do it, we'll fix it up in five years.' That is not the way Commonwealth-state relations work. It is not the way it worked under the Labor Party and it is not the way it works under us.The shadow minister talked about an anomaly. In fact, what we are trying to do is correct Labor's anomaly—that is, the anomaly whereby you get 100 per cent rebate on the schedule fee if you have a procedure done in rooms and an 85 per cent rebate if it is done out of rooms. That is because private health insurance can cover the other 25 per cent. So you have an incentive now to have the highest cost treatment. This is something that, in a small way, is helping drive costs in the private health care sector.Finally, again, the shadow minister said, `Give it $30 million if it does fix it in five years time.' I am sorry. Having opened up a new avenue of cost shifting costing the Commonwealth $150 million for no net gain, I am not prepared to do that. Having some idea of how expenditure works in government, I can assure you were you in government you would not be allowed to do it either. We believe that the opposition, while they may be sincere, are misguided. They do not understand how Commonwealth-state relations work. We will not be accepting this amendment.18:13:004611Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The opposition does understand full well the nature of the Australian health care agreements. The minister has acknowledged that he as the federal Minister for Health and Aged Care cannot control what the states do or what public hospitals do. He must know how severely strapped state hospitals are. The idea that they may or may not take up this initia tive is one that he has just acknowledged in his remarks as outside of his control.It is the case under the current health arrangements in Australia that the Commonwealth government is responsible for paying doctors for what happens in their rooms. That is what this bill, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , is all about. It is paying doctors for things that they do in their rooms—a Commonwealth responsibility. If it is a good idea for it to be done to support private patients and to reduce the overall cost of private health insurance—and I have previously indicated that I have my doubts about whether or not it will in fact reduce those costs—it is good enough for public patients as well. Public patients will be directed by their doctors to these approved facilities because that is where these procedures will be carried out. The reality of the government's refusal to accept this request from the Senate will be that public patients—Medicare patients, the vast majority of Australians who do not have private health insurance—will face very extensive gaps when they have treatment in these approved facilities.That is what this government is about. It is about turning health policy on its head, saying, `We think this is a good idea, but we're only going to introduce it for private patients outside hospitals to get the advantage of a new way of getting health insurance.' The opposition certainly do not support it. We will not support a situation where public patients will face anything up to $200 in out-of-pocket gap payments to be treated in these approved facilities. If that is the way the government wants to proceed, we certainly will seek to have this part deleted in the Senate.18:15:004611Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I have to answer that because that is complete rubbish. If a public patient wants to be treated in a private hospital now they are up for $450 for the bed plus the doctor's fee and any fees that may be paid by way of theatre fees or other fees. The fact is that they rarely do that; they go into public hospitals. This will still be provided in public hospitals. For you to say that there will be a $200 fee is absolute and utter rubbish.Question put:That the requested amendment be not made.The House divided. [6.20 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 6.25 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills4612r742Billsr741Billsr745BillsBills4612Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:004612Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The three bills being debated this evening propose further reform of the financial sector in Australia. The first bill brings the regulation of credit unions and building societies into line with other authorised deposit taking institutions, or ADIs, and establishes a single regulatory framework for life insurance companies and friendly societies. The second bill permits transfers of businesses amongst authorised deposit taking institutions or life insurance companies. `Transfers' is really a cute term for de facto mergers. The third bill deals with the treatment of retirement savings accounts for friendly societies.The financial sector industry essentially supports these bills. From our point of view, we consider them to be important in establishing regulatory and prudential arrangements, and we welcome and support that direction. But it is what the bills do not say that concerns us. Effectively, the bills could operate to take away the Treasurer's consent to mergers. That consent is critical to the four pillars policy preventing further unfettered bank mergers. The erosion of the four pillars policy by stealth is at issue here. It is that erosion that we want to stop. It is not the empty rhetoric from the Treasurer or assurances from the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation which may well be made in good faith; it is protection in legislation which we are after.The bills before the House are part of the long awaited second round legislative response to the Wallis financial system inquiry. And what a wait it has been! This government received the Wallis report in March 1997—two years ago. It took nearly six months for the government to even respond to the report, and the first round of legislation was not introduced to the House until March 1998. But there is suddenly a huge urgency about this round of reforms. The government introduced the bills under consideration on 11 March 1999—nearly two years to the day after the Wallis report was completed—and now it wants to rush the bills under consideration today through parliament in time for a 1 July 1999 start-up date.I want to make it perfectly clear that Labor will not be delaying the passage of these reforms unnecessarily, but we will be seeking to refer the bills to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to examine them in detail. We need to examine the reforms closely to ensure that they take Australia's financial sector in the right direction, because our detailed inquiries of the minister have not produced satisfactory explanations in response. We have sought answers to address our concerns, but they have not been completely forthcoming. I will detail these concerns shortly. We will cooperate in ensuring that scrutiny occurs in sufficient time for a start-up date of 1 July 1999.We worked to open the Australian financial system to foreign banks. All of these reforms contributed to a fundamental shift in the way the Australian financial sector operates and the way financial services are provided in Australia. The Wallis report recommendations have continued that reform, and the prudential and regulatory framework Labor put in place has paid dividends during the Asian region's financial crisis. Against this backdrop we should be leading more effectively the debate on sensible financial system reforms in the development of a modern international financial architecture.Labor has been generally supportive of the Wallis recommendations. As the recent crises in Asian economies stand testament to, sound financial management and prudential regulation are important protections for every national economy. Many of the recommendations implemented from the Wallis report have contributed to the establishment of a sound prudential system that has served Australia well to date. Whilst reserving Labor's position on the detailed reforms contained in the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , generally the transfer of regulatory responsibility for building societies, credit unions and friendly societies from the states and territories to the Commonwealth is a sensible move.A single prudential regulator promotes consistency in regulation across the sector, adding certainty to the industry and encouraging development. The financial sector needs that certainty. The government has certainly ensured that the current tax debate raging on the two fronts of the GST and the Ralph review is not providing any certainty at all for investment in Australia, but the debate also provides a real opportunity for the financial sector to put a case for reform that benefits its growth as, if you like, an industry sector in its own right. On the detail of the bill, we will be asking the Senate committee to look in detail at its amendments of the Corporations Law and the corporations agreement, and we want to take a look at the impact on the terms and conditions of employment of the people transferring to APRA.The impact of the changes in prudential regulation for life insurance companies will also need detailed consideration. The facility the bill sets up for APRA to provide, under state and territory laws and on a cost recovery basis, prudential regulation and advisory services for cooperative housing societies and trustee companies is a significant extension of APRA's federal prudential role.Labor acknowledges the widespread support for the bill throughout the financial sector, including credit unions and banking groups. The government and industry are planning for the transfer of regulation to occur on 1 July 1999. While Labor will insist that the bill be examined by a Senate committee because of the significance and extent of the reforms, we will seek to ensure that the committee's deliberations leave sufficient time for the bill to be passed with any necessary amendments in time for that regulatory transfer to occur on 1 July.But we do have concerns with this bill and the related bills which are being debated in a cognate form tonight. It is my intention to move a second reading amendment dealing with those concerns, and I do so in the following terms.I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House, while supportive of continuing reform of the financial sector:(1) condemns the Government for seeking to push this complex bill through the House so rapidly, given that it has taken the Government two years to introduce it in response to the recommendations of the Wallis Inquiry into the Financial Sector;(2) rejects the Government's attempts to water down the requirement for the Treasurer to consent to institutional changes within the financial sector;(3) calls on the Government to confirm that it will not use the provisions of this bill to relax its `four pillars' policy; and(4) condemns the failure of the Government's attempted reliance on `red-hot' competition and of the Wallis reforms to date to prevent exorbitant rises in bank fees and charges".As highlighted in the second reading amendment, we do have serious concerns over aspects of this bill, but I want to focus tonight on one issue in particular. As it currently stands, section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 requires the Treasurer's consent before an authorised deposit taking institution can amalgamate or enter into a partnership with another authorised deposit taking institution, or enter into a reconstruction. This requirement for the Treasurer's consent is an important legislative aspect of the four pillars policy because it gives the Treasurer the right to approve or refuse a merger between the big four banks. But schedule 2, item 53 of the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 makes it clear that the Treasurer's consent is not required where the business of an authorised deposit taking institution is transferred under the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999, another bill now before the House.Labor absolutely rejects the government's attempt to remove the requirement for the Treasurer to consent under the Banking Act 1959. As I will discuss in the context of the transfers of business bill, removing this consent may mean there is no role whatsoever for the Treasurer where a transfer application is made. In other words, the Treasurer could stand by and watch the four pillars tumble, having no power to prevent two of the major four banks effectively merging.The removal of the requirement for the Treasurer's consent may have been done in an attempt to streamline the transfer process. But its effect, intended or not, is potentially to weaken the four pillars policy, and that is entirely unacceptable. If the government does not stand by the four pillars policy, it must say so clearly; and if it does, it must state that categorically and reinforce it with legislation; it must amend the bill to ensure that the Treasurer has to consent under the Banking Act to a transfer.I said before that Labor has generally been supportive of the Wallis recommendations. However, as has been made clear, we consider that not all of the Wallis recommendations serve the financial sector or the wider Australian community well. The recommendation to remove the four pillars policy is one such recommendation, and that came out in Wallis. Labor takes the view that, in the current Australian market, mergers between the major four banks are not in the national interest. The government appears to have been—to put it as kindly as possible—`confused' on its stance. The Treasurer has said that it will not happen until the margins for small business lending improve and new entrants appear in the financial sector. But what details the Treasurer has attached to these criteria are unknown. They smack of the wriggle room of conveniently vague tests that he will be able to announce as having been satisfied when he decides to announce that he has consented to a merger that collapses the four pillars policy.The Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill, the second bill in this package tonight, does not provide any reassurance that the four pillars policy is set in concrete. As with the first of the bills, the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, Labor will not oppose this second bill in the House. But we do reserve our position in the Senate, pending the outcome of the Senate committee inquiry.The bill allows authorised deposit taking institutions or life insurance companies to transfer their business amongst themselves so long as they get the approval of APRA. Two types of transfer are available, one voluntary and one compulsory. This power has been available under state and territory laws for building societies, credit unions and friendly societies. The bill is intended to ensure that they retain access to those provisions. However, the bill also extends the power to other authorised deposit taking institutions and life insurance companies. It is extending what has been transferred. Hence, the bill opens the way for transfers of business—in other words, mergers—between the four major banks and between major life insurers.Currently, a stringent process is to be followed before mergers can occur between the four major banks. This point was set out very clearly in an article in the Australian Financial Review on 15 March this year, on page 26, under the by-line of Hans van Leeuwen:At present, banks can only merge through one bank buying all the shares in another, or through a scheme of arrangement worked out in the courts.Transferring assets and liabilities between banks is virtually impossible, because many bank assets cannot be handed over without borrower consent."It's not really practical at the moment because banks have such complex assets and liabilities," said Clayton Utz partner Mr Brian Salter. "You'd need the consent of all the counterparties. But now the banks—that is, under the current bill—can fast-track that."Currently, you need the consent of the counterparties. But this bill provides a new mechanism, with which it may be easier to comply, where you will not need to get the counterparties to agree.Whilst the bill requires APRA approval for a voluntary transfer to be satisfied that the proposed transfer has been `adequately adopted' by both the transferring body and the receiving body, there is absolutely no guidance in the bill as to what `adequately adopted' means. Treasury provided written advice to my office when we sought further clarification of the point. They said:APRA will set out transfer rules which need to be met for APRA to be able to accept that a body has agreed to a proposed transfer.This is quite extraordinary. Legislative safeguards have been built up over years to protect shareholders and creditors during mergers, takeovers and acquisitions and yet this bill says that for transfers all that will be worked out by regulation. It will not be contained in the legislation but done through regulation.Who knows what adequate adoption means. Maybe it is as simple as a signed form from one director. That would be, again, quite extraordinary. Who knows, though, because there is nothing in the bill. It is all being left to the regulations. In other words, `Trust us, we're the government' is essentially the theme of this new bill.The bill contains a section that has the effect of exempting anything done under the bill from the operation of any other act unless that other act is prescribed in regulation. That means—understand this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—that, even if the transfer breached the merger provisions of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, it would not matter. What sort of nonsense is this? Here is a situation where Treasury has assured us that the Trade Practices Act will effectively be prescribed in regulations. But there is nothing to compel the government to do it in the bill. Again, `Trust us, we're the government.'If the government is so certain that it is going to incorporate the Trade Practices Act by regulation, why not just put it in the bill itself and enshrine it in the legislation? While it is about it, why not include the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998, the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeover Act 1991 and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 as well?The more you dig, the dirtier the bill gets. In deciding whether to permit transfers, the bill provides that APRA may consult with the ACCC but is not compelled to do so. This, again, is entirely unacceptable. The ACCC is the competition watchdog of the economy. It must be involved in monitoring institutional changes within the financial sector. Even the Treasurer said in September 1997, in the government's response to the Wallis report, that the government agreed with the general approach that:Prudential arrangements should . . . minimise adverse effects on competition, competitive neutrality and efficiency.Yet here is a government saying that APRA does not need to consult with the ACCC, the national competition watchdog, on whether transfers, which may well result in massive institutional change in the sector, will affect competition. Where does the Treasurer get off in relation to this?8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—It's wrong.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is not wrong. If it is wrong, get the minister to come before this House and explain where this analysis is wrong. Written advice from Treasury says that the reason the bill says APRA `may' rather than `must' consult with the ACCC is `due to matters of scale and urgency'. That is a great detailed response; it is due to matters of scale and urgency. It may instead of must. It is a pretty significant distinction, which even the member for Wannon might start to acknowledge once he listens to this argument. There is nothing in the legislation to compel APRA to consult. If the member for Wannon believes that there is, he should get up in this House and show where it is.Under the scale test, APRA sets the competition threshold, throwing the ACCC's merger guidelines out the window. What a strange state of affairs—with APRA, the prudential regulator, becoming the competition regulator on assessments of whether or not the anticompetitive aspects of a proposed transfer warrant the ACCC's involvement. The ACCC must be consulted. On the urgency front, the ACCC is able to turn around approvals for merger proposals where they are not anticompetitive, often in less than a day. That is the truth of it. So we reinforce the point that the ACCC must be consulted.Unlike the current requirements under the Banking Act, this bill provides that the minister does not have to consent to the transfer. At the moment under the Banking Act, the minister must consent. This bill reverses that. Again, when we have sought advice on this point, Treasury's advice is that the minister `will not waive the requirement for his consent for large financial institutions such as the four major banks'. The statement is, at best, an indication of how the minister will exercise his complete discretion under the act. But there is nothing in the act to prevent him from abandoning that indication. After all, what we are talking about here is the man who, as Treasurer, said he would never, ever introduce a GST, and then did.The minister, the Treasurer, must be compelled to consent or refuse to consent to a proposed transfer. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, in a letter to the Australian Financial Review on 22 March, said that the Treasurer would have to consent to mergers anyway under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998. But that would only occur where a person sought to hold a stake above 15 per cent in a financial sector company. We asked the Treasury to advise of the possibility of avoiding the need to seek the Treasurer's consent under the act by not actually changing ownership of shares in a transfer. We have not received a response to that specific request.So we have concerns that, technically, a transfer may occur without the need to seek the Treasurer's consent and without the ACCC's involvement. That is the nub of our concern, and that is the issue that the government has to address. We have many concerns with this bill, and I have moved a second reading amendment which outlines those concerns. It is a second reading amendment that I understand has been circulated. We do understand the need for flexibility in the prudential mechanisms available in the financial sector, but that flexibility must be balanced against the other interests of shareholders and deposit holders and also the interests of the wider community in the provision of and access to financial services.I want to turn, finally and briefly, to the last bill in this package, because it specifies rates of tax that apply to the retirement savings accounts business of friendly societies. On the superannuation front, the government has a very ordinary record indeed. It has gutted national savings, breaking its promise to deliver Labor's co-contribution scheme and replacing it with a half-baked savings rebate that lasted all of six weeks. The only savings policy introduced by this government—now into its fourth year of government—is something that lasted six weeks, and its retirement savings accounts will do little to advance the interests of savings and retirement incomes.Although Labor believes the retirement savings accounts are second-class retirement savings vehicles when compared to superannuation accounts, the reality is that they do exist in the marketplace and this bill ensures that friendly societies that offer these RSAs will be able to compete with other institutions. As this bill is cognate with the other two financial sector reform bills, Labor reserves its position until after the Senate inquiry. I commend the second reading amendment to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is the amendment seconded?UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.20:27:004617Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In listening to the member for Hotham speak on the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and cognate bills, I felt he was rather confused and confusing. The contribution left one wondering just how much work he had done in looking at some of the proposals and the thrust of this legislation. While we would welcome his qualified support for the bills, I did find it a bit odd that, even though the Wallis inquiry reported nearly two years ago, he was trying to insinuate in some of his earlier comments that it has taken the government this long to respond. I find that very hard to understand, given there were 115 recommendations in the Wallis inquiry.One of the major recommendations from the Wallis inquiry—and which we have heard quite a lot of debate about already—was the setting up of APRA. That was no small change to financial regulation, yet I remind the honourable member that APRA actually came into being on 1 July last year. So I do not know that this accusation about the government being tardy in responding to the Wallis inquiry is all that reasonable; I think it is fairly unreasonable.I found quite a few of the comments in the member for Hotham's response somewhat inconsistent on these sorts of points. I almost felt at one stage that, in his comments, he was actually agreeing with the government's approach to economic management. I thought that was a very welcome response, and I hope he will continue to offer that support.I think all people in Australia recognise that the fact Australia is in such a sound economic position at the moment is very much due to the government's economic management, very much due to the fact we have the budget back into balance and very much due to the strong leadership of the current government. It is those factors that have placed Australia and Australians in a very much stronger position than they otherwise would have been—particularly given the Asian financial crisis and the fact that something like six of our 10 major trading partners are currently in recession. Yet Australia continues to post very strong economic growth and some rates that are the envy of not only the rest of the world but, secretly anyway, the Labor Party, who wish they could have achieved something similar.I do find his comments on the four pillars policy a little bit strange also. Given that the four pillars policy was never set in concrete under Labor, why should it suddenly be set in concrete under the coalition? Let us face it, it was not set in concrete under Labor. But suddenly, because the boot is on the other foot, you say that it ought to be. I find that a bit confusing too.The whole question of whether APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, should or should not consult with the ACCC seems to overlook the fact that the ACCC has its own charter. Its responsibilities are very clear on the question of competition. The question of whether or not it has to consult seems to overlook the fact that the ACCC is independent and can indeed step in, as the Treasurer has made very clear on a number of occasions, when it comes to the whole question of competition.Before getting back to the first two bills before the House, I want to say that I did have a wry smile when the member for Hotham talked about the third bill in this cognate debate, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999 . He had the sheer audacity to come back to the l-a-w tax cuts. I just could not believe that. He was actually prepared to revisit the l-a-w tax cuts. No wonder he has left the chamber. He did not want to hear that one. It really was quite amazing.I think it is important to note that these bills are part of the government's moves to further improve financial regulation. I welcome the qualified support. I trust that, as we go through this debate and as the Senate looks at the bills, we will see continuing support from the opposition on these bills. As is, I think, recognised by the opposition spokesman, the member for Hotham, the financial services inquiry, led by Stan Wallis, provided a very good framework for further improving our financial regulations in Australia. As I said, there were 115 recommendations. The govern ment has moved with, I think, responsible haste to implement these recommendations, and I think that we are already seeing some of the benefits.The financial system inquiry reported in March 1997, and the first bill, the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , is one of a package of 11 bills implementing some of the recommendations. As Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, there are some aspects of this bill in which the committee does have a particular interest, these obviously being the changes that come with financial supervision and the changing of responsibilities from the Reserve Bank to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, having also served on the committee in the last parliament, you would be very much aware of these changes as, indeed, is the next speaker, the member for Chisholm, who is also taking a very keen interest in these changes. The logical progression of changing this regulation and setting up APRA has been welcomed throughout the financial community and has, in fact, been strongly supported in this parliament.Schedule 1 of this bill seeks to expand and clarify APRA's functions undertaken as a result of an agreement with a state or territory. We recognise that it is important that we bring building societies and credit unions under the one regulatory authority. That has been recognised also by the states, and they have moved to make complementary legislation to achieve this.The bill will also enable APRA to be contracted to provide prudential regulation or advice services on a fee-for-service basis, subject to the agreement of the minister. In schedule 2, the amendments extend the scope and reach of the Banking Act 1959 to include not just banks but all deposit taking institutions. Clearly, if we are going to have an efficient financial sector, we ought to bring the whole gamut of deposit taking institutions under the one prudential regulation. As has already been discussed, the bill also removes the responsibilities and powers of the Reserve Bank to supervise banks and gives them to the Prudential Regulation Authority. The bill also allows for the establishment of a single licensing regime for banks and other non-bank deposit taking institutions to be overseen by APRA.As I stated earlier, APRA was established in July last year with operational autonomy to prudentially supervise banks and other deposit taking institutions, life and general insurance companies and superannuation entities, and to develop policies in the performance of that role—a very responsible role.To come back to the role of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, it will be very much part of the responsibilities of that committee to call APRA to account to the parliament—as, indeed, the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration already has the responsibility to call the Reserve Bank to account to the parliament. We look forward to that opportunity. I believe that the committee will, as has been demonstrated already with the Reserve Bank, show that it is more than up to the responsibility to undertake that task, and we will continue to take our role very seriously and responsibly.Clearly, prudential regulation is concerned fundamentally with the quality of a financial institution's risk management systems, and APRA has been granted extensive powers of investigation, intervention and administration for the purpose of resolving the position of financial institutions which have become unviable. It is very important that the Australian public and the financial sector do have confidence that that role can be undertaken properly, and I believe that this bill helps to build on that role of APRA.As I said, there are already moves under way to allow APRA to assume the regulation of building societies and credit unions. It is expected that, ultimately, APRA will have the responsibility for the entire financial sector except for merchant banks, finance companies and non-superannuation investment funds. The legislation also allows APRA to be funded by fees levied on institutions under its supervision in lieu of the current arrangement where by the banks deposit one per cent of their eligible liabilities to the Reserve Bank. So that will obviously be an important change.APRA will also have the power to issue and, most significantly, the power to revoke banking licences—a control, incidentally, that the Reserve Bank did not have. I would have thought that the member for Hotham would have taken that point on board because it is very significant. When he was talking about shortcomings, I think he overlooked this and a number of other matters when he was trying to nitpick the bills. He was struggling to find something that he could really be critical of, so it was just a nitpicking exercise rather than a serious analysis of the shortcomings because, frankly, I do not think you could find them.It is also important to note that APRA will have the power to set prudential standards in addition to those made under the Banking Act. APRA will also be able to issue enforceable directions in relation to these standards, thus strengthening its capacity for early intervention in problem cases. That is the sort of reassurance that the Australian public expects from the government, and indeed I believe that the parliament will support that.I note that the opposition is to move two amendments. The first amendment is to the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . As I said earlier, the first point in this amendment really is a bit of nitpicking and overlooks the obvious when it talks about taking two years to respond. The fact that APRA has now been in place and operating for nearly nine months shows, quite clearly, that the government has moved quickly. It is self-evident to anyone who has the faintest understanding of what this is all about that setting up something new like APRA in any time less than the government has done would be asking the almost impossible. I would commend Graeme Thompson and his team who have set up APRA because I think they have done it very efficiently, very smoothly and very professionally. That is what would be expected, and that is the way the government has moved. As I say, this amendment really is nonsense in the light of that simple fact.Part 4 of the amendment talks about the question of competition and bank fees and charges. I would draw to the attention of honourable members that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in fact focused on this in its hearings with the Reserve Bank. In fact, at our last hearings held late last year, we raised this very issue with the Reserve Bank. We anticipate that the Reserve Bank will be responding to the committee at or before its next hearings in a few months time where in fact we will be seeking to find out just what the net position is for banking customers when it comes to the relative changes of the competition bringing down interest rate margins versus the increase in fees and charges that most bank customers are now paying.In moving to the second bill, the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 , I note that the member for Hotham in his amendment again makes the qualification `while supportive of continuing reform of the financial sector'—in other words, he is trying to have two bob each way, I think. He goes on to call on the government:. . . to confirm that it will not use the provisions of this bill to relax its `four pillars' policy;As I said earlier, this wears a bit thin when you look at the fact that, when Labor were in power, they had 13 years to do this, and they did not. They did not amend the Banking Act. They did not see the need to amend the Banking Act. I believe that the former member for Blaxland would have violently opposed any amendment of the Banking Act that would have taken away his discretion while he was Treasurer to have control over whether or not banks were able to merge. I hasten to add that the government has no intention or plans to allow that course to occur, but I do find it somewhat strange that the member for Hotham should be coming in here demanding something that in 13 years of government he never saw the need to have.I commend the Treasurer for the way that he has handled this whole approach to the reform of financial regulation. I believe that the Wallis inquiry was one of those landmark inquiries that this nation is fortunate enough to get every decade or so. I believe that the government has responded in a very responsible, measured way, which has shown that we are willing to undertake that reform in a way that will enhance the financial sector regulation while at the same time allowing the proper development of our financial institutions to be truly competitive as we go into the next millennium.I would reject the comments of the member for Hotham. They really do show a somewhat confused approach to these bills, and there are a lot of inconsistencies in some of his comments. Nonetheless, I welcome the way he seemed to endorse the government's economic management in a very cautious manner. I hope that he will continue to find ways of doing that because, when a government is performing well, it does behove the opposition to give a bit of credit where credit is due. Sometimes when you listen to question time you would find that hard to believe but it seems that, when we come into the chamber later in the day, it is possible to believe. I hope that we might find ways of expanding the member for Hotham's compliments when he feels that they really are due.So I think the government will be rejecting the amendments that have been put by the opposition. And I believe that these bills do, in fact, represent another step in implementing the Wallis inquiry's recommendations. It shows that the government is indeed setting out to build up a financial regulatory authority and a financial system that is capable of taking Australia into the next millennium with a financial system that not only is strong but will indeed enable us to attract business from the region and will truly make Australia a financial centre for this region—something that I know the Prime Minister and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation are very keen to promote and something that I think, justifiably, this legislation helps to support.20:46:004620Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to speak on one of the bills before the House, the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 . The ambiguity of this bill necessitates my rising to speak tonight on the threat it poses to the current four pillars policy. I stated in my first speech in this House that I would take all opportunities to speak against any further erosion of the four pillars policy. It is with grave concern then that I, like many others, note the possibility that the bill is removing the four pillars policy by stealth.This bill is part of the government's long-awaited second round legislative response to the Wallis financial system inquiry. It should not be forgotten that one of Wallis's recommendations was the removal of the then sixpillars policy. At the time the Treasurer stated that the removal of regulation over the four major banks would not be considered until there was greater competition in the market, especially in relation to small business lending and new entrants in the financial sector.I rise today to challenge the government to go on the record and state that the measures in this bill are not there to erode the four pillars policy. In the minister's second reading speech he clearly states, `It is also good to facilitate change in the industry.' Change for change's sake is not necessary. Whilst Labor welcomes a progressive, dynamic, robust industry, it does not support change driven purely by a negative cost cutting agenda, simply designed to increase already massive profits. Concern about the bill's intent was canvassed in the Financial Review on Monday, 15 March 1999 in an article by Hans van Leeuwen. It said:Banks have gained a new and simplified way to merge with each other under new Federal Government legislation tabled in Parliament last week.Under the new rules, one bank can simply transfer all its liabilities and assets to another, an almost impossible task under the present regime.The only proviso is that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Federal Treasurer must both give their imprimatur to the merger.And, further on:The legislation is part of the package that is moving credit unions, building societies and friendly societies to the APRA umbrella.Those institutions already have the so-called "transfer of business" rules and the new legislation extends those rules to banks and insurance companies. . . . . . . . . .The rules may also circumvent the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.The legislation says APRA can choose to consult with the ACCC on the rules, but does not have to.Clearly I am not alone in my concerns over the intention in the bill. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation did respond in a letter to the editor of the Financial Review on Monday, 22 March 1999 and stated:The Government has not changed its position on bank mergers policy as may have been inferred from "Federal legislation makes bank mergers easier" . . . The proposed transfer of business mechanism is an additional prudential tool available to facilitate a quick and effective transfer of business to protect depositors or policy owners where a financial institution is in distress.Although the minister keeps asserting that the bill is a `tool for protecting depositors where their financial institution is in financial hardship', the mechanisms of the bill do not limit the scope for voluntary or compulsory transfers to cases where institutions are in financial difficulty.The case for keeping the four pillars policy is sound and based on three key aspects: first, and most notably, jobs; second, public opposition to its removal; and third, no net benefit from further concentration of the financial industry in Australia. Turning to jobs first, employment in the finance industry is concentrated in the major banks and the leading life offices. McIntosh Baring, in its annual report Australia's banks, a ready reckoner in July 1996, suggests that 35,000 jobs would be lost as the result of an amalgamation process which would create two major banks. Allan Fels, Chairman of the ACCC, warned that any big bank merger would face a tough competitive test. In the Financial Review of 27 November 1998 he said:If the ACC were asked to consider the merging of four pillars into three, it would also look at the competitive outcome of a two-pillar policy, because one merger among the big four banks was likely to be followed by another.In the three years to 1997 there have been 23,000 retrenchments in the industry. This has combined with the general decline in employment numbers in some parts of the sector, a decline in full-time employment, rising part-time and casual work and increased pressures on remaining staff—all creating incredibly high levels of insecurity in the work force. On the issue of jobs alone the government should commit to the retention of the four pillars policy. The loss of 35,000 to 40,000 jobs Australia-wide would have a devastating impact on unemployment levels and should not be contemplated by this or any government.The second reason for keeping the four pillars policy is public opposition to its removal. The public has quite clearly indicated that it sees no benefit from big bank mergers and that it would be opposed to any further concentration in the industry. I quote from an article in the Financial Review on Friday, 27 November 1998 by Jeremy Flint. It stated:The Australian Financial Review has obtained a copy of Newspoll's report to a confidential client detailing the results of interviews with 1,200 people across the country on bank mergers. It concluded the political risks are "very high" for any Government or political party supporting mergers among the big four banks."A third of the general community would be less likely to support a party prepared to allow mergers," Newspoll's executive summary said.. . . . . . . . .Around 60 per cent of people polled on big bank mergers believed that customer service would be worse if they went ahead, 61 per cent expected higher fees and charges as a result, and 78 per cent expected fewer jobs."An overwhelming majority of Australians expect only negative outcomes from bank mergers," Newspoll's report said. "These opinions are very firmly held."The third reason is that there is no net benefit from further concentration of the financial industry in Australia. The potential benefits to be derived from big bank mergers are equivocal at best, yet the major banks seem so sure that mega mergers are the only way forward for the Australian financial system. This is indicated by the beliefs of one of the retiring CEOs of Australia's largest bank, which has overseen a share price increase from $4 to $27—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That's wonderful.83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—It's fantastic—and profit increasing from $7.56 million to $2.5 billion. Can he still be disappointed that he has not secured a merger? This suggests either that he may retire with a healthier nest egg or that there is some evidence that mergers would pay off. Yet the existing evidence does not seem to support this belief. A 1995 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu report on the future of retail banking found that banks grew less efficient as they grew larger. The conclusion drawn is that the retail banking industry is currently not susceptible to scale economies and that banks of different sizes can coexist and be profitable.The Financial Systems Inquiry Final Report of March 1997 summarised the evidence on efficiencies derivable from bank mergers:. . . the evidence from studies on bank mergers and efficiencies to date has been at best equivocal on whether or not there are efficiency gains to be derived from mergers and on the whole points to there being no correlation between bank mergers and improved efficiency—although it is clear that some mergers do result in efficiency gains.The Wallis report went on to say that this is not to say that cost savings are not possible, but in general it is efficiency gains which are considered to be of most benefit to the community and to be in the longer term interest of the performance of the industry.Whilst it is clear that big bank mergers may produce cost reductions—and this is universally at the expense of jobs—this does not mean they will deliver efficiencies which can be passed onto customers through fee reductions, increased services, lower interest rates and the like. Cost reduction is achieved primarily through staff reductions, closure of branches, data processing and operations. One study found that the reduction in staff costs accounted for over half of the total cost reductions. On the whole, the evidence does not suggest that mergers are a guarantee of success. The banks have made numerous assertions that they can survive only if the four pillars are removed and that the sky will fall in if they are barred from mergers. This is not supported by research.The recent Canadian experience subjected the arguments for mega bank mergers to a high level of scrutiny by a number of bodies. The evidence before the task force included, firstly, a 1997 survey of 23 different studies of mergers which found that, for large multiproduct banks, growth in size does not produce any important efficiencies of scale or scope; secondly, the opinion of a European professor of banking and finance that overall institutional business fails to enhance profitability systematically; thirdly, a study by Mercer Management Consulting of 500 US and Canadian mergers since 1990 which found that two out of three mergers fail as the new entity underperforms in the industry. The final report of the task force notes the chairmen of the banks seeking mergers were invited to present evidence which refuted the `indications from the international evidence that merges of this sort are unlikely to generate economies of scale or scope'. They provided no persuasive, substantive responses. I challenge the Australian banks to demonstrate the need for mergers because, of all the studies I have read and those I have quoted in my address to the House, none actually categorically make this claim.The bill proposes several changes which could in effect erode the four pillars policy. The bill removes the key elements of current protection in the four pillars policy: the removal of the requirement for the Treasurer to approve the merger and the role of the ACCC in assessing the effect of a proposed merger on competition. On the removal of the Treasurer's consent, section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 as it currently stands requires the Treasurer's consent before an ADI can amalgamate, enter a partnership with another ADI or enter a reconstruction. This is an important legislative aspect of the four pillars policy, as it gives the Treasurer the right to approve or refuse a merger between the big four banks on the basis of public interest. It is important that the ultimate political responsibility rests with the government for a decision in which all citizens have a substantial interest, both economic and otherwise. The Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 removes the necessity for the Treasurer to consent to either a voluntary or compulsory transfer. The Treasurer could stand by and watch the four pillars tumble, with no power to prevent two of the major four banks effectively merging. The requirement that the Treasurer has to consent under the Banking Act to a transfer must be maintained at all costs.I turn now to the role of the ACCC in assessing the effect of a proposed merger on competition. The bill does not require APRA to consult with the ACCC. It may do so if it chooses, but there is no compulsion. The role that the ACCC currently performs in assessing the effect of a proposed merger on competition and on public benefit grounds must remain a key feature of the regulatory structure of the finance sector. Any move away from the current enshrining of these obligations in the acts to regulation is a watering down of the current protection and leaves one wondering if this bill is the beginning of the end for the four pillars policy. I reiterate the warning of the Finance Sector Union about the massive job losses that this would create and call on the government to articulate its position on the four pillars policy.20:59:004623Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—The Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and cognate bills represent the second stage of the Wallis financial reforms, which were initiated in response to the report of the financial system inquiry, chaired by Stan Wallis. As I noted in my second reading speech, the aim of the second stage is to transfer regulatory supervision for building societies, credit unions and friendly societies from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. This is fundamental reform that will provide a new regulatory system that is less cumbersome and duplicative than the state and territory financial institution system. It will enable the non-bank deposit taking sector, including building societies and credit unions, to provide a more effective source of competition for the banks in the retail market. They will operate under the same rules as banks and will be prudentially regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, and regulated as companies by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC. There will be a single regulatory framework for life insurance companies and friendly societies which also recognises the special features of friendly societies.The opposition has expressed concern that the government's four pillars policy will be undermined by the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 . This is not so. The four pillars policy remains intact. APRA will, of course, take into account government policies when assessing applications. In addition, concerns have been expressed that decisions may be made which fail to take into account the operation of other acts such as the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act. In response, I note that subclause 43(4) of the transfers of business bill enables other acts to be prescribed by regulations to ensure their independent operation. Subclause 11(2) of the transfers of business bill provides that APRA must not approve a transfer of business if it would be contrary to the purposes of an act prescribed under the provisions mentioned in subclause 43(4).The government intends to prescribe the following acts as a minimum under subclause 43(4) of the transfers of business bill. They are: the Trade Practices Act 1974, the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998, the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, and the Foreign Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1995. I urge the Labor Party not to be sidetracked by this illusory factor which they have created in their own minds about four pillars. This bill provides APRA with the prudential supervision power to transfer businesses that are in financial distress. I will repeat that: this bill provides APRA, who has the prudential supervision of financial institutions, with the power to transfer businesses that are in financial distress and subject to all the points that I have made before. It deals explicitly with it. The Labor Party has a history with financial institutions that have been in distress. Given their history, given their record of dealing with banks, whether as a customer of a bank or as a shareholder in a bank, I urge the Labor Party not to stand between this very important bill and the prudential supervision of financial institutions.I make one final point: these bills are intended to take effect from 1 July this year. We have the support of the credit unions, the friendly societies and the building societies for it to take effect from 1 July this year. We want it to come into effect as soon as possible. The states have all agreed—that is, the Liberal and Labor states and territories—with these bills. They want them to take effect as soon as possible. They want one regulatory regime for various parties. Unfortunately, the Labor Party stands in the way.I want to take a moment to reflect on the lack of prudential supervision of financial institutions in the past. The House is surely aware that the state banks were not prudentially supervised by the RBA when they were operating, unless it was a voluntary reference. As far as I am aware, the state banks of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales were not prudentially supervised by the RBA. The effect of that was to allow those financial institutions to run out of control. In the case of the State Bank of South Australia, it decided to build its loan book from around $4 billion to around $23 billion in a matter of five or six years. The net effect of that was to put enormous pressure on the bank and on its internal controls. There was very little supervision of the loan book.At the same time, the State Bank of South Australia started up an arm called Beneficial Finance, an investment banking arm. Beneficial Finance was making loans that would make the hairs curl on any prudential supervisor. They were making loans right outside of their charter. The effect of that was that, when the great credit crunch that Paul Keating said we had to have came and interest rates shot up to 21 per cent, all these bad loans came home to roost.As the South Australian Liberal Party said prior to the last election, the South Australian State Bank cost an estimated $13 billion to the people of South Australia. It effectively destroyed what had been the excellent financial record of South Australia up until the mid eighties. Operators like Tim Marcus Clarke were allowed to get away with blue murder by John Bannon. There was no prudential supervision of the state's financial institutions with the net effect being that the people of South Australia had to pick up the pieces of the Bannon-Marcus Clarke partnership. They are still paying for it and they will be paying for it for a generation.The same lack of prudential supervision applied in Victoria. The State Bank of Victoria decided that it wanted to get into a more aggressive side of lending. Therefore, Tricontinental was set up. In my experience, and I have some intimate knowledge of this, Tricontinental took charge of horses as security for loans. When we went to go and find those horses, the security for multimillion dollar loans, I was advised, `The horses are in the local supermarket. If you go to the third row on the fourth shelf, you'll find a can of Pal dog food, and that's probably where the horse is.' That is because the horses were worth nothing to begin with. Tricontinental was using the savings of Victorians to take charge of horses that were barely performing and that were of no value.So when it came to the great Keating credit crunch, what happened? All these bad loans came home to roost. It was a tragedy because the people of Victoria ended up paying for the bad lending tactics of the State Bank of Victoria and Tricontinental. The net effect was that Keating had to come and bail out the State Bank of Victoria. He said the Commonwealth Bank—he liked dealing with the Commonwealth Bank—would take the good loan book and they would leave the bad loan book with the government and the people of Victoria. In the case of the State Bank of New South Wales, I would like to think that I have some knowledge of this, but I will refer to Trevor Sykes's book, The Bold Riders. Trevor Sykes's book opens up with the classic example where the State Bank of New South Wales was proposing to lend money to Bond Brewing that in one loan was almost greater than the entire capital of the State Bank of New South Wales.This is the great 1980s, that wonderful time when there was no prudential supervision of financial institutions. I think the opposition agrees with us—that is, we do not want to go back to the bad old days of the 1980s. We do not want to go back to the days when there was no prudential supervision of financial institutions. That is why governments stay out of owning financial institutions. That is why we have set up APRA under Wallis. APRA are going to supervise all financial institutions. That is why we specifically give them the power to transfer business activities within those financial institutions to another financial institution if that financial institution is in distress. I have dealt with that explicitly. I have cited the number of acts that will be prescribed, particularly the Trade Practices Act. Any bank mergers will require approval under the Trade Practices Act, specific approval.Under those circumstances, we are not going to be sold off with a Labor Party searching for something to stand on. We are not going to be sold off on that. We are going to stick to our guns, because this side of the House believes in the proper prudential supervision of financial institutions. That side of the House opposes it at every point. We believe in the proper activities of financial institutions where people putting their money in banks, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies know that at the end of the day they have a very good chance of getting their money back and that it is not going to be lent on some stupid activity which state banks across Australia acted on in the 1980s. We are past those days.This is the final step to the end of the 1980s. I would be severely distressed if the Labor Party decided to oppose the proper prudential supervision of financial institutions. You cannot hang your hat on this. You oppose us on everything we do—tax reform, youth wages, Telstra, industrial relations reform, everything. Now you are going to oppose us on this—Wallis reforms, reforms that have been lauded by the International Monetary Fund as being world path breaking reforms, regulatory reforms and prudential supervision that are the envy of Asia, our nearest neighbours. In this case, the Asian region wishes it had regulatory reform like this and prudential supervision like this. We are taking a very strong stand on it. We are leaders in the region and are regarded as leaders in the world in prudential supervision. We will continue to push ahead with these reforms, notwithstanding the obstruction of the Labor Party at every point.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [9.17 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.4625Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills4625r7414625Consideration resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.Amendment (by Mr Crean) proposed:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House, while supportive of continuing reform of the financial sector;(1) condemns the Government for proposing a mechanism important details of which are yet to be prescribed by legislation;(2) rejects the Government's attempts to water down the requirement for the Treasurer to consent to transfers of businesses under the Bill;(3) rejects the Government's attempts to exclude the ACCC from any role in assessing transfer proposals;(4) calls on the Government to confirm that the mechanism is in the best interests of authorised deposit-taking institution and life insurance company consumers; and (5) calls on the Government to confirm that it will not use the provisions of this bill to relax its `four pillars' policy".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Is the amendment seconded?RH4KERRMr Kerr—I second the amendment.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [9.27 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4626Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills4626r7454626Consideration resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4626Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Miscellaneous462621:33:004626Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—by leave—I have just become aware that on 16 February in debate on the government's Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 , I answered three questions put by the honourable member for Wills, whom I obviously advised of this statement. I wish to inform the House that my response as recorded in the Hansard and consistent with advice I received at that time to the third of those questions—which in itself was made up of two sub-questions—is incorrect as recorded. I am recorded as answering no and yes respectively, as per the advice I received, while the correct answer is yes and no rather than vice versa as recorded in Hansard .4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That's what you said. Don't blame Hansard.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Listen to the question. The question was:Does an employee who is employed by more than one employer have the right to ask a second employer to pay their superannuation contributions into the fund chosen by the employee as their preferred superannuation fund?I am now advised that the correct answer is yes.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—So you answered wrongly.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—An employee will always have the right to ask for contributions to be paid into a particular fund. The second part of the question was:If a second employer offers a limited choice, can an employer refuse to pay into a particular fund chosen by the employee which is outside the limited choice of the second employer?I am now advised that whether the employer can refuse depends upon whether the fund chosen by the employee from the first employer is one of the funds offered by the second employer. If the second employer offers a limited choice which includes the fund chosen by the employee from the first employer, the employer cannot veto a nomi nation of that fund. I now wish to correct the record for the House.21:36:004627Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—by leave—Given that my colleague the member for Wills is not in the chamber, I am sure he would like me to at least place on record the opposition's deep concern that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation could not answer a very simple question accurately.Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Minister for Sport and Tourism seems to think this is a matter for some hilarity, but when a minister of the Crown gives an incorrect answer to the House on a matter for which he has responsibility it is not something that can be ignored. At least the minister has come into the House tonight and acknowledged his error. What was the date of the incorrect statement?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—I've said that—16 February.GK6KELLYMiss Jackie Kelly—It was 16 February.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—What is today's date?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—The 29th, isn't it?GK6KELLYMiss Jackie Kelly—The 29th.GK6Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—So in no way could this be described as a speedy admission of the error.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—But it's the first I've found out about it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The minister interjects that this is the first occasion on which he has found out about it. Given that the minister claims his incorrect answer was based on incorrect advice from his departmental officers, it is disturbing that departmental officers have not brought this error to the minister's attention before now. Mr Deputy Speaker, I simply make the point that, when a minister of the Crown misleads by giving incorrect information to the parliament of Australia, that minister should be held accountable because it is a serious matter. Minister, we will pursue this matter further.Bills4627r7084627Debate resumed from 9 December 1998, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.21:38:004627Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 forms part of the government's ongoing review of civil aviation legislation and contains a number of machinery amendments. These include replacing a number of technical terms in the Civil Aviation Act; giving the Civil Aviation Safety Authority the power to expand the list of key personnel that the holder of an Air Operator's Certificate will be required to have; replacing the definition in the Civil Aviation Regulations of `domestic commercial flight' with `regulated domestic flight', making it clear that safety regulation is not to be based fundamentally on the commercial nature of an aviation activity; replacing the current mandatory requirement for applicants for an AOC to supply flight manuals to CASA with a requirement for a manual only where a new type of aircraft is being introduced into Australia for the first time; giving CASA new powers to retain seized goods for more than 60 days and to destroy seized goods after application to a court; making fees prescribed by regulations payable to CASA, with any unpaid fee becoming a debt owed to CASA; and provisions for CASA to issue, by way of a disallowable instrument, design standards for aircraft for which standards are not in place on an equivalent level of safety principle.These are all technical changes. They are important. They signal that positive reform is proceeding at CASA, despite recent events so clearly chronicled in Four Corners tonight. The opposition has no problem with these technical changes; we see them as sensible and desirable. But we have concerns, serious concerns, about the actual process of reform in aviation safety and airspace management and about the future direction of CASA.Last week Mr Dick Smith resigned as Chairman of CASA. I do not intend to revisit the recent debate about Mr Smith's term at CASA. But I do want to take this opportunity to urge the minister and the government to ensure that his successor is a genuinely non-political and independent appointment. Mr Smith, for all his undeniable commitment and energy, was not such an appointment. In a complex industry such as aviation with its competing vested interests, it is a recipe for disaster to have someone perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be running his own particular reform agenda at the possible expense of other sectors of the industry.MP6BAIRDMr Baird—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Listening to the honourable member I note that, in speaking of the appointment of the chairman, she is now moving to areas which are quite outside the leave of this particular bill. This is a pure regulatory change, a technical change in terms of the bill itself. The member has moved through that fairly swiftly and now plans a wide ranging debate on matters that happen to suit her own political agenda. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you bring her back to the leave of the bill and ask her not to pursue these political excursions.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! There is no point of order, but I will listen carefully to the member to ensure that she is speaking to the bill.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—Because we are entitled to have confidence in the implementation of these technical changes, those charged with the actual implementation of these technical amendments are very much a question that we should be addressing tonight. Therefore, I do not believe that I am ranging outside some of the considerations of this bill.To continue my remarks, it is also apparent that, under Mr Smith, CASA suffered greatly from the conflict of interest generated by it being the architect and advocate of a particular airspace reform agenda known as Airspace 2000 and by being the regulator and monitor of these reforms. That conflict was identified by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation as having a `detrimental impact on aviation safety', and it has been a major cause of tension both within CASA and between CASA and other organisations.In this respect, with hindsight, Australian aviation may have been better served having Mr Smith driving airspace reform in some other capacity. I am not saying that this is the case or that the debate about the direction or pace of that reform would have been any less divisive than it has been. But we would have avoided what has been a very damaging conflict of interest between CASA wanting to design and drive the reform agenda and also being required to regulate it in terms of its safety. I hope the minister will take action to address that conflict of interest, irrespective of who is appointed the new chair of CASA.I also want to talk about the pace of reform in this area. I think those pushing for a faster pace have failed to grasp a very fundamental point: that you ultimately achieve successful reform by taking your time and bringing people with you. If you do not consult with people, if you do not educate people, if you do not at least recognise their right to protest, to protect their own interests, whether those interests are jobs for their members or profits for their shareholders, then you are setting yourself up for a bitter divisive and ultimately unsuccessful path to reform.Look no further, Mr Deputy Speaker, than the continuing level of support for One Nation in regional Australia to see where failure to bring people with you down the path of reform can lead. Aviation is full of vested interests and, from the airlines to the unions to the private pilots and the sports aviators, it is hard to think of an industry sector that is not. Everyone has an interest to protect and a barrow to push, and it will never be easy steering a course through that minefield of interests. But it is not helpful to force organisations into entrenched positions through a failure to consult widely and fairly, a failure to be open and transparent about decision making and a failure to properly manage the diversity of interests within aviation.CASA is not the only organisation to blame for that outcome. Airservices Australia has a far from perfect record in this regard as well. Often, of course, CASA is in a no-win situation. For every person who contacts me and criticises CASA for not taking action on something, there is another person criticising CASA for taking action, and often on the same matter and often involving the same operator. I have letters telling me that CASA has been too heavy-handed or unfair on a particular operator and other letters telling me that CASA has been slack or not tough enough on the same operator. So CASA is an organisation that is often damned if it does and damned if it does not.It is also an organisation that is the front line of blame for just about any aviation accident, irrespective of the primary causes of the accident. That also puts a lot of pressure and stress on CASA from board members and senior management through to its people out in the field. I have no doubt that CASA is a demoralised and troubled organisation at the moment. John Wood, the Chairman of CASA's pilot council, recently described the current round of in-fighting as leaving `a bitter legacy of mistrust, division, confusion and demoralisation'. He says that the mistrust is deep and widespread and that:. . . strong and principled leadership in both technical and political fields is needed if the wounds are ever to be healed and confidence restored.That must now be the priority for any new chair of CASA, for the Director of CASA, Mr Mick Toller, and for the minister.One issue that I have tried to highlight in aviation debates in the chamber so far has been the role of the minister. The minister needs to pull responsibility for CASA and for the management of airspace reform and aviation safety back on to his desk. It is true that there has been something of a slide away from ministerial responsibility and accountability. That does not mean that we need a ministerial response to each and every aviation incident in the country and it does not mean ministerial interference in CASA's functions. However, it does mean a more accountable climate and a willingness to give CASA directions where appropriate and to influence CASA's strategic approach as envisaged by the Civil Aviation Act.CASA's recent history has given a fair amount of ammunition to those who want to see it brought back within the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services. They argue that turning CASA into a statutory authority has resulted not so much in an independent organisation but a highly politicised one and that the move to the statutory authority has led to a reduction in government responsibility and public ac countability for aviation safety. I am not yet convinced of the case for moving CASA back within the department, but the fact is that those concerns will continue to grow while the government continues to push responsibility for aviation safety off its desk, be it through a lack of interest, winding back safety services or the privatisation or contracting out of key safety functions.Where the government and opposition quite clearly differ on the issue of aviation is that we in Labor see aviation safety as a public responsibility and a crucial one. It deserves and requires the full attention of government and the full attention of the relevant minister. The Civil Aviation Act very clearly gives the minister the power to direct CASA in the general performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. It clearly gives the minister the power to give CASA notice about its strategic direction. That reflects the intention when the original Civil Aviation Authority was set up. A balance needed to be struck between removing detailed control over the day-to-day operations of the authority on the one hand and public accountability on the other. We have slipped too far away from the ministerial responsibility and public accountability side of that balance. That must change if public confidence in aviation safety is to be restored.Finally, two other general aspects of CASA remain of concern. The first is CASA's current restructuring program and the general climate of cost cutting that threatens to undermine CASA's capacity to do its job. The opposition has certainly welcomed some aspects of the CASA restructuring, particularly the decisions to centralise enforcement decisions and to direct more resources towards safety, education and training for the aviation industry. However, CASA has failed to establish how it plans to maintain or improve its regulation of aviation safety with a 10 per cent staff cut. CASA has lost a lot of experienced employees in recent years. I believe that that has had a detrimental effect on its work in the field. It is hard to see how that can be turned around with 10 per cent of the work force being made redundant. CASA has said that the majority of positions lost will be administrative. But CASA has many technically qualified people in managerial or administrative positions. The loss of these people, I believe, will be very keenly felt.We also need to understand how these staff cuts connect with cuts in other areas of CASA. For example, we know that CASA plans to reduce flying hours and flying training for its flying operations inspectors. This move must have an impact on CASA's capacity to exercise quality control and on its general credibility within the industry.The other concern I have is about the general transparency of decision making in CASA and in Airservices Australia about airspace management and aviation safety. It is difficult to see how anyone can have confidence in the future of aviation safety in Australia when nobody knows exactly where we are heading. The government's refusal to release the Hawke review of structural reform within Airservices Australia is a case in point. The so-called Business Transformation Program within Airservices is well under way, with a reported likely loss of 1,400 jobs and plans for privatisation and the contracting out of key safety functions and services going ahead. The government is still refusing to tell either the aviation industry or the Australian public precisely what those plans are.So there is a lot of work to be done in restoring confidence in CASA and its ability to regulate aviation safety. Part of that work will come with a genuinely independent and non-political appointment as chair, part of it will come with a more open and more consultative reform process and an important part of it will come with the acceptance by this government that aviation safety is a public responsibility. It is not an arms-length statutory authority, `don't worry me about it until something happens' kind of approach; it is a public responsibility for which the government and the minister of the day remain accountable.21:53:004630Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—Obviously, there is going to be a very wide ranging debate on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 . May I just pick up a couple of points that have been made by the honourable member for Dickson tonight. I guess one of the great advantages of having served in this place for a long time is that you accumulate a corporate memory. Perhaps the honourable member for Dickson ought to go back and look at the history of civil aviation in Australia, in particular the history of civil aviation in the last 25 or 27 years.There is no doubt that it has been a very troubled area for a great deal of time. I suggest that that trouble goes back to 1974. In 1974 the then minister for transport, the Hon. Charles Jones, made the first major reformation of the civil aviation department. Sir Donald Anderson, who was one of the doyens and I guess one of the icons of Australian aviation, had run a very tight-knit and efficient department. It was in fact the envy of the world. It was in fact Australia being the most air safety conscious country in the world and a leader in aviation safety. I was surprised to hear the honourable member for Dickson come in here tonight and suggest that the civil aviation organisations should go back into the department of transport.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I didn't say that.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—I am glad you did not say that, because it was Charles Jones who started that and that is when all the trouble began. The day they took that specialist administration of aviation out of it and put it with roads, trains and boats was the beginning of the end and the beginning of the trouble, and it happened under a Labor transport minister.The second great difficulty happened in the mid-eighties with the corporatisation of civil aviation. It was then that we lost so much of the corporate memory, because people with any experience left by the drove. They took the early retirement. They took big paying jobs here and overseas. They went into the airlines and we were bereft of a great deal of the experience we had enjoyed. The real difficulty we have had with the administration of civil aviation in the last 25 or 27 years is that we have had constant interference, we have had constant turmoil and we have lost sight of the ball in many respects, because there was a major change in the nature of civil aviation during that period and that change is going to continue as that industry continues to grow.It is quite interesting at the moment. We hear everywhere about the Asian downturn. We hear about difficulties being faced by the tourism industry and the international airlines. In actual fact, what we have in Australia is a six per cent annual growth in civil aviation happening anyway. That growth over these next couple of years is going to become even greater. The advent of the Olympic Games and the emergence of greater private pilotage around Australia are going to put enormous pressures on the system, and we really are going to have to look at major reformation of those systems so we can maintain that reputation as one of the safest areas of the world in which to fly.I felt I should say those things because I get terribly upset when I hear the blame being apportioned in a completely political matter. In actual fact, as I said, I think administrators in Australia have lost sight of the ball in terms of aviation over the last 25 years. I have every confidence that the present minister will have the capacity to get that right. I just hope that those reforms come in speedily, that they are accepted and that the accusations that were made tonight on the Four Corners program can be done away with.I think in many respects that is one of the real difficulties we have. Many in the civil aviation industry do regard the whole thing as a club. It is very conservative. It is very hard to get change in some of those areas. The accusation was made on that program tonight that pilots are some of the most conservative people around. I think that is right. For people to say that they should not be in administration if they have not had any aviation experience is not necessarily correct. Quite often, it is good to have people in from the outside who have that capacity to look at the big picture and try to work out exactly what is going to be needed.I also take up comments made by the honourable member for Dickson in terms of some of the reforms that are going around at the moment. She made particular reference to Australia examining things like privatisation. I sincerely suggest that she go on her study trip and look at some of the incredible things that have been achieved in places like the United Kingdom. It is very much the case that the Australian aviation administration and the UK aviation administration were in parallel for a great number of years. In the United Kingdom now, there have been major reforms.We start talking about the privatisation of air traffic control in Australia and everybody shudders. They have done it in the UK, and the efficiency of its operation has been absolutely enormous. One of the very big secrets of privatisation is to make sure that you give the air traffic controllers the right to buy the system. I would say that, if we had a situation where air traffic control in a place like Sydney was put out to tender and the air traffic controllers took over that system, they would find ways of making that work. They would find ways of making it work to the extent that we could compare ourselves in terms of those efficiencies with places like the United States.Here we are in the 1990s heading for the year 2000 and we still have these indeterminable separations of aircraft operating in and out of Sydney. There are separations of up to three minutes. It is not necessarily because the equipment is wrong; it is because our operational procedures may not necessarily be right on cue. It is amazing, isn't it, that you can get 32-second separations at Los Angeles airport, but you have to wait three minutes in Sydney. We have this capacity to get, at an absolute maximum, something like 80 aircraft movements in an hour with two runways in Sydney. It is areas like that that we should really be looking at in terms of lightening up the system, because the pressure that is going to be there next year is going to be absolutely enormous.I would really like to get back to the context of the bill because, as was pointed out in a point of order a little earlier, these are technical amendments which I think are generally welcomed by the industry. The amendments recognise the internationalisation of aviation, the fact that this global shrinkage is coming and that Australia very much is going to play an even greater role in the tightening up of this administration of aviation. Consequently, some of these amend ments are designed simply to make sure we do have that international harmonisation.In some parts of Australia, if you mentioned the word `globalisation', they would go into a case of white terror. In actual fact, globalisation of aviation is with us at the moment whether we like it or not. It is with us in the operations of the major airlines. Today we have seen that Ansett and one of its parent companies, Air New Zealand, have joined the Star Alliance, and that they are now in with United, Lufthansa, Thai, Scandinavian, Varig and Canadian airlines operating a global system. That will mean some very big changes in the way airlines do their business in Australia. On the other hand, Qantas and British Airways have also set up their own particular network of operators. There is a third one on the horizon with KLM, North West and some of their affiliates.Basically, what we are heading for is a globalised industry where the operations are not necessarily going to be in the complete control of us here. I think that that is going to be one of the great trends. It is going to bring some very big advantages too for airline operators. It will be a globalised business and there are going to be some tremendous advantages and tremendous cost savings in doing it. Obviously, some of these amendments that we are looking at tonight are pointing in this direction.I want to make reference to the fact that, at last, by virtue of these amendments, we are going to allow Australian experimental aircraft and Australian aircraft manufacturers a real chance of getting into what is an exciting and challenging industry, and what can be a very profitable industry. During the six years or so when I was the opposition spokesman on aviation, one of the great frustrations that I had was seeing some of the experimental work that was being done in Australia and knowing the real difficulties that those people who were doing this work were having in being able to test their aircraft and get operators' certificates. Quite frankly, we lost a lot of that business. It does not really matter if it is crop-dusting aircraft in Gippsland or if it is light aircraft out of places like Maroochy dore and Bundaberg, we do have some very good operators there.One of the things that excites me about this prospect is that we are really going to take these experimental aircraft to our bosom and take these radical new aircraft designs, which I am sure will come out of Australia, into our operations. It gives us some enormous opportunities not only to support the industries in some of these more remote areas of Australia but also to go out into the international marketplace and make an impression.I have mentioned before in this place a visit I made some years ago to a place called Mojave in the middle of the Mojave Desert, about 180 miles out of Los Angeles. There are parallels that could be drawn between the operations that went on there at that particular operation and the operations at a place like Alice Springs, which is a huge airport. In terms of privatisation prospects, it probably is not, in its present operation, going to be the most profitable in the world, but because of the nature of the weather out there and the climatic conditions it gives us an opportunity to become very much an aviation centre for the Asia-Pacific region.One of the operations that Mojave has at its base in the middle of the Mojave Desert is a civilian flight test centre. It is one of the major areas in the world where these experimental aircraft are tested and ultimately certified before they go to manufacture. That is a huge business. When I was there I was absolutely amazed to see how many Australians were there with their inventions. They were doing all their testing there because it was all too hard in Australia. I hope that, as a result of some of these amendments tonight, there is an opportunity for us to get into some of those areas to make sure that we take full benefit of the facilities that these amendments are going to make. That is an exciting prospect that Australia can certainly take full advantage of to get into the construction of new aircraft and new aircraft types. There is no doubt about the ingenuity of Australians. There is no doubt about our capacity in aviation and aircraft design. We have got quite an enviable record. I would hope that the industry will take up the opportunities that are being made by the provisions of this bill to get into those particular areas.As part of the overall reform of Australian aviation, these particular amendments, while they do not look terribly spectacular on paper, are going to be quite far reaching, and they do have some very real ramifications for the changing nature of aviation around the world. I certainly welcome them, and commend the government and the minister for bringing them into the House at this time.22:05:004633Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I will not speak long on this issue, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 , because it has already been stated that we support the proposed amendment. We certainly support the concept of air safety. The principles underlying the new regulations are quite clear, they are concise and they obviously should be supported. But if ever there was a country that had a great deal to advantage itself by in efficient and effective air services, it is Australia. We are a country that loves to endorse new technology, we like to travel, we have a high disposable income and, as the former speaker, the member for Fadden, Mr Jull, has indicated, we have air services that are growing at six per cent a year.The unfortunate thing is that over recent months we have been greatly troubled by some experiments with air safety. That has culminated in the resignation of the Chairman of CASA, for reasons that he knows best. We have also seen issues like staff cuts at CASA at a time when there is concern about air safety. We have seen trials with G class airspace that have not been understood by the industry or explained to the community. We certainly had the precedent of a high-ranking Air Force officer in my own electorate requiring that all Air Force planes, if they were flying in that space, not only had a pilot but also had an observer when that trial was taking place.These are issues that have certainly clouded the issue of air safety in Australia. But I am also sure that, like me and, I am sure, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in recent weeks most members have received a number of letters from IOPA and from people with private pilot licences because that is the sort of nation we are. People who have private airstrips and who own their own personal small aircraft are, of course, putting enormous pressure on CASA too to freelance Airservices.There is no doubt that they have a very strong case, but the important thing is that we have to have a system that is accepted by the industry and the community alike. We need a process that is transparent and that does not involve ministerial appointments to CASA, particularly just to get a specific job done. We need a system put in place that, once it is there, all parties are confident it is the best we can produce, and that certainly is not the case at present.At this stage, I would urge the minister to bring all segments of the aircraft industry together. He is the leader. He needs to broker the arrangement. He has to get on with the job of an acceptable reform process. He is the minister, and the buck stops with him. As has been shown in recent weeks, high profile appointees with their own agenda only get in the way.22:09:004633Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I have listened to the debate until now and some good points have been made. Notwithstanding the comments that we have just had from the member for Paterson that the CASA board has done a reasonable job in all the circumstances, obviously it is disappointing that we have had some resignations from that board, but that is the kind of thing that happens in the ebb and flow of public life. People come onto these boards with a great spirit of public service. They do the right thing, what they see as right. They find themselves frustrated or confronted by difficulties and they feel, for whatever reason, they are unable to continue. So we have this development, and I look forward to continuing the rest of this debate.22:10:004633Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 . I listened to the member for Dickson in terms of this debate and found that she debated the substantive issues in this legislation for a couple of minutes and then moved onto a wide ranging political debate in terms of CASA. But the fact is that this is basically a machi nery bill. It involves some technical changes to the Civil Aviation Act, and it aims to harmonise it with the international standards of safety regulation, which I would have thought was an appropriate objective. Its aim is also to make it shorter, simpler and easier to understand.There was also an election commitment in the government's Soaring into Tomorrow document, which Minister Sharp at that time took to the election. Of course, the Morris committee report entitled Plane Safe and the Seaview commission of inquiry both supported the need for a review of Australian regulations and standards. So this is the result of that inquiry. There are some changes to the regulations which were overdue, and the aim of the bill is basically to facilitate the findings of the review. As I said, this bill is basically of a machinery nature and provides for the introduction of a new set of regulations which are harmonised with civil aviation laws in various countries, particularly the USA.One of the first key features of this bill is the retention and destruction of goods. The bill provides for new powers for CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in relation to the retention and destruction of goods seized by CASA in the course of investigating breaches of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. The power to retain seized goods for longer than 60 days and the power to destroy seized goods are vested in courts. CASA must apply to courts for orders to retain or destroy, as the case may be.These changes have arisen in response to the difficulties which have occurred in commissioning proceedings within the 60-day time limit and provide for goods to be destroyed where the owner cannot be located or has refused to take possession of the goods. The discretion to destroy dangerous goods seized is proposed because, in practice, it is not always possible to return the seized goods. That is obviously a sensible proposal. They are saying that, in the past, they have had to do a search as to who owns the goods. They have had to store it. This simply means that, if they do not indicate ownership within the 60-day period, they can destroy it instead of wasting resources in storing it.Unless such goods are forfeited to the state under legislation relating to property used in the commission of an offence, CASA under the current legislation is required to store the goods indefinitely, and this obviously is expensive and unnecessary. The amendments proposed will permit a CASA investigator to apply to the court for an order that the goods be destroyed where the owner cannot be located or has refused to take possession of the goods. That is the first provision, and it is one of the key provisions—that is, the ability to destroy goods after they have been held for 60 days or so. It is a simple regulatory requirement—no big deal. Despite a political address, I am very pleased to hear the shadow minister say that the opposition supports these proposals, as rightly it should.The second part relates to the regulations. The existing act contains various references to the `civil aviation regulations'. These references will be changed to `the regulations' or `regulations made under this act' or similar. Other changes of terminology will also need to be made to enable the incorporation of overseas standards and requirements. The new regulations will be based to a large degree on the federal aviation regulations of the USA, and I think that is appropriate because the USA is a very large regulatory body which dominates the air services scene. So to coordinate our requirements in line with the American situation is, of course, appropriate.The act is being amended to permit the sub-delegation of power to CASA to make decisions of a legislative nature in a similar manner to the US Federal Aviation Administration. So, obviously, this requires streamlining of the current act in line with overseas developments. The principles underlying the new regulations require that, firstly, they are harmonised internationally with the USA federal aviation regulations and the European joint aviation regulations so there is a coordination of the two key bodies, the US requirements and the European requirements; secondly, that they are clear, concise and understandable; thirdly, that they have a safety outcome approach—and, of course, CASA is obviously given that key responsibility; fourthly, that they enforceable; fifthly, that they avoid over-regulation; and, sixthly, that they are consistent with the role of CASA.It is envisaged that the various parts of the new Civil Aviation Regulations will be phased in over the period 1999 to 2003. Each part will issued in the form of a notice of proposed rule making, to which interested parties may respond. With the advent of these new regulations the principal act can be amended appropriately, so a number of the provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 are designed to give effect to this.The third major aspect to the bill—firstly, we have the ability to destroy goods and, secondly, there is the regulatory aspect—is the fees that can be charged by CASA. Under this part of the bill is the clarification of CASA's ability to classify the fees charged by CASA under the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations as debt due to CASA. Where regulations made under the act require the payment of a fee and the fee is not paid by the due date, then a late fee can be imposed. The provision which enables the making of regulations which prescribe limited late payment penalties to be imposed is also included.The fourth aspect of the bill is design standards. The regulatory changes will, by giving CASA the power to make design standards, streamline many of the current CASA requirements and assist the manufacture of aircraft in Australia, which will be seen as obviously of great benefit to the industry itself and which also will encourage manufacture of various components and parts as part of some of the major aircraft types which are produced offshore. I am sure that members of the House have noted that a lot of the major aircraft components which are produced under the Boeing label or the Airbus label are actually produced in Australia—and that can be parts of the wing tips, aircraft windows or tail rudders. A whole range of parts is produced in Australia. These design standards are going to make it easier for parts to be produced in Australia and, obviously, that will assist in the encouragement of the aviation manufacturing sector in Australia—even though that is small, I think it is appropriate that we provide those standards.In summary, the bill is primarily of a machinery nature, providing for new parts 21 to 35 of the new Civil Aviation Regulations. It has been the subject of lobbying by the industry itself, by members of the aviation industry. It provides the new regulations, as we have seen, to harmonise with international civil aviation laws. It enables CASA to issue design standards for unusual aircraft and to provide guidelines for the production of these aircraft parts in Australia. It provides new powers for the destruction or the retention of goods seized by CASA during the course of investigating breaches of the Civil Aviation Act and regulations. And, finally, it clarifies the power of CASA to impose fees.So I am very happy to support this bill, a bill which is basically a machinery bill that cleans up the Civil Aviation Act and which certainly brings it into line with civil aviation requirements in other jurisdictions in the international marketplace, particularly in Europe and in the USA. I commend the bill to the House.22:19:004635Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Previous speakers have covered in detail the amendment proposed to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 , legislation which is supported by the opposition. It does raise a number of issues which are related to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and its general operation. I want to raise tonight some of those issues in the context of this debate because they are germane to the operation of general aviation, in particular, in the Northern Territory.You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that we in the Northern Territory have a very vital general aviation sector which is extremely important in delivering services and, indeed, passengers and freight to remote communities throughout the Northern Territory. But you would be aware also, Mr Deputy Speaker, that CASA is currently undergoing a restructure, and that restructure has raised a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of people involved with aviation generally but particularly for people who live in remote and rural areas.We need to ensure that the federal government guarantees that through this restructure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority there will not be unnecessary staff cuts and that we will see an improvement in the level of service available to people, particularly in general aviation, as a result of any restructure, because to date the evidence points in the other direction. Indeed, I have had a number of complaints from people involved in general aviation about the failure of CASA to provide them with information or, in two cases, to provide them with appropriate guidance as to licensing arrangements to run charter operations.These charter operations are extremely important to people in the Northern Territory because there are no regular services to many communities. They are the only means by which many people get passenger air services and specialised freight movements. The failure of CASA to deal with these applications in a timely manner costs individuals and communities a great deal of money. I am aware of a current instance where a community has gone through the hoops, confronted what it believed to be all the requirements, provided the financial security that they were required to find, and yet have to be provided with their charter operator's licence. That is significant because it bears directly upon the lives of people who live in remote communities.While we can stand in this House and applaud the changes this bill envisages, we need to comprehend that there are many people living in the bush who are still bypassed in many respects. Although these amendments are laudable, may make the operation of the legislation better and are primarily machinery changes, they do not tell us what is happening to CASA on the ground. I can tell you that the response of many people in the Northern Territory—particularly those involved in the industry—has been one of concern for the future of CASA and what the application of these amendments will mean for the delivery of their services. It is my understanding that, under the restructure, CASA will lose 10 per cent of its work force—70 staff will be lost, with 28 of that number in the field. We need a guarantee from the minister that staffing arrangements in the Darwin operations of CASA will not be affected. CASA staff in the Northern Territory are already working under stress. Any cuts will serve only to compromise air safety in the Territory and indeed, across Northern Australia.I need not point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that air safety is a fundamental issue for people who live in remote and rural areas. As a frequent traveller using the services of general aviation on light aircraft, I am acutely conscious of the need for high safety standards. I am acutely aware of the need for CASA to be extremely diligent in the way it deals with people in general aviation to ensure that safety standards are properly and appropriately met. Whilst I have no comment to make about any individual operator whom I have flown with recently, I know that in the past there have been a number of fly-by-night operators who have cut corners and I think jeopardised the safety of many people who fly with them. But I am glad to say some of these operators have been forced out of the industry, and that is as it should be. That is a particularly important role for CASA, but it is also important that CASA deals with the legitimate complaints of people about the way in which they operate in a timely and appropriate fashion. It is clear to me, at least, that this has not been the case in some instances.Because of the importance of CASA and our regard for air safety, many Territorians and people across the whole of Northern Australia are potentially at risk if CASA downgrades its operations at all—if it is unable to properly undertake the task for which it has been charged by government. We need a guarantee from this government that any changes or restructuring of CASA will not lead to a diminution of service to people who live in rural and remote Australia. In fact, it ought to lead to a movement of resources in the direction of improving the efficiency of the operation and improving the standards of service to these individuals and communities.I want a guarantee from the minister that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's base in Darwin will not be closed. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that during the lead-up to the election campaign last year there was an announcement that the Darwin base and the Townsville office would close. This would have meant a great deal of pressure being placed on the single Cairns office which would be running all these three operations, leaving no CASA office between Cairns and Perth.83REDWARDSMr Edwards—Shameful.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—It is shameful, and if it were to proceed it would demonstrate the lack of regard that this government has for people who live in the bush. As someone who has lived in a remote community or a remote part of Australia for 25 years, travelling continuously around rural and remote Australia in all of that time, I can tell you that the lack of service standards in these regions needs to be properly and appropriately understood. If CASA were to close its offices in Darwin and Townsville and rely on its operations out of Cairns and Perth only, nothing is surer than that the response time of CASA would be a lot worse than it currently is—bad as that is, even now—that the people who demand an appropriate level of service in these communities would not properly receive it and that CASA would be strapped to meet the demands placed upon it and which the government expects of it.I do not believe that it is in this country's interests to have that circumstance prevail. We need the government to ensure that the standards we as individuals and citizens in the bush require are properly and appropriately met. The only way that is likely to happen is if we get a better staffing arrangement and improved efficiency—not necessarily by screwing the existing staff but by making sure they have got the human and capital resources to carry out the functions, not only that the government expects them to undertake but also that the community expects them to undertake—to ensure that we have got a safe and appropriate air service in Northern Australia. That also applies of course to the rest of Australia, but I am concerned especially about what it means for rural and regional Australia—particularly remote Australia— because of what I have related of my own experience. Mr Speaker, since you have arrived in the chair, I am sure you were listening assiduously by your television monitor to what I have been saying.Debate interrupted.Adjournment463710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.463722:30:004637Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I want to draw to the attention of members the Time to Care campaign. It is a campaign based on the national disability crisis and it is a campaign of the National Council on Intellectual Disability which has been put together to achieve needed support for Australians with disabilities. I want to refer to a letter I referred recently from them. It states:Dear Mr EdwardsThis letter seeks your support in helping to bring to an end the National Disability Crisis which is threatening to destroy the lives of tens of thousands of Australians with profound and severe disabilities and their families.As part of the Time to Care Campaign, we are appealing to all Western Australian Members of Parliament, and particularly those Members participating in the Politician Adoption Scheme, to lend their support to decisive and immediate action, both:. To resolve the current backlog in unmet need for disability support services;. To ensure that people with profound and severe disabilities, who represent one of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged sectors of our community are, in future, spared the indignity of having to continually beg to have their basic support needs met.This adopt a politician scheme was initiated in Western Australia. I have been adopted by a family by the name of Edwards—no relation. Ian looks after his profoundly disabled son Alex with their other son Mark. In my view, they do a tremendous job. This adopt a politician scheme has gone a long way towards making politicians around Australia more aware of the needs of people with disabilities. The letter continues:The next month presents Governments with a strategic opportunity to work towards achieving these outcomes.As a condition of the 1998 Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement (CSDA), the Commonwealth Government agreed to convene a Ministerial Meeting to explore options for a joint government response to the current crisis in unmet need. The Ministerial Meeting is to be held in Canberra . . . on 9 April 1999. Disability Services Minister, the Hon Paul Omodei, will represent Western Australia at the Meeting.I know that Allan Carpenter, the shadow minister, is also taking a very strong interest in this issue. The letter continues:In the lead up to the Meeting, disability groups have drafted a Disability Campaign Statement that documents the minimum action required from the Governments of Australia to resolve the crisis in unmet need. A copy of the statement is included with this letter. We ask for your support in endorsing and promoting the three key strategies recommended in the Campaign Statement.The consequences of a continuing crisis will devastate the lives of thousands of people who are already facing a daily struggle just to survive. More and more people will face homelessness as family carers die with nowhere for their family member with a disability to go to get the care they need. More and more families will break down. More and more people will be forced to endure overwhelming stress and suffering as they wait for desperately needed support.On behalf of people with profound and severe disabilities and their families living both within your own electorate and in Western Australia, we ask that you lend your voice to speak up for people with disabilities who, in many cases, CANNOT speak for themselves.For the sake of the lives of citizens who necessarily depend on others to have their most basic needs met, and of the family carers who have, until now, provided the around-the-clock care required, the DISABILITY CRISIS MUST END.It is signed by Sue Harris, who is the Executive Officer of the Developmental Disability Council of WA. This is a very good campaign. I compliment the people for the time and effort that they have put into this Time to Care campaign.I know I do not have time to go through all of the issues that they raise in their very comprehensive document, but they say that the disability crisis must end and they say that the needs are known and governments around Australia must act. They say that the governments of Australia know that at least 13,400 Australians with a profound or severe disability have a critical unmet need for a supported accommodation service to meet their day-to-day care needs or a respite service to support the caring needs of families. They go on to say many good and constructive things.I think this is largely a campaign that politicians from all sides of the political fence can get behind. Of the three things that they say are the most important—two of them being the need to make a public commitment and the need to plan to meet individual people's needs—the allocation of adequate public funding to meet people's individual needs is important. They say:The Governments of Australia must make provision for an IMMEDIATE allocation of $294 million to provide services for the estimated 25,400 Australians with profound and severe disabilities who have critical unmet needs for accommodation, respite and day activities.I support their campaign. (Time expired)463822:35:004638Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise tonight to bring the House up to date with developments in the decimated coastal community of Exmouth. Tropical Cyclone Vance has ripped through the region leaving a trail of destruction in its wake from Onslow to Carnarvon and inland through to Gascoyne, even inflicting flooding as far away as Kalgoorlie and Esperance. The remarkable thing about the ferocity of Cyclone Vance is that it entered the Kalgoorlie area still as a category one cyclone, some nearly 900 kilometres of pathway across dry land. It is quite a substantial cyclone—indeed, the highest velocity winds recorded on the mainland of Australia.The fact that there were no deaths recorded as a result of this destruction is truly a miracle. That outcome is due in great part to the excellent work done by the SES in Exmouth and surrounding areas led by Doug Bathgate. The assistance received from the police under the direction of Senior Sergeant John Hallett was vital to the exercise. The local council, with the CEO, Kerry Graham, and shire president, Mike Purslow, and all of their staff, had a vital role to play. The volun teers at all levels collectively did everything within their power to guarantee a no-fatalities outcome. But it is truly a miracle. For once the people of the north-west heeded the advice they were given by people well informed. They did as they were told, took shelter in appropriate locations, and the outcome was truly remarkable.The devastation that those winds created has to be seen to be believed. The situation is no less devastating than a war zone. House after house was totally demolished. A light industrial area in Exmouth is gone apart from very recent solid masonry buildings. The caravan parks are a site of extreme devastation. These temporary homes for people which may have contained their life's accumulation of possessions were totally shredded by the winds. Once opened, their personal possessions were cast to the wind never to be found again. The scene was a very depressing one. The fact that the population has stood up as well as they have is indeed remarkable.The presence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition was greatly appreciated. The fact that they took time out to go and observe first-hand the damage was an incredible fillip for the local community. However, that community has been surviving now for over a week since the catastrophe. They have been surviving on hope and adrenaline alone. At this stage, that adrenaline is running very low and is leaving them with the potential for great depression. It is a good thing that we have in place now a whole raft of facilities that will provide the backup and the assistance they require. We do need to allow the time for the full effect of that backup to take its effect.The Commonwealth, as the Prime Minister repeated today, with the assistance of the state, has provided a $10 million relief fund. That is greatly appreciated. The additional ex gratia payment of $1,000 per adult and $200 per child for those who have had their homes destroyed is also greatly appreciated. A Red Cross appeal has been set up and a Lord Mayor's fund has been set up in Perth. The reputation that Australians have of providing assistance in these times of need is a well- known reputation. I sincerely hope that they will not do anything less on this occasion.The station properties that were in the path of Tropical Cyclone Vance also have to be remembered. There is great devastation there and assistance is required. I sincerely hope that by speaking to the Minister for Defence I can get the assistance of army personnel involved there. It is going to take time, but these people are tough. They have been having it very hard and they will continue to have it hard for some time. But there is no doubt that Exmouth will be rebuilt. It will be up and running. The quicker the better, and we are conscious of that.463922:40:004639Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Last week I received correspondence from the Boating Industry Association of South Australia about water quality in the inner regions of the Port Adelaide river. The industry recently held a very successful boating festival which attracted in excess of 10,000 spectators. However, many water related activities had to be cancelled due to health implications derived directly from the condition of the river. The Boating Industry Association had to ensure activities did not have contact with the water in the river to ensure that a repeat of recent problems encountered during a jet ski demonstration day in January did not occur. It is claimed several of their members became sick with gastric disorders following contact with water in the inner dock area.It is very evident that the environmental concerns about the Port River are limiting the ability to properly promote the Port Adelaide area as a premier tourist destination for South Australia. For over a century the Port River has been used by many local industries in the area to dispose of their waste products. Today there are only three major sources of pollutants which find their way into the Port River. Two of these are industries which discharge waste directly into the river and the third is stormwater. In relation to the two industries, one is SA Water and the other is Penrice Soda Products. I will leave SA Water to one side for the moment and come back to it. But, for now, I would like to talk about the oper ation of Penrice Soda Products, the only soda products plant in Australia.As a result of their manufacturing process, the lime residue is released in solution into the Port River. The sediment eventually builds up to a stage where every few years dredging around the outfall is necessary to maintain the navigation channel at a safe level for shipping. The sediment is then taken out to sea and dumped on a designated spoil ground off Outer Harbour. This spoil ground has been in operation since the turn of the century, but the attitudes in the community today do not consider it appropriate to dump at sea, and nor should we consider it appropriate.When Penrice applied last year to the Environment Protection Authority for a permit for sea dumping, the EPA requested Penrice to develop alternatives to sea dumping. It now seems certain that a land based solution will be found. The current proposal is to pump the low-grade lime by-product waste in solution via a pipeline under the Port River to the Gillman area and use it as a landfill. This has the benefit of not only being a sensible solution for waste disposal but also helping to develop the Gillman area for future industry. This will then leave only one major industrial waste problem affecting the Port River, and that leads me to the sorry saga of SA Water and, in particular, the Port Adelaide Sewerage Treatment Works.This treatment works treats 35 million litres of waste water every day and discharges the nutrient rich waste water directly into the Port River. Unfortunately, with this sort of volume entering the river every day, there are major environmental and health concerns as the river is essentially a tidal estuary and the tidal flow is not in any way sufficient to flush this waste water out to sea.The health concerns raised by the boating industry are a direct result of sewerage waste water not being able to dissipate into a larger body of water. SA Water are now consulting with the local community about options which they intend to put to the South Australian cabinet to resolve some of these problems. Five of the six options put forward are totally unacceptable. The only options that would even be halfway acceptable to the Port Adel aide community are for the relocation of the treatment works to the western side of Torrens Island and the locating of the outfall and diffuser into the Outer Harbour region.The removal of the treatment works from its present site—an area of residential properties—like the removal of the outfall from the Port River, must happen. With money now starting to be spent by the Torrens Water Catchment Board and the Port Adelaide-Enfield Council to improve the quality of stormwater entering the river, the Port River just might once again begin to thrive. If we are to have a vibrant inner harbour, then nothing less is acceptable to not only the people who live in Port Adelaide but also those who live in metropolitan Adelaide. With Penrice Soda now doing the right thing, the pressure is fair and square on the state government and SA Water to clean up their own backyards. To do anything less is a breach of faith with the people of Port Adelaide who have suffered long and campaigned hard to improve the water quality in the Port River.464022:45:004640Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise tonight to speak of a rural community which has endured much over the recent decade. The fate that befell the constituents of the member for Kalgoorlie is a sudden one but one which has just as great a toll as that of drought. It gave me great pleasure, therefore, to visit the community of Goombungee on the weekend at their annual show. Goombungee is a small community nestled in the foothills of the Bunya Mountains and one which was visited two years ago by the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson. At that time, the community was in the grip of the sixth year of drought and looking to the government for a continuation of assistance. That assistance was of course granted and the community found itself in a situation where it was able to bounce back when the rains came, and come they have and with it the true resilience that the member for Kalgoorlie mentioned of rural people has come to the fore.Rural people in the Goombungee region have bounced back with the rain, as have their crops and their stock. But there is still this underlying concern that is now prevailing in rural communities about their future. It gives me a great deal of concern when I travel into these communities and see the empty houses and the deserted schools which once held a thriving population, but that is part of the modern rural scene. What we as a government are doing is ensuring that those people who have moved with the times, have stayed and become more efficient have the level of services that they need.One of the needs of the Goombungee community is modern telecommunications, and they will greatly benefit from the CDMA network when it comes in to replace analog telephones. But of course their concerns are far broader than that. They need access to rural doctors. The problems relating to the provision of good doctors in rural townships have been well documented before in this parliament. Without the provision of good health services, the community cannot survive and have the quality of life which many of us take for granted. In terms of rural doctors, though, the situation is not just one of numbers; it is of course one of providing the doctors themselves with the quality of life which allows them to enjoy their part of the community in which they settle. That is something which I am enjoying pursuing with both the local branch of the AMA and a number of rural organisations which have as their goal the provision of basic services in rural communities.The community of Goombungee does not want to continue to shrink, and one of its own personal goals is to attract industry there. In fact, it has an industry which exports all over Australia. It is not a primary industry; it is a secondary industry. It is an industry which builds sheds, an industry which employs 70-odd men and women and exports those sheds all over Australia and, when the opportunity presents, to our near neighbours overseas. It is a demonstration of a community that is prepared to not only accept that there will be change but also make sure that they are in a position to take opportunities as they present.The big opportunity that they are waiting for—particularly Mr Mathieson and his shed building company—is better rail and road transport facilities across our region. That, of course, is in hand with the prospect in the next decade or so of the Melbourne to Darwin rail link which will not only provide M&S Sheds with a better export opportunity—both the domestic market and overseas—but also allow other industries to come to the community of Goombungee and other smaller communities in my electorate.I am here tonight to remind the people of this parliament that rural communities have the will, the tenacity and the ability to continue to prosper provided we as a parliament and as a government can give them the incentive, the hope and the basic ingredients for that future.464122:50:004641Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I wish tonight to appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister and the government to ensure that, in the very important forthcoming election in Indonesia, Australia very seriously considers not only having observers of international status but also having members of the federal parliament from both sides as observers.You would be aware, Mr Speaker, that this is a historic election for Indonesia. It is an election which has to be seen to be fair not only by all sides in Indonesia but also by the international community. In order to make sure that the actual practise of that election is fair, international observers are going to be necessary. I believe that the enormous interest and involvement of this parliament in what has been happening in Indonesia makes the members of this parliament very qualified for a bipartisan team to be included amongst those who will act as international observers from Australia. You may be aware that Australia is going to contribute, I think, more than $15 million towards the election process. That is a very important contribution to try to make sure that that process is fair.There will be something very different from previous Indonesian elections in this election: a plethora of parties. Whether or not those parties will be able to organise themselves to act in a democratic fashion and to ensure that people have genuine freedom to exercise their vote will be a very important issue in that election. That election will determine not only the future of Indonesia but also the future of the region. In particular, it will determine the future of East Timor. As you are aware, President Habibie has already made a statement indicating that he will put to the new parliament the question of whether or not there will be a referendum on independence or autonomy for East Timor. He has said that the people of East Timor will be able to make that choice.A lot has been said recently about this change in policy with respect to East Timor. I want to commend the shadow foreign minister, Mr Laurie Brereton, for having the courage to take the initiative in this matter. Some people have claimed credit for the changes that have been taking place in relation to policy in Australia, but it is nearly 12 months since a motion was passed in the Labor Party caucus—which Mr Brereton seconded and which I had the honour of moving—which put down a clear change in direction from the previous positions that had been taken on the question of East Timor.One of the concerns we have in this matter is that, even though the President of Indonesia has said that it is his genuine intention to try to have an act of genuine self-determination—a referendum—in East Timor, sections of the Indonesian military have obviously not accepted this decision. In fact, there is evidence that they are arming some of the minority groups within East Timor which do not want independence but wish to remain with Indonesia. Of course those people are entitled to their views, but it is a very disturbing development when they are being armed in this way and are threatening to create a civil war type situation in East Timor.I conclude by again appealing to the government to ensure that members of this parliament are observers at this election and that they help the Indonesian people have this democratic transformation which is absolutely necessary, not only for themselves but for the people of East Timor and for the people of the whole Asian region.464222:55:004642Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise tonight to refute the claims that were made earlier in this House by the member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Danby, in relation to the New South Wales election, and particularly in relation to the electorate of Gosford. Mr Danby made some claims and implied that the member for Gosford and the Liberal Party in Gosford had somehow made some preference deal with One Nation. There was certainly no preference deal done with One Nation in Gosford. Where One Nation put its preferences on its how-to-vote card is a matter for One Nation. If it decided to give its preferences to the Liberal Party and to Mr Hartcher, that is a matter for that party to decide.Mr Hartcher has informed me that the Liberal Party put One Nation last on its how-to-vote cards, and that is what happened in Gosford. It is totally hypocritical of the Labor Party to claim that some preference deal may have been done with One Nation. The Labor Party seems determined to try to claw back the ground that it has lost on the Central Coast of New South Wales. In the federal election, when former senator Belinda Neal—John Della Bosca's wife—was standing against me, the Labor Party handed out cards blatantly seeking the preferences of One Nation voters. The cards said, `If you are thinking of voting for One Nation, put Labor second.' They were openly seeking the preferences of One Nation.They did that again in Gosford at the recent state election. I have been informed that they were handing out those cards again at the booths. The cards said, `If you are thinking of voting for One Nation, give the Labor Party your second preference.' Here is the Labor Party openly seeking the preferences of One Nation and yet Mr Danby from Melbourne Ports came into this House and claimed that the Liberal Party has done some secret deal with One Nation in Gosford.The only reason why Chris Hartcher won in Gosford is because Chris Hartcher is a good local member. Chris Hartcher has represented the Central Coast and his seat of Gosford for the past 11 years. He looks forward to representing them for another four years at least. Mr Hartcher won well. I believe that he is now some 900 votes ahead of the ALP candidate. The Labor Party on the Central Coast could not even find an energetic young person who was suitable to stand as their candidate. They could not even find a new candidate that they thought could win that seat. They had to recycle a former member for Robertson, Barry Cohen, after 21 years in parliament—2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: are you going to let the member reflect on a former member of this House in that manner?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I had not heard the member for Robertson say anything that would have been regarded as offensive.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYD—I was not reflecting on the former member for Robertson. As I said, he was a member of parliament for 21 years and I am sure he performed that job in the best manner that he could. I was simply making the comment that the Labor Party could not find someone new to stand in the seat of Gosford. Instead, in the vain hope of defeating Chris Hartcher, it brought someone back who had given 21 years of service to his community.Chris Hartcher has represented the Central Coast for 11 years. For the member for Melbourne Ports to make the claim that in some way Chris Hartcher's great victory in Gosford is tainted by seeking preferences from One Nation is absolutely untrue. If anything, it is the Labor Party which does preference deals with One Nation. The Labor Party would do preference deals with anyone. With Jackie Kelly's by-election in Lindsay, the Australian Labor Party openly did preference deals with Australians Against Further Immigration. The Labor Party will do preference deals with anyone to win at any cost. We will certainly continue to win seats on the Central Coast on our merits, representing the local people of the Central Coast and giving them the representation that they want and deserve.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:004643House adjourned at 11 p.m.Notices4643The following notices were given:Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to provide for the establishment and management of the Australian Public Service, and for other purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the repeal of the Public Service Act 1922 and the enactment of the Public Service Act 1999, and for other purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988, and for related purposes.Mr Reith to present a bill for an act to repeal the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946, and for related purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to repeal redundant Acts, to make consequential amendments, and for related purposes.Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for other purposes.Mr Fahey to present a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: RAAF Base Townsville Redevelopment Stage 1, Townsville.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW—Joint Research Complex for CSIRO Molecular Science and Food Science Australia.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Staff Colleges Collocation Project, Weston Creek, ACT.